Transparency data
DCMS Government Major Project Portfolio data, September 2019 (csv)
Updated 9 July 2020
Download CSV 30 KB
| GMPP ID Number | DCMS_0009_1516-Q4 | DCMS_0011_1718-Q3 | DCMS_0013_1819-Q3 | DCMS_0012_1819-Q2 | DCMS_0008_1516-Q4 | DCMS_0010_1718-Q3 | DCMS_0014_1920-Q2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Project Name | 700 MHz Clearance Programme | 5G Testbeds & Trials | 4th National Lottery Licence Competition | Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games | Blythe House Programme | Local Full Fibre Networks | Rural Gigabit Connectivity Programme |
| Department | DCMS | DCMS | DCMS | DCMS | DCMS | DCMS | DCMS |
| Description / Aims | Investing up to £600m to clear the 700MHz spectrum by mid-2020 for use for mobile broadband services in the future. | To foster, build and lead the development of the UK's 5G ecosystem. | The project aims to run a competition to award the next National Lottery licence (4th), that delivers statutory duties of due propriety and player protection, while incentivising responsible innovation and maximising returns to good causes. | Delivery of the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games. | Ensure Blythe House is put to its most efficient and effective use in order to deliver maximum value for money and that its museums are able to care for their collections in the most efficient and effective way. | Designed to stimulate greater commercial investment in full fibre networks across the UK to deliver faster and more reliable connectivity. | The Rural Gigabit Connectivity Programme will pilot and test innovative approaches to deploying full fibre in the most difficult to reach areas where the market alone is unlikely to deliver. |
| 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/Green | Amber | Amber | Amber/Red | Amber/Green | Red | Red |
| 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/Green, which has improved since last year’s Q2 1819 Amber, due primarily to the following factors; - The Delivery Confidence Assessment at Q2 reflected the uncertainty of a general election and the impact this might have on the timeline. | 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; - The programme was deemed to have matured and moved to the point at which it was ready to oversee the launch of competitions. The challenge remaining is to maximise the opportunities for learning and innovation in use cases by initiating contracts/project starting swiftly. - Knowledge management and sharing underway, with industry support for the programme high. Innovative market intervention deemed by IPA as being appropriate and beneficial. The programme is delivering against its core objectives. Key factors driving Amber DCA included; pace of project initiation; uncertainty re. level of response to competitions to be launched; uncertainty re. provision of match funding. - Industrial 5G and Rural Connected Communities competitions now completed, with winners announced. 5G Create competition also agreed by Minister/SoS. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) Amber IPA DCA, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original Q2 IPA DCA; - Impact of Purdah on the programme was significant; delays to project launches and competition launches experienced. Contract and commercial activity ceased for a number of weeks over November/December. - The impacts of COVID-19 on the programme and its projects timelines, scope of work, and budgets is being regularly assessed and mitigations being put in place. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) Amber IPA DCA, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 IPA DCA; - Competitions successfully launched for both Rural Connected Communities (RCC) and Industrial (previously Sectors). Agreement received from Minister for Digital and Broadband to initiate 5G Create, encouraging projects across a range of sectors including the creative industry - announced by SOS in December 2019. | The IPA Delivery Confidence Assessment (DCA) rating at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) was Amber, due primarily to the following factors; - The arrival of Rothschild & Co (R&Co) as lead advisors and recruitment of experienced Commercial Director, on secondment from Government Commercial Organisation, provided confidence that senior leadership was in place to manage the programme. - A more detailed schedule of market engagement commenced in September with a broader range of organisations including technology firms and finance providers in addition to established lottery operators. 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 requirement to follow the HMT-led Treasury Approval Point (TAP) process, and specifically its deferral until after the March 2020 Budget, introduced a 3-month delay to the start of the competition. This action consumed programme contingency but the end date is unaltered, and delivery confidence unaffected because the delay was used to mature competition documentation and engage further with market. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) Amber IPA DCA, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 IPA DCA; - The Draft Invitation to Apply (ITA) and draft Licence were published to market in December 2019 and feedback received in January 2020. This exercise flushed out a number of issues with the market and allowed us to address them in final versions of competition documentation, giving us greater confidence that our requirements would be understood and acceptable to potential applicants. - An extensive assurance and audit plan was delivered. Including: IPA Gateway 2 review; internal audit of Outline Business Case, Incentive Mechanism, and Evaluation Framework; engagement with Cabinet Office complex transactions team; shadow bid reviews to test how suppliers might 'game' competition; and testing of game assessment processes. These actions increased confidence in the quality of the competition documents and processes. | The IPA Delivery Confidence Assessment (DCA) rating at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) was Amber/Red, which has not changed since last year’s Q2 1819 Amber/Red, due primarily to the following factors; - The tight delivery timetable for delivery of the Games, within four and a half years compared with the usual seven. | 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; - HM Treasury approved Full Business Cases for all three museums' projects to create new storage facilities, and the release of all remaining funding for construction and the decant from Blythe House. - The scope and location of all new storage facilities was confirmed at Full Business Case stage, including contingency plans to de-risk the decant from Blythe House. - Agreement was reached with the museums for a lease for Blythe House. There has been good progress in preparing objects for the decant, and development of co-ordinated plans and logistical arrangements to enable the movement of objects to new storage. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) Amber/Green IPA DCA, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original Q2 IPA DCA; - The impact of the current Coronavirus outbreak will be assessed, and scenario planning undertaken. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) Amber/Green IPA DCA, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 IPA DCA; - The Blythe House Asset Disposal Project Board has agreed terms of reference and scheduled monthly meetings. - Discussions with the local authority about a pre-application for Blythe House took place in early 2020 and an architect was appointed to support this process. - An adviser from the Office of Government Property has been appointed to support the project. Procurement is underway to appoint an agent for the sale of Blythe House. | The IPA Delivery Confidence Assessment (DCA) rating at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) was Red, which has declined since last year’s Q2 1819 Amber/Green, due primarily to the following factors; - Delivery Confidence Assessment at Q2 reflected the pressure that without approval from HMT to extend the March 2021 deadline we could not deliver the current scope. Since Q2, the DCA has improved due to HMT approval. - Similarly we had significant concerns about whether Manchester and London could deliver in the March 2021 timeframe due to the progress in their procurements and the scale of these projects. | The IPA Delivery Confidence Assessment (DCA) rating at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) was Red, due primarily to the following factors; - In order to deliver our strategic objective of increasing full fibre coverage across the UK, BDUK ran a market trial of the Gigabit Broadband Voucher Scheme. Gigabit broadband vouchers are a one-off contribution to SMEs wanting to buy ultrafast connections over gigabit-capable infrastructure. They can be used to aggregate demand in an area to encourage network operators to extend or build new fibre networks to reach these new customers. RAG for Q2 19/20 relates to run rate of vouchers, as there is no line of sight to spend £200m on hubs and vouchers by Mar 2021. Since Q2, the programme is rated Amber Red. |
| Project - Start Date (Latest Approved Start Date) | 13/01/2015 | 28/02/2017 | 16/11/2018 | 21/12/2017 | 01/04/2015 | 01/04/2017 | 01/05/2019 |
| Project - End Date (Latest Approved End Date) | 01/01/2022 | 31/03/2021 | 01/08/2023 | 31/03/2023 | 31/03/2023 | 01/12/2021 | 01/05/2021 |
| Departmental narrative on schedule, including any deviation from planned schedule (if necessary) | The scheduled baseline project end date at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is 01/01/22, has not changed since last year's Q2 1819 date of 01/01/22, due primarily to the following factors; - The scheduled end date of the clearance events was May 2020, however the COVID-19 outbreak has impacted the final two events. Engineering work will continue as the programme approaches closure. | The scheduled baseline project end date at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is 31/03/22, has changed since last year’s Q2 1819 date of 31/03/2021, due primarily to the following factors; - The programme has been extended until 31 March 2022 - funding has been confirmed by HM Treasury and Business Case updated. This will allow for further trial time for the projects. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) baseline project end date of 31/03/2022, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original Q2 baseline project end date; - Programme end date of 2022 allowing for further benefits realisation within the Programme life cycle. This can help to provide a more informed decision for any further Government involvement in 5G activity/development. - The impacts of COVID-19 on the programme and its projects timelines, scope of work, and budgets is being regularly assessed and mitigations being put in place. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) baseline project end date of 31/03/2022, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 baseline project end date; - Programme extended to allow further time for project trials. Slower initiation than anticipated has been a trend across the majority of projects; in some cases, this is due to equipment availability/cost savings. | The scheduled project end date at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is 01/08/23, due primarily to the following factors; - The Third Licence expires in February 2023, followed by a 6-month project close down period. - Allows for up to 2 years transition period following the conclusion of the competition and award of Preferred Licensee. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) baseline project end date of 01/08/23, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original Q2 baseline project end date; - The requirement to follow the HMT-led Treasury Approval Point (TAP) process, and specifically its deferral until after the March 2020 Budget, introduced a 3-month delay to the start of the competition. This action consumed programme contingency but the end date is unaltered. - The advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the possibility of multiple lockdowns, increases the risk that competition processes have to be extended. Delaying the result of the competition will reduce the period for transition and increases the risk of having to extend the Third Licence. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) baseline project end date of 01/08/23, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 baseline project end date; - Whilst waiting for TAP (Treasury Approval Point) to convene, we took opportunity to conduct further engagement with market and share more information to help potential applicants prepare their responses when competition started. - We have conducted an impact analysis on the programme schedule of various COVID-19 lockdown scenarios and have revised Business Continuity Plans to improve preparedness and resilience. | The scheduled baseline project end date at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is 31/03/23, has not changed since last year's Q2 1819 date of 31/03/23, due primarily to the following factors; - The dates of the Games are agreed with the Commonwealth Games Federation, Birmingham City Council, and other Games partners. | The scheduled baseline project end date at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is 31/03/23, has not changed since last year's Q2 1819 date of 31/03/23, due primarily to the following factors; - Following confirmation of the scope and location of the three new museum storage facilities, and Full Business Case approval for each construction project, key milestones for delivery to programme were identified, to deliver by the end date. - The three museums have prepared a co-ordinated plan for the decant of their collections from Blythe House to new storage facilities before the forecast programme end date. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) baseline project end date of 31/03/23, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original Q2 baseline project end date; - The impact of the current Coronavirus outbreak will be assessed and scenario planning undertaken. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) baseline project end date of 31/03/23, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 baseline project end date; - A delay of 18 weeks to the Science Museum Group's construction programme was recorded in February 2020, with a consequent delay to the start of the decant from Blythe House, however, this could be accommodated within the programme end date. - The impact of the current Coronavirus outbreak will be assessed and scenario planning undertaken. | The scheduled baseline project end date at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is 01/12/21, has not changed since last year's Q2 1819 date of 01/12/21, due primarily to the following factors; - The scheduled programme end date is at 01/12/2021. - LFFN was set up as a pilot programme to stimulate the market . | The scheduled project end date at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is 01/05/21, due primarily to the following factors; - This is a pilot programme which is scheduled to end 01/05/2021. |
| Financial Year Baseline (£m) (including Non-Government Costs) | £156.00 | £67.40 | £7.84 | £63.36 | £77.70 | £132.40 | £79.50 |
| Financial Year Forecast (£m) (including Non-Government Costs) | £94.20 | £37.70 | £13.21 | £34.97 | £95.69 | £82.02 | £41.06 |
| Financial Year Variance (%) | -40% | -44% | 68% | -45% | 23% | -38% | -48% |
| TOTAL Baseline Whole Life Costs (£m) (including Non-Government Costs) | £595.00 | £232.75 | £64.34 | £777.92 | £210.24 | £321.10 | £212.80 |
| Departmental narrative on budget/forecast variance for 2018/19 (if variance is more than 5%) | The 19/20 in-year baseline / forecast variance at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) of -40%, is due primarily to the following factors; - The programme has identified whole life savings against the SR2015 Funding Profile of over £200m and forecast costs have been reprofiled to reflect the current requirements. - Budget savings have been made against all areas of delivery specifically the infrastructure clearance, viewer support and PMSE costs. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) 19/20 in-year baseline / forecast variance of -40%, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original Q2 19/20 in-year baseline / forecast variance; - The COVID-19 virus has caused the infrastructure programme to be delayed, extending the viewer support programme and slipping some costs into 2020-21. | The 19/20 in-year baseline / forecast variance at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) of -44%, is due primarily to the following factors; - Delays experienced in initiating projects; Purdah delayed project initiation for Rural Connected Communities and Industrial 5G due to being unable to engage in any commercial activity. - WM5G - project has underspent (slippages in timescales). - Security - initiation of the Security project has been delayed significantly, and the project has not spent against forecast. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) 19/20 in-year baseline / forecast variance of -44%, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original Q2 19/20 in-year baseline / forecast variance; - Purdah - inability to progress announcements/commercial has moved timelines back, resulting in a spend that is lower than forecasted. - The impacts of COVID-19 on the programme and its projects timelines, scope of work, and budgets is being regularly assessed and mitigations being put in place Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) 19/20 in-year baseline / forecast variance of -44%, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 19/20 in-year variance; - WM5G - project has underspent (slippages in timescales). - Security - initiation of the Security project has been delayed significantly, and the project has not spent against forecast. | The 19/20 in-year baseline / forecast variance at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) of 68%, is due primarily to the following factors; - Rescoped commercial strategy and approach in terms of the nature of the competition we were seeking to generate. Took opportunity to explore wider sources of investment capital and interest in the competition in the finance and technology sectors. - Appointment of Rothschild & Co (R&Co) as lead advisor to engage with the market, and changes to scope and timing of other contractors work. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) 19/20 in-year baseline / forecast variance of 68%, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 19/20 in-year variance; - Improved programme and financial controls have been implemented to ensure the programme stays within the uplifted budget. - Gambling Commission appointed a permanent Chief Financial Officer and internal auditors have reviewed in-year costs and future budget estimates (in Outline Business Case). | The 19/20 in-year baseline / forecast variance at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) of -45%, is due primarily to the following factors; - A change in the timing of the expected spend on the Alexander Stadium, with less spend expected in 19/20 than originally forecast. The overall cost of the stadium project remains in line with original expectations. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) 19/20 in-year baseline / forecast variance of -45%, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 19/20 in-year variance; - The forecast was revised following a full review of the Alexander Stadium project which resulted a change to the timing of expected spend, with less spend expected in 19/20 than originally envisaged. - The overall cost of the Alexander Stadium project remains in line with original expectations. | The 19/20 in-year baseline / forecast variance at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) of 23%, is due primarily to the following factors; - This variance does not represent a change in overall programme spend, but reflects the management of grant in aid drawdown from year to year. The in-year forecast spend represents anticipated expenditure on the Blythe House project, while the baseline represents what is being drawn down in grant-in-aid funding. - There is an arrangement whereby the museums can draw down the grant-in-aid funding for non-Blythe House project expenditure, and 'repay' it to the project in future years, as has happened in Q2 1920. 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 impact of the current Coronavirus outbreak will be assessed and scenario planning undertaken. 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; - There is an arrangement whereby the museums can draw down the grant-in-aid funding for non-Blythe House project expenditure, and 'repay' it to the project in future years. - The impact of the current Coronavirus outbreak will be assessed and scenario planning undertaken. | The 19/20 in-year baseline / forecast variance at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) of -38%, is due primarily to the following factors; - Slower than budgeted local authority procurement and readiness to pass BDUK project assurance which has delayed delivery. - Projects were delayed because of an overbuild issue which required ministerial approval before they could proceed. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) 19/20 in-year baseline / forecast variance of -38%, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original Q2 19/20 in-year baseline / forecast variance; - The December election and the purdah period meant no new contracts could be committed to which has delayed delivery. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) 19/20 in-year baseline / forecast variance of -38%, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 19/20 in-year variance; - There has been a continuation of the issues from Q2 which have been mitigated through greater BDUK involvement with the local authorities and a greater focus on project readiness in the project selection process. | The 19/20 in-year baseline / forecast variance at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) of -48%, is due primarily to the following factors; - The RGC programme transition from setup to delivery has been slower than expected. - Hubs have received a high level of applications but most have proved to be ineligible sites slowing the approval process. - Rural Vouchers are demand led and the takeup has been lower than budgeted. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) 19/20 in-year baseline / forecast variance of -48%, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original Q2 19/20 in-year baseline / forecast variance; - The December election and the Purdah period meant no new contracts could be committed to which has delayed delivery. - The Scottish R100 project has delayed BDUK projects in Scotland as Openreach has focused on those projects. |
| Departmental Narrative on Budgeted Whole Life Costs | The baseline Whole Life Cost at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is £595.00 m, has increased by £0.08 m since last year's Q2 1819 (£m) baseline Whole Life Cost of £594.92 m, due primarily to the following factors; - The increase is due to rounding . | The baseline Whole Life Cost at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is £204.50m, has decreased by £12.55m since last year’s Q2 1819 (£m) baseline Whole Life Cost of £217.05m, due primarily to the following factors; - The programme is spending less than anticipated this financial year for several reasons, including slower decision making due to the timing of elections and other political events has delayed the start of projects. - A number of projects are underspending against forecast, including WM5G and Security (which was slower to initiate that anticipated). Phase 1 project also underspent. Industrial 5G had a lower uptake than anticipated, but it is expected that the funds will be absorbed by 5G Create. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is £204.50m baseline Whole Life Cost, the following primary project actions have impacted the original baseline Q2 Whole Life Cost; - Slower initiation of projects and lower than anticipated spend (i.e. Security project has underspent and has been delayed in initiation; Industrial 5G did not have anticipated uptake). | The baseline Whole Life Cost at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is £64.34 m, due primarily to the following factors; - Approximately half of the whole-life costs are incurred in the design of the Licence, running the competition for the operator, and managing the transition period from Third to Fourth National Lottery Licensee. - The cost of regulating the Fourth Licence for 10 years is the remainder of the whole-life costs. For the purposes of estimating at this stage, we assume the cost of regulation is the same as that for the Third Licence, c£3.15m/year. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) £64.34 m baseline Whole Life Cost, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original baseline Q2 Whole Life Cost; - The requirement to follow the HMT-led Treasury Approval Point (TAP) process, and specifically its deferral until after the March 2020 Budget, introduced a 3-month delay to the start of the competition. Consequently, some programme costs have slipped into later years (FY21/22 and FY22/23). The impact will be confirmed in due course in the Full Business Case. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) £64.34 m baseline Whole Life Cost, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 baseline Whole Life Cost; - In the course of developing the Outline Business Case, there was a re-appraisal of the resources required to run the competition effectively. Increasing the strength of the evaluation teams, both with Commission and external subject matter experts, will ensure a better quality process. - Decision to procure a Transition, Technology and Operations partner earlier than originally planned has increased whole-life costs, but will ensure the risks inherent in the transition period can be effectively managed. | The baseline Whole Life Cost at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is £777.92 m, due primarily to the following factors; - The budget for the Games was announced in a written ministerial statement by Mims Davies on 25 June 2019: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-06-25/debates/19062540000016/CommonwealthGames. | The baseline Whole Life Cost at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is £210.24 m, has decreased by £127.76 m since last year's Q2 1819 (£m) baseline Whole Life Cost of £338.00 m, due primarily to the following factors; - The three museum projects reached Full Business Case stage with confirmed scope and locations for new storage facilities, finalised construction costs, and revised targets for non-government funding. In particular, the focus of delivery for the British Museum's project changed from Bloomsbury to Reading, causing a significant reduction in costs. - The overall reduction of £127.8m comprises a reduction in non-government funding of £96m by the British Museum and £35m by the Victoria & Albert Museum. There was an increase in the target for non-government funding of £3.2m for the Science Museum Group's project. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) £210.24 m baseline Whole Life Cost, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original baseline Q2 Whole Life Cost; - The impact of the current Coronavirus outbreak will be assessed and scenario planning undertaken. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) £210.24 m baseline Whole Life Cost, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 baseline Whole Life Cost; - The baseline Whole Life Cost has increased by £4.9m, representing an approved increase in the capital cost of the Victoria & Albert Museum's project to be funded from non-government sources. - The impact of the current Coronavirus outbreak will be assessed and scenario planning undertaken. | The baseline Whole Life Cost at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is £321.10 m, has increased by £2.40 m since last year's Q2 1819 (£m) baseline Whole Life Cost of £318.70 m, due primarily to the following factors; - There has been a small correction to the allocation of the trans Pennine initiative budget from the National Productivity Investment Fund (NPIF) Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) £321.10 m baseline Whole Life Cost, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 baseline Whole Life Cost; - £5.3m of budget relating to the reduction in scope of the Trans Pennine Initiative has been surrendered to HMT as part of the LFFN reprofile | Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) £212.80 m baseline Whole Life Cost, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 baseline Whole Life Cost; - As RGC is acting as a pilot for the proposed UK Gigabit Programme the decision has been made to release the 2019-20 underspend at the budget supplementary and reduce the scope of the project. |
| Annual Report Category | Infrastructure and Construction | Infrastructure and Construction | Government Transformation and Service Delivery | Infrastructure and Construction | Infrastructure and Construction | Infrastructure and Construction | Infrastructure and Construction |
| 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 |