National Productivity Investment Fund
for the Local Road Network
Application Form
The level of information provided should be proportionate to the size and complexity of the
project proposed. As a guide, for a small project we would suggest around 10 -15 pages
including annexes would be appropriate.
One application form should be completed per project and will constitute a bid.
Applicant Information
Local authority name(s)*: Nottinghamshire County Council *If the bid is for a joint project, please enter the names of all participating local authorities and
specify the lead authority.
Bid Manager Name and position: David Pick- Principal Officer, Transport Planning,
Nottinghamshire County Council. Name and position of officer with day to day responsibility for delivering the proposed project.
Contact telephone number: 0115 977 4273 Email address:xxxxx.xxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Postal address:
Place Department
Nottinghamshire County Council
County Hall
Loughborough Road
West Bridgford
Nottingham NG2 7QP
Combined Authorities
If the bid is from an authority within a Combined Authority, please specify the contact, ensure
that the Combined Authority has provided a note ranking multiple applications, and append a
copy to this bid.
Name and position of Combined Authority Bid Co-ordinator: N/A
Contact telephone number: N/A Email address: N/A Postal address: N/A
When authorities submit a bid for funding to the Department, as part of the Government’s
commitment to greater openness in the public sector under the Freedom of Information Act
2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, they must also publish a version
excluding any commercially sensitive information on their own website within two working days
of submitting the final bid to the Department. The Department reserves the right to deem the
business case as non-compliant if this is not adhered to.
Please specify the weblink where this bid will be published:
http://www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/a611improvements
1
SECTION A - Project description and funding profile
A1. Project name: A611 Ashfield / Mansfield Corridor Junction Improvements Scheme
A2 : Please enter a brief description of the proposed project (no more than 50 words)
The A611 corridor provides a key link between Ashfield and Mansfield town centres,
several business parks and the M1 motorway (J27). The project involves the improvement
to two junctions, to remove the considerable traffic delays that hinder economic activity
and act as a catalyst to unlock proposed employment and housing growth.
A3 : Please provide a short description of area covered by the bid (no more than 50 words)
The improvement corridor extends from M1 J27 via the A608 and then the A611, across
the A617 Mansfield Ashfield Regeneration Route to the A611/ A60 junction in Mansfield –
location map attached. The proposal will have positive impacts on residents, workers and
local businesses in the whole of Ashfield and Mansfield districts and beyond.
OS Grid Reference:
SK 52785 56865 Postcode:
NG18 5BW
Please append a map showing the location (and route) of the project, existing transport
infrastructure and other points of particular relevance to the bid, e.g. housing and other
development sites, employment areas, air quality management areas, constraints etc.
A4. How much funding are you bidding for? (please tick the relevant box):
Small project bids (requiring DfT funding of between £2m and £5m)
Large project bids (requiring DfT funding of between £5m and £10m)
A5. Has any Equality Analysis been undertaken in line with the Equality Duty?
Yes
No
A6. If you are planning to work with partnership bodies on this project (such as Development
Corporations, National Parks Authorities, private sector bodies and transport operators) please
include a short description below of how they will be involved.
N/A
A7. Combined Authority (CA) Involvement
Have you appended a letter from the Combined Authority supporting this bid?
Yes
N/A
A8. Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) Involvement and support for housing delivery
Have you appended a letter from the LEP supporting this bid?
Yes
No
2
For proposed projects which encourage the delivery of housing, have you appended supporting
evidence from the housebuilder/developer?
Yes
No
3
SECTION B – The Business Case
B1: Project Summary
Please select what the project is trying to achieve (select all categories that apply)
Essential
Ease urban congestion
Unlock economic growth and job creation opportunities
Enable the delivery of housing development
Desirable
Improve Air Quality and /or Reduce CO2 emissions
Incentivising skills and apprentices
Other(s), Please specify – N/A
B2 : Please provide evidence on the following questions (max 100 words for each question):
a) What is the problem that is being addressed?
The A608/A611 suffers from considerable journey time delay at both peak and inter-
peak periods, see Aecom study report attached. The corridor provides a key link from
Ashfield/Mansfield town centres to the M1-motorway for businesses and residents of both
these districts; and in addition has several business parks located on (Sherwood) or close
to the route (Oakham and Ransom Wood). It is also the key route for businesses along the
Mansfield southern growth corridor (MARR) to the M1 south. The delay therefore has
significant detrimental impacts on existing and potential employment and housing
development sites adjacent to the corridor (eg Lindhurst, Top Wighay and Rolls Royce),
see plan attached. b) What options have been considered and why have alternatives been rejected?
The existing junctions to be improved are part of a proposed corridor wide treatment.
The two junctions that form part of this bid already operate under traffic signal control.
Alternative junction forms (roundabouts, signalised gyratories and grade separated
junctions) would provide greater traffic carrying capacity but would require third party land
and be prohibitively expensive. These options have been dismissed in favour of at grade
signal junction enlargements which can be accommodated within the confines of the
existing public highway and still provide a meaningful upgrade to traffic capacity and
congestion relief. c) What are the expected benefits/outcomes? For example, could include easing urban
congestion, job creation, enabling a number of new dwellings, facilitating increased GVA.
The economic benefits and outcomes of this project are:
1. Removal of barriers currently causing inability to develop, delay to development, or
reduced viability of potential employment / housing sites adjacent to and nearby the A608
/ A611 corridor.
2. Improved business competitiveness and improved productivity due to reductions in
journey time delays (resultant reduced costs for businesses/hauliers).
4
3. Enhance potential to attract inward investment (including in the wider
Ashfield/Mansfield area).
4. Improved access to employment sites which will aid recruitment for local businesses
and expand job horizons for jobseekers.
d) Are there are any related activities that the success of this project relies upon? For example,
land acquisition, other transport interventions requiring separate funding or consents?
The proposed improvements to the two junctions will be contained within the existing
public highway and no third party land acquisition is required. Other transport
interventions are being considered so that the corridor as a whole is treated. The two
junction improvements which would be funded by NPIF would constitute a first phase of a
series of improvements. If the remaining treatments in the corridor are delayed or are not
subsequently forthcoming then the initial two junction improvements would still deliver
significant congestion relief benefits. e) What will happen if funding for this project is not secured - would an alternative (lower cost)
solution be implemented (if yes, please describe this alternative and how it differs from the
proposed project)?
The county and district councils will continue to explore other funding opportunities
to deliver the A611 junction improvement schemes. There are not considered to be any
suitable lower cost solutions at the two junctions proposed for immediate improvement.
The schemes of improvement proposed are the minimum scale of intervention that is
feasible given the land and property constraints at each location. f) What is the impact of the project – and any associated mitigation works – on any statutory
environmental constraints? For example, Local Air Quality Management Zones.
Although there are not any statutory environmental constraints the proposed junction
improvements will have the following positive impacts on the environment;
1.
Reduced carbon (including CO2) emissions due to reduced journey time delay
2.
Reduced NOx and particulate emissions from road traffic due to reduced journey time
delay
3.
Reduced noise levels due to freer movement of traffic (i.e. less
acceleration/deceleration)
5
B3 : Please complete the following table.
Figures should be entered in £000s
(i.e. £10,000 = 10).
Table A: Funding profile (Nominal terms)
£000s
2018-19
2019-20
DfT funding sought
1,050
950
Local Authority contribution
350
268
Third Party contribution
0
0
TOTAL
1,400
1,218
Notes:
1) Department for Transport funding must not go beyond 2019-20 financial year.
2) Bidders are asked to consider making a local contribution to the total cost. It is indicated that
this might be around 30%, although this is not mandatory.
B4 : Local Contribution & Third Party Funding : Please provide information on the following
questions (max 100 words on items a and b):
a) Provide an outline of all non-DfT funding contributions to the project costs, the level of
commitment, and when the contributions will become available.
The County Council will allocate £618,000 (25%) towards the overall project costs split
57% in financial year 2018-19 and 43% in 2019-20. The County Council’s Section 151 Officer
has made a declaration to this effect, see section D2.
b) List any other funding applications you have made for this project or variants thereof and the
outcome of these applications, including any reasons for rejection.
There have been no other funding applications made for the construction of junction
improvements along the A611 Ashfield / Mansfield corridor. B5 Economic Case
This section should set out the range of impacts – both beneficial and adverse – of the project.
The scope of information requested (and in the supporting annexes) will vary, including
according to whether the application is for a small or large project.
A) Requirements for small project bids (i.e. DfT contribution of less than £5m)
a) Please provide a description of your assessment of the impact of the project to include:
- Significant positive and negative impacts (quantified where possible) including in relation to
air quality and CO₂ emissions.
- A description of the key risks and uncertainties;
- If any modelling has been used to forecast the impact of the project please set out the
methods used to determine that it is fit for purpose
The most significant positive impact of the scheme is the improvement of the operational
efficiency of both the Shoulder of Mutton / A611 and A611/ Coxmoor Road junctions. The
A611 is a key strategic route between Mansfield and the M1 J27 and carries over 23,000
6
vehicles AADT through these junctions. A detailed (LINSIG junction traffic model) analysis
of these junctions confirms that they currently operate significantly over capacity and
observations show considerable queuing and delay, particularly in the Am and Pm peak
travel periods. The cost to society of the current delays are calculated (at 2017 prices)
£773,574 Shoulder of Mutton and £2,195,075 at Coxmoor Road. With proposed growth
forecast in each of the Ashfield, Mansfield and Gedling Local Plans these delays are
forecast to increase exponentially.
The proposed schemes of improvement will reduce traffic queues, reduce driver delays
and improve both journey times and journey time reliability. This is especially important
for existing business users of the Sherwood , Oakham and Ransom Wood Business Parks
which lie adjacent to the A611 and will enhance the potential for inward investment and
employment growth at Lindhurst, Rolls Royce, Top Wighay Farm and Prologis Park which
will all rely on and benefit from improved accessibility in the A611corridor, see location
plan. A LINSIG assessment of the performance of the improved junctions has shown that
for a single future year there is forecast to be a saving of 255 pcu hours delay in the Am
peak and 293 pcu hours in the Pm peak when compared to Do Minimum in the same
assessment year. The forecast journey time improvements will enhance existing business
productivity and competitiveness. The value of these future year transport user benefits
have been calculated as over £6.4m per annum i.e. a large beneficial impact. A benefit cost
ratio has not been computed for this project however on the strength of the results of a
single future assessment year it is reasonable to expect that the BCR would be very high.
The improvement of key traffic intersections on the A611 is predicted to lessen the
incidence of traffic queues and reduce stop-start driving conditions. This in turn is
predicted to reduce road traffic noise (less braking and acceleration of vehicles) and
reduce the amount of harmful vehicle emissions (less vehicle idling and stop-start driving
/ slow traffic speeds). The only negative impact however is a forecast increase in CO2
emissions which tend to rise in line with forecast increased traffic speeds. An Appraisal
Summary Table is appended to this bid setting out a summary of the key environmental
impacts of the proposed junction improvements.
The proposed junction improvement schemes fit within the foot print of the existing public
highway and given the limited scale and nature of the proposals the risk and uncertainties
are therefore considered minimal. A Risk Register is attached which identifies the largest
risk as a financial one i.e. that any subsequent increase in the current scheme cost
estimate could endanger the viability of the project. The final cost of utilities works is the
largest uncertainty in this regard. It should be noted however that NCC accepts
responsibility for meeting any costs over and above the DfT contribution including
potential cost over runs.
* Small projects bids are not required to produce a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) but may want to
include this here if available.
b) Small project bidders should provide the following in annexes as supporting material:
Has a
Project Impacts Pro Forma been appended?
Yes
No
N/A
Has a description of data sources / forecasts been appended?
Yes
No
N/A
A project baseline study is attached (Aecom June 2017)
Has an
Appraisal Summary Table been appended?
Yes
No
N/A
7
Other material supporting your assessment of the project described in this section should be
appended to the bid.
Please see attached an A611 baseline conditions report June 2017 which quantifies the
existing traffic delay, personal injury accidents and costs to the economy of congestion
in the A611 Ashfield / Mansfield corridor.
* This list is not necessarily exhaustive and it is the responsibility of bidders to provide sufficient
information to demonstrate the analysis supporting the economic case is fit-for-purpose.
B) Additional requirements for large project bids (i.e. DfT contribution of more than £5m)
c) Please provide a short description (max 500 words) of your assessment of the value for
money of the project including your estimate of the Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) to include:
- Significant monetised and non-monetised costs and benefits
- Description of the key risks and uncertainties and the impact these have on the BCR;
- Key assumptions including: appraisal period, forecast years, optimism bias applied; and
- Description of the modelling approach used to forecast the impact of the project and the
checks that have been undertaken to determine that it is fit-for-purpose.
Not applicable
d) Additionally detailed evidence supporting your assessment, including the completed
Appraisal Summary Table, should be attached as annexes to this bid.
A checklist of
material to be submitted in support of large project bids has been provided.
Has an Appraisal Summary Table been appended?
Yes
No
N/A
- Please append any additional supporting information (as set out in the Checklist).
*It is the responsibility of bidders to provide sufficient information for DfT to undertake a full
review of the analysis.
8
B6 Economic Case: For all bids the following questions relating to
desirable criteria should be
answered
.
Please describe the air quality situation in the area where the project will be implemented by
answering the three questions below.
i) Has Defra’s national air quality assessment, as reported to the EU Commission, identified
and/or projected an exceedance in the area where the project will be implemented?
Yes
No
ii) Is there one or more Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) in the area where the project
will be implemented? AQMAs must have been declared on or before the 31 March 2017
Yes
No
iii) What is the project’s impact on local air quality?
Positive
Neutral
Negative
- Please supply further details:
The additional traffic capacity provided at the improved A611 junctions is predicted to
lessen the incidence of traffic queues and stop-start traffic conditions, particularly at peak
times, and hence reduce harmful emissions. The size of the benefits have not been
quantified but would represent a ‘slight beneficial’ impact on a typical 5 point qualitative
scale.
iv) Does the project promoter incentivise skills development through its supply chain?
Yes
No
N/A
- Please supply further details:
The Council’s proposed contractor Via East Midlands complies with the D2N2 LEP’s
Local Procurement Charter. The Charter demonstrates a commitment from business and
public sector bodies working within D2N2 to align their infrastructure and development
projects to match employer need and demand with the aim of creating a sustainable market
for skills and development and supply chain integration within the area. The project
promoter and its appointed contractor will look to create jobs, training opportunities and
apprenticeships locally as part of the A611 junction improvement proposals.
B7. Management Case - Delivery (Essential)
Deliverability is one of the essential criteria for this Fund and as such any bid should set out,
with a limit of 100 words for each of a) to b), any necessary statutory procedures that are
needed before it can be constructed.
a) A project plan (typically summarised in Gantt chart form) with milestones should be included,
covering the period from submission of the bid to project completion.
The attached project plans identify the main project milestones that would need to be
addressed to deliver the projects. No statutory procedures are required to deliver this
9
project and both junction improvements could be constructed and open to traffic by July
2019 assuming a funding decision in November 2017.
Has a project plan been appended to your bid?
Yes
No
b) If delivery of the project is dependent on land acquisition, please include a letter from the
respective land owner(s) to demonstrate that arrangements are in place to secure the land
to enable the authority to meet its construction milestones.
No land acquisition is required as both junction improvements can be contained within
the confines of the existing public highway.
Has a letter relating to land acquisition been appended?
Yes
No
N/A
c) Please provide in Table C summary details of your construction milestones (at least one but
no more than 6) between start and completion of works:
Table C: Construction milestones
Estimated Date
Funding approval
November 2017
Junction 1 (Shoulder of Mutton Hill) detailed
September 2018
design completed
Junction 1 Start of works
October 2018
Junction 1 Traffic signal alterations
January 2019
Junction 1 Completed
February 2019
Junction 2 ( A611/ Coxmoor Road) detailed
January 2019
design completed
April 2019
Junction 2 Start of works
June 2019
Junction 2 Traffic signal alterations
July 2019
Junction 2 completed
As above
Completion of works (if different)
d) Please list any major transport projects costing over £5m in the last 5 years which the
authority has delivered, including details of whether these were completed to time and
budget (and if not, whether there were any mitigating circumstances)
The local authority has project managed and delivered a number of transport projects
over the last five years, the most recent is the Hucknall Town Centre Improvement Scheme
(DfT contribution £8.49m). The Full Approval submission to the DfT had an estimated total
scheme cost of £12.9m. The scheme is now completed and the outturn cost is £13.4m. The
increase in cost is explained by additional flood alleviation works that had to be
incorporated into the scheme post planning approval. The scheme was delivered 3 weeks
behind schedule due to unforeseen ground conditions.
10
B8. Management Case – Statutory Powers and Consents (Essential)
a) Please list if applicable, each power / consent etc. already obtained, details of date acquired,
challenge period (if applicable), date of expiry of powers and conditions attached to them.
Any key dates should be referenced in your project plan.
Following a scoping opinion Ashfield District Council, the local planning authority,
have advised that the highway improvement proposals constitute ‘permitted development’
as governed by The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order
1995, Part 13, Development by local highway authorities, Class A – Permitted development:
“The carrying out by a local highway authority on land outside but adjoining the boundary
of an existing highway of works required for or incidental to the maintenance or
improvement of the highway”. Therefore neither planning permission nor an
Environmental Assessment is required.
b) Please list if applicable any outstanding statutory powers / consents etc. including the
timetable for obtaining them.
There are no outstanding statutory powers to be obtained. The scheme can be
delivered without delay.
B9. Management Case – Governance (Essential)
Please name those who will be responsible for delivering the project, their roles (Project
Manager, SRO etc.) and responsibilities, and how key decisions are/will be made. An
organogram may be useful here.
Nottinghamshire County Council (NCC) will be responsible for the project’s delivery. The
scheme will be constructed by the County Council’s new Teckal Company, Via East
Midlands Ltd, acting on behalf of the County Council with contract management support
provided by Council. NCC has significant experience in delivering publically funded
projects and has a centralised procurement function overseeing compliance with public
procurement requirements. A Project Board will be established to oversee the delivery of
the project. The Project Board will include all relevant partners. Board members will review
and advise on the delivery of the project through established regular reporting
mechanisms. The Senior Responsible Officer will be Gary Wood (NCC Group Manager
Environment and Highways) who has the authority to ensure delivery of this project. A
delivery team organogram is attached which provides further details of the intended
governance structure and key decision making layers.
11
B10. Management Case - Risk Management (Essential)
All projects will be expected to undertake a Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA) and a risk
register should be included. Both should be proportionate to the nature and complexity of the
project. A Risk Management Strategy should be developed that outlines how risks will be
managed.
Please ensure that in the risk / QRA cost that you have not included any risks associated with
ongoing operational costs and have used the P50 value.
Has a QRA been appended to your bid?
Yes
No
See Risk Register for probability of risks happening
Has a Risk Management Strategy been appended to your bid?
Yes
No
See Risk Register for mitigation actions re risk.
Please provide evidence on the following points (where applicable) with a limit of 50 words for
each:
a) What risk allowance has been applied to the project cost?
The total cost of the proposed junction improvements is £2.618m and this is based on
estimates by the County Council and Via East Midlands Ltd using direct experience of
outturn costs of recent similar projects. This price includes an allowance of 10%
contingency on the construction element of the project. No optimism bias has been
included in the project cost.
How will cost overruns be dealt with?
The County Council is confident of delivering this project within the identified budget.
During construction there may be a need to revise the scheme and this may require
additional works and additional cost. The Council’s project management team will closely
monitor and supervise the works to mitigate against any significant cost increases. The
County Council accepts responsibility for meeting any cost over runs.
b) What are the main risks to project timescales and what impact this will have on cost?
The protection and diversion of utilities equipment remains the most significant risk in
terms of both timescale and financial risk. The County Council will work closely with the
utilities companies to ensure that construction of the junction improvement schemes can
be brought within both the Council’s work package and within the agreed financial budget.
B11. Management Case - Stakeholder Management (Essential) The bid should demonstrate that the key stakeholders and their interests have been identified
and considered as appropriate. These could include other local authorities, the Highways
England, statutory consultees, landowners, transport operators, local residents, utilities
companies etc. This is particularly important in respect of any bids related to structures that may
require support of Network Rail and, possibly, train operating company(ies).
a) Please provide a summary in no more than 100 words of your strategy for managing
stakeholders, with details of the key stakeholders together with a brief analysis of their
influences and interests.
12
The key stakeholders in this project are Ashfield and Mansfield District Council’s and
the joint Regeneration Board representing these local authorities, Mansfield 2020 business
club Members and the public transport operators who are set to benefit from the removal
of congestion and improvements in journey time reliability of the bus services that would
follow. As the proposed improvement works are within the footprint of the existing
junctions there is no impact on statutory consultees. The County Council is proposing to
notify the public of the proposed junction improvement schemes via an interactive project
website, the distribution of letters to local residents and businesses and posting of signs
on site.
b) Can the project be considered as controversial in any way?
Yes
No
If yes, please provide a brief summary in no more than 100 words
N/A
c) Have there been any external campaigns either supporting or opposing the project?
Yes
No
If yes, please provide a brief summary (in no more than 100 words)
N/A
d) For large projects only please also provide a Stakeholder Analysis and append this to your
application.
Has a Stakeholder Analysis been appended?
Yes
No
N/A
e) For large projects only please provide a Communications Plan with details of the level of
engagement required (depending on their interests and influence), and a description of how
and by what means they will be engaged with.
Has a Communications Plan been appended?
Yes
No
N/A
B12. Management Case – Local MP support (Desirable) e) Does this proposal have the support of the local MP(s);
Name of MP(s) and Constituency
1.
Gloria De Piero – Ashfield
Yes
No
B13. Management Case - Assurance (Essential) We will require Section 151 Officer confirmation (Section D) that adequate assurance systems
are in place.
See Section D2 for signature of Nigel Stevenson NCC Section 151 Officer confirming the
assurance arrangements.
13
Additionally, for large projects please provide evidence of an integrated assurance and approval
plan. This should include details of planned health checks or gateway reviews.
N/A
SECTION C – Monitoring, Evaluation and Benefits Realisation
C2. Please set out, in no more than 100 words, how you plan to measure and report on the
benefits of this project, alongside any other outcomes and impacts of the project.
The project will deliver immediate transport user benefits to commuters, business
travellers and drivers on other journey purposes. These journey time and reliability
benefits will encourage inward investment and the build out of housing and employment
sites alongside the A611corridor. The County Council will monitor and report the traffic
and travel conditions arising from the implementation of the junction improvement
schemes with a view to ensuring that the traffic signal arrangements operate as efficiently
as possible and hence maximise the social and economic benefits.
A fuller evaluation for large projects may also be required depending on their size and type.
14
SECTION D: Declarations
D1. Senior Responsible Owner Declaration
As Senior Responsible Owner for the A611Ashfield / Mansfield corridor junction improvements
scheme I hereby submit this request for approval to DfT on behalf of Nottinghamshire County
Council and confirm that I have the necessary authority to do so.
I confirm that Nottinghamshire County Council will have all the necessary statutory powers in
place to ensure the planned timescales in the application can be realised.
Name: Gary Wood
Signed:
Position: Group Manager Environment and Highways
D2. Section 151 Officer Declaration
As Section 151 Officer for Nottinghamshire County Council I declare that the project cost
estimates quoted in this bid are accurate to the best of my knowledge and that
Nottinghamshire County Council
- has allocated sufficient budget to deliver this project on the basis of its proposed
funding contribution
- accepts responsibility for meeting any costs over and above the DfT contribution
requested, including potential cost overruns and the underwriting of any funding
contributions expected from third parties
- accepts responsibility for meeting any ongoing revenue requirements in relation to the
project
- accepts that there will be no further increase in DfT funding considered beyond the
maximum contribution requested and that no DfT funding will be provided for this bid in
2020/21.
- confirms that the authority has the necessary governance / assurance arrangements in
place and, for smaller project bids, the authority can provide, if required, evidence of a
stakeholder analysis and communications plan in place
- confirms that if required a procurement strategy for the project is in place, is legally
compliant and is likely to achieve the best value for money outcome
Name: Nigel Stevenson
Signed:
Service Director Finance, Procurement and
Improvement.
HAVE YOU INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING WITH YOUR BID?
Combined Authority multiple bid ranking note (if applicable)
Yes
No
N/A
Map showing location of the project and its wider context
Yes
No
N/A
Combined Authority support letter (if applicable)
Yes
No
N/A
LEP support letter (if applicable)
Yes
No
N/A
Housebuilder / developer evidence letter (if applicable)
Yes
No
N/A
Land acquisition letter (if applicable)
Yes
No
N/A
Projects impact pro forma (must be a separate MS Excel)
Yes
No
N/A
Appraisal summary table
Yes
No
N/A
Project plan/Gantt chart
Yes
No
N/A
15