EY Capital Expenditure Assessment

8/10/2019 EY Capital Expenditure Assessment

1/82

Dublin Airport Capital Expenditure Assessment

26 M ay 2014

Report to the Com m ission for A viation Regulation


2/82

Com m ission for A viation Regulation-A ssessm ent of Dublin A irport Capital Expenditure 1

Page

Section 1 Executive sum m ary 3

Section 2 Introduction 5

Section 3 A pproach 8

Section 4 A nalysis and findings 43

Appendices

A ppendix A Individual assessm ents 20

A ppendix B CIP projects 77

Contents


3/82


Version control details

Version Status Date Author Description of material changes

Draft report Subm itted 2 5 A pril EYTP S

Draft report v2 Subm itted 26 M ay EYTP S

Report upd atedfollow ingcom m ents fromCA R.IT projectsinclud ed.

Final report Subm itted 26 M ay EYTP S

Document approval

Criteria Name DateAuthors EY

TP S20 M ay 2014

Reviewed by EYTP S

23 M ay 201424 M ay 2014

Accepted by CA R 26 M ay

Reviewed by

This document was commissioned by the Commission for Aviation Regulation and is intended solely for the information and use of the management of the Commission for Aviation

Regaultion and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than this specified party. Any review, transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in

reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. Any reliance on this report by a third party or any decisions made by any such third

party based on this report, are the sole responsibility of such third party. Ernst & Young has not had and does not acknowledge any duty of care to any such third party with respect to

the report, and shall have no financial or other liability to any such party with respect to any matter related to any decisions made by any such party, in whole or in part, on this report.


4/82

Section 1

Executive summary


5/82


Sum m ary

Scope of work

The Com m ission for Aviation Regulation (CA R) has requested E Y to review theprojected cost of Du blin A irport Authoritys (DA A ) capital expend iture plan, for 20152019.

This assessm ent review s the cost of the projects in the Capital Investm ent P rogram m e(CIP) to determ ine w hether or no t the DA As proposed costs are reasonable asdescribed in the CIP.

Th e CIP com prises 54 individual projects. A n assessm ent was required for the cost ofeach project.

O ur analysis does not exam ine the rationalefor any ind ividu al projects w ithin the C IP,rather it focuses only on the appropriatenessof cost estim ates as per the projectsdescribed.

Approach

The level of detail of the assessm ent d epends o n and is com m ensurate w ith level ofinform ation available, the num ber of projects and the tim escale available.

Key inform ation included in the CIP docum ent w as:

The estim ated cap ital expenditure value o f the individu al projects

Project tim ing

Project type in term s of facility and/or type of infrastructure developm ent

Independent assessm ents o f project costs for each project w ere conducted, app lying thefollow ing principles:

Cost benchm arks w ere used to ensure com parability of data, taking account ofgeographic location, inflation and exchange rates

A s agreed w ith C A R, no inflationary allow ances w ere included in an y of the C IPprojects over the lifetim e o f the program m e

In the case of infrastructure and con struction projects, the basis for review ing theprojects is to use the overall cost/m 2 or cost/functional unit. W here this m ethod isinap propriate the proposed C IP co sts have been review ed against the output proposed.

The basis for review ing IT p rojects is to bench m ark hardw are and softw are costs and

profession al fees, w here available.

W here assessm ents of project costs resulted in variances of greater than 10% of thepropo sed cost in the CIP, an explanation is includ ed in the individu al project assessm entssheets contained in A ppend ix A.

Key findings

DA A total CIP value is 84 8m com pared to the EY /TP S assessm ent of 8 79 m .

This am ounts to an o verall variance of 3.6% (30 .7m )

It w as found that of the 5 4 D A A CIP projects, 30 had a higher cost estim ate thanexpected, resulting in a total negative variance of 49.3m . O ne p roject was estim atedat the sam e cost.

The rem aining 23 projects w ere found to have a low er cost estim ate than expectedw ith a total positive variance o f 79.9m .

Th e ten largest project-level variances account for aroun d 75% of total absolutevariance.


6/82

Section 2

Introduction


7/82


The DA As Capital Investm ent Program m e contributes to determ ination ofairport charges at D ublin A irport for 20152019

Capital Investment Programme

Th e C om m ission for A viation Regulation (CA R) is responsible for setting a price cap lim iting the totalrevenues per passenger that the Dublin A irport A uthority (DA A ) can collect from airport charges. The price

cap is derived from a series of inp uts know n as the regulatory building blocks. O ne of these b uildingblocks is the C apital Investm ent P rogram m e (CIP) w hich is prepared by D A A . The C IP presents DA Asproposals for capital investm ent at Dublin A irport for the p eriod 2015-2019.

DAA Capital Investment Programme 2015 2019

CIP 2015 2019 classification

The proposed program m e for the 2 01 5 201 9 C IP is divided into three tranches:

Tranche 1: Operational projects com prises the stated level of m inim um investm ent needed to m aintainexisting assets. This spend w ill allow the current level of service to m atch the existing levels of trafficat the airport. Th e total proposed investm ent in this area is 1 91m (including costs of 5m incurredrelating to these projects to date).

Tranche 2: Business development projects represent the propo sed investm ent required for theacq uisition of new assets at the airport. These new assets w ill provide add itional cap acity and/orcom m ercial revenue and /or increased efficiency. The total proposed investm ent in this area is 1 83 m .

Tranche 3: Enabling projects represent the spend requ ired to enable future grow th at Dublin A irportand includ e m inor projects and specific projects which w ould be triggered by circum stances such asachievem ent of defined passenger grow th num bers. Th e overall value o f Tranche 3 p rojects is 1 08mw hich com prises 22m for O therprojects and 86m for Trigger projects.

Totalexcludingtriggered projects 396m Totalincludingtriggered projects 482m

Additional Trigger projects, w hich are not expected to be triggered in 20 15 -20 19 (15 .6.12 Runw ay10 -28 E xtension, 15 .6.02 8 Runw ay 10-28 Extension and A ddition o f Line-up Po ints, 15.6.051N orthern R unw ay), have a total value o f 3 66 m .

Projects are classified into eight groups in the CIP. These are:

A irfield m aintenance Term inal and landside m aintenance IT Revenue Bu siness D evelopm ent O ther Trigg er projects A dd itional Trigger projects

Scope of work

The CA R has requested E Y/TPS to review the associated cost ofDA As capital expenditure plan for 20152019.

This assessm ent review ed the CIP project costs to determ inew hether or not the DA As proposed costs are reasonable asdescribed in the C IP. Specifically the follow ing two areas w ere tobe considered:

Double cou nting across projects

Projects that are over-or under-specified given the proposedoutput

DA A issued the final CIP on the 9 A pril 2014. A ll costs w ithin thisassessm ent are based o n this version.

Th is review is a key elem ent of the process in determ ining theairport charges at Dublin A irport that w ill take effect on expiry of

the existing determ ination at the end of 20 14 .

Information provided

The inform ation available on each individual project is includ ed inthe DA A CIP docum ent.

Key inform ation w ithin the CIP d ocum ent focused on:

Th e estim ated capital exp enditure value of the individualprojects

Project tim ing

Project type in term s of facility and /or type of infrastructuredevelopm ent

W e also requested further clarification from the DA A on theinform ation provided during the assessm ent period .

Project data sheets which detail the cost build up identified w ithineach individual project where supp lied by DA A in response toclarifications.

Detailed inform ation w as provided o n tw o o f the IT projects in C IPIT Investm ent 201 5-201 9 and responses w ere also received toquestions raised by EY /TPS.

Tranche 1

Tranche 2

Tranche 3


8/82


A ccurate estim ation of efficiently incurred capital expenditure is key to thesetting of m axim um charges at D ublin A irport

Plus a return on an efficient cap ital stock.

Plus a depreciation allow ance on capitalstock.

A n estim ate o f efficiently incurred futureoperating exp enditures.

Less an estim ate of future com m ercialrevenues.

Regulatory building blocks used to

set price cap

Forecast annual passenger numbers

This requires CAR to assess DAAscapital investment plan.

Regulated charges at Dublin Airport

CA R regulates the follow ing charges at Du blinA irport (other airport function s are either regulatedelsew here o r provided by a com petitive m arket):

Charges for taking off, landing and parkingaircraft.

Charges for the u se of air bridges.

Charges for arriving and departing p assengers.

Charges for the transpo rtation of cargo.

CA R uses price cap regulation based on the singletillapproach.

CA R advocates and im plem ents the econom ic

con cepts of productive, allocative, and dynam icefficiency.

CARs statutory objectives

To facilitate the efficient and econo m icdevelopm ent of Dub lin A irport w hich m eets therequirem ents of current and prospective users ofD ublin A irport.

To protect the reasonable interests of current andprospective users of Dub lin A irport in relation toD ublin A irport.

To enable the D ublin A irport A uthority to operateand develop Dublin A irport in a sustainable andfinancially viable m anner.

Each years an nu al price cap isapproxim ately equal to the sum of thebuilding blocks divided by forecast annualpassenger num bers.


9/82

Section 3

Approach


10/82


The assessm ent covered 54 projects w hich w ere classified into eight groups inthe Capital Investm ent Program m e

Projects assessed

In total the assessm ent covered 54 projects w ith a value estim ated by EY /TPS of 8 96m .

Projects rang ed in value from 30 0k to 300 m and w ere assessed against the latestinform ation presen ted by the DA A on the 9 A pril 2014. The projects were classified into 8different groups in the C IP, listed below . The value of each group , according to figu res inthe CIP, is illustrated in the table opposite.

A irfield m aintenance envelope

Term inal and landside m aintenance envelope

Revenue envelope

Business developm ent envelope

IT en velope

O ther (Program m e M anagem ent, M inor W orks, N orth R unw ay facilitation w orks)

Trigg er projects

A dd itional trigg er projects

Information received and assessed

A s part of the C IP assessm ent an individual project sheet and data sheet for each projectw ere issued for review . Th ese tw o docum ents detail the scop e of w ork to be carried out,the capital budget required and the financial assum ptions an d calculations m ade toestablish the estim ate. Clarification question s w ere also raised and respo nses have beenprovided by D A A .

CIP IT Investm ent 20 15 -20 19 , a docum ent provided b y D A A , covered tw o of the four ITprojects. Q ueries w ere subm itted to D A A on p rojects and respon ses received.

A s w ith all capital program m es, som e elem ents are further developed than others. W here

the projects are further developed and plann ing m ore advanced, m ore in-depthinform ation w as included in the project and d ata sheets. Th is is the case for projects thathave been m oved from the 20 1020 14 CIP. As a result, these projects can be m oreaccurately estim ated.

4

18

32

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 -1m 1m -5m 5m +

N

umberofprojects

Estimated project scale

-

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Other (4) Terminal and

landsidemaintenanceenvelope (4)

IT envelope

(4)

Revenue

envelope (8)

Business

developmentenvelope(14)

Airfield

maintenanceenvelope (9)

Trigger

projects (6)

Millions


11/82


W e structured our approach to provide an iterative and robust assessm ent

Approach summary

D evelop cost estim ate against

quantified scope

Finalise assessm ent

D raft report

Project kick-off, initial datagathering and analysis

Identify full list of key projects

Review scope of each project

Q uantify scope of project

Co m pare cost estim ate againstD A A capex forecast

Review projects w ith m aterialvariance in estim ates

Confirm reasonableness ofD A A unit costs

10

3

4

1

2

5

6

7

8

9

Clarify scope and approach

Confirm the projects to be review ed

Set up p roject adm inistration

Set up project data flow s and datarequests for follow up queries w ithDA A

Review details of inform ationprovided, covering issues such ascapital expend iture tim ing ,definitions, level of contingencies

Develop questions for subm ission toDA A via CA R

Identify suitable benchm arks, e.g.,previous projects and published dataat unit cost level (/m 2)

Based on our benchm arks andexperience, develop independent costestim ates for each selected project

Com pare with DA A forecasts

Identify cost variances betw een ourindependen t estim ates and D A Aestim ates

Determ ine m aterial differences on a perproject basis

Develop exp lanations and ration ale as tothe reasons for differences

W here m aterial differences exist,un dertake addition al analysis to re-exam ine ou r estim ate

Finalise the an alysis

Finalise o ur report Subm it report to C A R in draft

Finalise report

CA R issue report alongside the draftdeterm ination


12/82


W e adjusted our cost benchm arks to ensure com parability of data, takingaccount of geographic location, inflation and exchange rates

Methodology

A n im portant step in the process of cost estim ation is selecting appropriate benchm arks

for the projects under consideration. Becau se these are not alw ays located in the sam eregions, denom inated in the sam e currency or delivered in the sam e m arket conditions, anapprop riate adjustm ent factor m ust be determ ined in order to p rovide a like-for-likecom parison. The g raphic opposite illustrates the steps invo lved in this ad justm entprocess.

In add ition, pub lished benchm arks are often on ly available for particular periods, so acareful approach is required in interpreting and applying con version factors.

The Bruce Shaw H andb ook 20 12 benchm arks a range of international construction costsind ices. The ind ices are expressed as a range, no t a single figu re. In order to calculate o urassessm ent a single figure is required. The practical approach of using the m id-point toconvert from the U K to Ireland has therefore been taken.

U K data on relevant project costs is available in m ost cases. W e used the latest estim ates

from 201 1 to convert this inform ation to Irish values. Data from Bruce S haw (201 2)show s estim ates of this in a range of 88 -96 to 1 01-11 6 of UK costs. A conversion factorof 0.847 is arrived at by taking the m id-point of these estim ates.

In som e cases it is necessary to adjust the reference project to 2 01 1 U K values w hereprojects have been delivered before or after this date. Th is is done by applying U K tenderprice inflation (sou rced from Building Cost Inform ation Service) to price estim ates.

The 2 01 1 average sterling exchange rate is used to convert to euro values and an upliftfactor of 1.05 is used to accoun t for price divergen ces in Dublin vis--vis the nation alaverage to reflect higher costs in D ublin (as recom m end ed in the Bruce Shaw H andbook2009) . Th ese figures are then uplifted to the Q 1 2 014 forecast w hich is the baseline forall projects w ithin the C IP.

N o inflationary allow ances have been included in any of the CIP projects over the lifetim eof the program m e, as per CA R requirem ents.

1 U K prices for the reference project are adjusted to 2011 levels using U K

tender price inflation.

Prices are converted to Irish parity using the B ruce Shaw 2011estim ates.

201 1 / exchange rates are used to ascertain the euro value.

A D ublin uplift factor of 1.05 is applied (Bruce Shaw H andbook 2 009 )

5

V alues are taken forw ard to 2013 w ith outturn tender price inflationdata published by the Society of Chartered S urveyors Ireland andforecast onw ards to Q 1 1 4 using inform ation published by the B ruceShaw Know ledge Centre 2014 . Q 1 1 4 is taken as the baseline for all CIPprojects.

4

3

2

1


13/82


A review of the contingency, fees and abnorm al costs has been carried out foreach project

Level of assessment

Th e level of detail of the assessm ent w as in accordance w ith the level of inform ation

available, the num ber of projects and the tim escale available.Th e basis for review ing each CIP is to use the overall cost/m 2 or cost/function al unit.W here this m ethod is inappropriate (e.g., Program m e M anagem ent 15 .8.20 0) theproposed C IP costs have review ed against the o utput proposed.

Variances

V ariances of greater than plus or m inus 1 0% of the co st included in the CIP w ereconsidered m aterial.

W here variation is w ithin 10%, projects are deem ed to be of the right m agnitudeinthe individual project assessm ent sheets.

W here variation is greater than plus or m inus 10% project costs are deem ed to behigh er than expectedor low er than expected. Further assessm ent is provided inthese cases in the relevant project assessm ent sheets.

Fees

Fees included w ithin each project accoun t for professional design, m anagem ent andcost control. The level ap plied varies depending on project type, value, risk, com plexityand location . Fo r airside projects the fees are generally set at 6% and for con structionprojects a 12% fee app lies. This is to cover the costs associated w ith addition alprofessional services required. For landside projects the fees are generally set at 10 %but vary depending on the perceived level of risk and p rofessional services required.A ny deviations from these default rates is stated and justified on the ind ividu al projectassessm ent sheets.

Contingency

A s w ith fees, contingency rates vary according to the nature, value, risk an dcom plexity of the each project. A general rate of 15% h as been applied h ow ever it isadjusted w here appropriate depending on the level of detail included in the C IP. A nydeviations from these default rates are stated and justified on the individu al project.

Airport restrictions

A dditional costs are incurred for airside construction activities due to restrictions inplace in those areas. Th ese have been accounted for separately w here specific projectsw arrant the allow ance. This has g enerally been included at 10 %.

Sources of comparable cost information

The cost inform ation used in the assessm ent has been taken from the follow ing sources:

V arious estim ates, cost plans and projects at UK airports provided by our ow n TPS Q Sstaff

Ind ividual projects from TPS A viations portfolio o f airport redevelop m ents

Davis and Langdon Cost M odels for A irports and A irport Term inals 199 9, 20 08 and2009

Davis and Langdon Cost M odel for Car Parks 200 7

Gardiner & Theob old International Construction Cost Survey 2 008

Building Cost Inform ation Service - Cost Analyses (The cost inform ation serviceprovided by the R oyal Institution of Chartered Su rveyors)

The Bruce Shaw H andbook 2012 and Know ledge Centre 20 13

Costs/m 2 and costs per functional units from published sources

N ational Roads A uthority Schedule o f Rates 2 01 3

Specific costs obtained from specialist suppliers or contractors

Th e Society of Chartered S urveyors Ireland

Davis and Lan gdon Ireland A nnual Review 20 13

A ll source inform ation has been up dated to Q1 1 4 in line w ith the C IP co st inform ation.

Detailed cost assessments of each of the 54 projects contained in the CIP are includedin Appendix A.


14/82


For IT projects, our approach to cost assessm ent needed to be m odified

1

2

3

4

5

6

The D A A IT p rojects within the CIP w ere review ed. Additionaldetailed inform ation w as requested from DA A to provide a furtherbreakdo w n of hardw are, softw are, equ ipm ent and professionalservices costs

H ardw are and softw are price estim ates w ere checked against retailprices and pu blicly available data w here detailed technicalspecification s w ere p rovided.

Price estim ates for airport-specific IT products w ere bench m arkedagainst sim ilar projects in other Eu ropean airports.

In cases w here it w as not possible to provide technicalspecifications, the approach and assum ptions m ade b y the D A A to

generate their estim ates w ere assessed to determ ine their validity

Daily rates used for professional fees w ere assessed againstindustry norm s

N o allow ance w as m ade b y DA A for contingency for IT projects.15 % co ntingency w as added w ith respect to professional fees

Overview

Four IT projects, listed below , w ith a com bined estim ated cost of 41m for the period

201 5-2019, are included in the CIP. The projects range in nature from IT m aintenance(hardw are replacem ent due to lifecycle m anagem ent, renew al of existing softw arelicences, upgrades of existing system s), to developm ent and business innovation projects.

15.5.002 Retail IT (1.6m )

15 .8.00 8 D A A Technology O perations and Lifecycle M anagem ent (1 5.8m )

15 .8.00 9 D A A B usiness System s Investm ent Plan (1 5.6m )

15.9.009 c Business Innovation Investm ent (8 m )

Methodology

Project inform ation contained in the C IP w as of a high level. A dd itional, m ore detailed

inform ation, w as provided by the DA A in relation to som e of the projects and theircom ponent sub-projects. W here com prehensive inform ation on sub-projects, includingtechnical specifications required w as available, these w ere benchm arked against m arketprices and industry specific costs w ere com pared w ith costs at other airports. W hereprojects and elem ents of projects were at an earlier stage of planning, the DA A approachto cost assessm ent w as evaluated.


15/82

Section 4

Analysis and findings


16/82


DA A CIP costs are w ithin 4% of our independent assessm ent, how ever variationis greater at group level

848879

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

m

illions

D A A EY/TPS

Analysis DA A total CIP value is 84 8m com pared to the EY /TPS assessm ent of 8 79 m .

This am ounts to an o verall variance of 3.6% (30 .7m )

It w as found that of the 5 4 DAA CIP projects 30 h ad a higher cost estim ate thanexpected, resulting in a total negative variance of 49.3m . O ne project had the sam ecost estim ate.

The rem aining 23 projects w ere found to have a low er cost estim ate than expectedw ith a total positive variance o f 79.9m .

Group level variance

A t group level, higher variances in cost estim ates can be observed.

M aterial variances w ere found betw een D A As CIP co sts and the EY /TPS estim ates forRevenue, Business Developm ent, IT an d Addition al Trigger Projects.

In m ost cases, this is largely accoun ted for by a substantial variance in the cost of asingle project.

In R evenue, the EY/TPS estim ate for project 15 .5.001 Retail Refurbishm ents w as5 .4m higher than the DA A CIP cost.

In IT, costs for project 15 .8.009c B usiness Innovation Investm ent were higher thanexpected du e to a lack of projects presented to account for 6 .25m of 8m bud geted.

In A dditional Trigger Projects, the forecast cost of 15.6.051 N orthern R unw ay, thelargest single p roject contained in the CIP, w as 53 .2m low er than expected.

In Business Developm ent, overall variance w as driven by three project assessm entsw hich show ed D A A CIP costs to be higher than expected; 15.6.00 7 A irfieldInfrastructure U pgrades for New Large A ircraft (by 4.5m ), 15.6.04 7 N ew A pronDevelopm ent (by 2 .1m ) and 1 5.7.117 Transfer Facility (by 2.8m ).

Comparison of total capex costs

Comparison of costs by group

Group Variance

A irfield M aintenance 3%

Term inal & Landside M aintenance -4%

Revenue 11%

Business Developm ent -10%

IT -14%

O ther -7%

Trigger projects -2%

A dditional trigger projects 12%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

AirfieldM aintenance

Term inal &Lan dside

M aintenance

R even ue B usin essDevelopm ent

IT O ther Triggerprojects

A dditiona ltrigger

m

illions

D A A EY/TPS


17/82


18/82


IT projects represent 4.8% of the overall CIP cost w here a m aterial variancew as found

Assessment of IT projects

A t 41m (4.8% of the CIP total) the level of IT C apex is substantial, how ever it includes

both IT m aintenance an d upgrades of existing hardw are and softw are system s as w ell asdevelopm ent and business innovation projects. IT capital expenditure is characterised byhaving ad ditional costs associated w ith business readiness and change, program m em anagem ent an d system s integration projects. M any of the IT projects assessed includefor costs of system s integration and professional fees. DA A 's operating expenditure m ayalso allow for IT-related projects.

Unit prices

W here detailed specifications for hardw are and softw are com ponen ts w ere providedEY /TPS assessed the D A As CIP unit cost against m arket prices and these w ere deem edreasonab le.

Fees

Fees for professional services, w here docum ented, account for 7 .3m or 18 % of total

project costs. Th e D A A has exp licitly taken external professional fees and integration into account in

costing som e projects. Benchm arking of daily rates ag ainst industry norm s indicatedthese w ere reason able.

Contingency

N o con tingency w as allow ed for by DA A for these projects. In our view , adequate contingency h as not been allow ed for potential com plexities in

project im plem entation. W e have allow ed a 15% contingency in respect of professionalfees to account for this, based on the range of com plexity of sub-projects w ithin the ITprojects.

Variance

To tal variance across IT projects am ounted to 5.9m . Th e single largest contributory

factor was the low er than expected cost estim ation for project 15 .8.009c BusinessInnovation Investm ent. A bud get of 8m is proposed for this project in the C IP. H ow ever,w hen requested, DA A provided justification for sub-projects w ith a com bined cost of just1.75m . In the absence of sufficient justification for prop osed spend for the rem aining6.25m EY /TPS w ere not in a position to evaluate bud geted expenditure not accountedfor, and w e therefore assessed the cost of the project at 1.75m .

Potential cost efficiencies

O ur assessm ent has indicated that cost efficiencies could gained thou gh:

1. Procurem ent of the four resurfacing projects contained in the CIP collectively toben efit from econ om ies o f scale. The projects concerned are: 15 .3.006 LongTerm Car Park Resurface, 15.2.009 Consolidated C ar Rental Centre, 15.2.006T2 M SC P P hase 2 and 1 5.2.01 7 C onsolidated Staff Car Park.

2. A dvance planning of M inor Projects 15.8.00 1, w hich consists of generalrefurbishm ent, allow ing m any of these to be incorporated into capital w orksbeing carried out.

3. M ore cost effective solutions for softw are upgrades an d licensing agreem entssuch as Enrolm ent for Ap plication Platform agreem ent or Softw are Assurance,delivering potential savings in project 15 .8.008 DA A technology O perations and

Lifecycle M anagem ent.


19/82


Variations in cost are observed across different project types

Cost variance

Th e total variance betw een the DA As CIP co sts

and the EY /TPS assessm ent is just over 3 0.7m ,corresponding to 3.6% of total CIP costs.V ariances according to project type are set out inthe table o pposite.

Variances by project type

O ur assessm ent found that costs for the follow ingproject types w ere un derestim ated to thegreatest degree:

Revenue Projects 20 %

Future parallel runw ay related projects 15%

A irfield C om pliance 1 2%

V ehicles 6%

O ur assessm ent found that the follow ing projecttypes w ere overestim ated to the g reatest degree:

IT Inn ovation 76%

Term inal Capacity 15%

A pron C apacity -10%

Landside M aintenance 9%

Runw ay Capacity -9%

A irfield Lighting 8%

Projecttype Projects reference (CIP)DAAs proposed

cost ()EY/TPS

Estimate ()

%Variancebetween

EY/TPS andDAA estimate

Value ofvariance

A irfield a nd A pronReh ab ilitation

15 .6.00 1, 15.6.002 , 15 .6.006 ,15 .6.05 5, 15.6.017

85,300,000 87,643,800 3% 2,343,800

A irfield C om p liance 15.9.02 2 20,000 ,000 22,450,000 12% 2,450,000

A irfield Lighting 1 5.6 .0 04, 1 5.6 .0 09 13,000 ,000 11,945,000 -8% -1,055,000

V ehicles 15.4.00 1, 15.4.002 7,900,000 8,351,975 6% 451,975

Landside M aintenance 15.3.004, 15.3.035, 15.3.001 11,100 ,000 0,083,000 -9% -1,017,000

M aintenance IT 15.8.00 8, 15.8.009 31,400 ,000 31,590,000 1% 190,000

Term inals M aintenance 15.7.102, 15.4.005, 15.4.006,15 .7.10 4

22,400 ,000 21,738,100 -3% -661,900

A pron Capacity 15.6.04 7, 15.6.007 19,700 ,000 17,725,000 -10% -1,975,000

T erm in al C ap acity 1 5.7 .1 1 6, 1 5.7 .1 2 0, 1 5.4 .0 0 4,15 .7.11 7

61,400 ,000 52,380,000 -15% -9,020,000

Term ina l -Custom er/Efficien cyIm provem ents

15 .7.12 2, 15.7.121 , 15 .7.119 ,15 .7.10 3

12,170 ,000 12,140,700 0% -29,300

R eve nu e P ro je cts 1 5.5 .0 0 1, 1 5.5 .0 0 2, 1 5.2 .0 0 5,15 .2.00 7, 15.2.01 0, 15.2.01 3

27,480 ,000 32,897,534 20% 5,417,534

IT Innovation 15.8.00 9c 8,000,000 1,900,000 -76% -6,100,000

Screening 15.6.02 1, 15.6.022 2,550,000 2,574,000 1% 24,000

Car Parks 15.3.00 6, 15.2.009, 15.2.006,

15 .2.01 7

30,500 ,000 31,568,000 4% 1,068,000

Contingent Projects 15.4.003, 15.7.111, 15.6.023,15 .7.10 1

77,500 ,000 76,831,200 -1% -668,800

Runw ay Capacity 15.6.01 2, 15.6.013 85,000 ,000 77,498,000 -9% -7,502,000

O ther projects 15.8.00 1, 15.8.200 13,540 ,000 13,961,000 3% 421,000

Future parallel run w ay relatedprojects

15 .6.05 1, 15.6.028 , 15 .6.018 ,15 .6.01 9

319,45 0,000 365,850,500 15% 46,400,500

Total 848,39 0,000 879,127,809 3.6% 30,737,809


20/82


Largest project level percentage and cost variancesTh e table below identifies projects where the EY/TP S assessm ent has established costs w ith a greater than 3 0% absolute variance in com parison to the D A As CIP estim ate.

Th e table below identifies the project w ith a greater than 4m absolute variance

CIP reference Project name %variance Value of variance

8.009c Business Innovation Investm ent -76.25% -6,100,000

6.019 N orth Runw ay A dvance H ouse Purchase -46.78% -1,988,0003.004 Car Parks -40.29% -1,813,000

2.010 Digital A dvertising Pods -38.20% -191,000

7.104 H V A C / BM S U pgrades and Replacem ents T1 -34.74% -2,571,000

6.017 Runw ay 10-28 O verlay 32.53% 7,255,000

4.006 T1 Critical Equipm ent U pgrades 32.78% 1,967,000

2.005 Com m ercial H angars Infrastructure 37.38% 235,500

5.00 1 Revenue Projects Retail Refurbishm ents 44.60% 5,397,034

CIP reference Project name %variance Value of variance

8.009c Business Innovation Investm ent -76.25% -6,100,000

6.012 Runw ay 10-28 Extension -9.79% -5,387,000

6.02 8Runw ay 1 0-28 Extension and A ddition of Line-upPoints -6.51% 4,844,000

7.116 Pier 3 Flexibility -29.70% -4,455,000

5.001 Revenue Projects Retail Refurbishm ents 44.60% 5,397,034

6.017 Runw ay 10-28 O verlay 32.53% 7,255,000

6.051 N orthern Runw ay 22.48% 53,232,500

Further to the above tables the in-depth review for all 54 projects contained in the C IP can be found in A ppendix A .


21/82

Appendix A

7


22/82


CIP reference: 15.4.001 A irfield Vehicles and Equipm ent

Information from CIP

Cost included in CIP 5,700,000

Comparative cost information

O veraasen w ith new tractor units ( 2N o.)not to be replace w ithin the next 5years 48 0,000

Schm idt Unim og Sn ow Blow er 5 4,450

M ercedes Glycol Sw eeper A SC 9 90 35 0,900

Fuel Bo w ser 4 5,000

De-icer M ini Gritter (3N o.) 1 N o. not to be

replaced w ithin the next 5 years 6 0,000

De-icer Bunce E poke S preader 12 5,000

W SP 60 00 ltrs Sprayer 12 1,000

H ino Tipper Truck 7 0,000

M ercedes Truck Sprayer De-icer 5 0,250

Isuzu N PR 69 Kr Truck not to b ereplaced w ithin the next 5 years 4 2,350

Incident con trol Room 8 0,000

Denn is Fire Ten der (2N o.) 33 8,800

Sides Fire Tender (3N o.) 1 ,00 0,00 0

Schm idt GR V 26 0,150

Johnston Beam Sw eeper C1 not to bereplaced w ithin the next 5 years 350,000

Johnston C201Com pact sw eeper 70,200

Schm idt SK700 G RV 164,000

7


Paint m achine not to be replaced w iththe next 5 years 260,000

H oist 22,000

Forklift (3N o.) 2N o. -not to bereplaced w ithin the next 5 years 25,000

Telehandle for w inter op eration not tobe replaced w ithin the next 5 years 50,000

Assumptions made during the cost assessment:

Information received: CIP project sheet, CIP project data sheet

Fee allowance: 0%

Contingency allowance: A 10% allow ance has been included to allow forspecific eq uipm ent options (bespoke plou gh, fork,other op tions) w hich m anufacturers w ill designspecifically for the vehicle follow ing d iscussion w iththe clien t.

Abnormal costs: N o ad ditional abn orm al costs have been included

5,804,415 (EY/TPS estimate) v 5,700,000 (DAA estimate)

Snow , Fire and H eavy vehicles 5,277,650

5 ,27 7,65 0

Fees 0% 0

5 ,27 7,65 0

Contingency 10% 527,765

5 ,80 4,41 5

O ur assessm ent suggests that the cost in the CIP is of the right m agn itude.


23/82

7


24/82


CIP reference: 15.6.002 A pron Rehabilitation



Function al un its

A pron replacem ent 84,000 m 2

Cost per m 2 (including fees and contingency) 250 m 2

Contingency costs 12%/2,112,000

Fee allow ance 7%

Comparative cost information - cost/m2

From previous projects 230

From DL&E A irport Cost M odel 95-190

Published price data 95-185

O ther sources 200

The range of costs above can be narrow ed dow n by our know ledge o f the project atother airports. The cost of the new aprons w ill be in the region 180 /m 2



Fee allowance: A 6 % allow ance has been included

Contingency allowance: A 15 % allow ance has been included


7


A pron replacem ent 15,120,000

U nderground services 3,000,000

Reinstatem ent of A GL 150,000

Reinstate m arkings 25,000

18 ,295 ,000

Fees 6% 1,100,000

19 ,39 5,000

Contingency 15% 2,910,000

22 ,30 5,000

O ur assessm ent sugg ests that the cost in the CIP is of the right m agnitude.


CIP refers to reinstatem ent of A irfield Ground L ighting (A GL) assessm ent includesw orking around A G L, not any new A GL .

This estim ate is based on 4 50 m m Pavem ent Qu ality Con crete (PQ C) over 15 0m m Dry

Lean Concrete for a Code E stand and 350m m PQ C over 150m m Dry Lean Concretefor a Code C stand.

Service rates includ e p rovision for reconfigu ration and diversion of servicesassociated w ith m inor stand reconfiguration.

7


25/82


CIP reference: 15.6.004 A irfield Lighting U pgrade (Runw ay 10-28)



Function al un it:

Trenching 10km

Duct and cable 75km

M anholes 300

Cost per m 2 (including fees andcontingency)

n/a


Fee allow ance 7%

Comparative cost information - costs as stated

The approach lights for Runw ay 1 0 w ill be inset and lights on Runw ay 28 w ill beelevated on ly. The price for the approach ligh t includ es lights fitting s coup ling s,transform ers, base plates and A DB (labour).

Inset approach lights 10,900

Elevated approach lights 71,400

Inset supplem ent approach lights 54,500

Elevated sup approach lights 49,600

For the 38 1 N o. elevated lights a 15 00 m m x150 0m m x10 00 m m concrete base will be

required.

45 0 N o. LED lights for the taxiw ay


Information received: CIP project sheet, CIP project data sheet.

Fee allowance: 6% allow ance has been included.

Contingency allowance: 15 % allow ance has been included.

Abnormal costs: N o ad ditional abn orm al costs have been included.

A s part of the this CIP assessm ent it has been assum ed that part of the approachlights can be installed on day shift and the rate w e have selected allow s for this m ix ofnigh t and day shift installation. Th is adjustm ent w ou ld account for the difference inestim ates.


Lights 425,000

Trenching 750,000

Ducts 750,000

Cables 900,000

M ast 250,000

M anhole/access cham bers 1,254,000

Labour 2,500,000

6 ,82 9,00 0

Fees 6% 410,000

7 ,23 9,00 0


8 ,32 5,00 0

O ur assessm ent sugg ests that the cost in the CIP is of the right m agnitude

7

7


26/82


CIP reference: 15.6.006 A irfield and A pron Roads



Function al un its

A pron/perim iter road replacem ent 8,000 m 2

Cost per m 2 (including fees and contingency) 212.50 m 2

Contingency costs 15%/199,000

Fee allow ance 7%



From DL&E A irport Cost M odel 260 -330

Published price data 160 200

From previous projects 40m m SM A + 160m m DBM 160

From previous projects 300 PQC + 150 Dry Lean Concrete (DLC) 140

From previous projects 40m m SM A + 160 DB M + 50 0m m Crushedstones

240

The range of costs above can be narrow ed dow n by our know ledge o f the project atother airports. The cost of the new roads w ill be in the region of 1 70/m 2.

Assumptions made during the cost assessment:CIP P roject sheet refers to 8,000 m 2 of apron and perim eter road rehab ilitation andthis is w hat our assessm ent is based on. It should be noted that the detailed build u p tothe CIP total includes only 7 ,010 m 2.




Contingency allowance: N o change has been m ade to the CIP allow ance



N ew roads 1,360,000

Pavem ent inspection 9,500

1 ,37 0,00 0

Fees 6% 82,000

1 ,45 2,00 0


1 ,66 9,80 0


7

7


27/82


CIP reference: 15.6.009 Taxiw ay A irfield G round Lighting (A G L) U pgrade



Function al un it

Taxiw ay centreline lights 400 N o.

Cabling 50km

D ucting 25km

Cost per ligh t (includ ing fees andcontingency)

9,750


Fee allow ance 7%


There are 400 N o. lights and for costing purposes it is estim ated that 15 m second arycab le is required per light.

Th e length of earth cable is estim ated at 25 % o f the prim ary cab le length

The length o f trench is estim ated to be 5 0% of the ducting leng th, about 12.5km .







Lights 215,000

Trenching 875,000

Ducting 250,000

Cabling 600,000

Connection kit 34,000

CCRs 203,000

M anhole/access cham bers 814,000

2 ,99 1,00 0

Fees 6% 179,500

3 ,17 0,50 0


3 ,62 0,00 0


7

7


28/82


CIP reference: 15.6.017 Runw ay 1 0-28 O verlay



(0.3m pre 201 5)

Function al un it

O verlay runw ay 177,000 m 2


1 31 m 2


Fee allow ance 5.5%



From DL&E A irports Cost M odel 95 -200

Published price data 100 -190

O ther Sources 130 -170

1 35 15 0

The range of costs above can be narrow ed dow n by our know ledge o f the project atother airports. Th e cost of the rehabilitated runw ay w ill be in the region of 1 30/m 2.


A ssessm ent excludes any replacem ent slabs.

The assessm ent includes 5 0m m planning out , 20 0m m nom inal M arshall A sphaltoverlay and g rooving of the n ew surface.

This project counts 7,00 0m of pavem ent edge. 40 % of the length m ay need drainagereplacem ent w ith 5 00m m diam eter slot drain, 10 N o. catchpits and outlets plusconting ency for outlet pipes.






A higher rate com pared to CIP project 15 .6.00 1 and 15 .6.05 5 has been used foroverlay of the m ain runw ay to reflect low er prod uctivity resulting from access beingm ore constrained than for the secondary runw ay.


Runw ay overlay 23,010,000

Drainage replacem ent 320,000

Reinstatem ent of A GL 800,000


24 ,245 ,000

A bnorm al costs allow ance 0

24 ,245 ,000

Fees 6% 1,455,000

25 ,700 ,000


29 ,55 5,000

O ur assessm ent sug gests that the cost in the CIP is low er than w ould be expected.

7

7


29/82


CIP reference: 15.6.055 A irfield Taxiw ay Rehabilitation



(2m pre 2015)

Function al un its

Rehabilitated taxiw ays 70,200 m 2

Cost per m 2 (including fees and contingency) 230 m 2


Fee allow ance 5.5%



From DL&E A irport Cost M odel 95 200


O ther sources 130 -170

135 -150

The range of costs above can be narrow ed dow n by our know ledge o f the project atother airports. Th e co st of the rehabilitated taxiw ays w ill be in the region of 1 40/m 2.


Survey (for 90,000 m 2) is estim ated for night w ork at 3,000 /week/surveyor + 10%expenses for 3.5 w eeks.

The pavem ent is for Code E trafficked for 450 m m PQ C (Pavem ent Quality C oncrete)and 150m m Dry Lean Concrete.

A n allow ance for drainage is requ ired. A provision for 90 0m of 400m m D ia. slot drainw ith 7 N o. of catch-pits and outlets.

A ssessm ent includes A GL (Airfield Ground Lighting) costs of 50 % of com plete newinstallation to allow for rehab ilitation of critical A GL Estim ate 70 N o. ligh ts w ith2.00 0m of cabling.






A s the m ethod o f construction for a taxiw ay is different com pared to pavem entrehabilitation (6.00 1) and runw ay o verlay (6.017), it requ ires a different rate. Thetaxiw ay rate is higher because the rehabilitation of taxiw ay requires m ore m aterial perm 2 and the co nstruction costs are higher because less linear w ork results in low erproductivity rates.

The variance in costs arises from highe r unit costs used by DA A for AGL andpavem ents w orks.


Taxiw ay rehabilitation 9,828,000

Survey 25,000

Pavem ent evaluation 12,500

Tem porary w ork 200,000

Reinstatem ent of critical A GL 120,000

Drainage 98,000


10 ,29 4,000

Fees 6% 617,000

10 ,91 1,000


12 ,548 ,000

O ur assessm ent suggests that the cost in the C IP is higher than w ould be expected.

7

7


30/82


CIP reference: 15.9.022 A irfield Pollution Control



Function al un it

U nderground storage tanks 63,000 m 3

G lycol tanks 50 m 3


3 17 m 3


Fee allow ance 7%

Comparative cost information previous projects cost

U nderground Tanks 210 m 3

Pipew ork 300m m : 600m m 60 m ; 80m

Pipe jacking 300m m : 600m m 760m ; 920m

Penstocks, cham bers and controls(com plete)

11 0,000 each

M anholes 5,700 each

Assumptions made during the cost assessment:.





Th e m ain difference is dow n to pipew ork and pipejacking. A s there is no length advisedthe proposed pipe length from the previous CIP has been used.


Tanks 13,230,000

Pipew ork 294,000

Pipe jacking 3,528,000

Penstocks, cham bers and controls 1,100,000

M anholes 268,000

18 ,420 ,000

Fees 6% 1,100,000

19 ,520 ,000


22 ,45 0,000


7


31/82


CIP reference: 15.3.001 Landside Infrastructure U tilities




Fee allow ance 7.5%

Additional data within the Project data sheet

Due to the early stages of design there has been insufficientinform ation w ithin the CIP to establish the area (m 2) for thisspecific project. Th e allow ance included w ithin the CIP for H V A Cand M TH W w orks w ould facilitate w orks to an area of circa9 0 0m 2 .

9 0 0m 2

Due to the lack of inform ation w ithin the CIP relating to theEnergy P rojects, (this elem ent is still un der assessm ent) theallow ance w ithin the CIP has been included in the co st analysis.

80 0,000


Information received: CIP project sheet, CIP estim ate project sheet

Fee allowance: 10% allow ance has been included to accoun t for theM &E (m echan ical and electrical) design elem ent an dthe building w orks design w here alterations arerequired.

Contingency allowance: N o change has been m ade to the CIP allow ance.

Abnormal costs: A n allow ance for Airport restrictions of 10% has beeninclud ed.

5,034,000 (EY/TPS estimate)v 4,600,000 (DAA estimate)

H V AC M TH W 273,000

CH P 3 (2.7M w )/Boiler (5M w + 7.5M w ) 2,545,000

Sustainable Energy projects 800,000

3 ,61 8,00 0

A bnorm al costs allow ance 362,000

3 ,98 0,00 0

Fees 10% 398,000

4 ,37 8,00 0


5 ,03 4,00 0

O ur assessm ent suggests that the cost in the C IP is of the right m agnitude.


H V A C M TH W 300m 2

CH P 3 (2.7M w )/Boiler

(5M w + 7.5M w )

2 ,54 5,00 0

Sustainable Energy projects 800,000

7


32/82


CIP reference: 15.3.004 Landside Infrastructure Car Parks




Fee allow ance 7.5%


Published price data car park w orks 102m 2

Published price data lighting w orks 2,240 each

Specialist Dublin provider -car parkequipm ent w orks

1 2,000 average cost each


Car park repairs electrical w orks 50,000

A lterations to w iring 150,000

Refurbishm ent to existing m asts 50,000

Reconfigure layouts/routes 150,000



Fee allowance: A 10% allow ance has been included to account for theM &E design elem ent and the bu ilding w orks required



The prim ary difference between the EY/TPS assessm ent and the D A A estim ate is thevalue of the car park equipm ent. Based on the details subm itted w ithin the C IP tw oDublin suppliers provided quotes w hich form the basis of the DAAs assessm ent. Th evariance in eq uipm ent costs is greater than 1 .1m .

2,687,000 (EY/TPS estimate)v 4,500,000 (DAA estimate)Car park w orks 511,000

Lighting w orks 449,000

Car park equipm ent w orks 1,292,000

2 ,25 2,00 0

Fees 10% 85,000

2 ,33 7,00 0


2 ,68 7,00 0


7


33/82


CIP reference: 15.3.035 Landside Infrastructure External Roads



Functional unit 22,500 m

Cost per m 2 (including fees andcontingency) 89 m 2


Fee allow ance 7.5%


Pub lished price data full depthconstruction

215

Published price data overlay 28



Fee allowance: A 5% fee allow ance has been included as there islim ited d esign inp ut required

Contingency allowance: A 10% allow ance has been included. This equates tocirca 50% additional overlay w orks or 13 % full depthcon struction w orks



Full depth reconstruction 1,620,000

O verlay 425,000

2 ,04 5,00 0

Fees 5% 102,000

2 ,14 7,00 0


2 ,36 2,00 0

O ur assessm ent suggests that the cost in the C IP is of the rightm agnitude.

7


34/82


CIP reference: 15.4.002 Light Vehicle Fleet (1 of 2)





Fee allowance: N o change has been m ade to the CIP allow ance

Contingency allowance: A 10 % allow ance has been included. The 1 0%contingency allow for specific equipm ent option s (roofm ounts, floo dlights, retro reflective decals, toe bars,specialist equipm ent installation ) w hich m anufacturersw ill design specifically for the vehicle after discussionw ith the client. Th is acco unts for the variance in costs.


Manufacturer Model Min () No. Min ()

C itroen B erlingo (N ot replacedw ithin 5 years)

30,250 1 30,250

Dacia D uster (N ot replacedw ithin 5 years)

19,965 1 19,965

Fiat D ucato (2 N o. notreplaced w ithin 5 years)

20,000 13 260,000

Fiat D oblo (1 No. not replacedw ithin 5 years)

18,150 12 217,800

Ford Transit (3 N o. notreplaced w ithin 5 years)

30,250 5 151,250

Ford Ranger (2 N o. notreplaced w ithin 5 years)

38,720 5 193,600

Ford Connect (1 N o. notreplaced w ithin 5 years)

38,720 3 116,160

Ford S 27,830 1 27,830

Isuzu D-M ax 35,000 1 35,000

L an dro ver D efen der (N o t rep laced

w ithin 5 years)

80,000 1 80,000

L an dro ver D isco very (N o t replacedw ithin 5 years)

87,120 1 87,120

M ercedes V ito 38,720 2 77,440

M e rcedes V iano (2 No. not replacedw ithin 5 years)

48,400 3 145,200

Manufacturer Model Min () No. Min ()

M itsubishi L200 (2 No. notreplaced w ithin 5 years,7 N o. replaced tw ice)

30,250 13 393,250

M itsubishi Pajero ( 2 No. replacedtwice)

40,000 3 105,000

M itsubishi O utlander 36,300 4 145,200

O pel Zafira 25,000 1 25,000

R enault Tipper (N ot replacedw ithin 5 years)

48,400 1 48,400

Renault Kangoo (5 N o. notreplaced w ithin 5 years)

24,200 18 435,600

Renault M aster 44,770 1 44,770

Skoda O ctavia 24,200 1 24,200

Toyota Landcruiser 84,700 1 84,700

Toyota H iace 35,000 2 70,000

Toyota D yna 20,570 1 20,570

7


35/82


CIP reference: 15.4.002 Light Vehicle Fleet (2 of 2)




Light fleet vehicles 2,315,960

2 ,31 5,96 0

Fees 0% 0

2 ,31 5,96 0


2 ,54 7,56 0



36/82

7


37/82


CIP reference: 15.4.006 T1 Critical Equipm ent U pgrades




Fee allow ance 5%


Replacem ent of em ergency lighting 40

Replacem ent of fire alarm devices 275 each

Replacem ent of secondary cable to FA 82 each

Replacem ent of fire and sm oke dam pers 100,000

Engine for baggage PLC (Program m ableLogic Con troller) system

4 ,50 0 unit

Assumptions made during the cost assessment

Goods lift assum ed to be 2,000kg capacity

A ssum ed 3 80 N o. engines for 8 No . bays and 2 85 N o. engines for 6 No . bays






Th e variance in cost estim ation is m ainly accounted for by the higher cost of the PLCsystem .


Replacem ent of em ergency lighting 1,650,000

Replacem ent of fire alarm devices 550,000

Replacem ent of fire and sm oke dam pers 100,000

Replacem ent of secondary cable to fire alarm 575,000

Lifts 660,000

Baggage PLC system 3,000,000

6 ,53 5,00 0

Fees 6% 392,000

6 ,92 7,00 0


7 ,96 7,00 0


7


38/82


CIP reference: 15.7.102 T1 Roof U pgrades



Functional unit roof covering 23,496 m 2


33 5 m 2


Fee allow ance 5%


Pu blished price data roof m em braneand structure

204 -277



Fee allowance: A 15% allow ance has been included. Th is is to cover allsurvey w orks and additional inspections du ring thew orks.

Contingency allowance: A 10 % allow ance h as been included. Based on thesurvey w ork already carried out no m ore than 10 %additional w orks should be added to the scope ofw orks.



Replace roof coverings all areas 5,585,000

5 ,58 5,00 0

A bnorm al costs allow ance 588,000

6 ,14 3,00 0

Fees 15% 922,000

7 ,06 5,00 0


7 ,77 2,00 0


7


39/82


CIP reference: 15.7.104 H VA C/BM S Roof U pgrades and R eplacem ent T1



Functional unit 10,744m 2


6 89 m 2


Fee allow ance 5%


Pier 2 191 -375

159 -312

Pier 3 159 -312

BM S and alteration 90


Fire alarm system alterations 150,000


Information received: CIP project sheet, CIP Project data sheet

Fee allowance: A 10% allow ance has been included. Th is is to cover allM &E (m echanical and electrical) design w orks as w ellas architectural w orks.

Contingency allowance: A 15 % allow ance has been included. Due to therefurbishm ent w orks the contingency h as beenincreased.


The variance betw een the EY/TPS assessm ent and the D A A estim ate is specific to therate used for the H VA C system . The DA A have used an average of the tender returnsfrom 20 06 and adjusted this by 20 %. Th ey have used this figure for both new system

and u pgrading the existing. EY /TPS have separated the areas of wo rks and developeda specific costs per m 2 for each area using published price data.


Pier 2 1,300,000

Pier 3 1,215,000

BM S and alteration 950,000

3 ,46 5,00 0

A bnorm al costs allow ance 10% 350,000

3 ,81 5,00 0

Fees 10% 574,000

4 ,38 9,00 0


4 ,82 9,00 0

O ur assessm ent suggests that the cost in the C IP is higher than w ould be exp ected.

7


40/82


CIP reference: 15.2.017 Consolidated Staff Car Park



Functional unit N um ber of car spaces 2,000


7 50 m 2

Contingency costs 0%/0

Fee allow ance 0%


Published price data 1,192 -2,100

Cost build up using published price data 749

The range of costs above can be narrow ed dow n by our know ledge o f the project atother airports and locations. Du e to the level of w ork required,traditional costs percar space are based on a higher level of w orks than is required here. Therefore,relevant elem ents of these costs w ere taken to build up a suitable cost com parison.



Fee allowance: A 5% allow ance has been included. This is to allow forthe redesign of the proposed location, M &E w orks andbus shelter design.

Contingency allowance: A 5% allow ance h as been included. It is prudent tohave an allocation of con tingency on all constructionw orks to account for unknow n item s (e.g., groundcond ition s).



2,000 car spaces 1,500,0001 ,50 0,00 0

Fees 5% 75,000

1 ,57 5,00 0


1 ,65 4,00 0


7


41/82


CIP reference: 15.4.003 T2 H BS Standard 3




Fee allow ance 8%

Comparative cost information cost

M echanical conveyors return tray 150,000 unit

Standard 3 EDS Screening M achines 1,200,000


Extent of construction/structural w orks to allow for new larger and heavier m achines

is und efined. As such the allow ance in the C IP of 1 m cann ot be objectively assessedand is included in this assessm ent at the sam e rate:



Fee allowance: A llow ances of 12 % of construction and 6% form achines have been included




H BS M achines 6, 000,000

M echanical Conveyors 3,000,000

Construction/structural w orks 1,000,000

10 ,000 ,000

Fees of 12 % for construction and 6 % on the m achines 66 0,0 00

10 ,660 ,000


12 ,26 0,000


7


42/82


CIP reference: 15.4.004 Central Search A rea N ew Technologies



Functional unit 3,375 m 2


3,340 m 2


Fee allow ance 7%






Comparative cost information other items

A utom ated lanes 130,000

LA GS Equipm ent type C 75,000

LA GS Equipm ent Type B 57,000

Explosive trace Detection 55,000

Digital Signage 40,000

Networking

Socket 75

Layer Sw itch (1 unit for 24 sockets) 3,000

A ccess Point ( 1 unit for 300m 2) 360


A utom ated lanes 4,160,000

LA GS Equipm ent 2,860,000

ETD 1,100,000

Digital Signage 800,000

N etw orking 450,000

9 ,37 0,00 0

A bnorm al costs allow ance 0

9 ,37 0,00 0

Fees 6% 562,200

9 ,93 2,20 0


11 ,142 ,000


7


43/82







CIP reference: 15.6.007 A irfield Infrastructure U pgrades for N ew LargeA ircraft



Function al un it

-Taxiw ay fillets 3,000 m 2


5 00 m 2


Fee allow ance 7%





O ther Sources 200

The range of costs above can be narrow ed dow n by our know ledge o f the project atother airports. The cost of the new aprons w ill be in the region of 3 80 /m 2.


Typical costs of 3 80/m 2 w ill need to be adjusted g iven that this w ork w ill be carriedou t in very sm all quantities at different loca tions. Th e prem ium for this could b e in theregion of 25% .

Th ere is also a requirem ent for tem porary w orks to be carried out at night, allow ingm ovem ent on the runw ay from 06 .00 to 23 .00 .


N ew Taxiw ay fillets 1,140,000

Drainage 85,000

A GL, signs and electrical m anholes 30,000

Tem porary w ork 45,0001 ,30 0,00 0

Fees 6% 78,000

1 ,37 8,00 0


1 ,58 5,00 0


7


44/82


CIP reference: 15.6.021 Cargo G ate R edevelopm ent




Fee allow ance 7%


N ew staff facilities building 1,650

N ew roads/lanes 220

Canopies 275

N ew Barriers 11,000 16,000


Dem olition 30,000

N ew staff facilities building 495,000

N ew roads/lanes 162,000

Canopies 187,000N ew barriers 30,000

A lterations to fencing, barriers and islands 100,000

Tem porary Security A ccom m odation 75,000

Phased Construction 250,000

1 ,32 9,00 0

Fees 12% 150,000

1 ,48 9,00 0


1 ,71 2,00 0




Fee allowance: 12 % allow ance has been included.



7


45/82


CIP reference: 15.6.022 A irport Screening Centre


Cost included in CIP 750,000

Functional unit 2 cargo screening lines


Fee allow ance 7%

Comparative cost information - cost

Loading bay/screening area alterations 250

N ew toilet/office accom m odation 500

Cargo screening equipm ent 270,000 unit


Cost/m 2 for loading bay/screening alterations has been included at a nom inal250/m 2.

Cost/m 2 for new toilet/office accom m odation has been included at a nom inal500/m 2.






EY/TPS have assumed a lower cost for the cargo screening equipment. Thisaccounts for the variance in estimates.

862,000 (EY/TPS estimate) v 750,000 (DAA estimate)

Loading bay/screening area alterations 137,500

N ew toilet/office accom m odation 30,000

N ew screening equipm ent 540,000

70 7,500

Fees 6% 42,500

75 0,000


86 2,000


7


46/82


CIP reference: 15.6.023 N ew A pron D evelopm ent 300R



Functional unit new apron 28,585 m 2


2 87 m 2


Fee allow ance 7%





O ther Sources 200

The range of costs above can be narrow ed d ow n by our know ledge of projects at otherairports. The cost of the new aprons w ill be in the region 20 0/m 2.


Survey (for 40,000 m 2) is estim ated for night w ork at 3,000 /week/surveyor + 10%expenses for 1.5 w eeks

The pavem ent is for Cod e E trafficked (Taxiw ays) w ith an allow ance for 45 0m m PQ Cand 15 0m m D ry Lean C oncrete and w ith an allow ance for Code C stands for 350 m mPQ C and 1 50 m m Dry Lean C oncrete. The w ork w ill be executed by nights.

A llow ance for drainage is required. A provision m ade for 700 m of 400 m m diam eterslot drain w ith 5 N o. of catchpit and outlets.

For the AGL it can b e estim ated that 50 N o. lights w ith 20 0m of cabling w ill berequired w ith 7 p its 60 0x6 00 .


N ew A pron 5,720,000

AGL 70,000

Drainage 55,000

Pow er/lighting per stand 250,000

N ew m arkings 30,000

6 ,12 5,00 0

Fees 6% 370,000

6 ,49 5,00 0


7 ,47 0,00 0

O ur assessm ent suggests that the cost in the C IP is of the rightm agnitude..






The access to A pron 3 00 R is m ore constrained than to A pron 5 G (6.047 ), w hich leadsto low er productivity an d a higher unit rate.

7


47/82







The difference in cost per m 2 between 6.047 and 6.02 3 (A pron 3 00 ) is due to higherproductivity levels on the Apron developm ent 5 G w orks because access to this area isless constrained com pared to the A pron 30 0, w hich in turn results in the low errate/m 2.

TP S h ave not allow ed for 6.5 % inflation w hich the D A A have included. From previousproject data TP S estim ated the pavem ent (services included) at 21 0/m 2 against244/m 2 by DAA.

CIP reference: 15.6.047 A pron D evelopm ent 5G



Function al un it

-A ircraft parking 66,160m 2


2 75 m 2


Fee allow ance 7%





O ther Sources 200

The range of costs above can be narrow ed dow n by our know ledge o f the project atother airports. The cost of the new aprons w ill be in the region of 1 80/m 2 .


It can be estim ated that an allow ance of 1,000 per stand of paint m arking w ill berequired and a allow ance of 10,000 for the taxiw ay.

Th is estim ate is based on:

i. 450m m PQ C over 150m m Dry Lean Concrete for a Code E stand

ii. 400 m m PQ C over 150 m m Dry Lean Concrete for a Code D stand

iii. 350 m m PQ C over 150m m Dry Lean Concrete for a Code C stand

A n allow ance for drainage of 5 00,000 is required for this project.


N ew aircraft parking 11,910,000

AGL 600,000

Pow er/lighting 650,000

Drainage 500,000

M arkings 50,000

13 ,210 ,000

Fees 6% 825,000

14 ,035 ,000


16 ,14 0,000


7


48/82


CIP reference: 15.7.103 Fixed Electrical G round Pow er T1



Function al un it

-400 H z FEGP U nits 17 N o.

Cost each (including fees andcontingency)

88 ,200


Fee allow ance 7%


U nit only (supplied and installed) w ith a24m Crocodileconn ector

50 ,000

Sw itch gear 40,000

Barriers 480

Billing system 96,000


A nsw ers to qu eries referred to a budget of 1.45m for Pier 2 and 1 .4m for Pier 3.A ssum ing these bud gets w ere prepared in the sam e w ay as for Pier 1, w e w ouldexpect our assessm ent to be m arginally less than these figures.







U nit and connector 816,000

Buildersw ork in connection w ith installation 150,000

Sw itch gear 160,000

Barriers 48,000Billing system 96,000

Installation 25,000

1 ,29 5,00 0

Fees 6% 78,000

1 , 37 3,00 0


1 ,57 9,00 0


7


49/82







Th e m ain difference is the estim ation for the airbridge and pier refurbishm ent.

CIP reference: 15.7.116 Pier 3 Flexibility




Fee allow ance 8%


Refurbishm ent of a pier area andcreation of a node w ith fixed link andtriple airbridge to handle an A 380 stand.

6 ,65 0,00 0

Refurbishm ent of a pier 450 m 2 930 m 2

A irbridge (6 N o.) 600,000

N ode building 500,000

Fixed link (3 N o. O n m ultiple storey) 150,000

Baggage reclaim belt 200,000

External w ork ( dem olition faade stand reconfiguration (H oS kit)

2 ,00 0,00 0


The refurbishm ent of 1,230 m 2 is estim ated at 80 0/m 2.

N ode, airbridges an d fixed links are new purchase


Refurbishm ent 1,600,000

A irbridge, node and fixed link 4,850,000

Baggage reclaim 200,000

External w ork 2,000,000

8 ,65 0,00 0

Fees 6% 520,000

9 ,17 0,00 0


10 ,545 ,000


7


50/82


CIP reference: 15.7.117 Transfers Facility



Functional unit Transfer Facility 5,184 m 2


4,150 m 2


Fee allow ance 10%


Refurbishm ent 450 -930

N ew Build 2,200 -2,700

Given the piecem eal nature o f these w orks it is likely that the costs w ill be at the top o fthe range of the figures above. W e have used 90 0/m 2 for refurbishm ent and2 ,70 0/m 2 for new build in this assessm ent.






CIP refers to overall area of 5,184 m 2. Response to query TPS 0 45 referred to53 6m 2 refurbishm ent and 3,73 7 m 2 new build. For this assessm ent w e have used53 6m 2 refurbishm ent and 5,18 4 less 53 6 = 4,64 8m 2 new build.

Th e allow ance allocated for equipm ent is low er (price for autom ated lanes, networkingand boarding card check gate w ere low er than in the C IP). Professional fees an dcontingency allow ances are also reduced com pared w ith the CIP.

Comparative cost information other items

A utom ated lanes 130,000

LA GS Equipm ent type C 75,000

LA GS Equipm ent Type B 57,000

Explosive trace Detection 43,000

Networking

Socket 75

Layer Sw itch (1 unit for 24 sockets) 3,000

A ccess Point ( 1 unit for 300m 2) 360

18,690,000 (EY/TPS estimate) v 21,500,000 (DAA estimate)Refurbishm ent 482,000

N ew build 12,550,000

Equipm ent 2,300,000

15 ,332 ,000

Fees 6% 920,000

16 ,252 ,000


18 ,69 0,000O ur assessm ent suggests that the cost in the C IP is higher than w ould be expected.

7


51/82


CIP reference: 15.7.119 T1 Faade W orks


EY Capital Expenditure Assessment

Documents

Transcript of EY Capital Expenditure Assessment