ICECAP:
1
ICECAP:
2
An enhanced whole life cost tool to minimise financial
3
expenditure, energy consumption and carbon emissions
4
arising from construction projects
5
Gareth Bennell and Andrew Brunt
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Contact Details
16
Blue Sky Environmental
17
Building 1000
18
Kings Reach
19
Yew Street
20
Stockport, SK4 2HG
21
Tel: 0161 475 0220
22
Fax: 0161 477 1748
23
Email: [email protected] Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Page 1 of 22
1
ICECAP – An enhanced whole life cost tool to minimise financial expenditure,
2
energy consumption and carbon emissions arising from construction projects
3
Abstract:
4
In the construction industry increasing importance is placed on the life cycle costs of
5
building projects. Rising energy costs and increasingly significant carbon taxation mean
6
that owners, occupiers and managers of estates are becoming more discerning of post-
7
construction costs.
8
In response to this, blue sky environmental have developed a dynamic software tool that
9
integrates the quantification of carbon, energy and financial costs throughout the life
10
cycle of a building material, from initial capital costs and embodied carbon, through to
11
maintenance and eventual disposal, incorporating external elements such as geographic
12
location, changing energy and carbon prices, and climate change.
13
This paper presents the outputs of research, conducted by blue sky design services ltd
14
in collaboration with the University of Leeds, to design, build and implement a
15
revolutionary whole life costing tool that minimises the resource impacts and lifetime
16
costs associated with construction material procurement.
17
Key Words:
18
Whole life costing; Sustainable Procurement; Construction.
19 20
Disclaimer
21
All numbers used are actual outputs from the ICECAP model, however some information
22
has been concealed due to commercial sensitivity and confidentiality considerations.
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Page 2 of 22
1
Introduction
2
The UK Government has placed sustainable development at the heart of the national
3
agenda (HM Government, 2007). The built environment is responsible for almost 50% of
4
annual UK CO2e emissions (HM Government, 2007) and 40% of global energy use and
5
solid waste generation (Climate Action, 2008). The impact of the built environment
6
provides a great challenge to reaching nationwide and global emissions reduction
7
targets, compounded by the long life of buildings which delays improvement. Decisions
8
made in building design now will determine environmental impacts over several
9
decades, so it is essential that these decisions are made with consideration for their
10
future impacts.
11
Driven primarily by considerations of cost (and, to some degree, by sustainability)
12
procurement decisions are increasingly based on whole life costing approach,
13
incorporating some or all of the following factors: maintenance, repairs, energy, carbon,
14
decommissioning and replacement costs. Life Cycle Costing is also increasingly used in
15
sustainability assessment methodologies within the construction sector. The Office of
16
Government commerce, for example, states that “value for money is the optimum
17
combination of whole-life cost and quality to meet the user‟s requirements” (Office of
18
Government Commerce, 2007, p4).
19
The Building Research Establishment‟s Environmental Assessment Methodology
20
(BREEAM) also recognises the importance of life cycle costing, and assigns two credits
21
to the use and implementation of life cycle costing in healthcare and education buildings,
22
for example. By incorporating maintenance, operation, and decommissioning costs into
23
building design, Clift and Bourke (1999) maintain that emissions, waste and energy use
24
can be reduced and there are many parties (including local authorities, national Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Page 3 of 22
1
government, housing associations, house builders, contractors, consultants and
2
academics) that promote the greater use of whole life costing within the construction
3
industry (Park, 2009; Foley et al, 2002).
4
However, the sheer number of variables affecting whole life costs within buildings can
5
make comparison of alternatives a daunting process, deterring systematic consideration
6
of relevant factors. Using a coherent and systematic approach to modelling these
7
aspects can help incorporate of life cycle financial and environmental factors much more
8
effective and achievable.
9
University of Leeds, have designed an innovative whole life costing tool that aims to
10
minimise resource impacts associated with construction procurement, and provides a
11
valuable and flexible tool for decision makers to evaluate these factors. The Integrated
12
Cost, Energy and Carbon Assessment Programme (ICECAP) is a ground-breaking
13
modelling and visualisation tool that allows accurate comparison of alternative
14
construction materials on the basis of cost, energy and carbon impacts over the whole
15
life cycle of any building project, from material production through to end of life building
16
decommissioning.
17
ICECAP is unique in both its flexibility and comprehensive approach. Appropriate for
18
both new build and refurbishment projects in any sector, the model takes as its starting
19
point an international standard financial life cycle approach and carbon and energy
20
calculator, and incorporates a range of innovative elements, including climate change
21
model, energy price forecasting, embodied carbon, transport impact, location and carbon
22
cost forecasts, providing a detailed breakdown of costs specific to the building project
23
specification.
blue sky design services ltd, in collaboration with the
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Page 4 of 22
1
The model provides detailed numerical and graphical outputs, which show how these
2
high-level costs breakdown across the life cycle of the project, and when key financial
3
outgoings arise, providing valuable assistance for building/facilities management
4
providers to manage cash flows.
5
Underpinning the model structure is a library of energy, carbon and financial metrics for
6
different materials. To further develop the model and ensure the quality and applicability
7
of the outputs to as-built construction projects, we are keen to collaborate with
8
practitioners who can provide real-world project data that further tests the model and
9
provides additional practical insights.
10
By using this tool to compare the whole life cost of products, design-stage material
11
procurement can move beyond a simple comparison of initial capital costs to a longer-
12
term view, accounting for future maintenance expenditure, decommissioning and
13
replacement costs, energy requirements and carbon implications over a user-defined
14
study years (often taken as 25 and, increasingly, 60 years).
15
In addition, while ICECAP is conceived initially as a construction sector tool, it‟s inherent
16
flexibility means that a range of other applications are also sqaurely within its sights.
17
These include comparing alternative consumer and/or industry products, quantifying the
18
financial/environmental benefits of new products coming to market which reduce
19
maintenance or running costs, extend life expectancy, or reduce energy and carbon
20
emissions but which may have higher initial capital costs or other barriers to
21
commercialisation.
22
This paper outlines the ICECAP model and its capabilities, presents an example of its
23
use in industry and discusses further possible practical applications not only in the
24
construction industry, but also in product development, and procurement more generally. Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Page 5 of 22
1
Method – Building ICECAP: a Sustainable Whole Life Cost Model
2
The development of ICECAP has been based on standard methodologies for life cycle
3
costing and carbon accounting. The “British Standard ISO 15868-5: 2008 Buildings and
4
constructed assets – Service life planning – Part 5: Life cycle costing”, together with the
5
supplement: “Standardized method of life cycle costing for construction procurement”,
6
provide a standard methodology for life cycle costing in the construction industry (British
7
Standards Institute, 2008a; 2008b). These detail which costs need to be included and
8
how to calculate final figures for a life cycle cost assessment. ICECAP fully fulfils
9
BREEAM requirements, which state that a life cycle costing assessment must be
10
completed following this standardised methodology.
11
BREEAM (2008) states that life cycle costing must be completed for two of the following:
12
structure, envelope, services and finishes and must include both a strategic level and a
13
system level analysis, referring to BS ISO 15868-5 standards on life cycle costing for
14
further clarification (see figure 1). As clarified in the diagram, strategic analysis includes
15
issues such as “location and external environment, maintainability and internal
16
environment” while system level analysis should include aspects such as “cladding,
17
roofing, windows and doors; and wall, floor and ceiling finishes”. Currently the model
18
library offers cost comparisons for finishes (wall, floor and ceiling finishes) and for
19
envelope (cladding, roofing, windows and doors) and includes both a strategic and
20
system level analysis for these (see figure 1, highlighted).
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Page 6 of 22
1
Figure 1: Diagram from BS ISO 15868-5:2008 standard, explaining the different levels
2
of analysis at different stages of the life cycle. Items currently covered by ICECAP are
3
highlighted in blue.
4
(Source: BS ISO 15868-5:2008, p.11)
5
Product Description
6
The ICECAP model compares alternative construction materials to identify their relative
7
financial, energy and carbon costs to identify the product with the lowest impact over the
8
life of the building. Figure 2 outlines the elements that are included in the financial and
9
environmental calculations for the model at each stage.
10
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Page 7 of 22
1
Figure 2: Financial and environmental costs included in the ICECAP model.
2
Initial Capital Expenditure • Installation Year • Raw Material Cost • Labour Cost • Fees and Taxes • Installation Year • Embodied Carbon • Freight Emissions
Renewal
In Use • Energy Cost
• Raw Material Cost
• Carbon Taxes • Maintenance Costs • Repair Costs
• Labour Cost • Fees and Taxes
• Energy Consumption • Fuel-based Emissions • Repair and Maintenance Emissions • Carbon Sequestering
• Embodied Carbon • Freight Emissions
End of Life • Product Life Expectancy • Dismantling & Demolition Costs • • • •
Reuse Cost Savings Recycling Costs Landfill Costs Incineration Costs
• Product Life Expectancy • Dismantling & Demolition Emissions • Emission Savings from Reuse & Recycling • Landfill Emissions • Incineration Emissions
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Key Financial Costs Environmental Costs
Page 8 of 22
1
The model uses several input types to provide a detailed analysis of each material under
2
consideration, all of which can be adjusted to suit the project:
3
Project-specific inputs (such as size, quantity of material, location, installation
4
year, fuel type, discount rate, installation year, current energy costs and building
5
temperature requirements);
6
dynamic forecasting assumptions and external factors such as fees and
7
interest rates and future rates of change in energy costs, carbon-related costs
8
and taxes, and climate change-related warming/cooling;
9
material-specific inputs such as initial capital cost, maintenance and repairs,
10
replacement costs, replacement periods, recycling and decommissioning, and u-
11
values1;
12
carbon factors for different energy types, (source: Department for Environment,
13
Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)).
14
Accurate data in the material library is critical to producing the correct results of such a
15
model. Life cycle costing is a quantitative process and as such the “garbage in, garbage
16
out” principle applies. This principle specifies that the quality and value of the numerical
17
results obtained from the model will be directly related to the precision and accuracy of
18
the input data (Churcher, 2008).
19
Two types of data are required: data about the cost of individual activities and
20
components that make up a project; and data about the timing of future events, which for
21
building materials includes life expectancies and maintenance frequency. As
1
For envelope materials, the model calculates the energy that passes through the fabric area based on uvalues and local temperatures and this is costed using forecast energy prices. While this will not predict the energy consumption of the building (other software is specifically designed to model building energy consumption), but instead the model allows different materials to be compared.
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Page 9 of 22
1
recommended by BS ISO 15686-5 standard, the ICECAP model uses the following
2
sources, in order of preference by reliability and relevance:
3
In house data on current costs (eg, for maintenance);
4
In house data from previous projects (adjusted to current costs);
5
Industry average or benchmark figures (such as Langdon, 2010; Hutchins, 2010);
6
National and UK Government figures (such as Office for National Statistics);
7
Practitioner cost estimates;
8
Supplier cost estimates.
9 10
The model is designed so that library data can be kept updated and that project specific data from a client can be entered quickly and easily.
11
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Page 10 of 22
1
Example Outputs
2
The model is designed to produce a comparative analysis of each material, allowing
3
maximum flexibility while requiring the minimum amount of user data entry. This includes
4
discounted and non-discounted financial costs, energy expenditure and carbon
5
emissions over both a 25- and a 60-year study period, giving a 10% confidence level for
6
all estimates. The 10% confidence interval is used to show that these are estimates only,
7
since it is not possible to predict what will happen to future costs and exactly when
8
replacement and repair will be necessary. An example of a 25-year carbon life cycle
9
output is shown in figure 3, clearly shows the lowest cost option (alternative 2) and that
10
the variance of the base case and alternative 4 overlap, indicating that they do not have
11
significantly different life cycle costs. Figure 3: Model output. Whole life carbon cost over 25-year study period for six alternative materials. „Alternative 2‟ can be easily identified as the lowest carbon option. 25 Year "Discounted" Carbon Cost (NPV)
Decreasing Whole Life Carbon Emissions Base Case Lowest Carbon Option
10% variance
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Carbon Emissions (tCO2e)
12
The model aims to present the information in a format suitable for a high level decision
13
maker. If sustainable procurement decisions are to be implemented throughout the
14
construction industry, the comparative costs, benefits and savings associated with
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Page 11 of 22
1
different courses of recommended actions and investment options must be quantifiable.
2
The analysis provided by ICECAP ensures that the language and metrics of
3
sustainability match that of the end client decision makers; often finance directors or
4
senior executives.
5
In addition to these high level outputs, the detail is provided so that the reasons for the
6
overall figures can be examined. The model provides detailed outputs, both numerically
7
and graphically, that show how these high-level costs break down across the life cycle
8
and when key financial payments may be needed, which can help facilities management
9
providers manage cash flow and/or financial risk. Figure 4 shows the carbon emissions
10
of a product across a 25-year study period, with installation delayed by one year,
11
increasing cost of heat loss through the fabric and a regular repairs/maintenance regime. Alternative 2 Figure 4 Model output. Financial breakdown for a material over a 25-year study period. £7,000 £6,000
LCC (£)
£5,000 £4,000 £3,000 £2,000 £1,000 £0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Year Initial Capital Decommissioning Annual Maintenance Carbon
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
One-off Repairs/Maintenance Interest Cooling Recycling
End of Life Replacement Fees Heating
Page 12 of 22
1
The outputs also include a high level breakdown comparison of each material by cost
2
type for both financial and carbon costs to help identify key cost areas, as well as
3
cumulative NPV which provide useful insights into when one option becomes more cost
4
effective than another.
5
Figure 5 shows the 25 year life cycle costs for six alternative materials, with each
6
material separated by life cycle stage. Net Present Value (NPV) figures, where life cycle
7
costs are discounted to account for inflation and technological improvement, are also
8
provided for the model, with discount rates flexible dependent on the requirements of the
9
client. It becomes evident when the data are displayed in this format how the majority of
10
the life cycle costs are spent, and reasons can be inferred as to why some materials
11
have greater life cycle costs than other. For example, in figure 5, it is clear that for some
12
materials it is the initial capital cost that takes up a large proportion of the overall costs.
13
Alternative 1, for example, has the lowest life cycle cost as it does not need to be
14
replaced, even though it has the highest level of maintenance and repairs required of
15
any material choice.
16
Figure 5: Model output. 25-year Life Cycle Costs for six alternative materials, split by cost type. Breakdown Comparison of Material Life Cycle Costs (over 25 years)
Initial Capital
Residual -£200,000
rick, cavity, painted plaster
-£100,000
£0
Repairs/Maintenance
£100,000
£200,000
£300,000
£400,000
£500,000
Base Case Initial Capital
rick, cavity, plastered block
Alternative 1
Replacement
Decommissioning
End of Life Replacement
Interest Steel cladding
One-off Repairs/Maintenance Decommissioning Interest
Alternative 2 Fees
Fees Annual Maintenance
Rainscreen cladding
Alternative 3
Cooling
Carbon
lock, cavity, painted render
Heating Carbon
Alternative 4
Heating
Alternative 5
Cooling
Recycling Residual LCC
vity, through-colour render
Cost Benefits (£)
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Increasing Financial Costs (£)
Page 13 of 22
1
Residual values are also displayed (in light green). These figures are for separated for
2
information purposes, and show the theoretical value remaining in the product at the end
3
of the study period.
4
Figure 6 shows a similar output for the carbon cycle for six materials. This splits the
5
carbon costs over the life cycle of the products into embodied carbon, replacement,
6
freight, decommissioning, cooling, heating, annual maintenance, sequestration (which
7
shows as negative), recycling and residual carbon. Figure 6 shows the high carbon cost
8
of decommissioning for the base case (bc), the high embodied carbon and annual
9
maintenance for alternative 1 (a1); that alternatives 2 and 3 (a2 & a3) offset the majority
10
of their embodied carbon (and replacement carbon) through effective recycling and
11
carbon sequestration through the life cycle of the product. Freight emissions for
12
alternatives 3 and 4 are high relative to others, so it may be possible that these would
13
fare better if alternative means of tranpsort to site could be found.
14
Figure 6: Model output. 60-year Life Cycle Carbon Cost (in tonnes CO2e) for six alternative materials, split by type of cost. Breakdown Comparison of Material NPV (over 60 years)
15 -100
Embodied Carbon -50
0
Replacement 50
Freight
Decommissioning
100
150
200
250
NPV (Tonnes
16 Single ply
BC
Concrete tiles
17
roof - Sedum mats
18
A2
19
A3
A1
Initial Capital
One-off Repairs
Annual Maintenance / Sequestration
End of Life Repl
Freight Transpo
Decommissionin
g roof - Biodiverse
Annual Maintena Cooling
al 'standing seam'
Heating
A4
Recycling
20
Residual Carbon
Natural slate
A5
21 22
Residual
Recycling
Carbon Benefits (tCO2e)
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Cooling
Heating
Increasing Carbon Emissions (tCO e)
Page 14 of 22
1
Cumulative NPV
2
ICECAP also provides outputs that show cumulative NPV. Calculating cumulative NPV
3
allows users to determine which materials are of best value over different time periods.
4
In construction materials, this is impacted by the product life span and renewal costs
5
(see figure 7). Materials that appear initially to be a cheaper option may quickly be more
6
expensive over the life cycle if they have lower life expectancies and require greater
7
amounts of maintenance. The cumulative NPV chart can show exactly when these
8
additional life cycle costs will have an impact, and so this can be accounted for by those
9
organisations that will be responsible for the ongoing building facilities management.
10 11
Figure 7: Cumulative NPV of different construction materials over a 60-year study period.
£5.0
13 14 15 16
NPV (Millions)
12
£4.5
Metal 'standing seam'
£4.0
Living roof Sedum mats
£3.5
Single ply
£3.0
Living roof Biodiverse
£2.5
Natural slate
£2.0 Concrete tiles
17 18
£1.5 £1.0
£0.5
19 20
£0.0 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Year
21 22
This model output can be therefore helpful in several ways. It allows model users to
23
identify the time-period over which one alternative becomes better value than another. It
24
can also be used to estimate the relative impacts of regular costs compared to one-off Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Page 15 of 22
1
costs. Annual costs will show a cumulative effect in the slope of the curves, whereas
2
one-off costs will display as step-changes in the cost. Their relative impact can be
3
assessed quickly and easily. In high value products, one-off costs, because of their
4
magnitude, have a far larger impact on the outcome than annual costs (such as
5
maintenance). For these high value products it would make sense to engage in regular
6
maintenance regimes that lengthen the life expectancy of the product.
7 8
Sensitivity of Discount Rates
9
Sensitivity analyses were performed on the key assumptions made in this model, such
10
as discount rate, material quantity, interest rate, region, etc.
11
Sensitivity analysis found that an alteration in the discount rate used had a large impact
12
on the ranking of material options over a 25-year and 60-year period (see figure 8).
13
Changes in the discount rate have a greater impact on costs that are further into the
14
future, and have no impact at all on any costs in year zero (the year in which the analysis
15
is taking place). This means that the higher the discount rate, the greater the proportion
16
of 60-year NPV is taken up by initial capital costs and the less impact that maintenance,
17
replacement and disposal costs (as well as any residual benefits) will have on the final
18
NPV value.
19
Materials that have a relatively low initial capital cost, but require frequent replacement
20
due to a short life expectancy, or higher maintenance costs, will fare much better with a
21
higher discount rate.
22 23
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Page 16 of 22
1
Figure 8: Sensitivity analysis of discount rate on 60 year NPV for building fabric element, showing govrernmental and private discount rates
government Gov‟t £0.70
2
4 5 6
£0.60
60 year NPV (Millions)
3
private Private
£0.50
Metal 'standing Living roof - Sed Living roof - Bio Single ply Natural slate Concrete tiles
£0.40 £0.30 £0.20
7 £0.10
8 £0.00
9
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
Discount Rate
10
Interestingly, this has wider ramifications since the Government discounts schemes at a
11
different rate to the private sector. While Government schemes discount 3% for 60-year
12
study periods (3.5% for 25-year study periods) (HM Treasury, 2003), the private sector
13
discounts at a much greater rate: normally 6-7% (Churcher, 2008).
14
What makes ICECAP innovative?
15
There are models currently available that provide a whole life financial cost for a product,
16
but these do not include energy and carbon emissions, are generally not designed to
17
compare alternative construction materials, and the installation year cannot be altered.
18
Similarly, while there are carbon calculators available, these do not include financial
19
components and tend not to include embodied carbon which, as our model
20
demonstrates, is a critical component of the overall whole life carbon cost.
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Page 17 of 22
1
The incorporation of dynamic elements, such as a separate energy and carbon cost
2
model to take account of expected rises in these costs, as well as the capacity to model
3
the impacts of climate change, is also unique to the ICECAP model, providing a more
4
accurate cost forecast.
5
The benefits of the model are best demonstrated by the results of its use for Chadderton
6
Health & Wellbeing Centre. When considering floor finishes, six alternatives were
7
compared, from rubber to eco-friendly carpet tiles. Chadderton Health & Wellbeing
8
Centre has almost 12,000 square metres of floor area, making a whole life cost
9
approach to selecting a floor finish material especially beneficial. The model indicated
10
that a vinyl floor finish would save the NHS approximately £2 million over the 60-year life
11
expectancy of the building compared to carpet tiles (see figure 9), and save over 3,300
12
tonnes of carbon in comparison to a polished concrete floor. Figure 10 shows a photo of
13
the finished vinyl floor finish in place.
14
Figure 9: Model output. Cumulative Net Present Value is used to identify lowest whole life costs. Cumulative NPV £3,500,000
15
Carpet (standard)
CarpetCarpet (eco-
16 17 18
Cumulative NPV
£3,000,000
friendly) Ceramic floor tiles
£2,500,000
Polished concrete
£2,000,000
Rubber tiles Vinyl floor tiles
£1,500,000
Vinyl
£1,000,000
19 £500,000
20
£0 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Year
21 22
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Page 18 of 22
1
Further development
2
This is a tool that can help to accurately predict and therefore reduce energy, enabling
3
users to easily compare products from different manufacturers, while allowing new
4
products to be tested against industry standard practice. Procurement professionals can
5
use the model to drive decision-making, so that carbon emission reductions can be
6
made while minimising impact on long-term financial costs.
7
However, it is not only procurement professionals that can benefit from the model; It may
8
also provide insight into producers and suppliers, especially those that are attempting to
9
sell a product with a higher initial capital cost but with substantial benefits over the life
10
cycle (whether that be financially or environmentally). By comparing their products to
11
competitor products the model can produce outputs such as those shown in figures 4
12
and 5, which can help identify those life cycle aspects with the greatest impact.
13
We are now looking to develop and enhance this model, extend the library of materials
14
for which we have data and start applying the model on further developments. We would
15
be especially interested in working with potential partners to progress this in a mutually
16
beneficial manner.
17
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Page 19 of 22
1
Figure 10: Installed vinyl floor at Chadderton Health & Wellbeing Centre, providing an
2
estimated saving of £2m compared to carpet over the building‟s 60-year life.
3 4
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Page 20 of 22
1
References
2
BREEAM (2008) „BRE environmental and sustainability standard’, BES 5063: Issue 1.0,
3 4 5 6
IHS BRE Press, Watford British Standards Institute (2008a) BS ISO 15686-5:2008 Buildings and constructed assets – Service life planning – Part 5: Life cycle costing. London: BSI. British Standards Institute (2008b) Standardized method of life cycle costing for
7
construction procurement. A supplement to BS ISO 15686-5 Buildings and
8
constructed assets – Service life planning – Part 5: Life cycle costing. London
9
BSI.
10
Clift, M and Bourke, K (1999) „Study on whole life costing’, IHS BRE Press, Watford
11
Climate Action (2008) „Construction industry at a glance‟, Sustainable Development
12
International,
13
http://www.climatechangeactionprogramme.org/industryfocus/construction
14
Foley, N., Bishop, P., Bennett, P., Harrison, J., Horner, R.M.W., Mceleney, M., Mordecai,
15
K., Neville, K., Reader, P., Smith, D., Sutcliffe, D., Waterman, A., Wornell, P.,
16
Brook, N., Harriss, K., Tablin, K., Turrell, P. and Wainwright, C. (2002)
17
„Rethinking construction: 20 steps to encourage the use of whole life costing‟,
18
Constructing Excellence,
19
http://www.constructingexcellence.org.uk/sectors/housingforum
20
HM Government (2007) „Securing the future: Delivering UK sustainable development
21 22
strategy’, The Stationery Office, London Office of Government Commerce (2007) „Whole-life costing and cost management:
23
achieving excellence in construction procurement guide’, Office of
24
Government Commerce, London
25 26
Park, S.H. (2009) „Whole life performance assessment: Critical success factors‟, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, vol 135, pp1146-1161
27
Churcher, D. (2008) „Whole life costing analysis: A BSRIA Guide’, BSRIA, Bracknell
28
Langdon, D. (2010) „Spon’s architects’ and builders’ price book’, Taylor & Francis,
29
Oxford
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Page 21 of 22
1 2
Hutchins, (2010) ‘UK building blackbook: The capital cost and embodied CO2 guide’, Franklin and Andrews, London
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Page 22 of 22
ICECAP:
2
An enhanced whole life cost tool to minimise financial
3
expenditure, energy consumption and carbon emissions
4
arising from construction projects
5
Gareth Bennell and Andrew Brunt
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Contact Details
16
Blue Sky Environmental
17
Building 1000
18
Kings Reach
19
Yew Street
20
Stockport, SK4 2HG
21
Tel: 0161 475 0220
22
Fax: 0161 477 1748
23
Email: [email protected] Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Page 1 of 22
1
ICECAP – An enhanced whole life cost tool to minimise financial expenditure,
2
energy consumption and carbon emissions arising from construction projects
3
Abstract:
4
In the construction industry increasing importance is placed on the life cycle costs of
5
building projects. Rising energy costs and increasingly significant carbon taxation mean
6
that owners, occupiers and managers of estates are becoming more discerning of post-
7
construction costs.
8
In response to this, blue sky environmental have developed a dynamic software tool that
9
integrates the quantification of carbon, energy and financial costs throughout the life
10
cycle of a building material, from initial capital costs and embodied carbon, through to
11
maintenance and eventual disposal, incorporating external elements such as geographic
12
location, changing energy and carbon prices, and climate change.
13
This paper presents the outputs of research, conducted by blue sky design services ltd
14
in collaboration with the University of Leeds, to design, build and implement a
15
revolutionary whole life costing tool that minimises the resource impacts and lifetime
16
costs associated with construction material procurement.
17
Key Words:
18
Whole life costing; Sustainable Procurement; Construction.
19 20
Disclaimer
21
All numbers used are actual outputs from the ICECAP model, however some information
22
has been concealed due to commercial sensitivity and confidentiality considerations.
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Page 2 of 22
1
Introduction
2
The UK Government has placed sustainable development at the heart of the national
3
agenda (HM Government, 2007). The built environment is responsible for almost 50% of
4
annual UK CO2e emissions (HM Government, 2007) and 40% of global energy use and
5
solid waste generation (Climate Action, 2008). The impact of the built environment
6
provides a great challenge to reaching nationwide and global emissions reduction
7
targets, compounded by the long life of buildings which delays improvement. Decisions
8
made in building design now will determine environmental impacts over several
9
decades, so it is essential that these decisions are made with consideration for their
10
future impacts.
11
Driven primarily by considerations of cost (and, to some degree, by sustainability)
12
procurement decisions are increasingly based on whole life costing approach,
13
incorporating some or all of the following factors: maintenance, repairs, energy, carbon,
14
decommissioning and replacement costs. Life Cycle Costing is also increasingly used in
15
sustainability assessment methodologies within the construction sector. The Office of
16
Government commerce, for example, states that “value for money is the optimum
17
combination of whole-life cost and quality to meet the user‟s requirements” (Office of
18
Government Commerce, 2007, p4).
19
The Building Research Establishment‟s Environmental Assessment Methodology
20
(BREEAM) also recognises the importance of life cycle costing, and assigns two credits
21
to the use and implementation of life cycle costing in healthcare and education buildings,
22
for example. By incorporating maintenance, operation, and decommissioning costs into
23
building design, Clift and Bourke (1999) maintain that emissions, waste and energy use
24
can be reduced and there are many parties (including local authorities, national Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Page 3 of 22
1
government, housing associations, house builders, contractors, consultants and
2
academics) that promote the greater use of whole life costing within the construction
3
industry (Park, 2009; Foley et al, 2002).
4
However, the sheer number of variables affecting whole life costs within buildings can
5
make comparison of alternatives a daunting process, deterring systematic consideration
6
of relevant factors. Using a coherent and systematic approach to modelling these
7
aspects can help incorporate of life cycle financial and environmental factors much more
8
effective and achievable.
9
University of Leeds, have designed an innovative whole life costing tool that aims to
10
minimise resource impacts associated with construction procurement, and provides a
11
valuable and flexible tool for decision makers to evaluate these factors. The Integrated
12
Cost, Energy and Carbon Assessment Programme (ICECAP) is a ground-breaking
13
modelling and visualisation tool that allows accurate comparison of alternative
14
construction materials on the basis of cost, energy and carbon impacts over the whole
15
life cycle of any building project, from material production through to end of life building
16
decommissioning.
17
ICECAP is unique in both its flexibility and comprehensive approach. Appropriate for
18
both new build and refurbishment projects in any sector, the model takes as its starting
19
point an international standard financial life cycle approach and carbon and energy
20
calculator, and incorporates a range of innovative elements, including climate change
21
model, energy price forecasting, embodied carbon, transport impact, location and carbon
22
cost forecasts, providing a detailed breakdown of costs specific to the building project
23
specification.
blue sky design services ltd, in collaboration with the
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Page 4 of 22
1
The model provides detailed numerical and graphical outputs, which show how these
2
high-level costs breakdown across the life cycle of the project, and when key financial
3
outgoings arise, providing valuable assistance for building/facilities management
4
providers to manage cash flows.
5
Underpinning the model structure is a library of energy, carbon and financial metrics for
6
different materials. To further develop the model and ensure the quality and applicability
7
of the outputs to as-built construction projects, we are keen to collaborate with
8
practitioners who can provide real-world project data that further tests the model and
9
provides additional practical insights.
10
By using this tool to compare the whole life cost of products, design-stage material
11
procurement can move beyond a simple comparison of initial capital costs to a longer-
12
term view, accounting for future maintenance expenditure, decommissioning and
13
replacement costs, energy requirements and carbon implications over a user-defined
14
study years (often taken as 25 and, increasingly, 60 years).
15
In addition, while ICECAP is conceived initially as a construction sector tool, it‟s inherent
16
flexibility means that a range of other applications are also sqaurely within its sights.
17
These include comparing alternative consumer and/or industry products, quantifying the
18
financial/environmental benefits of new products coming to market which reduce
19
maintenance or running costs, extend life expectancy, or reduce energy and carbon
20
emissions but which may have higher initial capital costs or other barriers to
21
commercialisation.
22
This paper outlines the ICECAP model and its capabilities, presents an example of its
23
use in industry and discusses further possible practical applications not only in the
24
construction industry, but also in product development, and procurement more generally. Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Page 5 of 22
1
Method – Building ICECAP: a Sustainable Whole Life Cost Model
2
The development of ICECAP has been based on standard methodologies for life cycle
3
costing and carbon accounting. The “British Standard ISO 15868-5: 2008 Buildings and
4
constructed assets – Service life planning – Part 5: Life cycle costing”, together with the
5
supplement: “Standardized method of life cycle costing for construction procurement”,
6
provide a standard methodology for life cycle costing in the construction industry (British
7
Standards Institute, 2008a; 2008b). These detail which costs need to be included and
8
how to calculate final figures for a life cycle cost assessment. ICECAP fully fulfils
9
BREEAM requirements, which state that a life cycle costing assessment must be
10
completed following this standardised methodology.
11
BREEAM (2008) states that life cycle costing must be completed for two of the following:
12
structure, envelope, services and finishes and must include both a strategic level and a
13
system level analysis, referring to BS ISO 15868-5 standards on life cycle costing for
14
further clarification (see figure 1). As clarified in the diagram, strategic analysis includes
15
issues such as “location and external environment, maintainability and internal
16
environment” while system level analysis should include aspects such as “cladding,
17
roofing, windows and doors; and wall, floor and ceiling finishes”. Currently the model
18
library offers cost comparisons for finishes (wall, floor and ceiling finishes) and for
19
envelope (cladding, roofing, windows and doors) and includes both a strategic and
20
system level analysis for these (see figure 1, highlighted).
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Page 6 of 22
1
Figure 1: Diagram from BS ISO 15868-5:2008 standard, explaining the different levels
2
of analysis at different stages of the life cycle. Items currently covered by ICECAP are
3
highlighted in blue.
4
(Source: BS ISO 15868-5:2008, p.11)
5
Product Description
6
The ICECAP model compares alternative construction materials to identify their relative
7
financial, energy and carbon costs to identify the product with the lowest impact over the
8
life of the building. Figure 2 outlines the elements that are included in the financial and
9
environmental calculations for the model at each stage.
10
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Page 7 of 22
1
Figure 2: Financial and environmental costs included in the ICECAP model.
2
Initial Capital Expenditure • Installation Year • Raw Material Cost • Labour Cost • Fees and Taxes • Installation Year • Embodied Carbon • Freight Emissions
Renewal
In Use • Energy Cost
• Raw Material Cost
• Carbon Taxes • Maintenance Costs • Repair Costs
• Labour Cost • Fees and Taxes
• Energy Consumption • Fuel-based Emissions • Repair and Maintenance Emissions • Carbon Sequestering
• Embodied Carbon • Freight Emissions
End of Life • Product Life Expectancy • Dismantling & Demolition Costs • • • •
Reuse Cost Savings Recycling Costs Landfill Costs Incineration Costs
• Product Life Expectancy • Dismantling & Demolition Emissions • Emission Savings from Reuse & Recycling • Landfill Emissions • Incineration Emissions
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Key Financial Costs Environmental Costs
Page 8 of 22
1
The model uses several input types to provide a detailed analysis of each material under
2
consideration, all of which can be adjusted to suit the project:
3
Project-specific inputs (such as size, quantity of material, location, installation
4
year, fuel type, discount rate, installation year, current energy costs and building
5
temperature requirements);
6
dynamic forecasting assumptions and external factors such as fees and
7
interest rates and future rates of change in energy costs, carbon-related costs
8
and taxes, and climate change-related warming/cooling;
9
material-specific inputs such as initial capital cost, maintenance and repairs,
10
replacement costs, replacement periods, recycling and decommissioning, and u-
11
values1;
12
carbon factors for different energy types, (source: Department for Environment,
13
Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)).
14
Accurate data in the material library is critical to producing the correct results of such a
15
model. Life cycle costing is a quantitative process and as such the “garbage in, garbage
16
out” principle applies. This principle specifies that the quality and value of the numerical
17
results obtained from the model will be directly related to the precision and accuracy of
18
the input data (Churcher, 2008).
19
Two types of data are required: data about the cost of individual activities and
20
components that make up a project; and data about the timing of future events, which for
21
building materials includes life expectancies and maintenance frequency. As
1
For envelope materials, the model calculates the energy that passes through the fabric area based on uvalues and local temperatures and this is costed using forecast energy prices. While this will not predict the energy consumption of the building (other software is specifically designed to model building energy consumption), but instead the model allows different materials to be compared.
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Page 9 of 22
1
recommended by BS ISO 15686-5 standard, the ICECAP model uses the following
2
sources, in order of preference by reliability and relevance:
3
In house data on current costs (eg, for maintenance);
4
In house data from previous projects (adjusted to current costs);
5
Industry average or benchmark figures (such as Langdon, 2010; Hutchins, 2010);
6
National and UK Government figures (such as Office for National Statistics);
7
Practitioner cost estimates;
8
Supplier cost estimates.
9 10
The model is designed so that library data can be kept updated and that project specific data from a client can be entered quickly and easily.
11
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Page 10 of 22
1
Example Outputs
2
The model is designed to produce a comparative analysis of each material, allowing
3
maximum flexibility while requiring the minimum amount of user data entry. This includes
4
discounted and non-discounted financial costs, energy expenditure and carbon
5
emissions over both a 25- and a 60-year study period, giving a 10% confidence level for
6
all estimates. The 10% confidence interval is used to show that these are estimates only,
7
since it is not possible to predict what will happen to future costs and exactly when
8
replacement and repair will be necessary. An example of a 25-year carbon life cycle
9
output is shown in figure 3, clearly shows the lowest cost option (alternative 2) and that
10
the variance of the base case and alternative 4 overlap, indicating that they do not have
11
significantly different life cycle costs. Figure 3: Model output. Whole life carbon cost over 25-year study period for six alternative materials. „Alternative 2‟ can be easily identified as the lowest carbon option. 25 Year "Discounted" Carbon Cost (NPV)
Decreasing Whole Life Carbon Emissions Base Case Lowest Carbon Option
10% variance
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Carbon Emissions (tCO2e)
12
The model aims to present the information in a format suitable for a high level decision
13
maker. If sustainable procurement decisions are to be implemented throughout the
14
construction industry, the comparative costs, benefits and savings associated with
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Page 11 of 22
1
different courses of recommended actions and investment options must be quantifiable.
2
The analysis provided by ICECAP ensures that the language and metrics of
3
sustainability match that of the end client decision makers; often finance directors or
4
senior executives.
5
In addition to these high level outputs, the detail is provided so that the reasons for the
6
overall figures can be examined. The model provides detailed outputs, both numerically
7
and graphically, that show how these high-level costs break down across the life cycle
8
and when key financial payments may be needed, which can help facilities management
9
providers manage cash flow and/or financial risk. Figure 4 shows the carbon emissions
10
of a product across a 25-year study period, with installation delayed by one year,
11
increasing cost of heat loss through the fabric and a regular repairs/maintenance regime. Alternative 2 Figure 4 Model output. Financial breakdown for a material over a 25-year study period. £7,000 £6,000
LCC (£)
£5,000 £4,000 £3,000 £2,000 £1,000 £0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Year Initial Capital Decommissioning Annual Maintenance Carbon
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
One-off Repairs/Maintenance Interest Cooling Recycling
End of Life Replacement Fees Heating
Page 12 of 22
1
The outputs also include a high level breakdown comparison of each material by cost
2
type for both financial and carbon costs to help identify key cost areas, as well as
3
cumulative NPV which provide useful insights into when one option becomes more cost
4
effective than another.
5
Figure 5 shows the 25 year life cycle costs for six alternative materials, with each
6
material separated by life cycle stage. Net Present Value (NPV) figures, where life cycle
7
costs are discounted to account for inflation and technological improvement, are also
8
provided for the model, with discount rates flexible dependent on the requirements of the
9
client. It becomes evident when the data are displayed in this format how the majority of
10
the life cycle costs are spent, and reasons can be inferred as to why some materials
11
have greater life cycle costs than other. For example, in figure 5, it is clear that for some
12
materials it is the initial capital cost that takes up a large proportion of the overall costs.
13
Alternative 1, for example, has the lowest life cycle cost as it does not need to be
14
replaced, even though it has the highest level of maintenance and repairs required of
15
any material choice.
16
Figure 5: Model output. 25-year Life Cycle Costs for six alternative materials, split by cost type. Breakdown Comparison of Material Life Cycle Costs (over 25 years)
Initial Capital
Residual -£200,000
rick, cavity, painted plaster
-£100,000
£0
Repairs/Maintenance
£100,000
£200,000
£300,000
£400,000
£500,000
Base Case Initial Capital
rick, cavity, plastered block
Alternative 1
Replacement
Decommissioning
End of Life Replacement
Interest Steel cladding
One-off Repairs/Maintenance Decommissioning Interest
Alternative 2 Fees
Fees Annual Maintenance
Rainscreen cladding
Alternative 3
Cooling
Carbon
lock, cavity, painted render
Heating Carbon
Alternative 4
Heating
Alternative 5
Cooling
Recycling Residual LCC
vity, through-colour render
Cost Benefits (£)
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Increasing Financial Costs (£)
Page 13 of 22
1
Residual values are also displayed (in light green). These figures are for separated for
2
information purposes, and show the theoretical value remaining in the product at the end
3
of the study period.
4
Figure 6 shows a similar output for the carbon cycle for six materials. This splits the
5
carbon costs over the life cycle of the products into embodied carbon, replacement,
6
freight, decommissioning, cooling, heating, annual maintenance, sequestration (which
7
shows as negative), recycling and residual carbon. Figure 6 shows the high carbon cost
8
of decommissioning for the base case (bc), the high embodied carbon and annual
9
maintenance for alternative 1 (a1); that alternatives 2 and 3 (a2 & a3) offset the majority
10
of their embodied carbon (and replacement carbon) through effective recycling and
11
carbon sequestration through the life cycle of the product. Freight emissions for
12
alternatives 3 and 4 are high relative to others, so it may be possible that these would
13
fare better if alternative means of tranpsort to site could be found.
14
Figure 6: Model output. 60-year Life Cycle Carbon Cost (in tonnes CO2e) for six alternative materials, split by type of cost. Breakdown Comparison of Material NPV (over 60 years)
15 -100
Embodied Carbon -50
0
Replacement 50
Freight
Decommissioning
100
150
200
250
NPV (Tonnes
16 Single ply
BC
Concrete tiles
17
roof - Sedum mats
18
A2
19
A3
A1
Initial Capital
One-off Repairs
Annual Maintenance / Sequestration
End of Life Repl
Freight Transpo
Decommissionin
g roof - Biodiverse
Annual Maintena Cooling
al 'standing seam'
Heating
A4
Recycling
20
Residual Carbon
Natural slate
A5
21 22
Residual
Recycling
Carbon Benefits (tCO2e)
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Cooling
Heating
Increasing Carbon Emissions (tCO e)
Page 14 of 22
1
Cumulative NPV
2
ICECAP also provides outputs that show cumulative NPV. Calculating cumulative NPV
3
allows users to determine which materials are of best value over different time periods.
4
In construction materials, this is impacted by the product life span and renewal costs
5
(see figure 7). Materials that appear initially to be a cheaper option may quickly be more
6
expensive over the life cycle if they have lower life expectancies and require greater
7
amounts of maintenance. The cumulative NPV chart can show exactly when these
8
additional life cycle costs will have an impact, and so this can be accounted for by those
9
organisations that will be responsible for the ongoing building facilities management.
10 11
Figure 7: Cumulative NPV of different construction materials over a 60-year study period.
£5.0
13 14 15 16
NPV (Millions)
12
£4.5
Metal 'standing seam'
£4.0
Living roof Sedum mats
£3.5
Single ply
£3.0
Living roof Biodiverse
£2.5
Natural slate
£2.0 Concrete tiles
17 18
£1.5 £1.0
£0.5
19 20
£0.0 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Year
21 22
This model output can be therefore helpful in several ways. It allows model users to
23
identify the time-period over which one alternative becomes better value than another. It
24
can also be used to estimate the relative impacts of regular costs compared to one-off Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Page 15 of 22
1
costs. Annual costs will show a cumulative effect in the slope of the curves, whereas
2
one-off costs will display as step-changes in the cost. Their relative impact can be
3
assessed quickly and easily. In high value products, one-off costs, because of their
4
magnitude, have a far larger impact on the outcome than annual costs (such as
5
maintenance). For these high value products it would make sense to engage in regular
6
maintenance regimes that lengthen the life expectancy of the product.
7 8
Sensitivity of Discount Rates
9
Sensitivity analyses were performed on the key assumptions made in this model, such
10
as discount rate, material quantity, interest rate, region, etc.
11
Sensitivity analysis found that an alteration in the discount rate used had a large impact
12
on the ranking of material options over a 25-year and 60-year period (see figure 8).
13
Changes in the discount rate have a greater impact on costs that are further into the
14
future, and have no impact at all on any costs in year zero (the year in which the analysis
15
is taking place). This means that the higher the discount rate, the greater the proportion
16
of 60-year NPV is taken up by initial capital costs and the less impact that maintenance,
17
replacement and disposal costs (as well as any residual benefits) will have on the final
18
NPV value.
19
Materials that have a relatively low initial capital cost, but require frequent replacement
20
due to a short life expectancy, or higher maintenance costs, will fare much better with a
21
higher discount rate.
22 23
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Page 16 of 22
1
Figure 8: Sensitivity analysis of discount rate on 60 year NPV for building fabric element, showing govrernmental and private discount rates
government Gov‟t £0.70
2
4 5 6
£0.60
60 year NPV (Millions)
3
private Private
£0.50
Metal 'standing Living roof - Sed Living roof - Bio Single ply Natural slate Concrete tiles
£0.40 £0.30 £0.20
7 £0.10
8 £0.00
9
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
Discount Rate
10
Interestingly, this has wider ramifications since the Government discounts schemes at a
11
different rate to the private sector. While Government schemes discount 3% for 60-year
12
study periods (3.5% for 25-year study periods) (HM Treasury, 2003), the private sector
13
discounts at a much greater rate: normally 6-7% (Churcher, 2008).
14
What makes ICECAP innovative?
15
There are models currently available that provide a whole life financial cost for a product,
16
but these do not include energy and carbon emissions, are generally not designed to
17
compare alternative construction materials, and the installation year cannot be altered.
18
Similarly, while there are carbon calculators available, these do not include financial
19
components and tend not to include embodied carbon which, as our model
20
demonstrates, is a critical component of the overall whole life carbon cost.
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Page 17 of 22
1
The incorporation of dynamic elements, such as a separate energy and carbon cost
2
model to take account of expected rises in these costs, as well as the capacity to model
3
the impacts of climate change, is also unique to the ICECAP model, providing a more
4
accurate cost forecast.
5
The benefits of the model are best demonstrated by the results of its use for Chadderton
6
Health & Wellbeing Centre. When considering floor finishes, six alternatives were
7
compared, from rubber to eco-friendly carpet tiles. Chadderton Health & Wellbeing
8
Centre has almost 12,000 square metres of floor area, making a whole life cost
9
approach to selecting a floor finish material especially beneficial. The model indicated
10
that a vinyl floor finish would save the NHS approximately £2 million over the 60-year life
11
expectancy of the building compared to carpet tiles (see figure 9), and save over 3,300
12
tonnes of carbon in comparison to a polished concrete floor. Figure 10 shows a photo of
13
the finished vinyl floor finish in place.
14
Figure 9: Model output. Cumulative Net Present Value is used to identify lowest whole life costs. Cumulative NPV £3,500,000
15
Carpet (standard)
CarpetCarpet (eco-
16 17 18
Cumulative NPV
£3,000,000
friendly) Ceramic floor tiles
£2,500,000
Polished concrete
£2,000,000
Rubber tiles Vinyl floor tiles
£1,500,000
Vinyl
£1,000,000
19 £500,000
20
£0 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Year
21 22
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Page 18 of 22
1
Further development
2
This is a tool that can help to accurately predict and therefore reduce energy, enabling
3
users to easily compare products from different manufacturers, while allowing new
4
products to be tested against industry standard practice. Procurement professionals can
5
use the model to drive decision-making, so that carbon emission reductions can be
6
made while minimising impact on long-term financial costs.
7
However, it is not only procurement professionals that can benefit from the model; It may
8
also provide insight into producers and suppliers, especially those that are attempting to
9
sell a product with a higher initial capital cost but with substantial benefits over the life
10
cycle (whether that be financially or environmentally). By comparing their products to
11
competitor products the model can produce outputs such as those shown in figures 4
12
and 5, which can help identify those life cycle aspects with the greatest impact.
13
We are now looking to develop and enhance this model, extend the library of materials
14
for which we have data and start applying the model on further developments. We would
15
be especially interested in working with potential partners to progress this in a mutually
16
beneficial manner.
17
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Page 19 of 22
1
Figure 10: Installed vinyl floor at Chadderton Health & Wellbeing Centre, providing an
2
estimated saving of £2m compared to carpet over the building‟s 60-year life.
3 4
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Page 20 of 22
1
References
2
BREEAM (2008) „BRE environmental and sustainability standard’, BES 5063: Issue 1.0,
3 4 5 6
IHS BRE Press, Watford British Standards Institute (2008a) BS ISO 15686-5:2008 Buildings and constructed assets – Service life planning – Part 5: Life cycle costing. London: BSI. British Standards Institute (2008b) Standardized method of life cycle costing for
7
construction procurement. A supplement to BS ISO 15686-5 Buildings and
8
constructed assets – Service life planning – Part 5: Life cycle costing. London
9
BSI.
10
Clift, M and Bourke, K (1999) „Study on whole life costing’, IHS BRE Press, Watford
11
Climate Action (2008) „Construction industry at a glance‟, Sustainable Development
12
International,
13
http://www.climatechangeactionprogramme.org/industryfocus/construction
14
Foley, N., Bishop, P., Bennett, P., Harrison, J., Horner, R.M.W., Mceleney, M., Mordecai,
15
K., Neville, K., Reader, P., Smith, D., Sutcliffe, D., Waterman, A., Wornell, P.,
16
Brook, N., Harriss, K., Tablin, K., Turrell, P. and Wainwright, C. (2002)
17
„Rethinking construction: 20 steps to encourage the use of whole life costing‟,
18
Constructing Excellence,
19
http://www.constructingexcellence.org.uk/sectors/housingforum
20
HM Government (2007) „Securing the future: Delivering UK sustainable development
21 22
strategy’, The Stationery Office, London Office of Government Commerce (2007) „Whole-life costing and cost management:
23
achieving excellence in construction procurement guide’, Office of
24
Government Commerce, London
25 26
Park, S.H. (2009) „Whole life performance assessment: Critical success factors‟, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, vol 135, pp1146-1161
27
Churcher, D. (2008) „Whole life costing analysis: A BSRIA Guide’, BSRIA, Bracknell
28
Langdon, D. (2010) „Spon’s architects’ and builders’ price book’, Taylor & Francis,
29
Oxford
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Page 21 of 22
1 2
Hutchins, (2010) ‘UK building blackbook: The capital cost and embodied CO2 guide’, Franklin and Andrews, London
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental
Page 22 of 22
