ECON
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Alaska, Anchorage *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
MISC
Subject
Industrial Engineering
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by stargazerprime
Proposal A/Plan A
(Existing System)
Proposal A requires dredging the existing canal to remove sediment and weeds that have
accumulated during the previous 5 years’ operation. The initial capacity of the canal will have to
be maintained near its design peak flow because of expected increased water flows.
The existing dredge equipment was purchased 5 years ago for $650,000.
If sold today the
market value of similar equipment would be around $250,000.
Prices for new equipment
remain stable at $650,000.
Dredging equipment has a 10-year life with a $50,000 salvage value
at end of its useful life, EOY 10. When purchased 5 years ago the vendor predicted the annual
operating costs, AOC, would be $30,000 per year.
However, the vendor estimated the AOC for
this equipment would increase at 4% per year for the remaining 5 years of its useful life, N.
(EOY 6 to 10) The vendor also predicted that AOC for any new equipment would behave in the
same manner.
To control weeds in the canal itself and along the banks, environmentally safe herbicides will be
sprayed prior to the traditional spring run-off season. The yearly cost of the weed control
program is expected to be $90,000 per year.
Because of public sensitivity to the use of herbicides the Corps believes that this method of
removing sediment will last for only another 10 years.
Since the existing equipment is already 5
years old, new but similar equipment will have to be purchased in 5 years.
(EOY 5) The newly
purchased equipment (EOY 5) will be used until EOY 10 at which time it will be sold at a value to
fully recover the EOY 5 initial investment.
Proposal/Plan B
Proposal B is to line the canal with concrete at an initial cost of $2 million spread over 3 years.
(One million in EOY 0, $800,000 in EOY 1 and $200,000 in EOY 2.) Even though the project is
expected to be completed in 3 years, it will be considered fully capable after the end of this year
(EOY 0).
Since this proposal follows the existing route, the current system (discussed as part of
proposal A) will remain operational until the end of the current year, EOY 0.
Once complete, the lining is assumed to be permanent, but minor maintenance will be required
every year at a cost of $8000 starting at EOY 1. This annual expense will remain constant for 5
years.
After the 5-year period (EOY 6) annual expenses will begin to increase at a 1% per year
rate until EOY 25.
The useful life of proposal B is 25 years.
In addition, lining repairs will have to be made every 5 years starting in EOY 5 at a cost of
$30,000 for each event.
Lining repairs will be considered part of the operating expenses for
proposal B.
Proposal/Plan C
1
Proposal C is to construct a new pipeline along a different route. Estimates are an initial capital
cost of $6 million ($4M in EOY 0 and 2M in EOY 1) Even though the project is expected to be
completed in 2 years, it will be considered fully capable after the end of this year (EOY 0).
Since
this proposal follows a different route, the current system (discussed as part of proposal A) will
remain operational until the end of the current year, EOY 0.
Annual operating costs for maintenance and right of way fees will be $9000 per year for the 35-
year life of the pipeline.
In addition, there is a required internal ultrasonic inspection for corrosion every 10 years at a
cost of $40,000 for each event starting at EOY 10.
This is considered an operating expense.
Savings
The estimated annual savings for adopting plans A or B to the current flood drainage system will
be about $35,000 per year on average clean-up costs for this flood plain area.
By adopting
proposal, A or B, these savings are expected to increase about 1% per year.
However, proposal
C, because of its more radical solution, would likely save on average $60,000 per year in clean-
up costs with an estimated increase of 1% per year over its 35-year useful life.
Disposal
Proposal B has a $300,000 disposal cost at EOY 25.
(Selecting the extended plan B option
pushes the same disposal cost to EOY 35.)
Proposal C has a $1M disposal cost at EOY 35.
These
costs will be incurred only if the B or C’s project terminates.
Study Period, T
The study period, T, for the drainage system is 35 years.
Interest Rate
The Corps uses an interest rate of 5% APR.
Additional Information
The Corps realizes that the current system of dredging and the annual application of herbicides
is not feasible (nor repeatable) over the 35-year study period.
It is estimated that proposal A
cannot continue past EOY 10.
Since the study period is 35 years the Corps must consider a
combination of proposals.
Hence the following plans are being considered by the Corps to
cover the 35-year study period.
Plan A+B
This plan continues the existing proposal A until EOY 10.
At EOY 10 proposal B will begin
implementation. The cost estimates for the individual parts of this combination will remain as
discussed above.
Proposal A will incur operating costs during EOY 10 as proposal B begins
2
implementation.
Equipment used for A will be purchased as planned in proposal A in EOY 5 but
sold at EOY 10 to fully recover its initial cost.
A major benefit of this plan is to avoid the costs of storing the herbicides.
This cost has not
benn considered as part of this analysis.
Plan B only
(Extended Plan B)
The Corps could immediately implement plan B.
Plan B would be fully operational at EOY 1.
However, plan A would still be in use during the EOY 0.
The Corps notes that the 25-year useful
life of this plan does not fully cover the study period.
To this extent the Corps estimates that a
$2M upgrade (capital cost) at EOY 25 would likely extend the life plan B until EOY 35.
An
additional benefit to the upgrade is to restore the annual operating costs to $8,000 beginning at
EOY 26.
The AOC cost escalation would be the same as the initial construction period.
Another
benefit would be the elimination of the $300,000 disposal cost at EOY 25.
This disposal cost
would be ‘pushed’ to EOY 35.
Case Deliverables
1.
What is the equivalent worth, EW, of each of the plans over the 35-year study period?
2.
Which of the proposals/plans is the best economic choice for the Corps?
Be sure to
explain your answer in terms of an economic analysis.
3.
What market value, MV10, would the Corps have to receive in EOY 10 to fully recover
the cost of the dredging equipment purchased in EOY 5 for plan A?
4.
Create a cash flow diagram for plan (A+B).
5.
What would the savings generated by extended plan B or plan C need be to be
indifferent to the EW of each other?
(Same EW) (The savings change to make the more
costly EW the same as the less costly.)
6.
Create a spider plot for your choice made as part of deliverable 1 and 2.
Use initial cost,
annual cost, and savings as the decision criteria.
(Remember IC must be in terms of EOY
0 dollars.)
(This is EW v. percent change in the criteria.)
7.
Is the best economic choice the best overall choice with respect to flood control.
Discuss other factors that the Corps should consider as you prepare this analysis.
3
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Prop A
Prop B
Prop C
MV(0)
250,00
0
$
FC(0)
1,000,00
0
$
FC(0)
4,000,00
0
$
FC (5)
650000
$
FC(1)
800,000
$
FC(1)
2,000,00
0
$
Salvage
50000
$
FC(2)
200,000
$
AOC
9000
$/yr.
AOC
30000
$/yr.
AOC
8000
$/yr.
N = T
35
yr.
N
10
yr.
N
25
yr.
AOC Inc
1%
Weed
90000
$/yr.
AOC Inc
1%
Savings
60000
$/yr.
Savings
35000
$/yr.
Savings
35000
$/yr.
Savings Inc
1.0%
AOC Inc
4.0%
Savings Inc
1.0%
Disposal
1000000
$ @ 35yrs
Savings Inc
1.0%
Repair
30000
$ @ 5yrs
Insp
40000
$ ea. 10
yrs.
Disposal Cost
300000
$ @ EOY
25
4
Exhibit 1:
Cost/Savings estimates for Each Proposal.