Investing in transportation

The role of value for money analysis

May 2015

At a glance PwC assessed the role of Value for Money (VfM) analysis in delivering transportation projects and considered its potential for greater use in the US. VfM analysis helps governments compare traditional delivery methods with publicprivate partnerships. Public-private partnerships can reduce the potential for cost overruns and they have earned a reputation for delivering projects on time.

Transportation agencies around the country are dealing with limited budgets and rising debt levels. PwC studies shows that a comprehensive Value for Money (VfM) analysis may help articulate the value that a public-private partnership (P3) could provide when compared to more traditional means of project delivery.

The value of VfM analysis Any capital-intense transportation project requires rigorous planning and analysis and can benefit from a thorough appraisal. When articulating the value of delivery model options, from traditional methods such as design-build (DB) and designbid-build (DBB) to public-private partnerships (P3s), a comprehensive Value for Money (VfM) analysis may be beneficial. As transportation agencies around the country deal with the reality of limited budgets and rising debt levels, P3s could represent the future for many transportation infrastructure projects. To articulate the value of a P3 as compared with more traditional means of project delivery, a considered, transparent appraisal process such as VfM may be employed. If a P3 is selected, the analysis can demonstrate to stakeholders that the arrangement was selected because it provides clear benefits that outweigh the associated costs or risks of private-sector participation.

The University of Melbourne conducted a study of 42 traditional procurement projects and 25 P3s and concluded that P3s provide far greater cost certainty.

2

Transportation investment frameworks

This report is the second in a threepart PwC study of how countries outside the US use transportation investment frameworks to allocate scarce public funds to the highest priority projects. Here, we examine key issues relating to the use of VfM analysis for transportation projects and how international jurisdictions, and also those in the US, have sought to address them. Research questions explored • What are the objectives of a VfM analysis and how are the results used? • Who undertakes the publicsector comparator (PSC) and VfM analyses? • At what point in the planning process are the analyses performed? • To what extent do the analyses incorporate considerations that are not quantifiable, but are important for public decision making? Before examining the specific benefits, risks, and processes of VfM analysis, it is useful to summarize the current use of P3s in delivering transportation projects in the US and abroad.

P3s in the transportation sector A P3 is a contractual arrangement between a public agency and a consortium of private-sector companies that results in greater private participation in the delivery of an infrastructure project. In such arrangements, the private consortium may design, build, finance, operate, and/or maintain a transportation asset, such as a road, mass-transit system, bus and light rail system, port infrastructure, or parking facility, for a contracted period. Consortium members may raise debt and provide

Figure 1. Factors affecting procurement decision Factorsthe in the procurement decision Efficient risk allocation

Total lifecycle cost

Transaction costs

Price and delivery certainty

Project tax burden

Accelerated construction

Government involvement in operations

Source: PwC analysis

Public private partnerships

Traditional procurement

Procurement time

equity to directly invest in the project, with the consortium’s revenue derived from user fees, ancillary revenues and/or payments provided by the public agency. Recent efforts by President Obama and Congress to encourage private investment in public infrastructure aim to raise awareness that P3s are a viable solution to restoring America’s fraying transportation infrastructure, as they carry a reputation for introducing efficiencies and reliability into a project’s delivery. Under a P3 arrangement, not only can the private consortium provide expertise and sorely needed capital, but also share the risks with the public sector, with each party taking on the ones it is most capable of managing (see Figure 1). P3s also have earned a strong reputation for the ability to deliver projects on time and reduce the potential for cost overruns that can afflict many multiyear transportation projects. This is because schedule performance becomes critical when the private sector is also responsible for financing the project. The assertion that P3 arrangements may provide incentives for improved cost and schedule performance is also supported by a University of Melbourne study. The study looked at 42 traditional procurement projects and 25 P3s and concluded that P3s provide far greater cost certainty. The researchers found that once the contract had been signed, P3s had an average cost escalation of just 4%, while traditional procurement projects had a much higher average cost escalation of 18%.1

3

Well established in the UK, Australia, and other parts of the world, P3s in transportation have been slow to gain momentum in the US. Between 1985 and 2011, 821 P3 transportation projects were funded worldwide, of which only 70 were in the US, according to Public Works Financing’s International Major Projects Database. In contrast, 265 were funded in Europe, and 260 in Asia and Australia. But now, more than 30 states have adopted P3-enabling legislation, demonstrating growing interest in partnering with the private sector in new ways to deliver transportation and other public infrastructure projects.2 Moreover, there’s a growing appetite at

the federal level for private investment in infrastructure and the use of the P3 model. This is evidenced by increased funding for such initiatives as the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA), which supports the majority of P3 transportation projects in the US. The Obama Administration also introduced the GROW America Act into Congress in mid-2014 and launched a Build America Transportation Investment Center within the US Department of Transportation. And the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) launched the P3-VALUE toolkit in 2013 that aims to foster a better understanding of the analysis used in comparing P3 alternatives with

traditional procurement. In other sectors, Congress passed the Water Resources Reform and Development Act that includes a Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Authority (WIFIA) to provide credit assistance for drinking water, wastewater and water resources infrastructure projects. With a growing number of P3 transportation projects implemented in the US, signs are beginning to emerge that P3 arrangements can be cost effective for large-scale, complex projects, particularly when P3 availabilitybased payment structures are used, and that P3s may deliver greater cost efficiencies than DB methods (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Recent large transportation projects indicate significant cost efficiencies for projects delivered as P3s Project

Location

Delivery method

Owner’s estimate (USD)

Bid (USD)

Percent below Successful owner’s bidder estimate

Presidio Parkway California

ABP

$471m

$272m

42.3%

Flatiron/Kiewit

I-595

Florida

ABP

$1.9bn

$1.3bn

32.6%

ACS/Dragados

Ohio River Bridges: East End Crossing

Kentucky

ABP

$987m

$763m

22.7%

Walsh

Ohio River Bridges: Downtown Crossing

Indiana

DB

$950m

$860m

9.5%

Walsh

ABP = Availability-based Payment DB = Design Build Source: Creative Infrastructure Solutions

4

Transportation investment frameworks

Addressing P3 challenges There are many reasons for the relatively small number of P3s in the US, but one of the most critical challenges has been the difficulty in assessing the risks and benefits of combining public and private sector resources to deliver public infrastructure in the face of fiscal and ethics scrutiny. To help overcome that obstacle, some countries, including the UK, Canada, and Australia, and a small number of

jurisdictions in the US have developed and refined a VfM methodology to evaluate various approaches to delivering transportation projects and help them make investment and procurement decisions. VfM analysis guides investment decision making, as public officials weigh the roles of the public and private sectors in delivering a specific project and determine the delivery method that is the most efficient and offers the greatest value (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. Comparison of traditional procurement with public-private partnership in delivering projects Traditional procurement

Public-private partnership

• Either performs the design work in-house or contracts it to an engineering design firm.

• Typically awards a single privatesector contract to design, build, finance, operate, and/or maintain an asset.

• Engages one or more construction contractors through competitive bidding. • Retains the majority of the risk associated with the project.

• Transfers a portion of the risk to the private sector. • Typically remits payment when services are delivered.

Source: PwC analysis

5

The UK government defines VfM as the optimum combination of whole lifecycle costs and quality (or fitness for purpose) of the good or service to meet the user’s requirement. A similar definition is also provided by the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Office of Transportation Public-Private Partnerships: “The procurement of a [Public-Private Transportation Act] PPTA project represents VfM when— relative to a traditional project delivery method—it delivers the optimum

combination of net life cycle costs and quality that will meet the objectives of the project and the commonwealth.”3 The analysis process adopted in several jurisdictions in the US, as well as overseas, is designed to compare each project delivery method to determine which is likely to deliver this optimal combination over the project’s entire lifetime, from procurement to longterm operation and maintenance. Government investment decisions are traditionally focused on financial

and economic considerations, but a VfM approach takes a much broader perspective and accounts for both quantitative and qualitative factors. While a VfM analysis is often used in evaluating potential P3 projects, it can be applied to other types of procurement decisions, such as selecting between a DBB and a DB delivery method for a publicly financed project. It can also be used to assess P3 projects delivered in other sectors, such as health, education, and energy.

Figure 4. VfM analysis measures relative financial benefit

Develop PSC* Compare PSC with SBM to determine option with greater VfM

Receive actual P3 bids

6Develop SBM*

Compare PSC with actual bids to determine option with greater VfM • When bids are first received • During bidder selection • Prior to closing the deal

*Note: The public sector comparator (PSC) and the shadow bid model (SBM) are constructed—typically before bids are received—to estimate the costs of a project to determine if it would be better undertaken by the public or the private sector.

Source: PwC analysis, based on interviews in the UK, Australia, and Canada

A closer look at VfM Using private-sector skills and capital in a P3 arrangement can add layers of complexity to a project’s development and implementation. Therefore, a comprehensive evaluation can give the community confidence that a P3 arrangement was chosen because it provides clear benefits that outweigh the associated costs or risks of involving the private sector—or conversely, to support the decision to use another delivery method. Public acceptance is critical for any public infrastructure project, but potentially more so for the private companies involved in a P3 arrangement as investors and contractors may not earn a return on investment until the project is operational.

Conducting a VfM analysis VfM analysis is used to assess projects in transportation and other capitalintensive sectors. The two key quantitative elements are the publicsector comparator (PSC) and the shadow bid model (SBM). The PSC represents the whole lifecycle, riskadjusted cost estimate for a project

if it were delivered and financed by the public sector. Depending on the agency, a DBB or DB delivery method may be used in determining the cost structure of the PSC. Calculated before bids are received and subject to updating throughout the procurement process, the PSC uses financial and statistical modeling techniques to estimate project cost and provides the benchmark for measuring VfM (see Figure 4 on page 6). The SBM represents the risk-adjusted cost estimate to the government for the same project delivered by the private sector, which could be responsible for the design, construction, financing, operation, and/or maintenance of the asset. Like the PSC, the SBM is constructed before bids are received, using financial and statistical modeling. It acts as a “proxy bid,” providing an estimate of the bids likely to be received from private consortia if the project were structured as a P3. After the actual bids are submitted, the SBM is no longer used because the bids can be compared to the PSC to assess whether there is value in proceeding with a P3 arrangement.

Although VfM can be a lengthy process and its accuracy is dependent upon the quality and reliability of the data inputs, using a transparent modeling process, agreed inputs, and sensitivity analyses can result in a key investment tool for transportation decision makers.

7

VfM in practice By simply comparing the PSC and SBM, government agencies can sometimes decide early on whether there may be value in delivering their project as a P3. In the UK, the VfM analysis process helps the government select among traditional delivery methods and various forms of P3s, including the Private Finance Initiative (PFI). In a PFI in the UK, the government contracts to buy services from the private sector on a long-term basis, often 15 to 30 years. Typically, the private sector assumes responsibility for designing, building, financing, operating, and maintaining an asset, and in turn, it receives annual payments from the government. Despite a decline in popularity in recent years, the UK still closed 25 PFI deals with a total value of £2.3 billion between March 2011–2012.5 As of March 2013, there were over 700 current PFI contracts in the UK, with over 650 in operation, and a total capital value of over £54 billion.6 Other countries, notably Canada and Australia, follow a similar approach to the UK in their VfM analysis process. But there are a few important differences. While the UK has strong

8

Transportation investment frameworks

national leadership on developing VfM analysis guidance, the provinces in Canada and states in Australia have taken a primary role. And unlike the UK’s more streamlined, standardized VfM analysis template, Canada and Australia generally require customized tools for each project. Importantly, each jurisdiction has developed a process that best meets its needs. The US appears to be following a similar path. While tools such as the P3-VALUE toolkit foster an understanding of the analysis process, several states are adopting VfM analysis on a case-by-case basis to support their own particular investment decisionmaking processes. This is often in the absence of established regulations or formalized templates to support the analysis process.

Qualitative factors Although financial and other data are a central element of a VfM analysis, it isn’t strictly a numbers exercise. To provide a complete picture of the relative value that the delivery methods may provide, government agencies in other countries also consider qualitative issues. For example, the UK process places an emphasis on such qualitative factors as environmental and safety concerns and

use of innovative design or technology. The VfM analysis can examine a variety of qualitative factors, such as an innovative approach to reduce carbon emissions, the use of more fuelefficient or electric vehicles, or effective integration of rail transportation with pedestrian, bicycle, and bus access. In addition, a qualitative analysis can consider the implications for the agency of entering into a long term contract such as a P3, and the potential political and financial ramifications of cancelling the project already procured, if circumstances change. While harder to measure, qualitative factors can bring into play important considerations. They can be especially important in a VfM analysis when the financial differences between a P3 and public delivery are marginal or there are concerns about the reliability of quantitative factors.

Risk assessment and management Rigorous risk assessment and management are among the most critical factors in calculating VfM. Government agencies must compile a comprehensive list of potential technical and other risks across the project lifecycle, decide how the risks will be allocated among the project partners if a P3 is being considered, and develop a risk management plan for risks remaining with the public agency. Internal specialists, with input from financial and technical advisors, are typically responsible for assisting with the risk assessment. Once completed, a thorough VfM analysis provides valuable information that can improve the quality of decision making in a number of ways. It helps government decide how best to allocate public funds and make appropriate use of any available private capital. In addition, it focuses on the full lifecycle costs rather than the individual parts of the project, allowing for better integration and risk mitigation between the project phases. It can also help to confirm and clarify the project scope, which is a key factor in determining the project cost inputs. It may also be used to assess scope

changes throughout the contract, providing an audit trail and discipline around proposed changes. Finally, it provides consistency across all projects and transparency about how the public agency determines whether to deliver the project under a P3 arrangement or select a different approach. But a VfM analysis isn’t simple or inexpensive. It requires input from financial and other technical specialists, who are often external advisors. It can be a costly and lengthy exercise, and it requires continuous review and assessment through to financial close. Furthermore, the accuracy of VfM analyses is dependent upon the quality and reliability of the data inputs. Critical inputs include the discount rate that discounts the project cash flows to provide a net present value of delivery, the value of the risks transferred to the private partner under the SBM, and the value of any revenues (such as tolls) included in the analysis. To address concerns over the impact that such critical inputs often have on the analysis results, the UK and other jurisdictions incorporate a sensitivity analysis into the VfM analysis process to illustrate a range of potential outcomes for the project under each delivery method.

Rigorous risk assessment and management are among the most critical factors in calculating VfM. It is also critical for private investors evaluating greenfield project investments and a similar, rigorous risk assessment and management process can prove beneficial.

9

The UK experience The UK’s experiences in incorporating VfM analysis in the P3 investment decision making process for its PFI program—and its successor, the PF2 program—can provide useful insights for other governments considering their own process and deciding on the best delivery approach for their transportation projects. Under the UK process, the public agency or department responsible for the transportation project conducts the VfM analysis at three key points—the program, project, and procurement stages—to answer questions about viability, desirability, and achievability in assessing the suitability of a P3 arrangement. Using the same analytical tool throughout the decision-making process provides consistency and clarity to the public sector, contractors, investors, and the general public. As this is a continuous and iterative process, the quantitative data can be refined throughout the stages of analysis.

The purpose of the VfM analysis at the initial program stage is to identify projects that may be suitable for P3 delivery. This early analysis produces high-level estimates of costs, risks, feasibility, and other issues that are checked against evidence from past projects and experiences for reasonableness. If a project is deemed appropriate for a P3, the procuring authority produces an “investment program” with estimated project breakdowns and timing, which is passed on to the project team. The more detailed analyses at the project level are intended to support the business case for a P3. Assumptions made during the program stage are verified, and any remaining issues are identified that could prevent a P3 from succeeding, such as lack of market interest. The end result is an “outline business case” to be reviewed by various government officials.

Releasing the results of the VfM analysis to the public can provide the kind of transparency that helps taxpayers and other stakeholders understand why a private or public delivery method was chosen for a particular transportation project.

10

Transportation investment frameworks

Figure 5. Inputs and outputs of quantitative VfM analysis in the UK Inputs (variables)

Sensitivity analysis

Outputs (calculations)

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

• Assesses the effects of varying key input values (e.g. capital and operations costs, discount rate). • Tests the vulnerability of outputs to changes in inputs.

• Equity internal rate of return Rate of return on investment for project equity capital investors. • Project internal rate of return Return on total project cash flow where cash flow equals total income of private party accrued over the life of the project less incurred costs by the private party. • Conventional Procurement (CP) net present value costs Difference between cost of present value cash inflows and present value cash outflows for a CP. • Private Finance Initiative net present value Difference between cost of present value cash inflows and present value cash outflows for proposed PFI.

Timing Escalators Discount rate Capital & operating expenditures Optimism bias Lifecycle costs Transaction costs Third-party income Flexibility factors Indirect VfM factors Tax Financing costs User charges*

*Note: User charges are an optional input and may vary based on type of project. Risks are not referenced as an input as they often form part of the cost base. Consideration of how project risks are reflected in the inputs is critical so that risks are not double counted in the analysis.

Source: UK HM Treasury VfM Assessment Guidance

If a P3 is considered the preferred option, the next step is the procurement level assessment. The goal is to ensure that value is still achieved by a P3 at this point in the process. The project team conducts a continuous assessment to check that market conditions, the competitive landscape, and the proposed risk allocation continue to support the use of a P3. Bids are analyzed at the procurement level, leading to the selection of the preferred bidder. The UK doesn’t compare actual bids to the PSC, but jurisdictions in Australia and Canada continue to compare bids to the PSC until the project reaches financial close.

In fact, the UK simplified its VfM analysis so that the procuring authority is not required to develop a detailed PSC or SBM because of the high cost of doing so and the potential limitations of the available data. Instead, a standard, simplified spreadsheet tool is used for the quantitative aspects of the VfM analysis. The spreadsheet provides a model with set inputs and formulas for calculating outputs such as net present value and rates of return (see Figure 5 above). VfM analysis inputs include capital and operating expenditures, optimism bias, lifecycle costs, transaction costs, financing costs, and tax factors. The supporting tools are designed to help deliver

11

quality and consistency throughout the VfM analysis process and to be used by officials without the requirement for in-depth financial modeling expertise. But recognizing that the analysis is a dynamic process, the UK continues to assess the effectiveness of current tools and consider modifications, particularly as projects are delivered and consideration is given to the value realized. Once a project enters the construction stage, the VfM analysis process doesn’t end. The UK’s National Audit Office may conduct an objective, independent assessment of the VfM analysis throughout the life of a project and release the results in public reports. The office may assess whether the estimates and assumptions made during the VfM analysis were accurate and whether a P3 truly does offer the best value. For example, the audit office examined a VfM analysis developed by the Department for Transport and the Office of Rail Regulation for procuring rolling stock to increase rail capacity for passengers in England and Wales. The report concluded that it was too early to assess whether or not the expected value would be achieved, but criticized the analysis for a variety of weaknesses and a failure to take into account the sensitivity of rail demand, economic growth, and an economic downturn.7

12

Transportation investment frameworks

Releasing the results of a VfM analysis to the public can provide the kind of transparency that helps taxpayers and other stakeholders understand why a P3 or a public delivery method was chosen. Such transparency is particularly important in the US, where the public’s opposition to private-sector involvement in critical infrastructure assets has derailed some proposed P3s.

The US experience Already, several states in the US have used evaluation methods on a project basis that include some of the features of the UK’s VfM analysis process. Two examples are a major highway project in Florida and a courthouse in California. The Florida Department of Transportation conducted a VfM analysis, relying primarily on a cost comparison of two delivery methods, for its $1.2 billion I-595 highway project in Broward County. During a pre-bidding analysis, the agency considered the projected costs on a net present value basis for both a design-build-finance option and a design-build-finance-operate-maintain concession. Florida’s VfM analysis determined that the latter offered better value. After the contract close, another VfM analysis was conducted to assess whether the results of the pre-

bidding analysis remained accurate. It found that the P3 concession appeared to provide even greater value than envisioned in the original analysis.8 Similarly, for a new $495 million courthouse in Long Beach, California, government officials retained outside advisors to conduct VfM and risk analyses to help decide between a traditional state financing and management approach and a P3 arrangement. The analyses for the PSC and P3 were both undertaken on a net present value basis. The PSC considered the project as if it were delivered via traditional state DBB methods. In each case, the net present value accounted for all of the estimated costs and risks of the two project delivery methods. The financial analysis concluded that the P3 would likely result in better value for the money than traditional state bond financing.9 These examples demonstrate that VfM analysis in the US has been conducted by the procuring agency with the support of stakeholders and advisors on a project-by-project basis. This ad-hoc approach may result in an agency “reinventing the wheel” each time the analysis is conducted, resulting in additional costs and time to conduct the analysis and overlooking any best practices or

lessons learned from other projects. The approach by FHWA to develop an analytical toolkit and the approach in Virginia to develop guidance on how the Office of Transportation PublicPrivate Partnerships will assess VfM are important as they seek to provide a level of consistency and transparency across the analysis process, as well as reduce the variability and cost of conducting the analysis.

Lessons learned and applied Certainly, the experiences and lessons learned from other countries are valuable in determining how VfM analysis may further support US agencies as they engage with the private sector to meet their growing transportation needs. The lessons learned provide a baseline for US agencies to leverage as privatesector participation in the delivery of public infrastructure projects gains momentum.

In the US, a comprehensive VfM analysis can: • Assist public officials in comparing potential delivery methods, including both P3s and more traditional approaches such as DBB and DB, based on an evaluation of the long-term value. As a result, they could gain a more thorough understanding of the potential benefits and risks of encouraging the private sector to assume and manage some of the key project delivery risks. • Provide a consistent approach, whether developed at the national or state level, to help streamline the evaluation process across projects, establish a minimum standard of quality, and reduce procurement and transaction costs. If projects seeking federal funding were required to complete a VfM analysis, states and municipalities would be encouraged to adopt a rigorous analysis and provide

The experiences and lessons learned from other countries are valuable in determining how VfM analysis may further support US agencies as they engage with the private sector to meet their growing transportation needs.

13

greater consistency across the project assessment and procurement processes. A common VfM analysis process would also make it easier for federal transportation officials to fairly evaluate project applications because they would be based on a similar methodology. • Offer a valuable tool for use throughout the various project stages, providing consistency to the public sector, contractors, investors, and the community. Importantly, it would indicate to the market that governments acknowledge the private sector’s role in delivering public infrastructure projects and are committed to adopting a level of rigor, transparency, and predictability in assessing how the public and private sectors might work together to address the country’s growing transportation and public infrastructure needs. This may help to accelerate the development of a sustainable pipeline of P3 projects in the US to further encourage private investment. • Take into account the whole lifecycle costs and other effects of a project from early in its development, allowing for more efficient delivery and better management and resolution of significant risks and issues across the project phases. This could help reduce maintenance backlogs by providing agencies with greater clarity on asset lifecycle costs.

• Incorporate both qualitative and quantitative issues into the evaluation and include a thorough assessment of the project’s technical, commercial, and financial risks. • Encourage transparency about the process of determining the delivery method that can provide the greatest value for a particular project and deciding on the winning bid. It may also help clarify the role of the government and the private sector in P3s and assist state and local agencies in building the community understanding and acceptance that are crucial to the success of such partnerships. Concern over the reliability of VfM analysis results has been well documented in the UK and other jurisdictions, particularly the impact of critical inputs on analysis results. However, by using a transparent modeling process, agreed inputs, and sensitivity analyses, the VfM analysis process can provide a key tool in investment decision making for policy makers and transportation officials at all levels of government who are contemplating significant investments in infrastructure projects.

Endnotes 1. Duffield, Colin, Report on the Performance of PPP Projects in Australia When Compared with a Representative Sample of Traditionally Procured Infrastructure Projects, Melbourne Engineering Research Institute, the University of Melbourne, 2008. 2. Bosh, Courtney, “VFM: A useful tool for procurement authorities but not a deciding factor”, IntraAmericas. May 22, 2013. 3. Ibid. 4. United Kingdom National Audit Office, Lessons from PFI and Other Projects, 2011. 5. UK Private Finance Initiative Project, Summary data as of March 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/207369/summary_document_pfi_data_march_2012.pdf, accessed October 15, 2014 6. Private Finance Initiative Projects, 2013 summary data, HM Treasury, December 2013, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/267590/PU1587_final.pdf, accessed October 15, 2014 7. UK National Audit Office Report, Increasing Passenger Rail Capacity. 8. Florida Department of Transportation I-595 Corridor Roadway Improvements Value for Money Analysis, 2009. 9. New Long Beach Courthouse: A Performance-Based Infrastructure Court Facility Project, Joint Legislative Budget Committee, June 9, 2008, http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/longbeach-suppreport.pdf, accessed September 8, 2014.

www.pwc.com

For a deeper discussion about the role of VfM analysis in supporting capital investment decisions, please contact:

Peter Raymond Tel +1 703 918 1580 [email protected]

Anthony Caletka Tel +1 713 356 5871 [email protected]

Kylee Anastasi Tel +1 703 918 3273 [email protected]

© 2014 PwC. All rights reserved. “PwC” and “PwC US” refer to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership, which is a member firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, each member firm of which is a separate legal entity. This document is for general information purposes only, and should not be used as a substitute for consultation with professional advisors. AT-14-0131.