Transparency data
BEIS Government Major Project Portfolio data, September 2019 (csv)
Updated 9 July 2020
Download CSV 35.5 KB
| GMPP ID Number | BEIS_0004_1920-Q2 | DECC_0005_1112-Q1 | BEIS_0001_1617-Q2 | BIS_0015_1516-Q1 | DECC_0013_1213-Q1 | BIS_0014_1415-Q3 | DECC_0010_1112-Q1 | BEIS_0003_1819-Q2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Project Name | Future Shared Services Programme | Geological Disposal Facility Programme (GDF) | Heat Networks Investment Project | Local Land Charges (LLC) Programme | Magnox & RSRL PBO Competition | New Polar Research Vessel | Smart Metering Implementation Programme | The Next Magnox Operating Model |
| Department | BEIS | BEIS | BEIS | BEIS | BEIS | BEIS | BEIS | BEIS |
| Description / Aims | The Future Shared Services Programme was initiated in 2018, the programme is born out of a need to replace the existing Oracle and Workday platforms | To site and construct a Geological Disposal Facility for the disposal for higher activity radioactive waste. | Helping create a self-sustaining heat network market through £320m capital investment and short-term actions to address market barriers | The Programme will deliver a single Local Land Charges (LLC) Service for England. | The appointment of a Parent Body Organisation to manage the Magnox and RSRL SLCs to deliver all twelve sites into Care and Maintenance, with a 10% saving, over a 14 year period. The contract has subsequently been terminated and will now deliver a series of Milestones and Termination States over a five year period ending September 2019. | Royal Research Ship Sir David Attenborough will replace two existing polar research/supply vessels with one dual purpose ship which planned to save £102m over 30 years | To offer every home and small business a Smart Meter by 2020. | Changing the model for delivery of decommissioning of the Magnox Sites from the current Parent Body Organisation (PBO) model to an NDA Subsidiary Model. |
| IPA Delivery Confidence Assessment (A Delivery Confidence Assessment of the project at a fixed point in time, using a five-point scale, Red – Amber/Red – Amber – Amber/Green – Green; definitions in the IPA Annual Report on Major Projects) | Amber | Amber | Amber | Amber | Amber | Amber | Amber | Amber/Green |
| Departmental commentary on actions planned or taken on the IPA RAG rating. | The IPA Delivery Confidence Assessment (DCA) rating at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) was Amber, due primarily to the following factors; - A complex programme involving several organisations managing complex dependencies, and involving considerable business change. The programme was required to resolve issues such as clarifying the scope and vision across all the organisations involved and improved planning and resources in post. - Clarity was required on the scope of the Outline Business Case costs and where these sat across the organisations involved. This raised a concern over affordability. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) Amber IPA DCA, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original Q2 IPA DCA; - Procurement activity in Q3 1920 was paused following market feedback over the core terms of the DAS framework, the procurement route established by CCS for the purchasing of cloud based shared service platforms. - Due to this feedback and potential suppliers declining the opportunity to bid, the Programme took the decision to withdraw the procurement in December 2019. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) Amber IPA DCA, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 IPA DCA; - The Programme has since been revisiting the Outline Business Case and conducting further analysis on the options for achieving the Programme’s desired outcomes. - The position as of Q4 1920: The Programme is working through material changes to its scope following notification from one of the key customers of their intent to leave the Programme and focus on an independent solution as a result of prioritising aspects of their own wider transformation programme. | The IPA Delivery Confidence Assessment (DCA) rating at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) was Amber, which has not changed since last year’s Q2 1819 Amber, due primarily to the following factors; - This is a long term programme and uncertainties and risks still remain, including the ability to attract and secure a willing GDF host community reflecting the continued amber assessment. - As the programme progresses the uncertainties associated with the number of communities, GDF solutions, location(s), extent of the geological characterisation and the nature of the design solutions will be resolved, however this will take a number of years. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) Amber IPA DCA, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original Q2 IPA DCA; - The siting process is in progress following launch in December 2018 and continues to be one of the main activities during this phase of the programme, relying on the approach from volunteer communities. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) Amber IPA DCA, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 IPA DCA; - The programme has received approval to proceed with community engagement, disbursement of investment funding and site evaluation, a significant move to the next stage of the programme. - The programme and business transformation activities continue to move towards a delivery organisation in support of the move from policy development to siting and community engagement. | The IPA Delivery Confidence Assessment (DCA) rating at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) was Amber, which has not changed since last year’s Q2 1819 Amber, due primarily to the following factors; - Following the appointment of the Delivery Partner (DP) end Q2 2018 to lead on the HNIP delivery, the DP has now mobilised and is fully operational, and as at Q2 there has been one successful funding round. From that the project and the DP are making a number of changes to the processes and these will need to be properly embedded. - A key factor that has impacted the project status was the forecasted pipeline of fundable applications. Whilst the overall pipeline looked relatively healthy, the number of early fundable projects coming through in Q2 19/20 didn't align with projections. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) Amber IPA DCA, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original Q2 IPA DCA; - The most significant factor that is affecting the project status at this point is certainty in the number of fundable projects due to Covid 19, and whilst albeit limited at this point, may result in delays due to supply chain disruption, resource availability impacting approvals, planning, monitoring and construction. - The number of fundable projects seeking non fiscal funding has been less than projected due to the availability of more attractive funding alternatives for projects and/or project applicants - for example companies' internal treasury rules may require the use of internal borrowing as the primary funding source. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) Amber IPA DCA, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 IPA DCA; - There have been a number of initiatives to improve the application and post funding approval processes, alongside the roll-out of the Delivery Partner's data application system - The governance of the project has moved from mobilisation and is now focused on ramping up delivery capability and making processes more efficient and delivery centric. | The IPA Delivery Confidence Assessment (DCA) rating at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) was Amber, which has not changed since last year’s Q2 1819 Amber, due primarily to the following factors; - The Programme has reached a pivotal point in its delivery as it moves towards the end of Phase 1. There are important tools in production including the register and migration readiness tools and a commercial agreement with a digitisation supplier. All augers well for delivery of the overall programme. - However, the Programme is still in the learning phase and it needs to guard against the desire to prioritise delivery of Local Authority (LA) migrations over future design and learning. - A change of focus on the outcomes from Phase 1, a concentration on the development of useful metrics and the time and space to examine alternate options will give greater confidence that the Programme will deliver its overall objectives and maximise the benefits to UK PLC. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) Amber IPA DCA, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original Q2 IPA DCA; - The uncertainty around EU Exit timings and restricted activities in a pre-election period impacted local authority and potential supplier engagement activities and progress. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) Amber IPA DCA, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 IPA DCA; - As a result of learning to date, the Programme adapted its approach to focus on pre-migration activity, including early data analysis and engagement with LAs. This enabled a richer understanding of the migration challenges and timelines. - The Programme has developed and consulted on a new delivery model which forms the basis of the new business case. This better aligns with the desired outcomes for the Programme, to unlock the economic benefits quicker. - The benefits model has been substantially revised to identify and quantify the wider economic benefits of the investment. | The IPA Delivery Confidence Assessment (DCA) rating at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) was Amber, which has not changed since last year’s Q2 1819 Amber, due primarily to the following factors; - IPA review held in April 2019 highlighted potential cost liabilities as being a significant issue to resolve with only four month remaining. It was noted that the cost is unlikely to change, but uncertainty regarding scope and schedule changes to meet the cost envelope mean that the overall delivery was feasible rather than probable. - A key risk identified related to CFP's behaviour as a leaver remained constant during this review period. - Key risks identified regarding the outstanding milestones to be delivered by August. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) Amber IPA DCA, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 IPA DCA; - A commercial resolution was reached with Magnox/CFP (with HMG agreement) and transition to subsidiary operations completed successfully, with the first Board meeting held during quarter 3 by the new Chair. - 43 out of 49 key contract milestones are complete. Significant delivery of key decommissioning projects, critical path milestones and programmes of work. Of the 6 milestones above that were missed, the % complete ranges from 81% to 96% representing a high proportion of high hazard scope reduction delivered. (During the termination period Sept 17 to Aug 19). Overall Health, Safety and Environmental performance has significantly improved over the second half of the contract period. - An IPA Gateway 5 Review was held in February 2020 (DCA Amber/Green). | The IPA Delivery Confidence Assessment (DCA) rating at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) was Amber, which has not changed since last year’s Q2 1819 Amber, due primarily to the following factors; - Programme remains on scheduled but no time or cost contingency remains - Good progress made with the 2018 Project Assurance Review recommendations and a Gateway 4 planned in for Summer 2020 to support interim acceptance. | The IPA Delivery Confidence Assessment (DCA) rating at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) was Amber, which has improved since last year’s Q2 1819 Amber/Red, due primarily to the following factors; - There are now c.17 million smart and advanced meters operating across Great Britain. - The Programme has worked with industry delivery partners to successfully implement complex technical solutions that will transform the customer experience. - The Programme has updated its Cost-Benefit Analysis. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) Amber IPA DCA, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 IPA DCA; - The Programme has consulted on a new regulatory framework for energy suppliers to drive market-wide completion of the smart meter rollout as soon as practicable. - The Programme continues to work with industry delivery partners to implement and drive market-wide completion, while also taking into account the impact of COVID-19. | The IPA Delivery Confidence Assessment (DCA) rating at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) was Amber/Green, which has improved since last year’s Q2 1819 Amber, due primarily to the following factors; - Changing the model for delivery of decommissioning of the Magnox Sites from the current Parent Body Organisation (PBO) model to an NDA Subsidiary Model. The Transition to the new Operating Model took place successfully on the 1st September 2019 as planned. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) Amber/Green IPA DCA, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 IPA DCA; - The Transition to the new Operating Model took place successfully on the 1st September 2019 as planned, with the first Board meeting held during quarter 3 by the new Chair. - An IPA Gateway 5 Review was held in February 2020. |
| Project - Start Date (Latest Approved Start Date) | 01/11/2018 | 30/06/2008 | 25/11/2015 | 01/03/2014 | 03/04/2012 | 01/05/2014 | 02/12/2009 | 01/09/2017 |
| Project - End Date (Latest Approved End Date) | 31/05/2023 | 31/12/2040 | 31/03/2021 | 17/11/2023 | 31/08/2019 | 31/12/2022 | 31/12/2024 | 01/09/2019 |
| Departmental narrative on schedule, including any deviation from planned schedule (if necessary) | The scheduled project end date at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is 31/05/23, due primarily to the following factors; - End date is as per the previously approved Outline Business Case (OBC). - This will shift following the requirement to revisit the Programme scope and OBC. A revised end date is not known at point of submission. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) baseline project end date of 31/05/23, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original Q2 baseline project end date; - Procurement activity in Q3 1920 was paused following the market feedback over the core terms of the DAS framework, the procurement route established by CCS for the purchasing of cloud based shared service platforms. - Due to this feedback and potential suppliers declining the opportunity to bid, the Programme took the decision to withdraw the procurement in December 2019 which has an impact on overall end date. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) baseline project end date of 31/05/23, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 baseline project end date; - Procurement activity in Q3 1920 was paused following the decision to withdraw the procurement in December 2019. - The Programme has since been revisiting the Outline Business Case and conducting further analysis on the options for achieving the Programme’s desired outcomes. - The position as of Q4 1920: The Programme is working through material changes to its scope, following the departure of one of the original customers of the project, and consequently revising the schedule. | The scheduled baseline project end date at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is 31/12/40, has not changed since last year's Q2 1819 date of 31/12/40, due primarily to the following factors; - Schedule remains in line with the ambition to identify the location for, design and construct a geological disposal facility by the 2040's. - Delivery continues in line with the schedule, progressing as planned to secure approval to proceed with the current phase and development of the next phase, however progress is influenced by the levels of community engagement and pace of progress to form working groups. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) baseline project end date of 31/12/40, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original Q2 baseline project end date; - The ambition remains, although there is ongoing uncertainty due to the volunteer approach and hence the location, geology and design for the facility. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) baseline project end date of 31/12/40, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 baseline project end date; - Further engagement activity and pro-active stakeholder events are in progress to identify and encourage the next wave of interested communities in line with the project delivery ambitions. - Organisational transformation, strengthening of capability and capacity increase is in progress to meet the demands of the schedule. | The scheduled baseline project end date at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is 31/03/21, has not changed since last year's Q2 1819 date of 31/03/21, due primarily to the following factors; - This has now been updated in the Q4 GMPP to 31/03/2022 in line with the FBC. There have been no actions to change the end date of 31/03/2022. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) baseline project end date of 31/03/21, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original Q2 baseline project end date; - The end date remains as set out in the approved FBC - 31/03/2022 Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) baseline project end date of 31/03/21, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 baseline project end date; - This has now been updated in the Q4 GMPP to 31/03/2022 in line with the FBC. There have been no actions to change the end date of 31/03/2022. | The scheduled baseline project end date at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is 17/11/23, has not changed since last year's Q2 1819 date of 17/11/23, due primarily to the following factors; - The current business case proposes extending Phase 1 for another year to put in place and test the delivery model. This will enable a more informed business case and delivery timeline to be developed. - The Programme is dependent on local authorities signing up for data analysis and migration. The refreshed pre-migration and early engagement strategies are designed to bring more LAs forward quicker. - Given the significant time to migrate an individual LA and the number of LAs, this Programme is likely to be a multi-year programme. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) baseline project end date of 17/11/23, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original Q2 baseline project end date; - There is a reliance on local authorities (and/or their software suppliers) to be engaged and able to extract data from their current system, to feed into the early data analysis work. - This programme has a significant dependency on the LAs existing software suppliers to extract the data and transfer it to HMLR systems for analysis. As approval for the Programme is currently on an annual basis, suppliers are reluctant to investment in their systems to create more strategic and streamlined solutions. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) baseline project end date of 17/11/23, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 baseline project end date; - Machine learning analytic tools, such as the Migration Helper, is already proving to reduce migration timelines, particularly for improving spatial data. - New delivery models have been designed to enable several local authorities to migrate concurrently and with more appropriate support. The engagement strategy, commercial strategy and internal team capabilities have been redesigned to align with this and speed up delivery. | The scheduled baseline project end date at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is 31/08/19, has not changed since last year's Q2 1819 date of 31/08/19, due primarily to the following factors; - The contract will terminate on the 31st August 2019 in line with the project plan and the 2017 Business case. - The Project End Date coincides with the end of the Contract with CFP. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) baseline project end date of 31/08/19, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 baseline project end date; - No actions have impacted the baseline project end date of 31/8/19. - The end date (31/8/19) aligns to the end of the contract with CFP. | The scheduled baseline project end date at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is 31/12/22, has not changed since last year's Q2 1819 date of 31/12/22, due primarily to the following factors; - Testing and trials period have been re-planned and prioritised to ensure the in service date remains as October 21. - The time between the ship going into service (October 21) and the project end date (December 22) the project team will work on closing down and undertaking a Gateway 5 before complete closure. | The scheduled baseline project end date at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is 31/12/24, has lengthened by 1461 days since last year's Q2 1819 date of 31/12/20, due primarily to the following factors; - The Programme is on schedule to meet the commitment for every home and small business to be offered a Smart Meter by the end of 2020. - The updated 2019 Cost-Benefit Analysis includes an extended appraisal period so the Programme has consulted on the introduction of a new regulatory framework for energy suppliers that supports market-wide rollout of smart meters as soon as practicable. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) baseline project end date of 31/12/24, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 baseline project end date; - A thorough evaluation of the new regulatory framework consultation responses has been conducted. - The impact of COVID-19 is being considered with key stakeholders and assessed by the Programme. | The scheduled baseline project end date at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is 01/09/19, has not changed since last year's Q2 1819 date of 01/09/19, due primarily to the following factors; - No change |
| Financial Year Baseline (£m) (including Non-Government Costs) | £32.24 | £46.52 | £86.60 | £32.50 | £198.00 | £68.00 | £1,065.90 | £3.00 |
| Financial Year Forecast (£m) (including Non-Government Costs) | £32.24 | £46.52 | £66.90 | £7.00 | £192.00 | £64.50 | £1,065.90 | £3.00 |
| Financial Year Variance (%) | 0% | 0% | -23% | -78% | -3% | -5% | 0% | 0% |
| TOTAL Baseline Whole Life Costs (£m) (including Non-Government Costs) | £423.92 | £12,743.00 | £375.90 | £193.30 | £2,782.00 | £1,403.00 | £20,136.95 | £5.00 |
| Departmental narrative on budget/forecast variance for 2018/19 (if variance is more than 5%) | Budget variance less than 5% | Budget variance less than 5% | The 19/20 in-year baseline / forecast variance at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) of -23%, is due primarily to the following factors; - A review of the initial takeup of the project's loan product resulted in an adjustment of the project's non-fiscal whole-life spend profile. - There was a requirement to adjust some notional income total charges to reflect an updated project term. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) 19/20 in-year baseline / forecast variance of -23%, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original Q2 19/20 in-year baseline / forecast variance; - The primary challenge has been a lower than projected number of applications from projects seeking project loans (non-fiscal funding). A number of steps have been taken since to improve take-up, including a downward revision to the project loan rate. - As a nascent market the early growth in the number of applications hasn't been in line with the FBC projections for the first year of the scheme, however that is changing as we are starting to see increased interest in the latter part of the FY. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) 19/20 in-year baseline / forecast variance of -23%, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 19/20 in-year variance; - The recent 2020 budget confirmed the transfer of £36m of non-fiscal spend from 19/20 to 21/22, which also confirmed the full project funding to 21/22 - The transfer of £17m of fiscal budget from 19/20 to 20/21 was confirmed via the supplementary estimate process, and as a result allows the projects to retain its overall spend envelope. ? | The 19/20 in-year baseline / forecast variance at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) of -78%, is due primarily to the following factors; - The baseline is based on the OBC approved in September 2015. The Programme has since submitted a full PBC, but due to general election delays, were advised in November 2017 to identify lower cost and more targeted solutions of migrating LAs. Since, funding has been on a phased basis. - The original approved Phase 1 spend was £15m to cover the 15 months to March 19 and at the end of this period HMLR was approved to extend the Phase 1 period to 19/20 to complete up to 16 Local Authorities. - Actual spend has been significantly below the OBC assumption which assumed the Programme would be in full flight with a significant number of suppliers on board and migrating c70 Local Authorities in 19/20. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) 19/20 in-year baseline / forecast variance of -78%, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original Q2 19/20 in-year baseline / forecast variance; - Despite good progress being made in 19/20, LA migration was much slower than expected and the cumulative number of live migrated LAs at the end of March 20 was 9 compared to the forecast at Q2 of 15. Consequently, this has led to some lower costs e.g. LA burdens payments. - Actual spend with suppliers in 19/20 has also been lower than forecast at Q2 due to issues with LA data quality, the need for some work to be completed in house and also delays in signing contracts with some incumbent suppliers. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) 19/20 in-year baseline / forecast variance of -78%, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 19/20 in-year variance; - Whilst unlikely to have a material impact in 19/20, the Programme has been working to design a new operating model, capable of increasing the pace of delivery while lowering costs i.e. industrialisation of the migration process. - The Programme has reflected on the learning from Phase 1 to date and has increased the amount of skilled and experience resource on the Programme specifically in the areas of pre-market engagement, plus additional Contract and Supplier Manager roles. | Budget variance less than 5% | The 19/20 in-year baseline / forecast variance at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) of -5%, is due primarily to the following factors; - The project forecast remains on target. | Budget variance less than 5% | Budget variance less than 5% |
| Departmental Narrative on Budgeted Whole Life Costs | The baseline Whole Life Cost at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is £423.92 m, due primarily to the following factors; - The Whole Life Cost is made up of the following: business transformation, change management, solution development, license, support & hardware, system transition licensing, application support, retained function costs, and shared services overheads. - Whole Life Costs for the Programme will be revised following the requirement to revisit the Programme scope and OBC. Revised costs are not known at point of submission. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) £423.92 m baseline Whole Life Cost, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original baseline Q2 Whole Life Cost; - No non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original baseline Q2 Whole Life Costs. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) £423.92 m baseline Whole Life Cost, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 baseline Whole Life Cost; - The position as of Q4 1920: The Programme is working through material changes to its scope following notification from one of the key customers of their intent to leave the Programme and focus on an independent solution as a result of prioritising aspects of their own wider transformation programme. - Whole Life Costs for the Programme will be revised following the requirement to revisit the Programme scope and subsequent Outline Business Case. Revised costs are not known at point of submission. | The baseline Whole Life Cost at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is £12,743.00 m, has increased by £399.04 m since last year's Q2 1819 (£m) baseline Whole Life Cost of £12,343.96 m, due primarily to the following factors; - The increase in costs since last year are primarily down to inflation and revised assumptions during the siting and construction phases. All figures are provided in real rather than nominal values due to the long timescales associated with this programme. - It does not include any provision for waste disposal from a new nuclear build programme, as this will be funded by new nuclear operators. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) £12,743.00 m baseline Whole Life Cost, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original baseline Q2 Whole Life Cost; - The Whole Life Cost figure represents the estimated cost of designing, constructing and operating the GDF out to the 2130s. Note that the figure reported here only relates to a GDF for legacy waste and waste arising from the existing fleet of nuclear reactors. - In line with other Government programmes at an early stage of development, the estimate does not include any allowance for risk, uncertainty or optimism bias. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) £12,743.00 m baseline Whole Life Cost, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 baseline Whole Life Cost; - The Business Case to proceed with community engagement, disbursement and site evaluation has received approval and has commenced. - The next phase of the programme which will include geological characterisation, community engagement, solution development, technical design, delivery partner engagement and early procurements is in the early stages of development which will inform the Whole Life Cost. | The baseline Whole Life Cost at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is £375.90 m, has increased by £4.10 m since last year's Q2 1819 (£m) baseline Whole Life Cost of £371.80 m, due primarily to the following factors; - Whilst the project ends on the 30/03/2022 the Delivery Partner is contracted beyond this date to complete funding and carry out monitoring and reporting of successful projects. The costs for this (£3.6m) were included in the Q2 report Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) £375.90 m baseline Whole Life Cost, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original baseline Q2 Whole Life Cost; - The £375.9m baseline remains the same reflecting the rescheduling of funding mentioned above. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) £375.90 m baseline Whole Life Cost, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 baseline Whole Life Cost; - The £375.9m baseline remains the same reflecting the rescheduling of funding mentioned above. | The baseline Whole Life Cost at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is £193.30 m, has not changed since last year's Q2 1819 (£m) baseline Whole Life Cost of £193.30 m, due primarily to the following factors; - As mentioned in section 3, the baseline represents the last approved business case being the OBC from September 2015. Since then the Programme has submitted a full PBC, but this was not approved and therefore the Programme full life baseline has not been able to be refreshed. - The Programme funding approvals have been on a phased basis demonstrating lessons learnt over a smaller number of LAs. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) £193.30 m baseline Whole Life Cost, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original baseline Q2 Whole Life Cost; - The baselines at Q2 were unchanged for the reasons outlined above. - The full assessment of the impact of Covid-19 on the delivery of the Programme and associated costs has yet to be undertaken. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) £193.30 m baseline Whole Life Cost, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 baseline Whole Life Cost; - The Programme is looking to refine the time, costs and income estimates including delivery costs and potential sales volumes, based on a deeper understanding of the data in LAs and the steps required to improve it. - The work the Programme is undertaking now and into the next financial year will give greater clarity on the risks and opportunities to the costs, benefits and delivery approach in order to refresh the full PBC during late 2020. | The baseline Whole Life Cost at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is £2,782.00 m, has not changed since last year's Q2 1819 (£m) baseline Whole Life Cost of £2,782.00 m, due primarily to the following factors; - The baseline cost totalling of £2,782M reflects the HMT / BEIS approved business case for the scope of the Termination Contract in 2017. - The cost outturn for the contract at £2,843M is £61M (2%) higher than the 2017 business case due to additional contract scope, mainly associated with additional nuclear waste and asbestos. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) £2,782.00 m baseline Whole Life Cost, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 baseline Whole Life Cost; - The total contract spend variance of £61M relates mainly to the 2018/19 financial year, where the annual variance is £63M. This includes additional funds provided to Magnox of £42M to meet the NDA's contractual obligations to fund all the scope agreed in August 2017, plus £21M for additional NDA approved contract scope associated with additional waste and asbestos. Agreed with HMG prior to funding release. | The baseline Whole Life Cost at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is £1,403.00 m, has not changed since last year's Q2 1819 (£m) baseline Whole Life Cost of £1,403.00 m, due primarily to the following factors; - The whole life costs represents costs until 2043/44. These cost include the project costs until closure and recurring Antarctic Partition and Logistics infrastructure budget costs. | The baseline Whole Life Cost at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is £20,136.95 m, has increased by £2921.18 m since last year's Q2 1819 (£m) baseline Whole Life Cost of £17,215.78 m, due primarily to the following factors; - The updated 2019 Cost-Benefit Analysis includes an extended appraisal period. As a result, it captures both additional costs and additional benefits over the new appraisal period. - Overall, the benefits have increased by more than the costs resulting in an increase in the net benefits for the Programme. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) £20,136.95 m baseline Whole Life Cost, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 baseline Whole Life Cost; - A lessons learned exercise around the new Cost-Benefit Analysis has been conducted. - Programme costs continue to be effectively managed, and addressed through appropriate governance groups. | The baseline Whole Life Cost at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is £5.00 m, has not changed since last year's Q2 1819 (£m) baseline Whole Life Cost of £5.00 m, due primarily to the following factors; - No change |
| Annual Report Category | ICT | Infrastructure and Construction | Infrastructure and Construction | ICT | Infrastructure and Construction | Infrastructure and Construction | Infrastructure and Construction | Government Transformation and Service Delivery |
| The IPA Annual Report publishes the whole life cycle costs on projects, based on figures from their Business Cases, whilst the National Infrastructure and Construction Pipeline (NICP) focuses primarily on the upfront capital investment on a project. Where both documents refer to the same projects, this distinction will be the principal reason for any differences in the data sets published. Other government publications may use different methodologies to derive cost figures | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |