Intermediate investment analysis report (for asset projects at project approval and initial expenditure authority)
For Asset projects < $5 millions (refer to National Project Management System real property projects thresholds matrix) at project approval and initial expenditure authority for planning and design.
This template serves as a helpful tool for preparing the intermediate investment analysis report (IAR). Refer to the Full Investment analysis report (for asset projects at project approval and initial expenditure authority) for more details.
Note
Please attach (or copy) the Summary Cash Flow Table (from Real Property Project Funding and Cost Planning Workbook). For any National Project Management System (NPMS) lite project that is, or potentially may be, requesting capital funding (Vote 5, B141 or B143), a betterment test is required to validate the funding. Choices include completion of the Real Property (RP) Project Funding and Cost Planning Workbook for work in crown-owned buildings, or contacting Finance and Administration Branch (FAB) directly for a manual betterment test for those projects with other “focuses” (i.e.: lease, engineering asset, infrastructure, etc.).
- Project name:
- Date:
- Building name:
- Version number:
- Location:
- Project Number:
- Building ID:
1.0 Project information
1.1 Problem/opportunity definition
1.2 Background & project history
1.3. Building condition
This table is only an example and contains no data.
| Yes | No | Comments | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Building Performance Report | |||
| Building Condition Report | |||
| Base Building Refresh Required | |||
| Accessibility Report | Deficiencies identified: | ||
| Impact on Heritage Character | |||
| Others |
1.4 Stakeholders
[This section should have the names and contact information of all the key stakeholders and brief description of their stake.]
2.0 Identification & analysis of options
2.1 Options considered
- Option 1: Status Quo
- Option 2:
- Option 3:
- Option 4:
2.2 Non-feasible options and rational
2.3 Options to be analyzed
- Option 1: Status Quo
- Description:
- Estimated Cost:
- Advantages:
- Disadvantages:
- Option 2:
- Description:
- Estimated Cost:
- Advantages:
- Disadvantages:
- Option 3:
- Description:
- Estimated Cost:
- Advantages:
- Disadvantages:
[Additional options can be added as required]
2.4 Risk assessment
Example of relative risk evaluation for each option, using the evaluation matrix for risks.
Legend: Risk assessment matrix (3x3)
Image description
This image indicates the score to attribute to a risk whether the impact and likelihood of the risk is low, moderate or high.
- Impact Low: Normal
- Impact Moderate: We could still function
- Impact High: We couldn't function or our mandate would have to change
- Likelihood Low: Normal or unlikely
- Likelihood Moderate: Likely
- Likelihood High: Very likely
- Low impact and low likelihood: Accept risks - the score is 1
- Low impact and moderate likelihood: Accept, but monitor risks - the score is 2
- Low impact and high likelihood: Manage, mitigate and monitor risks - the score is 3
- Moderate impact and low likelihood: Risk may be worth accepting with monitoring - the score is 2
- Moderate impact and moderate likelihood: Management effort worthwhile, mitigate and monitor risks - the score is 4
- Moderate impact and high likelihood: Must manage and monitor risk (inform senior management) - the score is 6
- High impact and low likelihood: Considerable management and monitoring required - the score is 3
- High impact and moderate likelihood: Manage and monitor risks (inform senior management) - the score is 6
- High impact and high likelihood: Management (extensive senior management involvement) - the score is 9
Legend: Risk factors
- L:
- Likelihood
- I:
- Impact
- L:
- Low
- M:
- Moderate
- H:
- High
| Risk factors | Option 1 | Option 2 | Option 3 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L Likelihood | I | Score | L Likelihood | I | Score | L Likelihood | I | Score | |
| Changing client requirements | M | M | 4 | M | M | 4 | M | M | 4 |
| Stakeholder requirements | L | L | 1 | L | L | 1 | L | L | 1 |
| Unknown site/Building conditions | L | HHigh | 3 | M | M | 4 | M | HHigh | 6 |
| Accuracy of estimates | L | HHigh | 3 | L | HHigh | 3 | M | M | 4 |
| Accuracy of scheduling | M | M | 4 | M | M | 4 | M | M | 4 |
| Project funding | L | L | 1 | L | M | 2 | M | M | 4 |
| Total score | 16 | 18 | 23 | ||||||
2.5 Conclusions
[Combination of results of all analysis and recommended option.]
3.0 Project scope
[Identify all requirements of the recommended option.]
4.0 Strategic impact
This table is only an example and contains no data.
| Policy/Strategy | Compliance | Justification | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | ||
| Asset management plan | |||
| National investment strategy | |||
| Sustainable development strategy | |||
| National Project Management System | |||
| Building management plan or signed simplified statement of requirements | |||
| Signed simplified preliminary project plan | |||
| Regional investment strategy | |||
| Community-based investment strategy | |||
| Federal heritage | |||
| Good neighbour policy (if applicable) | |||
5.0 Recommendation
Recommend implementation of Option X – [Cost (goods and services tax (GST)/harmonized sales tax (HST)), class of estimate, timing and comments]
6.0 Approval authority & funding
[Identify delegated approval authority and source of funding]
6.1 Cost estimate and cash flow table
This table is only an example and contains no data.
| 2015-2016 | 2016-2017 | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Construction (including contingency) | $ | $ | $ |
| Consultant fees | $ | $ | $ |
| Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) fees | $ | $ | $ |
| Risk allowance | $ | $ | $ |
| Sub-Total (excluding GST/HST) | $ | $ | $ |
| GST/HST | $ | $ | $ |
| Total | $ | $ | $ |
7.0 Implementation plan
This table is only an example and contains no data.
| Project milestones | Date |
|---|---|
| Simplified statement of requirements | |
| Simplified preliminary project plan | |
| Procurement of consultant | |
| Simplified project management plan | |
| Design | |
| Procurement of Contractor | |
| Simplified IAR—expenditure authority | |
| Construction | |
| Close out |
8.0 Approval & signatures
This table is only an example and contains no data.
| Action | Date | Signature |
|---|---|---|
| Presented by: (Name/Position) |
||
| Reviewed by: (Name/Position) |
||
| Recommended by: (Name/Position) |
||
| Approved by: (Name/Position) |
9.0 Appendix
[If required]
- Date modified: