PLEASE REVIEW THE CASE EVALUATION INFORMATION AND CASE EVALUATION
CRITERIA SECTIONS.
A management (executive) summary is a summary of the written report. You should write
the report first, and then prepare the management summary. For your case, three
components should be included in the summary: (1) problem identification, (2) brief
description of alternatives, and (3) specific recommendation. This summary lets the reader
know what to expect in the report.
Do not place formulations in the text of a report. Formulae, formulations, variables should
appear in an appendix for the reader to review as needed. The report should be written in such a
manner that a person without knowledge of the techniques and jargon could understand the
general idea and recommendations.
Remember that the objective function is not your problem statement. For example, in the sample
case shown below, maximizing profits may be a consideration of management, and it may be one
of the goals, but it is not the problem. The problem in the Lake Saddleback case is about
determining the best allocation of the land among the various products and plans. They wanted
to focus on the right mix while keeping in mind the goals, restrictions, and other concerns.
Your alternatives should match your problem statement. For example, in the sample case one
alternative could be to build the products under the plans originally described with all acreage
being devoted to houses, greenbelts, parking, etc. A second alternative may be to add the sports
complex which would reduce the total acreage for the houses, etc. Still a third alternative might
involve reviewing the sensitivity analysis and concluding that 2 - 4 acres were not used, but
could be allocated to the sports complex or additional housing. In an LP problem, you want to
use the sensitivity analysis to help you think about additional alternatives. You have a great deal
of leeway in developing your alternatives as long as you do not include something completely
infeasible. In addition, you want to be sure that you point out the pros and cons of each
alternative.
The recommendation section should clearly justify why you are selecting a specific alternative.
This is extremely important.
The following case report is included for your examination. It is not an “A” case. One, it only
included two alternatives.
This report is an example from a student. The student followed most of the directions. I am
hesitant to include any report as an example because you should develop your own ideas.
However, it may help you think about the format and formulation information. Again, it is
suggested that you review the case evaluation information and criteria provided under
assignment information.
Table of Contents
I.
Management Summary……………………………………………………3
II.
Background Information…………………………………………………..4
III.
Problem Statement……………………………………………………….…5
IV.
Alternatives………………………………………………………………………5
V.
Analysis of Alternatives…………………………………………………….5
VI.
Detailed Recommendations……………………………………………..6
VII.
Implementation………………………………………………………………..7
VIII.
Appendices………………………………………………………………………8
I have made some comments throughout this report to help you think about how the case
could be improved.
2
Management Summary
Lake Saddleback Development Corporation needs to determine the number of
houses of each product to build in order to maximize its profit on its new 300-acre
development on Lake Saddleback, Texas. LSDC has the option of building only homes on
all of the property, or using 10-acres to build a sports/recreation complex which will cost
$8,000,000 but increase the value of the homes. Upon detailed analysis, it is in the best
interest of LSDC to go ahead and build the sports complex because this will increase its net
profit by almost 9%.
Comments:
Notice the management summary contains the (a) identification of the problem: need to
determine the houses of each product to build [you might have said determine the product mix
for the development, or something similar]. Then the (b) alternatives were identified: (1) use all
of the property for homes and (2) use part of the property for a sports complex. The guidelines
for the report indicate that at least three alternatives be identified and considered. Also, the
description of the alternatives should have provided more details about the alternatives. Finally,
the (c) recommendation was stated.
Remember: there should been at least three alternatives, and it should be clear what the
alternatives involve – don’t say alternative 1, 2 and 3 and then fail to describe them.
However, the management summary for short reports does not need to be lengthy. For
cases in this course, usually one page or 1 ½ pages is sufficient. If you were writing a 50-page
report, your management summary might be 5 pages for example. The management summary is
there to help the readers have some idea of what to expect when, and if, they decide to read the
entire report. You might think of as being somewhat similar to an abstract for an article.
Business reports should include a management or an executive summary. In addition, remember
you are to assume a role. Do not refer to the write-up as a case.
3
Background Information
XYZ’s Consulting has been asked to evaluate the current situation facing Lake
Saddleback Development Corporation (LSDC).
LSDC owns 300 acres near Lake
Saddleback, Texas which it is planning to develop into homes and condominiums. The
idea is to establish a planned community offering a variety of home plans and products
while maximizing profits from the development. An option of a 10-acre sports/recreational
complex is also being evaluated.
Table 1 outlines the different product and floor plan options.
Table 1
Product
Grand Estates
Grand Estates
Grand Estates
Grand Estates
Grand Estates
Grand Estates
Grand Estates
Grand Estates
Glen Wood
Glen Wood
Glen Wood
Glen Wood
Glen Wood
Lakeview
Lakeview
Lakeview
Lakeview
Lakeview
Country Condos
Country Condos
Country Condos
Plan
Trump
Trump – Premium
Vanderbilt
Vanderbilt – Premium
Hughes
Hughes – Premium
Jackson
Jackson – Premium
Grand Cypress
Grand Cypress – Premium
Lazy Oak
Wind Row
Orangewood
Bayview
Bayview – Premium
Shoreline
Docks Edge
Golden Pier
Country Stream
Weeping Willow
Picket Fence
The total land requirements for each option vary. Each home has its lot size which
consists of the ground area of the home, the yard size, and the garage size. In addition to
lot size, outside parking and road/greenbelt requirements vary from house to house.
LSDC wants the Lake Saddleback development to have a variety of products and
floor plans. The marketing department has established guidelines to ensure that this
4
variety is attained. Also, in accordance with federal government mandates, at least 15% of
the project must be affordable housing selling for no more than $200,000.
Profit margins on each of the four product lines vary from 18% to 25%. Table 2, in
the appendix, offers more background information on each plan.
The Introduction does not need to be lengthy, but it should provide some background for
identifying the problem and alternatives. Think about what the reader might want to consider
as they read the report.
Problem Statement
Lake Saddleback Development Corporation needs to determine the number of
houses of each product and plan in order to maximize its profit on the development.
Comment: Again the problem or opportunity identified here is the need to determine the best
way to develop this property -- product mix. After you have identified the problem, you may
include the idea of profit or other criteria that you may use in discussing the alternatives.
However, do not define your problem in terms of the objective function. That is, do not simply
indicate you want to maximize profit or minimize cost. There will be other criteria that you will
want to consider, including some discussion of qualitative criteria. Try to be clear in defining
your problem and match the alternatives to the problem.
Alternatives
(1) The first alternative is to only build homes in the 300-acre community.
(2) The second alternative is to build a 10-acre sports/recreation complex on the
property. The $8,000,000 complex would reduce the amount of usable acreage
for home development, but it will enhance the value of the homes allowing
LSDC to increase the selling prices of the homes.
5
Comment: Alternatives are identified. You may include more details in this section when you are
describing the alternatives or you may elaborate in the analysis section. However, be sure to
describe the alternatives completely. You describe the alternatives and then present results.
Don’t give results and indicate that the results constitute the alternative. However, in some
cases, a look at sensitivity analysis may help you develop additional alternatives.
Remember this report did not contain an adequate number of alternatives.
Analysis of Alternatives
Based on the land requirements and selling price data and information in Table 2 of
the Appendix, a profit maximization model was developed to analyze each alternative for
LSDC. The step-by-step set up of the linear program can be found in Appendix A. Utilizing
the linear programming module of the WINQSB software, the following table shows the
number of each house plan that should be built in order to maximize profit under each
alternative.
Table 3 shows the rounded results for Alternative 1 – no sports complex and Alternative 2
– with a sports complex.
Table 3
Alternative 1
Plan
Trump
Trump – Premium
Vanderbilt
Vanderbilt – Premium
Hughes
Hughes – Premium
Jackson
Jackson – Premium
Grand Cypress
Grand Cypress - Premium
Lazy Oak
Wind Row
Orangewood
Bayview
Bayview – Premium
Shoreline
Docks Edge
Golden Pier
Country Stream
Weeping Willow
Picket Fence
Alternative 2
# of Homes
to Build
63
26
56
8
43
8
43
8
156
52
148
119
119
86
29
71
65
76
174
183
166
Net Profit
$154,000
$211,200
$149,600
$205,480
$143,000
$196,900
$129,800
$179,740
$75,600
$131,600
$68,400
$57,600
$50,400
$60,000
$100,000
$54,000
$48,000
$40,000
$55,000
$40,000
$35,000
Profit on Plan
$9,702,000
$5,491,200
$8,377,600
$1,643,840
$6,149,000
$1,575,200
$5,581,400
$1,437,920
$11,793,600
$6,843,200
$10,123,200
$6,854,400
$5,997,600
$5,160,000
$2,900,000
$3,834,000
$3,120,000
$3,040,000
$9,570,000
$7,320,000
$5,810,000
Plan
Trump
Trump - Premium
Vanderbilt
Vanderbilt - Premium
Hughes
Hughes - Premium
Jackson
Jackson - Premium
Grand Cypress
Grand Cypress - Premium
Lazy Oak
Wind Row
Orangewood
Bayview
Bayview - Premium
Shoreline
Docks Edge
Golden Pier
Country Stream
Weeping Willow
Picket Fence
# of Homes
to Build
63
26
56
8
43
8
43
8
208
0
148
119
119
74
25
65
62
57
198
198
170
Net Profit
$189,000
$251,200
$183,600
$245,480
$175,500
$236,900
$159,300
$219,740
$88,200
$147,600
$79,800
$67,200
$58,800
$69,000
$116,000
$62,100
$55,200
$40,000
$65,000
$50,000
$45,000
Profit on Plan
$11,907,000
$6,531,200
$10,281,600
$1,963,840
$7,546,500
$1,895,200
$6,849,900
$1,757,920
$18,345,600
$0
$11,810,400
$7,996,800
$6,997,200
$5,106,000
$2,900,000
$4,036,500
$3,422,400
$2,280,000
$12,870,000
$9,900,000
$7,650,000
6
Total
Profit:
Total
Profit:
$122,324,160
$142,048,060
The analysis section for this case is inadequate. Each alternative must be described, the
results of the analysis of each alternative provided, and the pros and cons of each
alternative stated. The alternatives should be in separate subsections under the analysis
section. You need to use subheadings to identify the alternatives.
Comment: This case was not a complex case that required the introduction of many pros and
cons. However, in the analysis section, you frequently want to include some qualitative
viewpoints. For example, do you think the amenities might add to the overall marketing of the
homes in the long-run regardless of the exact profit? Do you think that it might be better to have
less premium homes based upon some market research you have conducted? That is, try to think
of other possibilities for the development. One of the benefits of looking at sensitivity analysis, is
that it may provide additional information for other alternatives. Depending upon a specific
formulation, one may have noticed that all of the 15 acres for parking was not used. Thus, one
could adjust that constraint and include more area in the 300 acres for homes. The analysis
section is one of the most important sections because it will help you determine your
recommendation. This report should have contained more details in both the analysis and
recommendation sections.
Detailed Recommendations
Based on the profit information below in Table 4, XYZ’s Consulting recommends
that LSDC commit to Alternative 2 in order to maximize profits on the development.
Table 4
Gross Profit
Less Sports Complex Cost
Net Profit
Alternative 1
$122,324,160
$0
$122,324,160
Alternative 2
$142,048,060
- $8,000,000
$134,048,060
Alternative 2 will have a net profit of $134,048,060 as opposed to the net profit of
Alternative 1 of $122,324,160. This is an increase of $11,723,900. Table 5 presents the
solutions again for Alternative 2.
Table 5
Plan
Trump
# of
Homes to
Build
63
7
Trump - Premium
Vanderbilt
Vanderbilt - Premium
Hughes
Hughes - Premium
Jackson
Jackson - Premium
Grand Cypress
Grand Cypress Premium
Lazy Oak
Wind Row
Orangewood
Bayview
Bayview - Premium
Shoreline
Docks Edge
Golden Pier
Country Stream
Weeping Willow
Picket Fence
26
56
8
43
8
43
8
208
0
148
119
119
74
25
65
62
57
198
198
170
A stronger justification for the recommendation should have been made.
Comment: Solutions among student cases may not have the same values because of different
formulations. The differences may occur because of interpretation or assumptions made. In this
case, either the differences could be explained in the text [maybe under assumptions section] or
in the appendix. For example, profits on the homes when the complex was included varied
depending upon an individual’s interpretation. One might have read the adding 5% to homes
not on the lake [Grand Estates] as follows: take Trump not on lake – selling price $700,000,
when you multiplied that by .22 you obtained a profit of $154,000. If you added 5% as suggest
in the sentence “add $35,000 to profit for Trumps,” you would have a profit of $189,000.
However, the sentence above referred to raise the “selling price of the home by the following
amounts:” Thus, if you used that criterion, you would take the selling price of $700,000 and add
$35,000 to obtain a selling price of $735,000, and then taking 22% of the selling price, you
would obtain a profit of $161,700. When there may be more than one interpretation, just be sure
to indicate which interpretation you used. Either would be okay here. What is important is that
you make your assumptions clear.
Be sure that you include a discussion of sensitivity analysis in the analysis or recommendation
section.
Only one alternative may be recommended.
8
Implementation
Due to the formulation of the linear programming model, the number of homes was
rounded off. These slight rounding adjustments require that the amount of land to build
homes on must either increase slightly, the size of the sports complex must be reduced
slightly, or the allotted greenbelts and small parks must be reduced slightly.
The land
estimates are off by 22,864 ft2 or about ½ acre. It is the recommendation of XYZ’s
Consulting to decrease the acreage of the sports complex to 9 ½ acres instead of 10. By
doing this, LSDC will save on the cost of the sports complex, and the decrease in acreage
should not affect home values.
Comment: The need to round was addressed here and accommodations made. Linear
Programming gives the optimal answer, but when the variables need to be integers, adjustments
must be made. However, it was not the formulation of the linear programming model that caused
the number of houses to be rounded. Rather it was the results – needed to use integer, but due to
the algorithm for integer programming problems, you are allowed to use the linear
programming module.
Another consideration for LSDC is the ongoing increase in building costs for its
development. It is projected that this development will take approximately 5-7 years to
complete.
In that time period, the cost of lumber, concrete, labor, etc. are likely to
increase. Given this fact, it is necessary to evaluate the profit maximization for LSDC long
term. Table 6 presents part of the sensitivity analysis for Alternative 2 solutions.
Table 6
Plan
Trump
Trump - Premium
Vanderbilt
Vanderbilt - Premium
Hughes
Hughes - Premium
Net Profit
$189,000
$251,200
$183,600
$245,480
$175,500
$236,900
Allowable Max
$189,320.00
M
$186,800.10
$245,800.00
$176,700.00
$237,700.00
9
Jackson
Jackson - Premium
Grand Cypress
Grand Cypress - Premium
Lazy Oak
Wind Row
Orangewood
Bayview
Bayview - Premium
Shoreline
Docks Edge
Golden Pier
Country Stream
Weeping Willow
Picket Fence
$159,300
$219,740
$88,200
$147,600
$79,800
$67,200
$58,800
$69,000
$116,000
$62,100
$55,200
$40,000
$65,000
$50,000
$45,000
$174,491.10
$221,500.00
$404,502.40
$153,441.60
$83,853.77
$77,583.80
$70,680.98
$83,850.85
$291,787.50
$63,300.00
$62,100.00
$83,301.81
$397,117.50
$382,117.50
$50,000.00
The “Allowable Max” in Table 6 is the largest amount that the net profit could
increase to on each plan without affecting the recommended number of houses to build
within that plan thus altering the maximization model. Therefore, if LSDC is faced with
increased building costs, this table can help guide them in adjusting their selling prices on
homes.
Your formulation, input, output files, and large tables should be placed in the Appendix of the
report. You want the body of the report to flow.
Only a portion of the appendix is included in this sample. You want to be sure that your input
and output are available to the reader, if needed.
Appendix
Table 2
Plan
Selling
Price
Size
Bed
rooms
Stories
Garage
Size
Lot Size
Ground
Area
Yard
Size
Garage
size
Parking
Spaces
Required
Parking
Sq. Ft.
Total
Land
Per
House
Alt. 1 Net
Profit
Alt. 2 Net
Profit
Trump
$700,000
4,000
5
2
3
21,780
2
400
23,180
$154,000
$189,000
Trump - Premium
$960,000
4,000
5
2
3
21,780
2
400
23,180
$211,200
$251,200
Vanderbilt
$680,000
3,600
4
2
3
21,780
1
200
22,980
$149,600
$183,600
Vanderbilt - Premium
$934,000
3,600
4
2
3
21,780
1
200
22,980
$205,480
$245,480
Hughes
$650,000
3,000
4
1
3
21,780
1
200
22,980
$143,000
$175,500
Hughes - Premium
$895,000
3,000
4
1
3
21,780
1
200
22,980
$196,900
$236,900
Jackson
$590,000
2,600
3
1
3
21,780
0
0
22,780
$129,800
$159,300
Jackson - Premium
$817,000
2,600
3
1
3
21,780
0
0
22,780
$179,740
$219,740
10
Grand Cypress
$420,000
2,800
4
2
3
4,950
2,100
2,100
750
1
200
6,150
$75,600
$88,200
Grand Cypress - Premium
$504,000
2,800
4
2
3
10,890
Lazy Oak
$380,000
2,400
4
2
2
4,356
1,800
1,800
500
1
200
12,090
$131,600
$147,600
2
400
5,756
$68,400
Wind Row
$320,000
2,200
3
2
2
4,356
1,650
1,650
$79,800
500
1
200
5,556
$57,600
$67,200
Orangewood
$280,000
1,800
3
Bayview
$300,000
2,000
4
1
2
4,356
1,800
2
2
4,356
1,500
1,200
500
1
200
5,556
$50,400
$58,800
1,350
500
2
400
5,756
$60,000
Bayview - Premium
$360,000
2,000
4
2
2
7,260
$69,000
2
400
8,660
$100,000
$116,000
Shoreline
$270,000
1,800
3
2
2
4,356
1,350
1,275
500
1
200
5,556
$54,000
$62,100
Docks Edge
Golden Pier
$240,000
1,500
3
1
2
4,356
1,500
$200,000
1,200
2
1
2
4,356
1,200
900
500
1
200
5,556
$48,000
$55,200
900
500
0
0
5,356
$40,000
Country Stream
$220,000
1,600
3
2
0
$40,000
1,500
3
600
3,100
$55,000
$65,000
Weeping Willow
$160,000
1,200
2
1
Picket Fence
$140,000
1,000
2
1
0
1,500
2
400
2,900
$40,000
$50,000
0
1,500
2
400
2,900
$35,000
$45,000
Appendix A - Lake Saddleback LP Set Up
Part 1
Step 1: Define decision variables.
Variable
X1
X2
X3
X4
X5
X6
X7
X8
X9
X10
X11
X12
X13
X14
X15
X16
X17
X18
X19
X20
X21
X22
Product
Grand Estates
Grand Estates
Grand Estates
Grand Estates
Grand Estates
Grand Estates
Grand Estates
Grand Estates
Glen Wood
Glen Wood
Glen Wood
Glen Wood
Glen Wood
Lakeview
Lakeview
Lakeview
Lakeview
Lakeview
Country Condos
Country Condos
Country Condos
Total # of Homes
Plan
Trump
Trump – Premium
Vanderbilt
Vanderbilt – Premium
Hughes
Hughes – Premium
Jackson
Jackson – Premium
Grand Cypress
Grand Cypress – Premium
Lazy Oak
Wind Row
Orangewood
Bayview
Bayview – Premium
Shoreline
Docks Edge
Golden Pier
Country Stream
Weeping Willow
Picket Fence
11
X23
X24
X25
X26
Total # of Grand Estates
Total # of Glen Wood
Total # of Lakeview
Total # of Country
Condos
Step 2: State the objective function.
MAX p (profit)
$154,000X1 + $211,200X2 + $149,600X3 + $205,480X4 +
$143,000X5 + $196,900X6 + $129,800X7 + $179,740X8 +
$75,600X9 + $131,600X10 + $68,400X11 + $57,600X12 +
$50,400X13 + $60,000X14 + $100,000X15 + $54,000X16 +
$48,000X17 + $40,000X18 + $55,000X19 + $40,000X20 +
$35,000X21
Step 3: Identify content constraints.
Land Limit
23,180X1 + 23,180X2 + 22,980X3 + 22,980X4 + 22,980X5 + 22,980X6 +
22,780X7 + 22,780X8 + 6,150X9 + 12,090X10 + 5,756X11 + 5,556X12 +
5,556X13 + 5,756X14 + 8,660X15 + 5,556X16 + 5,556X17 + 5,356X18 +
3,100X19 + 2,900X20 + 2,900X21 ≤ 13,068,000 ft 2
GE 50 Prem
X2 + X4 + X6 + X8 = 50
GE Mix
X2 ≥ 8
X4 ≥ 8
X6 ≥ 8
X8 ≥ 8
GCypress
.25X9 - .75X10 ≥ 0
Bayview
.25X14 - .75X15 ≥ 0
Parking
400X1 + 400X2 + 200X3 + 200X4 + 200X5 + 200X6 + 0X7 + 0X8 + 200X9 +
200X10 + 400X11 + 200X12 + 200X13 + 400X14 + 400X15 + 200X16 + 200X17
+ 0X18 + 600X19 + 400X20 + 400X21 ≤ 653,400 ft 2
2BR Max
2BR Min
X18 + X20 + X21 - .25X22 ≤ 0
X18 + X20 + X21 - .15X22 ≥ 0
3BR Max
3BR Min
X7 + X8 + X12 + X13 + X16 + X17 + X19 - .40X22 ≤ 0
X7 + X8 + X12 + X13 + X16 + X17 + X19 - .25X22 ≥ 0
4BR Max
4BR Min
X3 + X4 + X5 + X6 + X9 + X10 + X11 + X14 + X15 - .40X22 ≤ 0
X3 + X4 + X5 + X6 + X9 + X10 + X11 + X14 + X15 - .25X22 ≥ 0
5BR Max
5BR Min
X1 + X2 - .15X22 ≤ 0
X1 + X2 - .05X22 ≥ 0
Product Constraints
GE Max
X23 - .35X22 ≤ 0
GE Min
X23 - .15X22 ≥ 0
GW Max
X24 - .35X22 ≤ 0
GW Min
X24 - .15X22 ≥ 0
12
L Max
X25 - .35X22 ≤ 0
L Min
X25 - .15X22 ≥ 0
C Max
X26 - .35X22 ≤ 0
C Min
X26 - .15X22 ≥ 0
Plan Constraints
X1 & X2 Max
X1 + X2 - .35X23 ≤ 0
X1 & X2 Min
X1 + X2 - .20X23 ≥ 0
X3 & X4 Max
X3 + X4 - .35X23 ≤ 0
X3 & X4 Min
X3 + X4 - .20X23 ≥ 0
X5 & X6 Max
X5 + X6 - .35X23 ≤ 0
X5 & X6 Min
X5 + X6 - .20X23 ≥ 0
X7 & X8 Max
X7 + X8 - .35X23 ≤ 0
X7 & X8 Min
X7 + X8 - .20X23 ≥ 0
X9 & X10 Max
X9 + X10 - .35X24 ≤ 0
X9 & X10 Min
X9 + X10 - .20X24 ≥ 0
X11 Max
X11 - .35X24 ≤ 0
X11 Min
X11 - .20X24 ≥ 0
X12 Max
X12 - .35X24 ≤ 0
X12 Min
X12 - .20X24 ≥ 0
X13 Max
X13 - .35X24 ≤ 0
X13 Min
X13 - .20X24 ≥ 0
X14 & X15 Max X14 + X15 - .35X25 ≤ 0
X14 & X15 Min X14 + X15 - .20X25 ≥ 0
X16 Max
X16 - .35X25 ≤ 0
X16 Min
X16 - .20X25 ≥ 0
X17 Max
X17 - .35X25 ≤ 0
X17 Min
X17 - .20X25 ≥ 0
X18 Max
X18 - .35X25 ≤ 0
X18 Min
X18 - .20X25 ≥ 0
X19 Max
X19 - .35X26 ≤ 0
X19 Min
X19 - .20X26 ≥ 0
X20 Max
X20 - .35X26 ≤ 0
X20 Min
X20 - .20X26 ≥ 0
X21 Max
X21 - .35X26 ≤ 0
X21 Min
X21 - .20X26 ≥ 0
2 Story
X1 + X2 + X3 + X4 + X9 + X10 + X11 + X12 + X14 + X15 + X16 - .70X22 + .70X19
+ .70X20 + .70X21 ≤ 0
13
Affordable
X18 + X20 + X21 - .15X22 ≥ 0
Step 4: Identify the non-negative constraint
X(1-26) ≥ 0
Part 2 (changes from part 1)
Step 2: State the objective function.
MAX p (profit)
$189,000X1 + $251,200X2 + $183,600X3 + $245,480X4 +
$175,500X5 + $236,900X6 + $159,300X7 + $219,740X8 +
$88,200X9 + $147,600X10 + $79,800X11 + $67,200X12 +
$58,800X13 + $69,000X14 + $116,000X15 + $62,100X16 +
$55,200X17 + $40,000X18 + $65,000X19 + $50,000X20 +
$45,000X21
Step 3: Identify content constraints.
Land Limit
23,180X1 + 23,180X2 + 22,980X3 + 22,980X4 + 22,980X5 + 22,980X6 +
22,780X7 + 22,780X8 + 6,150X9 + 12,090X10 + 5,756X11 + 5,556X12 +
5,556X13 + 5,756X14 + 8,660X15 + 5,556X16 + 5,556X17 + 5,356X18 +
3,100X19 + 2,900X20 + 2,900X21 ≤ 12,632,400 ft 2
14