This document provides an overview of the M6 Carlisle to Guards Mill project. It summarizes the existing conditions, objectives of the project, and proposed scope of works. It also outlines the various route options considered and presents a cost comparison. The preferred option of a reduced scope D3M route is selected, providing safety and accessibility benefits while saving over £12 million. Key aspects of the project programme, structures, and quantities are then summarized.

1. M6 Carlisle to Guards Mill
Presentation to
Project Leaders Conference
3 and 4 May 2006

2. HIGHWAYS AGENCY
SUPERVISOR
SCOTT WILSON
CARL BRO
Structures
CRESSWELLS
Ecology
CAPITA
Lead Designers
DESIGN
CONSULTANTS
ESTIMATING
PROCUREMENT
C.E.S
Temp. Works Design
HEAD OFFICE
SUPPORT
SEE Organogram
SITE / OFFICE
TEAM
SAM EVANS
Demolition
FAIRFIELD MABEY
Structural Steelwork
C.T.M.
Traffic Management
CORDEROYS
Measurement, BOQ
SUPPLY
CHAIN
CARILLION
CONSTRUCTION
Transport - Roads
HIGHWAYS AGENCY
Major Projects Division
North West
Organisation High Level Overview

3. M6 Extension Completes the Motorway Network
M6 Extension
Carlisle to Guards Mill
“Cumberland Gap”
Inverness
EdinburghGlasgow
Newcastle
upon Tyne
Stranraer
Carlisle
Leeds
Liverpool
Manchester
Birmingham Norwich
Cardiff
Oxford
Plymouth
Southampton
Portsmouth
Dover
LONDON
A82
A96
A9
A82
A94
A9
M90
M8
M74
A74(M
)
A1
A77
A75
A69
M6
M6
M6
M62
M54
M1
M6
M
1
M11
M5
M40
M4
M4
M4
M20
M3M5
A1
A65
A55
A5
A1
A1
A17
A14
A11
A1
A14
(A45)
A34
A30
A38
Inverness
EdinburghGlasgow
Newcastle
upon Tyne
Stranraer
Carlisle
Leeds
Liverpool
Manchester
Birmingham Norwich
Cardiff
Oxford
Plymouth
Southampton
Portsmouth
Dover
LONDON
A82
A96
A9
A82
A94
A9
M90
M8
M74
A74(M
)
A1
A77
A75
A69
M6
M6
M6
M62
M54
M1
M6
M
1
M11
M5
M40
M4
M4
M4
M20
M3M5
A1
A65
A55
A5
A1
A1
A17
A14
A11
A1
A14
(A45)
A34
A30
A38
A35
A31
A27
A23
A259
Aberdeen

4. Existing Conditions
• 4 very low standard lay-bys
• Trans European Route
• 42,000 veh/dy (23% HGV)
• No alternative route
• D2AP built 1970 carries 75% cross border traffic.
• 12 low standard at-grade junctions
• Accident rate 10% above the norm (3 fatalities
alone in 2003/2004)
• Mossband Viaduct in poor condition requires
replacement by 2008

5. Existing Mossband Viaduct
• Limited life, 15 serious shortcomings inc.tendon corrosion.
• Current structural assessment certificate expires 2008.
• Currently operates with narrow lanes and loading restrictions.

6. Objectives
• Integration Supporting regional and local transport strategies
Provide a safe routes for NMU’s along the length of the
• Safety Improving safety for all local communities
• Economy Reduce accidents and congestion
• Environment Minimise impact on people, property and landscape
• Accessibility Provide good accessibility to existing communities
Reduce community severance and improve access
to local transport

7. Scope of Works
• Upgrade the A74 to D3M motorway
• Two new major structures at River Esk & Mossband
• Provide new all purpose road (APR).
• Create new VOSA area and
• Demolish existing Mossband Viaduct.
• Maintain access to the existing service stations.
• Budget for Tender at Q4 2000 £ 65.079m

8. M6 Extension Primary Features
• 500 m online 2x 7 m widening Guards Mill to Mossband.
• 2400 m offline 2x 14 m Mossband to Floriston, major structures.
• 1500 m online 2x 7 m widening Floriston to Todhills.
• 600 m semi-offline 2x 14 m at Todhills
• 3500 m Online 2x 4 m widening Todhills to J44.
• 7850 m APR side road Guards Mill to Harker
75% of cost in
here
GM J44
Floriston TodhillsMossband Harker

9. Proposed Route

10. Current Programme
• Entry to TPI March 2000
• Contract Awarded February 2003 Start Phase 1A
• PUBLISH ORDERS February 2005 END PHASE 1A
• Public Inquiry Sep/October 2005
• SoS DECISION 22 March 2006 END PHASE 1B
• Advance works Start On Site March 2006 Start Phase 2
• Possession of the site July 2006
• Road Open December 2008
• Completion March 2009

11. Other Road Options considered
• Scheme and budget price for D3AP with lay-bys.
• Scheme and budget price for D2M.
• Update estimate for “Do Minimum” (Mossband Replacement and
approach embankments only).

12. Traffic
Carriageway Standards – D3AP, D2M, D3M
• Flow ranges for economics
• Congestion reference flow for D2M is 65,000
D4M
D3M
Standard
D2M
D3AP
D2AP
WS2
S2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Opening Year AADT ('000)
up to 13
6 to 21
11 to 39
23 to 54
up to 41
25 to 67
52 to 90
D3M, D3AP & D2M
44 65
Congestion Reference Flow
D2M at Design Year

13. Cost Comparison of Options
D3M D3AP D2M
Works Cost 103.656 98.741 93.875 59.158
Land 4.081 4.081 4.081 1.880
Statutory Undertakers 4.958 4.958 4.958 1.622
Risk 10.574 9.970 9.170 8.124
Preparation and Supervision 7.892 7.892 7.892 6.278
HA Inflation Allowance 21.634 21.234 20.456 11.338
Optimism Bias 6.924 6.584 6.184 3.853
Non-Recoverable VAT 11.403 11.301 11.201 0.000
strategic Risk 3.495 3.295 3.096 0.000
Estimated Scheme Out-turn Cost 174.617 168.056 160.913 92.253
BCR 3.030 2.390 2.210 0.000
Do Min
• Conclusion and Decision :-
• Reduced Scope D3M saves £12.4m
• Best Value and Objectives met by Reduced Scope D3M Option
• Presented option to DfT in June 2004 seeking additional budget of £77m

14. Road Options Analysis
Decisive factors : Safety in use & during Maintenance and WLC.

15. Result of Review
• D3M optimum solution provided with over £8m savings.
• Scheme Objectives achieved and BCR significantly increased.
• Overall programme for road open date maintained.
• Reduced earthworks, environmental impact, land-take and service diversions.
• Comments from stakeholders and public consultation addressed.
• Improved Whole Life Costs and safety for maintenance works.
• Not cost effective to strengthen and utilise existing Mossband Viaduct.

16. Benefits of ECI
• Certainty of extent of land take in CPO.
• Better management of Phase 1 programme and budget.
• Buildability, methodology known pre PI.
• Integrated Team throughout phase 1A and 1B.
• Statutory process including PI managed better.

17. Mossband Rail Bridge
North South30.9m Span

18. Vertical Alignment at Mossband
• 100k curve over structure
• Some reduction in embankment height at Mossband
with earthworks savings
9 M 10M

19. Standards and Provisions
Main Line:
• D3m with hard shoulders
• Provision of slip roads to service areas
• Off line close to existing
• Existing provision not touched where possible
• Reduced width central reserve to reduce imported fill quantities
All Purpose Road (APR)
• Single carriageway
• Liaised with CCC
• Two pavement widths
• No lighting

20. River Esk Bridges
Elevation of New Bridge over River Esk
Section of re-used existing Bridge and adjacent New Bridge

21. Departures from Standards
• 18 Departures from Standard
• Principal ones are:
• One step reduction to 100k crest curve at Mossband
• Substandard weaving length at northbound services slip
roads
• One step reduction in sightline for lane 3, J44
• Non-standard junction accesses to M6 at Harker and at
Todhills for emergency vehicles
• Use of MS3 (not yet formally submitted)
• Reduction in hard shoulder to 3m
• Crossfalls

22. Drainage)
• 13 existing outfalls to highly sensitive Esk and Eden
• Majority maintained for environmental reasons
• 11 new attenuation/environmental ponds, pollution control as required
(one pond now relocated)
• Channels changed to filter/carrier drains in cuttings for cost saving
Todhills
Gretna
Guards
Mill
A74
DM Longtown
R. Esk
WCML
Floriston
Hespin
Wood
Services
Harker
Carlisle
M6
J44
Pond location (12 no.)

23. Pavement
• Do-nothing to existing pavement as far as possible

24. Environmental Matters
•Key Project Features
•CSAC, SSSI, etc
•Reptiles, Otters, Owls
•Sensitive Groundwater
•Seasonal Constraints
Extensive Surveys leading to ES & EMP.
Net Improvement in AST & No Objections at PI.

25. Advantages of Proposed scheme
•Reduced land-take
•Reduced severance
•Improvements in noise and
amenity at Metal Bridge
•Minor benefits for landscape and
ecology

26. Barn owls
•Existing road mortality of significant
local/regional importance
•Re-structure remaining landscape
planting to encourage foraging owls away
from the traffic
•Design new planting to encourage
foraging owls away from the traffic
•Use new planting and habitat
management to help minimise mortality at
“high risk” crossing points

27. Reptiles
•Some of existing verges and adjacent
land valuable for reptiles
•Loss of habitat
•Potential mortality during site clearance
•Design earthworks and planting to benefit
reptiles
•Create receptor sites in advance
•Implement a capture and relocation
scheme

28. AST
Noise
Local Air Quality
Landscape
Biodiversity
Heritage
Water
Safety
Journey Times & VOC’s
Economic Efficiency
Reliability
Regeneration
Public Transport
Severance
Integration
Stage 2 Assessment
Stage 3 Assessment
AST Levels

29. Programme & Planning

30. Contract Dates
Phase 1A : 43 Wk Phase 1B : 81 Wk
Phase 2 : 119 Wk
On Site : 104 Wk
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Layout
Approval
Notice to
Proceed
5 YEAR Aftercare,
Defects
Project Time Lines
Actual and Current Scheme Plan
Phase 1B : 61 Wk
Advance works
Now
Improved Statutory
Process Times
Contingency Plan
For Early Design
6s 007 results
Phase 2 : 143 Wk
On Site : 130 Wk
Insufficient time in
Original Scheme Plan
130 wk agreed with HA
September 2003
Ph 1A
VE & HA Budget Review
Obtain Acceptance DfT
Major VE
Ph 1A : 38 Wk
ITC Onsite
Programme
Agreed HA
130w
Stop
Mid Oct 03

31. Key Programme Dates
• Commence Detailed Design 14 Nov 2005
• Advance works, Scrub & SU’s Feb to March 2006
• Possession of Site 3 July 2006
• Bulk imported fill complete July 2007
• Mossband & Esk complete May 2008
• Road open Dec 2008
• Demolish Viaduct, Landscaping Mar 2009
• Defects Date including L/s Aftercare Mar 2014

32. M6 Extension Primary Quantities
• R/c Piling :- VCC, CFA 9,000 nbr
• Band Drains 26,000 nbr
• ‘De-bog’ Dig/replace 29,000 m3
• Earthworks 237,000 m3
• Disposal surplus on site 290,000 m3
• Imported Stone 703,000 m3 1.5 MTe
• Blacktop 144,000 Te
• Concrete Structures 16,000 m3
• Reinforcement 3,747 Te
• Structural Steel 1,000 Te

33. M6 Extension Programme Drivers
• Existing Utilities, critical at Mossband
• Temporary Haul roads, compounds etc in CPO plans
• Major Structures
• Working & Environmental calendars / constraints
• Bad Ground
• Disposal kept on site.
• Class 2 Cut to fill balance
• Imported stone , Non calcareous
• environmental constraint acid regime in SSSI, cSAC

34. M6 Extension Programme Imported Stone
• Imported Stone density 2.2 Te/m3
• 510,00m3 from Aug 06 to July 07, 38 weeks.
• Rigid 20 Te wagons, Carillion safety Policy.
• 2 suppliers, max delivery at 12,000m3/wk. = 33 wagons /hour
• Careful resource levelling has optimised stockpile at 65,000 m3
M6 Extension Guards Mill : Imported Stone Supply and Demand Curves
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
3-Jul-06
2-Aug-06
2-Sep-06
2-Oct-06
2-Nov-06
2-Dec-06
2-Jan-07
1-Feb-07
4-Mar-07
3-Apr-07
4-May-07
3-Jun-07
4-Jul-07
3-Aug-07
3-Sep-07
3-Oct-07
3-Nov-07
3-Dec-07
3-Jan-08
2-Feb-08
4-Mar-08
3-Apr-08
4-May-08
3-Jun-08
4-Jul-08
3-Aug-08
3-Sep-08
3-Oct-08
3-Nov-08
3-Dec-08
ImportedStonein1000sm3
Single Supplier
Max 6000 m3/wk
Programme Requirments
2 Suppliers at
12000 m3/wk

35. M6 Extension Programme TM and Blacktop
• Traffic Management
• 2 Lanes in each carriageway to be maintained.
• Sequence at Mossband to Esk : [See Next Slide]
• Floriston to Todhills , contra flows required.
• Minimised TM changes in conjunction with Police.
• Blacktop
• Availability of work areas very patchy
• Resource levelled and visits minimised
Blacktop M6 Extension
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
3-Jul-06 2-Oct-06 1-Jan-07 2-Apr-07 2-Jul-07 1-Oct-07 31-Dec-07 31-Mar-08 30-Jun-08 29-Sep-08 29-Dec-08
WeeklyTonnages
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
Cumulative
Weekly Te
Cumulative Te

36. Mossband Esk Sequence
1. July 06 to April 08
Construct Mossband and Esk Offline
2. May- June 2008
Construct Island over old A74
3. July to Nov 08
Construct over old A74 Sb
Refurbish Old Esk Bridge
4. Nov to Dec 2008 – series of moves complete M6 Sb / Nb

37. Examples of Detailed Programme

38. Example of Mass Haul Calculation

39. Example of Mass Fill Calculation

40. Example of Platform / Haul road Calculation

41. Example of Planning Measure/sanity check

42. Stats Network Rail & Land
Dedicated
Utilities & Network Rail Manager

43. Utility Diversionary Works
Improved Route
Preferred Route £7.085M
Requested C3 Estimates (Paid for BT)
VE Review of C3 Estimates
Revised C3
Gap analysis and contingency £4.958M
Detailed VE for advanced works
Alternative schemes and phasing
C4 Estimates for advanced works
C6 Orders issued

44. Value Engineering, Advanced Works
Orders
placed to
Programme
Budget Detailed
C3 Estimate
(ex-contingencies)
Detailed C4
Estimate
(inc VE Savings)
Forecast Budget
Saving
(ex-contingencies)
BT -3wk £28k £9k £19k
Electric -2wk £372k £240k £132k
Water -3wk £627k £489k £138k
Total -2wk £1027k £738k £289k
(28%)
Monthly cost reporting to be agreed to ensure utility contractors costs are correctly
monitored and controlled.

45. Network Rail Interface – Mossband Bridge
Preferred Route – ITC numerous meetings
Agreed possession regime 6hr m/w 10hr w/e
Agreed Construction Methodology
Agreed clearances
Review of AIP
Following handover to NR project manager
Delay in agreeing order
Objections to piling methodology
Possession regime changed 10hr w/e

46. Mossband Bridge Possession Strategy
Target Cost
Possession
regime
mw we
Fencing 9
Fill 4
Abutments 54
Deck Beams 25 5
Deck 35
Parapets and Finishes 20
Demolish Existing 8 3
Totals 155 8

47. Mossband Bridge Detailed Design Challenges
• Reduction of lateral clearances by introduction of
temporary screens and acceptance of reduced
clearance to goods line.
• Lowering vertical clearance by surveying live OHLE
and taking further advice from our rail transport
business.
• Detailed modelling of road alignment to suit rail
equipment.
• Piling methodology still not agreed (major threat to
budget).
• Meetings with NR to discuss implications to
construction methodology given change to
possession regime.
• Alternative temporary works systems being
discussed with NR, positive feedback received.
(Potential increased costs)

48. Land Costs
1.725
1.932
3.29
4.081
4.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Q4 2000
(65.079)
Q3 2001
(135.605)
ITC Nov
2003
(175.82)
ITC (174) Current
(174)
Land
Cost

49. Supply Chain Strategy

50. Spend (Total c. £70m)
Plant
9%
Concrete
2%
Traffic Management
4%
Demolition
4%
Fencing
3%
Piling
7%
Structural Steel
3%
Surfacing
7%
Other Subcontracts
8%
Geomembrane
2%
Precast Beams
2%
Rebar
2%
Imported Fill
17%
Designers
6%
Drainage Materials
1%
Other Materials
6%
Labour
17%

51. TENDER PHASE 1A PHASE 1B PHASE 2
DESIGN
SPECIALISTS
ENVIRONMENTAL
EXPERTISE
DESIGN INPUT
COST INPUT
RESOURCES
PHASING
MARKET TESTING
ROBUST PRICING
FENCING
DRAINAGE
BARRIER
LANDSCAPING
PILING
MATERIALS
DEMOLITION
STRUCTURAL STEEL
TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT
CARLBRO
CRESSWELL
CAPITA
SYMONDS
SUPPLY CHAIN INTEGRATION
BENEFITS
Overview

52. Portfolio Analysis
Strategy: Use of National Framework
Agreements
Communications– NRTS
Traffic Signals– Peek Traffic / Siemens
Builders Merchants
Plant Hire
PPE– Parkers
Small Tools
Strategy: Select Subcontractors during
Phase 1A
Strategy: Strategic Partners– Colocation
Bridge Steelwork– FairfieldMabeyLtd
Demolition– Sam Evans
Design Consultants– Capita Symonds
Piling– Bachy SolentancheLtd
Surfacing– Tarmac
Traffic Management– Associated Asphalt
Strategy: Market testing for better value
Anti–skid
Barrier/Fencing
Concrete Repairs
Horticulture
Parapets
Road-marking
Silane
Site investigation
Traffic Management
Traffic Signs
Waterproofing
HIGH
LOW HIGHExpenditure
MarketDifficulty
Strategy: Use of National Framework
Agreements
Environmental Consultants - Cresswell
Design Consultants - Capita Symonds–
Builders Merchants – Burdens, Jewsons
Plant Hire – Hewden, GE
PPE– Parkers
Small Tools – Gap, A-Plant, Speedy
Strategy: Select Subcontractors during
Tender
Strategy: Strategic Partners select
during Phase 1A
Demolition – S. Evans & Son
Traffic Management– CTM/Moxon
Strategy: Market testing for better value
Anti–skid
Barrier/Fencing
Comms.
Horticulture
Parapets
Silane
Site investigation
Traffic Signs
Waterproofing
HIGH
LOW HIGHExpenditure
MarketDifficulty
Structural Steelwork – Fairfield Mabey
Bridge Consultants - Carlbro
Materials
Piling
Bridge Beams
Accommodation – Hewden, GE, AMPL

53. Continuous Performance Management
Performance measured every 2 months
Carried out by relevant site team members
Scored in 8 categories – H&S, quality, cooperation,
commercial, environment, design, programme, supply
chain management
1 = Excellent to 9 = Abysmal
Average Score for 2003 = 3.01, 2004 = 2.71, 2005 =
2.56

54. 0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
A - Quality
B - Programme/Delivery
C - Co-operation/Teamwork
D - Health & Safety
E - CommercialF - Environment
G - Design
H - Supplier Management
I - Overall
Y2003
Y2004
Y2005
Score
0 = Not Applicable
1 = Excellent
2 = Very Good
3 = Good
4 = Slightly Above Average
5 = Average
6 = Slightly Below Average
7 = Poor
8 = Very Poor
9 = Abysmal
360 Performance Measurement 2003 – 2005

55. Financial
Estimating, Risk, ITC,Inflation, Cost Management & Incentive
Mechanism

56. • Labour rates were both sourced externally and built up
internally from first principles. The latter were incorporated
into the ITC after it was shown it gave best value.
• Plant rates were derived from plant hirers’ quotes, from our
supply chain framework agreements and from actual costs
from current contracts.
• Material rates were obtained through competitive tendering
processes, thereby demonstrating best value. Rates for
standard minor items were derived from framework
agreements. Comparison sheets were compiled and have
been made available for inspection.
LP&M Pricing Elements for Initial Target Cost

57. Inflation Graph
£M 2005 2006 2007 2008 9 £M
21.000
20.000
19.000
18.000 18,670
17.000
16.000 16,911
15.000
14.000
13.000 13,781
12.000
11.000
10.000
9.000 9,024
8.000
7.000 7,481
6.000
5.000
4.000
3.000
2.000
1.000
0.000
£M 2005 2006 2007 2008 9 £M
100% Baxter
90% Baxter
Carillion Forecast
3.0% RPI
2.5% RPI

58. Risk
• Regular integrated risk workshops were held to identify and understand
the effects of the risks, to determine mitigation strategies and to identify
the nature and extent of the residual risks.
• The level of risk allowance and pricing was co-ordinated with the pricing
certainty in the bills of quantities, thus avoiding duplication of
allowances.
• The Crystal Ball risk evaluation programme, operating on the Monte
Carlo principle, was used to evaluate the residual risk carried forward to
the Target Cost. The 70 percentile risk value was used

59. • The ITC has been carried out on an open book basis, and
the Employer’s Agents, Scott Wilson, have been provided
with the information necessary for verification.
• Agreement has been ongoing throughout the process and
generally has been achieved on an informal discussion
basis, thereby removing a critical path element from the
Phase 1 programme
Open Book Pricing for Initial Target Cost

60. Current Summary of ITC compared to Budget
BUDGET
Q3/2001
ITC
PRICES
Q3/2001
NET
CHANGE
Savings Additions
BILLS OF QUANTITIES 104,141 101,064 -3,077 -7,104 2,352
CONTRACTOR'S RISK 9,165 7,490 -1,675
SIX SIGMA 0 1,386 1,386 1,386
SUB TOTAL 113,306 109,940 -3,366 -7,104 3,738
EMPLOYER'S RISK 1,409 3,043 1,634 1,634
STATS & NETWORK RAIL 5,818 6,508 690 -310 1,000
PREP & SUPERVISION 6,648 6,500 -148 -148
NON RECOVERABLE VAT 11,403 10,700 -703 -703
OPTIMISM BIAS 6,924 4,000 -2,924 -2,924
STRATEGIC RISK 3,495 2,000 -1,495 -1,495
INFLATION 21,634 20,600 -1,034 -1,034
EMPLOYERS SUB TOTAL 57,331 53,350 -3,981 -6,614 2,634
WORKS COST ESTIMATE 170,637 163,291 -7,346 -13,718 6,372
LAND 4,081 4,400 319 319
SCHEME COST ESTIMATE 174,718 167,691 -7,027 -13,718 6,691

61. Elements of Target Cost
Nett Cost (L/P/M/Sc)
Demolition £3,743,485
Fencing/Safety Fencing £1,913,105
Main Line Drainage £2,996,200
Main line Earthworks £19,188,017
Main Line Pavements £4,791,109
Communications £1,411,350
Environment-Landscaping £1,029,417
Accommodation Works £1,007,971
Mossband Railway Bridge £9,997,055
River Esk New Bridge £4,872,560
River Esk Existing Bridge £687,204
All Purpose Road £3,934,089

62. Key Price Elements Materials
Description Quantity Unit £
Concrete 23,547.27 Cum £1,327,061.42
Reinforcement 3,746.74 Tonne £1,405,032.11
Drainage Materials 1.00 Item £571,677.15
Formwork Materials 1.00 Item £688,223.98
Imported Fills 1,545,970.44 Tonne £13,731,591.90
Precast Beam 121 No £1,518,750.00
Geomembrane 1.00 Item £1,905,511.71

63. Key price Elements Subcontractors
Piling £6,218,385.16
Surfacing inc Sand Asphalt £5,912,723.54
Designers £4,265,885.61
Traffic Management/Barriers £3,556,299.62
Demolition £3,053,415.00
Structural Steel £2,062,514.08

64. Cost Management

65. M6 Cost Management
Budget/
Work Done Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr TOTALS Saving
Phase 1 Totals
Carillion Actuals/Forecast 982,279 25,993 37,540 34,605 30,895 27,917 29,214 21,815 24,501 35,929 33,317 31,862 25,277 25,432 29,560 31,845 27,240 1,455,221 -11,122
Symonds Actuals/ Forecast 2,023,523 58,579 42,428 31,366 36,946 39,633 30,033 31,557 33,888 35,029 25,673 26,675 33,198 5,667 1,775 8,638 6,525 2,471,133 40,343
Monthly Phase 1 Total 3,005,802 84,572 79,968 65,972 67,841 67,550 59,247 53,373 58,389 70,958 58,989 58,537 58,475 31,099 31,335 40,483 33,765 3,926,354 29,221
Recoverable expenses
recoverable expenses 27,304 1,662 1,762 658 2,013 3,157 -39 0 2,000 2,000 1,300 969 42,786 -5,120
Traffic surveys 22,030 22,030 0
Environmental surveys 5,937 5,937 -4,000
geotechnical surveys 169,000 169,000 0
topographical surveys 198,198 198,198 0
other additional work 4,519 10,000 20,000 10,000 44,519 -12,981
additional fees 0 4,904 402 1,165 17,003 23,474 8,474
River Esk survey 0 131,663 23,000 154,663 64,663
426,988 0 4,904 402 1,165 1,662 1,762 0 658 2,013 20,160 -39 131,663 2,000 35,000 21,300 10,969 660,607 51,036
Overall Totals excluding Six Sigma
Monthly Total n/a 84,572 84,872 66,374 69,006 69,212 61,009 53,373 59,047 72,971 79,149 58,498 190,138 33,099 66,335 61,783 44,734 4,586,961 4,506,704
Cumulative Total 3,432,790 3,517,362 3,602,234 3,668,608 3,737,614 3,806,825 3,867,834 3,921,206 3,980,254 4,053,224 4,132,373 4,190,872 4,381,010 4,414,109 4,480,444 4,542,227 4,586,961 80,257
Six Sigma Work
Carillion 0 0 0 0 0 386 3,222 2,337 840 1,337 2,357 2,429 2,268 5,186 6,543 6,543 7,215 40,663
Symonds 0 0 0 0 0 0 350 2,353 2,872 2,383 7,020 7,852 4,840 7,586 10,025 10,025 10,025 65,332
Scott Wilson 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,990 756 936 771 1,342 4,912 2,455 5,930 4,000 3,200 2,000 28,292
Six Sigma Group 0 0 0 0 0 42,109 30,826 49,103 38,295 27,172 29,317 25,106 25,433 30,048 31,485 12,691 341,585
Six Sigma monthly Total n/a 0 0 0 0 386 47,671 36,273 53,751 42,786 37,891 44,510 34,669 44,135 50,616 51,253 31,931 475,872 734,459
Six Sigma cumulativeTotal 0 0 0 0 0 386 48,057 84,330 138,081 180,866 218,757 263,267 297,937 342,072 392,688 443,941 475,872 -258,587
HA's Agents Fees Phase 1
Scott Wilson Phase 1B monthly (incl expenses) n/a 7,624 8,363 10,875 9,558 6,376 10,015 10,653 3,871 9,873 8,973 14,161 7,480 8,130 10,000 12,000 3,000 453,869 452,000
Scott Wilson cumulative 312,917 320,541 328,904 339,779 349,337 355,713 365,728 376,381 380,252 390,125 399,098 413,259 420,739 428,869 438,869 450,869 453,869 1,869
Total Phase 1 including agents fees
Monthly Total n/a 92,196 93,235 77,249 78,564 75,973 118,695 100,298 116,669 125,630 126,012 117,170 232,288 85,364 126,951 125,036 79,665 5,516,702 5,693,163
Cumulative Total 3,745,707 3,837,903 3,931,138 4,008,387 4,086,951 4,162,924 4,281,619 4,381,917 4,498,586 4,624,216 4,750,228 4,867,398 5,099,686 5,185,050 5,312,001 5,437,037 5,516,702 -176,461
Advanced Phase 2 Totals
Carillion Actuals/Forecast 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,578 15,612 17,294 53,472 59,079 65,762 216,797 -40,074
Symonds Actuals/ Forecast 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21,250 87,711 171,938 221,205 259,983 311,438 1,073,525 -2,324
Monthly Advanced Phase 2 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26,828 103,323 189,232 274,677 319,062 377,200 -42,398
Scott Wilson Advanced Phase 2 monthly (incl expenses) n/a 1,793 2,438 3,050 5,000 7,000 6,000 25,281 25,281
Scott Wilson cumulative 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,793 4,231 7,281 12,281 19,281 25,281 0
Total Advanced Phase 2 including agents fees
Monthly Total n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28,621 107,554 196,513 286,958 338,343 402,481 1,360,470 1,402,868
Cumulative Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28,621 136,175 332,688 619,646 957,989 1,360,470 -42,398
Carillion Monthly Payment n/a 84,572 84,872 66,374 69,006 69,597 106,690 88,889 111,862 114,985 115,697 124,925 325,676 260,536 387,628 428,898 451,865
Carillion Cumulative Payment 3,432,790 3,517,362 3,602,234 3,668,608 3,737,614 3,807,211 3,913,901 4,002,790 4,114,652 4,229,638 4,345,335 4,470,260 4,795,935 5,056,471 5,444,099 5,872,997 6,324,862
Scott Wilson Monthly n/a 7,624 8,363 10,875 9,558 6,376 12,005 11,409 4,807 10,644 10,315 20,866 12,373 17,110 19,000 22,200 11,000
Scott Wilson Cumulative 312,917 320,541 328,904 339,779 349,337 355,713 367,718 379,127 383,934 394,578 404,893 425,759 438,132 455,242 474,242 496,442 507,442
Combined Phase 1 and Advanced Phase 2
Monthly Total n/a 92,196 93,235 77,249 78,564 75,973 118,695 100,298 116,669 125,630 126,012 145,791 338,049 277,646 406,628 451,098 462,865
Cumulative Total 3,745,707 3,837,903 3,931,138 4,008,387 4,086,951 4,162,924 4,281,619 4,381,917 4,498,586 4,624,216 4,750,228 4,896,019 5,234,068 5,511,714 5,918,342 6,369,440 6,832,305
END of
2004
2005 2006
ACTUAL EXPENDITURE AND CURRENT FORECAST

66. M6 Cost Management
Phase 1 Cost Management
£2,500,000
£3,000,000
£3,500,000
£4,000,000
£4,500,000
£5,000,000
£5,500,000
£6,000,000
Ma
r-
04
Ap
r-
04
Ma
y-
04
J
un-
04
Jul-
04
Au
g-
04
Se
p-
04
O
ct-
04
No
v-
04
De
c-
04
J
an-
05
Fe
b-
05
Ma
r-
05
Ap
r-
05
Ma
y-
05
J
un-
05
Jul-
05
Au
g-
05
Se
p-
05
O
ct-
05
No
v-
05
De
c-
05
J
an-
06
Fe
b-
06
Ma
r-
06
Ap
r-
06
Actual Cost inc Six Signma Forecast Cost Annex 4 Budget

67. • Design functions are split into the following activities:-
• Project management
• Geotechnical
• Alignment
• Drainage
• Pavement & Kerbs
• Signs & Markings
• Road Lighting
• Safety Barrier Communications
• Site Clearance
• Fencing & Accommodation Works
• Landscaping
• Structures Overview
• Planning Supervision
• Safety Audit
• Creswell
• Carl Bro
Monitoring Design Consultants

68. • Each week the individual design team leader is responsible for collating
the hours of his staff and entering them on a spreadsheet.
• This spreadsheet demonstrates the actual hours spent and compares
this with the progress of the activity to forecast an out-turn number of
hours.
• The separate activity sheets are then entered onto a summary sheet
which demonstrates the actual hours spent on the design activity as a
whole and compares this with the progress of the design to forecast an
out-turn number of hours.
• By applying the agreed rates to these spreadsheets we are able to
monitor the actual and forecast the out-turn cost of the design function.
• Verification of the staff times is made by sample checking of the time
sheets
Reporting Of Design Expenditure

69. Incentive Mechanism

70. M6 Incentive Mechanism
Price of the Work Done to Date (PWDD) = Actual Cost + Fee
Contractors share form the contract is the difference between the Prices and the forecast actual cost on
completion
Contract Data Part one
5.9 - Under Clause 53:
The Contractor's share percentages and share ranges are:
Share Range Contractor's Share Percentage
less than 80% 20%
from 80% to 90% 30%
from 90% to 100% 50%
from 100% to 105% 10%
from 105% to 110% 35%
from 110% to 125% 50%
over 125% 75%

71. Budget Overview summary Conclusions

72. Audit trail from budget to latest estimate
M6 Carlisle to Guards Mill - Audit Trail of Original Budget versus Week 43 & Week 60 D3M estimates for full Scheme
Item Original Budget
(July 2000 brief
@Q4/2000
(£m)
Original 10 year
plan budget
addition of opt
bias
(£m)
Original Budget at
Q3/2001 with
addition of opt
bias, vat & inflation
Nov 2003 (Wk
43) Estimate
@Q3/2001
Mar 2004 (Wk
60) Estimate
@Q3/2001
June 2004(wk 70)
Estimate@ Q3/2001
(£m)
Works Cost unadjusted 53,319.90 53,319.90 59,718.76 102,466.38 97,977.00 96,363.00
allowance rcpti v inflation @ 2.5% 0 0.00 0 0 0 7,293
Works Cost 53,320 53,320 59,719 102,466 97,977 103,656
Statutory Undertakers 6,326 6,326 7,085 4,631 4,631 4,958
Preparation & Suprevision Totals 2,232 2,232 2,500 5,724 6,278 7,892
Total Risk 1,476 1,476 0 10,487 9,876 10,574
Non-Recoverable VAT 0 0 7,171 12,508 11,944 11,403
Optimum Bias 0 4,051 36,027 6,955 6,676 6,924
Strategic Risk (3% scheme budget) 0 0 3,950 5,027 4,825 3,495
Inflation Allowance (2.5% per annum) 0 0 17,221 21,494 20,633 21,634
Works Cost Estimate 63,354 67,405 133,673 169,292 162,840 170,536
Land Cost Estimate 1,725 1,725 1,932 3,290 2,820 4,081
Scheme Cost Estimate 65,079 69,130 135,605 172,582 165,660 174,617

73. Inadequacy of original 10 YP Budget
• Not prepared in accordance with green book.
• Construction inflation has exceeded 2.5% inflation allowance.
• Prelims estimate does not reflect current industry costs.
• Construction insurances have escalated post 9 -11.
• P&S underestimated and historical costs omitted.
• Risk allowance predated latest procedures.
• Significant ground treatment works now required.
• Increased Network Rail requirements inc. possession regime & charges.

74. Result of Review
• Generated over £8m savings.
• Scheme Objectives achieved and BCR significantly increased.
• Overall programme for road open date maintained.
• Reduced earthworks, land-take and service diversions.
• Reduced Environmental impacts,
• Comments from stakeholders and public consultation addressed.
• Improved Whole Life Costs and safety for maintenance works.
• Not cost effective to strengthen and utilise existing Mossband Viaduct.

75. Conclusions
• D3M Optimum solution.
• Scheme Objectives fully met.
• BCR improved to 3.03
• Fully meets stakeholder expectations eg Scottish Executive.
• Provides long term permanent solution to Mossband Viaduct.
• Can be delivered by 2008

76. Conclusions
• Scheme Objectives fully met and BCR improved.
• The Scheme can be delivered by 2008
• Design for maintenance at the heart of the developed design.
• The D3M with the APR is Optimum Solution which meets Stakeholders’
expectations.
• VE continues and Six Sigma introduced for process improvement.
• Prices interrogated in an Open Book environment which was applied
throughout Phase 1A and 1B.
• Robust Cost challenge to arrive at the current ITC which is below
Budget.
• Further cost review by MACE Feb. 06 resulting in further savings.
• Cost Challenge Workshop completed March 06 accepting Savings so far