content

Capital Investment Proposal

A one-page capital investment proposal template for comparing repair, replacement and lease options using business need, cost and benefit evidence, assumptions and delivery ownership. It includes a clearly labeled fictional packaging-line example to show how a decision case can be prepared without implying approval.

Request pricing See it in MangoApps

Every employee gets a seat — priced per employee in Communications & Intranet, quoted with this template ready.

Rolled out to every employee at AutoZone (125,000), PetSmart (50,000+), A.S. Watson and Raley's (20,000) — and at larger retailers we are not permitted to name.

Built for: Manufacturing · Food and beverage production · Logistics and warehousing · Utilities and infrastructure

9:41

Sites

Overview

The Capital Investment Proposal is a one-page decision record for a sponsor seeking a decision on a long-lived asset investment. It guides the reader from the business need to a like-for-like options comparison, a dated recommendation, supporting evidence and role-based delivery ownership. Its worked example is explicitly fictional: Northstar Components compares repairing, replacing or leasing an aging packaging line. The sample makes clear which figures are illustrative, which assumptions still need verification and which decision remains with the organization’s investment governance.

Use the page when reviewers need to understand why an asset investment is needed, what alternatives were considered and what evidence supports the recommendation. The example shows practical inputs such as downtime over a stated period, a supplier quotation with a validity date, a common five-year comparison window, lost-output assumptions, useful life and a planned shutdown. It also distinguishes cash costs from modeled lost output and identifies where Finance, Procurement and Maintenance Engineering contribute. The evidence checklist and role cards help a sponsor prepare a traceable case before submission.

This is not an approval form, a live financial model or a substitute for your organization’s business-case policy. Do not copy the fictional costs, dates, operating results or roles as local facts. It is not intended for routine purchases that follow a standard buying process, nor does its simplified comparison replace a full appraisal. Confirm thresholds, discounting, accounting treatment, procurement rules and decision authority with the relevant teams, then refresh assumptions if the decision date or source evidence changes.

Standards & compliance context

The template does not establish investment authority or approval; use the decision roles, thresholds and routing required by your organization’s governance.
Have Finance confirm the applicable appraisal method, discount rate, funding criteria and accounting treatment; the fictional comparison is explicitly undiscounted and excludes stated effects.
Have Procurement confirm quotation comparability, tender requirements, lease terms and contract conditions before relying on the sample’s procurement considerations.
Preserve the source, period and assumptions behind decision figures so reviewers can trace and challenge the evidence.
When publishing or adapting the page, use clear headings, readable table structure and sufficient contrast to support WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility.

General regulatory context for orientation only — verify current requirements with counsel or the relevant agency before relying on this template for compliance.

What's inside this template

Prepare a capital case reviewers can compare fairly

This hero identifies the proposal’s audience and frames the page as a decision case rather than an approval.

For sponsors of long-lived asset investments who work with finance, procurement and delivery teams. The page follows one worked example: Northstar Components, a fictional manufacturer, weighs repairing, replacing or leasing a packaging line. Every figure, date and role is illustrative sample content, not live data.

The decision in the example

This summary gives reviewers the fictional asset, requested decision date, current recommendation and case status before the detailed evidence.

Northstar's Plant Operations Manager asks for a decision by 18 June 2026 on Packaging Line 3, a 14-year-old line with rising unplanned downtime. The recommended option is to replace the line for $2.4M. The case is shown as prepared and has not been approved. The sections below give the need, the like-for-like comparison, the dated rationale, the evidence to gather and who owns each part.

Business need

A specific, measurable need helps reviewers test whether the proposed investment addresses an operational problem.

Start with the problem the asset must solve, not the asset you want Example need statement (fictional): Packaging Line 3 packs about 40% of Northstar's carton volume. Over the last 12 months it stopped without warning for 9% of scheduled hours, up from 6% the year before. Two customer orders shipped late as a result. Customer demand is forecast to grow about 8% a year for the next five years, so the line must be dependable, not just running. A need statement a reviewer can test does four things: Names the process or service affected and the share of work it carries. Gives one measured symptom with its period and denominator, such as 9% of scheduled hours over 12 months. States the consequence in business terms, such as late orders or lost output. States the demand or deadline the investment must meet, such as growth over five years.

Sample baseline for Packaging Line 3

These illustrative figures show how to state the baseline, period and basis for important costs and operating conditions.

Illustrative Northstar figures, each shown with its period or basis. In a real proposal, use your own measured data and name the source. Share of scheduled hours, last 12 months Unplanned downtime 9% 9% downtime × $45K margin per percentage point (assumption) Estimated lost output per year $405K Original design life was 12 years Age of the line 14 yrs Supplier quotation estimate, valid 90 days Capital requested for replacement $2.4M

Options compared on the same criteria

A shared comparison window and explicit assumptions help reviewers distinguish the tradeoffs among repair, replacement and leasing.

Fictional estimates over the same five-year window, assuming all options operate throughout it. Undiscounted, with no inflation, tax effects or residual values; Finance determines the full appraisal and accounting treatment. Criterion A. Repair B. Replace C. Lease Upfront cash $640,000 overhaul $2,400,000 purchase and install $150,000 installation Annual running cost (maintenance, energy, scrap) $410,000 $230,000 $230,000 plus $560,000 lease Cash cost over 5 years $2.69M $3.55M $4.10M Expected unplanned downtime (now 9%) 6% 2% Lost output over 5 years ($45K per percentage point per year) $1.35M $0.45M 5-year cost including lost output $4.04M $4.00M $4.55M Useful life 5 more years assumed; validate before the decision 15 years 5-year term, then renew or return Cash funding pattern Smaller capital request Largest one-time capital request Periodic lease payments plus installation; Finance determines accounting treatment Key assumption Overhaul finds no frame damage Installation fits the planned 3-week shutdown Lease rate stays fixed for the full term Main tradeoff Smaller upfront cash; reaches its assumed remaining life at the end of the comparison Largest upfront cash; assumed useful life extends beyond the comparison Spreads cash payments, but has the highest modeled five-year cost

Cost, benefit and dated rationale

This section records why the example recommends replacement, what remains unverified and which assumption could change the decision.

Rationale recorded 4 June 2026 (sample). Decision requested by 18 June 2026. Recommendation: Option B, replace the line. Over five years it costs about the same as repair ($4.00M vs $4.04M) but has ten years of assumed remaining useful life at the end of that window; the repaired line has none under the five-year life assumption. Residual values are not included in these modeled cash costs. Leasing costs about $0.55M more over five years, and the cash it preserves is not needed this year. What is known Downtime of 9% of scheduled hours, from the line's stop log for the last 12 months. The $2.4M replacement price, from a supplier quotation valid for 90 days. The 14-year age of the line and its 12-year original design life. What is still an assumption The $45K margin per percentage point of downtime. Finance to verify against the last two quarters' actuals before the decision date. Downtime of 2% on the new line, taken from the supplier's reference sites. Maintenance Engineering to check against two comparable installations. The repaired line lasting the full five-year comparison window. Maintenance Engineering must validate that assumption; an earlier end of life requires an explicit continuation or replacement cost and a rebuilt comparison. The 3-week installation window. It depends on the planned shutdown in November 2026. What would change the recommendation Replacing saves 4 percentage points of downtime over 5 years (20 point-years) for $0.86M more cash. Under the same five-year operating-life assumption and the stated cost exclusions, a margin below about $43K per percentage point makes repair the lower modeled five-year cost. At $45K the two are nearly level, so this is the number the decision is most sensitive to. Say which number your own case is most sensitive to, so reviewers know where to look first. This is a prepared case, not an approval. The decision rests with the people or committee your organization's investment governance names.

Evidence to assemble before you submit

This checklist points sponsors to source records for the need, cost estimates, benefit assumptions and delivery readiness.

Collect these in one folder so a reviewer can trace every figure back to its source. Each card is a checklist, not a link. Business need Stop or incident log covering at least 12 months Volume or customer impact of the affected process Demand forecast with the owner and date it was produced Any contractual or regulatory deadline that sets timing Cost estimates Written quotations with their validity dates Maintenance and energy costs for the last 12 months Installation, training and disposal costs per option Lease terms, end-of-term conditions and renewal rates Benefit assumptions How each benefit is calculated and by whom Margin or savings rate checked by Finance Downtime or performance figures from reference sites Benefits shown separately from costs, never netted off Delivery readiness Proposed start date and the shutdown or window it needs Named delivery owner and who covers operations meanwhile Top three risks with an owner for each Date and measure for judging whether the benefit arrived

Delivery and ownership

Role-based responsibilities clarify who prepares, checks, advises on and would deliver the proposed investment.

Name a role for each responsibility before the proposal goes for decision. Role titles are from the fictional example. Sponsor: Plant Operations Manager Owns the case from need to decision and signs the dated rationale. Writes the need statement and recommendation Lists every assumption with an owner and a verify-by date Presents the case and answers questions on the decision date Financial review: Finance business partner Checks that the numbers are built the same way across all options. Confirms the discount rate and hurdle criteria that apply Verifies the margin and cost inputs against actuals Flags any option that mixes capital and operating costs unfairly Sourcing advice: Procurement category lead Advises on suppliers, quotation validity and contract terms. Confirms quotations are like-for-like and still valid Reviews lease and warranty terms before the decision date Advises whether a competitive tender is needed Delivery owner: Maintenance Engineering Lead Owns the installation plan if the option is approved. Fits the work into the planned 3-week shutdown in November 2026 Names who covers production while the line is out Reports against the 2% downtime target 90 days after start-up

Common questions before you start

These answers clarify when to use the proposal, how to handle close comparisons and assumptions, and why completing it does not grant approval.

When do I use this page instead of a routine purchase request? Use it when the asset will serve the business for years and the real question is how to meet a need: repair, replace, lease or do nothing. Everyday purchases of standard items follow the routine purchase process. Your Finance and Procurement team sets the amount at which a request is treated as capital, so ask your finance business partner before you start. What if two options come out almost level on cost? Say so, and name the tiebreaker. In the example, repair and replace differ by $40,000 over five years, so the case turns on useful life and downtime risk. State which of risk, flexibility or funding matters most and why. How do I treat a figure I cannot verify yet? Mark it as an assumption, name who will verify it and give a date before the decision. A reviewer can accept a labelled estimate. An unlabelled one weakens every other number on the page. Does completing this page approve the investment? No. It prepares a comparable case. Approval follows your organization's investment governance, and the decision date and decision-makers come from Finance and Procurement.

How to use this template

Duplicate the page and replace the fictional asset, organization context and decision date with confirmed details for your proposed investment.
Write the business need using a measured symptom, its period and denominator, its operational consequence and the demand or deadline the asset must meet.
Choose realistic alternatives and compare them over the same time window using consistent cost categories, benefits, useful-life assumptions and exclusions.
Attach or identify source evidence for each material figure, then label estimates as assumptions and assign a verification role and due date.
Assign the sponsor, Finance reviewer, Procurement adviser and delivery owner roles, and confirm the decision route and delivery window with the appropriate teams.
Review sensitivities and unresolved assumptions before submission, record the rationale date, and update the comparison if a material input or decision date changes.

Best practices

State the measurement period and denominator for every operational baseline, as the example does for downtime as a share of scheduled hours over 12 months.
Compare every option over the same time horizon and show upfront cost, recurring cost, modeled benefit and exclusions separately.
Record the source and validity date for quotations, forecasts and operating data so reviewers can check whether evidence is still current.
Label uncertain inputs as assumptions and give each one a role responsible for verification and a verify-by date.
Test the recommendation against the assumption most likely to change it, and explain the threshold or scenario where another option becomes preferable.
Keep the proposal’s decision status distinct from approval; route it through the organization’s established investment governance.
Name delivery ownership and operational coverage for installation or transition before asking reviewers to decide.
Refresh the case when a quotation expires, the delivery window shifts or a material cost, benefit or useful-life assumption changes.

What this template typically catches

Issues teams running this template most often surface in practice:

A need statement describes a preferred asset but does not quantify the operational problem or identify its measurement period.

Options use different time horizons or cost categories, making the comparison difficult to assess fairly.

A supplier quotation, demand forecast or operational baseline has no source, owner or validity date.

An estimated benefit is presented as verified fact, or its calculation and Finance check are missing.

The recommendation depends on an untested useful-life or performance assumption that is not assigned for verification.

The proposal shows a recommendation but omits the sensitivity that could make another option preferable.

Installation timing is stated without a confirmed shutdown window or plan for operational coverage.

A completed proposal is mistaken for approval, or the case has no clear owner for the next governance step.

Common use cases

Plant operations sponsor replacing production equipment

A Plant Operations Manager uses the page to explain recurring line downtime, compare overhaul, replacement and lease options, and identify which operating assumptions need review. The fictional example shows how a dated recommendation can make the decision sensitivity visible without representing approval.

Finance partner reviewing a capital request

A Finance business partner checks that options use consistent periods and cost categories, verifies margin and cost inputs, and identifies appraisal assumptions that need a fuller financial model. The page explicitly leaves discounting and accounting treatment to Finance.

Procurement lead assessing equipment alternatives

A Procurement category lead reviews whether quotations are comparable and current, and checks lease, warranty and tender considerations before the decision date. The evidence checklist gives the sponsor a practical set of commercial records to assemble.

Maintenance engineering delivery owner

A Maintenance Engineering Lead checks whether installation fits the shutdown window, defines operational cover and owns the proposed performance check after start-up. The example ties those responsibilities to the replacement option while keeping them clearly fictional.

Frequently asked questions

When should I use this proposal instead of a routine purchase request?

Use it when a long-lived asset investment needs a decision between options such as repair, replace or lease. It is designed to make the business need, costs, benefits, assumptions and delivery ownership comparable in one page. Routine purchases of standard items may belong in your organization’s purchase process instead. Ask Finance whether the request meets your organization’s capital-investment threshold.

Who should prepare and review the proposal?

The sponsor assembles the need statement, recommendation and dated rationale. Finance checks financial inputs and the appraisal criteria that apply; Procurement reviews quotation comparability and commercial terms; the proposed delivery owner checks whether the work can be delivered. The example assigns these responsibilities to roles, not named employees, so your organization can adapt them.

How often should the figures and proposal be updated?

Update figures whenever a material input changes and before the decision date. Check quotation validity, cost estimates, demand forecasts, operating assumptions and the planned delivery window; the example’s replacement quotation is valid for 90 days. If the decision is deferred, refresh time-sensitive evidence and record the new rationale date.

Does completing the page approve or authorize the investment?

No. The example is explicitly a prepared case, not an approval. Your organization’s investment governance determines who decides, what thresholds apply and what approvals are required. Record the requested decision date and route the case through that established process.

How should I handle estimates that are not yet verified?

Label each estimate as an assumption, state its source or basis, and assign a role and verify-by date. The fictional case flags the margin value, expected new-line downtime and installation window for further checks. If an assumption cannot be verified before the decision, explain its effect on the recommendation and identify what would change the comparison.

How do I compare options when their modeled costs are nearly equal?

Keep the comparison on the same time horizon and criteria, then explain the non-cost difference that matters. The fictional repair and replacement options are close on modeled five-year cost, while their assumed useful lives differ. State the key sensitivity, such as the benefit value at which the recommendation changes, and disclose excluded items rather than presenting the estimate as a complete appraisal.

What should I customize before using this template?

Replace the fictional Northstar example with your asset, measured baseline, options, dated sources, assumptions, recommendation and delivery roles. Confirm the comparison period, cost treatment, decision date, funding criteria and evidence requirements with Finance and Procurement. Do not carry over the sample figures or dates as if they were local facts.

Does this template connect to finance, procurement or asset-management systems?

The page is a static proposal example; its figures and checklists are not live data or system integrations. Gather the source records separately and identify them in your actual proposal so reviewers can trace the figures. If you need linked records or workflow automation, confirm what your organization’s intranet and connected systems support before promising it.

What is a common pitfall when preparing the case?

A frequent weakness is comparing options with different assumptions or mixing cash costs and benefits without making the basis clear. The example separates upfront and annual costs, lost output, useful life and key assumptions, and notes that its five-year figures are undiscounted and omit specified effects. Have Finance validate the appraisal method and ensure that any changed assumption triggers a refreshed comparison.

What compliance or accounting review does the proposal need?

The template does not determine legal, tax, accounting or procurement requirements. The example explicitly assigns accounting treatment to Finance and refers tender advice to Procurement, while noting that the modeled comparison excludes tax effects and other appraisal items. Follow your organization’s applicable policies and have the appropriate specialists confirm requirements before a decision.

Related templates

Sites

Audit Evidence Request Guide

This audit evidence request guide shows employees how to match records to a request’s subject and...

Sites

Authentication Setup and Recovery

A practical intranet guide for employees setting up sign-in or recovering access. It helps you ch...

Sites

First Article Review Brief

A fictional first-run production review brief showing how to summarize scope, evidence gaps, role...

Sites

Find the Right Workplace App

A task-first intranet page that helps employees choose between workplace apps, check access basic...

Sites

Find the Right Employee Service

Find the employee service that matches a workplace need, with practical details to prepare before...

Forms

Employee Onboarding Form

Employee Onboarding Form for collecting new hire details, tax references, direct deposit, emergen...

Inspections

Forklift Daily Pre-Shift Inspection

Forklift Daily Pre-Shift Inspection template for recording pre-use checks, defects, and out-of-se...

Sop

Fire Evacuation Procedure

A fire evacuation procedure that tells each role exactly what to do from alarm to accountability....

Go deeper on the topic

Related concepts

Digital Workplace vs Modern Intranet

A modern intranet is a specific surface — typically the home-base destination where employees get company news, find policies, and access key apps. A digital...

Ready to use this template?

Every employee gets a seat. Request pricing for Communications & Intranet and we quote into a workspace with Capital Investment Proposal ready.

Request pricing

Rolled out to every employee at AutoZone (125,000), PetSmart (50,000+), A.S. Watson and Raley's (20,000) — and at larger retailers we are not permitted to name.

Prepare a capital case reviewers can compare fairly For sponsors of long-lived asset investments who work with finance, procurement and delivery teams. The page follows one worked example: Northstar Components, a fictional manufacturer, weighs repairing, replacing or leasing a packaging line. Every figure, date and role is illustrative sample content, not live data. The decision in the example Northstar's Plant Operations Manager asks for a decision by 18 June 2026 on Packaging Line 3, a 14-year-old line with rising unplanned downtime. The recommended option is to replace the line for $2.4M. The case is shown as prepared and has not been approved. The sections below give the need, the like-for-like comparison, the dated rationale, the evidence to gather and who owns each part. Business need Start with the problem the asset must solve, not the asset you want Example need statement (fictional): Packaging Line 3 packs about 40% of Northstar's carton volume. Over the last 12 months it stopped without warning for 9% of scheduled hours, up from 6% the year before. Two customer orders shipped late as a result. Customer demand is forecast to grow about 8% a year for the next five years, so the line must be dependable, not just running. A need statement a reviewer can test does four things: Names the process or service affected and the share of work it carries. Gives one measured symptom with its period and denominator, such as 9% of scheduled hours over 12 months. States the consequence in business terms, such as late orders or lost output. States the demand or deadline the investment must meet, such as growth over five years. Sample baseline for Packaging Line 3 Illustrative Northstar figures, each shown with its period or basis. In a real proposal, use your own measured data and name the source. Share of scheduled hours, last 12 months Unplanned downtime 9% 9% downtime × $45K margin per percentage point (assumption) Estimated lost output per year $405K Original design life was 12 years Age of the line 14 yrs Supplier quotation estimate, valid 90 days Capital requested for replacement $2.4M Options compared on the same criteria Fictional estimates over the same five-year window, assuming all options operate throughout it. Undiscounted, with no inflation, tax effects or residual values; Finance determines the full appraisal and accounting treatment. Criterion A. Repair B. Replace C. Lease Upfront cash $640,000 overhaul $2,400,000 purchase and install $150,000 installation Annual running cost (maintenance, energy, scrap) $410,000 $230,000 $230,000 plus $560,000 lease Cash cost over 5 years $2.69M $3.55M $4.10M Expected unplanned downtime (now 9%) 6% 2% Lost output over 5 years ($45K per percentage point per year) $1.35M $0.45M 5-year cost including lost output $4.04M $4.00M $4.55M Useful life 5 more years assumed; validate before the decision 15 years 5-year term, then renew or return Cash funding pattern Smaller capital request Largest one-time capital request Periodic lease payments plus installation; Finance determines accounting treatment Key assumption Overhaul finds no frame damage Installation fits the planned 3-week shutdown Lease rate stays fixed for the full term Main tradeoff Smaller upfront cash; reaches its assumed remaining life at the end of the comparison Largest upfront cash; assumed useful life extends beyond the comparison Spreads cash payments, but has the highest modeled five-year cost Cost, benefit and dated rationale Rationale recorded 4 June 2026 (sample). Decision requested by 18 June 2026. Recommendation: Option B, replace the line. Over five years it costs about the same as repair ($4.00M vs $4.04M) but has ten years of assumed remaining useful life at the end of that window; the repaired line has none under the five-year life assumption. Residual values are not included in these modeled cash costs. Leasing costs about $0.55M more over five years, and the cash it preserves is not needed this year. What is known Downtime of 9% of scheduled hours, from the line's stop log for the last 12 months. The $2.4M replacement price, from a supplier quotation valid for 90 days. The 14-year age of the line and its 12-year original design life. What is still an assumption The $45K margin per percentage point of downtime. Finance to verify against the last two quarters' actuals before the decision date. Downtime of 2% on the new line, taken from the supplier's reference sites. Maintenance Engineering to check against two comparable installations. The repaired line lasting the full five-year comparison window. Maintenance Engineering must validate that assumption; an earlier end of life requires an explicit continuation or replacement cost and a rebuilt comparison. The 3-week installation window. It depends on the planned shutdown in November 2026. What would change the recommendation Replacing saves 4 percentage points of downtime over 5 years (20 point-years) for $0.86M more cash. Under the same five-year operating-life assumption and the stated cost exclusions, a margin below about $43K per percentage point makes repair the lower modeled five-year cost. At $45K the two are nearly level, so this is the number the decision is most sensitive to. Say which number your own case is most sensitive to, so reviewers know where to look first. This is a prepared case, not an approval. The decision rests with the people or committee your organization's investment governance names. Evidence to assemble before you submit Collect these in one folder so a reviewer can trace every figure back to its source. Each card is a checklist, not a link. Business need Stop or incident log covering at least 12 months Volume or customer impact of the affected process Demand forecast with the owner and date it was produced Any contractual or regulatory deadline that sets timing Cost estimates Written quotations with their validity dates Maintenance and energy costs for the last 12 months Installation, training and disposal costs per option Lease terms, end-of-term conditions and renewal rates Benefit assumptions How each benefit is calculated and by whom Margin or savings rate checked by Finance Downtime or performance figures from reference sites Benefits shown separately from costs, never netted off Delivery readiness Proposed start date and the shutdown or window it needs Named delivery owner and who covers operations meanwhile Top three risks with an owner for each Date and measure for judging whether the benefit arrived Delivery and ownership Name a role for each responsibility before the proposal goes for decision. Role titles are from the fictional example. Sponsor: Plant Operations Manager Owns the case from need to decision and signs the dated rationale. Writes the need statement and recommendation Lists every assumption with an owner and a verify-by date Presents the case and answers questions on the decision date Financial review: Finance business partner Checks that the numbers are built the same way across all options. Confirms the discount rate and hurdle criteria that apply Verifies the margin and cost inputs against actuals Flags any option that mixes capital and operating costs unfairly Sourcing advice: Procurement category lead Advises on suppliers, quotation validity and contract terms. Confirms quotations are like-for-like and still valid Reviews lease and warranty terms before the decision date Advises whether a competitive tender is needed Delivery owner: Maintenance Engineering Lead Owns the installation plan if the option is approved. Fits the work into the planned 3-week shutdown in November 2026 Names who covers production while the line is out Reports against the 2% downtime target 90 days after start-up Common questions before you start When do I use this page instead of a routine purchase request? Use it when the asset will serve the business for years and the real question is how to meet a need: repair, replace, lease or do nothing. Everyday purchases of standard items follow the routine purchase process. Your Finance and Procurement team sets the amount at which a request is treated as capital, so ask your finance business partner before you start. What if two options come out almost level on cost? Say so, and name the tiebreaker. In the example, repair and replace differ by $40,000 over five years, so the case turns on useful life and downtime risk. State which of risk, flexibility or funding matters most and why. How do I treat a figure I cannot verify yet? Mark it as an assumption, name who will verify it and give a date before the decision. A reviewer can accept a labelled estimate. An unlabelled one weakens every other number on the page. Does completing this page approve the investment? No. It prepares a comparable case. Approval follows your organization's investment governance, and the decision date and decision-makers come from Finance and Procurement.