Green Line Extension Project Sunk Cost Analysis February 29, 2016

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Program Controls Systems & Processes Board of Trustees Workshop October 11, 2005.
Advertisements

Port Authority Update March 15, 2012 Ryan Wolfe Director of Campus Services.
PROJECT RISK MANAGEMENT
Community Budget Presentation April 2013.
Save the Dream Ohio Update on Ohio’s Foreclosure Prevention Effort.
December 22, :30 to 2:30 PM Transportation Laboratory Auditorium 5900 Folsom Boulevard Sacramento, CA Hector Romero, P.E. Senior Transportation.
TEAM Training: Program Management Last Update: May 2011.
Utility Extension Project
Budget Proposal BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING TUESDAY, APRIL 14, BUDGET DEVELOPMENT.
Circular A-110 Everything You Didn’t Want to Know.
For West Virginia Department of Education DISCLAIMER This PowerPoint presentation serves only as a snapshot of purchasing regulations. Please visit the.
Capital Improvement Plan Workshop May 27, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Tool used to develop a five year timeline for scheduling necessary improvements.
Chapter Two Consolidation of Financial Information McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2011 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
1 USOC/City of Colorado Springs Proposed Economic Development Agreement Summary of Key Elements July 31, 2009.
APRIL 2, Superintendent proposes to consider construction of new administration building to Board May 2010 Board gives approval to begin search.
COMPLIANCE WITH GRANT IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES TxDot Grant Fund Project.
MyFloridaMarketPlace MyFloridaMarketPlace Change Request Board August 30, 2007.
Rocky Mountain Power Collection Agency Fees Docket No T08
Convention Center Authority Republican Policy Group Presentation February 23 rd 2015.
Slide 1 DOJ Settlement Agreement – 10 Year Summary January 24, 2013 As of February 24, 2015 Total Cost 1 $2.4 Billion$2.5 Billion GF Share of the Cost$1.2.
Property Appraiser and Tax Collector Office Space Search Update Administrative Services Department February 25, 2014.
1 Management Report on Bradley West Project BOAC Meeting October 5, 2009.
Mountain Lakes Board of Education 2009 – 2010 Budget Hearing Not “Business as Usual” March 30, 2009.
1 Convention Center Authority Republican Policy Group Presentation March 23 rd 2015.
Project Procurement Management
Grants and Contracts Jim Butterfield and Kathy Blackwood October 5, 2004.
1 Comparison of Direct vs. Loan Guarantee RMDZ Direct Loan No leverage factor Prime Rate fixed beginning 11/12/03 Terms of 10 – 15 years Loan Guarantee.
PROJECT OVERVIEW. 2 Green Line Extension Project 3 College Ave Ball Sq Lowell St Gilman Sq Lechmere Union Sq Washington St.
Stockton University Purchasing and Grants 11/4/15.
Professional, Personal, Consulting, and Social Services (PPCS) Contracts PRESENTED BY: CELENA D. TILBURY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR CONTRACTS & STRATEGIC SOURCING.
12.1 Plan Procurement: Introduction
FEBRUARY 22, 2016 FY 2017 County Administrator’s Recommended Budget.
FMCB Meeting February 29, 2016 GREEN LINE EXTENSION PROJECT 1 PURPOSE OF BOARD REQUEST To request that the FMCB authorize the MBTA General Manager to:
1 - 1 Audit Plan Formulation Audit Activity and Results Assess prior audit reviews and findings to determine where additional audit and follow-up activities.
Proposed TIF-Funded Road Improvements: TIF 7 North Tarrant Parkway Presented by Jay Chapa, Assistant City Manager April 12, 2016.
Welcome. Contents: 1.Organization’s Policies & Procedure 2.Internal Controls 3.Manager’s Financial Role 4.Procurement Process 5.Monthly Financial Report.
2016 NSF Large Facilities Workshop New Initiatives Business Roundtable II-III May 25-26, 2016 Jeff Lupis, Division Director, Division of Acquisition and.
Allocations Spring 2013 Ethan Scott, SGA Treasurer.
USAID/West Africa’s Trade And Investment Hub Laurencia Tettey Grants Manager, Trade Hub Aminata Mbaye DCOP Trade Hub April 12 – 13, 2016 AGOA/Trade Resource.
MASON PUBLIC SCHOOLS Bond Committee Meeting #1 August 9, 2016.
1 TIF 9 (Trinity River Vision) Expanded and Updated Project and Financing Plans December 8, 2009 Presented to the City Council Jay Chapa Housing & Economic.
ND Downstream Watersheds Comprehensive Detention Planning
Process and customizations
Betsy Kerrison Property Acquisition
Portland Public Schools Proposed Budget
International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation (IBFD)
Green Line Extension Project
Green Line Extension Project
Proposed Sale of Enron North America’s/People’s Energy Joint Venture
In Information Management
Chapter 9 Financial Statements.
Insurance IFRS Seminar December 2, 2016 Bill Horbatt Session 33
FY 2018 Budget Review Process and Schedule
Q Earnings Call.
Green Line Extension Project
Springbrook Estates Sewer Improvement Area Informational Meeting
Stop-Loss Submissions
QUARTERLY FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE PRESENTATION
Department of Community Development
ctcLink Chart of Account (CoA) Redesign
Sponsored Programs at Penn
FY General Fund Budget Update February 16, 2016
Roselle Park School District
ONGARD Modernization Project Certification: Planning: Change Request September 17th, 2014 Tim Elsbrock, Project Manager Tony Hoffman, Director of.
Delta Water Supply Project
Durham and Orange Transit Plan Funding Needs
Octorara Area School District
Community Budget Forum
Disaffiliation as of 2019 Where we are now.
Crestwood School District
Presentation transcript:

Green Line Extension Project Sunk Cost Analysis February 29, 2016 MassDOT Green Line Extension Project Sunk Cost Analysis February 29, 2016

GLX: Public Meetings In order to solicit public input and suggestions, MassDOT and the T will host a series of meetings at the following dates and locations: Wednesday, March 2nd, Arts at the Armory in Somerville Wednesday, March 23rd, Tufts University in Medford Wednesday, April 13th, Argenziano School in Somerville Wednesday, April 27th, St. Anthony’s Parish Hall in Cambridge; Thursday, May 5th, St. Clement’s Parish Hall in Medford  For each meeting, an open house will be held from 5:30 to 6:30 p.m., with the presentation and Q &A to immediately follow from 6:30 to 8:00 p.m.  Questions about the project may be submitted to info@glxinfo.com

Sunk Cost Summary Cost Center Spent To-Date To-Go Spending To-Go Spending includes assumptions for claims, contract close-out costs, and contingencies. No assumption is made concerning litigation risk. Cost Center Spent To-Date To-Go Spending Total Spending Professional Services $198,902,389 $17,039,000 $215,941,389 Real Estate $67,947,489 $25,418,516 $93,366,005 Construction $148,207,415 $54,243,962 $202,451,377 Force Accounts $5,800,000 $500,000 $6,300000 Subtotal $420,857,293 $97,201,478 $518,058,771 Vehicles $24,248,409 $158,402,505 $182,650,914 Total $445,105,702 $255,603,983 $700,709,685

Sunk Costs – A Definition For the purpose of this analysis, sunk costs include items paid to-date, accruals for ongoing work, and estimated costs to complete ongoing construction in the event that the Board votes to cancel the project in May. We have reviewed all ongoing construction contracts and are eliminating scope where possible. If the Board’s ultimate decision is to move forward with the project, much of that scope may need to be added back into future contracts. For the purpose of this analysis, costs centers include professional services, vehicles, real estate, construction, and force accounts.

Sunk Costs – Total Amount To-date, we have spent approximately $445.1 million on the Green Line Project. Some portion of the unspent funds on existing contracts will need to be spent even if the Board opts to cancel the overall project at its meeting on May 11th (e.g., construction is ongoing and vehicles are being manufactured). Based upon current assumptions, the project’s sunk costs could increase by as much as $255.6 million, yielding a total sunk cost of $700.7 million, of which $182.7 million would be spent to acquire 24 new Green Line vehicles and $518 million would be remaining sunk costs.

Professional Services The estimated sunk costs for professional services total approximately $215.9 million. These costs include costs spent for the original project, the look back analysis, the current redesign effort, and ongoing construction management: The five firms on the original GLX team: $195.3 million The professional services for the look-back analysis: $2.0 million New professional services for the current go/no-go analysis: $3.2 million* New professional services for ongoing construction: $8.1 million MBTA project administration: $7.2 million *Does not include $2 million for redesign work that is being performed by the original design team and which is included in the $195.3 million. To-date, we have spent approximately $198.9 million for professional services.

Vehicles The Green Line Project includes the purchase of 24 new vehicles necessary to operate the service. Given our existing vehicle needs, we propose to continue with the purchase of these vehicles even if the project does not move forward. The current cost estimate for this vehicle procurement is $182.7 million and includes: Professional services: $26.1 million Manufacturing: $118.1 million MBTA Project Administration: $5.3 million Force Accounts: $7.0 million Contingency: $26.2 million To-date, we have spent approximately $24.2 million on vehicle procurement.

Real Estate To date, the Green Line Project has acquired sixteen properties, eight of which require business relocation. Also, numerous license agreements have been executed to obtain temporary property rights. The sunk cost for Green Line real estate is approximately $93.4 million: Acquisitions: $41.1 million Relocation: $43.6 million Professional Services (including MBTA staff time): $1.7 million Settlement Contingency: $7.1 million To-date, we have spent approximately $67.9 million on real estate.

Construction There were five construction contracts awarded for the Green Line Project prior to the decision to reassess the project’s viability in December. The current value of these contracts is approximately $228.8 million. Staff has reviewed each of these contracts and identified scope to delete based upon the assumption that the project is not going forward. Based upon this review, the sunk cost for these construction contracts, is approximately $202.5 million, for an overall savings of $26.3 million. Much of these savings would be added back into future contracts should the Board ultimately vote to move forward with a redesigned project.

Force Accounts The MBTA uses force accounts for work associated with construction contracts that, due to the nature of the work or existing regulatory or contractual requirements, can only be performed by specified entities. Examples of this type of work include utility relocations, flagging on active rail lines, work performed by MBTA operations. The sunk cost estimated for force account charges on the Green Line is approximately $6.3 million, of which $5.8 million has been spent to-date.