Professional Report | EssayIvy.com

Running head: PROJECT REPORT 1

Professional Project

Topic: Accounting for Infrastructure and consistency of Cost Benefit Analysis in the

Assessment of Major Project

Name

Institution

PROJECT REPORT 2

Accounting for Infrastructure and consistency of Cost Benefit Analysis in the Assessment of

Major Project

Accounting is one of the most important subjects in the world. Without accounting

knowledge, the economy can easily tremble. Imagine a multinational company that has no

accountant at all. This implies that financial accountability will not exists in the company.

By definition, an accountant refers to an individual who performs accounting roles such as

audits or the analysis if financial statements, and keeps and inspects financial records of

individual people or businesses and also makes financial tax reports (Investopedia, n.d.).

Accountants are, therefore, considered as an important part of the society. The accounting

profession has a vital role to play in the state and the corporate sector. All the accounting

professionals are expected to serve the public interest. The role that the Australian

Accounting profession plays in serving the interest of the public is recognized in the

legislation and the accounting standard setting process (Kaidonis, 2008). There is a specific

reference regarding the accounting profession to the CLERP Act 1999 and the ASIC Act

2001 (Kaidonis, 2008). In serving the public, the accounting professionals are expected to

follow the objectives of the nation in supporting capital markets while, at the same time,

serve the society. Much has been said about the role of accounting and the requirements for

one to be certified as an accountant. This project gives insight on what it means to be a

professional accountant. There has been a rapid growth in infrastructure in Australia, but the

question is, how are these projects appraised? Are the appraisals transparent enough to ensure

proper use of the public funds? To answer these questions, one needs to have a better

understanding and knowledge of accounting. Cost benefit analysis is a method that is used to

appraise projects in a bid to ensure that there accountability in the corporate and national

financial expenditures. Honesty and transparency are the virtues that guide professional

PROJECT REPORT 3

accountants in carrying out their roles. The project explores how the transparency and

consistency can be used enhanced in the cost benefit analysis appraisals.

Background and Problem definition

Infrastructure remains crucial in enhancing the living standards and productivity of

the Australians. Accounting plays a vital role in how these projects are planned and paid for

in Australia. The Australian Infrastructure Audit has highlighted a newfangled, strategic

mechanism to assess the infrastructure requirements of Australia. This assessment has

pointed towards the urgent need for the enhancements in the appraisal, selections as well as

reporting of cost/benefit analysis (Auerbach et al., 2014).

There is a need to examine the drivers of the forthcoming infrastructure demand,

especially economic growth and population. The top-down valuation of value-add, and Direct

Economic Contribution of infrastructure (DECI); regards the forthcoming demand for major

infrastructure projects over the succeeding fifteen years, as well as conveys an evidence

foundation for extended long term planning, gap analysis as well as forthcoming investment

primacies.

The AIA has discovered that in the absence of an effective accomplishment, the

productivity alongside quality of life in Australia will remain tested, with populace as well as

growth of economy set to escalate snowballing congestion as well as tailbacks (Davies,

2016). There is a need for major reforms to enhance the manner accountants plan these

projects to shape effective government finance, construction, maintenance as well as

operation of infrastructure to make sure it can reinforce advances in productivity in decades

going forward, and back growth of economy.

The key problem or issue to be investigated in this current study is the need to

enhance the transparency alongside consistency of cost-benefit analysis that will culminate to

the enhancement in infrastructure projects appraisal and selection (Haimes, 2015). Despite

PROJECT REPORT 4

this problem being acknowledged in the Australian Infrastructure Audit as critical to the

creation of productive and sustainable infrastructure if Australia has to drive economic

growth, increase employment and improve quality of life for every Australian, it has greatly

remained a teething problem.

Justification for Relevance of Issue/Problem Accounting

The problem identified above is directly relevant to the accounting profession. It is

further closely related to the topic of this study that generally examines the accounting for

infrastructure as well as cost benefit analysis major project’s assessment in Australia

(Laurance et al., 2015). By enhancing the transparency and consistency of cost-benefit

analysis, it will automatically enhance infrastructure projects appraisal and selection among

the professional accountants. Accounting profession is responsible for the undertaking the

cost-benefit analysis and the appraisal and selection of the major projects in Australia.

The law and regulations as well as ethical codes of accounting profession requires

accountants to generate transparent and consistent reports drawn from these cost-benefit

analysis (Revesz, 2016). This means that the problem identified above seeks to improve the

credibility and reliability of the reports generated by the professional accountants and hence

there is a significance of the problem to the accounting profession chosen for this study.

Aim and Objectives/Research Questions

Aim

The aim of this study will be to look for the best mechanisms that will enhance the

transparency and consistency of cost-benefit analysis in order to improve the infrastructure

projects appraisal and selection by the professional accountants to allow Australia to create

productive and sustainable infrastructure thereby allowing Australia to drive economic

growth, increase employment and improve quality of life for every Australian.

PROJECT REPORT 5

Objectives

To enhance the transparency and consistency of cost-benefit analysis to enhance

infrastructure projects appraisal and selection among the professional accountants.

Research Questions

The project seeks to address the following research question:

How can transparency and consistency of cost-benefit analysis be enhanced to enhance

infrastructure projects appraisal and selection by the professional accountants?

Literature Review

The issue of infrastructural projects appraisal in Australia has drawn the attention of

many researchers. There are various studies that have explored the importance of project

appraisal using various methods. Cost benefit analysis, as a method of project appraisals, is

one of the most important methods. To capture the necessary information on the study, the

literature was conducted on the following topics.

The Cost Benefit Analysis Method

Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) is a common technique applied in the assessment of public

investment. The technique is used in the planning, support of decisions, evaluation of

programs and proposals, and for other aims in various organizations. Brzozowska (2007) did

an in-depth analysis of the technique and how it is used in investment decision-making.

According to Brzozowska (2007), the Cost Benefit Analysis technique helps in decision-

making concerning costs of projects and choosing the right project or business idea

undertaken by investors. When using CBA technique, an individual intends to select the

optimal alternative that would result in the greater good. With the scarcity of funds and the

presence of many social needs, such solutions are very crucial. These situations necessitate

the need for selecting the most important or effective project.

PROJECT REPORT 6

When properly done, CBA enables financial analysts and policy makers to determine the

potential Pareto improvements and establish the differences between profits and losses

(Brzozowska, 2007). The Cost Benefit Analysis technique ensures that the public sector and

other sectors are capable of allocating the limited resources effectively to accomplish various

projects being undertaken. Cost Benefit Analysis is used to estimate the totals up the

equivalent value of money of the projects’ benefits and the project costs to the community in

order to determine whether they are worth investing in (Brzozowska, 2007). This implies

that it is a necessity to measure the project’s benefits and costs in terms of their equivalent

money value in a given time. According to the CBA technique, a project is to be undertaken

only if the benefits are expected to be higher than the expenditures. With the knowledge and

understanding of what the CBA entails, it is imperative to look at transparency and

consistency in cost-benefit analysis.

The Australian Government Project Assessment Framework

The Australian has long been using an appraisal criterion for its infrastructural

projects which does not take into account transparency in the process. There is a body in

Australia called the Infrastructure Australia which is responsible for managing the

infrastructure developments in the nation. Its main role is to provide advice to all government

levels and investors in the infrastructure industry (Infrastructure Australia, 2016). The IA’s

framework of assessment is structured in a way to identify problem and to ensure project

development and delivery (Infrastructure Australia, 2016). The IA’s assessment framework

comprises of five stages. As stated by the Infrastructure Australia (2016), the framework was

developed on the basis of development project activities grouping in line with the various

stages that various territories and states use. The role of IA in the assessment is to advice and

support the various proposals put forward by different proponents through the initiative and

project development process with a bid to select the best business case that takes into account

PROJECT REPORT 7

the balanced economic, social and environmental perspectives (Infrastructure Australia,

2016). The first stage is goal definition and identification followed by initiative identification.

The third stage is the assessment of options which is followed by business case assessment.

The last stage is benefits realization (Infrastructure Australia, 2016). Using the CBA

technique, the IA analyses the projects suitability based on the financial outcome that the

project will have. However, the agency does not put any focus on transparency in the

assessment process.

Trends in Cost Benefit Analysis of Infrastructural Development

Dahl, PTV, Meunier, LVMT & Quinet (2015) conducted a study to determine the

current and past trends in the cost benefit assessment of projects in Germany and France.

According to Dahl et al. (2015), the guidelines were mainly based on classical analysis whose

main focus was time and cost reduction. The value was then multiplied by some

predetermined coefficients to account for environmental costs and effects such as air

pollution, noise, and carbon dioxide emissions (Dahl et al. 2015). There is no focus on

transparency whatsoever. All the emphasis is put on cost reduction and environmental impact

assessment (Jones, Moura & Domingos, 2014). How can one be sure that the figures

presented are correct? That is the question that I can ask because a lot of funds have been

misappropriated in Australia without realising the actual objectives of the various

infrastructure projects in the nation.

Transparency and Consistency of Cost-Benefit-Analysis

Transparency and consistency in appraising infrastructural projects has been an issue

in the Australian government. Transparency in the execution of a budget, honesty in the

procurement of resources and other things, as well as the efficiency in the management of

funds are very critical in making investments stable and predictable and in ensuring that rent

seeking opportunities are reduced. According to IMF (2015), Australian finance ministries

PROJECT REPORT 8

are expected put an emphasis on protecting the investment expenditures within the country.

They can do this by the appropriation of the total costs of projects at the beginning of every

project, protect the budgets from being manipulated to meet the current pressures, and allow

debts to be carried over to the future generations (IMF, 2015). IMF (2015) further states that

transparency and accountability are needed during project management, evaluation and

monitoring for the purpose of strengthening incentives for timely delivery of projects while

adhering to the budget allocated and ensuring that the value for money is realized in using

public resources. Even with the importance that IMF puts on transparency in project

appraisals, the current system in the Australian Government does not put that into

consideration.

Douglas and Brooker (2013) conducted a review of the transport project appraisal in

NSW Australia. The study revealed that the appraisal have always been centred on Cost

Benefit Analysis for over forty years in the Australian government. The approach has

remained to date from the 1960s (Douglas & Brooker, 2013). The major change that has

occurred to date is the inclusion of environmental impact assessment of the infrastructure

projects. According to Douglas and Brooker (2013), the appraisals of roads were done on the

basis of engineering economy, which emphasized on highway design, speeds and the

discounting of present and future values of costs and benefits (p. 3). NSW provided

guidelines on assets economic appraisals based on CBA and cost-effectiveness in 1988

(Douglas & Brooker, 2013). The NSW Treasury in Australia conducted workshops and

published a list of accredited agencies and consultants who were certified to carry put

evaluations as a way of promoting good practice (Douglas & Brooker, 2016). The

Government agencies were urged to conduct economic evaluations (Douglas & Brooker,

2016). Most of the infrastructure projects, the Cost Benefit Analysis report incorporated few

PROJECT REPORT 9

risk management studies and demand management assessment. Very few project completion

reviews were done (Douglas & Brooker, 2016).

The Gap:

The studies conducted on the project appraisals using the CBA technique do not touch

on transparency. The main issue that is of concern for most of the CBA appraisals is value for

money. In most cases, investors aim at maximizing profits without putting into considerations

what the public perceive of certain projects being undertaken. In theory, the private sector as

well as the government sector is expected to safeguard the interest of the public by ensuring

that there is transparency in all the undertakings and a guaranteed value for money. In

practice, however, this is not the case; members of the government are always under pressure

to follow short-term objectives at the expense of the public interests (Beukers, Bertolini & Te

Brömmelstroet, 2012). Most of the government officials sign contracts that are driven by self-

interests and benefits and not to deliver long-term benefits to the public (Sagalyn, 2012). The

costs for future are ignored. In as much as the government is trying to develop infrastructures,

the main stumbling block is lack of transparency in the appraisal processes. The Australian

government relies heavily on external consultants during the CBA appraisals of infrastructure

projects some of whom may have conflict of interest as noted by Phillips, Ellis & Boshier

(2010). There is, therefore, a need to ensure transparency prevails so that the government and

its advisors are exposed to a broad range of other views in making decisions on matters that

concern the public interest. The current literature does not provide guidelines on how the

transparency can be incorporated in the Cost Benefit Analysis to ensure infrastructure

projects are well selected.

PROJECT REPORT 10

Methodology

To ensure that the topic is tackled correctly, the study involved a review of literatures

in order to understand the gap that exists. This gap formed the basis of the study and was

used to formulate the research design.

Theoretical Framework

The decisions made concerning the topic were informed using the utilitarian

approach. According to West (2017), utilitarianism tells us how we can evaluate a range of

things which involve choices faced by people in their daily lives. The actions that people tale,

the laws and policies that govern various practices and the moral codes are of great

importance when appraising infrastructure projects in Australia and other parts of the world.

The utilitarian theory is a type of consequential theory as it focuses on the consequences that

the choices made may have on people and the society (West, 2017). According to this

approach, the best option that people should choose is one that “maximizes utility”, i.e. the

best option should be able to produce the largest amount of good (West, 2017). When

appraising the infrastructure projects, the consequences that each option may have should

closely be evaluated and the best option selected. Infrastructure projects affect the entire

public in Australia; focussing only on value for money is not enough. Transparency has to be

incorporated so that the rest of the public members can have their say on the ongoing projects

(Williams & Samset, 2010).). Using this theory, various alternatives were evaluated and the

best strategies on enhancing transparency in CBA were selected and discussed in the

recommendation section.

Research Design

The study utilized a mixed approach; it incorporated both qualitative and quantitative

approach. It involved review of already published literature on project appraisals in Australia

and other parts of the world. This gives an insight on weaknesses in addressing the issue of

PROJECT REPORT 11

transparency in CBA. Questionnaires were handed over to a selected number of accounting

managers for the purpose of finding how much the managers know about the enhancing

transparency in CBA and the challenges facing the appraisal of infrastructure projects in

Australia. A sample size of 100 was used. The results were then analyzed in pie charts and

tables using Microsoft excel software. The qualitative data, on the other, was analyzed mainly

in writings and explanations of the implication.

Findings and Analysis (500)

Current Practices

It was found that the Australian government relies on Australia Infrastructure to do

appraisal of projects. AI uses Cost Benefit Analysis to evaluate the suitability of

infrastructure projects. The process is conducted in five stages. The first stage is the goal

definition and problem identification. At this stage, problems and opportunities are identified

and then assessed on their significance to the national goals and objectives. After

identification, the next stage is initiative identification. In this stage, the project proposals

are assessed on whether they demonstrate constraint on achieving the intended goals and

objectives. The relevant data on addressing the problem is assessed and prioritized. The third

stage is option assessment. In this stage, AI develops a number of possible options to address

the problem, which include possible reforms and investment proposals which may entail

reduction of demand, improvement of productivity and increasing supply. The best option is

then selected upon justification using evidence obtained from various studies. The next stage

is business case assessment. This is where a thorough cost benefit analysis is carried out. The

most common estimates in the CBA are the probabilistic risk-based cost estimates which are

used in requesting for financial assistance. A certain financial model has been developed to

determine the viability gap and in further exploring the best choices for and impact of the

various funding options available. The AI has also been able to put in place a plan for

PROJECT REPORT 12

assessing risks in a bid to provide a guarantee that the proposal will be delivered within the

proposed budget. The final stage is the benefit realization. In this stage, the project outcome

is assessed to determine whether the benefits have been realized.

Knowledge of incorporating Transparency in CBA

The knowledge of CBA was assessed through interviews of financial managers in

various companies. Fifty managers were given questionnaires to fill their views on how best

they know the incorporation of transparency of Cost Benefit Analysis. The results were as

follows:

Figure 1: Knowledge of enhancing Transparency in CBA of Projects

Criteria used to Analyse Projects

This particular aspect was aimed at finding out the weights of various criteria used when

conducting Cost Benefit Analysis of infrastructure projects. The criteria selected are as

follows:

Strategic Fit: This criterion assesses the suitability of a project to address the set the

intended goals and objectives of a project and its significance

Economic: The economic criterion assesses a project based on the economic

implication. This mainly involves the identification whether a project is able to meet the

PROJECT REPORT 13

financial goals by balancing the expenditures and profits. The best option is one that has

delivers more value for money.

Environmental Value: Environmental criterion involves the assessment of the

environmental impact that a project will have. Under this criterion, a project is expected to be

environmental friendly.

Social Value (interest of public): The social value criterion assesses a project on the

impact that a project will have to the society. Is it beneficial to the society? How will it

transform the society? The project should address the interest of the public.

Deliverability: Deliverability assesses the risks that are inherent in delivering a

proposed project and the measures that an investor has proposed for mitigation and managing

these risks.

The results on the weights put on the various criteria are as follows:

Figure 2: Percentage Weights on Various CBA criteria

Discussion

Current Practices

Based on a review of literature conducted on the current practices employed in cost

benefit analysis, the Australian Infrastructure is the agency responsible for appraisals of

PROJECT REPORT 14

projects. The agency has clear guidelines on how the assessment of projects is done. The

focus of infrastructure project appraisal is mainly value for money. Most of the respondents

said that more emphasis is put on the profitability of a project. 30% have a slight knowledge

on how they can incorporate transparency and they were willing to do so if they are educated

on the same.

Knowledge of incorporating Transparency in CBA

When asked whether it is possible to incorporate transparency in the cost benefit

analysis when appraising infrastructure projects, most 66% of the respondents said it is

impossible. According to them, transparency in the process of evaluating projects is an

impossible tasks because, as much as that is what the public wants, the investors and the

evaluators fear that the public may interfere with their operations if everything is to be

discussed to the public. When asked whether they have any plans of enhancing transparency

in the appraisals, the 66% of them said they don’t even know the strategies that can be put in

place to enhance transparency. Only 4% of the respondents had knowledge and willingness to

enhance transparency. When asked whether they practice, they replied that they have been

trying but there are lots of challenges due to different perceptions by the investors and some

of the government agencies. They acknowledge that the accounting professionals have a

crucial role to play in ensuring that transparency prevail in the infrastructure projects

appraisals using the cost benefit analysis technique.

Criteria used to Analyse Projects

After analysing the results on the weights of the criteria used in analysing

infrastructure projects, it was shocking to note that most of the social aspect carried the

lowest weight at only 8%. The highest weight was put on economic value, at 40%. This

implies that the investors emphasize more on profitability at the expense of the interest of the

public. Based on this criterion, the investors and the government agencies responsible for

PROJECT REPORT 15

appraising projects termed threats from the public as the reason for not exercising

transparency in appraising their projects. Environmental assessment was the second, having a

weight of 20%. The respondents cited strict environmental regulations as the reason for

emphasizing on the environmental impact assessments. Strategic fit criterion had a fair share

of 17%. The financial accounting professionals emphasized on the achievement of project

goals. Of all the entire criteria, there was nothing to do with emphasis on public interest. The

financial accounting professionals who were involved in the cost benefit analysis of projects

did not have any strategies to incorporate transparency. According to them, realization of

profits was more critical and that the public did not have any role to play in assessing

projects. Their response is evidenced in a research conducted by Mouter, Annema, and van

Wee (2013). Based on the results, it is apparent that there is a need establish strategies to

ensure there is transparency when performing cost benefit analysis of the infrastructure

projects which play a significant role to the economy of the Australian government.

Recommendations and Conclusion

Resource allocation is a critical aspect in the infrastructure projects. In many times,

investors only think of their own interests at the expense of the public (Phillips & e Costa,

2010). The approach of putting value for money as the biggest priority imposes a dilemma

when considering the interests of the public (Cavill, Kahlmeier, Rutter, Racioppi & Oja,

(2011). The cost benefit analysis should be inclusive, open and transparent as proposed by

Phillips & e Costa (2010). According to European Investment Bank (2013), resource

allocation is not just a technical matter of using the right modelling. There should be trust and

fairness within which the modelling is executed (Franks, 2012). Various stakeholders should

be engaged in when carrying out the project appraisals as proposed by Mulgan (2010). There

is a need to create awareness on the importance of transparency in cost benefit analysis of

infrastructure projects (Forrer, Kee, Newcomer & Boyer, 2010). The government should

PROJECT REPORT 16

make use of technology to encourage public participation in CBA, such as the use of social

media as proposed by Paez, Bishop and Williamson (2012). Implementing these strategies

will, indeed, enhance transparency which will, in turn, improve appraisal and selection of

infrastructure appraisal.

PROJECT REPORT 17

References

Auerbach, D. A., Deisenroth, D. B., McShane, R. R., McCluney, K. E., & Poff, N. L. (2014).

Beyond the concrete: Accounting for ecosystem services from free-flowing rivers.

Ecosystem Services, 10, 1-5.

Forrer, J., Kee, J. E., Newcomer, K. E., & Boyer, E. (2010). Public–private partnerships and

the public accountability question. Public Administration Review, 70(3), 475-484.

Mulgan, G. (2010). Measuring social value. Stanford Soc Innov Rev, 8(3), 38-43.

Franks, D. (2012). Social impact assessment of resource projects. International Mining for

Development Centre, 3.

Mouter, N., Annema, J. A., & van Wee, B. (2013). Attitudes towards the role of Cost–Benefit

Analysis in the decision-making process for spatial-infrastructure projects: A Dutch

case study. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 58, 1-14.

Williams, T., & Samset, K. (2010). Issues in front‐end decision making on projects. Project

Management Journal, 41(2), 38-49.

Brzozowska, K. (2007). Cost-Benefit Analysis in Public Project Appraisal. Engineering

Economics, (3 (53)), 78-83.

Dahl, A., PTV, A., Meunier, B. D., LVMT, U., & Quinet, E. (2015). New trends in cost-

benefit assessment of public investments in France and Germany.

Davies, W. (2016). How assumptions influence the results of a cost benefit analysis. In

ARRB Conference, 27th, 2016, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Haimes, Y. Y. (2015). Risk modeling, assessment, and management. John Wiley & Sons.

IMF. (2015). Making Public investment more Efficient. Retrieved from

http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2015/061115.pdf

Infrastructure Australia. (2016). Assessment Framework: Detailed Technical Guidance.

Retrieved from

PROJECT REPORT 18

http://infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/projects/files/Assessment_Framework_Detailed_

Technical_Guidance.pdf

Investopedia. (n.d.). Accountant. Retrieved from

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/accountant.asp

Jones, H., Moura, F., & Domingos, T. (2014). Transport infrastructure project evaluation

using cost-benefit analysis. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 111, 400-409.

Kaidonis, M. A. (2008). The Accounting Profession: Serving the public interest or capital

interest?. Australasian Accounting Business & Finance Journal, 2(4), 1.

Laurance, W. F., Peletier-Jellema, A., Geenen, B., Koster, H., Verweij, P., Van Dijck, P., ...

& Van Kuijk, M. (2015). Reducing the global environmental impacts of rapid

infrastructure expansion. Current Biology, 25(7), R259-R262.

Revesz, R. L. (2016). Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Structure of the Administrative State:

The Case of Financial Services Regulation.

West, R.H. (2017). Utilitarianism Philosophy. Encyclopaedia Britanica. Retrieved from

https://www.britannica.com/topic/utilitarianism-philosophy

Phillips, L. D., & e Costa, C. A. B. (2010). Transparent prioritisation, budgeting and resource

allocation with multi-criteria decision analysis and decision conferencing. Annals of

Operations Research, 154(1), 51-68.

Cavill, N., Kahlmeier, S., Rutter, H., Racioppi, F., & Oja, P. (2011). Economic analyses of

transport infrastructure and policies including health effects related to cycling and

walking: a systematic review. Transport policy, 15(5), 291-304.

Paez, D., Bishop, I. D., & Williamson, I. P. (2012). DISCUSS: A methodology to support

public participation in cost-benefit analysis.

PROJECT REPORT 19

Beukers, E., Bertolini, L., & Te Brömmelstroet, M. (2012). Why Cost Benefit Analysis is

perceived as a problematic tool for assessment of transport plans: A process

perspective. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 46(1), 68-78.

Sagalyn, L. B. (2012). Public-private engagement: Promise and practice. Planning Ideas That

Matter: Livability, Territoriality, Governance, and Reflective Practice, 233.

Phillips, P., Ellis, M., & Boshier, J. (2010). Infrastructure Investment: Supporting Better

Decisions Report. Centre for Advanced Engineering, University of Canterbury.

European Investment Bank. (2013, March). The Economic Appraisal of Investment Projects

at the EIB. Retrieved from

http://www.eib.org/attachments/thematic/economic_appraisal_of_investment_projects

_en.pdf

Douglas, N. J., & Brooker, T. (2013, October). A Review of Transport Project Appraisal in

NSW Australia. In Australasian Transport Research Forum Proceed (pp. 2-4).

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Paper type

Deadline

Page count

550 words

Total price: $ 15.00

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

USA, Student

"I'm fully satisfied with the essay I've just received. When I read it, I felt like it was exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn’t find the necessary words. Thank you!"

Ian McGregor

UK, Student

"I don’t know what I would do without your assistance! With your help, I met my deadline just in time and the work was very professional. I will be back in several days with another assignment!"

Shannon Williams

Canada, Student

"It was the perfect experience! I enjoyed working with my writer, he delivered my work on time and followed all the guidelines about the referencing and contents."