E06.81 - Building Economics

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 LCC analysis is an economic method for evaluating a project or project alternatives over a designated study period. The method entails computing the LCC for alternative building designs or system specifications having the same purpose and then comparing them to determine which has the lowest LCC over the study period.  
5.2 The LCC method is particularly suitable for determining whether the higher initial cost of a building or building system is economically justified by reductions in future costs (for example, operating, maintenance, repair, or replacement costs) when compared with an alternative that has a lower initial cost but higher future costs. If a building design or system specification has both a lower initial cost and lower future costs relative to an alternative, an LCC analysis is not needed to show that the former is the economically preferable choice.  
5.3 If an investment project is not essential to the building operation (for example, replacement of existing single-pane windows with new double-pane windows), the project must be compared against the “do nothing” alternative (that is, keeping the single pane windows) in order to determine if it is cost effective. Typically the “do nothing” alternative entails no initial investment cost but has higher future costs than the proposed project.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice establishes a procedure for evaluating the life-cycle cost (LCC) of a building or building system and comparing the LCCs of alternative building designs or systems that satisfy the same functional requirements.  
1.2 The LCC method measures, in present-value or annual-value terms, the sum of all relevant costs associated with owning and operating a building or building system over a specified time period.  
1.3 The basic premise of the LCC method is that to an investor or decision maker all costs arising from an investment decision are potentially important to that decision, including future as well as present costs. Applied to buildings or building systems, the LCC encompasses all relevant costs over a designated study period, including the costs of designing, purchasing/leasing, constructing/installing, operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing, and disposing of a particular building design or system.  
1.4 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 When preparing construction, project, and program cost estimates, it is often necessary to make monetary provision for change or risk, or both, or other exigencies where information is incomplete.  
4.2 Such allowance, contingency or reserve sums are employed by many persons engaged in the planning, delivery, and financing of construction work.  
4.3 These users include owners, developers, facilities programmers, cost planners, estimators, schedules, architects and engineers, specification writers, operating and maintenance staff, manufacturers, educators, financial managers, and comptrollers.  
4.4 Usage:  
4.4.1 These sums are especially appropriate when performing the following activities:    
Cost budgeting;  
Conceptual, design, and construction cost estimating;  
Preparing complete forecast cost for economic evaluation,
investment analysis, and approval; and    
Controlling cost during planning, design, and construction.  
4.4.2 In any of these activities a needed requirement, or component, of the planned construction can be known while the defined solution, design or specification, for providing this may not. The usual, and appropriate, response in these situations, is the inclusion of a monetary sum, within an estimate, to provide for this (these) requirement(s).  
4.4.3 Such sums may be general or specific in scope, may be planned to be spent or may only be included as possible mitigation for unplanned events and requirements.  
4.4.4 To distinguish between these sums, and in recognition of their differing purpose, they are described, and classified here, using the terms allowance, contingency, or reserve.
Note 1: Section 5 includes a generic statement of purpose for each of the three terms and provides a sub-classification that distinguishes between sums included for specific purposes and for non-specific, that is, general purposes. In cost budgeting, conceptual and design estimating especially, an estimator may intuitively recognize...
SCOPE
1.1 This classification establishes a classification for allowance, contingency, and reserve sums used in construction, project, and program estimating.  
1.2 This classification applies to all construction work.  
1.3 This classification is not based on permanent physical elements of construction (as defined and classified in Classification E1557). Rather, the classification items are cost components common to construction, project, and program estimates.  
1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Measuring cost risk enables owners of buildings and other constructed projects, architects, engineers, and contractors to measure and evaluate the cost risk exposures of their construction projects.3 Specifically, cost risk analysis (CRA) helps answer the following questions:  
5.1.1 What are the probabilities for the construction contract to be bid above or below the estimated value?  
5.1.2 How low or high can the total project cost be?  
5.1.3 What is the appropriate amount of contingency to use?  
5.1.4 What cost elements have the greatest impact on the project’s cost risk exposure?  
5.2 CRA can be applied to a project's contract cost, construction cost (contract cost plus construction change orders), and project cost (construction cost plus owner's cost), depending on the users’ perspectives and needs. This practice shall refer to these different terms generally as “project cost.”
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers a procedure for measuring cost risk for buildings and building systems and other constructed projects, using the Monte Carlo simulation technique as described in Guide E1369.  
1.2 A computer program is required for the Monte Carlo simulation. This can be one of the commercially available software programs for cost risk analysis, or one constructed by the user.  
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This practice increases the level of communication, provides an organized approach to cost control during the design of a project, and also provides a means of identifying extraordinary cost items and changes in assumptions between estimates.  
5.2 The users of this practice include owners, developers, contractors, cost professionals, estimators, architects, engineers, specification writers, quantity surveyors, and anyone charged with the responsibility of successfully managing the design of a building and its related site work within a specified project budget.  
5.3 Use this reporting format during the following:  
5.3.1 Contracting for design cost analysis services,  
5.3.2 Comparing the current design costs to a previous estimate, and  
5.3.3 Responding to each design phase.  
5.4 This practice provides a tool for analyzing design options and examining strategies to maintain the project budget.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers an arranged method for providing cost analysis during the design phase of a building project.  
1.2 The use of this practice increases the level of communication between the design professional, owner, and the cost professional providing the cost consulting services.  
1.3 The practice establishes a structured method to support design decisions.  
1.4 The practice provides design and cost professionals with a framework for historically tabulating information to be used on relevant future projects.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 This standard builds on the concepts and organizational framework established in Classification E1557. This classification describes transportation surface elements that are major components of most vehicular transportation surfaces. The elemental classification is the common thread linking activities and participants in a transportation surface project from initial planning through operations, maintenance, and disposal.
Note 1: As this classification refers solely to permanent, physical parts of any construction, two additional classifications, Classifications E2083 and E2168, need to be included when calculating construction cost. These standards provide for the inclusion of construction enabling, temporary, and risk mitigation cost figures. Procedures for reporting all these figures are described in Practices E1804 and E2514 and Classification E2516. While these three latter standards were primarily written for building construction, they are nonetheless appropriate and readily applied to other forms of construction as well.  
4.2 The users of transportation surface UNIFORMAT II include:  
4.2.1 Financial and Investment-Typically owners, developers, bankers, lenders, accountants, and financial managers.  
4.2.2 Implementation-Primarily project managers; facilities programmers; designers, including engineers; and project controls specialists, including cost planners, estimators, schedulers, specification writers, and risk analysts.  
4.2.3 Facilities Management-Comprising property portfolio managers, operating staff, and maintenance staff.  
4.2.4 Others-Public officials, manufacturers, educators, students, and other project stakeholders.  
4.3 Apply This Classification When Undertaking the Following Work on Transportation Surface Projects:5  
4.3.1 Financing and Investing:  
4.3.1.1 Structuring costs on an elemental basis for economic evaluations (Guide E1185 and Practices E917, E964, E1057, E1074, E1121, and E1804) early in the design process help...
SCOPE
1.1 This standard establishes a classification of transportation surface elements within the UNIFORMAT II family of elemental classifications. It covers the full breadth of vehicular transportation surfaces, from rural roads to multi-lane interstate highways.  
1.2 UNIFORMAT II classifications have an elemental format similar to the original UNIFORMAT2 building elemental classification. However, the title UNIFORMAT II differs from the original in that it now takes into consideration a wide range of constructed entities that collectively form the built environment.  
1.3 Elements, as defined here and in Classifications E1557 and E2103/E2103M, are major physical components that are common within constructed entities. Elements perform their given function(s), regardless of the design specification, construction method, or materials used.  
1.4 This elemental classification serves as a consistent reference for analysis, evaluation, and monitoring during the feasibility, planning, and design stages when constructing transportation surfaces.  
1.5 Using UNIFORMAT II elemental classifications ensures a consistency in the economic evaluation of construction projects over time and from project to project.  
1.6 UNIFORMAT II classifications also enhance reporting at all stages of a constructed entity’s life cycle-from feasibility and planning through the preparation of working documents, construction, maintenance, rehabilitation, and disposal.  
1.7 This classification is unsuitable for process applications or for preparing trade estimates.  
1.8 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system are not necessarily exact equivalents; therefore, to ensure conformance with the standard, each system shall be used independently of the other, and values from the two systems shall not be combined.  
1.9 This standard does not purport to address al...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The AHP method allows you to generate a single measure of desirability for project/product/process alternatives with respect to multiple attributes (qualitative and quantitative). By contrast, life-cycle cost (Practice E917), net savings (Practice E1074), savings-to-investment ratio (Practice E964), internal rate-of-return (Practice E1057), and payback (Practice E1121) methods all require you to put a monetary value on benefits and costs in order to include them in a measure of project/product/process worth.  
5.2 Use AHP to evaluate a finite and generally small set of discrete and predetermined options or alternatives. Specific AHP applications are ranking and choosing among alternatives. For example, rank alternative building locations with AHP to see how they measure up to one another, or use AHP to choose among building materials to see which is best for your application.  
5.3 Use AHP if no single alternative exhibits the most preferred available value or performance for all attributes. This is often the result of an underlying trade-off relationship among attributes. An example is the trade-off between low desired energy costs and large glass window areas (which may raise heating and cooling costs while lowering lighting costs).  
5.4 Use AHP to evaluate alternatives whose attributes are not all measurable in the same units. Also use AHP when performance relative to some or all of the attributes is impractical, impossible, or too costly to measure. For example, while life-cycle costs are directly measured in monetary units, the number and size of offices are measured in other units, and the public image of a building may not be practically measurable in any unit. To help you choose among candidate buildings with these diverse attributes, use AHP to evaluate your alternatives.  
5.5 The AHP method is well-suited for application to a variety of sustainability-related topics. Guide E2432 states when applying the concept of sustainability, it is necessary ...
SCOPE
1.1 This practice presents a procedure for calculating and interpreting AHP scores of a project’s/product’s/process’ total overall desirability when making capital investment decisions.3 Projects include design, construction, operation, and disposal of commercial and residential buildings and other engineered structures.4 Products include materials, components, systems, and equipment.5 Processes include procurement, materials management, work flow, fabrication and assembly, quality control, and services.  
1.2 In addition to monetary benefits and costs, the procedure allows for the consideration of characteristics or attributes which decision makers regard as important, but which are not readily expressed in monetary terms. Examples of such attributes that pertain to the selection among project/product/process alternatives are: a construction projects’s building alternatives whose nonmonetary attributes are location/accessibility, site security, maintainability, quality of the sound and visual environment, and image to the public and occupants; building products based on their economic and environmental performance; and sustainability-related issues for key construction processes that address environmental needs, while considering project safety, cost, and schedule.  
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Use this practice to organize information that describes new or existing buildings of any size. The concepts presented here can also be applied to other categories of construction where a standard corresponding to UNIFORMAT II does not yet exist.  
4.2 The hierarchical structure of UNIFORMAT II enables the user to focus on building elements in functionally consistent groups. It can be applied by an administrator initiating a data system as a facility standard, as well as a consultant reporting on building conditions.  
4.2.1 A consistent method of arrangement for subject matter expedites the preparation and use of source documents, and simplifies the process of comparing information from several sources.  
4.3 This practice is suitable for arranging the content of individual reports, managing physical files, as well as automated data applications. Personal computers operating commercially available software are able to meet the functional requirements of this practice.  
4.4 This practice provides a consistent and comprehensive outline suitable to track the evolution of specific building conditions in one or many buildings. It can be applied to historical building data as well as new information.  
4.5 Administration of this practice will reveal categories of building data that have been overlooked in prior data gathering efforts that did not rely on a systems approach. The comprehensive hierarchy of Systems and Elements, readily displays the amount and depth of information distributed among the categories and levels. The pattern of available information highlights voids among the categories. It is also possible to quickly focus on the quality and sufficiency of cataloged data to determine whether an appropriate level of detail exists to address the needs of decision makers.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers the organization of building information to support informed decision making. The kinds of data considered in this practice include text, numeric, and graphic data. The system of organization is applicable to a wide range of data collection and organization tasks from routine in-depth analysis of a single building, to situations where many buildings must be evaluated and prioritized in a short time frame.  
1.2 The organizational structure is based on Classification for Building Elements and Related Sitework—UNIFORMAT II (Classification E1557), a system which groups building elements according to the way buildings are constructed and function.  
1.3 The use of UNIFORMAT II provides a set of recognized summary levels that are relevant throughout the industries that design, construct, and manage buildings.  
1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The schedule beta (βs) approach produces informational elements: Overall (or composite) schedule beta (βs), schedule beta upside (βs+), and schedule beta downside (βs–)—representing the quantitative components, and the qualitative insight (“early warning”) into the propensity for directional schedule performance for individual schedule participants.  
5.1.1 The quantitative component of schedule beta (βs) (inclusive of the upside and downside subvariants) is an index value that depicts schedule participant’s magnitude and direction of movement as compared to the overall project at an assigned value of 1.0, for example, a βs = +2.5 connotes performance of a schedule participant that moves in the same direction as the collection of completed projects at a rate of 2.5 units (schedule days) for each single unit (schedule day) experienced at the overall project level.  
5.1.2 The qualitative component of schedule beta (βs) (inclusive of the upside and downside subvariants) provides insight as a cautionary and predictive signal depicting the ability for an individual schedule participant to perform in-keeping with the initially-established as-planned schedule duration(s).  
5.2 Schedule beta (βs) also depicts the overall status or health (performing well or not) of a market sector, location and/or trade. Consistent larger schedule beta (βs) values are indicative of external elements (risks) impacting all participants sharing common attribute(s) (that is, trade, location, market sector, etc.).  
5.3 Schedule beta (βs) measures current schedule participant performance. As a rolling value (for example, calculated for projects completed during the two most recently completed full calendar years), it depicts the schedule performance ability of the schedule participant. See Note 1.
Note 1: Schedule Data Source and Usage—Schedule beta (βs) (inclusive of the upside and downside subvariants) utilizes schedule data from any schedule calculation method that depicts individ...
SCOPE
1.1 This guide covers schedule beta (βs), which measures construction project participant schedule performance versus that of the overall completed project and is based on beta (β) from financial portfolio theory for measuring the correlation between individual stock performance and that of the overall stock market.2 By correlating the delta of actual activity performance (“as-built”) minus that originally scheduled (“as-planned”) to the delta of as-built minus as-planned for the overall completed project for a participant’s collection of projects over a specified period of time, a schedule performance index is established in a similar manner as the aforementioned beta (β) of an individual stock.  
1.2 Schedule beta (βs) measures, as a unitless index value, schedule participant (“subcontractor’s”) performance—ahead or behind—as-planned duration as correlated to its respective overall project’s schedule performance.  
1.3 Schedule beta (βs) is measured with input from at least two (2) independent (mutually exclusive) projects that have reached completion, within the defined period of observation.  
1.4 Schedule beta (βs) is measured across a standard predetermined period of time, in similar fashion to that of the insurance industry’s experience modification rate’s (EMR) most recent two (2) complete calendar years within the past thirty-six (36) months.  
1.5 Schedule beta (βs) evaluates schedule participant’s (“subcontractor’s”) most recent performance, not its complete history, such that is it indicative of current performance and contemporary influences—market, geographic, industry trade, etc.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.7 This internation...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Investments in projects supporting community resilience are characterized by uncertainties regarding the frequency and magnitude of natural, technological, and human-caused disruptions. Accounting for these low-probability, high-consequence events challenge traditional economic evaluation methods.  
5.2 The traditional approach to evaluating the benefit-cost of investment decisions routinely focus on measures directly tied to loss avoidance.  
5.3 Following this guide when performing an economic evaluation assures the user that relevant economic information, including information regarding uncertainties and indirect inputs, is considered for capital project facing possible disruptions from natural, technological, and human-caused hazards.  
5.4 Use this guide in the planning phases of community resilience plan development process. Consideration of risk mitigation choices early in the planning process allows both greater flexibility in addressing specific hazards and lower costs associated with their implementation.  
5.5 Use this guide to integrate community resilience plans with economic development, zoning, hazard mitigation, and other community planning activities that affect buildings, public works, and infrastructure systems.  
5.6 Use this guide to identify all relevant inputs—that is, costs and benefits (savings)—associated with construction, implementation, and use of the capital asset, over the lifetime of the asset. Relevant inputs include direct, indirect and externalities, and non-market values.  
5.7 Use this guide for economic evaluations based on Practices E917 (life-cycle costs), E964 (benefit-to-cost and savings-to-investment ratios), E1057 (internal rate of return and adjusted internal rate of return), E1074 (net benefits and net savings), E1121 (payback), E1699 (value engineering), and E1765 (analytical hierarchy process for multi-attribute decision analysis), and Guide E1369 (treatment of uncertainty).  
5.8 Use this guide in conjuncti...
SCOPE
1.1 This guide describes a generic economic methodology for evaluating investment decisions aimed to improve the ability of communities to adapt to, withstand, and quickly recover from, disruptive events. The methodology describes a framework for developing cost-effective community resilience strategies for new and existing constructed facilities—buildings, industrial facilities, and other critical infrastructure. This guide provides owners and managers of constructed facilities, architects, engineers, constructors, other providers of professional services for constructed facilities, and researchers and analysts with an approach for planning and comparing resilience strategies.  
1.2 This guide frames the economic decision process by identifying and comparing the relevant present and future streams of costs and benefits to a community—the latter realized through cost savings and damage loss avoidance—associated with new capital investment into resilience to those generated by the status-quo.  
1.3 This guide provides a means to increase the capacity of communities to objectively and effectively compare and contrast capital investment projects through consideration of benefits and costs while maintaining an awareness of system resilience. Topics related to non-market values and uncertainty are also explored.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Com...

SCOPE
1.1 This terminology relates to the economic evaluation of building construction as used in other standards under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E06 on Performance of Buildings, and it does not necessarily correspond to the terminology used in other areas of accounting and economics.  
1.2 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 As part of the VE/VA study, perform function analysis after the collection of relevant information and prior to the identification of alternatives.  
5.2 This practice provides a specific understanding of what must be accomplished and provides the basis for stimulating the creative phase of the value methodology. This is accomplished by naming and analyzing the functions and using the functions of the VE/VA study to generate ideas and alternative solutions.  
5.3 This practice establishes a communication format through which all stakeholders can understand the project, product, or process.  
5.4 This practice presents a method by which stakeholders’ needs and desires are compared to the cost to satisfy those needs and desires.  
5.4.1 Function cost data help the user identify the alternatives and their functions that are highly valued with respect to their cost, thereby targeting opportunities for increasing value.  
5.4.2 Targeting is done by identifying the low preference/high cost functions and high preference/low cost functions. These data will be used in the VE/VA study as a basis to create alternative solutions.  
5.5 This practice helps stakeholders to formulate a strategy to maximize values.  
5.6 Functions are also used to define criteria to compare alternatives.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers a logical structure for the function analysis of a project, product, or process.  
1.2 This practice provides a system to identify, define, and clearly communicate the purpose of a project, product, or process and the associated elements of the project, product, or process.  
1.3 This practice covers the relationship between the functions that must be satisfied and the resources for a project, product, or process to accomplish those functions.  
1.4 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses after SI units are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Significance:  
5.1.1 The application of elements (see 3.1.1 and Terminology E833) to the description and the summary and analysis of building construction cost provides a consistency, commonality, and utility through all stages of design that other forms of estimate presentation do not.  
5.1.2 This practice describes a simple format for elemental cost analysis presentation that is both valuable and informative when used during the various design stages of construction development.  
5.2 Use—Users include owners, developers, contractors, cost professionals, estimators, architects, engineers, quantity surveyors, facility managers, and others involved in property development, construction, maintenance, and management.  
5.2.1 Reporting—Cost reports structured by elements provide estimates, summaries, and analyses by applying “Cost to Function.” This application works whether the approach is “Design to Cost” or “Cost to Design.” Value analysis is greatly assisted through the allocation of estimated cost to elements.  
5.2.2 Controlling—Comparison of progressively more detailed estimates is simplified where cost is allocated to appropriate elements regardless of design or specification, permitting efficient review and checking of new estimates. Design estimating using elements allows for benchmarking and the setting of cost limits (baseline) for a building design from the outset, and also permits the establishment of an elemental cost plan (see 3.2.1). Baseline records and cost plans are accessed and compared with current reports.  
5.2.3 Recording—Historic and baseline cost records are easily kept for all forms of building construction, and in a format that can be used for the planning and design of future projects.  
5.2.4 Other Uses—Elemental summaries and analyses are equally useful in forensic estimating and in quantitative risk analysis.  
5.2.5 Relationship to “Trade” Estimating—Traditional trade (or construction) estimating summarizes cost to a pro...
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers the concurrent use of relevant ASTM standards for the preparation of elemental cost estimates, summaries, and analyses and specifically their presentation in a concise, consistent, and logical manner.  
1.2 While the style and directions use construction terms applied to buildings, the principles apply equally well to other forms of construction where appropriate elemental classifications exist.  
1.3 This practice is not an estimating manual, nor is it a guide to the skills and knowledge required of an estimator or other cost professional.
Note 1: The skills and knowledge acquired by a trained and experienced estimator are essential to the successful application of any elemental presentation format. They are the foundation of any estimate and the underpinning knowledge required when applying the elemental technique.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Use of this practice may increase performance in one or more areas including: cost control; resource allocation; schedule management; quality control; risk management; or safety. Perform VE/VA as early as possible in the life cycle of the focus of study, and anytime conditions change, to allow greatest flexibility and effectiveness of any recommended changes. However, VE/VA may be performed at any time during the planning, design, and implementation phases of a project, product, or process.  
5.2 Most effective applications of VE/VA are early in the design phase. Changes or redirection in the design can be accommodated without extensive redesign at this point, thereby saving the owner/user/stakeholder's time and money.  
5.3 Projects Related to the Construction of Buildings and Other Engineered Systems:  
5.3.1 During the earliest stages of design, refer to VE/VA as value planning. Use the procedure to analyze predesign documents, for example, program documents and space planning documents. At the predesign stage, perform VE/VA to define the project's functions, and to achieve consensus on the project's direction and approach by the project team, for example, the owner, the design professional,5 the user, and the construction manager. By participating in this early VE/VA exercise, members of the project team communicate their needs to the other team members and identify those needs in the common language of functions. By expressing the project in these terms early in the design process, the project team minimizes miscommunication and redesign, which are costly in both labor expenditures and schedule delays.  
5.3.2 Also perform VE/VA during schematic design (up to 15 % design completion), design development (up to 45 % design completion), and construction documents (up to 100 % design completion). Conduct VE/VA studies at several stages of design completion to define or confirm project functions, to verify technical and management approaches, to analyze sel...
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers a procedure for defining and satisfying the functions of a project, product, or process (hereafter referred to as focus of study). Projects include construction of commercial and residential buildings and other engineered systems.2 Products include components, systems and equipment.3 Processes include procurement, materials management, work flow, fabrication and assembly, quality control, and services.  
1.2 A multidisciplinary team uses the procedure to convert stakeholder constraints, needs, and desires into descriptions of functions and then relates these functions to resources.  
1.3 Examples of costs are all relevant costs over a designated study period, including the costs of obtaining funds, designing, purchasing/leasing, constructing/manufacturing/installing, operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing and disposing of the particular focus of study. While not the only criteria, cost is an important basis for comparison in a VE/VA study. Therefore, accurate and comprehensive cost data is an important element of the analysis.  
1.4 This is a procedure to develop alternatives that meet the functions of the focus of study. Estimate the costs for each alternative. Provide the owner/user/stakeholder with specific, technically accurate alternatives which can be implemented. The owner/user/stakeholder selects the alternative(s) that best satisfies their constraints, needs and desires.  
1.5 Apply this practice to an entire focus of study, or to any subsystem/element thereof. The user/owner/stakeholder can utilize the VE/VA procedure to select the element or scope of the study.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.7 This int...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 This classification defines building elements as major components common to most buildings. The classification is the common thread linking activities and participants in a building project from initial planning through operations, maintenance, and disposal.  
4.2 The users of UNIFORMAT II include owners, developers, facilities programmers, cost planners, estimators, schedulers, architects and engineers, specification writers, operating and maintenance staff, manufacturers, and educators.  
4.3 Use this classification when doing the following:5  
4.3.1 Structuring costs on an elemental basis for economic evaluations (Practices E917, E964, E1057, E1074, E1121, and E1804) early in the design process. Using UNIFORMAT II helps reduce the cost of early analysis and contributes to substantial design and operational savings before decisions have been made that limit options for potential savings.  
4.3.2 Estimating and controlling costs during planning, design, and construction. Use UNIFORMAT II to prepare budgets and to establish elemental cost plans before design begins. The project manager uses these to control project cost, time, and quality, and to set design-to-cost targets. See Appendix X2 for an example of a UNIFORMAT II building elemental design cost estimate.  
4.3.3 Conducting value engineering workshops. Use UNIFORMAT II as a checklist to ensure that alternatives for all elements of significant cost in the building project are analyzed in the creativity phase of the job plan. Also, use the elemental cost data to expedite the development of cost models for building systems.  
4.3.4 Developing initial project master schedules. Since projects are built element by element, UNIFORMAT II is an appropriate basis for preparing construction schedules at the start of the design process.  
4.3.5 Performing risk analyses. Simulation is one technique (Practice E1369) for developing probability distributions of building costs when evaluating the economic risk in u...
SCOPE
1.1 This classification establishes a classification of building elements and related sitework. Elements, as defined here, are major components common to most buildings. Elements usually perform a given function, regardless of the design specification, construction method, or materials used. The classification serves as a consistent reference for analysis, evaluation, and monitoring during the feasibility, planning, and design stages of buildings. Using UNIFORMAT II ensures consistency in the economic evaluation of buildings projects over time and from project to project. It also enhances reporting at all stages in construction—from feasibility and planning through the preparation of working documents, construction, maintenance, rehabilitation, and disposal.  
1.2 This classification applies to buildings and related site work. It excludes specialized process equipment related to a building’s functional use but does include furnishings and equipment.  
1.3 The classification incorporates three hierarchical levels described as Levels 1, 2, and 3. Appendix X1 presents a more detailed suggested Level 4 classification of sub-elements.  
1.4 UNIFORMAT II is an elemental format similar to the original UNIFORMAT2 elemental classification. UNIFORMAT II differs from the original UNIFORMAT, however, in that it takes into consideration a broader range of building types and has been updated to categorize building elements as they are in current building practice.  
1.5 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Standard practices for measuring the economic performance of investments in buildings and building systems have been published by ASTM. A computer program that produces economic measures consistent with these practices is available.5 The computer program is described in Appendix X3. Discount Factor Tables has been published by ASTM to facilitate computing measures of economic performance for most of the practices.  
5.2 Investments in long-lived projects, such as the erection of new constructed facilities or additions and alterations to existing constructed facilities, are characterized by uncertainties regarding project life, operation and maintenance costs, revenues, and other factors that affect project economics. Since future values of these variable factors are generally unknown, it is difficult to make reliable economic evaluations.  
5.3 The traditional approach to uncertainty in project investment analysis is to apply economic methods of project evaluation to best-guess estimates of project input variables, as if they were certain estimates, and then to present results in a single-value, deterministic fashion. When projects are evaluated without regard to uncertainty of inputs to the analysis, decision-makers may have insufficient information to measure and evaluate the financial risk of investing in a project having a different outcome from what is expected.  
5.4 To make reliable economic evaluations, treatment of uncertainty and risk is particularly important for projects affected by natural and man-made hazards that occur infrequently, but have significant consequences.  
5.5 Following this guide when performing an economic evaluation assures the user that relevant economic information, including information regarding uncertain input variables, is considered for projects affected by natural and man-made hazards.  
5.6 Use this guide in the project initiation and planning phases of the project delivery process. Consideration of alternative combin...
SCOPE
1.1 This guide describes a generic framework for developing a cost-effective risk mitigation plan for new and existing constructed facilities—buildings, industrial facilities, and other critical infrastructure. This guide provides owners and managers of constructed facilities, architects, engineers, constructors, other providers of professional services for constructed facilities, and researchers an approach for formulating and evaluating combinations of risk mitigation strategies.  
1.2 This guide insures that the combinations of mitigation strategies are formulated so that they can be rigorously analyzed with economic tools. Economic tools include evaluation methods, standards that support and guide the application of those methods, and software for implementing the evaluation methods.  
1.3 The generic framework described in this guide helps decision-makers assess the likelihood that their facility and its contents will be damaged from natural and man-made hazards; identify engineering, management, and financial strategies for abating the risk of damages; and use standardized economic evaluation methods to select the most cost-effective combination of risk mitigation strategies to protect their facility.  
1.4 The purpose of the risk mitigation plan is to provide the most cost-effective reduction in personal injuries, financial losses, and damages to new and existing constructed facilities. Thus, the risk mitigation plan incorporates perspectives from multiple stakeholders—owners and managers, occupants and users, and other affected parties—in addressing natural and man-made hazards.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.6 This international standa...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This guide reduces the time and effort to communicate the findings of project impact studies and improves the quality of communication between those who measure economic impacts and those who evaluate and interpret them.  
5.2 Following the guide assures the user that relevant economic information on the project is included in a summary format that is understandable to both the preparer and user.  
5.3 Since the standard guide provides a consistent approach to reporting the economic impacts of projects, it facilitates the comparison of economic studies across projects and over time.  
5.4 The guide focuses on projects in construction and building-related research. It applies to government as well as private projects. And while the examples treat building-related projects, the guide is applicable to non-building-related projects as well.  
5.5 Building-sector users of this guide include building owners and managers, private-sector construction companies, research groups in building and construction industry trade associations, parties to public-sector construction projects, and government laboratories conducting building-related research.  
5.6 Use the guide to summarize the results of economic impact studies that use Practices E917 (Life-Cycle Costs), E964 (Benefit-to-Cost and Savings-to-Investment Ratios), E1057 (Internal Rate of Return and Adjusted Internal Rate of Return), E1074 (Net Benefits and Net Savings), E1121 (Payback), E1699 (Value Engineering/Value Analysis), and E1765 (Analytical Hierarchy Process for Multiattribute Decision Analysis).  
5.7 Use this guide in conjunction with Guide E1369 to summarize the results of economic impact studies involving natural or man-made hazards, or both, that occur infrequently but have significant consequences.  
5.8 Use the guide to summarize the impacts of projects that affect exclusively initial costs, benefits, or savings, as well as projects that affect life-cycle costs, benefits, or savings.
Note 1: Ex...
SCOPE
1.1 This guide covers a generic format for summarizing the economic impacts of building-related projects.  
1.2 The guide provides technical persons, analysts, and researchers a tool for communicating project impacts in a condensed format to management and non-technical persons.  
1.3 The generic format described in this guide calls for a description of the significance of the project, the analysis strategy, a listing of data and assumptions, and a presentation of the key economic measures of project impact.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The IRR method has been used traditionally in finance and economics to measure the percentage yield on investment.  
5.1.1 The IRR method is appropriate in most cases for evaluating whether a given building or building system will be economically efficient, that is, whether its time-adjusted benefits will exceed its time-adjusted costs over the period of concern to the decision-maker. However, it has deficiencies that limit its usefulness in choosing among projects competing for a limited budget.  
5.2 The AIRR method is a measure of the overall rate of return that an investor can expect from an investment over a designated study period. It is appropriate both for evaluating whether a given building or building system will be economically efficient and for choosing among alternatives competing for a limited budget.  
5.2.1 The AIRR method overcomes some, but not all, of the deficiencies of the IRR. The AIRR is particularly recommended over the IRR for allocating limited funding among competing projects.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers a procedure for calculating and interpreting the internal rate of return (IRR) and adjusted internal rate of return (AIRR) measures in the evaluation of building designs, systems, and equipment.  
1.2 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Investments in long-lived projects such as buildings are characterized by uncertainties regarding project life, operation and maintenance costs, revenues, and other factors that affect project economics. Since future values of these variable factors are generally not known, it is difficult to make reliable economic evaluations.  
5.2 The traditional approach to project investment analysis has been to apply economic methods of project evaluation to best-guess estimates of project input variables as if they were certain estimates and then to present results in single-value, deterministic terms. When projects are evaluated without regard to uncertainty of inputs to the analysis, decision-makers may have insufficient information to measure and evaluate the risk of investing in a project having a different outcome from what is expected.  
5.3 Risk analysis is the body of theory and practice that has evolved to help decision-makers assess their risk exposures and risk attitudes so that the investment that is the best bet for them can be selected.
Note 1: The decision-maker is the individual or group of individuals responsible for the investment decision. For example, the decision-maker may be the chief executive officer or the board of directors.  
5.4 Uncertainty and risk are defined as follows. Uncertainty (or certainty) refers to a state of knowledge about the variable inputs to an economic analysis. If the decision-maker is unsure of input values, there is uncertainty. If the decision-maker is sure, there is certainty. Risk refers either to risk exposure or risk attitude.  
5.4.1 Risk exposure is the probability of investing in a project that will have a less favorable economic outcome than what is desired (the target) or is expected.  
5.4.2 Risk attitude, also called risk preference, is the willingness of a decision-maker to take a chance or gamble on an investment of uncertain outcome. The implications of decision-makers having different risk attitudes i...
SCOPE
1.1 This guide covers techniques for treating uncertainty in input values to an economic analysis of a building investment project. It also recommends techniques for evaluating the risk that a project will have a less favorable economic outcome than what is desired or expected.2  
1.2 The techniques include breakeven analysis, sensitivity analysis, risk-adjusted discounting, the mean-variance criterion and coefficient of variation, decision analysis, simulation, and stochastic dominance.  
1.3 The techniques can be used with economic methods that measure economic performance, such as life-cycle cost analysis, net benefits, the benefit-to-cost ratio, internal rate of return, and payback.  
1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 JPM produces two measurements: construction production rate and productivity.  
5.1.1 JPM measures the overall production rate by comparing CPIP to the time elapsed in the construction schedule.  
5.1.2 JPM measures overall job productivity through a comparison of labor usage to a reference point.  
5.2 JPM issues early warning signals for construction.  
5.2.1 JPM identifies productivity deviations in the form of any gains or losses in productivity, and anomalies indicating a special cause, from the productivity reference point.  
5.2.2 JPM measures the productivity changes to individual building elements (according to the UNIFORMAT II format for organizing building data, in Classification E1557) with the same methodology used for overall job productivity measurement.  
5.2.3 JPM measures ongoing changes in labor usage.  
5.3 JPM measures productivity wherever the labor is used in construction by:  
5.3.1 Any contractor or construction manager directly or indirectly responsible for the productivity of the labor and its usage.  
5.3.2 Any contractor or construction manager conducting self performance on any portion of the construction job.  
5.3.3 Any contractor or construction manager supervising labor performance on any portion of a construction job.
SCOPE
1.1 Based on the UNIFORMAT II format for organizing building data, established in Classification E1557, and depending on the level where measurement is applied (industry, total job, or building element), JPM measures construction productivity at three levels: task, project, and industry (shown in Fig. 1). By comparing labor hours used against CPIP, JPM allows for unified measurement of established building elements (according to the UNIFORMAT II format. This practice establishes a process for measuring construction job productivity by comparing labor usage to CPIP.
FIG. 1 Measurement of Productivity at the Industry, Project, and Task Level  
1.2 JPM measures labor productivity of the installation processes on a construction job.2  
1.3 CPIP is measured with input from the labor performing the installation, utilizing elements of statistical process control (SPC) and industrial engineering.  
1.4 JPM takes into account the difficulty of installation at any given point on a job.  
1.5 JPM evaluates relative productivity changes using trend monitoring.  
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Standard practices for measuring the economic performance of investments in buildings and building systems have been published by ASTM. A computer program that produces economic measures consistent with these practices is available.4 Discount Factor Tables has been published by ASTM to facilitate computing measures of performance for most of the practices.  
4.2 This guide can be used to: (1) identify types of building design and system decisions that require economic analysis; (2) match the technically appropriate economic methods with the decisions; and (3) locate the methods in the ASTM practices and adjuncts listed in Section 2.  
4.3 More than one method can be technically appropriate for many building decisions. Therefore the choice in practice of which technically appropriate economic method to use for evaluating a particular building decision will often depend on the perspective of the user. Some examples of factors that influence the user are: (1) ease of applying the methods, (2) level of familiarity of the user with the methods, (3) preference of the user for different methods, and (4) presence of budget limitations for the projects.  
4.4 This guide identifies some features and limitations of the methods that might influence users' choices under varying conditions.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide identifies types of building design and building system decisions that require economic analysis and recommends ASTM practices, adjuncts, and computer programs that may be used to implement the appropriate economic methods for each decision type.  
1.2 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 This classification defines building elements as major assemblies, components, and attributes common to real property assets and sitework. Elements perform given functions, regardless of the design specification, construction method, materials or products used. (See Terminology E1480, Classifications E1557 and E1670, and Practice E2675.)  
4.2 The classification aligns products to specific functional elements and/or sub-element to enable the development of specialized maintenance procedures. (See Practices E2452, E2604, and E2675.)  
4.3 This alignment will help streamline warehousing requirements and enable functional business units to use a common nomenclature. (See Terminology E1480 and Practice E2452.)  
4.4 The classification will lead to more effective life cycle management of the operation, maintenance and cost of the asset by linking activities and participants in an asset‘s full life-cycle, from initial planning through construction, operations, maintenance, repair, modernization, and disposal. (See Practices E917 and E1334, Classification E1670, Practice E1946, and Guide E2506). See Fig. 1 for life cycle application of FACTS.
FIG. 1 Life Cycle Application of FACTS  
4.5 The benefits of the life cycle application of FACTS are:  
4.5.1 Maintain project tracking and transparency through all phases of project lifecycle.  
4.5.2 Continue to develop requirements and information tracked as processes evolve.  
4.5.3 Inform future projects, policies, processes, and guidance with lessons learned/best practices.  
4.6 The users of this classification include owners, architects and engineers, developers, property managers, asset managers, project managers, operation and maintenance staff, cost estimators, construction contractors, and database administrators. (See Guide E1369, Terminology E1480, Guide E2156, and Practice E2812.)  
4.7 Application of this classification (FACTS) provides for value-added activities that cannot be derived from using a solel...
SCOPE
1.1 This standard (FACTS) establishes a classification of building and sitework elements and components, and their associated functions, attributes, and products. Elements, as defined here, are major assemblies and components common to buildings and sitework. Elements usually perform given functions, regardless of the design specification, construction method, or materials used. The attribute classification will lead to more effective management of the operation, maintenance, and life cycle cost of the asset.  
1.2 The classification:  
1.2.1 Incorporates Levels 1, 2, and 3 from Classification E1557:
1.2.1.1 Major Group Element (Classification E1557 Level 1).
1.2.1.2 Group Element (Classification E1557 Level 2).
1.2.1.3 Element (Classification E1557 Level 3).  
1.2.2 Establishes sub-elements at Levels 4 and beyond:
1.2.2.1 Because the main objective is content and not specifically rigid structure, levels beyond those established in Classification E1557 are not balanced.
1.2.2.2 Products and characteristics are introduced at varying levels, depending on the appropriate element and elemental function.
1.2.2.3 Functional elements are aligned with products and product characteristics.  
1.2.3 Incorporates the noun-adjective-attribute relationship between elements, elemental function and the associated products and characteristics.  
1.2.4 This approach identifies specific products that will support the element at its functional level. However, the classification permits the introduction of additional products necessitated due to higher order requirements, such as but not limited to:
(1) Asset type
(2) Asset function
(3) Asset conditions
(4) Building code requirements  
1.3 The classification seeks to define a larger universe of attributes, products, and characteristics that may define its functional use and life cycle cost.  
1.4 The classification also provides a logical database structure for the...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The BCR and SIR provide measures of economic performance in a single number that indicates whether a proposed building or building system is preferred over a mutually exclusive alternative that serves as the base for computing the ratio. It may be contrasted with the life-cycle cost (LCC) method that requires two LCC measures to evaluate the economic performance of a building or building system—one for each alternative.  
5.2 The ratio indicates discounted dollar benefits (or savings) per dollar of discounted costs.  
5.3 The BCR or SIR can be used to determine if a given building or building system is economic relative to the alternative of not having it.  
5.4 The BCR or SIR computed on increments of benefits (or savings) and costs can be used to determine if one design or size of a building or system is more economic than another.  
5.5 The BCR or SIR can be used as an aid to select the economically efficient set of projects among many competing for limited funding. The efficient set of projects will maximize aggregate net benefits or net savings obtainable for the budget.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers a procedure for calculating and interpreting benefit-to-cost ratios (BCR) and savings-to-investment ratios (SIR) as an aid for making building-related decisions.  
1.2 A basic premise of the BCR and SIR methods is that future as well as present benefits and costs arising from a decision are important to that decision, and, if measurable in dollars, should be included in calculating the BCR and SIR.  
1.3 Dollar amounts used to calculate BCR and SIR are all discounted, that is, expressed in time-equivalent dollars, either in present value or uniform annual value terms.  
1.4 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Program and project estimates are a necessary part of planning and implementing any program of work.  
4.2 These estimates are used by persons involved in the planning and management of programs and projects. They are an essential part of establishing initial budgets and provide a framework for continuing updates permitting cost control through the life of a program and its various projects.  
4.3 Users include owners, developers, facilities programmers, financial managers, company controllers, executives, program managers, project managers, and specialist cost planners including life cycle cost analysts.  
4.4 They are also of use in risk management, and also provide a consistent list of major activity phases for use in program and project time schedules.
SCOPE
1.1 This classification establishes a classification of cost summaries for use when estimating program and project costs.  
1.2 This classification can be applied to construction programs and projects that include one or more construction work projects.  
1.3 This classification is not based on permanent physical elements of construction (as defined and classified in Classification E1557 for example); rather, the classification items are cost components common to most program and project estimates.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The NB (NS) method provides a measure of the economic performance of an investment, taking into account all relevant monetary values associated with that investment over the investor’s study period. The NB (NS) measure can be expressed in either present value or equivalent annual value terms, taking into account the time value of money.  
5.2 The NB (NS) method is used to decide if a given project is cost effective and which size or design for a given purpose is most cost effective when no budget constraint exists.  
5.3 The NB (NS) method can also be used to determine the most cost effective combination of projects for a limited budget; that is, the combination of projects having the greatest aggregate NB (NS) and fitting within the budget constraint.  
5.4 Use the NB method when the focus is on the benefits rather than project costs.  
5.5 Use the NS method when the focus in on project savings (that is, reductions in project costs).
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers a recommended procedure for calculating and interpreting the net benefits (NB) and net savings (NS) methods in the evaluation of building designs and systems.  
1.2 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The payback method is part of a family of economic evaluation methods that provide measures of economic performance of an investment. Included in this family of evaluation methods are life-cycle costing, benefit-to-cost and savings-to-investment ratios, net benefits, and internal rates of return.  
5.2 The payback method accounts for all monetary values associated with an investment up to the time at which cumulative net benefits, discounted to present value, just pay off initial investment costs.  
5.3 Use the method to find if a project recovers its investment cost and other accrued costs within its service life or within a specified maximum acceptable payback period (MAPP) less than its service life. It is important to note that the decision to use the payback method should be made with care. (See Section 11 on Limitations.)
SCOPE
1.1 This practice provides a recommended procedure for calculating and applying the payback method in evaluating building designs and building systems.  
1.2 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Use of this classification will improve communication among all the stakeholders involved with preparing, evaluating, and using cost estimates.  
4.2 The various parties that use cost estimates often misinterpret the quality and value of the information available to prepare cost estimates, the various methods employed during the estimating process, the accuracy level expected from estimates, and the level of risk associated with estimates.  
4.3 This classification applies the degree of project definition as the primary characteristic for determining an estimate’s classification.  
4.4 Using this classification will help those involved with project estimates to avoid misinterpretation of the various classes of cost estimates and to avoid their misapplication and misrepresentation. Improving communications about estimate classifications reduces business costs and project cycle times by avoiding inappropriate business and financial decisions, actions, delays, or disputes caused by misunderstandings of cost estimates and what they are expected to represent.  
4.5 This classification is intended to be generic and so provide a system for the classification of cost estimates in any industry. There are also references to specific industries, for cost estimate classification as applied in: AACE International, Process Industry 18R-97, and AACE International, Building/General Construction Industry 56R-08.  
4.6 Estimate classifications provide valuable additional reporting information when used as an adjunct to Practice E1804.
SCOPE
1.1 This classification provides a generic classification system for cost estimates and provides guidelines for applying the classification to cost estimates.  
1.2 This classification maps the phases and stages of cost estimating to a generic maturity and quality matrix, keyed to a degree of project definition, that can be applied across a wide variety of industries.  
1.3 The Cost Estimate Classification System has been developed in a way that:  
1.3.1 provides a common understanding of the concepts involved with classifying cost estimates;  
1.3.2 defines and correlates the major characteristics used in classifying cost estimates, and;  
1.3.3 uses the degree of project definition as the primary characteristic used to categorize estimate classes.  
1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 This classification builds on the concepts and organizational framework first established in Classification E1557. This classification describes bridge elements that are major components of most highway, railroad, and pedestrian bridges. The elemental classification is the common thread linking activities and participants in a bridge project from initial planning through operations, maintenance, and disposal.
Note 1: As this classification refers solely to permanent, physical parts of any construction, two additional classifications, Classifications E2083 and E2168, need to be included when calculating construction cost. These standards provide for the inclusion of construction enabling, temporary, and risk mitigation cost figures. Procedures for reporting all these figures are described in Practices E1804 and E2514 and Classification E2516. While these three latter standards were primarily written for building construction, they are nonetheless appropriate and readily applied to other forms of construction as well.  
4.2 The Users of Bridge UNIFORMAT II Include:  
4.2.1 Financial and Investment—Typically owners, developers, bankers, lenders, accountants, and financial managers.  
4.2.2 Implementation—Primarily project managers; facilities programmers; designers, including engineers; and project controls specialists, including cost planners, estimators, schedulers, specification writers, and risk analysts.  
4.2.3 Facilities Management—Comprising property portfolio managers, operating staff, and maintenance staff.  
4.2.4 Others—Public officials, manufacturers, educators, students, and other project stakeholders.  
4.3 Apply This Classification When Undertaking the Following Work on Bridges:5  
4.3.1 Financing and Investing:
4.3.1.1 Structuring costs on an elemental basis for economic evaluations (Guide E1185 and Practices E917, E964, E1057, E1074, E1121, and E1804) early in the design process helps reduce the cost of early financial analysis and ca...
SCOPE
1.1 This standard establishes a classification of bridge elements within the UNIFORMAT II family of elemental classifications. It covers most highway bridges, railroad bridges, and pedestrian bridges.  
1.2 UNIFORMAT II classifications have an elemental format similar to the original UNIFORMAT2 building elemental classification. However, the title UNIFORMAT II differs from the original in that it now takes into consideration a wide range of constructed entities that collectively form the built environment.  
1.3 Elements, as defined here and in other UNIFORMAT II Classifications, are major physical components that are common within constructed entities. Elements perform their given function(s), regardless of the design specification, construction method, or materials used.  
1.4 This elemental classification serves as a consistent reference for analysis, evaluation, and monitoring during the feasibility, planning, and design stages when constructing bridges.  
1.5 Using UNIFORMAT II elemental classifications ensures a consistency in the economic evaluation of construction projects over time and from project to project.  
1.6 UNIFORMAT II classifications also enhance reporting at all stages of a constructed entity’s life cycle—from feasibility and planning through the preparation of working documents, construction, maintenance, rehabilitation, and disposal.  
1.7 This classification is unsuitable for process applications or for preparing trade estimates.  
1.8 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system are not necessarily exact equivalents; therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other, and values from the two systems shall not be combined.  
1.9 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to esta...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 This classification identifies and hierarchically arranges the work elements, activities, and tasks required for environmental projects. This classification increases the level of communication and allows for more effective exchange of cost and performance data between environmental projects.  
4.2 This classification defines environmental work elements as major components of environmental projects. It is the common thread linking activities and participants in an environmental project from initial planning through operations and maintenance, D&D, and SLTM.  
4.3 The users of ECES include program and project managers, cost estimators, and cost analysts in both the public and private sector.  
4.4 This classification uses an increased level of standardization, uniformity, and consistency that provides a common basis for comparing, analyzing, and calibrating cost data. This classification can also be used as a checklist of project activities to be completed.  
4.5 Use this classification when:  
4.5.1 Developing a company-specific Code of Accounts (COAs) for capturing and reporting cost early in the project development for more effective project controls and management. COA is a logical breakdown of a project into controllable elements for the purpose of cost collection, control, and reporting. COA is organized at lower detailed levels that summarize to higher levels and is company or site, or both, and project-specific.  
4.5.2 Developing a work breakdown structure (WBS) early in the project development for proper management of the project. The WBS provides a framework for managing the cost, schedule, and performance objectives of a project. This framework allows the project to be separated into logical components and makes the relationship of the components clear. The WBS defines the project in terms of hierarchically related action and product-oriented elements. Each element provides logical summary points for assessing technical accomplishments and for ...
SCOPE
1.1 This standard establishes a classification of the comprehensive hierarchical list of elements for life-cycle environmental work. The classification is based on the Interagency Environmental Cost Element Structure (ECES).2 Elements, as defined here, are major components common to environmental projects.3 The elements represent the life-cycle activities for environmental projects regardless of the project design specification, construction method, technology type, or materials used. The classification serves as a consistent reference for cost estimating, analysis, and monitoring during the various phases of the project life cycle. Using ECES ensures consistency, over time and from project to project, in the cost management and performance measurement of environmental projects. It also enhances reporting at all phases of a project, from assessment and studies through design, construction, operations and maintenance (O&M), and surveillance and long-term monitoring (SLTM).  
1.2 This classification applies to all environmental work, including environmental restoration, waste management, decontamination and decommissioning (D&D), surveillance and long-term monitoring, and technology development.  
1.3 The use of this classification increases the level of standardization, uniformity, and consistency of collected environmental project costs. Such uniformity and standardization allows for ease of understanding project costs, provides a common “cost language” for sharing and comparing cost information, and allows for easier analysis and calibration of cost data. This standard classification can be used as a checklist of activities to be completed in environmental projects.  
1.4 Guide E2637 is intended to facilitate the application of the ECES to any environmental remediation project, without regard to project size.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on ...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 In addition to its cost management and project management functions, the ECES can also be used to support a number of other program and project functions. These functions include:  
5.1.1 Bid solicitation, collection, and evaluation;  
5.1.2 Communicating project data between installations, complexes, agencies, and industry;  
5.1.3 Providing a project checklist;  
5.1.4 Cost and schedule estimating;  
5.1.5 Historical cost/schedule data collection;  
5.1.6 Historical project data collection (for example, technology deployments, project conditions);  
5.1.7 Validating and calibrating cost estimates and software tools; and  
5.1.8 Establishing and disseminating best practices and lessons learned.  
5.2 Several government agencies are already incorporating this structure into existing and future cost estimating models, databases, and other similar software tools and systems.
SCOPE
1.1 The Environmental Cost Element Structure (ECES) covered by Classification E2150 (and Adjunct E2150) provides a consistent and comprehensive structure across all phases of environmental remediation projects and is a tool to improve the cost management of those projects. This guide is intended to facilitate the application of the ECES to any environmental remediation project, without regard to project size.  
1.2 Classification E2150 establishes the broad, top-level framework for environmental remediation projects by providing a hierarchical list of project elements to two levels of detail. Its associated Adjunct E2150 supports the top-level structure by providing more detailed elements and definitions of the ECES to three additional levels of detail. Although it is assumed that the user is familiar with Classification E2150, much of the content of the classification is repeated in this guide to relieve the user of the burden of back-and-forth referencing during use. It is assumed, however, that all users of this guide will have at hand both Classification E2150 and the Adjunct E2150 during project planning.  
1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

ABSTRACT
This standard covers a classification for field requirements, office overhead, and profit for use in construction estimating. This classification is common to all forms of construction, and its components are an integral part of any construction cost estimate. The classification serves as a consistent reference for analysis, evaluation, and monitoring during the feasibility, planning, design, and construction phases of building. This standard also ensures consistency in the economic evaluation of construction work across time and from project to project, which enhances reporting at all stages in construction, from feasibility and planning through the preparation of working documents, construction, maintenance, rehabilitation, and disposal. This classification is not based on permanent physical elements of construction. Rather, the classification items are major, non-permanent, cost components common to all construction work. They perform the same function and provide for similar needs regardless of the design, specification, construction method, or materials used in the physical construction. The basis of classification and description of field requirements, description of office overhead and profit individual element are also detailed.
SCOPE
1.1 This standard covers a classification for field requirements, office overhead, and profit for use in construction estimating. This classification is common to all forms of construction, and its components are an integral part of any construction cost estimate. The classification serves as a consistent reference for analysis, evaluation, and monitoring during the feasibility, planning, design, and construction phases of building. Used in conjunction with UNIFORMAT II and other elemental classifications, including Classification E2168, it also ensures consistency in the economic evaluation of construction work across time and from project to project. Through consistency in estimating and cost recording it enhances reporting at all stages in construction—from feasibility and planning through the preparation of working documents, construction, maintenance, rehabilitation, and disposal—and is a necessary part of the reporting process described in Practice E1804.  
1.2 This classification applies to all construction work.  
1.3 This classification is not based on permanent physical elements of construction (as defined and classified in Classification E1557). Rather, the classification items are major, non-permanent, cost components common to all construction work. They perform the same function and provide for similar needs regardless of the design, specification, construction method, or materials used in the physical construction.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Measuring cost risk enables owners of buildings and other constructed projects, architects, engineers, and contractors to measure and evaluate the cost risk exposures of their construction projects.3 Specifically, cost risk analysis (CRA) helps answer the following questions:  
5.1.1 What are the probabilities for the construction contract to be bid above or below the estimated value?  
5.1.2 How low or high can the total project cost be?  
5.1.3 What is the appropriate amount of contingency to use?  
5.1.4 What cost elements have the greatest impact on the project’s cost risk exposure?  
5.2 CRA can be applied to a project's contract cost, construction cost (contract cost plus construction change orders), and project cost (construction cost plus owner's cost), depending on the users’ perspectives and needs. This practice shall refer to these different terms generally as “project cost.”
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers a procedure for measuring cost risk for buildings and building systems and other constructed projects, using the Monte Carlo simulation technique as described in Guide E1369.  
1.2 A computer program is required for the Monte Carlo simulation. This can be one of the commercially available software programs for cost risk analysis, or one constructed by the user.  
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Investments in projects supporting community resilience are characterized by uncertainties regarding the frequency and magnitude of natural, technological, and human-caused disruptions. Accounting for these low-probability, high-consequence events challenge traditional economic evaluation methods.  
5.2 The traditional approach to evaluating the benefit-cost of investment decisions routinely focus on measures directly tied to loss avoidance.  
5.3 Following this guide when performing an economic evaluation assures the user that relevant economic information, including information regarding uncertainties and indirect inputs, is considered for capital project facing possible disruptions from natural, technological, and human-caused hazards.  
5.4 Use this guide in the planning phases of community resilience plan development process. Consideration of risk mitigation choices early in the planning process allows both greater flexibility in addressing specific hazards and lower costs associated with their implementation.  
5.5 Use this guide to integrate community resilience plans with economic development, zoning, hazard mitigation, and other community planning activities that affect buildings, public works, and infrastructure systems.  
5.6 Use this guide to identify all relevant inputs—that is, costs and benefits (savings)—associated with construction, implementation, and use of the capital asset, over the lifetime of the asset. Relevant inputs include direct, indirect and externalities, and non-market values.  
5.7 Use this guide for economic evaluations based on Practices E917 (life-cycle costs), E964 (benefit-to-cost and savings-to-investment ratios), E1057 (internal rate of return and adjusted internal rate of return), E1074 (net benefits and net savings), E1121 (payback), E1699 (value engineering), and E1765 (analytical hierarchy process for multi-attribute decision analysis), and Guide E1369 (treatment of uncertainty).  
5.8 Use this guide in conjuncti...
SCOPE
1.1 This guide describes a generic economic methodology for evaluating investment decisions aimed to improve the ability of communities to adapt to, withstand, and quickly recover from, disruptive events. The methodology describes a framework for developing cost-effective community resilience strategies for new and existing constructed facilities—buildings, industrial facilities, and other critical infrastructure. This guide provides owners and managers of constructed facilities, architects, engineers, constructors, other providers of professional services for constructed facilities, and researchers and analysts with an approach for planning and comparing resilience strategies.  
1.2 This guide frames the economic decision process by identifying and comparing the relevant present and future streams of costs and benefits to a community—the latter realized through cost savings and damage loss avoidance—associated with new capital investment into resilience to those generated by the status-quo.  
1.3 This guide provides a means to increase the capacity of communities to objectively and effectively compare and contrast capital investment projects through consideration of benefits and costs while maintaining an awareness of system resilience. Topics related to non-market values and uncertainty are also explored.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Com...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 LCC analysis is an economic method for evaluating a project or project alternatives over a designated study period. The method entails computing the LCC for alternative building designs or system specifications having the same purpose and then comparing them to determine which has the lowest LCC over the study period.  
5.2 The LCC method is particularly suitable for determining whether the higher initial cost of a building or building system is economically justified by reductions in future costs (for example, operating, maintenance, repair, or replacement costs) when compared with an alternative that has a lower initial cost but higher future costs. If a building design or system specification has both a lower initial cost and lower future costs relative to an alternative, an LCC analysis is not needed to show that the former is the economically preferable choice.  
5.3 If an investment project is not essential to the building operation (for example, replacement of existing single-pane windows with new double-pane windows), the project must be compared against the “do nothing” alternative (that is, keeping the single pane windows) in order to determine if it is cost effective. Typically the “do nothing” alternative entails no initial investment cost but has higher future costs than the proposed project.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice establishes a procedure for evaluating the life-cycle cost (LCC) of a building or building system and comparing the LCCs of alternative building designs or systems that satisfy the same functional requirements.  
1.2 The LCC method measures, in present-value or annual-value terms, the sum of all relevant costs associated with owning and operating a building or building system over a specified time period.  
1.3 The basic premise of the LCC method is that to an investor or decision maker all costs arising from an investment decision are potentially important to that decision, including future as well as present costs. Applied to buildings or building systems, the LCC encompasses all relevant costs over a designated study period, including the costs of designing, purchasing/leasing, constructing/installing, operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing, and disposing of a particular building design or system.  
1.4 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 LCC analysis is an economic method for evaluating a project or project alternatives over a designated study period. The method entails computing the LCC for alternative building designs or system specifications having the same purpose and then comparing them to determine which has the lowest LCC over the study period.  
5.2 The LCC method is particularly suitable for determining whether the higher initial cost of a building or building system is economically justified by reductions in future costs (for example, operating, maintenance, repair, or replacement costs) when compared with an alternative that has a lower initial cost but higher future costs. If a building design or system specification has both a lower initial cost and lower future costs relative to an alternative, an LCC analysis is not needed to show that the former is the economically preferable choice.  
5.3 If an investment project is not essential to the building operation (for example, replacement of existing single-pane windows with new double-pane windows), the project must be compared against the “do nothing” alternative (that is, keeping the single pane windows) in order to determine if it is cost effective. Typically the “do nothing” alternative entails no initial investment cost but has higher future costs than the proposed project.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice establishes a procedure for evaluating the life-cycle cost (LCC) of a building or building system and comparing the LCCs of alternative building designs or systems that satisfy the same functional requirements.  
1.2 The LCC method measures, in present-value or annual-value terms, the sum of all relevant costs associated with owning and operating a building or building system over a specified time period.  
1.3 The basic premise of the LCC method is that to an investor or decision maker all costs arising from an investment decision are potentially important to that decision, including future as well as present costs. Applied to buildings or building systems, the LCC encompasses all relevant costs over a designated study period, including the costs of designing, purchasing/leasing, constructing/installing, operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing, and disposing of a particular building design or system.  
1.4 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Use this practice to organize information that describes new or existing buildings of any size. The concepts presented here can also be applied to other categories of construction where a standard corresponding to UNIFORMAT II does not yet exist.  
4.2 The hierarchical structure of UNIFORMAT II enables the user to focus on building elements in functionally consistent groups. It can be applied by an administrator initiating a data system as a facility standard, as well as a consultant reporting on building conditions.  
4.2.1 A consistent method of arrangement for subject matter expedites the preparation and use of source documents, and simplifies the process of comparing information from several sources.  
4.3 This practice is suitable for arranging the content of individual reports, managing physical files, as well as automated data applications. Personal computers operating commercially available software are able to meet the functional requirements of this practice.  
4.4 This practice provides a consistent and comprehensive outline suitable to track the evolution of specific building conditions in one or many buildings. It can be applied to historical building data as well as new information.  
4.5 Administration of this practice will reveal categories of building data that have been overlooked in prior data gathering efforts that did not rely on a systems approach. The comprehensive hierarchy of Systems and Elements, readily displays the amount and depth of information distributed among the categories and levels. The pattern of available information highlights voids among the categories. It is also possible to quickly focus on the quality and sufficiency of cataloged data to determine whether an appropriate level of detail exists to address the needs of decision-makers.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers the organization of building information to support informed decision making. The kinds of data considered in this practice includes text, numeric, and graphic data. The system of organization is applicable to a wide range of data collection and organization tasks from routine in-depth analysis of a single building, to situations where many buildings must be evaluated and prioritized in a short time frame.  
1.2 The organizational structure is based on Classification for Building Elements and Related Sitework—UNIFORMAT II (Classification E1557), a system which groups building elements according to the way buildings are constructed and function.  
1.3 The use of UNIFORMAT II provides a set of recognized summary levels that are relevant throughout the industries that design, construct, and manage buildings.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This practice increases the level of communication, provides an organized approach to cost control during the design of a project, and also provides a means of identifying extraordinary cost items and changes in assumptions between estimates.  
5.2 The users of this practice include owners, developers, contractors, cost professionals, estimators, architects, engineers, specification writers, quantity surveyors, and anyone charged with the responsibility of successfully managing the design of a building and its related site work within a specified project budget.  
5.3 Use this reporting format during the following:  
5.3.1 Contracting for design cost analysis services,  
5.3.2 Comparing the current design costs to a previous estimate, and  
5.3.3 Responding to each design phase.  
5.4 This practice provides a tool for analyzing design options and examining strategies to maintain the project budget.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers an arranged method for providing cost analysis during the design phase of a building project.  
1.2 The use of this practice increases the level of communication between the design professional, owner, and the cost professional providing the cost consulting services.  
1.3 The practice establishes a structured method to support design decisions.  
1.4 The practice provides design and cost professionals with a framework for historically tabulating information to be used on relevant future projects.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 This standard builds on the concepts and organizational framework established in Classification E1557. This classification describes transportation surface elements that are major components of most vehicular transportation surfaces. The elemental classification is the common thread linking activities and participants in a transportation surface project from initial planning through operations, maintenance, and disposal.
Note 1: As this classification refers solely to permanent, physical parts of any construction, two additional classifications, Classifications E2083 and E2168, need to be included when calculating construction cost. These standards provide for the inclusion of construction enabling, temporary, and risk mitigation cost figures. Procedures for reporting all these figures are described in Practices E1804 and E2514 and Classification E2516. While these three latter standards were primarily written for building construction, they are nonetheless appropriate and readily applied to other forms of construction as well.  
4.2 The users of transportation surface UNIFORMAT II include:  
4.2.1 Financial and Investment—Typically owners, developers, bankers, lenders, accountants, and financial managers.  
4.2.2 Implementation—Primarily project managers; facilities programmers; designers, including engineers; and project controls specialists, including cost planners, estimators, schedulers, specification writers, and risk analysts.  
4.2.3 Facilities Management—Comprising property portfolio managers, operating staff, and maintenance staff.  
4.2.4 Others—Public officials, manufacturers, educators, students, and other project stakeholders.  
4.3 Apply This Classification When Undertaking the Following Work on Transportation Surface Projects:5  
4.3.1 Financing and Investing:  
4.3.1.1 Structuring costs on an elemental basis for economic evaluations (Guide E1185 and Practices E917, E964, E1057, E1074, E1121, and E1804) early in the design process help...
SCOPE
1.1 This standard establishes a classification of transportation surface elements within the UNIFORMAT II family of elemental classifications. It covers the full breadth of vehicular transportation surfaces, from rural roads to multi-lane interstate highways.  
1.2 UNIFORMAT II classifications have an elemental format similar to the original UNIFORMAT2 building elemental classification. However, the title UNIFORMAT II differs from the original in that it now takes into consideration a wide range of constructed entities that collectively form the built environment.  
1.3 Elements, as defined here and in Classifications E1557 and E2103/E2103M, are major physical components that are common within constructed entities. Elements perform their given function(s), regardless of the design specification, construction method, or materials used.  
1.4 This elemental classification serves as a consistent reference for analysis, evaluation, and monitoring during the feasibility, planning, and design stages when constructing transportation surfaces.  
1.5 Using UNIFORMAT II elemental classifications ensures a consistency in the economic evaluation of construction projects over time and from project to project.  
1.6 UNIFORMAT II classifications also enhance reporting at all stages of a constructed entity’s life cycle—from feasibility and planning through the preparation of working documents, construction, maintenance, rehabilitation, and disposal.  
1.7 This classification is unsuitable for process applications or for preparing trade estimates.  
1.8 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system are not necessarily exact equivalents; therefore, to ensure conformance with the standard, each system shall be used independently of the other, and values from the two systems shall not be combined.  
1.9 This standard does not purport to address al...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 This standard builds on the concepts and organizational framework established in Classification E1557. This classification describes transportation surface elements that are major components of most vehicular transportation surfaces. The elemental classification is the common thread linking activities and participants in a transportation surface project from initial planning through operations, maintenance, and disposal.
Note 1: As this classification refers solely to permanent, physical parts of any construction, two additional classifications, Classifications E2083 and E2168, need to be included when calculating construction cost. These standards provide for the inclusion of construction enabling, temporary, and risk mitigation cost figures. Procedures for reporting all these figures are described in Practices E1804 and E2514 and Classification E2516. While these three latter standards were primarily written for building construction, they are nonetheless appropriate and readily applied to other forms of construction as well.  
4.2 The users of transportation surface UNIFORMAT II include:  
4.2.1 Financial and Investment—Typically owners, developers, bankers, lenders, accountants, and financial managers.  
4.2.2 Implementation—Primarily project managers; facilities programmers; designers, including engineers; and project controls specialists, including cost planners, estimators, schedulers, specification writers, and risk analysts.  
4.2.3 Facilities Management—Comprising property portfolio managers, operating staff, and maintenance staff.  
4.2.4 Others—Public officials, manufacturers, educators, students, and other project stakeholders.  
4.3 Apply This Classification When Undertaking the Following Work on Transportation Surface Projects:5  
4.3.1 Financing and Investing:  
4.3.1.1 Structuring costs on an elemental basis for economic evaluations (Guide E1185 and Practices E917, E964, E1057, E1074, E1121, and E1804) early in the design process help...
SCOPE
1.1 This standard establishes a classification of transportation surface elements within the UNIFORMAT II family of elemental classifications. It covers the full breadth of vehicular transportation surfaces, from rural roads to multi-lane interstate highways.  
1.2 UNIFORMAT II classifications have an elemental format similar to the original UNIFORMAT2 building elemental classification. However, the title UNIFORMAT II differs from the original in that it now takes into consideration a wide range of constructed entities that collectively form the built environment.  
1.3 Elements, as defined here and in Classifications E1557 and E2103/E2103M, are major physical components that are common within constructed entities. Elements perform their given function(s), regardless of the design specification, construction method, or materials used.  
1.4 This elemental classification serves as a consistent reference for analysis, evaluation, and monitoring during the feasibility, planning, and design stages when constructing transportation surfaces.  
1.5 Using UNIFORMAT II elemental classifications ensures a consistency in the economic evaluation of construction projects over time and from project to project.  
1.6 UNIFORMAT II classifications also enhance reporting at all stages of a constructed entity’s life cycle—from feasibility and planning through the preparation of working documents, construction, maintenance, rehabilitation, and disposal.  
1.7 This classification is unsuitable for process applications or for preparing trade estimates.  
1.8 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the standard.  
1.9 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety co...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 When preparing construction, project, and program cost estimates, it is often necessary to make monetary provision for change or risk, or both, or other exigencies where information is incomplete.  
4.2 Such allowance, contingency or reserve sums are employed by many persons engaged in the planning, delivery, and financing of construction work.  
4.3 These users include owners, developers, facilities programmers, cost planners, estimators, schedules, architects and engineers, specification writers, operating and maintenance staff, manufacturers, educators, financial managers, and comptrollers.  
4.4 Usage:  
4.4.1 These sums are especially appropriate when performing the following activities:    
Cost budgeting;  
Conceptual, design, and construction cost estimating;  
Preparing complete forecast cost for economic evaluation,
investment analysis, and approval; and    
Controlling cost during planning, design, and construction.  
4.4.2 In any of these activities a needed requirement, or component, of the planned construction can be known while the defined solution, design or specification, for providing this may not. The usual, and appropriate, response in these situations, is the inclusion of a monetary sum, within an estimate, to provide for this (these) requirement(s).  
4.4.3 Such sums may be general or specific in scope, may be planned to be spent or may only be included as possible mitigation for unplanned events and requirements.  
4.4.4 To distinguish between these sums, and in recognition of their differing purpose, they are described, and classified here, using the terms allowance, contingency, or reserve.
Note 1: Section 5 includes a generic statement of purpose for each of the three terms and provides a sub-classification that distinguishes between sums included for specific purposes and for non-specific, that is, general purposes. In cost budgeting, conceptual and design estimating especially, an estimator may intuitively recognize...
SCOPE
1.1 This classification establishes a classification for allowance, contingency, and reserve sums used in construction, project, and program estimating.  
1.2 This classification applies to all construction work.  
1.3 This classification is not based on permanent physical elements of construction (as defined and classified in Classification E1557). Rather, the classification items are cost components common to construction, project, and program estimates.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 JPM produces two measurements: construction production rate and productivity.  
5.1.1 JPM measures the overall production rate by comparing CPIP to the time elapsed in the construction schedule.  
5.1.2 JPM measures overall job productivity through a comparison of labor usage to a reference point.  
5.2 JPM issues early warning signals for construction.  
5.2.1 JPM identifies productivity deviations in the form of any gains or losses in productivity, and anomalies indicating a special cause, from the productivity reference point.  
5.2.2 JPM measures the productivity changes to individual building elements (according to the UNIFORMAT II format for organizing building data, in Classification E1557) with the same methodology used for overall job productivity measurement.  
5.2.3 JPM measures ongoing changes in labor usage.  
5.3 JPM measures productivity wherever the labor is used in construction by:  
5.3.1 Any contractor or construction manager directly or indirectly responsible for the productivity of the labor and its usage.  
5.3.2 Any contractor or construction manager conducting self performance on any portion of the construction job.  
5.3.3 Any contractor or construction manager supervising labor performance on any portion of a construction job.
SCOPE
1.1 Based on the UNIFORMAT II format for organizing building data, established in Classification E1557, and depending on the level where measurement is applied (industry, total job, or building element), JPM measures construction productivity at three levels: task, project, and industry (shown in Fig. 1). By comparing labor hours used against CPIP, JPM allows for unified measurement of established building elements (according to the UNIFORMAT II format. This practice establishes a process for measuring construction job productivity by comparing labor usage to CPIP.  
1.2 JPM measures labor productivity of the installation processes on a construction job.2  
1.3 CPIP is measured with input from the labor performing the installation, utilizing elements of statistical process control (SPC) and industrial engineering.  
1.4 JPM takes into account the difficulty of installation at any given point on a job.  
1.5 JPM evaluates relative productivity changes using trend monitoring.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The AHP method allows you to generate a single measure of desirability for project/product/process alternatives with respect to multiple attributes (qualitative and quantitative). By contrast, life-cycle cost (Practice E917), net savings (Practice E1074), savings-to-investment ratio (Practice E964), internal rate-of-return (Practice E1057), and payback (Practice E1121) methods all require you to put a monetary value on benefits and costs in order to include them in a measure of project/product/process worth.  
5.2 Use AHP to evaluate a finite and generally small set of discrete and predetermined options or alternatives. Specific AHP applications are ranking and choosing among alternatives. For example, rank alternative building locations with AHP to see how they measure up to one another, or use AHP to choose among building materials to see which is best for your application.  
5.3 Use AHP if no single alternative exhibits the most preferred available value or performance for all attributes. This is often the result of an underlying trade-off relationship among attributes. An example is the trade-off between low desired energy costs and large glass window areas (which may raise heating and cooling costs while lowering lighting costs).  
5.4 Use AHP to evaluate alternatives whose attributes are not all measurable in the same units. Also use AHP when performance relative to some or all of the attributes is impractical, impossible, or too costly to measure. For example, while life-cycle costs are directly measured in monetary units, the number and size of offices are measured in other units, and the public image of a building may not be practically measurable in any unit. To help you choose among candidate buildings with these diverse attributes, use AHP to evaluate your alternatives.  
5.5 The AHP method is well-suited for application to a variety of sustainability-related topics. Guide E2432 states when applying the concept of sustainability, it is necessary ...
SCOPE
1.1 This practice presents a procedure for calculating and interpreting AHP scores of a project's/product’s/process’ total overall desirability when making capital investment decisions.3 Projects include design, construction, operation, and disposal of commercial and residential buildings and other engineered structures.4 Products include materials, components, systems, and equipment.5 Processes include procurement, materials management, work flow, fabrication and assembly, quality control, and services.  
1.2 In addition to monetary benefits and costs, the procedure allows for the consideration of characteristics or attributes which decision makers regard as important, but which are not readily expressed in monetary terms. Examples of such attributes that pertain to the selection among project/product/process alternatives are: a construction projects’s building alternatives whose nonmonetary attributes are location/accessibility, site security, maintainability, quality of the sound and visual environment, and image to the public and occupants; building products based on their economic and environmental performance; and sustainability-related issues for key construction processes that address environmental needs, while considering project safety, cost, and schedule.  
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The AHP method allows you to generate a single measure of desirability for project/product/process alternatives with respect to multiple attributes (qualitative and quantitative). By contrast, life-cycle cost (Practice E917), net savings (Practice E1074), savings-to-investment ratio (Practice E964), internal rate-of-return (Practice E1057), and payback (Practice E1121) methods all require you to put a monetary value on benefits and costs in order to include them in a measure of project/product/process worth.  
5.2 Use AHP to evaluate a finite and generally small set of discrete and predetermined options or alternatives. Specific AHP applications are ranking and choosing among alternatives. For example, rank alternative building locations with AHP to see how they measure up to one another, or use AHP to choose among building materials to see which is best for your application.  
5.3 Use AHP if no single alternative exhibits the most preferred available value or performance for all attributes. This is often the result of an underlying trade-off relationship among attributes. An example is the trade-off between low desired energy costs and large glass window areas (which may raise heating and cooling costs while lowering lighting costs).  
5.4 Use AHP to evaluate alternatives whose attributes are not all measurable in the same units. Also use AHP when performance relative to some or all of the attributes is impractical, impossible, or too costly to measure. For example, while life-cycle costs are directly measured in monetary units, the number and size of offices are measured in other units, and the public image of a building may not be practically measurable in any unit. To help you choose among candidate buildings with these diverse attributes, use AHP to evaluate your alternatives.  
5.5 The AHP method is well-suited for application to a variety of sustainability-related topics. Guide E2432 states when applying the concept of sustainability, it is necessary ...
SCOPE
1.1 This practice presents a procedure for calculating and interpreting AHP scores of a project's/product’s/process’ total overall desirability when making capital investment decisions.3 Projects include design, construction, operation, and disposal of commercial and residential buildings and other engineered structures.4 Products include materials, components, systems, and equipment.5 Processes include procurement, materials management, work flow, fabrication and assembly, quality control, and services.  
1.2 In addition to monetary benefits and costs, the procedure allows for the consideration of characteristics or attributes which decision makers regard as important, but which are not readily expressed in monetary terms. Examples of such attributes that pertain to the selection among project/product/process alternatives are: a construction projects’s building alternatives whose nonmonetary attributes are location/accessibility, site security, maintainability, quality of the sound and visual environment, and image to the public and occupants; building products based on their economic and environmental performance; and sustainability-related issues for key construction processes that address environmental needs, while considering project safety, cost, and schedule.  
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 LCC analysis is an economic method for evaluating a project or project alternatives over a designated study period. The method entails computing the LCC for alternative building designs or system specifications having the same purpose and then comparing them to determine which has the lowest LCC over the study period.  
5.2 The LCC method is particularly suitable for determining whether the higher initial cost of a building or building system is economically justified by reductions in future costs (for example, operating, maintenance, repair, or replacement costs) when compared with an alternative that has a lower initial cost but higher future costs. If a building design or system specification has both a lower initial cost and lower future costs relative to an alternative, an LCC analysis is not needed to show that the former is the economically preferable choice.  
5.3 If an investment project is not essential to the building operation (for example, replacement of existing single-pane windows with new double-pane windows), the project must be compared against the “do nothing” alternative (that is, keeping the single pane windows) in order to determine if it is cost effective. Typically the “do nothing” alternative entails no initial investment cost but has higher future costs than the proposed project.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice establishes a procedure for evaluating the life-cycle cost (LCC) of a building or building system and comparing the LCCs of alternative building designs or systems that satisfy the same functional requirements.  
1.2 The LCC method measures, in present-value or annual-value terms, the sum of all relevant costs associated with owning and operating a building or building system over a specified time period.  
1.3 The basic premise of the LCC method is that to an investor or decision maker all costs arising from an investment decision are potentially important to that decision, including future as well as present costs. Applied to buildings or building systems, the LCC encompasses all relevant costs over a designated study period, including the costs of designing, purchasing/leasing, constructing/installing, operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing, and disposing of a particular building design or system.  
1.4 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 This classification defines building elements as major assemblies, components, and attributes common to real property assets and sitework. Elements perform given functions, regardless of the design specification, construction method, materials or products used. (See Terminology E1480, Classifications E1557 and E1670, and Practice E2675.)  
4.2 The classification aligns products to specific functional elements and/or sub-element to enable the development of specialized maintenance procedures. (See Practices E2452, E2604, and E2675.)  
4.3 This alignment will help streamline warehousing requirements and enable functional business units to use a common nomenclature. (See Terminology E1480 and Practice E2452.)  
4.4 The classification will lead to more effective life cycle management of the operation, maintenance and cost of the asset by linking activities and participants in an asset‘s full life-cycle, from initial planning through construction, operations, maintenance, repair, modernization, and disposal. (See Practices E917 and E1334, Classification E1670, Practice E1946, and Guide E2506). See Fig. 1 for life cycle application of FACTS.
SCOPE
1.1 This standard (FACTS) establishes a classification of building and sitework elements and components, and their associated functions, attributes, and products. Elements, as defined here, are major assemblies and components common to buildings and sitework. Elements usually perform given functions, regardless of the design specification, construction method, or materials used. The attribute classification will lead to more effective management of the operation, maintenance, and life cycle cost of the asset.  
1.2 The classification:  
1.2.1 Incorporates Levels 1, 2, and 3 from Classification E1557:
1.2.1.1 Major Group Element (Classification E1557 Level 1).
1.2.1.2 Group Element (Classification E1557 Level 2).
1.2.1.3 Element (Classification E1557 Level 3).  
1.2.2 Establishes sub-elements at Levels 4 and beyond:
1.2.2.1 Because the main objective is content and not specifically rigid structure, levels beyond those established in Classification E1557 are not balanced.
1.2.2.2 Products and characteristics are introduced at varying levels, depending on the appropriate element and elemental function.
1.2.2.3 Functional elements are aligned with products and product characteristics.  
1.2.3 Incorporates the noun-adjective-attribute relationship between elements, elemental function and the associated products and characteristics.  
1.2.4 This approach identifies specific products that will support the element at its functional level. However, the classification permits the introduction of additional products necessitated due to higher order requirements, such as but not limited to:
(1) Asset type
(2) Asset function
(3) Asset conditions
(4) Building code requirements  
1.3 The classification seeks to define a larger universe of attributes, products, and characteristics that may define its functional use and life cycle cost.  
1.4 The classification also provides a logical database structure for the implementation of related Real Property Management applications and business processes such as:
(1) Building Information Modeling (BIM) Technologies
(2) Smart Building Technologies
(3) Sustainability
(4) Computerized Maintenance Management Systems (CMMS)
(5) Facility Asset Management Systems
(6) Property Condition Assessment
(7) Real Property Development
(8) Project Management Systems
(9) Cost Planning, Estimating, and Control Procedures  
1.5 Use of the classification provides a consistent means for analysis, evaluation, monitoring, and reporting during the life of the asset, from planning through design, construction, operations, maintenance, rehabilitation, and disposal.  
1.6 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Investments in long-lived projects such as buildings are characterized by uncertainties regarding project life, operation and maintenance costs, revenues, and other factors that affect project economics. Since future values of these variable factors are generally not known, it is difficult to make reliable economic evaluations.  
5.2 The traditional approach to project investment analysis has been to apply economic methods of project evaluation to best-guess estimates of project input variables as if they were certain estimates and then to present results in single-value, deterministic terms. When projects are evaluated without regard to uncertainty of inputs to the analysis, decision makers may have insufficient information to measure and evaluate the risk of investing in a project having a different outcome from what is expected.  
5.3 Risk analysis is the body of theory and practice that has evolved to help decision makers assess their risk exposures and risk attitudes so that the investment that is the best bet for them can be selected.
Note 1: The decision maker is the individual or group of individuals responsible for the investment decision. For example, the decision maker may be the chief executive officer or the board of directors.  
5.4 Uncertainty and risk are defined as follows. Uncertainty (or certainty) refers to a state of knowledge about the variable inputs to an economic analysis. If the decision maker is unsure of input values, there is uncertainty. If the decision maker is sure, there is certainty. Risk refers either to risk exposure or risk attitude.  
5.4.1 Risk exposure is the probability of investing in a project that will have a less favorable economic outcome than what is desired (the target) or is expected.  
5.4.2 Risk attitude, also called risk preference, is the willingness of a decision maker to take a chance or gamble on an investment of uncertain outcome. The implications of decision makers having different risk attitudes i...
SCOPE
1.1 This guide covers techniques for treating uncertainty in input values to an economic analysis of a building investment project. It also recommends techniques for evaluating the risk that a project will have a less favorable economic outcome than what is desired or expected.2  
1.2 The techniques include breakeven analysis, sensitivity analysis, risk-adjusted discounting, the mean-variance criterion and coefficient of variation, decision analysis, simulation, and stochastic dominance.  
1.3 The techniques can be used with economic methods that measure economic performance, such as life-cycle cost analysis, net benefits, the benefit-to-cost ratio, internal rate of return, and payback.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The payback method is part of a family of economic evaluation methods that provide measures of economic performance of an investment. Included in this family of evaluation methods are life-cycle costing, benefit-to-cost and savings-to-investment ratios, net benefits, and internal rates of return.  
5.2 The payback method accounts for all monetary values associated with an investment up to the time at which cumulative net benefits, discounted to present value, just pay off initial investment costs.  
5.3 Use the method to find if a project recovers its investment cost and other accrued costs within its service life or within a specified maximum acceptable payback period (MAPP) less than its service life. It is important to note that the decision to use the payback method should be made with care. (See Section 11 on Limitations.)
SCOPE
1.1 This practice provides a recommended procedure for calculating and applying the payback method in evaluating building designs and building systems.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 This classification defines building elements as major components common to most buildings. The classification is the common thread linking activities and participants in a building project from initial planning through operations, maintenance, and disposal.  
4.2 The users of UNIFORMAT II include owners, developers, facilities programmers, cost planners, estimators, schedulers, architects and engineers, specification writers, operating and maintenance staff, manufacturers, and educators.  
4.3 Use this classification when doing the following:5  
4.3.1 Structuring costs on an elemental basis for economic evaluations (Practices E917, E964, E1057, E1074, E1121, and E1804) early in the design process. Using UNIFORMAT II helps reduce the cost of early analysis and contributes to substantial design and operational savings before decisions have been made that limit options for potential savings.  
4.3.2 Estimating and controlling costs during planning, design, and construction. Use UNIFORMAT II to prepare budgets and to establish elemental cost plans before design begins. The project manager uses these to control project cost, time, and quality, and to set design-to-cost targets. See Appendix X2 for an example of a UNIFORMAT II building elemental design cost estimate.  
4.3.3 Conducting value engineering workshops. Use UNIFORMAT II as a checklist to ensure that alternatives for all elements of significant cost in the building project are analyzed in the creativity phase of the job plan. Also, use the elemental cost data to expedite the development of cost models for building systems.  
4.3.4 Developing initial project master schedules. Since projects are built element by element, UNIFORMAT II is an appropriate basis for preparing construction schedules at the start of the design process.  
4.3.5 Performing risk analyses. Simulation is one technique (Practice E1369) for developing probability distributions of building costs when evaluating the economic risk in u...
SCOPE
1.1 This classification establishes a classification of building elements and related sitework. Elements, as defined here, are major components common to most buildings. Elements usually perform a given function, regardless of the design specification, construction method, or materials used. The classification serves as a consistent reference for analysis, evaluation, and monitoring during the feasibility, planning, and design stages of buildings. Using UNIFORMAT II ensures consistency in the economic evaluation of buildings projects over time and from project to project. It also enhances reporting at all stages in construction—from feasibility and planning through the preparation of working documents, construction, maintenance, rehabilitation, and disposal.  
1.2 This classification applies to buildings and related site work. It excludes specialized process equipment related to a building's functional use but does include furnishings and equipment.  
1.3 The classification incorporates three hierarchical levels described as Levels 1, 2, and 3. Appendix X1 presents a more detailed suggested Level 4 classification of sub-elements.  
1.4 UNIFORMAT II is an elemental format similar to the original UNIFORMAT2 elemental classification. UNIFORMAT II differs from the original UNIFORMAT, however, in that it takes into consideration a broader range of building types and has been updated to categorize building elements as they are in current building practice.  
1.5 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Standard practices for measuring the economic performance of investments in buildings and building systems have been published by ASTM. A computer program that produces economic measures consistent with these practices is available.4 Discount Factor Tables has been published by ASTM to facilitate computing measures of performance for most of the practices.  
4.2 This guide can be used to: (1) identify types of building design and system decisions that require economic analysis; (2) match the technically appropriate economic methods with the decisions; and (3) locate the methods in the ASTM practices and adjuncts listed in Section 2.  
4.3 More than one method can be technically appropriate for many building decisions. Therefore the choice in practice of which technically appropriate economic method to use for evaluating a particular building decision will often depend on the perspective of the user. Some examples of factors that influence the user are: (1) ease of applying the methods, (2) level of familiarity of the user with the methods, (3) preference of the user for different methods, and (4) presence of budget limitations for the projects.  
4.4 This guide identifies some features and limitations of the methods that might influence users' choices under varying conditions.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide identifies types of building design and building system decisions that require economic analysis and recommends ASTM practices, adjuncts, and computer programs that may be used to implement the appropriate economic methods for each decision type.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Standard practices for measuring the economic performance of investments in buildings and building systems have been published by ASTM. A computer program that produces economic measures consistent with these practices is available.5 The computer program is described in Appendix X3. Discount Factor Tables has been published by ASTM to facilitate computing measures of economic performance for most of the practices.  
5.2 Investments in long-lived projects, such as the erection of new constructed facilities or additions and alterations to existing constructed facilities, are characterized by uncertainties regarding project life, operation and maintenance costs, revenues, and other factors that affect project economics. Since future values of these variable factors are generally unknown, it is difficult to make reliable economic evaluations.  
5.3 The traditional approach to uncertainty in project investment analysis is to apply economic methods of project evaluation to best-guess estimates of project input variables, as if they were certain estimates, and then to present results in a single-value, deterministic fashion. When projects are evaluated without regard to uncertainty of inputs to the analysis, decision makers may have insufficient information to measure and evaluate the financial risk of investing in a project having a different outcome from what is expected.  
5.4 To make reliable economic evaluations, treatment of uncertainty and risk is particularly important for projects affected by natural and man-made hazards that occur infrequently, but have significant consequences.  
5.5 Following this guide when performing an economic evaluation assures the user that relevant economic information, including information regarding uncertain input variables, is considered for projects affected by natural and man-made hazards.  
5.6 Use this guide in the project initiation and planning phases of the project delivery process. Consideration of alternative combin...
SCOPE
1.1 This guide describes a generic framework for developing a cost-effective risk mitigation plan for new and existing constructed facilities—buildings, industrial facilities, and other critical infrastructure. This guide provides owners and managers of constructed facilities, architects, engineers, constructors, other providers of professional services for constructed facilities, and researchers an approach for formulating and evaluating combinations of risk mitigation strategies.  
1.2 This guide insures that the combinations of mitigation strategies are formulated so that they can be rigorously analyzed with economic tools. Economic tools include evaluation methods, standards that support and guide the application of those methods, and software for implementing the evaluation methods.  
1.3 The generic framework described in this guide helps decision makers assess the likelihood that their facility and its contents will be damaged from natural and man-made hazards; identify engineering, management, and financial strategies for abating the risk of damages; and use standardized economic evaluation methods to select the most cost-effective combination of risk mitigation strategies to protect their facility.  
1.4 The purpose of the risk mitigation plan is to provide the most cost-effective reduction in personal injuries, financial losses, and damages to new and existing constructed facilities. Thus, the risk mitigation plan incorporates perspectives from multiple stakeholders—owners and managers, occupants and users, and other affected parties—in addressing natural and man-made hazards.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This guide reduces the time and effort to communicate the findings of project impact studies and improves the quality of communication between those who measure economic impacts and those who evaluate and interpret them.  
5.2 Following the guide assures the user that relevant economic information on the project is included in a summary format that is understandable to both the preparer and user.  
5.3 Since the standard guide provides a consistent approach to reporting the economic impacts of projects, it facilitates the comparison of economic studies across projects and over time.  
5.4 The guide focuses on projects in construction and building-related research. It applies to government as well as private projects. And while the examples treat building-related projects, the guide is applicable to non-building-related projects as well.  
5.5 Building-sector users of this guide include building owners and managers, private-sector construction companies, research groups in building and construction industry trade associations, parties to public-sector construction projects, and government laboratories conducting building-related research.  
5.6 Use the guide to summarize the results of economic impact studies that use Practices E917 (Life-Cycle Costs), E964 (Benefit-to-Cost and Savings-to-Investment Ratios), E1057 (Internal Rate of Return and Adjusted Internal Rate of Return), E1074 (Net Benefits and Net Savings), E1121 (Payback), E1699 (Value Engineering/Value Analysis), and E1765 (Analytical Hierarchy Process for Multiattribute Decision Analysis).  
5.7 Use this guide in conjunction with Guide E1369 to summarize the results of economic impact studies involving natural or man-made hazards, or both, that occur infrequently but have significant consequences.  
5.8 Use the guide to summarize the impacts of projects that affect exclusively initial costs, benefits, or savings, as well as projects that affect life-cycle costs, benefits, or savings.
Note 1: Ex...
SCOPE
1.1 This guide covers a generic format for summarizing the economic impacts of building-related projects.  
1.2 The guide provides technical persons, analysts, and researchers a tool for communicating project impacts in a condensed format to management and non-technical persons.  
1.3 The generic format described in this guide calls for a description of the significance of the project, the analysis strategy, a listing of data and assumptions, and a presentation of the key economic measures of project impact.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.