Topic:"Cost To Customer" in M12550

NON-CONFIDENTIAL Contractor Overhead Calculation Charge Type 2024 2025 2026 and beyond Total Contracts 29,157 194,307 236,120 459,584 Contractor Overhead Rate 15.27% 14.46% 10.45% Contractor Overhead Cost ($) 4,453 28,101 24,682 57,236 1

AI summary The document presents a table outlining contractor overhead calculations for the years 2024, 2025, and 2026, including contract values, overhead rates, and associated costs. The data highlights changes in overhead rates and total costs over time.

NSPI also argues that: "The greater emphasis on pre-work, detailed planning and QA (Quality Assurance) enhancements have resulted in more efficient installation and commissioning work with greater predictability of time required and reduce...

AI summary NSPI claims that pre-work and QA improvements have increased efficiency and predictability in installation and commissioning. However, no empirical data is provided to support these claims, and historical baseline data was lost in a cyber incident, making it impossible to verify efficiency gains or track process improvements from prior phases.

1 NS Power acknowledges that the absence of material lost during the cyber incident resulted in 2 difficulty evidencing the Company's baseline data and resulting project efficiency gains. 3 However, as demonstrated by NS Power's response t...

AI summary NS Power acknowledges challenges in evidencing project efficiency gains due to a cyber incident but asserts that project execution has been largely as planned, demonstrating process maturity. The amended cost estimate reflects lessons learned and improved accuracy based on actual execution data from completed sites.

(p. 14). - NS Power disagrees with Midgard's assertion that initial project cost estimates were higher than required. Rather, the amended cost estimate with project management labour costs shifting to a shared resource model reflects expec...

AI summary NS Power disagrees with Midgard's assertion that initial project cost estimates were higher than required. NS Power argues that the amended cost estimate reflects prudent cost control and management, and that Midgard's recommended 30% reduction is not technically supportable due to underestimation of installation duration, site-specific complexity, and misallocation of travel time and engineering requirements.

1. Please provide the methodology used to develop the Class 3 Estimate. For example, is the estimate based on historical data or NSPI’s prior RTU replacement experience? 2. Please confirm if the methodology used to develop the Class 3 Esti...

AI summary The text contains a series of questions directed at Nova Scotia Power (NSP) regarding the methodology and contingency usage in RTU replacement projects across multiple phases. It seeks details on historical data usage, differences in methodology, contingency usage breakdowns, and productivity tracking and its impact on Phase 6 estimates.

- 1. Installation Prioritization and Sequencing: Midgard states that NS Power's approach fails to sequence sites from low-to-high complexity, and therefore "misses the opportunity to refine standard procedures on simpler units before addre...

AI summary Midgard criticizes NS Power's project management approach, pointing out issues with task sequencing, lack of standardized processes, insufficient cost reduction measures, and inadequate financial analysis for internal resource allocation. They also note the absence of historical data calibration in cost estimates.