1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Contact Details Blue Sky Environmental Building 1000 Kings Reach Yew Street Stockport, SK4 2HG Tel:

0161 475 0220 Fax: 0161 477 1748

ICECAP: An enhanced whole life cost tool to minimise financial expenditure, energy consumption and carbon emissions arising from construction projects

Gareth Bennell and Andrew Brunt

Email: gbennell@blue-sky-environmental.co.uk Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental Page 1 of 22

1 2

ICECAP An enhanced whole life cost tool to minimise financial expenditure, energy consumption and carbon emissions arising from construction projects

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Abstract: In the construction industry increasing importance is placed on the life cycle costs of building projects. Rising energy costs and increasingly significant carbon taxation mean that owners, occupiers and managers of estates are becoming more discerning of postconstruction costs. In response to this, blue sky environmental have developed a dynamic software tool that integrates the quantification of carbon, energy and financial costs throughout the life cycle of a building material, from initial capital costs and embodied carbon, through to maintenance and eventual disposal, incorporating external elements such as geographic location, changing energy and carbon prices, and climate change. This paper presents the outputs of research, conducted by blue sky design services ltd in collaboration with the University of Leeds, to design, build and implement a revolutionary whole life costing tool that minimises the resource impacts and lifetime costs associated with construction material procurement. Key Words: Whole life costing; Sustainable Procurement; Construction.

Disclaimer All numbers used are actual outputs from the ICECAP model, however some information has been concealed due to commercial sensitivity and confidentiality considerations.

Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental

Page 2 of 22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Introduction
The UK Government has placed sustainable development at the heart of the national agenda (HM Government, 2007). The built environment is responsible for almost 50% of annual UK CO2e emissions (HM Government, 2007) and 40% of global energy use and solid waste generation (Climate Action, 2008). The impact of the built environment provides a great challenge to reaching nationwide and global emissions reduction targets, compounded by the long life of buildings which delays improvement. Decisions made in building design now will determine environmental impacts over several decades, so it is essential that these decisions are made with consideration for their future impacts. Driven primarily by considerations of cost (and, to some degree, by sustainability) procurement decisions are increasingly based on whole life costing approach, incorporating some or all of the following factors: maintenance, repairs, energy, carbon, decommissioning and replacement costs. Life Cycle Costing is also increasingly used in sustainability assessment methodologies within the construction sector. The Office of Government commerce, for example, states that value for money is the optimum combination of whole-life cost and quality to meet the users requirements (Office of Government Commerce, 2007, p4). The Building Research Establishments Environmental Assessment Methodology (BREEAM) also recognises the importance of life cycle costing, and assigns two credits to the use and implementation of life cycle costing in healthcare and education buildings, for example. By incorporating maintenance, operation, and decommissioning costs into building design, Clift and Bourke (1999) maintain that emissions, waste and energy use can be reduced and there are many parties (including local authorities, national Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental Page 3 of 22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

government, housing associations, house builders, contractors, consultants and academics) that promote the greater use of whole life costing within the construction industry (Park, 2009; Foley et al, 2002). However, the sheer number of variables affecting whole life costs within buildings can make comparison of alternatives a daunting process, deterring systematic consideration of relevant factors. Using a coherent and systematic approach to modelling these aspects can help incorporate of life cycle financial and environmental factors much more effective and achievable. blue sky design services ltd, in collaboration with the

University of Leeds, have designed an innovative whole life costing tool that aims to minimise resource impacts associated with construction procurement, and provides a valuable and flexible tool for decision makers to evaluate these factors. The Integrated Cost, Energy and Carbon Assessment Programme (ICECAP) is a ground-breaking modelling and visualisation tool that allows accurate comparison of alternative construction materials on the basis of cost, energy and carbon impacts over the whole life cycle of any building project, from material production through to end of life building decommissioning. ICECAP is unique in both its flexibility and comprehensive approach. Appropriate for both new build and refurbishment projects in any sector, the model takes as its starting point an international standard financial life cycle approach and carbon and energy calculator, and incorporates a range of innovative elements, including climate change model, energy price forecasting, embodied carbon, transport impact, location and carbon cost forecasts, providing a detailed breakdown of costs specific to the building project specification.

Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental

Page 4 of 22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

The model provides detailed numerical and graphical outputs, which show how these high-level costs breakdown across the life cycle of the project, and when key financial outgoings arise, providing valuable assistance for building/facilities management providers to manage cash flows. Underpinning the model structure is a library of energy, carbon and financial metrics for different materials. To further develop the model and ensure the quality and applicability of the outputs to as-built construction projects, we are keen to collaborate with practitioners who can provide real-world project data that further tests the model and provides additional practical insights. By using this tool to compare the whole life cost of products, design-stage material procurement can move beyond a simple comparison of initial capital costs to a longerterm view, accounting for future maintenance expenditure, decommissioning and replacement costs, energy requirements and carbon implications over a user-defined study years (often taken as 25 and, increasingly, 60 years). In addition, while ICECAP is conceived initially as a construction sector tool, its inherent flexibility means that a range of other applications are also sqaurely within its sights. These include comparing alternative consumer and/or industry products, quantifying the financial/environmental benefits of new products coming to market which reduce maintenance or running costs, extend life expectancy, or reduce energy and carbon emissions but which may have higher initial capital costs or other barriers to commercialisation. This paper outlines the ICECAP model and its capabilities, presents an example of its use in industry and discusses further possible practical applications not only in the construction industry, but also in product development, and procurement more generally. Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental Page 5 of 22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Method Building ICECAP: a Sustainable Whole Life Cost Model The development of ICECAP has been based on standard methodologies for life cycle costing and carbon accounting. The British Standard ISO 15868-5: 2008 Buildings and constructed assets Service life planning Part 5: Life cycle costing, together with the supplement: Standardized method of life cycle costing for construction procurement, provide a standard methodology for life cycle costing in the construction industry (British Standards Institute, 2008a; 2008b). These detail which costs need to be included and how to calculate final figures for a life cycle cost assessment. ICECAP fully fulfils BREEAM requirements, which state that a life cycle costing assessment must be completed following this standardised methodology. BREEAM (2008) states that life cycle costing must be completed for two of the following: structure, envelope, services and finishes and must include both a strategic level and a system level analysis, referring to BS ISO 15868-5 standards on life cycle costing for further clarification (see figure 1). As clarified in the diagram, strategic analysis includes issues such as location and external environment, maintainability and internal environment while system level analysis should include aspects such as cladding, roofing, windows and doors; and wall, floor and ceiling finishes. Currently the model library offers cost comparisons for finishes (wall, floor and ceiling finishes) and for envelope (cladding, roofing, windows and doors) and includes both a strategic and system level analysis for these (see figure 1, highlighted).

Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental

Page 6 of 22

1 2 3

Figure 1: Diagram from BS ISO 15868-5:2008 standard, explaining the different levels of analysis at different stages of the life cycle. Items currently covered by ICECAP are highlighted in blue.

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Product Description

(Source: BS ISO 15868-5:2008, p.11)

The ICECAP model compares alternative construction materials to identify their relative financial, energy and carbon costs to identify the product with the lowest impact over the life of the building. Figure 2 outlines the elements that are included in the financial and environmental calculations for the model at each stage.

Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental

Page 7 of 22

1 2

Figure 2: Financial and environmental costs included in the ICECAP model.

Initial Capital Expenditure

Installation Year Raw Material Cost Labour Cost Fees and Taxes Installation Year Embodied Carbon Freight Emissions

In Use
Energy Cost Carbon Taxes Maintenance Costs Repair Costs Energy Consumption Fuel-based Emissions Repair and Maintenance Emissions Carbon Sequestering

Renewal
Raw Material Cost Labour Cost Fees and Taxes 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

Key
Financial Costs Environmental Costs

Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental

Page 8 of 22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

The model uses several input types to provide a detailed analysis of each material under consideration, all of which can be adjusted to suit the project: Project-specific inputs (such as size, quantity of material, location, installation year, fuel type, discount rate, installation year, current energy costs and building temperature requirements); dynamic forecasting assumptions and external factors such as fees and interest rates and future rates of change in energy costs, carbon-related costs and taxes, and climate change-related warming/cooling; material-specific inputs such as initial capital cost, maintenance and repairs, replacement costs, replacement periods, recycling and decommissioning, and uvalues1; carbon factors for different energy types, (source: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)). Accurate data in the material library is critical to producing the correct results of such a model. Life cycle costing is a quantitative process and as such the garbage in, garbage out principle applies. This principle specifies that the quality and value of the numerical results obtained from the model will be directly related to the precision and accuracy of the input data (Churcher, 2008). Two types of data are required: data about the cost of individual activities and components that make up a project; and data about the timing of future events, which for building materials includes life expectancies and maintenance frequency. As

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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

recommended by BS ISO 15686-5 standard, the ICECAP model uses the following sources, in order of preference by reliability and relevance: In house data on current costs (eg, for maintenance); In house data from previous projects (adjusted to current costs); Industry average or benchmark figures (such as Langdon, 2010; Hutchins, 2010); National and UK Government figures (such as Office for National Statistics); Practitioner cost estimates; Supplier cost estimates.

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.

Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental

Page 10 of 22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Example Outputs The model is designed to produce a comparative analysis of each material, allowing maximum flexibility while requiring the minimum amount of user data entry. This includes discounted and non-discounted financial costs, energy expenditure and carbon emissions over both a 25- and a 60-year study period, giving a 10% confidence level for all estimates. The 10% confidence interval is used to show that these are estimates only, since it is not possible to predict what will happen to future costs and exactly when replacement and repair will be necessary. An example of a 25-year carbon life cycle output is shown in figure 3, clearly shows the lowest cost option (alternative 2) and that the variance of the base case and alternative 4 overlap, indicating that they do not have 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. Decreasing Whole Life Carbon Emissions
Base Case
10% variance Lowest Carbon Option

25 Year "Discounted" Carbon Cost (NPV)

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 13 14

The model aims to present the information in a format suitable for a high level decision maker. If sustainable procurement decisions are to be implemented throughout the construction industry, the comparative costs, benefits and savings associated with

Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental

Page 11 of 22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

different courses of recommended actions and investment options must be quantifiable. The analysis provided by ICECAP ensures that the language and metrics of sustainability match that of the end client decision makers; often finance directors or senior executives. In addition to these high level outputs, the detail is provided so that the reasons for the overall figures can be examined. The model provides detailed outputs, both numerically and graphically, that show how these high-level costs break down across the life cycle and when key financial payments may be needed, which can help facilities management providers manage cash flow and/or financial risk. Figure 4 shows the carbon emissions of a product across a 25-year study period, with installation delayed by one year, 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 5,000

LCC ()

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 One-off Repairs/Maintenance Interest Cooling Recycling End of Life Replacement Fees Heating

Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental

Page 12 of 22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

The outputs also include a high level breakdown comparison of each material by cost type for both financial and carbon costs to help identify key cost areas, as well as cumulative NPV which provide useful insights into when one option becomes more cost effective than another. Figure 5 shows the 25 year life cycle costs for six alternative materials, with each material separated by life cycle stage. Net Present Value (NPV) figures, where life cycle costs are discounted to account for inflation and technological improvement, are also provided for the model, with discount rates flexible dependent on the requirements of the client. It becomes evident when the data are displayed in this format how the majority of the life cycle costs are spent, and reasons can be inferred as to why some materials have greater life cycle costs than other. For example, in figure 5, it is clear that for some materials it is the initial capital cost that takes up a large proportion of the overall costs. Alternative 1, for example, has the lowest life cycle cost as it does not need to be replaced, even though it has the highest level of maintenance and repairs required of any material choice.
Figure 5: Model output. 25-year Life Cycle Costs for six alternative materials, split by cost type.
Residual
Breakdown Comparison of Material Life Cycle Costs (over 25 years)

Initial Capital
0

Repairs/Maintenance
200,000

-200,000

-100,000

100,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

rick, cavity, painted plaster

Base Case
Initial Capital

rick, cavity, plastered block

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Replacement

Decommissioning Interest

One-off Repairs/Maintenance End of Life Replacement Decommissioning Interest Fees Annual Maintenance Cooling

Steel cladding

Fees
Rainscreen cladding

Alternative 3
Carbon

Heating Carbon Recycling Residual LCC

lock, cavity, painted render

Alternative 4 Alternative 5
Cost Benefits () Increasing Financial Costs ()

Heating Cooling

vity, through-colour render

Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental

Page 13 of 22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
-100

Residual values are also displayed (in light green). These figures are for separated for information purposes, and show the theoretical value remaining in the product at the end of the study period. Figure 6 shows a similar output for the carbon cycle for six materials. This splits the carbon costs over the life cycle of the products into embodied carbon, replacement, freight, decommissioning, cooling, heating, annual maintenance, sequestration (which shows as negative), recycling and residual carbon. Figure 6 shows the high carbon cost of decommissioning for the base case (bc), the high embodied carbon and annual maintenance for alternative 1 (a1); that alternatives 2 and 3 (a2 & a3) offset the majority of their embodied carbon (and replacement carbon) through effective recycling and carbon sequestration through the life cycle of the product. Freight emissions for alternatives 3 and 4 are high relative to others, so it may be possible that these would fare better if alternative means of tranpsort to site could be found.
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)

Embodied Carbon
-50 0

Replacement
50

Freight
100

Decommissioning
150 200 250

NPV (Tonnes

16
Single ply

BC

Concrete tiles

17 18 19
A4

A1 A2 A3
Annual Maintenance / Sequestration

Initial Capital

One-off Repairs

roof - Sedum mats

End of Life Repl

Freight Transpo

Decommissionin

g roof - Biodiverse

Annual Maintena Cooling Heating Recycling

al 'standing seam'

20
Natural slate

Residual Carbon

A5

21 22

Residual Carbon Benefits (tCO2e)

Recycling

Cooling

Heating

Increasing Carbon Emissions (tCO2e)

Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental

Page 14 of 22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cumulative NPV ICECAP also provides outputs that show cumulative NPV. Calculating cumulative NPV allows users to determine which materials are of best value over different time periods. In construction materials, this is impacted by the product life span and renewal costs (see figure 7). Materials that appear initially to be a cheaper option may quickly be more expensive over the life cycle if they have lower life expectancies and require greater amounts of maintenance. The cumulative NPV chart can show exactly when these additional life cycle costs will have an impact, and so this can be accounted for by those organisations that will be responsible for the ongoing building facilities management.

Figure 7: Cumulative NPV of different construction materials over a 60-year study period.

5.0 4.5
NPV (Millions)
Metal 'standing seam'

4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0

Living roof Sedum mats Single ply Living roof Biodiverse Natural slate Concrete tiles

1.5 1.0

0.5
0.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Year

This model output can be therefore helpful in several ways. It allows model users to identify the time-period over which one alternative becomes better value than another. It 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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

costs. Annual costs will show a cumulative effect in the slope of the curves, whereas one-off costs will display as step-changes in the cost. Their relative impact can be assessed quickly and easily. In high value products, one-off costs, because of their magnitude, have a far larger impact on the outcome than annual costs (such as maintenance). For these high value products it would make sense to engage in regular maintenance regimes that lengthen the life expectancy of the product.

Sensitivity of Discount Rates Sensitivity analyses were performed on the key assumptions made in this model, such as discount rate, material quantity, interest rate, region, etc. Sensitivity analysis found that an alteration in the discount rate used had a large impact on the ranking of material options over a 25-year and 60-year period (see figure 8). Changes in the discount rate have a greater impact on costs that are further into the future, and have no impact at all on any costs in year zero (the year in which the analysis is taking place). This means that the higher the discount rate, the greater the proportion of 60-year NPV is taken up by initial capital costs and the less impact that maintenance, replacement and disposal costs (as well as any residual benefits) will have on the final NPV value. Materials that have a relatively low initial capital cost, but require frequent replacement due to a short life expectancy, or higher maintenance costs, will fare much better with a higher discount rate.

Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental

Page 16 of 22

1 2

Figure 8: Sensitivity analysis of discount rate on 60 year NPV for building fabric element, showing govrernmental and private discount rates

government Govt
0.70
0.60

private Private

60 year NPV (Millions)

3 4 5 6 7

0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20

Metal 'standing Living roof - Sed Living roof - Bio Single ply Natural slate Concrete tiles

0.10

8
0.00

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

Discount Rate

10 11 12 13

Interestingly, this has wider ramifications since the Government discounts schemes at a different rate to the private sector. While Government schemes discount 3% for 60-year study periods (3.5% for 25-year study periods) (HM Treasury, 2003), the private sector discounts at a much greater rate: normally 6-7% (Churcher, 2008).

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

What makes ICECAP innovative? There are models currently available that provide a whole life financial cost for a product, but these do not include energy and carbon emissions, are generally not designed to compare alternative construction materials, and the installation year cannot be altered. Similarly, while there are carbon calculators available, these do not include financial components and tend not to include embodied carbon which, as our model demonstrates, is a critical component of the overall whole life carbon cost.

Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental

Page 17 of 22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

The incorporation of dynamic elements, such as a separate energy and carbon cost model to take account of expected rises in these costs, as well as the capacity to model the impacts of climate change, is also unique to the ICECAP model, providing a more accurate cost forecast. The benefits of the model are best demonstrated by the results of its use for Chadderton Health & Wellbeing Centre. When considering floor finishes, six alternatives were compared, from rubber to eco-friendly carpet tiles. Chadderton Health & Wellbeing Centre has almost 12,000 square metres of floor area, making a whole life cost approach to selecting a floor finish material especially beneficial. The model indicated that a vinyl floor finish would save the NHS approximately 2 million over the 60-year life expectancy of the building compared to carpet tiles (see figure 9), and save over 3,300 tonnes of carbon in comparison to a polished concrete floor. Figure 10 shows a photo of the finished vinyl floor finish in place.
Figure 9: Model output. Cumulative Net Present Value is used to identify lowest whole life costs.
Cumulative NPV
3,500,000
Carpet (standard)

3,000,000

Carpet Carpet (ecofriendly) Ceramic floor tiles Polished concrete

16 17 18 19

Cumulative NPV

2,500,000

2,000,000

Rubber tiles Vinyl floor tiles

1,500,000

1,000,000

Vinyl

500,000

20 21 22

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Year

Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental

Page 18 of 22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Further development This is a tool that can help to accurately predict and therefore reduce energy, enabling users to easily compare products from different manufacturers, while allowing new products to be tested against industry standard practice. Procurement professionals can use the model to drive decision-making, so that carbon emission reductions can be made while minimising impact on long-term financial costs. However, it is not only procurement professionals that can benefit from the model; It may also provide insight into producers and suppliers, especially those that are attempting to sell a product with a higher initial capital cost but with substantial benefits over the life cycle (whether that be financially or environmentally). By comparing their products to competitor products the model can produce outputs such as those shown in figures 4 and 5, which can help identify those life cycle aspects with the greatest impact. We are now looking to develop and enhance this model, extend the library of materials for which we have data and start applying the model on further developments. We would be especially interested in working with potential partners to progress this in a mutually beneficial manner.

Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental

Page 19 of 22

1 2 3 4

Figure 10: Installed vinyl floor at Chadderton Health & Wellbeing Centre, providing an estimated saving of 2m compared to carpet over the buildings 60-year life.

Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Blue Sky Environmental

Page 20 of 22

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 26 27 28 29

References BREEAM (2008) BRE environmental and sustainability standard, BES 5063: Issue 1.0, 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 construction procurement. A supplement to BS ISO 15686-5 Buildings and constructed assets Service life planning Part 5: Life cycle costing. London BSI. Clift, M and Bourke, K (1999) Study on whole life costing, IHS BRE Press, Watford Climate Action (2008) Construction industry at a glance, Sustainable Development International, http://www.climatechangeactionprogramme.org/industryfocus/construction Foley, N., Bishop, P., Bennett, P., Harrison, J., Horner, R.M.W., Mceleney, M., Mordecai, K., Neville, K., Reader, P., Smith, D., Sutcliffe, D., Waterman, A., Wornell, P., Brook, N., Harriss, K., Tablin, K., Turrell, P. and Wainwright, C. (2002) Rethinking construction: 20 steps to encourage the use of whole life costing, Constructing Excellence, http://www.constructingexcellence.org.uk/sectors/housingforum HM Government (2007) Securing the future: Delivering UK sustainable development strategy, The Stationery Office, London Office of Government Commerce (2007) Whole-life costing and cost management: achieving excellence in construction procurement guide, Office of Government Commerce, London Park, S.H. (2009) Whole life performance assessment: Critical success factors, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, vol 135, pp1146-1161 Churcher, D. (2008) Whole life costing analysis: A BSRIA Guide, BSRIA, Bracknell Langdon, D. (2010) Spons architects and builders price book, Taylor & Francis, 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