Programme Development and Management...

Version 2.0 ©Crown copyright 2010

Programme Development and Management Manual Network Delivery and Development Directorate

NDD Programme Development and Management Manual

Version 2.0 Page 2 of 59

Document Control

Revision History

Version Date Description Author

V1.0 14/01/10 Issue Version 1 Chris Jackson (HA) Adine Hird (TRL)

V1.1 22/03/10 Draft Version 1.1 Adine Hird (TRL)



V1.4 11/08/10 Draft Version 1.4 Chris Jackson (HA)

V2.0 12/08/10 Issue Version 2.0 Chris Jackson (HA) Adine Hird (TRL)

Approvals

Name Signature Title Date of Issue

Version

Imrul Hassan IH Team Leader – NDD Integrated Performance

Programme

12/08/10 Version 2.0

Richard Arrowsmith

RA Group Leader – NDD Planning & Performance Group

12/08/10 Version 2.0

Janet Butler JB NDD Central Divisional Director

12/08/10 Version 2.0

Document Title Network Delivery and Development Directorate – Programme Development Manual

Author Adine Hird and Cathy Booth (TRL)

Owner Imrul Hassan (HA)

Distribution Divisional Directors, Regional Programme and Commercial Teams, Area Teams

Document Status Issue Version 2.0



Foreword

One of Network Delivery and Development Directorate’s responsibilities is the development and management of the Highways Agency’s Maintenance Renewals and Local Network Management Schemes (LNMS) Programmes. This expenditure is a major proportion of the Agency’s budget and is essential for maintaining the trunk road network in a safe and serviceable condition. It is central to delivering the Agency’s objectives of providing safe roads and reliable journeys for its customers. Our challenge is to continually demonstrate Value for Money from this expenditure. This Programme Development and Management Manual builds on best practice and lessons learnt in Whole Life Costing, Value Management and Programme Management. It provides a visible and consistent evidence-based approach to the prioritisation of works, allocation of budgets and tracking of delivery of planned Programmes. As a fundamental part of the growing Asset Management Office function, the implementation of this approach is a vital component in the planning and management of visible and defendable Programmes of works. Importantly, it provides confidence that available funds continue to be directed to those areas of greatest need and provide measurable value for money.

Derek Turner Director - Network Delivery and Development Directorate Highways Agency



Contents

Page

Purpose of this Manual 5

Related Guidance 6

Overview of Programme Development and Management 8

Roles and Responsibilities 10

Timetable 14

Project Identification and Value Management 17

Step 1: Setting Programme Objectives 21

Step 2: Developing Area and Regional Programme Bids 22

Step 3: Provisional National Programmes and Budgets 29

Step 4: Confirmation of Final Programmes and Budgets 38

Step 5: Tracking Programme Performance 40

Step 6: Auditing and Continuous Improvement 43

Appendix A: Contacts for Further Information

Appendix B: Project Prioritisation Criteria for 2011/12 Programmes

Appendix C: Data Requirements for Bid Programme / National Programme Development

Appendix D: Decision Tree for Defining a Capital or Resource Project

Appendix E: Process Diagram for the Development of National Programmes and Allocation of Budgets

Appendix F: Worked Example showing Development of a National Programme and Allocation of Budget

Appendix G: Dispute Resolution Process Diagram

Appendix H: Data Requirements for Tracking of Programme Delivery

Appendix I: Glossary

NDD Programme Development and Management Manual Purpose of this Manual


Purpose of this Manual

What it does This Manual describes the process for developing and managing Regional and National Programmes of Renewal of Roads (RoR) projects, Renewal of Structures (RoS) projects and Local Network Management Schemes (LNMS). It applies to the development of Programmes of work for delivery in 2011/12 and beyond. Who it is for This Manual is to be used by Network Delivery and Development Directorate’s (NDD’s) (Asset Management Office (AMO)), Regional Performance and Commercial Teams, and Area Teams involved in the development and management of the above Programmes. It provides the wider context for Agency Project Sponsors and Area Service Providers involved in the identification of projects and submission of project information to Oracle, and NetServ owners of the Value Management process including the allocation of Value Management scores. Key elements of Programme development and management This approach builds on current best practice in Whole Life Costing, Value Management and Programme Management. It delivers a rolling four year programme of works based on network need, and first year Programmes for implementation. It makes no fundamental change to project identification or Value Management activities but does introduce new steps in the current Programme management cycle. These include the development of National Programmes and the use of an evidence-based decision-making step for determining Regional Programme allocations. They also include review of delivery against each planned programme to monitor progress, capture lessons learnt and support continuous improvement. Why it is important The benefits of implementing this process include:

Closer links between Agency objectives and programme development / delivery

Consistent and visible prioritisation decisions across all Regions

Allocation of budgets based on evidence of need

Ability to justify and evidence spend and delivery throughout the Programme lifecycle

Better assessments of ‘Value for Money’ from Programmes

Visibility of future need to aid Spending Reviews and budget allocation

NDD Programme Development and Management Manual Related Guidance


Related Guidance

Links with existing Agency documents The content of this Manual focuses on the Programme development and management processes. Reference is made to wider policy objectives, guidance documents, and particularly the Value Management process, where they influence Programme development and management. Figure 1 shows these relationships. Further details of the Agency’s approaches related to these new processes are given in the documents listed in Table 1. Contacts for further information are provided in Appendix A. Table 1. Other Sources of Information for Programme Development

Topic

Guidance

Description

Policy objectives

HA Business Plan

Summary of the Agency’s headline policy objectives

NDDD Management Plan (parts 1 and 2) and

Details of the Directorate’s objectives.

Financial procedures

SfM (Oracle System for Managing) Guidance

Explanation of the Agency’s processes for the use of the Oracle system

Value Management procedures

Value Management Guides for RoR, RoS and

LNMS

Detailed guidance on the Value Management process

Links with future activities The approaches described in this Manual will inform the future development of the Value Management processes and the Oracle System for Managing (Oracle). It will also be influenced by ongoing continuous improvement activities and development of wider Agency initiatives, for example the implementation of the Asset Management Office. Future versions of this Manual will be released as progress is made in these areas and experience is gained from implementation of the new process.

NDD Programme Development and Management Manual Related Guidance


Figure 1: Programme development and management in context

Project Identification / Value Management

Programme Development

and Management Manual

Department for Transport Business

Plan / Objectives

HA Strategic Plan & Business

Plan / Objectives

Value Management for RoR, RoS &

LNMS

Information Systems / IT

Guidance

Oracle System for Managing Guidance

ICF

Finance Services

NDDD Management Plan

(Parts 1 and 2)

Efficient and Effective Maintenance of the Network

Providing excellent customer service

and visible value for money

Programme

Development and

Management

Related Manuals/Guidance/Information

Programme Development Activities

NDD Programme Development and Management Manual Overview of the Programme Development Process


Overview of Programme Development and Management

Key steps in Programme development and management Programme development and management takes place each year and is split into six steps. These are shown in Figure 2. It sits within the context of continuous project identification and delivery activities undertaken within each Area. This Manual describes each of these steps in turn.

Figure 2: Keys steps within Programme development and management

Step 1: Setting Programme Objectives

(Central AMO)

Step

6

Step3

Ste

p4

Step

5

Ste

p1

Step

2

Step 6: Auditing and Continuous Improvement

(Central AMO, NetServ, NOACC)

Step 2: Developing Area and Regional Programme

Bids

(Area / Regional Teams, NetServ)

Step 3: Provisional National Programmes

and Budgets

(Central AMO, Regional Teams)

Step 4: Confirmation of Final Programmes and

Budgets

(Central AMO, Regional Teams)

Step 5: Tracking Programme Performance

(Area / Regional Teams, Central AMO)

NDD Programme Development and Management Manual Overview of the Programme Development Process


Programme outputs This approach provides the Agency with a rolling four year programme to address need across the network. It comprises:

Prioritised Programmes of works for Year 1 (broken down by Region and Area)

Visible justifications for project selection and prioritisation within each Programme

Year 1 budget allocations based on the prioritised Programme

Provisional prioritised Programmes of works for Year 2 (broken down by Region and Area)

Provisional prioritised list of works for Years 3 and 4

Visible change control records of delivered Programmes

Lessons learnt from reviews of delivered and planned Programmes Currently, Value Management scores for Renewals and Improvement Programmes are not directly comparable. Consequently, separate rolling programmes are developed for Renewal of Roads projects, Renewal of Structures projects and Local Area Network Management Schemes. Programme outcomes This approach allows the Agency to:

Develop Programmes of renewals maintenance and local improvements works that better deliver Agency objectives

Allocate available budget to Areas where it is needed most

Deliver visible and measurable improvements in Value for Money

Better justify and defend national budgets to the HA Board, the Department for Transport and external scrutiny

Understand future needs of the network as input to future Spending Reviews

Inform the development and implementation of the Asset Management Office

NDD Programme Development and Management Manual Roles and Responsibilities


Roles and Responsibilities

Responsibility for Programme development and management lies primarily with the Network Delivery and Development Directorate (NDD) and its Service Providers. Network Services remains responsible for underlying Value Management processes. NDD Regional Teams are responsible for inputting to the development of, and managing the delivery of programmes. NDD Central Teams are responsible for prioritising projects, developing programmes, allocating budgets and assessing value for money. All participants have a collective responsibility to ensure Programmes provide Value for Money and ensure this can be evidenced at each stage in the Programme lifecycle.

Service Providers are responsible for:

o Working with Agency Project Sponsors, Area / Regional Programme Managers and Network Services to identify projects - based on need and ability to deliver

o Providing information to take proposed projects through the Value Management process, justifying the technical solution and proposed spend

o Uploading and maintaining accurate project information in Oracle o Supporting the Agency Area Teams in the development of four year

Programmes of work o Delivery of the agreed Programmes

Area Teams are responsible for:

o Developing the four year rolling programme of projects for their Areas o Checking that project information is maintained in Oracle o Applying Value Management processes to review proposed projects and

allocate Value Management scores o Confirming ability to deliver planned Area Programmes o Ensuring compliance with the Programme Development process by Service

Providers o Managing delivery and in-year changes to Programmes o Ensuring Agency objectives are met by the Area Programme

Network Services is responsible for:

o Providing technical advice during the Value Management process, particularly project identification, technical solution and scoring

o Ensuring consistent application of the Value Management process across Areas and Regions, including auditing of scoring process

o Continuous improvement of the Value Management process



Regional Performance Teams are responsible for:

o Developing four year Programmes for their Region, including justification for project selection

o Reviewing provisional Programmes and budget allocations o Confirming ability to deliver planned Regional Programmes o Monitoring project delivery and spend against budget and Programme o Ensuring Agency objectives are met by their Regional Programmes

Regional Commercial Teams are responsible for: o Ensuring robust contract management and audit arrangements are in place o Ensuring supplier performance is reliably / effectively measured and reported o Ensuring commercial risks are identified and managed appropriately o Promoting a culture of continuous improvement and efficiency savings in

Programme delivery

Regional Finance Teams and the Central Finance Team are responsible for: o Providing financial guidance on the setting up of Project Identification

Numbers (PINs) within Oracle o Providing access to Oracle to amend the Status field from Pre-bid through the

various stages to Funded o Providing financial support in the completion of an Investment Control

Framework (ICF) in order to move the PIN to Funded status o Assisting the Area Teams to ensure that the future year forecasts are aligned

with indicative allocations prior to the budgets being created o Ensuring that budgets are accurately profiled in Oracle o Provide ongoing financial advice, guidance and support to the Regional

Teams to review the Year To Date (YTD) expenditure, the Full Year Forecast and the Whole Life Costs of the Projects within their Region



Regional Divisional Directors are responsible for:

o Approving the submission of Bid Programmes from their Region o Reviewing / approving provisional Regional Programmes o Signing off their Region’s commitment to deliver the final approved

Programmes and budgets o Reviewing and approving changes to the delivery of Regional Programmes o Justifying spend, delivery and performance to the NDD Director

Central AMO is responsible for:

o Setting standards / policy relating to Programme Development and delivery o Providing guidance on the Programme Development process o Reviewing and improving the Programme Development process to ensure it

delivers the Agency’s Objectives o Maintaining a record of outputs from the Value Management process o Applying agreed prioritisation criteria to develop National Programmes of

prioritised projects o Disaggregating and allocating the National budget to Regions and Areas o Monitoring (forecast) spend, performance and delivered outputs against

budget and Programmes o Providing regular performance and value for money reports relating to

planned and delivered Programmes

NDD Director is responsible for:

o Approving the framework for decision making o Approving provisional and final National Programmes and budgets o Reviewing and signing-off delivery of planned Programmes o Justifying spend to the HA Board and the Department for Transport

A responsibility matrix is provided in Table 2.



Table 2: Responsibility Matrix

Execute Consult/Contribute Approve Verify Informed

Step

Activity

Serv

ice

Pro

vid

ers

Are

a

Te

am

s

Reg

ion

al

Te

am

s

Cen

tral

AM

O

Div

isio

na

l D

irecto

rs

ND

D

Dir

ecto

r

NetS

erv

Fin

an

ce

Serv

ices

NO

AC

C

Setting Programme Objectives

Review policy objectives and lessons learnt Set Programme objectives

Programme Development Workshop

Developing Area / Regional Programme Bids

Develop Area / Regional Programme Bids - Yr1 & Yr2

Collate Yr3 / 4 projects

Upload four year programmes into Oracle

Submit Bid Programmes

Provisional National Programmes and Budgets

Collate and review provisional National Programmes

Request missing data / clarifications

Supply / confirm final data submission

Develop provisional National prioritised Programmes

Allocate provisional budgets

Review provisional Programmes and budget allocations

Approve provisional Programmes

Reviewing / Confirming Programmes / Budgets

Collate final Programmes and budget allocations

Approve budget allocations and Programmes

Confirm ability / commitment to deliver planned Programmes

Summary Reports on Planned Programmes

Oracle information reconciled and profiled budgets assigned to PINs

Tracking Delivery

Monthly tracking of delivery / change control

Quarterly review of delivery

Full year review of delivery by AMO

Report on delivered Yr 1 Programme

Auditing and Continuous Improvement

Validating / Auditing of Value Management Scores

Auditing of Programme Development process

Capture and review of lessons learnt

E E

I

C E

E

V C E

E

I V V

C C C

C C

E C

A

I

I

I I

I I

I I I

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

C C C C C C C

C C C

C

C C

C C

C

C C

C C C

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

C

C

C

I

I I I A

C

C

C

C

C C C C C C C

E

E

E

E

E

C I V A E

Step2Step

2

Step1Step

1

Step6Step

6

Step5Step

5

Step4Step

4

Step3Step

3

NDD Programme Development and Management Manual Timetable


Timetable

Programme development is an annual process but the full cycle of development and management may span a total of 24 months. Consequently, Step 5 of one Programme lifecycle overlaps with Steps 1-4 of a future Programme lifecycle. Step 6 is a series of audit and continuous improvement review activities that span the whole Programme lifecycle, and feed directly into Step 1 of future Programme lifecycles. The Programme development and management timetable is shown in Figure 3a. More detail of who is involved in each step is provided in Figure 3b. Detailed Programme timetables are revised and issued each year by the AMO.



Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May

Figure 3a: Programme Development Timetable

(showing overlap of one Programme Development cycle with another)

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

Step 5 Step 5

Step 6



Step 1

Setting Objectives

Step 2

Developing Bid

Programme

Step 3

Provisional

National Programmes and

Budgets

Step 4

Confirming

National Programmes /

Budgets

Step 5

Tracking Delivery against

Planned Programme

Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May

Service Providers

Area Teams

Network Services

Regional Teams

Central AMO

Div. Directors

NDD Director

Execution Approval Sign-off

Figure 3b: Programme development and management Timetable (showing main participants involved at each step)

Project Identification, Value Management Assessment and Delivery

Project Identification, Value Management Assessment and Delivery Management

Assurance of Project Identification and Value Management Assessment Processes

1

2

3a

3b

4 5

NDD Programme Development and Management Manual Project Identification and Value Management


Project Identification and Value Management

Network need and Project identification Projects are specified works required to address particular needs across the Network, including:

a) Maintenance of existing infrastructure

b) Renewal of existing infrastructure

c) Improvement of existing infrastructure, in line with Agency objectives.

Needs are identified by comparing Network condition information (gathered through routine inspections, surveys etc) with Engineering Standards (designed to maintain a safe and serviceable network) and Agency objectives. The NDDD Management Plan (Part 1) provides a general overview of Government Policies and how they drive NDDD’s strategic priorities. More specific NDDD objectives and targets are provided in Part 2 of the Management Plan. Identifying projects that address these needs is the main responsibility of Service Providers and Area Teams (Project Sponsors). A rolling four year view of need, and projects that address that need, is required to facilitate future planning and inform budget needs. Value Management Value Management provides a technical review of proposed treatment options and generates a Value Management score for the preferred treatment option. This Value Management score is one of the main criteria used to prioritise projects and develop funded Programmes of RoR, RoS and LNMS. Full details of the Value Management processes are found in Value Management Guidance for each asset stream:

Maintenance and Better Use: Value Management of the Regional Roads Programme

Maintenance and Better Use: Value Management of the Structures Renewal Programme

Maintenance and Better Use: Value Management of Local Network Management Schemes

To be considered for funding, projects must have a Value Management score and associated project information must be provided (via Oracle or Bid Programme spreadsheets). More detail on the format and content of Bid Programmes is provided in Step 2. Value Management workshops are arranged by Project Sponsors and the current Value Management Guidance recommends scoring workshops are held before May to enable time for Regional Bid Programmes to be collated.



Value Management assurance NetServ is responsible for the Value Management process. NetServ representatives attend each Value Management workshop to ensure consistent application of the process to all projects, and assure the consistency and validity of the scores. Value Management of Small Works (less than £250k in value (or £100k for RoS)) is undertaken by Area Teams, supported as required by Regional Team members and NetServ. Programme Development Support (PDS) works Expenditure is also required for Programme Development Support (PDS) activities. These encompass design, survey and monitoring works required to take projects through the ‘feasibility’ stage of a project and are defined as:

feasibility activities supporting the identification and development of a project to the point at which a Value Management score can be determined

i.e. the point at which it can be included in a funded Programme. For LNMS, this will include all activities leading up to a conception VM score. Once a project has gained entry into a funded programme, further design / survey works form part of the ‘detailed design’ stage of a project and form an integral part of the total costs of the Project Identification Number (PIN). Oracle information requirements Service Providers, in conjunction with Area Project Sponsors, are responsible for providing visibility of projects (network need) in their Area. Visibility is provided by entry into the Oracle system. Projects With the exception of Resource Small Works, each project must be assigned an individual PIN and given an initial status of ‘draft’ in the ‘project status’ field. If a project is to be considered for funding in Year 1 of any Programme cycle, Value Management activities must be completed and all mandatory information provided to Area and Regional Teams prior to the development of Bid Programmes.

NetServ assures the validity of Value Management score

for each project



While each Capital project must have an individual PIN, a number of Resource Small Works (projects less than £250k (or less than £100k for RoS)) within the same asset type (RoR, RoS or LNMS) may be grouped together in one block PIN. However, a detailed breakdown of component Small Works projects, including Value Management score, must be provided with the completed Programme Bid spreadsheets. Note: If insufficient detail is provided for a block PIN it could compromise the funding of all component Small Works projects within that PIN. More details are provided in Step 2 in this Manual, with mandatory data requirements provided in Appendix C. PDS Works PDS works include design, survey and monitoring activities required to take a project through the feasibility stage (i.e. to the point at which a Value Management score can be determined). PDS works should be identified by activity and a PIN created for each separate activity. The description of these works should be sufficiently detailed to identify and quantify the activities that make up the PIN costs (e.g. drainage surveys at 10 locations around the network costing approximately £X each).

PDS costs must not be included in a project PIN - this is reserved for post Value Management activity (e.g. detailed design, construction) costs. Again, more details are provided in Step 2 in this Manual, with mandatory data requirements provided in Appendix C. The Oracle System for Managing (SfM) Guidance provides more specific instructions on how to use Oracle. Further advice should be sought from Area Project Sponsors and Regional Financial Teams.



Disability and Discrimination Act (DDA) Works DDA works are projects or activities that improve accessibility to the Network. An audit of DDA needs across the network has been conducted by Service Providers, resulting in 4,800 sites identified for potential work. PINs have already been established in Oracle for each of the DDA sites identified. These PINs should be used for projects that deliver DDA works wherever possible. In situations e.g. where a renewals or LNMS project encompasses more than one DDA site, a new PIN may need to be created, but must be linked back to the original DDA site PIN(s). This will enable progress to be reported against the Single Equality Dual Action Plan target. For all DDA works, it is necessary to add a value (percentage) in the Purpose Field in Oracle, to show the percentage cost that relates to DDA. A new output type ('LNMS DDA schemes') has also been added to Oracle, to enable project sponsors to claim delivery of a project from the DDA Audit list of projects. The number of projects from the DDA Audit list should be claimed here. For example, if a Maintenance Renewals scheme also includes 3 bus stops that are being made DDA compliant, the project sponsor would claim these 3 outputs against the output type. Similarly if a LNMS accessibility scheme has amalgamated 10 bus stop DDA improvements then 10 outputs would be claimed under the DDA output type. DDA works are not expected to be ring-fenced during the allocation process as they will be prioritised by Value Management score. Consequently, no further mention is made of DDA works within this Manual. However, progress towards meeting this target will be monitored in Oracle. It is important, therefore, that the required Oracle linking and outputs information is provided at the earliest opportunity.

NDD Programme Development and Management Manual Step 1: Setting Programme Objectives


Step 1: Setting Programme Objectives

Four year rolling programme The criteria used to identify and select projects for the four year rolling Programmes are:

Projects that fulfil a clear network need for Renewals maintenance or local improvement as indicated by their Value Management score

Projects that can be delivered by the Service Provider within the Programme period

Projects that are assigned a Priority Mark (i.e. are ‘Committed’ (already funded) or ‘Necessary’)

Projects that meet other Policy / Programme objectives While additional criteria may be applied in any given year (see below), these are the main criteria that are used to underpin Programme Development.

Year one Programme objectives In July of each year, the AMO undertakes a review of Agency needs / objectives for the Programmes to determine the need for additional Programme objectives. Objectives are applied to the whole four year Programme, but have greatest influence in Year 1. The main routes for implementing additional Programme objectives are:

Objectives are translated into project selection and prioritisation criteria for developing Regional and National Programmes, favouring those projects which meet stated policy objectives (e.g. Benefit Cost Ratio’ (BCR) indicators to emphasise Value for Money).

Objectives are used by the AMO to influence the distribution of budgets between the different asset types (e.g. RoR, RoS, LNMS).

This is also the point at which any more specific Agency requirements (e.g. ministerial requirements) are clarified. Programme objectives are updated each year and captured in the form of summary Programme Objectives document. Prioritisation criteria for developing 2011/12 Regional and National Programmes are provided in Appendix B. Programme Objectives for developing 2011/12 Regional and National Programmes will be issued after the Spending Review settlement has been agreed.

Step1

Step1

NDD Programme Development and Management Manual Step 2: Developing Area and Regional Programme Bids


Step 2: Developing Area and Regional Programme Bids

Overview Bids for Area and Regional Programmes are developed by reviewing the project data provided by Service Providers and Area Teams. Programmes are developed based on the following criteria:

Value Management score (assessment of need)

Ability to deliver in the programme year

Priority Mark: ‘Committed’ / ‘Necessary’

In-year Policy / Programme objectives Bids provide a four year view of potential works that address needs across the network and comprise:

Detailed Year 1 Programme of projects and project information for each asset stream, submitted using Oracle and Programme template spreadsheets

Detailed Year 2 Programme of projects and project information for each asset stream, submitted using Oracle and Programme template spreadsheets

Year 3 / 4 Programme of projects and best available project information for each asset stream, submitted via Oracle and Programme template spreadsheets

Sufficient information is provided on each project to enable further informed (evidence-based) decisions to be made at the National level regarding project prioritisation, budget allocation and potential budget need in future years. This includes the provision of additional information (justification) e.g. from Project Sponsors to support the case for a Priority Mark. For clarity, a mandatory minimum set of data is required for Year 1 and 2 Programmes. This is provided in Appendix C. This information is already generated as part of the existing Value Management process and recorded in the following Value Management outputs:

Road Renewals Projects – Project Approval Form (PAF)

Structures Renewal Projects – Project Development Form (PDF)

Local Network Management Projects – Project Appraisal Report (PAR) All Programme bids must be submitted to the AMO by the end of September. This includes uploading of information into Oracle and submission of Programme template spreadsheets.

Step2

Step2



Assigning Capital and Resource spend Within each asset stream (RoR, RoS or LNMS) separate budgets are allocated for Resource works and Capital works. Consequently, each PIN must be assigned to either a Capital or Resource category of spend. Capital and Resource works are broadly defined as follows:

Capital: Projects that add value to the Network (e.g. providing a new asset, enhancing an existing asset, or extending the life of an existing asset) AND the expenditure on the project is £100k or above.

All post Value Management costs of the project should be charged to the Capital PIN including, for example, detailed Design and Preparation before the Construction Works phase, and safety audits afterwards.

Resource: a) Projects that add value to the Network (as described above) but

expenditure is less than £100k.

b) Projects that do not add value to the network, whatever their value. This covers items such as PDS works.

A decision tree is provided in Appendix D. Note: a new Accounting Policy for Maintenance - Expenditure on Road Surface and Structures was recently issued which broadly defines that: -

All works on Cyclical Maintenance and Category 1 defects, whatever the value, will be charged to Resource under Routine Maintenance.

All planned maintenance and Category 2 defects will be charged to Routine Maintenance as Resource if below £100k and to Capital if £100k and above.

All planned Renewals works will be charged to RoR and RoS as Resource if below £100k and to Capital if £100k and above.

The above are broad definitions, and often the final determination as to whether a project is Capital or Resource may be down to judgement. In all cases, clarification must always be sought from the Regional Finance Teams. In the case of disputes, the final decision will be made by the NDD Financial Controller. Note: Capital and resource thresholds should not be confused with the Value Management threshold for Small Works (currently £250k for RoR and £100k for RoS), which determines the Value Management process to be followed.



Information Required for Year 1 and 2 Projects Data requirements for Year 1 and Year 2 projects (including formats for submission) are issued at the beginning of each programme development cycle, in the form of a bid template. An example is provided in Appendix C. Decision-making information (i.e. Priority Mark, Value Management score, BCR) is essential for all Year 1 and Year 2 projects. The costs and descriptions of any ‘Do Minimum’ (RoR) or ‘Essential’ (RoS) works are also required in the event that projects are not funded. ‘Do Minimum’ / ‘Essential’ works are defined as those ‘must do’ activities required to keep the asset open for one more year if the proposed project is not funded. Capital Projects Capital works generally comprise renewal and improvement projects above the threshold value (£100k+). All must have individual PINs. All new PINs requiring funding in Year 1 of the Programme Development cycle must be given a status of ‘bid’ in the ‘Project Status’ field. Projects requiring funding in Year 2 (or beyond) of the Programme Development cycle retain the status of ‘draft’. Only those projects that have the required data, specifically, a Value Management score, will be considered for funding. Value Management scores must be the scores agreed at the final stage of Value Management for each Roads and Structures project (for LNMS, either a ‘Commitment to Works’ or ‘Conception’ Value Management score can be used). Projects not meeting these requirements will not be funded.



Resource Projects Resource projects generally comprise renewals and improvement projects costing less than the threshold value (£100k). By definition, these renewals projects are Small Works projects. Some projects will have individual PINS and some may be grouped together in block PINs. All projects requiring funding in Year 1 of the Programme Development cycle must be given a status of ‘bid’ in the ‘Project Status’ field. Projects requiring funding in Year 2 (or beyond) of the Programme Development cycle retain the status of ‘draft’. For block PINs, a detailed breakdown of component Small Works projects (including name / description, Value Management score and cost) must be provided with the completed Programme Bid spreadsheets. Details should be submitted on a separate bid spreadsheet, using the same PIN number for each individual component small works project. Only those projects that have the required data, specifically a Value Management score, will be considered for funding. Value Management scores must be final scores for Roads and Structures projects (for LNMS, either a ‘Commitment to Works’ or ‘Conception’ Value Management score can be used). Projects not meeting these requirements will not be funded.

Other Resource (PDS) Works Other Resource works comprise all PDS works irrespective of value. By definition, no Value Management score is available for these activities. PDS works must be identified by activity and a PIN created for each separate activity within each asset type (RoR, RoS, LNMS). The description of these works should be sufficiently detailed to identify and quantify the activities that make up the PIN costs (e.g. drainage surveys at 10 locations around the network costing approximately £X each).

PDS costs must not be included in a project PIN - this is reserved for post Value Management activity (e.g. detailed design, construction) costs. All PINs requiring funding in Year 1 of the Programme Development cycle must be given a status of ‘bid’ in the ‘Project Status’ field. Sufficient information must be provided to identify the nature and quality of PDS works and further supporting information may need to be provided to justify funding. PINs not able to meet these requirements will not be funded. Note: PDS works should not be confused with detailed design / survey works required once a project has gained entry into a funded programme. These form an integral part of the costs of the project and should be included in the main project PIN cost.

Only those projects with the required

data……. will be considered for funding



Additional justification and Priority Marks In a limited number of circumstances, projects with low Value Management scores can be prioritised above those with high Value Management scores. Such projects are assigned a Priority Mark to highlight the reason for funding. These are:

Committed

Necessary These are all described in more detail below.

‘Committed’ Projects At the start of the Programme year some projects are already ‘Committed’. These are defined as projects that have been approved for funding in earlier years, and works on site have already commenced. Committed projects are put at the top of the prioritisation list. However, justification must be provided in the ‘justification’ field for their ‘Committed’ Priority Mark, including provision of the date of funding approval and percentage completion of ongoing works. An example is provided in Box 1.



‘Necessary’ Projects Regions may view projects as ‘Necessary’ because of certain operational (rather than engineering) reasons. These projects are assigned a ‘Necessary’ Priority Mark by Regional Teams. Justification must be provided in the ‘justification’ field for their ‘Necessary’ Priority Mark. The AMO reviews the evidence provided and approves or rejects the ‘Necessary’ status as appropriate. An example is provided in Box 1. If approved, ‘Necessary’ projects are prioritised next after ‘Committed’ projects. If rejected, the Necessary status is removed and projects are prioritised on the basis of their Value Management score as described in Step 3. Project justification / evidence must be supported by accompanying notes when Areas submit the project to Regional Teams and Regional Teams submit their Programmes to the AMO. Note: During the Value Management Process, some projects are identified as ‘Unavoidable’ for technical engineering reasons. This assessment is reflected in the very high (or the highest) Value Management score given to such projects. Consequently these projects are prioritised by their high Value Management score.

Box 1. Examples of justification Committed Works approved for funding (March 2010) and started in 2010/11. Works programmed to span 18 months, with 7 months work taking place in 2011/12. Work is on target for completion in November 2011. Necessary

Although cracking and deterioration of the asphalt layer has increased in the past year, and there is some fretting and some low residual life for lengths included in the proposed works, the reason for the inclusion of this project is mainly programming. The project needs to be completed before the M1 widening project starts in 2011/12. The asphalt will be more than 30 years old after the proposed widening if works are not carried in this year. The risk of pavement failure during or soon after the widening works is considered too great to leave the pavement without maintenance until after the widening. Bringing forward the maintenance to combine it with the widening works will minimise disruption to road users.



Hybrid Projects Hybrid projects are created when there are benefits of combining different maintenance / renewal activities (from different asset streams) in the same location at the same time. The predominant reasons for developing hybrid projects include minimising network disruption or reducing maintenance costs. Justification for combining activities is assessed as part of the Value Management process and must be provided to support the case for funding. The component projects are entered into Oracle using separate PIN numbers, enabling the costs to be allocated to the respective asset stream budget (RoR or RoS). The predominant project is designated as the lead project, with the remaining projects allocated sub-ordinate (linked) PINs. Component projects are also entered separately on Bid Programme spreadsheets. The Value Management score for each individual component project must be provided. For each component project, the benefits (and cost savings) of delivering the scheme as a hybrid should be clearly highlighted within the justification field. The PINs of the lead project / subordinate project(s) should also be clearly identified.

Information required for Year 3 and 4 projects The best available technical and financial information is required for Year 3 and 4 projects. As a minimum, the information is to include:

Year of works

Description of proposed works

Location

Best cost estimate

Value Management score (‘provisional’ score for Roads and Structures and ‘conception’ score for LNMS)

Cost and description of any ‘Do Minimum’ (RoR) or ‘Essential’ (RoS) works i.e. those must do activities required to keep the asset open for one more year if the proposed project is not funded.

Divisional Director approves

the bid Programmes

2

NDD Programme Development and Management Manual Step 3: Provisional National Programmes and Budgets


Step 3: Provisional National Programmes and Budgets

Development of National Programmes involves the following activities:

Development of Provisional National Programme spreadsheets

Prioritisation of projects and allocation of budgets

Review of the Provisional Programmes by Regional and Area Teams These activities are described in turn below. Procedures for developing National Programmes and allocating budgets (for each asset stream) are shown in process diagrams provided in Appendix E and supported by a worked example in Appendix F. National Programme spreadsheets In October, the AMO reviews each Regional Bid Programme spreadsheets for completeness and accuracy. If required, each Region is given a specified period of time (normally two weeks) to respond to requests for clarifications or missing data, and confirm that the data provided is correct and as complete as possible. This may involve comparison of bid programme data with Oracle data inputs and/or information recorded on Value Management outputs (PAFs, PDFs and PARs). PAFs, PDFs and PARs for each project should be retained as a matter of public record on the Agency’s SHARE system. The summary sheet of each PAF, PDF and PAR should also be attached to the appropriate PIN within Oracle. Regional Bid Programme spreadsheets are then collated into National Programme spreadsheets for each programme (RoR, RoS and LNMS).

Prioritising projects and allocating budgets (overview) Projects are prioritised using the following criteria:

Priority Mark

Value Management score

Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) Project Priority Mark and Value Management scores form the primary criteria used for prioritisation. BCR is currently a secondary criterion.

Step3

Step3



Prioritisation is applied separately to each asset stream (RoR, RoS and LNMS), budget programme (Capital projects, Resource projects and other Resource works) and delivery year. Agency national budgets for each asset stream and budget programme are determined as part of the preparation of the Agency’s annual Business Plan. Budgets are allocated to Year 1 Programmes only.



Prioritising Capital projects for year 1 Applying primary prioritisation criteria The National Programme spreadsheet for each asset stream is first sorted to place ‘Committed’ and ‘Necessary’ projects at the top of the list. In addition, the costs of ‘Do Minimum’ options for the projects (i.e. work that must be done to ensure the asset remains operational for another year, if the project is not funded) are also placed at the top of the list (or at the top of the Resource projects Programming spreadsheet if valued at less than £100k). The remaining projects are sorted by Value Management score. This provides a provisional prioritised list of projects according to the primary decision-making criteria. The justification of ‘Committed’ and ‘Necessary’ projects is reviewed by the AMO to ensure the justification is valid. Additional justification information may be requested from Regions if the Priority Mark of any project is not deemed to be justified. If the additional justification is still deemed insufficient, the Priority Mark is removed by the AMO and the project prioritised according to its Value Management score. A record is made of this change and Regions are informed when the provisional National Programme is issued. Any projects that do not have at least one of the following are placed at the bottom of the list:

Priority Mark of ‘Committed’ or ‘Necessary’

Value Management score, or

Adequate justification A check is then made of available funding versus the total cost of ‘Committed’ projects and Capital ‘Do Minimum’ works. If funds remain, a threshold Value Management score is identified, above which all projects can be funded. To account for possible inconsistencies in scoring between Regions, projects with a Value Management score +/- 2 of the threshold score (+/- 1 for LNMS) are put into a threshold group and assumed to have the same Value Management score. These projects are prioritised and remaining funds allocated using secondary scoring criteria. When projects are selected for funding, the budget is reduced by the cost of the project less the cost of the ‘Do Minimum’ or ‘Essential’ works (the cost of the ‘Do Minimum’/’Essential’ works option has already been allowed for at the start of the prioritisation). Applying secondary prioritisation criteria For RoR and RoS projects, benefit cost ratio (BCR) values in the form of values of the Economic Indicator (EI) are used to prioritise projects within the threshold group; high EI values are prioritised ahead of low EI values. For LNMS projects, benefit cost ratio (BCR) values in the form of first year rate of return (FYRR) are used to prioritise projects within the threshold group. Projects with high FYRR values are prioritised ahead of those with low FYRR values. Available funds are allocated to the projects in the threshold group in order of priority. A worked example of the whole process is provided in Appendix F.



‘Do Minimum’/’Essential’ works The costs of any ‘Do Minimum’ (RoR) or ’Essential’ (RoS) works, associated with projects that have not been selected for funding, retain the Priority Mark equivalent to ‘Committed’ within the National Programme spreadsheet. They form part of the Programmes of Capital projects or Resource projects depending on whether the costs of the ‘Do Minimum’/’Essential’ works are above or below the threshold value of £100k. Budget allocations Once projects have been prioritised and national budgets allocated, the resulting provisional budgeted National Programme is split by Region and Area to determine the budget allocations and volumes of works proposed. If the project costs are such that at the end of the allocation process there is an outstanding balance on a Programme, then that sum may be allocated by the AMO to another Programme (with the approval of the NDD Director and FS).



Prioritising Resource projects for Year 1 Resource projects programme bids are submitted for all asset streams. They comprise:

‘Committed’ small projects / small projects with Value Management scores (less than £100k in value)

‘Essential’ or ‘Do Minimum’ works (less than £100k in value) for non-funded projects.

Each year, the justifications for ‘Committed’ and ‘Necessary’ works are reviewed to ensure the justifications are valid. Additional justification may be requested from Regions. If the Priority Mark of any project is not deemed to be justified, the Priority Mark is removed and the work prioritised according to its Value Management score. A record is made of this change and Regions informed when the provisional National Programmes are issued. A check is made of available funding versus the total cost of ‘Committed’ and ‘Necessary’ works. If funds remain, a threshold Value Management score is identified, above which all works can be funded. Due to the small value of these projects, and currently limited available information, secondary criteria are not applied to prioritise Resource projects. Prioritising Other Resource works for Year 1 Other Resource works programme bids are submitted for all asset streams. They comprise PDS works of any value, and do not normally have Value Management scores. Individual works up to the requested value must be clearly identified so that spend can be justified and monitored. A cap may be applied to the total value of PDS works funded, depending e.g. on the total size of PDS bids, available budget and potential size of future funded programmes. The need for, and value of, any cap will be assessed each year.



Prioritising Year 2 Projects In the same way as for Year 1 projects, Regional bid information is reviewed and collated to form National Programme spreadsheets for Year 2 projects. Only primary selection criteria (i.e. ‘Priority Mark’ and Value Management score) are used to prioritise Year 2 projects. For scenario planning purposes, provisional national budgets may be used to determine the Value Management cut-off scores and understand the potential allocation of budgets between Regions in Year 2. Approach for Year 3 and 4 projects For Year 3 and 4 projects, the total potential budget need, by Region and asset stream, are collated. Where sufficient information exists, Projects are prioritised on the basis of available Value Management scores and used to inform future budget planning activities and Spending Reviews.



Approval of provisional Programmes The AMO produces a summary of provisional Year 1 Programmes and budget allocations. Summaries of provisional budget allocations for Year 2, and provisional total budget need for Years 3 and 4 are also provided. These are reviewed by the NDD Director before approving the release of the provisional budget allocations and programmes to the Regions for their review. Regional review (Year 1 projects) Following release of the provisional National and Regional Programmes at the end of November, Regions review the provisional Programmes during December and January. Regional reviews of the provisional National Programmes and budgets comprise the following activities:

Confirmation that the need for each project has not changed

Confirmation of the ability of the Region and Areas to deliver all the provisionally funded projects

Review of projects not selected

Implications of provisional funding levels

Confirmation / resubmission of the programme These are described in more detail below.

The NDD Director approves

provisional Programmes and provisional budget allocations

3a

The Regions review

provisional Programmes and allocations



Confirmation of need / ability to deliver Regions confirm that all the funded projects included in the provisional Programmes are still required and can be delivered within the proposed timescales and budget. If projects cannot be delivered, Regions inform the AMO before the end of December so funds can be reallocated to the next project(s) on the prioritised list. Changes in the provisional Programmes for a Region will lead to a re-prioritisation of all projects across all Regions. Review of unselected projects For projects not selected for funding, Regions review the original primary and secondary criteria submitted (‘Priority Mark’, Value Management score, justification, BCR etc) to ensure their currency and reliability. The values of these criteria are compared to those of projects that have been funded (in the same Region). If a non-funded project is considered more important than one or more funded projects, and additional supporting information can be provided before the end of December, Regions can re-submit the project to the AMO for reconsideration. Additional information may include a revised Value Management score. However, NetServ representatives must be included in the review / updating of any Value Management scores. If there is no change in the Value Management score for a project then a separate justification must be made to seek amendment to the proposed projects in the National Programmes. Other implications As needs change across the network from year to year, budget allocations for individual Regions may also change. One potential implication is that contractual thresholds may be triggered with Service Providers.



All such potential implications should be raised with the AMO as part of the Programme review process. The AMO will work with each Region to manage any pressures that emerge in respect of Regional bids and budget allocations, escalating matters to senior managers as required. They will seek to reconcile pressures before finalising Programmes and budget allocations. Confirmation / resubmission of Programme If there are no changes to Regional Programmes, the Programme Development spreadsheets must be signed off by the Divisional Director and returned to the AMO by the end of December. If changes are necessary, revised Programme Development spreadsheets must be developed in consultation with the AMO. Most queries are expected to be resolved at this stage. Resubmissions must:

Clearly identify the project from which funding will be removed

Justify why funding should be moved from one project to another All Programme resubmissions must be provided to the AMO by the end of December.

Regional review (future years)

Provisional Programmes for years 2, 3 and 4 are issued to Regions for review. The AMO discusses any implications of the provisional budget allocations with the Regions for early identification and management of potential issues. These discussions inform the development of summary National reports for Years 2, 3 and 4 (see Step 4).

NDD Programme Development and Management Manual Step 4: Confirmation of Final Programmes and Budgets


Step 4: Confirmation of Final Programmes and Budgets

Reconciliation / budget confirmation The AMO reviews all resubmitted projects by applying the same prioritisation criteria as described in Step 3. Resubmissions are accepted or rejected based on the information (justifications) provided. A revised National Programme spreadsheet is collated and the same prioritisation criteria applied as described in Step 3 to create the final Programmes. Final Programmes are then submitted to the NDD Director for review and approval. Any outstanding issues raised by the Regions are also communicated at this stage, for resolution by the NDD Director. The NDD Director resolves / approves the final Year 1 National Programme by the end of January. Once approved, summary spreadsheets of the final Year 1 Programmes are produced by the AMO for each Region. These set out the final budget allocations for each Area / Region by asset stream and budget programme. They are also used to confirm decisions regarding resubmissions. These spreadsheets are distributed to Regions and subsequently passed to the Area Teams so that both the Area Teams and Service Providers understand the Programmes to be delivered. On behalf of the Service Providers, Area Teams and Regional Teams, Divisional Directors confirm their acceptance and ability to deliver the final Year 1 Regional Programme and budget (given available information). This step is completed by the end of February.

Step4

Step4

The NDD Director approves

the final National Programme

4

Divisional Directors confirm the

Region’s commitment to deliver the final Programmes and budgets

NDD Programme Development and Management Manual Step 4: Confirmation of Final Programmes and Budgets


This is the point at which the Regional Teams work with the Regional Finance Teams and Central Finance Team to ensure that the Forecasts on Oracle Project Accounting within SfM match totally to the agreed allocations from Central AMO. In addition, the Finance Teams will view the forecasted spend on the projects in terms of the reasonableness of their profiling. Dispute resolution Every effort will be made to resolve outstanding queries and issues throughout Steps 2-4 of the Programme lifecycle. These activities are subject to audit and can be further reviewed as part of the formal dispute resolution process shown in Appendix G. Any disputes regarding the prioritisation process and / or budget allocations that have not been resolved during Steps 2 to 4, must be raised before the end of January (i.e. before final approval by the NDD Director). In any dispute the NDD Director will make the final decision. Baseline Programme reporting Value for Money assessments The AMO produces a baseline National Programme spreadsheet and report covering all assets and funding streams. Where BCR data exist for some / all projects, indicative Value for Money assessments are undertaken. Using the BCR for each project, along with the project cost, the overall BCR for the Programme is calculated. The percentage of the Programme value to which the overall BCR relates forms part of the final report made on the Year 1 National Programmes. Note: It is not possible at this time to show the Value for Money from non-pavement projects in the Renewal of Roads Programme as no BCR values are generated. In future, Value for Money indicators will become more important for project prioritisation, with BCR indicators expected to be generated for all projects. The report summarises the future four year view of planned delivery and provisional future need across all Regions. It also highlights potential major issues that might arise. The report will be reviewed by the NDD Director and used to inform future planning activities.

NDD Programme Development and Management Manual Step 5: Tracking Programme Performance


Step 5: Tracking Programme Performance

Monitoring of project delivery Regional Teams work with their Regional Finance Teams to perpetually review the YTD expenditure, the Full Year Forecast and the Whole Life Costs of their projects.

The delivery of all projects within funded Programmes is formally reviewed by Regional Teams and Regional Directors as part of the regular (monthly) business reporting and decision making process in each Region. Making changes to the Programme Changes may be required as planned projects are brought forward, delayed or suspended for technical or operational reasons. In some cases, it may be necessary to introduce new projects into the Programme that were not selected as part of the original allocations. As part of the National prioritisation and budget allocation activities, a list of reserve projects is identified by the AMO. The reserve list comprises projects with the highest priority in that Region but which did not gain funding. Reserve projects are identified for both Capital and Resource project Programmes. If approved projects are delayed or suspended, replacement projects are identified by the Region, in collaboration with the appropriate Area Team and Service Provider, from the reserve projects for that Region. Projects are selected from the project list using the following criteria:

Project from the same Programme

Ability to deliver in the period

Value Management score

Network occupancy constraints

Policy / Programme objectives

Maintaining total programme cost in line with the approved budget Once another project has been identified and satisfactory justification provided for its selection, the AMO will approve the Programme change.

Step5

Step5

Approval will be given

by the AMO to satisfactorily justified programme changes



The Area Team updates Oracle and records all changes (including justifications) on the next programme performance report (see below). If suitable projects cannot be identified from the reserve list, the budget made available by delayed or suspended projects is returned to AMO for allocation from the National prioritised list. In some cases, this budget could be assigned to another Region. Note: The Value Management process assesses and scores the preferred option for a project. It is essential that the type of treatment and extent of the works are not changed during the delivery phase. If either of these fundamentally change the Value Management score must be reassessed. If the Value Management score drops, it may be necessary, to replace the project with one from the Region’s reserve projects. Reviews of programme performance Each Region is required to complete programme performance reporting for the AMO, highlighting any changes to planned Programmes. The format of this report is provided in Appendix H and is based on the National Programme spreadsheets. It comprises a delivery tracking spreadsheet: indicating the changes, additions and deletions that have been (or are planned to be) made to the Programme. The justification column is used to record reasons for the changes Quarterly Programme performance reports are collated by the AMO to provide national Programme performance reports. The Programme performance report comprises:

A quarterly delivery tracking spreadsheet indicating the changes, additions and deletions that have been (or are planned to be) made to the programme. The justification column is used to record reasons for the changes

Summary performance data (tables and graphs)

Summary commentary to support the performance data The main purpose of these reports is to:

Provide visibility of progress

Ensure that, where changes are necessary, due process is being followed consistently across all Regions

Facilitate early identification / management of delivery issues, and

Inform senior management decisions.

Regional Teams complete quarterly

Programme performance reports



The report is reviewed and signed off by the NDD Director. Recommendations are incorporated into future delivery and Programme Development activities. Note: At this stage a simplified view of change and progress is recorded. As reporting procedures develop, resulting performance data will become more comprehensive and will start to inform the direction of future Programme Development and delivery activities.

Changes to future year Programmes It is important that cost estimates of future year projects are reviewed on a regular basis and are kept up to date as a project develops through the feasibility, design, preparation (and implementation) stages. Any changes to Year 2, 3 or 4 projects must be recorded in Oracle in preparation for subsequent Programme planning activities.

The NDD Director reviews and signs off the final delivered National Programme, and recommends future improvements

5

NDD Programme Development and Management Manual Step 6: Auditing and Continuous Improvement


Step 6: Auditing and Continuous Improvement

Auditing the Value Management process The Value Management Team has already benchmarked the scores of typical projects across the network to ensure consistency. Value Management scores are consistent across the Network within +/- 2 for Roads and Structures. While known biases have emerged (e.g. the ability of non-pavement projects to score more highly than pavement projects) these can be rectified with the aid of ring-fenced budgets until Value Management processes are harmonised. NetServ is responsible for validating the Value Management process and its representatives will continue to be present at all Value Management workshops where projects are scored, to provide rigour and independence in the development of Value Management scores for each project. Additionally, and independently, the central AMO will carry out audits of the Value Management process, the scores generated and level of contributions from every party within the Value Management process to ensure standards of data accuracy, reliability and consistency are maintained. Auditing the Programme Development process The AMO will co-ordinate the auditing of key stages within the Programme lifecycle. This will include:

Reviewing the National Prioritisation process to ensure that agreed prioritisation criteria are applied fairly, and

Auditing the delivery of planned Programmes to ensure the process is being applied consistently across the network.

Auditing the quality and consistency of data held on Oracle in relation to planned Programmes.

These will be linked to the existing Network Operations Audit of Contract Compliance (NOACC) activities and forthcoming Performance Audit Framework. Continuous improvement reviews At the end of each Programme lifecycle, a review will be undertaken by the AMO to understand where improvements can be made to either the Programme development and management processes and/or application of the processes. This will involve individual reviews of:

Step6

NDD Programme Development and Management Manual Step 6: Auditing and Continuous Improvement


Agency objectives

Planning / delivery performance metrics

Value Management process and data outputs

Prioritisation criteria

Data handling

Communication activities

Training needs This information will be used to identify improvement needs and develop / implement a series of improvement activities each year. Improvement activities will be reviewed and approved by the NDD Director.

The NDD Director reviews and

approves improvement activities for the Programme Development process

NDD Programme Development and Management Manual Appendix A: Contacts for Further Information


Appendix A: Contacts for Further Information

NDD Programme and Budget Allocations Chris Jackson (AMO), 9th Floor, The Cube, Birmingham Tel: 0121 678 8027

Regional Programmes East Region (Woodlands, Bedford) Mike Wherrett - 0123 479 6219 Stuart Lawrence - 0123 479 6182 East Midlands Region (The Cube, Birmingham) Martin Fellows - 07554 438707 Charlotte Hill - 0121 687 4227 North West Region (City Tower, Manchester) Matthew Sweeting - 07786 126545 Paul Turner - 0161 930 5664 South East Region (Federated House, Dorking) Barry Westwood - 0130 687 8161 Angela Koenig - 0130 687 8251 South West Region (Temple Quay House, Bristol) Malcolm Wilkinson - 0117 372 8088 Lance Marshall - 07789 923175 West Midlands Region (The Cube, Birmingham) Steve Edwards - 0121 678 8360 John Pontone - 0121 678 8544 Yorkshire & North East Region (Lateral Building, Leeds) Chris Holehouse - 0113 283 5814 Francis Carlyle - 0113 283 5358

Value Management For Roads Renewal Projects (Policy): Ramesh Sinhal, Heron House, Bedford Tel: 01234 79 6527 For Roads Renewal Projects (Delivery): Alex Tam, Federated House, Dorking Tel: 0130 687 8153 For Structures Renewal Projects: Ian Sandle, Federated House, Dorking Tel: 0130 687 8178 For LNMS: Malcolm Walker, City Tower, Manchester Tel: 0161 930 5634

NDD Programme Development and Management Manual Appendix A: Contacts for Further Information


Regional / Central Finance Teams Central (& Technology) Jo Orpwood, The Cube, Birmingham Tel: 0121 678 8412 East Region Catherine Cope, The Cube, Birmingham Tel: 0121 678 5986 Sue West, Woodlands, Bedford Tel: 0123 479 6114 East Midlands Region Sue West, Woodlands, Bedford Tel: 0123 479 6114 North West Region Marie Crozier, City Tower, Manchester Tel: 07500 064620 South East Region Raj Lakhani, Federated House, Dorking Tel: 0130 6874132 Graham Burgess, Federated House, Dorking Tel: 0130 687 8241 South West Region Karen Norris, Temple Quay, Bristol Tel: 0117 372 8047 Graham Burgess, Federated House, Dorking Tel: 0130 687 8241 West Midlands Region Jason Martin, The Cube, Birmingham Tel: 0121 678 8395 Graham Burgess, Federated House, Dorking Tel: 0130 687 8241 Yorkshire & North East Region Marie Crozier, City Tower, Manchester Tel: 07500 064620

NDD Programme Development and Management Manual Appendix C: Summary Programme Objectives


Appendix B: Project Prioritisation Criteria for 2011/12 Programmes

Criteria (in order of

priority)

Applied

Notes

Roads

Structures

LNMS

Primary criteria

Priority Mark: Project is ‘Committed’

Committed projects are treated as equivalent to having the highest possible Value Management score.

Priority Mark: Project is ‘necessary’

Necessary projects are identified by Area / Regional Teams. Sufficient justification must be provided and AMO must approve this justification, otherwise the Priority Mark is removed. Approved projects are prioritised after Committed projects.

Project Value Management score

Prioritisation is on the basis of the Value Management score

Secondary criteria

Highest Benefit cost Ratio (BCR)

Roads and Structures projects use the Economic Indicator as a measure of BCR where this is available. LNMS projects use First Year Rate of Return (FYRR) for all projects. (Note: Whole life BCR is calculated but only for a limited number of larger projects, consequently FYRR is used instead )

NDD Programme Development and Management Manual Appendix C: Data Requirements for Bid Programme / National Programme Development


Appendix C: Data Requirements for Bid Programme / National Programme Development Field Name Example Description Submitted

Step 2

Bid Step 3

Allocation

Division NO North West Select Region from drop down menu.

Cost Centre NO North West Area 10 Select Area from drop down menu.

Resource / Capital Capital

Select Capital or Resource from Drop down menu. Capital = Renewals / Improvement projects of total cost £100k or greater

Resource = Renewals / Improvement projects of total cost less than £100k, or any Programme Development Support works.

Contact regional finance team for guidance

MPML LNMS Select Asset stream from drop down menu.

Renewal of Roads, Renewal of Structures, LNMS.

Sub-MPML LNMS - Economy Select Sub-asset stream from drop down menu (LNMS projects only).

Project Number 510062 Enter Oracle (System for Managing) PIN for this project e.g. 109584 e.g. F100505.

Project Name A55-A483 Roundabout Enter title of project (should be identical to that provided in Oracle)

Value Management Score (VMS) 8 Enter Value Management (VM) Score. All projects must have a score to be considered for funding. Scores must be those agreed at formal VM scoring workshops. If no VM score available, leave blank (estimated scores should be

placed in the justification field).

Priority Desirable Select priority mark (Committed, Necessary, Desirable) from drop down menu. Default value is Desirable.

Justification must be provided for any other priority mark.

Type of PIN Project Select the type of PIN (Project, Individual 'Small Works' Project, Block PIN of 'Small Works', PDS) from drop down

list

Actual / Proposed Start Date of Detailed Design / Preparation Works

01/06/2011 Enter date on which detailed / preparation works will commence. If detailed / preparation works already started,

enter actual date works started.

Actual / Proposed Start Date of Construction Works 02/08/2011 Enter date on which construction works will commence. If construction works already started, enter actual date

works started.

Duration of Construction Works (Months) 2 Enter duration (number of months) of construction works.

Proposed Completion Date of Construction Works 02/10/2011 Enter date on which construction works will be completed.

Full Project (PIN) Costs (All Years) (£) £40,818 Enter total cost of project (£) over all years, as agreed at the VM workshop. This should include all optimism bias /

risk adjustments. For block PINs, enter total year 1 cost only.

Actual Expenditure in Prior Year (2009/10) (£) £0 Enter actual expenditure in specified year. If block PIN of PDS or small works, leave blank.

Actual Expenditure in Prior Year (2010/11) (£) £0 Enter actual expenditure in specified year. If block PIN of PDS or small works, leave blank.

Year 1 (2011/12) Project (PIN) Forecast (£) £623,000 Enter forecast cost of project in (the specified) Year 1 of the programming cycle (£). Enter 0 if no work undertaken in

this year.

Year 2 (2012/13) Project (PIN) Forecast (£) £0 Enter forecast cost of project in (the specified) Year 2 of the programming cycle (£). Enter 0 if no work undertaken in

this year. If block PIN for PDS or small works, leave blank.





Economic Indicator-EI or First Year Rate of Return-FYRR 48% Enter Economic Indicator value (RoR, RoS) or First Year Rate of Return % value (LNMS). If not available, leave

blank.

Predominant Type of Intervention LNMS

Select predominant project type from drop down menu (RoR and RoS projects only). Pavement Thin Surfacing = Treatments from an overlay of 50mm, up to a full reconstruction of the road. Pavement Resurfacing = The existing

layer is planed off and replaced up to a depth of approx 50mm. Pavement Strengthening = Treatments from an overlay of 50mm, up to a full reconstruction of the road. For LNMS enter LNMS.

Do Something Description Traffic Signal upgrade Enter description of works to be carried out

Expected Stage Project Reached by End of 2011/12 Construction works completed Select stage of progress project expected to reach by the end of Year 1 from drop down menu (Feasibility, Detailed

Design / Preparation , Construction works in progress, Construction works completed).

Do Something Justification Text

Congestion extending from the grade separated junction to A55 mainline (PSA Route 81). Queue on A483(T) northbound approach extends for 1.5 miles in peak periods. 53 accidents in 5-years,

26 of these were shunts & 13 lane changes. The improvement involves widening of the A55 eastbound slip road approach to 3-lanes to enable 2-lanes to turn towards Chester. Minor widening of circulatory carriageway will allow the A55 westbound slip road approach to have 2-lanes to turn

towards Chester. These changes will allow a greater proportion of the signal cycle time to be provided for A483(T) traffic so congestion will also be reduced on this approach.

Enter additional justification for why project has a particular priority (e.g. necessary) or why it should be considered for funding if VM score is low.

Predominant Road Type Treated (Pavements Only) Motorway Details of road section treated: select motorway or all purpose trunk road from drop down list (Pavements only). For

RoS and LNMS, leave blank.

Predominant Carriageway Type Treated (Pavements Only)

Dual Carriageway Is the road treated a single or dual carriageway? Select single carriageway or dual carriageway from the drop down

menu provided (Pavements only). For RoS and LNMS, leave blank.



Appendix C: (Cont’d)

Field Name Example Description

Submitted

Step 2 Bid

Step 2 Bid

No of Lanes in Carriageway (Pavements Only) 3 Description of the road being treated in terms of no. lanes in each direction (excluding the hard shoulder) . Where

different number of lanes in each direction select the higher number e.g. if three lanes in one direction and two lanes in the other direction, select 3 from the drop down menu (Pavements only). For RoS and LNMS, leave blank.

Length of Pavement Treated (Lane Kms) (Pavements Only)

1.5 Length of pavement treated (lane kms) (Pavements only). For RoS and LNMS, leave blank.

Total No. of Lanes Treated (Pavements Only) 2 The number of lanes (including hard shoulder) to which the treatment will be applied, including lanes in both

directions as required (Pavements only). For RoS and LNMS, leave blank.

Carriageway Treated (Pavements Only) One Direction Are the lanes to be treated on one direction of travel or both? Select one direction or both directions from the drop

menu provided (Pavements only). For RoS and LNMS, leave blank.

Total PIA Savings (no.) in Opening Year (LNMS Safety and Economy)

1.2 Enter the expected total number of Personal Injury Accidents (PIA) savings in first year of scheme opening. If none,

enter zero. (LNMS Safety and Economy schemes only). For RoS, RoS, and other types of LNMS, leave blank.

Total KSI Savings (no.) in Opening Year (LNMS Safety and Economy)

0.4 Enter the total number of Killed or Seriously Injured (KSI) accidents savings in first year of scheme opening. If none, enter zero. (For LNMS Safety and Economy schemes only). For RoS, RoS, and other types of LNMS, leave blank.

Total JT Savings (hrs) in Opening Year (LNMS Safety and Economy)

230.0 Enter the total number of Journey Time (JT) savings in hours in first year of scheme opening. If none, enter zero.

(For LNMS Safety and Economy schemes only). For RoS, RoS, and other types of LNMS, leave blank.

Do Minimum / Essential Works Costs in Year 1 (2011/12) (£)

£20,000 Enter 'Do Minimum' (RoR) or 'Essential' (RoS) works costs(£) in Year 1 (2011/12) of the programme cycle, as

agreed at the VM workshop. If no ‘Do Minimum’ / ‘Essential’ works, enter 0. For LNMS, leave blank.


£20,000 Enter 'Do Minimum' (RoR) or 'Essential' (RoS) works costs (£) in Year 2 (2012/13) of the programme cycle, as








Do Minimum / Essential Works Description Enter description of ‘Do Minimum’ (RoR) or ‘Essential’ (RoS) works to be carried out in Year 1 and where applicable

Years 2, 3 and 4). Leave blank if no ‘Do Minimum / Essential works proposed.

Do Minimum / Essential Works Justification Text Enter additional justification for why these works constitute a ‘Do Minimum’ / ’Essential’ works solution (as opposed

to do something) for Year 1 and where applicable Years 2, 3 and 4. Leave blank if no ‘Do Minimum’ / ‘Essential’ works proposed.

Number of DDA projects delivered by PIN 2

How many Diasability and Discrimination Act (DDA) projects does this PIN deliver? These are projects that address Disability and Discrimination Act (DDA) needs in one or more of the 4,800 pre-identified sites across the Network.

For example, if a LNMS includes 10 bus stops that are being made DDA compliant, the number 10 should be entered.



Appendix C: (Cont’d) Field Name Example Description Submitted

Step 2

Bid

Step 3/4 Allocation /

Confirmation

Year 1(2011/12) Budget Allocation £623,000 Provided by the AMO following prioritisation

Funding Programme to Which PIN Belongs (Allocated by Central AMO)

Capital main works Provided by AMO following prioritisation.

Apr-11 Forecast Spend £2,500 Enter monthly forecast spend. If no forecast spend in month, enter 0.

May-11 Forecast Spend £2,500 Enter monthly forecast spend. If no forecast spend in month, enter 0.

Jun-11 Forecast Spend £2,500 Enter monthly forecast spend. If no forecast spend in month, enter 0.

Jul-11 Forecast Spend £2,500 Enter monthly forecast spend. If no forecast spend in month, enter 0.

Aug-11 Forecast Spend £260,000 Enter monthly forecast spend. If no forecast spend in month, enter 0.

Sep-11 Forecast Spend £340,000 Enter monthly forecast spend. If no forecast spend in month, enter 0.

Oct-11 Forecast Spend £7,000 Enter monthly forecast spend. If no forecast spend in month, enter 0.

Nov-11 Forecast Spend £6,000 Enter monthly forecast spend. If no forecast spend in month, enter 0.

Dec-11 forecast spend £0 Enter monthly forecast spend. If no forecast spend in month, enter 0.

Jan-12 Forecast Spend £0 Enter monthly forecast spend. If no forecast spend in month, enter 0.

Feb-12 Forecast Spend £0 Enter monthly forecast spend. If no forecast spend in month, enter 0.

Mar-12 Forecast Spend £0 Enter monthly forecast spend. If no forecast spend in month, enter 0.

Total Forecast Spend £623,000 Automatic sum of monthly forecast spend.

Difference Between Total Forecast Spend and Year 1 Budget Allocation

£0 Automatic comparison of total forecast spend with total allocation.

NDD Programme Development and Management Manual Appendix D: Decision Tree for Defining a Capital or Resource Project


Appendix D: Decision Tree for Defining a Capital or Resource Project

Does the Project add value to the Network ?

Is the Project for Category 1 IFRS

Renewals?

Is the Project cost £ 100 k or greater ?

Is the purchase an asset ?

Is the Project cost £ 2 k or greater ? The Project is Resource

The Project is Capital

Yes No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes No

Yes

Yes

No

No No

Is the Project on the Network ?

NDD Programme Development and Management Manual Appendix E: Process Diagrams for the Development of National Programmes and Allocation of Budgets


Appendix E: Process Diagrams for the Development of National Programmes and Allocation of Budgets Roads Renewal Projects



Structures Renewal Projects



LNMS Projects

NDD Programme Development and Management Manual Appendix F: Worked Example of Development of a National Programme and Allocation of Budget


Appendix F: Worked Example showing Development of a National Programme and Allocation of Budget Consider that the Roads main works programme is made up of Projects A to K shown in Table F1. Table F1: Example Roads Main Works Programme

Project Priority Value

Management (VM) Score

Works cost ‘Do Minimum’

Cost Economic Indicator

(BCR)

A Committed 89 £1.100m - -

B Committed 61 £1.710m - -

I Necessary 39 £2.124m £0.156m 0.050

F Unavoidable 100 £1.113m £0.112m 0.291

D Unavoidable 100 £0.750m - -

G Desirable 90 £1.007m £0.092m 0.110

H Desirable 65 £2.018m £0.083m 1.642

C Desirable 64 £0.412m £0.064m 0.726

J Desirable 62 £2.345m £0.105m 0.944

K Desirable 60 £0.325m £0.053m -

E Desirable 50 £0.541m £0.042m 1.730

Regardless of their Value Management scores, projects (A) and (B) which were started in the previous year are ‘Committed’ and would be included in the funded programme (the works costs shown are the costs for those projects in that year, not the total project costs). Project (I) has a Value Management score of 39 but for operational reasons the project must be undertaken in the Programme Year and is therefore a Necessary project. Project (I) is therefore funded before the prioritisation is started. The Value Management process has identified projects (D) and (F) as Unavoidable but this is already reflected in their VM score of 100. Prior to prioritisation, all ‘Do Minimum’ options are funded. If the ‘Do Minimum’ cost <£100k, these projects would be part of the Resource Roads projects otherwise they would be part of the Roads Capital Programme. Therefore,

- ‘Do Minimum’ options for Projects (C), (E), (G), (H) and (K) would be placed in the Roads resource programme.

- ‘Do Minimum’ option for Projects (F) and (J) would be placed in the Roads Capital Programme.

If the Roads Capital budget is £16.000m, this is sufficient to fund the Committed and Necessary projects (A), (B) and (I) (costing £4.934m) and the capital ‘Do Minimum’ for projects (F) and (J) (costing £0.217m). This gives a remaining budget of £10.849m to be allocated from the capital budget shown in Table F2. Using Table F2, funding for Roads projects runs out for projects with a Value Management score less than 62. Threshold projects would be identified as having Value Management scores of +/- 2 of the threshold Value Management scores i.e. between 64 and 60 inclusive. Consequently, based on primary criteria, projects (D), (F), (G) and (H) would be included in the funded Capital Main Works Programme and projects (K) and (E) would not.

NDD Programme Development and Management Manual Appendix F: Worked Example of Development of a National Programme and Allocation of Budget


Table F2: Projects for prioritisation in the example Roads Capital Programme

Project Priority Value

Management Score

Works cost

‘Do Minimum’

Cost

Cost over Capital

minus ‘Do Minimum’

Cost*

Cumulative capital cost minus ‘Do Minimum’

Cost

Economic Indicator

(BCR)

F Unavoidable 100 £1.113m £0.112m £1.001m £1.001m 0.291

D Unavoidable 100 £0.750m -

G Desirable 90 £1.007m £0.092m £1.007m £2.008m 0.110

H Desirable 65 £3.018m £0.083m £3.018m £5.026m 1.642

C Desirable 64 £2.412m £0.064m £2.412m £7.438m 0.726

J Desirable 62 £2.345m £0.105m £2.240m £9.678m 0.944

K Desirable 60 £3.325m £0.053m £3.325m £13.003m 0.685

E Desirable 50 £ 1.541m £0.042m £1.541m £14.544m 1.730

*Only applies for the project whose ‘Do Minimum’ cost >£100K. Since projects (D), (F), (G) and (H) are now part of the funded capital main works programme, their equivalent ‘Do Minimum’ options would be removed from the Resource Works Programme. Projects (C), (J) and (K) would form the threshold group to which secondary criteria (BCR) would be applied. Based on BCR, projects (C), (D) and (J) would be prioritised in the following order:

(i) Project J with a BCR of 0.944 (ii) Project C with a BCR of 0.726 (iii) Project K with no BCR

With £5.073m of the funds available to be allocated, projects (J) and (C) of the threshold projects would be included in the funded main works programme and the ‘Do Minimum’ options of those projects are removed from the Resource Programme. Consequently, in this example, the following projects would be included in the funded Capital Main Works Programme:

1. Project A 2. Project B 3. Project C 4. Project D 5. Project F 6. Project G 7. Project H 8. Project I 9. Project J

And the following projects would be not be funded, but their Do Minimum costs would be included in the Resource Programme:

1. Project E (‘Do Minimum’ option) 2. Project K (‘Do Minimum’ option)

For the Roads Capital works budget of £16.000m, Reserve Projects to a total cost of £1.600m (10%) can be identified. Project E would therefore become a Reserve project for the Roads Capital works programme but project K would not.

NDD Programme Development and Management Manual Appendix G: Dispute Resolution Process Diagram


Appendix G: Dispute Resolution Process Diagram

Region questions project prioritisation

and / or budget allocation

Was

evidence submitted by

Region?

Was

evidence used for

prioritisation?

Were

prioritisation criteria applied

correctly?

Evidence

changed/new evidence

appeared since

prioritisation?

PPG

agreed evidence is

valid?

Was this

evidence used to reprioritise

projects?

Other

financial/network

implications identified since

prioritisation?

PPG

agreed need for change in

allocation?

Were

implications raised with NDD

Director?

Decision

unchanged

Reprioritise /

reallocate

budgets

NDD Director

reviews new

evidence

NDD Director

reviews

implications

Do

budgets need

reallocating?

Reprioritise /

reallocate

budgets

Decision

unchanged

Reprioritise /

reallocate

budgets

Decision

unchanged

Was

evidence

valid?

Decision

unchanged

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

NDD Programme Development and Management Manual Appendix H: Data Requirements for Monthly Tracking of Programme Delivery


Appendix H: Data Requirements for Tracking of Programme Delivery

Field Name Example Description

Apr-11 Actual / Forecast Spend £2,500

Automatic upload from Oracle.

May-11 Actual / Forecast Spend £2,500

Jun-11 Actual / Forecast Spend £2,500

Jul-11 Actual / Forecast Spend £2,500

Aug-11 Actual / Forecast Spend £260,000

Sep-11 Actual / Forecast Spend £340,000

Oct-11 Actual / Forecast Spend £7,000

Nov-11 Actual / Forecast Spend £6,000

Dec-11 Actual / Forecast Spend £0

Jan-11 Actual / Forecast Spend £0

Feb-11 Actual / Forecast Spend £0

Mar-11 Actual / Forecast Spend £0

Total Actual / Forecast Spend £623,000

Difference Between Total Actual / Forecast Spend and Year 1 Budget Allocation £0 Automatic comparison of total actual / forecast spend with total allocation.

Progress: Actual Stage Project Reached To Date Works in Progress Select actual stage of progress project reached to date from drop down menu (Feasibility, Preparation / Design, Works in progress,

Works completed).

Description of Actual Outputs To Date Enter description of actual outputs to date. For roads e.g. length of pavement resurfaced (lane kms). For structures e.g. number of

schemes. For LNMS - environment e.g. otter habitats. For LNMS - Economy e.g. number of schemes completed. For LNMS - Safety e.g. number of schemes completed. If no outputs delivered to date, leave blank.

Number of Actual Outputs To Date Enter number of outputs actual outputs to date as described in previous data field e.g. 1 or 4. If no outputs delivered to date, leave blank.

Actual Project / Programme Changes To Date During 2011/12 No change Select category of change from drop down menu to which project belongs: no change, project changed, project stopped, new project

(from reserve programme), new project (not from reserve programme). Changes should be made to the relevant revised data fields below.

Justification for Variations to the Baseline Programme in 2011/12 Enter justification for why the project has been changed, stopped, or a new project has been introduced. If no change, leave blank.

Revised Value Management Score (VMS)

Only complete if value is different from baseline data. If no change, leave blank

Revised Priority

Revised Start Date of Detailed Design / Preparation Works

Revised Start Date of On-site Construction Works

Revised Duration of On-Site Works (Months)

Revised Completion Date of On-Site Works

Revised Full Project (PIN) Costs (All Years) (£)

Revised Year 1 Project (PIN) Forecast (£)




Revised Benefit Cost Ratio (Economic Indicator-EI)

Predominant Type of Intervention

Revised Do Something Description

Revised Expected Stage Project Reached by End of 2011/12

Revised Predominant Road Type Treated (Pavements Only)

Revised Predominant Carriageway Type Treated (Pavements Only)

Revised No of Lanes in Carriageway (Pavements Only)

Revised Length of Pavement Treated (Lane Kms) (Pavements Only)

Revised Total No. of Lanes Treated (Pavements Only)

Revised Carriageway Treated (Pavements Only)

Revised Total PIA Savings (no.) in Opening Year (LNMS Safety and Economy)

Revised Total KSI Savings (no.) in Opening Year (LNMS Safety and Economy)

Revised Total JT Savings (hrs) in Opening Year (LNMS Safety and Economy)

Revised Number of DDA projects delivered by PIN

Notes: Shaded fields indicate the minimum data input requirements from Regions for monthly tracking and reporting. The level of cost change requiring justification will be identified as part of the detailed reporting requirements being developed prior to implementation.

NDD Programme Development and Management Manual Appendix I: Glossary


Appendix I: Glossary AMO Asset Management Office BCR Benefit/Cost Ratio DfT Department for Transport DDA Disability and Discrimination Act FS Finance Services HA Highways Agency, sometimes abbreviated to The Agency HAPMS Highways Agency Pavement Management System IAM Integrated Asset Management ICF Investment Control Framework LNMS Local Network Management Scheme (Improvement Schemes) MPML Management Plan Monitoring Line (Renewal of Roads, Renewal of

Structures, Local Network Management Schemes) NetServ Network Services (Directorate) NDDD Network Delivery and Development Directorate NO Network Operations (superseded by NDDD) NOACC Network Operations Audit of Contract Compliance Oracle Oracle System for Managing PAF Project Approval Form PAR Project Appraisal Report PDF Project Development Form PDS Programme Development Support (works) PIN Project Identification Number POG Programme Objectives Guide RoR Renewal of Roads (projects and programmes) RoS Renewal of Structures (projects and programmes) SfM (Oracle) System for Managing SMIS Structures Management and Information System Sub-MPML Sub-Management Plan Monitoring Line VM Value Management YTD Year to Date

Date post:	06-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	trinhthuan
View:	218 times
Download:	3 times

Programme Development and Management...

Documents