Chapter 9

Benefit- Cost Analysis

©McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. Authorized only for instructor use in the classroom. No reproduction or further distribution permitted without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
 LEARNING OUTCOMES
1. Explain difference in public vs. private sector
projects
2. Calculate B/C ratio for single project
3. Select better of two alternatives using B/C
method
4. Select best of multiple alternatives using B/C
method
5. Use cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to
evaluate service sector projects
6. Describe how ethical compromises may enter
public sector projects

©McGraw-Hill Education.
 Differences: Public vs. Private Projects

Characteristic Public Private

Size of Investment Large Small, medium, large

Life Longer (30 − 50+ years) Shorter (2 − 25 years)

Annual CF No profit Profit-driven

Funding Taxes, fees, bonds, etc. Stocks, bonds, loans, etc.

Interest rate Lower Higher

Selection criteria Multiple criteria Primarily ROR

Environment of evaluation Politically inclined Economic

©McGraw-Hill Education.
 Types of Contracts
Contractor does not share in project risk
Fixed price - lump-sum payment
Cost reimbursable - Cost plus, as negotiated

Contractor shares in project risk

Public-private partnerships (PPP), such as:
• Design-build projects - Contractor responsible from design stage
to operations stage
• Design-build-operate-maintain-finance (DBOMF) projects -
Turnkey project with contractor managing financing (manage cash
flow); government obtains funding for project
©McGraw-Hill Education.
 Cash Flow Classifications and B/C Relations
Must identify each cash flow as either benefit, disbenefit, or cost

Benefit (B) -- Advantages to the public

Disbenefit (D) -- Disadvantages to the public
Cost (C) -- Expenditures by the government
Note: Savings to government are subtracted from costs

Conventional B/C ratio = (B − D) / C

Modified B/C ratio = [(B − D) − C] / Initial Investment
Profitability Index = NCF / Initial Investment

Note 1: All terms must be expressed in same units, i.e., PW, AW, or FW
Note 2: Do not use minus sign ahead of costs
©McGraw-Hill Education.
 Decision Guidelines for B/C and PI
Benefit/cost analysis
If B/C ≥ 1.0, project is economically justified at
discount rate applied
If B/C < 1.0, project is not economically acceptable

Profitability index analysis of

revenue projects
If PI ≥ 1.0, project is economically justified at
discount rate applied
If PI < 1.0, project is not economically acceptable
©McGraw-Hill Education.
 B/C Analysis – Single Project

B−D
Conventional B/C ratio =
C If B/C ≥ 1.0,
accept project;
B−D − M&O
Modified B/C ratio = otherwise, reject
C

Denominator is
PW of NCFt initial investment
PI =
PW of initial investment

If PI ≥ 1.0,
accept project;
otherwise, reject
©McGraw-Hill Education.
 Example: B/C Analysis – Single Project
A flood control project will have a first cost of $1.4 million with an annual
maintenance cost of $40,000 and a 10 year life. Reduced flood damage is
expected to amount to $175,000 per year. Lost income to farmers is estimated
to be $25,000 per year. At an interest rate of 6% per year, should the project be
undertaken?

Solution: Express all values in AW terms and find B/C ratio

𝐁 = $𝟏𝟕𝟓, 𝟎𝟎𝟎
𝐃 = $𝟐𝟓, 𝟎𝟎𝟎
𝐂 = 𝟏, 𝟒𝟎𝟎, 𝟎𝟎𝟎(𝐀/𝐏, 𝟔%, 𝟏𝟎) + $𝟒𝟎, 𝟎𝟎𝟎 = $𝟐𝟑𝟎, 𝟐𝟏𝟖
𝐁/𝐂 = (𝟏𝟕𝟓, 𝟎𝟎𝟎 − 𝟐𝟓, 𝟎𝟎𝟎)/𝟐𝟑𝟎, 𝟐𝟏𝟖
= 𝟎. 𝟔𝟓 < 𝟏. 𝟎
Do not build project
©McGraw-Hill Education.
 Defender, Challenger and Do Nothing Alternatives
When selecting from two or more ME alternatives, there is a:
• Defender – in-place system or currently selected alternative
• Challenger – Alternative challenging the defender
• Do-nothing option – Status quo system

General approach for incremental B/C analysis of two ME alternatives:

• Lower total cost alternative is first compared to Do-nothing (DN)
• If B/C for the lower cost alternative is < 1.0, the DN option is compared
to ∆B/C of the higher-cost alternative
• If both alternatives lose out to DN option, DN prevails, unless overriding
needs requires selection of one of the alternatives

©McGraw-Hill Education.
 Alternative Selection Using Incremental B/C
Analysis – Two or More ME Alternatives

Procedure similar to ROR analysis for multiple alternatives

(1) Determine equivalent total cost for each alternative

(2) Order alternatives by increasing total cost
(3) Identify B and D for each alternative, if given, or go to step 5
(4) Calculate B/C for each alternative and eliminate all with B/C < 1.0
(5) Determine incremental costs and benefits for first two alternatives
(6) Calculate ∆B/C; if >1.0, higher cost alternative becomes defender
(7) Repeat steps 5 and 6 until only one alternative remains

©McGraw-Hill Education.
 Example: Incremental B/C Analysis
Compare two alternatives using i = 10% and B/C ratio
Alternative X Y
First cost, $ 320,000 540,000
M&O costs, $/year 45,000 35,000
Benefits, $/year 110,000 150,000
Disbenefits, $/year 20,000 45,000
Life, years 10 20

Solution: First, calculate equivalent total cost

AW of costsX = 320,000(A/P, 10%, 10) + 45,000 = $97,080
AW of costsY = 540,000(A/P, 10%, 20) + 35,000 = $98,428
Order of analysis is X, then Y
X vs. DN: (B − D)/C = (110,000 − 20,000) / 97,080 = 0.93 Eliminate X
Y vs. DN: (150,000 − 45,000) / 98,428 = 1.07 Eliminate DN

©McGraw-Hill Education.
 Example: ∆B/C Analysis; Selection Required
Must select one of two alternatives using I = 10% and ∆B/C ratio
Alternative X Y
First cost, $ 320,000 540,000
M&O costs, $/year 45,000 35,000
Benefits, $/year 110,000 150,000
Disbenefits, $/year 20,000 45,000
Life, years 10 20

Solution: Must select X or Y; DN not an option, compare Y to X

AW of costsX = $97,080 AW of costsY = $98,428
Incremental values: ∆B = 150,000 − 110,000 = $40,000
∆D = 45,000 − 20,000 = $25,000
∆C = 98,428 − 97,080 = $1,348
Y vs. X: (∆B − ∆D)/∆C = (40,000 − 25,000)/1,348 = 11.1 Eliminate X

©McGraw-Hill Education.
 B/C Analysis of Independent Projects
Independent projects comparison does not require
incremental analysis
Compare each alternative’s overall B/C with DN option

No budget limit: Accept all alternatives with B/C ≥ 1.0

Budget limit specified: capital budgeting problem; selection follows
different procedure (discussed in chapter 12)

©McGraw-Hill Education.
 Cost Effectiveness Analysis

Service sector projects primarily involve intangibles, not

physical facilities; examples include health care, security
programs, credit card services, etc.

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) combines monetary cost

estimates with non-monetary benefit estimates to calculate the
Cost-effectiveness ratio (CER)
Equivalent total costs
𝐂𝐄𝐑 =
Total effectiveness measure
= 𝐂/𝐄

©McGraw-Hill Education.
 CER Analysis for Independent Projects
Procedure is as follows:
(1) Determine equivalent total cost C, total effectiveness measure E and CER
(2) Order projects by smallest to largest CER
(3) Determine cumulative cost of projects and compare to budget limit b
(4) Fund all projects such that b is not exceeded

Example: The effectiveness measure E is the number of graduates from adult

training programs. For the CERs shown, determine which independent
programs should be selected; b = $500,000.
Program CER, $/graduate Program Cost, $
A 1203 305,000
B 752 98,000
C 2010 126,000
D 1830 365,000
©McGraw-Hill Education.
 Example: CER for Independent Projects
First, rank programs according to increasing CER:

Cumulative
Program CER, $/graduate Program Cost, $ Cost, $
B 752 98,000 98,000
A 1203 305,000 403,000
D 1830 365,000 768,000
C 2010 126,000 894,000

Next, select programs until budget is not exceeded

Select programs B and A at total cost of $403,000

Note: To expend the entire $500,000, accept as many additional
individuals as possible from D at the per-student rate
©McGraw-Hill Education.
 CER Analysis for Mutually Exclusive Projects
Procedure is as follows
(1) Order alternatives smallest to largest by effectiveness measure E
(2) Calculate CER for first alternative (defender) and compare to DN option
(3) Calculate incremental cost (∆C), effectiveness (∆E), and incremental measure
∆C/E for challenger (next higher E measure)
(4) If ∆C/Echallenger < C/Edefender challenger becomes defender (dominance);
otherwise, no dominance is present and both alternatives are retained
(5) Dominance present: Eliminate defender and compare next alternative to new
defender per steps (3) and (4).
Dominance not present: Current challenger becomes new defender against
next challenger, but old defender remains viable
(6) Continue steps (3) through (5) until only 1 alternative remains or only
non-dominated alternatives remain
(7) Apply budget limit or other criteria to determine which of remaining
non-dominated alternatives can be funded
©McGraw-Hill Education.
 Example: CER for ME Service Projects (1)

The effectiveness measure E is wins per person. From the cost

and effectiveness values shown, determine which alternative to
select.

Cost (C) Effectiveness (E) CER

Program $/person wins/person $/win
A 2,200 4 550
B 1,400 2 700
C 6,860 7 980

©McGraw-Hill Education.
 Example: CER for ME Service Projects (2)

Solution:
Order programs according to increasing effectiveness measure E

Cost (C) Effectiveness (E) CER

Program $/person wins/person $/win
B 1,400 2 700
A 2,200 4 550
C 6,860 7 980

B vs. DN: C/EB = 1400/2 = 700

A vs. B: ∆C/E = (2200 − 1400)/(4 − 2) = 400 Dominance; eliminate B
C vs. A: ∆𝐶/𝐸 = (6860 − 2200)/(7 − 4) = 1553 No dominance; retain C

Must use other criteria to select either A or C

©McGraw-Hill Education.
 Ethical Considerations
Engineers are routinely involved in two areas
where ethics may be compromised:

Public policy making – Development of strategy, e.g., water

system management (supply/demand strategy; ground vs. surface
sources)

Public planning – Development of projects, e.g., water operations

(distribution, rates, sales to outlying areas)

Engineers must maintain integrity and impartiality and

always adhere to Code of Ethics

©McGraw-Hill Education.
 Summary of Important Points
B/C method used in public sector project evaluation
Can use PW, AW, or FW for incremental B/C analysis, but must be
consistent with units for B,C, and D estimates
For multiple mutually exclusive alternatives, compare two at a time and
eliminate alternatives until only one remains
For independent alternatives with no budget limit, compare each against
DN and select all alternatives that have B/C ≥ 1.0
CEA analysis for service sector projects combines cost and
nonmonetary measures
Ethical dilemmas are especially prevalent in public sector projects

©McGraw-Hill Education.