Laserfiche WebLink
Recipients that complete analyses with minimal or no quantitative data should provide an <br />explanation for doing so. <br />In determining whether their proposed capital expenditure is superior to alternative <br />capital expenditures, recipients should consider the following factors against each <br />selected alternative. <br />a. A comparison of the effectiveness of the capital expenditures in addressing the <br />harm identified. Recipients should generally consider the effectiveness of the <br />capital expenditures in addressing the harm over the useful life of the capital asset <br />and may consider metrics such as the number of impacted or disproportionately <br />impacted individuals or entities served, when such individuals or entities are <br />estimated to be served, the relative time horizons of the project, and consideration <br />of any uncertainties or risks involved with the capital expenditure. <br />b. A comparison of the expected total cost of the capital expenditures. Recipients <br />should consider the expected total cost of the capital expenditure required to <br />construct, purchase, install, or improve the capital assets intended to address the <br />public health or negative economic impact of the public health emergency. <br />Recipients should include pre -development costs in their calculation and may <br />choose to include information on ongoing operational costs, although this <br />information is not required. <br />Recipients should balance the effectiveness and costs of the proposed capital <br />expenditure against alternatives and demonstrate that their proposed capital expenditure <br />is superior. Further, recipients should choose the most cost-effective option unless it <br />198 <br />