Project Spec

Project_spec.zip

Home >Architecture and Design homework help >Project Spec

Project spec/project doc.docx

1. An appraisal of the size and configuration of the building.

Appraisal Problem: The subject appraisal assignment was to estimate market value for an existing industrial office/warehouse property. The appraisal was used for refinancing purposes. The property appraised consisted of a 5.34 acre site improved with a 108,000 square foot office/warehouse industrial building that was built in 1968 with an addition in 2005

The comparable sales ranged from 7.5% finished office space to 40.0% finished.

This example shows how one appraiser had attempted to quantify this office finish adjustment by relating his estimated adjustment to the replacement costs of buildings with varying percentages of finish.

The date of valuation was May 23, 2011.

The appraiser used six sales in his sales comparison analysis that ranged from 50,372 square feet to 192,924 square feet. A significant difference between these comparable sales and the subject property were their varying levels of office finish.

This adjustment category reflects the differences in the percentage of finished office area between the subject and the comparables. Adjustments were applied to the comparables based on the differential of finished area between the comparables and the subject. Typically, office space rents for nearly double the rate of warehouse space.

The subject property has a finished area of approximately 20% of net rentable building area. The comparables have finished area ranging from 7.5% to 40%. The table below summarizes the adjustments made to each sale based on the differences of finished

Procurement Management

Procurement management follows a logical order. First, you plan what you need to contract; then you plan how you’ll do it. Next, you send out your contract requirements to sellers. They bid for the chance to work with you. You pick the best one, and then you sign the contract with them. Once the work begins, you monitor it to make sure that the contract is being followed. When the work is done, you close out the contract and fill out all the paperwork.

You need to start with a plan for the whole project. Before doing anything else, you need to think about all of the work that you will contract out for your project. You will want to plan for any purchases and acquisitions. Here’s where you take a close look at your needs to be sure that contracting is necessary. You figure out what kinds of contracts make sense for your project, and you try to define all of the parts of the project that will be contracted out.

Contract planning is where you plan out each individual contract for the project work. You work out how you’ll manage the contract, what metrics it will need to meet to be considered successful, how you’ll pick a seller, and how you’ll administer the contract once the work is happening.

The procurement management plan details how the procurement process will be managed. It includes the following information:

· The types of contracts you plan to use and any metrics that will be used to measure the contractors’ performance

· The planned delivery dates for the work or products you are contracting

· The company’s standard documents you will use

· The number of vendors or contractors involved and how they will be managed

· How purchasing may impact the constraints and assumptions of the project plan

· The coordination of purchasing lead times with the development of the project schedule

· The identification of prequalified sellers (if known)

The procurement management plan, like all other management plans, becomes a subsidiary of the project management plan. Some tools and techniques you may use during the procurement planning stage include make-or-buy analysis and definition of the contract type.

Fixed-Price Contracts

The fixed-price contract is a legal agreement between the project organization and an entity (person or company) to provide goods or services to the project at an agreed-on price. The contract usually details the quality of the goods or services, the timing needed to support the project, and the price for delivering goods or services. There are several variations of the fixed-price contract. For commodities and goods and services where the scope of work is very clear and not likely to change, the fixed-price contract offers a predictable cost. The responsibility for managing the work to meet the needs of the project is focused on the contractor. The project team tracks the quality and schedule progress to ensure the contractors will meet the project needs. The risks associated with fixed-price contracts are the costs associated with project change. If a change occurs on the project that requires a change order from the contractor, the price of the change is typically very high. Even when the price for changes is included in the original contract, changes on a fixed-price contract will create higher total project costs than other forms of contracts because the majority of the cost risk is transferred to the contractor, and most contractors will add a contingency to the contract to cover their additional risk.

Fixed Price Contract Figure 13.1: A fixed-price contract the cost to the client is constant regardless of effort applied or delivery date. Illustration from Barron & Barron Project Management for Scientists and Engineers, http://cnx.org/content/col11120/1.4/

Fixed-price contracts require the availability of at least two or more suppliers that have the qualifications and performance histories that ensure the needs of the project can be met. The other requirement is a scope of work that is most likely not going to change. Developing a clear scope of work based on good information, creating a list of highly qualified bidders, and developing a clear contract that reflects that scope of work are critical aspects of a good fixed-priced contract.

Procurement Plan

After the decision has been made to purchase goods or outsource services, the procurement team develops a plan that includes the following:

· Selecting the appropriate relationships and contract approaches for each type of purchased goods or outsourced service

· Preparing requests for quotes (RFQs) and requests for proposals (RFPs) and evaluating partnership opportunities

· Evaluating RFQs, RFPs, and partnerships

· Awarding and signing contracts

· Managing quality and timely performance

· Managing contract changes

· Closing contracts

A proposed cash flow for the client from inception to practical completion.

This guidance note summarises what cash flow forecasting is, how to produce a useful forecast and how to then use the forecast to assess progress on site as well as other issues, and to assist both employers and contractors to analyse actual expenditure against forecast expenditure. For the purposes of giving guidance, the client is referred to as the 'employer' and the main contractor as 'contractor'. However, much of the guidance can equally be applied to a contractor/sub-contractor or supplier arrangement. This guidance note generally gives guidance on the cash flow of construction contracts (project cash flows) and not specifically for the cash flows of companies (organisational cash flow), although there are many principles that do overlap. Cash flow is the lifeblood of the construction industry and relates to the incoming or outgoing of money to or from a company over a given period (usually monthly). Within construction contracts a cash flow forecast is generally used to inform the employer so that they know what and when their monetary commitments under the contract will be. They can be in the form of long-term or short-term forecasts and these forecasts should be constantly updated and revised as better, more accurate information becomes available or when variations to the model occur (i.e. non-expenditure of provisional sums, claims, extension of times). Guidance is given in relation to the main forms of contract and main procurement routes, under the following headings, which map to the Assessment of Professional Competence (APC):

· General principles (Level 1: Know)

• Practical application (Level 2: Doing)

• Practical considerations (Level 3: Doing/Advising)

Uses of cash flow forecasts

There are two main types of cash flow forecast: • The cash flow forecast of a company (i.e. a contractor or consultant) - otherwise known as organisational cash flow. • The cash flow forecast of a particular construction contract or project - otherwise known as project cash flow. The cash flow forecast of a company will review and analyse the predicted incoming and outgoing cash for a set period of time (usually a year) and is often used for business and resource planning and for analysing the financial health of companies. The cash flow forecast of a construction contract or project deals specifically with the payments due under a particular construction contract. The construction contract cash flow will often inform a company's overall cash flow as they are intrinsically linked. It is important to understand both types of cash flow forecast and how and why they are used within the construction industry. Various parties within a construction contract use cash flow forecasts for different reasons and it is therefore not uncommon to present cash flow forecasts in different ways to fit the requirement. It is also important to note that cash flow can travel in different directions, but for the purposes of this guidance note any reference to cash flow shall mean the cash flow from the employer to the main contractor unless otherwise stated. Other directions of cash flow to consider are the main contractor's cash flow to their subcontractors and suppliers, the employer's cash flow to consultants (i.e. architect and quantity surveyor,

A developer equation demonstration the financial viability of the scheme

Aims:

a. To test the impact on the economics of house building of revised affordable housing thresholds (or no threshold), percentage requirements and tenure splits;

b. To consider the practicality of defining affordable housing requirements on small sites;

c. To assess and provide commentary on the impact of affordable housing and other developer contributions (i.e. S106 agreements) recently revised, on the delivery of house building within the Borough.

d. To consider the viability of redeveloping employment sites for employment purposes and mixed use development;

e. To report the findings to the Council.

While LBRT commissioned two financial viability assessments, they are clearly interlinked for various reasons including;

a. In many Boroughs, residential redevelopment sites including affordable housing are often former employment sites, but are feasible because of significant value differentials;

b. Current very strong property yields which have increased existing use values and thus highlighted viability issues;

c. The requirement in PPS3 Housing (para.29) for Affordable Housing Viability Studies with particular reference to proposed threshold changes; and

d. The increasing requirement for mixed use developments incorporating residential and employment generating uses and arguments about the relative viability of different ratios of such uses.

Methodology

While our methodology is consistent and follows standard development appraisal conventions, it should be emphasised that local market and planning policy circumstances are always different. Consequently, not only are such viability exercises particular to each authority, they are also specific to the time when they are undertaken and should of course be regularly reviewed to reflect revised policies, new market conditions, changes in the affordable housing regime and of course, the outcome of Circular 05/05 on Planning Obligations. As will become clear, we have taken account as far as is practicable, of all these variables in carrying out these Reviews.

The Approach to Financial Viability

Development Appraisal models are in essence simple and can be summarised via the following equation;

Completed Development Value

Minus

Total Construction Costs

Minus

Developers Profit

Residual Land Value Residual Value

– what the landowner receives – will normally be the critical variable. If a proposal generates sufficient positive land value, it will be implemented; if not, unless, there are alternative funding sources to bridge the ‘gap’ (and these will normally be particular to regeneration areas via public bodies such as English Partnerships) , the proposal will not go ahead.

· Introduction please refer to the project brief add the picture used there or print screen from google maps and reference – also refer to the example courseworks for an idea

· Font style Calibri (body) across the whole document please as there are some parts that are different styles and font sizes

· If putting pictures in make them big enough to actually read and caption the pictures and reference them please

· Harvard style referencing

· Maximum 6 x A3 in the main text this doesn’t include cover page contents page, references or appendix

· Headings and sub headings

· A procurement timetable needs to be added, this can be generated by using the free downloadable software called Asta Powerprojects

· Would prefer for the cost plan to be in a table refer to example courseworks

· Must be a conclusion too

Project spec/Module brief BE516 - 2018-19 revision 2.docx

Programme:

Aims and Learning Outcomes

Module Content

The module will take students through the procurement of construction projects and identify the key components of typical contracts. The module will cover the process of cost control at macro and micro levels from feasibility stages of projects through design and construction phases including management of payments, progress and quality and how construction contracts ensure performance by the parties to them.

Module Aims

· develop an understanding of the issues relating to strategic control of costs incurred in construction projects and the importance of construction costs in the total development budget

· develop an understanding of how construction contracts are established and administered.

· enable the student to actively participate in the administration and management of a construction contract

Module Learning Outcomes

On successful completion of this module the student should be able to:

· LO 1. Effectively predict and manage the cost of a construction project through feasibility, design, construction and beyond.

· LO 2. Provide advice on the financial implications of different building forms and functions

· LO 3. Understand the roles and obligations of the various actors in a construction project and the performance required by the contractor, employer and consultants in execution of a construction contract

· LO 4. Appreciate the significance of procurement and contract selection in the success of construction projects and be aware of the various types of construction contracts in common use

· LO 5. Appreciate tendering procedures to be adopted in construction projects

· LO 6. Be aware of the likely cause of contract disputes and their effect of the project.

Credit Rating

20 CATS points

Employability Skills

Skill Type	Employability Skill	Employability skills within this module
Self-Management	Self-Assessment	To become aware of personal strengths, weaknesses and interests knowledge and identify where interests lie.
	Career Planning
	Personal Development Planning
	Wellbeing
	Core Skills	To ensure that the core skills demanded by employers are at an appropriate level
Communication	Oral Communication and Presentations	To be able to present ideas and arguments which are relevant, appropriate to audience and clearly communicated.
	Written Communications	To be able to present written ideas and arguments which are relevant, appropriate to the audience and clearly communicated
	Emotional Intelligence	To understand the impact of verbal and non-verbal communication on clients, colleagues or other receivers, and the importance of managing one’s own emotions.
	Team Working	To understand the importance of a team approach and to appreciate different team working styles required to make a team successful
	Networking	To develop the confidence and appreciate the benefits that can emanate from a networking approach that ranges from personal contact.
Enterprise, Innovation and Entrepreneurship	Creative Thinking
	Opportunity analysis
	Making Things Happen
	Commercial Awareness	To be able to identify the key functions of an organisation and understand how those units work together and support each other. To understand the range of challenges which businesses face
	Entrepreneurship
Research	Information Analysis	To use resources and skills such as IT. Internet, library, information literacy; identify and submit proposals, using findings to complete coursework using theories, methods, ideas and approaches in a critical and scholarly way.
	Project Management	To work to a brief, setting goals and objectives, scheduling and managing tasks and putting plans into practice.
	Problem Solving	To develop critical thinking and enquiry based learning, applied analytical skills, testing different strategies and choosing the most appropriate solution
	Organisational Skills	Meeting deadlines for academic work.
	Resource Gathering

Assessment Information

Assessment Components:

Item		Weighting (%)	Assesses Learning Outcome(s)	Length (word equivalent)	Due date	Return date*
1.	Exam	25%	LO 1, 2, 4 & 5		End sem 1
2.	Presentation (gp)	Formative	LO2	10mins/gp	25.02.18	15.03.18
3.	Coursework	75%	LO3, 4, 6		20.05.18	17.06.18

* Please note all marks are provisional until ratified by the Area Examination Board (AEB).

Assessment details:

1.0 Introduction

The purpose of this document is to set out the assessed coursework component of this module (semester 2). NON-ATTEMPT WILL RESULT IN FAILURE OF THE MODULE.

2.0 The Assessment Package

Coursework (75%) LO2, 3, 6, 8, 9

Exam (25%) LO4, 5 & 7

Presentation (formative) LO1

THE PRESENTATION & COURSEWORK

A site is currently being developed in Hollingdean Road. Your proposals are to consider the current development and how to maximize the potential for this site within the framework of the local planning guidance.

more detail will follow

STAGE TWO (weighting 75%) – individual study - turnitin

Each student will produce a report on the proposed project (marking weightings in brackets). This is to include:

1. an appraisal of the size and configuration of the buildings on the site (10%)

2. a procurement timetable with recommendations on how to package the project (15%)

3. a complete cost plan for the proposed project (selecting as appropriate information from stage one and including areas not covered by the groups). You are expected to use the BCIS to produce the cost plan (25%)

4. a proposed cash flow for the client from inception to practical completion (20%)

5. a developer’s equation demonstration the financial viability of the scheme (20%)

6. a further 10% will be awarded for presentation including correct referencing of source material.

The document will be provided as a professionally produced and referenced report justifying decisions taken and choices made. The report is to contain a maximum of 6xA3 sheets in the main body of the report but may be supported by appendices.

The coursework should be handed in via “turnitin” on Student Central by 6pm on Friday. Your report should be 700-800 words in the main body of the document. Anything more will not be assessed.

Students are reminded of good practice. Hand-ins should include: -

· Headings and sub-headings

· References using the Harvard system

· Appropriate appendices.

Assessment Submission Procedure:

Unless otherwise advised, all coursework should be submitted electronically

Assessment criteria:

80-100 A+

First class/Distinction

All learning outcomes/ assessment criteria have been achieved to an exceptionally high level

An outstanding response to the task

The work demonstrates most or all of the following characteristics beyond that expected for work at the given level of study within the discipline:

· Exceptional display of understanding, exploration, insight and/or research

· All specifications for the assessment task, including word limit/time limit where appropriate, have been adhered to

· The organisation, structure and standard of presentation of the work, including referencing where appropriate, are exemplary throughout

· The work has been approached and/or executed/performed in an original way

· Inspirational, innovative and authoritative - evidence of intellectual rigour, independence of judgement and insightful contextualisation, including relevant theory/literature/artefacts/performance

· Evidence of very high quality analysis, synthesis, evaluation and critical appraisal

· Consistently displays very high levels of initiative, personal responsibility, decision-making and achievement

70-79 A A-

First class/Distinction

All learning outcomes/ assessment criteria have been achieved to a high standard and many at an exceptionally

high level

An excellent response to the task

The work demonstrates most or all of the following characteristics in relation to those expected at the given level of study within the discipline:

· In-depth understanding, exploration, insight and/or research

· All specifications for the assessment task, including word limit/time limit where appropriate, have been adhered to

· The organisation, structure and standard of presentation of the work, including referencing where appropriate, are excellent throughout.

· The work has been approached and/or executed/performed in an original way

· Insightful contextualisation, including relevant theory/ literature/ artefacts/performance

· Evidence of high to very high quality analysis, synthesis, evaluation and critical appraisal

· Demonstrates high levels of initiative, personal responsibility, decision- making and achievement

60-69 B+ B B-

Upper Second class/ Merit

All learning outcomes/ assessment criteria have been met fully at a good or very good standard

A good to very good response to the task

The work demonstrates most or all of the following characteristics in relation to those expected at the given level of study within the discipline:

· Good to very good understanding and exploration, some insight and/or thorough research

· No significant inaccuracies, misunderstandings or errors

· The specifications for the assessment task, including word limit/time limit where appropriate, have been adhered to

· The work is well organised, coherent and the standard of presentation, including referencing where appropriate, is at least good

· The work has been approached and/or executed/performed in a comprehensive and appropriate way

· Appropriate contextualisation, including relevant theory/ literature/ artefacts/performance

· Evidence of high quality analysis, synthesis, evaluation and critical appraisal

· Demonstrates good levels of initiative, personal responsibility, decision- making and achievement

50-59 C+ C C-

Lower Second class/Pass

All learning outcomes/ assessment criteria have been met and some may have been achieved at a good standard

A sound, competent response to the task

The work demonstrates most or all of the following characteristics in relation to those expected at the given level of study within the discipline:

· Sound understanding and exploration, some insight and/or appropriate research

· No significant inaccuracies and/or misunderstandings

· No significant aberrations from the specifications for the assessment task, including word limit/time limit where appropriate

· The work is suitably organised3 and the standard of presentation, including referencing where appropriate, is at least sound

· The work has been approached and/or executed/performed in a standard way

· Sound analysis, synthesis, evaluation and critical appraisal

· Demonstrates some levels of initiative, personal responsibility, decision- making and achievement

40-49 D+ D D- Third class/Pass

All learning outcomes/ assessment criteria have just been met

An adequate, but weak response to the task

The work demonstrates most or all of the following characteristics in relation to those expected at the given level of study within the discipline:

· Adequate understanding and/or exploration of major ideas with little insight and/or minimal research

· Some minor inaccuracies and/or misunderstandings

· Some minor aberrations from the specifications for the assessment task, including word limit/time limit where appropriate

· The work is largely descriptive4, some parts of the work are disorganised and the standard of presentation, including referencing where appropriate, is barely adequate

· The work has been approached and/or executed/performed in a basic and/or poor way

· Some, but limited, evidence of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and critical appraisal

· Demonstrates limited levels of initiative, personal responsibility, decision- making and achievement

30-39 E+ E E- Fail

One or more of the learning outcomes/ assessment criteria have not been met

An unsatisfactory response to the task

The work may display some strengths but these are outweighed by several weak features in relation to the expectations for the given level of study within the discipline, such as:

· Limited understanding and/or exploration of major ideas with very little insight and/or minimal research

· Some significant inaccuracies and/or misunderstandings

· Insufficient attention paid to some of the assessment criteria and some significant aberrations from the specifications for the assessment task

· The work is too descriptive, parts of the work are disorganised and unclear and the standard of presentation, including referencing where appropriate, is poor

· The work has been approached and/or executed/performed in a poor way

· Insufficient evidence of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and critical appraisal

· Little evidence of initiative, personal responsibility, decision-making and achievement

10-29 F+ F Fail

Most of the learning outcomes/assessment criteria have not been met

An unsatisfactory response to the task

Any strengths of the work are heavily outweighed by many weak features in relation to the expectations for the given level of study within the discipline, such as:

· Very limited understanding and/or exploration of major ideas with little or no insight and/or minimal research

· Several significant inaccuracies and/or misunderstandings

· Insufficient attention paid to several of the assessment criteria and some serious deviations from the specifications for the assessment task

· The work is descriptive and the standard of presentation including referencing where appropriate is very poor

· The work has been approached and/or executed/performed inadequately

· Little evidence of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and critical appraisal

· Little to no evidence of initiative, personal responsibility, decision-making and achievement

0-9 F- Fail

Almost none of the learning outcomes/ assessment criteria have been met

An unsatisfactory response to the task

The work fails to meet the requirements in relation to those expected at the given level of study within the discipline, exemplified by most or all of the following:

· Almost no understanding and/or exploration of ideas

· Many serious inaccuracies and/or misunderstandings

· No attention paid to all or most of the assessment criteria and/or to the specifications for the assessment task7

· Very poor standard of presentation including referencing where appropriate

· The work has been approached and/or executed/performed inadequately

· No evidence of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and critical appraisal

· No evidence of initiative, personal responsibility, decision-making and achievement

Project spec/Cost_and_Contract_Coursework_FINAL.pdf

Student #14844369 Marc-Etienne Harding

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1

Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1

2 Assessment of the size and configuration of the buildings on the site .................................................................................................................... 2

3 Procurement timetable............................................................................................................................................................................................ 3

4 Cost plan .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3

4.1 Student Accomodation (CASE STUDY 413 Bedroom Student Accommodation, Western Road) .................................................................... 4

4.2 Standard Homes (CASE STUDY Flats and Commercial Units, Pembury Circus - 101 Flats) ............................................................................. 4

4.3 Affordable Homes (CASE STUDY 7 Affordable Flats, Connaught Lodge) ........................................................................................................ 4

4.4 Retail Space (CASE STUDY Shop Unit, 85/87 Church Street) ........................................................................................................................... 4

4.5 Central Research Lab (CASE STUDY The Lawes Open Innovation Hub, Rothamsted Centre).......................................................................... 4

4.6 Health Centre (CASE STUDY Moreton-in-Marsh General Hospital) ................................................................................................................ 4

5 Proposed cash flow (& Cost Plan continued…) ........................................................................................................................................................ 5

6 Financial viability - Developers equation demonstration ........................................................................................................................................ 6

7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6

References ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7

Bibliography....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7

Appendices ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 8

TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 – Site Plan View (Google, 2016) .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2.2– Site Plan/Satellite View (Google, 2016) ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 4.1 - Student Accomodation Case Study (RICS, 2016) ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 3.1 - Procurement Timetable ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 4.2 - Student Accomodation Costing (RICS, 2016) .............................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 4.3 - Standard Homes Costing (RICS, 2016) ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 4 Figure 4.4 - Affordable Homes Costing (RICS, 2016) ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 4.5 - Retail Space Costing (RICS, 2016) ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 4.6 - Central Research Lab Costing (RICS, 2016) ................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 4.7 - Health Centre Costing (RICS, 2016) ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 4 Figure 5.1 - Cost Plan .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 5.3 - Contractor Capital ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 5.2 - Client/Contractor Cashflow Variance ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 6.1 - Developer's Equation w/ Breakdowns........................................................................................................................................................................................ 6

1 INTRODUCTION This report aims to provide assessments and estimates in relation to the proposed Preston Barracks development, justifying the decisions/choices made.This will be presented as 6 A3 sheets, through the medium of a report.

The project is to transforms the Preston Barracks site so that facilitates Student Accomondation (20% affordable), new homes, a retail space, a central research lab and a health centre. This will be proposed through an initial assessment of the site, a Cost Plan, a Procurement Timetable, a Proposed cash flow and using the developer’s equation to deteremine feasibility.

PRESTON BARRACKS REPORT BE255: Cost and Contract Coursework

Marc-Etienne Harding (#14844369) 12/02/2016

Noel Painting

BE255 Cost and Contract Admin Student #14844369 Marc-Etienne Harding

Figure 2.1 – Site Plan View (Google, 2016)

2 ASSESSMENT OF THE SIZE AND CONFIGURATION OF THE BUILDINGS ON THE SITE The site comprises of an estimated 1.97 hectare area (Daftlogic, 2016). The proposed site would contain the following buildings, according to the client brief (footprints estimated using source (Daftlogic, 2016)):

o Student Accomodation 500no. o New homes 350no.

o Standard 80% 270no. o Affordable 20% 70no.

o Retail Space 1no. o Central Research Lab 1no. o Health Centre 1no.

Figure 2.2– Site Plan/Satellite View (Google, 2016)

New Standard Homes (estimated using (Brighton & Hove City Council, 2011))

Unit Size from superseded Proposal = 27,126m2/318 or 85m2

Total Units Area = 85m2*270 or 22,950m2

Area per floor (8no. Storeys Max) = 22,950m2/8 or 2,865.75m2

Central, Linear Path to all facilities

A feature, landscaped, open plan path would be created to serve the new buildings, and provide a functional and aesthetically pleasing environement. This also allow for the sun path to shine through at midday.

Retail Space

Given Total Area = 2,5000ft2 or 2,300 (2323)

Area per floor (2no. Storeys) = 2,300/2 or 1,150m2

Placed adjacent to the existing listed building, near the entrance to allow quick and easy access from the entrance to site. Minimal floor number to make retail experience less physically demanding.

Health Centre

Total Area = 2500m2

Area per floor (2no. Storey) = 2500m2/2 or 1250m2

The rationale behind the placement is similar to the Central Reseach Lab, yet its presence as a secondary iconic building reinforces the quality design of the scheme.

New Affordable Homes (15% less space)

Affordable Unit Size = 85m2*0.75 or 63.75m2

Total Units Area = 63.75m2*70 or 4,462.5m2

Area per floor (6no. Storeys) =4,462.5m2/6 or 743.75m2

Would be placed near the road - the residents of the standard housing would have have the ‘luxury’ of less noise pollution by being placed at the back of the site.

Student Accomodation (estimated using Metric Handbook (Adler, 2008))

Bedroom Size = 5m*3m

Communal/Dining = 12m*3m

Provisionally 6 Students per dorm = (12*3) + (6*(5*3)) or 126m2

TOTAL AREA = (500/6)*126 or 10,500m2

Area per floor (8no. Storeys Max) = 10,500m2 /8 or 1,312.5m2

Homeowners would benefit from the long term benefits of not being near the road (noise pollution), however students tenancy would be temporary and therefore the issue is relatively less urgent.

Protected MOD

Building

Central Research Lab (estimated using (Brighton & Hove City Council, 2011))

Area from Superseded Proposal = 2,735m2

Area per floor (2no. Storeys) = 2,735/2 or 1367.5m2

This would be placed by the road, as this would be the flagship in design, intended to be showcased to the general public.

Student #14844369 Marc-Etienne Harding

3 PROCUREMENT TIMETABLE Figure 3.1 shows a typical procurement timetable. This can be divided up into

Pre-Qualification arrangements and the actual tender process, along with

stages such as mobilisation. The estimated duration for the procurement

processes is approximately 23 weeks. Contained are the appropriate

milestones, notably including Pre-Qualification Questionnaire submission

deadline, Letter of Tender Invitation, Contract Award and Contract start date.

The proposal would provisionally work around a Design and Build Contract,

and therefore the BCIS-obtained timescale that would follow reflects this. A

D&B contract shifts the risk towards the contractor rather than the client, one

of the advantanges being that the client can settle “on a complete package

for design and build”(RICS, 2000).

4 COST PLAN Details and Precidence for this aspect of the report were found on BCIS.

Figure 4.1 shows a typical case study that shared common features with the

proposed buildings.

The Cost/m2, rebased to Q2 2016 @Brighton, was used for the cost plans,

along with the adjusted breakdowns of each building element, their

percentage weights and any miscellaneous costs such as design fees,

preliminaries and contingencies. The allowed for a more precise breakdown

of costs that was tailoured to the specific site.

The provisional contract sum would be £92,253,573, please refer to Sections

4.1-6 for the breakdowns.

Figure 3.1 - Procurement Timetable

Figure 4.1 - Student Accomodation Case Study (RICS, 2016)

BE255 Cost and Contract Admin Student #14844369 Marc-Etienne Harding

4.1 STUDENT ACCOMODATION (CASE STUDY 413 BEDROOM STUDENT ACCOMMODATION, WESTERN ROAD)

4.2 STANDARD HOMES (CASE STUDY FLATS AND COMMERCIAL UNITS, PEMBURY CIRCUS - 101 FLATS)

4.3 AFFORDABLE HOMES (CASE STUDY 7 AFFORDABLE FLATS, CONNAUGHT LODGE)

4.4 RETAIL SPACE (CASE STUDY SHOP UNIT, 85/87 CHURCH STREET)

4.5 CENTRAL RESEARCH LAB (CASE STUDY THE LAWES OPEN INNOVATION HUB, ROTHAMSTED CENTRE)

4.6 HEALTH CENTRE (CASE STUDY MORETON-IN-MARSH GENERAL HOSPITAL)

Total Proposed Area = 10,500m2 Precidence Proposed Area = 7,326m2 Precidence Cost/m2 = £1,993 rebased Q2 2016, Brighton

Total Proposed Cost = 10,500m2*1,993 or £20,926,500

# Element Total cost Cost per m2 % 1 Substructure £556,600 £53 2% 2 Superstructure £8,851,500 £843 40% 3 Finishes £2,142,000 £204 10% 4 Fittings and furnishes £1,638,000 £156 8% 5 Services £5,722,500 £545 26% Building sub-total £18,910,600 - 86% 6 External works £714,000 £68 3% 7 Preliminaries £2,100,000 £200 10% 8 Contingencies £0 £0 0% Total (less design fees) £21,724,600 - 99% 9 Designs fees £157,500 £15 1% Total contract sum £21,882,100 - 100%

Figure 4.2 - Student Accomodation Costing (RICS, 2016)

Total Proposed Area = 4,462.5m2 Precidence Proposed Area = 634m2 Precidence Cost/m2 = £1,828 rebased Q2 2016, Brighton

Total Proposed Cost = 4,462.5m2*1,828 or £8,157,450

# Element Total cost Cost per m2 % 1 Substructure £624,750 £140 6% 2 Superstructure £3,610,163 £809 35% 3 Finishes £981,750 £220 10% 4 Fittings and furnishes £423,938 £95 4% 5 Services £1,369,988 £307 13% Building sub-total £7,010,589 - 68% 6 External works £1,401,225 £314 14% 7 Preliminaries £1,378,913 £309 13% 8 Contingencies £120,488 £27 1% Total (less design fees) £9,911,215 - 96% 9 Designs fees £361,463 £81 4% Total contract sum £10,272,678 - 100%

Figure 4.4 - Affordable Homes Costing (RICS, 2016)

Total Proposed Area = 2,300m2 Precidence Proposed Area = 576m2 Precidence Cost/m2 = £1,125 rebased Q2 2016, Brighton

Total Proposed Cost = 2,300m2*1,125 or £2,587,500

# Element Total cost Cost per m2 % 1 Substructure £655,500 £285 20% 2 Superstructure £1,159,200 £504 36% 3 Finishes £48,300 £21 1% 4 Fittings and furnishes £2,300 £1 - 5 Services £342,700 £149 11% Building sub-total £2,208,000 - 69% 6 External works £400,200 £174 13% 7 Preliminaries £446,200 £194 14% 8 Contingencies £147,200 £64 5% Total (less design fees) £3,201,600 - 100% 9 Designs fees £0 £0 - Total contract sum £3,201,600 - 100%

Figure 4.5 - Retail Space Costing (RICS, 2016)

Total Proposed Area = 2,735m2 Precidence Proposed Area = 2,198m2 Precidence Cost/m2 = £3,994 rebased Q2 2016, Brighton

Total Proposed Cost = 2,735m2*3,994 or £10,923,590

# Element Total cost Cost per m2 % 1 Substructure £588,025 £215 5% 2 Superstructure £3,495,330 £1,278 28% 3 Finishes £555,205 £203 5% 4 Fittings and furnishes £1,069,385 £391 9% 5 Services £4,097,030 £1,498 33% Building sub-total £9,804,975 - 79% 6 External works £382,900 £140 3% 7 Preliminaries £1,165,110 £426 9% 8 Contingencies £525,120 £192 4% Total (less design fees) £11,878,105 - 96% 9 Designs fees £475,890 £174 4% Total contract sum £12,353,995 - 100%

Figure 4.6 - Central Research Lab Costing (RICS, 2016)

Total Proposed Area = 2,500m2 Precidence Proposed Area = 2,489m2 Precidence Cost/m2 = £3,025 rebased Q2 2016, Brighton

Total Proposed Cost = 2,500m2*3,025 or £7,562,500

# Element Total cost Cost per m2 % 1 Substructure £207,500 £83 2% 2 Superstructure £2,462,500 £985 24% 3 Finishes £597,500 £239 6% 4 Fittings and furnishes £390,000 £156 4% 5 Services £3,407,500 £1,363 33% Building sub-total £7,065,000 - 69% 6 External works £2,140,000 £856 21% 7 Preliminaries £660,000 £264 6% 8 Contingencies - £0 - Total (less design fees) £9,865,000 - 97% 9 Designs fees £345,000 £138 3% Total contract sum £10,210,000 - 100%

Figure 4.7 - Health Centre Costing (RICS, 2016)

Total Proposed Area = 22,950m2 Precidence Proposed Area = 9,857 m2 Precidence Cost/m2 = £1,455 rebased Q2 2016, Brighton

Total Proposed Cost = 22,950m2*1,455 or £33,392,250

# Element Total cost Cost per m2 % 1 Substructure £1,721,250 £75 5% 2 Superstructure £15,835,500 £690 46% 3 Finishes £2,249,100 £98 7% 4 Fittings and furnishes £1,377,000 £60 4% 5 Services £7,963,650 £347 23% Building sub-total £29,146,500 85% 6 External works £826,200 £36 2% 7 Preliminaries £4,360,500 £190 13% 8 Contingencies £0 £0 Total (less design fees) £34,333,200 100% 9 Designs fees £0 £0 Total contract sum £34,333,200 100%

Figure 4.3 - Standard Homes Costing (RICS, 2016)

http://service.bcis.co.uk/BCISOnline/Analyses/AnalysesDetail/31018?returnUrl=%2FBCISOnline%2FAnalyses%2FAnalysesResults%3ForiginatingPage%3DRebase%26analysesType%3DNoChange&returnText=Go%20back%20to%20analyses%20results&Section=Analyses

BE255 Cost and Contract Admin Student #14844369 Marc-Etienne Harding

Figure 5.1 - Cost Plan

5 PROPOSED CASH FLOW (& COST PLAN CONTINUED…) This section show how each aspect of cost is delivered and packaged into

manageable monetary chunks. Figure 5.1 not only shows this, but also shows

what implications this may have on the order/start times of buildings within

the proposal. It has been determined that 3 years is an adequate amount of

time to carry out this project, and therefore the table presents 12 quarters

from inception to practical completion. Included is a sub-table of the

cumulative contract sum, showing the increasing cashflow requirements as

the project progresses. This, along with an indicative client cashflow (with

Certificates of Payment issued at ~5-10% Contract Sum), was used to present

Figure 5.2 and 5.3.

Figure 5.2 illustrates the client and contractor cash flow variation. This gives

insight into areas of negative cashflow where the contractor would need

more money than the client has released, evidenced in Q4 Year 1 and Q1&2

Year 2. Contrastingly, the need green-shaded area shows where the

contractor is in a state of positive cash flow.

The Contractor’s working capital for the duration of the contruction can be

seen in Figure 5.3. It can be observed that the contractor would need the

most working capital at the beginning of Year 2, and would have the highest

sum of real capital by the end of the same year.

-£20,000,000

£0

£20,000,000

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

Q3 Q4 C

A PI

TA L

(£ )

TIME (Q)

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Contractor Capital -£600,818 -£1,056,214 -£5,719,965 -£12,974,666 -£15,619,716 -£13,145,093 -£456,955 £6,027,007 £5,466,500 £2,414,086 £1,363,634 £45,000

Contractor Net Capital

Figure 5.2 - Contractor Capital Figure 5.3 - Client/Contractor Cashflow Variance

£0 £10,000,000 £20,000,000 £30,000,000 £40,000,000 £50,000,000 £60,000,000 £70,000,000 £80,000,000 £90,000,000 £100,000,000

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

YEAR ONE YEAR TWO YEAR THREE

Co st

(£

Time

C U M U L A T I V E C L I E N T - C O N T R A C T O R C A S H F L O W V A R I A T I O N S

Client Desired Cashflow Contractor Desired Cash Flow

Contractors’s need for working capital

Contractors has capital in excess

BE255 Cost and Contract Admin Student #14844369 Marc-Etienne Harding

6 FINANCIAL VIABILITY - DEVELOPERS EQUATION DEMONSTRATION

Investors involved with the proposal would want to know if this project is

financial feasible. Figure 6.1 ultimately shows the Resultant Site Value, along

with the Gross Developmental Value of each building and their potential for

income.

Crucially, the decision of whether it is financially viable to go forward with the

proposal is determined by the calculated approximate site value.

7 CONCLUSION

Misc. Student Standard Affordable Retail Research Health Provisionally a 60% increase on construction costs £26,530,115 £35,011,360 £54,933,120 £16,436,285 £5,122,560 £19,766,392 £16,336,000 £145,163,178 Expected Costs Construction Costs N/A £21,882,100 £34,333,200 £10,272,678 £3,201,600 £12,353,995 £10,210,000 £90,726,986 Short-term finance (over half building period) @ 15% interest N/A £3,282,315 £5,149,980 £1,540,902 £480,240 £1,853,099 £1,531,500 £13,609,048

Total N/A £25,164,415 £39,483,180 £11,813,580 £3,681,840 £14,207,094 £11,741,500 £104,336,034 Return to cover risk & profit @20% of capital value N/A £7,002,272 £10,986,624 £3,287,257 £1,024,512 £3,953,278 £3,267,200 £29,032,636

Total N/A £32,166,687 £50,469,804 £15,100,837 £4,706,352 £18,160,373 £15,008,700 £133,368,669 Maximum Site Value on Completion N/A £2,844,673 £4,463,316 £1,335,448 £416,208 £1,606,019 £1,327,300 £11,794,508 Present Value @ 3years @15% (61.4%) N/A £1,706,804 £2,677,990 £801,269 £249,725 £963,612 £796,380 £7,076,705 Maximum Site Value Today (£7,076,705) Approximate Value N/A ~£7,000,000Total

Gross Developmental Value Total Value Building Value Breakdown

Figure 6.1 - Developer's Equation w/ Breakdowns

If the actual site value is less than the calculated maximum site value, this proposal can be considered feasible for a client.

It is appropriate to conclude on this statement, as it is the final milestone for the in-depth assessment/estimate.

In summary, this report provides a comprehensive assessment of the site, estimations of cost and cash flow and finally the financial viability of the scheme. By using current case studies from BCIS and applied knowledge of cost and contracts, this assessment can be deemed as relevant and suitably accurate. This is consolidated through the various references cited within.

Student #14844369 Marc-Etienne Harding

REFERENCES Adler, D. (2008) METRIC HANDBOOK PLANNING AND DESIGN DATA SECOND EDITION architectural press, [Online] . Available: <https://www.uop.edu.jo/download/re search/members/%5BArchitecture_E book%5D_Metric_Handbook_Plannin g_and_Design_Data.pdf> [Accessed 17th May 2016] Brighton & Hove City Council (2011) PB planning brief FINAL Sep 11 reduced, [Online] . Available: <http://www.brighton- hove.gov.uk/sites/brighton- hove.gov.uk/files/downloads/planning _projects/PB_Planning_Brief_FINAL_ Sep_11-reduced.pdf> [Accessed 17th May 2016] Daftlogic (2016) Google maps area calculator tool [Online], Available: <https://www.daftlogic.com/projects- google-maps-area-calculator- tool.htm> [Accessed 17th May 2016] Designing Buildings Ltd (2016) Building design and construction fees - designing buildings Wiki [Online], Available: <http://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/ wiki/Building_design_and_constructio n_fees> [Accessed 21st May 2016] Google (2016) Google maps, . Available: <https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@5 0.8414309,- 0.1132286,167a,20y,283.69h,67.51t/ data=!3m1!1e3> [Accessed 17th May 2016]. RICS (2000) RICS iConsult - RICS draft guidance note - comparative construction and engineering contracts [Online], Available: <https://consultations.rics.org/consult. ti/comparative.construction/viewCom

poundDoc?docid=2424148&partid=2 425108> [Accessed 23rd May 2016] RICS (2016) BCIS [Online], Available: <http://service.bcis.co.uk/BCISOnline/ direct/E0150> [Accessed 18th May 2016]

BIBLIOGRAPHY Brighton-hove.gov (2016) Brighton & hove city council building regulation application fees with effect from may 2016, [Online] . Available: <http://www.brighton- hove.gov.uk/sites/brighton- hove.gov.uk/files/May%20Fees%202 016.pdf> [Accessed 21st May 2016] Communities.gov (2012) National planning policy framework, [Online] . Available: <https://www.gov.uk/government/uplo ads/system/uploads/attachment_data /file/6077/2116950.pdf> [Accessed 17th May 2016] Investment Property Partners (2016) Gross development value (GDV) - property developers guide to financial appraisals [Online], Available: <https://investmentproperty.co.uk/pro perty-investment-resources/gross- development-value-gdv-property- developers-guide-to-financial- appraisals/> [Accessed 22nd May 2016] Marty Schmidt (2016) Net present value (NPV) [Online], Available: <https://www.business-case- analysis.com/cash-flow.html> [Accessed 23rd May 2016] Sheffield City Council (n.d.) Indicative Procurement Timetable[Online], Available: <https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/.../Proc urement-

Timetable.../Procurement%20Timeta ble%2..> [Accessed 21st May 2016]

Student #14844369 Marc-Etienne Harding

APPENDICES Google Maps Area Calculator:

Example Timescale Data, from BCIS

(RICS, 2016)

How the fees were worked out for large developments:

Building Control/Planning Fees Cost - (Designing Buildings Ltd, 2016)

The fee according to Designing Buildings Ltd (2016) was £358,000 for a £80m project. This was used instead of the Brighton city council prices, as this proposal was over the maximum stated cost without consultation.

The Preston Barracks has a total contract sum of £90m. Apply a multiplier of 1.125 (90/80) to the fee to obtain a total fee of £402,750

Similarly with planning fees the same multiplier can be applied to reach a fee of £45,000

Table of Contents

Table of Figures

1 Introduction
2 Assessment of the size and configuration of the buildings on the site
3 Procurement timetable
4 Cost plan

4.1 Student Accomodation (CASE STUDY 413 Bedroom Student Accommodation, Western Road)
4.2 Standard Homes (CASE STUDY Flats and Commercial Units, Pembury Circus - 101 Flats)
4.3 Affordable Homes (CASE STUDY 7 Affordable Flats, Connaught Lodge)
4.4 Retail Space (CASE STUDY Shop Unit, 85/87 Church Street)
4.5 Central Research Lab (CASE STUDY The Lawes Open Innovation Hub, Rothamsted Centre)
4.6 Health Centre (CASE STUDY Moreton-in-Marsh General Hospital)

5 Proposed cash flow (& Cost Plan continued…)
6 Financial viability - Developers equation demonstration
7 Conclusion
References
Bibliography
Appendices

Project spec/BE215_Cost_and_Value_Management_Matthew_Roberts.pdf

BE 215 COST AND VALUE MANAGEMENT

MATTHEW ROBERTS 13831152

PRESTON BARRACKS REPORT

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Preston Barracks redevelopment is a project that has been considered for a long

period of time with numerous different organisations involved. This report will consider the current

proposals as stated in the Brighton and Hove planning brief of September 2011(Brighton and

Hove Council, planning brief, 2011), and consider the financial implications for the project

partners.

The project will involve a substantial investment by the University of Brighton in cost, time and

human resources. The scale of the project means there are many different stakeholders and the

University would be working in partnership with Brighton and Hove City Council, and the

development company Cathedral Group Holdings.

Preston Barracks is a large brownfield site to the North East of the Brighton area and sits next to

Lewes Road, one of the main roads in/out of the City. There is a requirement for the project to

deliver a wide range of outcomes including:

 Delivering Sustainable Development,

 Housing,

 Deliver Sustainable economic growth,

 Provide for Sustainable transport (Brighton and Hove Council, planning brief, 2011).

This report seeks to assess the project both from a space planning and financial point of view,

and will summarise the financial viability of the scheme given todays economic outlook.

CONTENTS

1. ASSESSMENT OF SIZE AND CONFIGURATION OF THE PROPOSED

BUILDINGS

2. COST PLAN

3. CASH FLOW FORECAST

4. DEVELOPERS EQUATION

5. REFERENCES

6. APPENDIX

Proposed Preston Barracks development

Figure 2, www.google.co.uk/maps, accessed on 25/5/15, available at

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.8362598,-0.1168561,628a,20y,340.13h,50.04t/data=!3m1!1e3

REFERENCES:

Figure 1, Preston Barracks artist’s impression, www.brighton.ac.uk, accessed on 25/5/15, available at

www.brighton.ac.uk/about-us/news-and-events/news/2014/07-16_preston-barracks-deal-signed.aspx

Figure 2 - Satellite image of Preston Barracks site and surrounding area

Figure 1– Artist’s impression of the Preston Barracks development

within wider development proposal

BE 215 COST AND VALUE MANAGEMENT

1. ASSESSMENT OF THE SIZE AND CONFIGURATION OF BUILDINGS

2 REFERENCES:

All figures taken from www.consult.brighton-hove.gov.uk, accessed on 25/5/15, available at http://

consult.brighton-hove.gov.uk/portal/bhcc/env/planning/prestonbarracks?

pointId=d3247729e3252#section-d3247729e3252

Figure 1– The wider regeneration and development area

The Preston Barracks site forms a part of a wider development and regeneration project for the city of

Brighton and Hove. Figure 1 shows the extent of the development taking in three areas at: Watt’s/Cockroft

site; Preston Barracks site; and Mithras House site. This report concerns the development proposed at the

Preston Barracks site only, and here we assess the size and configuration of the three design proposals in

place.

Scenario A

This scenario focusses the residential area into a distinct area of the Barracks

and excludes student housing from the Barracks site. The central square

located over Lewes Road would also mean extensive infrastructure works over

an extremely busy and important road into Brighton and Hove.

Scenario B

This scenario provides a diverse range of uses on the West side of Lewes Rd,

effectively combining the Barracks and Watt’s site. It provides for integrated

University and non-University buildings and the link connection to the East side of

Lewes Rd is more functionary, with a large central square being situated on the

Barracks site.

Scenario C

This scenario keeps the distinction between University owned land and the Barracks site. The Business

school building is proposed to be the link building between the East and West Side of Lewes Road. The

central square and mixed use areas are predominantly on the Barracks site, further reinforcing the

distinction between University and other areas.

Figure 2– Scenario A development plan Figure 3– Indicated heights for Scenario A

Figure 5– Scenario B development plan

Figure 4– Indicated heights for scenario B

Figure 6– indicated heights for scenario C

Figure 7– Scenario C development plan

JUDGEMENT

Scenario B would provide an interesting and

inclusive development that encourages

integration of University, business and residential

residents. The 2011 Planning Brief calls for a

development that aids ‘Place Making’ and

mixing building types, combined with the large

central square would help to create this.

The spread of residential housing would also

allow for a mixed type of units from family

homes to one or two bedroom apartments, with

their massing suitably staggered across the site

parallel with Lewes Road, as required from

planning ‘Supplementary Guidance Note 14’.

Whichever scenario is pursued it should be

noted that design quality will have as large an

impact as master planning of the site, and

should be carefully reviewed if the

development is to be successful.

BE 215 COST AND VALUE MANAGEMENT

2. COST PLAN

3 REFERENCES:

All data taken from the BCIS service accessed on 1/5/15, accessed at www.rics.org Preston Barracks Development, Policy and Resources Committee, 11/7/13

The Preston Barracks development is a significant project that will require a multi-million pound

investment by the University and it’s partner Cathedral Group Holdings. This report seeks to outline a

cost plan for the development using cost information gained from BCIS on the 1/5/15 for similar type

buildings to the one’s proposed for Preston Barrack’s. The building types considered and their relative

size by functional unit are:

1. Student accommodation with 500 bedrooms.

2. 350 new homes (of which 20% to be affordable).

3. 2500m2 of retail space.

4. 5500m2 Central Research Laboratory.

5. Health Centre (assumed 2000m2 see section for reasoning)

METHODOLOGY

For each of the building types five samples were taken from BCIS costing analysis to form the basis of

average construction costs relevant to each type. The samples were chosen for their specifications

similarity to what can be expected from the Preston Barracks proposal. For example criteria for number

of storeys, air conditioning, inclusion of a basement and, in the case of new homes, whether or not the

development was of mixed type and tenure. The results were also rebased to Q1 2015 and ‘South East

> Brighton’ prices.

The standard distribution (SD) of the samples in each criteria was considered, however the specifics of

the building specification meant that for some building types (the student housing in particular), a very

great SD was present in the available data. Mean averages have been used wherever the term

‘average cost’ is used in this analysis.

As well as the five building types stated above, the author recognises that there is a substantial cost in

providing infrastructure to the proposed development. As a proxy for infrastructure costs this report uses

the ‘Community Infrastructure Levy’ (CIL) likely to be required from Brighton and Hove Council. Unfortu-

nately the Council is yet to publish the rates for CIL, and the figure of £100 per square metre has been

used based on the analyses in Appendix 6.1. The total built area of Preston Barracks is defined as

49,570m2 based on information from Brighton and Hove Policy and Resources Committee.

It is also recognised that the whilst the element break down from BCIS includes a heading for ‘Design

Fees’, these are likely to be fees incurred by the contractor during construction and do not necessarily

cover the full cost of design and consultancy fees that would be involved in a project of this scale. This

is evidenced by the very small or zero fee entered for some of the building types. For this reason build-

ing construction costs and infrastructure costs were treated as 90% of total construction cost, with an

additional 10% made up of design and consultancy fees. Reasoning for assuming 10% as design and

consultancy fees can be seen in appendix 6.2.

SUMMARY TABLE FOR AVERAGE CONSTRUCTION COSTS (See Appendix 6.3 for calculations)

Student Housing - £79,232 per bedroom Mixed tenure Housing - £123,680 per unit Health Centre - £1,971 per m2 Retail Centre - £889 per m2 Central Research Lab - £2,161 per m2 KEY

BE 215 COST AND VALUE MANAGEMENT

2. COST PLAN - CONTINUED

4 REFERENCES:

Cathedral Group, cathedralgroup.com, accessed on 28/5/15, available at http://www.cathedralgroup.com/current-projects/

preston-barracks/

Russell Kenley, 2003, Financing Construction, First edition, London, SPONS

Kelly, Male, Graham, 2015, Value Management of Construction Projects, Second edition, London, Wiley Blackwell

RICS, isurv, www.isurv.com accessed on 10/5/15, available at https://consultations.rics.org/consult.ti/global_cff/viewCompoundDoc?

docid=2861300&partId=2862516&sessionid=&voteid=

CONSTRUCTION COSTS

The element cost per functional unit was then applied to the number of functional units for a given building type in the brief. For example the Student Housing was calculated per student bedroom and the Retail Space per M2.. Whilst not in the brief the Health centre size of 2000m2 is taken from previous work on case studies for typical local health centres (See appendix 6.4), and the Central Research Laboratory size is taken from Cathedral Group Holdings’ Preston Barracks information website (www.cathedralgroup.com). In this way the projected construction cost for each building element can be seen in the ‘Total cost of element’ col- umn, and this will be used in the projected cash flow profile in section two of this report.

INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS

£100 (CIL rate) * 49,570M2 = £4,957,000

(Built on area of Preston Barracks , taken from policy and resources committee meeting minutes, 5/12/13)

DESIGN AND CONSULTANCY FEES

(100,960,036 + 4,957,000)

90 * 10 = £11,768,559

PROJECT COSTS

100,960,036 + 4,957,000 + 11,768,559 = £117,685,595 CONSTRUCTION DESIGN & PROJECT COST

CONSULTANCY NET OF VAT

3. CASH FLOW

METHODOLOGY

This report uses published cash flow models and case studies to produce a predicted cash flow for the pro- ject from start to completion.

There is an accepted theory of a ‘standard curve’ in a construction projects cumulative cash flow which describes the lower level of expenditure at the start of a project, increasing rate of expenditure during the main construction phase, and then a lessening rate of expenditure towards the projects end (RICS, isurv, isurv.com). There are a number of models to produce this standard curve, this report uses the Department for Health and Social Security (DHSS) model (1978) owing to its prevalence in the UK construction industry (Financing Construction p71). Whilst every construction project is of course very different the DHSS model differentiates between types of construction and construction values, so is a good starting point for pre- dicting this projects cash flow. The generic model for this project is shown on the right.

In order to generate a cash flow projection it is important to have an accurate estimate of the time the project is expected to take. The estimated time has been achieved using Bromilow’s Time/Cost model (1969) and case studies of similar projects. Using both methods allowed for a greater accuracy in estimat- ing the time required, and should mean greater accuracy in the resulting cash flow model.

SUMMARY TABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION COSTS PER BUILDING TYPE

THE DHSS STANDARD CURVE MODEL

BE 215 COST AND VALUE MANAGEMENT

3. CASH FLOW - CONTINUED

5 REFERENCES:

Russell Kenley, 2003, Financing Construction, First edition, London, SPONS

Kelly, Male, Graham, 2015, Value Management of Construction Projects, Second edition, London, Wiley Blackwell

DURATION OF PROJECT

Bromilow’s model was first published in a 1969 paper included in the journal ‘The Building Forum’, and explains the relationship between duration, size and cost of a construction project. He identified the formula as:

T = K * CB where T = Time, total working days

K = Constant, a characteristic of building time performance

C= Cost of project in millions

B = Constant, indicative of the sensitivity of time performance to cost level. (Financing construction p139)

For the UK the value of B is given as 0.082, and K is 491.

Using this model and the GDV already calculated the total time predicted is:

T = 491 * 117.686 0.082 = 725.91 days or:

725.91/252 (total working days in a year) = 2.88 years or 35 months.

In contrast using case studies from similar projects such as the ‘The Movement’ development in Greenwich or ’Circus Street’ in Brighton, there is an average construction period of approximately 31 months.

This report uses an average of the two methods to give the total duration of the project from start on site to practical completion of 33 months.

Figure 1– Circus Street, Brighton

Figure 1– The Movement, Greenwich

PROJECT CASH FLOW

The graph below shows DHSS the standard curve for the project, which allows analysis of the cumulative cost of the project at any given point during its duration. The formulae for the DHSS model is shown on the right, with the tabulated calculations included for reference. The reader is directed to page six for a tabulated breakdown of the predicted quarterly payments the project will require.

CASH FLOW FORECAST FOR PRESTON BARRACKS PROJECT

The DHSS formula:

Y = X + C*X2 - C*X - (6X3 - 9X2 + 3X) Where X = percentage of time

K C & K = Constants, taken from

standard curve parameters

based on project type and cost

BE 215 COST AND VALUE MANAGEMENT

3. CASH FLOW - CONTINUED

TABULATED CASH FLOW

Below is the tabulated quarterly cash flow forecast for the project. Read Left to Right for the total element value and relevant retentions. Read top to bottom for total due each quarter which reflects the amounts indicated using the cash flow model on page 5. Preliminaries have been evenly distributed across the project, as have consultants fees and the infrastructure (CIL) costs, owing to their estimated nature.

TABULATED CASH FLOW FOR PROJECT COSTS (NET OF VAT)

DEVELOPERS EQUATION - RESIDUAL METHOD CALCULATION

This section seeks to evidence the financial viability of the Preston Barracks scheme. Given the construction cost of £117.7 million, and the £150 million Gross Development Value that Cathedral Group Holdings believes the

project will achieve; we are able to use the residual value calculation to arrive at a residual land value. This takes into account discounting measures and an assumed rate of interest on project financing (see appendix

6.5).

Expected Value

Gross Development Value £150,000,000 Site value

Expected Costs Expected value £150,000,000

Construction Costs £117,700,000 Expected Cost £146,780,000 -

Finance (drawn down as per cash flow £ 11,430,000 Max value on £ 3,220,000 Calculations and @ 5% interest. (See project completion

Appendix 6.5 for workings)

Developers profit @ 15% of £ 17,650,000 P.V at 2.88 years @ 26% 1/(1+0.26)2.88 = 0.51

gross development value = 0.51 * 3,2200,00

Maximum site value today = £1,642,200

4. DEVELOPERS EQUATION

REFERENCES:

Russell Kenley, 2003, Financing Construction, First edition, London, SPONS

Kelly, Male, Graham, 2015, Value Management of Construction Projects, Second

edition, London, Wiley Blackwell

JUDGEMENT

Based on the evidence presented in this report the project is financially viable

providing the purchase costs of the land is not above £1.6million.

Beyond this pure financial viability it is important to acknowledge the other

benefits that this project would bring, which may mean that medium term

financial viability is not as important as the long term social and economic

gains that would come from the proposed uses of the Preston Barracks site.

Considering all benefits, and that this report is primarily aimed at the

University’s interests, the author concludes that the project should go ahead.

BE 215 COST AND VALUE MANAGEMENT

5. REFERENCES

-Figure 1, Preston Barracks artist’s impression, www.brighton.ac.uk, accessed on 25/5/15, available at

www.brighton.ac.uk/about-us/news-and-events/news/2014/07-16_preston-barracks-deal-signed.aspx

-Figure 2, www.google.co.uk/maps, accessed on 25/5/15, available at

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.8362598,-0.1168561,628a,20y,340.13h,50.04t/data=!3m1!1e3

-All figures taken from www.consult.brighton-hove.gov.uk, accessed on 25/5/15, available at http://

consult.brighton-hove.gov.uk/portal/bhcc/env/planning/prestonbarracks?

pointId=d3247729e3252#section-d3247729e3252

-All data taken from the BCIS service accessed on 1/5/15, accessed at www.rics.org

-Preston Barracks Development, Policy and Resources Committee, 11/7/13

-Designing Buildings Wiki, accessed on 12/5/15, available at http://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/

Building_design_and_construction_fees

-Cathedral Group, cathedralgroup.com, accessed on 28/5/15, available at http://

www.cathedralgroup.com/current-projects/preston-barracks/

-Russell Kenley, 2003, Financing Construction, First edition, London, SPONS

-Kelly, Male, Graham, 2015, Value Management of Construction Projects, Second edition, London,

Wiley Blackwell

-RICS, isurv, www.isurv.com accessed on 10/5/15, available at https://consultations.rics.org/consult.ti/

global_cff/viewCompoundDoc?docid=2861300&partId=2862516&sessionid=&voteid=

-Russell Kenley, 2003, Financing Construction, First edition, London, SPONS

Kelly, Male, Graham, 2015, Value Management of Construction Projects, Second edition, London, Wiley

Blackwell

6. APPENDIX

6.1 Reasoning for CIL rate

The Brighton and Hove Economic Development and Culture Committee are in the process of de-

veloping proposals for the CIL rates that will be applicable in Brighton and Hove. However their

meeting notes from July 2013 do give indicative amounts for other comparable cities and these

are shown below:

This report has chosen a flat rate of £100 per sq meter as it approximates the levels of fee shown

and would allow for easily identifiable revision should a more accurate figure become available.

6.2 Design and Consultants Fees

The figure of 10% of construction costs was chosen from information given on the Designing Build-

ings Wiki. The tables used are shown below:

6.3 Average costing calculations from BCIS information

See page 8

6.4 Health Centre size

Part one of the coursework for BE215 required students to look at case studies of the proposed

buildings. During this analysis the figure of 2000m2 was found to be a reasonable assumption of size

for the health centre. In addition to this 2000m2 approximates the size of the health centres shown

in the BCIS calculations on page 8, reinforcing that this is a reasonable size to assume.

6.5 Residual Value Calculations

See below the excel calculations used for interest amounts on the construction costs. The 15% de-

velopers profit came from discussion with the authors employer Geoffrey Osborne LTD and the 26%

anticipated land increase value is a figure given by the Estate Agent Savill’s, and found to be

widely quoted in press articles.

STUDENT HOUSING AVERAGED COSTS HOUSING AVERAGED COSTS HEALTH CENTRE AVERAGED COSTS RETAIL CENTRE AVERAGED COSTS CENTRAL RESEARCH LAB AVERAGED COSTS

SAMPLE SIZE 5 SAMPLE SIZE 5 SAMPLE SIZE 5 SAMPLE SIZE 5 SAMPLE SIZE 5

PROJECT & ELEMENTS TOTAL COST ACCUMULATED COST

PERCENTAGE OF

CONSTRACT SUM PROJECT & ELEMENTS TOTAL COST ACCUMULATED COST

PERCENTAGE OF

CONSTRACT SUM PROJECT & ELEMENTS TOTAL COST ACCUMULATED COST

PERCENTAGE OF

CONSTRACT SUM PROJECT & ELEMENTS TOTAL COST ACCUMULATED COST

PERCENTAGE OF

CONSTRACT SUM PROJECT & ELEMENTS TOTAL COST ACCUMULATED COST

PERCENTAGE OF

CONSTRACT SUM

UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER -

HULME HALL

WHITEINCH AND SCOTSTOUN

HOUSING ASSOCIATION -

MIXED TENURE

Abertewe Bro Morgannwg

University Health Board TEAM VALLEY, GATESHEAD

UNIVERSITY OF SURREY

INNOVATION CENTRE

Substructure 2,697.00£ 2,697.00£ 0.1% Substructure 165,871.00£ 165,871.00£ 8.0% Substructure 187,993.00£ 187,993.00£ 7.4% Substructure 7,578.00£ 7,578.00£ 0.7% Substructure 231,671.00£ 231,671.00£ 3.3%

Superstructure 466,659.00£ 469,356.00£ 18.6% Superstructure 681,867.00£ 847,738.00£ 32.9% Superstructure 543,290.00£ 731,283.00£ 21.5% Superstructure 270,146.00£ 277,724.00£ 24.6% Superstructure 2,716,770.00£ 2,948,441.00£ 38.7%

Finishes 287,850.00£ 757,206.00£ 11.5% Finishes 164,229.00£ 1,011,967.00£ 7.9% Finishes 135,689.00£ 866,972.00£ 5.4% Finishes 172,882.00£ 450,606.00£ 15.8% Finishes 313,955.00£ 3,262,396.00£ 4.5%

Fittings and furnishes 257,943.00£ 1,015,149.00£ 10.3% Fittings and furnishes 29,272.00£ 1,041,239.00£ 1.4% Fittings and furnishes 46,450.00£ 913,422.00£ 1.8% Fittings and furnishes 26,711.00£ 477,317.00£ 2.4% Fittings and furnishes 67,412.00£ 3,329,808.00£ 1.0%

Services 1,078,063.00£ 2,093,212.00£ 42.9% Services 194,957.00£ 1,236,196.00£ 9.4% Services 754,089.00£ 1,667,511.00£ 29.8% Services 506,097.00£ 983,414.00£ 46.2% Services 1,961,128.00£ 5,290,936.00£ 27.9%

External works 138,852.00£ 2,232,064.00£ 5.5% External works 458,177.00£ 1,694,373.00£ 22.1% External works 486,259.00£ 2,153,770.00£ 19.2% External works 7,096.00£ 990,510.00£ 0.6% External works 627,815.00£ 5,918,751.00£ 8.9%

Preliminaries 200,393.00£ 2,432,457.00£ 8.0% Preliminaries 380,896.00£ 2,075,269.00£ 18.4% Preliminaries 331,625.00£ 2,485,395.00£ 13.1% Preliminaries 99,840.00£ 1,090,350.00£ 9.1% Preliminaries 999,236.00£ 6,917,987.00£ 14.2%

Contingencies 78,439.00£ 2,510,896.00£ 3.1% Contingencies -£ 2,075,269.00£ 0.0% Contingencies 46,117.00£ 2,531,512.00£ 1.8% Contingencies 6,121.00£ 1,096,471.00£ 0.6% Contingencies -£ 6,917,987.00£ 0.0%

Design fees -£ 2,510,896.00£ 0.0% Design fees -£ 2,075,269.00£ 0.0% Design fees -£ 2,531,512.00£ 0.0% Design fees -£ 1,096,471.00£ 0.0% Design fees 109,902.00£ 7,027,889.00£ 1.6%

TOTAL CONTRACT SUM 2,510,896.00£ 2,510,896.00£ 100.0% TOTAL CONTRACT SUM 2,075,269.00£ 2,075,269.00£ 100.0% TOTAL CONTRACT SUM 2,531,512.00£ 2,531,512.00£ 100.0% TOTAL CONTRACT SUM 1,096,471.00£ 1,096,471.00£ 100.0% TOTAL CONTRACT SUM 7,027,889.00£ 7,027,889.00£ 100.0%

COST PER FUNCIONAL UNIT

(NO OF BEDROOMS) 29,539.95£

COST PER FUNCIONAL UNIT

(HOUSING UNIT) 138,351.27£

COST PER FUNCTIONAL UNIT

(PER M 2

GFA) 2,172.97£

COST PER FUNCTIONAL UNIT

(PER M 2

GFA) 603.12£

COST PER FUNCTIONAL UNIT

(PER M 2

GFA) 2,067.03£

GFA 1805 GFA M2 1189

COST PER M2 1,391.08£ COST PER M2 1,745.39£ LEVEN INVESTMENTS LTD WARRINGTON, CHESHIRE

INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR

LOW CARBON VEHICLE

DEVELOPMENT

Substructure £ 91,006.00 £ 91,006.00 4% Substructure £ 6,475.00 £ 6,475.00 0.4% Substructure £ 4,492.00 £ 4,492.00 0.4%

GCG - STUDENT RESIDENCES

GLASGOW

LINK GOUP LTD - MIXED

HOUSING Superstructure £ 676,478.00 £ 767,484.00 28% Superstructure £ 548,993.00 £ 555,468.00 34.9% Superstructure £ 142,876.00 £ 147,368.00 11.3%

Substructure £ 265,029.00 £ 265,029.00 3% Substructure £ 382,121.00 £ 382,121.00 7% Finishes £ 107,308.00 £ 874,792.00 4% Finishes £ 200,205.00 £ 755,673.00 12.7% Finishes £ 107,465.00 £ 254,833.00 8.5%

Superstructure £ 3,017,660.00 £ 3,282,689.00 30% Superstructure £ 1,776,255.00 £ 2,158,376.00 32% Fittings and furnishes £ 167,321.00 £ 1,042,113.00 7% Fittings and furnishes £ 29,260.00 £ 784,933.00 1.9% Fittings and furnishes £ 42,350.00 £ 297,183.00 3.3%

Finishes £ 881,646.00 £ 4,164,335.00 9% Finishes £ 331,441.00 £ 2,489,817.00 6% Services £ 473,923.00 £ 1,516,036.00 20% Services £ 619,184.00 £ 1,404,117.00 39.3% Services £ 848,217.00 £ 1,145,400.00 67.0%

Fittings and furnishes £ 402,122.00 £ 4,566,457.00 4% Fittings and furnishes £ 61,163.00 £ 2,550,980.00 1% External works £ 510,255.00 £ 2,026,291.00 21% External works £ 4,893.00 £ 1,409,010.00 0.3% External works £ 30,565.00 £ 1,175,965.00 2.4%

Services £ 1,193,253.00 £ 5,759,710.00 12% Services £ 463,845.00 £ 3,014,825.00 8% Preliminaries £ 201,488.00 £ 2,227,779.00 8% Preliminaries £ 160,415.00 £ 1,569,425.00 10.2% Preliminaries £ 65,607.00 £ 1,241,572.00 5.2%

External works £ 3,465,081.00 £ 9,224,791.00 35% External works £ 1,449,058.00 £ 4,463,883.00 26% Contingencies £ 82,316.00 £ 2,310,095.00 3% Contingencies £ 5,498.00 £ 1,574,923.00 0.3% Contingencies £ 12,686.00 £ 1,254,258.00 1.0%

Preliminaries £ 717,333.00 £ 9,942,124.00 7% Preliminaries £ 844,609.00 £ 5,308,492.00 15% Design fees £ 91,590.00 £ 2,401,685.00 4% Design fees £ - £ 1,574,923.00 0.0% Design fees £ 11,354.00 £ 1,265,612.00 0.9%

Contingencies £ - £ 9,942,124.00 0% Contingencies £ 198,447.00 £ 5,506,939.00 4% TOTAL CONTRACT SUM £ 2,401,685.00 £ 2,401,685.00 100% TOTAL CONTRACT SUM £ 1,574,923.00 £ 1,574,923.00 100.0% TOTAL CONTRACT SUM £ 1,265,612.00 £ 1,265,612.00 100.0%

Design fees £ - £ 9,942,124.00 0% Design fees £ - £ 5,506,939.00 0%

COST PER FUNCTIONAL UNIT

(PER M 2

GFA) £ 1,467.13

COST PER FUNCTIONAL UNIT

(PER M 2

GFA) £ 735.26

COST PER FUNCTIONAL UNIT

(PER M 2

GFA) £ 632.81

TOTAL CONTRACT SUM £ 9,942,124.00 £ 9,942,124.00 100% TOTAL CONTRACT SUM £ 5,506,939.00 £ 5,506,939.00 100%

COST PER FUNCIONAL UNIT

(NO OF BEDROOMS) £ 150,638.24

COST PER FUNCIONAL UNIT

(HOUSING UNIT) £ 114,727.90

SHELTON PRIMARY CARE

CENTRE

STOCKTON ON TEES,

CLEVELAND

VEHICLE RESEARCH AND

DEVELOPMENT CENTRE

GFA 4096 GFA M2 4024 Substructure £ 377,181.00 £ 377,181.00 7% Substructure £ 4,933.00 £ 4,933.00 0.4% Substructure £ 269,850.00 £ 269,850.00 8.7%

COST PER M2 £ 2,427.28 COST PER M2 £ 1,368.52 Superstructure £ 1,647,871.00 £ 2,025,052.00 29% Superstructure £ 404,097.00 £ 409,030.00 29.9% Superstructure £ 1,041,702.00 £ 1,311,552.00 33.5%

Finishes £ 198,045.00 £ 2,223,097.00 3% Finishes £ 171,032.00 £ 580,062.00 12.7% Finishes £ 91,170.00 £ 1,402,722.00 2.9%

PADWORTH COLLEGE -

STUDENT RESIDENCES

SAMATT LTD - MIXED

HOUSING Fittings and furnishes £ 178,207.00 £ 2,401,304.00 3% Fittings and furnishes £ 26,461.00 £ 606,523.00 2.0% Fittings and furnishes £ 29,999.00 £ 1,432,721.00 1.0%

Substructure £ 84,380.00 £ 84,380.00 10% Substructure £ 347,189.00 £ 347,189.00 4% Services £ 1,273,566.00 £ 3,674,870.00 22% Services £ 581,395.00 £ 1,187,918.00 43.0% Services £ 782,562.00 £ 2,215,283.00 25.2%

Superstructure £ 249,684.00 £ 334,064.00 31% Superstructure £ 2,698,955.00 £ 3,046,144.00 30% External works £ 898,725.00 £ 4,573,595.00 16% External works £ 4,291.00 £ 1,192,209.00 0.3% External works £ 657,639.00 £ 2,872,922.00 21.2%

Finishes £ 73,981.00 £ 408,045.00 9% Finishes £ 759,069.00 £ 3,805,213.00 8% Preliminaries £ 1,083,624.00 £ 5,657,219.00 19% Preliminaries £ 153,867.00 £ 1,346,076.00 11.4% Preliminaries £ 162,992.00 £ 3,035,914.00 5.2%

Fittings and furnishes £ 30,378.00 £ 438,423.00 4% Fittings and furnishes £ 337,907.00 £ 4,143,120.00 4% Contingencies £ 107,200.00 £ 5,764,419.00 2% Contingencies £ 5,272.00 £ 1,351,348.00 0.4% Contingencies £ 25,372.00 £ 3,061,286.00 0.8%

Services £ 196,223.00 £ 634,646.00 24% Services £ 881,871.00 £ 5,024,991.00 10% Design fees £ - £ 5,764,419.00 0% Design fees £ - £ 1,351,348.00 0.0% Design fees £ 47,763.00 £ 3,109,049.00 1.5%

External works £ 70,977.00 £ 705,623.00 9% External works £ 2,651,691.00 £ 7,676,682.00 30% TOTAL CONTRACT SUM £ 5,764,419.00 £ 5,764,419.00 100% TOTAL CONTRACT SUM £ 1,351,348.00 £ 1,351,348.00 100.0% TOTAL CONTRACT SUM £ 3,109,049.00 £ 3,109,049.00 100.0%

Preliminaries £ 93,007.00 £ 798,630.00 11% Preliminaries £ 1,130,355.00 £ 8,807,037.00 13%

COST PER FUNCTIONAL UNIT

(PER M 2

GFA) £ 2,019.77

COST PER FUNCTIONAL UNIT

(PER M 2

GFA) £ 750.75

COST PER FUNCTIONAL UNIT

(PER M 2

GFA) £ 1,527.79

Contingencies £ 18,104.00 £ 816,734.00 2% Contingencies £ 153,913.00 £ 8,960,950.00 2%

Design fees £ - £ 816,734.00 0% Design fees £ - £ 8,960,950.00 0% SACRISTON SURGERY COVENTRY, WEST MIDLANDS

Babraham Bioscience

Technologies Ltd - RESEARCH

BLOCK

TOTAL CONTRACT SUM £ 816,734.00 £ 816,734.00 100% TOTAL CONTRACT SUM £ 8,960,950.00 £ 8,960,950.00 100% Substructure £ 257,238.00 £ 257,238.00 7% Substructure £ 9,815.00 £ 9,815.00 0.9% Substructure £ 250,331.00 £ 250,331.00 3.1%

COST PER FUNCIONAL UNIT

(NO OF BEDROOMS) UNKNOWN

COST PER FUNCIONAL UNIT

(HOUSING UNIT) £ 175,704.90 Superstructure £ 1,286,965.00 £ 1,544,203.00 35% Superstructure £ 243,589.00 £ 253,404.00 22.5% Superstructure £ 2,124,830.00 £ 2,375,161.00 26.3%

GFA 433 GFA M2 5662 Finishes £ 221,318.00 £ 1,765,521.00 6% Finishes £ 143,919.00 £ 397,323.00 13.3% Finishes £ 298,445.00 £ 2,673,606.00 3.7%

COST PER M2 £ 1,886.22 COST PER M2 £ 1,582.65 Fittings and furnishes £ 92,554.00 £ 1,858,075.00 3% Fittings and furnishes £ 30,809.00 £ 428,132.00 2.8% Fittings and furnishes £ 342,298.00 £ 3,015,904.00 4.2%

Services £ 832,982.00 £ 2,691,057.00 23% Services £ 532,458.00 £ 960,590.00 49.2% Services £ 3,273,945.00 £ 6,289,849.00 40.5%

CRAMPTON SMITH

PROPERTIES - OXFORD

STUDENT RESIDENCES

BLACK COUNTRY HOUSING

AND COMMUNITY SERVICES

GROUP - MIXED HOUSING External works £ 474,730.00 £ 3,165,787.00 13% External works £ - £ 960,590.00 0.0% External works £ 534,374.00 £ 6,824,223.00 6.6%

Substructure £ 90,895.00 £ 90,895.00 4% Substructure £ 102,579.00 £ 102,579.00 2% Preliminaries £ 403,619.00 £ 3,569,406.00 11% Preliminaries £ 115,380.00 £ 1,075,970.00 10.7% Preliminaries £ 626,683.00 £ 7,450,906.00 7.8%

Superstructure £ 889,044.00 £ 979,939.00 34% Superstructure £ 2,049,672.00 £ 2,152,251.00 48% Contingencies £ 100,900.00 £ 3,670,306.00 3% Contingencies £ 5,667.00 £ 1,081,637.00 0.5% Contingencies £ 316,552.00 £ 7,767,458.00 3.9%

Finishes £ 279,515.00 £ 1,259,454.00 11% Finishes £ 507,722.00 £ 2,659,973.00 12% Design fees £ - £ 3,670,306.00 0% Design fees £ - £ 1,081,637.00 0.0% Design fees £ 318,271.00 £ 8,085,729.00 3.9%

Fittings and furnishes £ 51,959.00 £ 1,311,413.00 2% Fittings and furnishes £ 47,783.00 £ 2,707,756.00 1% TOTAL CONTRACT SUM £ 3,670,306.00 £ 3,670,306.00 100% TOTAL CONTRACT SUM £ 1,081,637.00 £ 1,081,637.00 100.0% TOTAL CONTRACT SUM £ 8,085,729.00 £ 8,085,729.00 100.0%

Services £ 574,585.00 £ 1,885,998.00 22% Services £ 788,403.00 £ 3,496,159.00 18%

COST PER FUNCTIONAL UNIT

(PER M 2

GFA) £ 2,251.72

COST PER FUNCTIONAL UNIT

(PER M 2

GFA) £ 569.28

COST PER FUNCTIONAL UNIT

(PER M 2

GFA) £ 4,351.85

External works £ 254,445.00 £ 2,140,443.00 10% External works £ 464,264.00 £ 3,960,423.00 11%

Preliminaries £ 336,177.00 £ 2,476,620.00 13% Preliminaries £ 300,429.00 £ 4,260,852.00 7%

THE FIRST OAKAPPLE

PRIMARY CARE PARTNERSHIP HAYDONWICK, WILTSHIRE

THE UNIVERSITY OF

SHEFFIELD RESEARCH LAB

Contingencies £ 71,203.00 £ 2,547,823.00 3% Contingencies £ 10,272.00 £ 4,271,124.00 0% Substructure £ 278,403.00 £ 278,403.00 4% Substructure £ 85,113.00 £ 85,113.00 3.2% Substructure £ 680,479.00 £ 680,479.00 15.5%

Design fees £ 40,392.00 £ 2,588,215.00 2% Design fees £ - £ 4,271,124.00 0% Superstructure £ 1,740,185.00 £ 2,018,588.00 28% Superstructure £ 816,012.00 £ 901,125.00 31.1% Superstructure £ 1,379,195.00 £ 2,059,674.00 31.3%

TOTAL CONTRACT SUM £ 2,588,215.00 £ 2,588,215.00 100% TOTAL CONTRACT SUM £ 4,271,124.00 £ 4,271,124.00 100% Finishes £ 263,509.00 £ 2,282,097.00 4% Finishes £ 154,880.00 £ 1,056,005.00 5.9% Finishes £ 491,802.00 £ 2,551,476.00 11.2%

COST PER FUNCIONAL UNIT

(NO OF BEDROOMS) £ 92,436.25

COST PER FUNCIONAL UNIT

(HOUSING UNIT) £ 83,747.53 Fittings and furnishes £ 923,758.00 £ 3,205,855.00 15% Fittings and furnishes £ 16,652.00 £ 1,072,657.00 0.6% Fittings and furnishes £ 80,201.00 £ 2,631,677.00 1.8%

GFA 1757 GFA M2 3091 Services £ 1,272,698.00 £ 4,478,553.00 20% Services £ 528,817.00 £ 1,601,474.00 20.2% Services £ 933,289.00 £ 3,564,966.00 21.2%

COST PER M2 £ 1,473.09 COST PER M2 £ 1,381.79 External works £ 661,352.00 £ 5,139,905.00 11% External works £ 602,604.00 £ 2,204,078.00 23.0% External works £ 286,562.00 £ 3,851,528.00 6.5%

Preliminaries £ 1,141,360.00 £ 6,281,265.00 18% Preliminaries £ 352,178.00 £ 2,556,256.00 13.4% Preliminaries £ 402,095.00 £ 4,253,623.00 9.1%

UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK -

STUDENT RESIDENCES HEADROW HOUSING GROUP Contingencies £ - £ 6,281,265.00 0% Contingencies £ 67,273.00 £ 2,623,529.00 2.6% Contingencies £ 28,214.00 £ 4,281,837.00 0.6%

Substructure £ 155,740.00 £ 155,740.00 1% Substructure £ 78,085.00 £ 78,085.00 5% Design fees £ - £ 6,281,265.00 0% Design fees £ - £ 2,623,529.00 0.0% Design fees £ 121,322.00 £ 4,403,159.00 2.8%

Superstructure £ 8,329,198.00 £ 8,484,938.00 32% Superstructure £ 647,477.00 £ 725,562.00 41% TOTAL CONTRACT SUM £ 6,281,265.00 £ 6,281,265.00 100% TOTAL CONTRACT SUM £ 2,623,529.00 £ 2,623,529.00 100.0% TOTAL CONTRACT SUM £ 4,403,159.00 £ 4,403,159.00 100.0%

Finishes £ 2,367,938.00 £ 10,852,876.00 9% Finishes £ 131,700.00 £ 857,262.00 8%

COST PER FUNCTIONAL UNIT

(PER M 2

GFA) £ 1,947.08

COST PER FUNCTIONAL UNIT

(PER M 2

GFA) £ 1,785.93

COST PER FUNCTIONAL UNIT

(PER M 2

GFA) £ 2,229.45

Fittings and furnishes £ 601,383.00 £ 11,454,259.00 2% Fittings and furnishes £ 79,669.00 £ 936,931.00 5%

Services £ 7,812,000.00 £ 19,266,259.00 30% Services £ 261,941.00 £ 1,198,872.00 16%

External works £ 1,827,689.00 £ 21,093,948.00 7% External works £ 165,507.00 £ 1,364,379.00 10%

Preliminaries £ 2,697,001.00 £ 23,790,949.00 10% Preliminaries £ 216,675.00 £ 1,581,054.00 14% AVERAGE TOTAL COST £ 4,129,837.40 AVERAGE TOTAL COST £ 1,545,581.60 AVERAGE TOTAL COST £ 4,778,287.60

Contingencies £ 1,399,920.00 £ 25,190,869.00 5% Contingencies £ 7,015.00 £ 1,588,069.00 0%

Design fees £ 690,102.00 £ 25,880,971.00 3% Design fees £ - £ 1,588,069.00 0%

AVERAGE COST PER

FUNCTIONAL UNIT £ 1,971.73

AVERAGE COST PER

FUNCTIONAL UNIT £ 888.87

AVERAGE COST PER

FUNCTIONAL UNIT £ 2,161.78

TOTAL CONTRACT SUM £ 25,880,971.00 £ 25,880,971.00 100% TOTAL CONTRACT SUM £ 1,588,069.00 £ 1,588,069.00 100%

COST PER FUNCIONAL UNIT

(NO OF BEDROOMS) £ 44,316.73

COST PER FUNCIONAL UNIT

(HOUSING UNIT) £ 105,871.27

GFA 13649 GFA M2 1240

COST PER M2 £ 1,896.18 COST PER M2 £ 1,280.70

AVERAGE TOTAL COST £ 8,347,788.00 AVERAGE TOTAL COST £ 4,480,470.20

AVERAGE COST PER

FUNCTIONAL UNIT £ 79,232.79

AVERAGE COST PER

FUNCTIONAL UNIT £ 123,680.57

AVERAGE COST PER M2 £ 1,814.77 AVERAGE COST PER M2 £ 1,471.81

STUDENT HOUSING

PERCENTAGE OF

TOTAL COST

ELEMENT PER

FUNCTIONAL UNIT MIXED TENURE HOUSING

PERCENTAGE OF

TOTAL COST

ELEMENT PER

FUNCTIONAL UNIT HEALTH CENTRE

PERCENTAGE OF

TOTAL COST

ELEMENT PER

FUNCTIONAL UNIT RETAIL CENTRE

PERCENTAGE OF

TOTAL COST

ELEMENT PER

FUNCTIONAL UNIT CENTRAL RESEARCH LAB

PERCENTAGE OF

TOTAL COST

ELEMENT PER

FUNCTIONAL UNIT TOTAL COST OF ELEMENT

TOTAL COST ELEMENT PER

FUNCTIONAL UNIT

Substructure 119,748.20£ 1.43% 1,136.59£ 215,169.00£ 4.80% 5,939.61£ 238,364.20£ 5.77% 113.80£ 22,782.80£ 1.47% 13.10£ 287,364.60£ 6.01% 130.01£ 883,428.80£ 7,333.11£

Superstructure 2,590,449.00£ 31.03% 24,587.17£ 1,570,845.20£ 35.06% 43,362.20£ 1,178,957.80£ 28.55% 562.88£ 456,567.40£ 29.54% 262.57£ 1,481,074.60£ 31.00% 670.06£ 7,277,894.00£ 69,444.89£

Finishes 778,186.00£ 9.32% 7,386.13£ 378,832.20£ 8.46% 10,457.43£ 185,173.80£ 4.48% 88.41£ 168,583.60£ 10.91% 96.95£ 260,567.40£ 5.45% 117.89£ 1,771,343.00£ 18,146.80£

Fittings and furnishes 268,757.00£ 3.22% 2,550.90£ 111,158.80£ 2.48% 3,068.47£ 281,658.00£ 6.82% 134.47£ 25,978.60£ 1.68% 14.94£ 112,452.00£ 2.35% 50.88£ 800,004.40£ 5,819.66£

Services 2,170,824.80£ 26.00% 20,604.32£ 518,203.40£ 11.57% 14,304.68£ 921,451.60£ 22.31% 439.93£ 553,590.20£ 35.82% 318.37£ 1,559,828.20£ 32.64% 705.69£ 5,723,898.20£ 36,373.00£

External works 1,151,408.80£ 13.79% 10,928.56£ 1,037,739.40£ 23.16% 28,646.15£ 606,264.20£ 14.68% 289.45£ 123,776.80£ 8.01% 71.18£ 427,391.00£ 8.94% 193.36£ 3,346,580.20£ 40,128.71£

Preliminaries 808,782.20£ 9.69% 7,676.53£ 574,592.80£ 12.82% 15,861.27£ 632,343.20£ 15.31% 301.90£ 176,336.00£ 11.41% 101.41£ 451,322.60£ 9.45% 204.19£ 2,643,376.80£ 24,145.31£

Contingencies 313,533.20£ 3.76% 2,975.89£ 73,929.40£ 1.65% 2,040.77£ 67,306.60£ 1.63% 32.13£ 17,966.20£ 1.16% 10.33£ 76,564.80£ 1.60% 34.64£ 549,300.20£ 5,093.77£

Design fees 146,098.80£ 1.75% 1,386.69£ -£ 0.00% -£ 18,318.00£ 0.44% 8.75£ -£ 0.00% -£ 121,722.40£ 2.55% 55.07£ 286,139.20£ 1,450.51£

TOTAL COST BUILDING TYPE 8,347,788.00£ 100.00% 79,232.79£ 4,480,470.20£ 100.00% 123,680.57£ 4,129,837.40£ 100.00% 1,971.73£ 1,545,581.60£ 100.00% 888.87£ 4,778,287.60£ 100.00% 2,161.78£ 23,281,964.80£ 207,935.75£ 79,232.79£ 123,680.57£ 1,971.73£ 888.87£ 2,161.78£

(BEDROOMS) (HOUSING UNIT) (M 2)

(M 2)

AVERAGE COSTS PER BUILDING TYPE - TOTALS AND PER FUNCTIONAL UNIT E

LE M

E N

*Based on BCIS figures accessed on 1/5/15. Rebased to Brighton area and q1 2015 financial year. Specification restricted to type deemed feesible by current planning regulations. See appendix 2 for full methodology.

TOTAL COST PER FUNCTIONAL

UNIT TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST PER

BUILDING TYPE

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST PER

FUNCTIONAL UNIT

Project spec/BE215_Cost_Value_Management_Report_Roland_Martin.pdf

Cost & Value Management BE215 2014/15

Page 1 of 10

Cost & Value Management BE215/B – PRESTON BARRACKS

DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

(INDIVIDUAL REPORT).

University of Brighton

Faculty of Science & Engineering

School of Environment & Technology

Built Environment & Civil Engineering Division

Module BE215 Cost & Value Management

Module Leader Noel Painting

Student Name Roland Martin

Student Number 13833214

Course BSc Building Surveying

Year Two

Date 2014-15

Word Count N/A

Cost & Value Management BE215 2014/15

Page 2 of 10

Contents

1 Assessment ......................................................................................................................................... 3

2 Cost Plan (for Developer) ................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4

2.2 Notes on BCIS data used: ........................................................................................................... 4

2.3 Cost Plan (per building type) ...................................................................................................... 5

3 Tender Cashflow Forecast (for Client) ................................................................................................ 6

3.1 Assumptions ............................................................................................................................... 6

3.2 Cashflow Data (page 1 of 2) ....................................................................................................... 7

3.3 Cashflow Data (page 2 of 2) ....................................................................................................... 8

4 Developer’s Equation ......................................................................................................................... 9

4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 9

References ................................................................................................................................................10

Module: BE215 Cost & Value Management

BSc (Hons) Building Surveying

University of Brighton

Assignment: Stage 2 (Individual Study)

Student: Roland Martin

Student # 13833214

Title: Assessment of Size & Configuration of Buildings

Site: Preston Barracks, Lewes Road, Brighton BN1

Scale 1:1250 Date: May 2015

ASSESSMENT OF SIZE & CONFIGURATION OF THE BUILDINGS:

The proposed development layout (left) is

designed to satisfy the client brief and

maximise the value of the site by

designing for 444 homes which exceeds

the 350 target whilst meeting planning

requirements regarding internal size and

housing density.

Factors affecting overall cost of the

project:

Strategic decisions:

Procurement type

Decision regarding MoD, Crimean war

building (if planning allows): whether to

leave them or relocate them and use

the building (or its site)

Decision regarding Mannock building

(if planning allows): convert it for new

use (if so, what) or replace it

Site / construction related:

Potential pollution of aquifer

Removal of hazardous materials

(including possible munitions)

Landscaping (varies according to new

building placement)

Busy Lewes Road (traffic management

/ delivery logistics)

Nuisance (neighbouring properties)

Watts Bank (to NW) is a Site of Nature

Conservation Importance.

The student made the following strategic

decisions (planning approval assumed):

Procurement: competitive lump sum

tender (tender documents to include

drawings, full specification & Bill of

Quantities)

Relocate the MoD, demolish the

Crimean war building and construct the

affordable housing on the same area

(1299m2)

Redevelop the Mannock building as

premium private residences (providing

1750m2 of the 21,450m2 requirement).

Cost & Value Management BE215 2014/15

Section 2 Page 4 of 10

2 Cost Plan (for Developer)

2.1 Introduction

Cost planning enables a client to visualise not only overall project

expenditure but to where and when payments must be made to get it built.

The client will usually appoint a cost consultant – Quantity Surveyor – as

the expert for this task.

The student has assumed a traditional construction contract (lump sum,

competitive tender) as the procurement route.

The main contractor may be issued an estimated cost plan as part of the

tender documentation. On larger projects they will then price a supplied

Bill of Quantities (BQ) and use their own price data from previous projects

or use the BCIS database or similar to price each element.

Cost plans evolve throughout a project lifecycle, starting as a high level

estimate of costs – when less information is available – and, depending on

the form of contract, ending with a detailed measured breakdown of each

activity and construction element. The detailed plan will be used by the

Contract Administrator to manage expenditure during the contract period.

Different models are used to generate costs – the appropriate one depends

on the level of data available. Early in a project, a single rate method (Brook,

2008) is usually employed, either using superficial gross floor area (GIFA) or

functional units (hospital beds, student accommodation units). As design

details emerge, multiple rate methods enable approximate and finally

accurate quantities to be priced.

Students are instructed to use the BCIS database of historical cost data to

create their plan. This student assumes that the project is at the Concept

Design stage of the RIBA Plan of Work (2013) which means detailed designs

are not yet available and much must be estimated. The appropriate cost

model is the BCIS ‘Group Elemental Analysis’ level, which breaks costs down

into the following:

 Construction elements (group level only)

 External works

 Preliminaries (contractor’s on site costs)

 Contingencies

 Design Fees (main contractor, if any).

2.2 Notes on BCIS data used:

 All figures have been re-based to Q2 2015 to account for inflation and

price changes

 Figures include the contractors profit

 Contractors design fees (element #9) relate to Design & Build contracts

and, as they only represent circa 1 or 2% of the contract sum of

selected projects have been deleted. Consultants fees (including

design team) are added as a non-construction cost falling outside the

main contract (see below)

 External works, contingencies and varied greatly between BCIS

projects:

○ Costs for Preston Barracks could be more accurately stated after

detailed site exploration: external works, preliminaries,

contingencies sums and the design approach would all be affected

○ The student has used averaged figures for these elements because

it is not feasible (within the assignment scope) to produce more

accurate estimates – see assignment stage #1 for Preston Barracks

site factors that would affect costs

○ According to Brook (2008) common final cost percentages for non-

building related work is: preliminaries (10-15%) contingencies (5%)

whilst external works vary widely.

Non-construction contract costs are not covered in the BCIS database. This

student has used the following estimated costs:

 Demolitions: £396,000 for 13,200m2 @ £30/m3; sources - Building

magazine (2006) and web sources (BCIS only has minor demolition

work relevant data)

 Removal of hazardous materials (inc. possible munitions): £267,150

for 5,343m2 for Mannock building & demolitions @ £50/m2

(BadAsbestos, 2015)

 Relocation of MoD (Crimean war building demolished): £1,000,000 for

another 500m2 GIFA facility on the outskirts of Brighton

 Professional fees: 10% of construction sum for design consultants,

project managers etc. (Designing Buildings Wiki, 2015)

 Site investigation: £50,000 lump sum (recent lecture)

 Planning fees: £100,699 (£19,049 + £115 / 75m2 GFA (Brighton and

Hove City Council, 2015)

 Building control fees: quotes on demand only where works exceed

£100,000 (Brighton and Hove City Council, 2015) but estimated as

£100,000 using Designing Buildings Wiki (2015)

The following is excluded:

 Land acquisition / management costs (details not known; estimation

seems pointless)

 VAT.

Cost & Value Management BE215 2014/15

Section 2 Page 5 of 10

2.3 Cost Plan (per building type)

Homes (Private, new build)

BCIS data* (816 - Flats / apartments)**

Preston Barracks

Student Accommodation

BCIS data* (856.2 - Students' residences)**

Preston Barracks

Central Research Lab BCIS data* (732 - Laboratories)**

Preston Barracks

GIFA^ (m2) 41,747 21,450 GIFA^ (m2) 43,661 15,000 GIFA^ (m2) 20,537 5,500

Element (BCIS Group Elemental) Element cost (£)

Cost / m2 (£)

% of contract

New budget (£) Element (BCIS Group Elemental) Element value (£)

Cost / m2 (£)

% of contract

New budget (£) Element (BCIS Group Elemental) Element cost (£)

Cost / m2 (£)

% of contract

New budget (£)

1. Substructure 2,611,984 63 4.3 1,342,062 1. Substructure 3,925,083 90 5.1 1,348,486 1. Substructure 3,583,545 174 5.6 959,707

2. Superstructure 22,955,016 550 37.9 11,794,502 2. Superstructure 24,646,153 564 32.1 8,467,335 2. Superstructure 21,223,820 1,033 33.3 5,683,937

3. Finishes 5,716,805 137 9.4 2,937,348 3. Finishes 6,544,348 150 8.5 2,248,350 3. Finishes 3,311,143 161 5.2 886,755

4. Fittings and furnishings 2,778,656 67 4.6 1,427,700 4. Fittings and furnishings 3,432,661 79 4.5 1,179,311 4. Fittings and furnishings 2,128,999 104 3.3 570,166

5. Services 12,187,016 292 20.1 6,261,803 5. Services 19,928,993 456 26.0 6,846,726 5. Services 19,635,448 956 30.8 5,258,556

BUILDING SUB-TOTAL (1 to 5) 46,249,476 1,108 76.3 23,763,414 BUILDING SUB-TOTAL (1 to 5) 58,477,238 1,339 76.2 20,090,208 BUILDING SUB-TOTAL (1 to 5) 49,882,955 2,429 78.3 13,359,120

6. External works 6,261,647 150 10.3 3,217,293 6. External works 8,749,520 200 11.4 3,005,950 6. External works 4,133,517 201 6.5 1,106,994

7. Preliminaries 7,653,170 183 12.6 3,932,270 7. Preliminaries 9,133,117 209 11.9 3,137,737 7. Preliminaries 7,806,510 380 12.3 2,090,656

8. Contingencies 447,643 11 0.7 230,003 8. Contingencies 355,169 8 0.5 122,020 8. Contingencies 1,875,883 91 2.9 502,379

CONTRACT SUM 60,611,936 1,452 100.0 31,142,981 CONTRACT SUM 76,715,044 1,757 100.0 26,355,916 CONTRACT SUM 63,698,865 3,102 100.0 17,059,150

* BCIS costs are totals from selected projects (x8). 7 x further projects rejected as too dissimilar * BCIS costs are totals from selected projects (x7) * BCIS costs are totals from selected projects (x4). 1 x other project rejected from results list as too dissimilar

** Additional filters: new build; date range 2007 - 2015; GIFA 3,000-30,000m2; 3-7 storeys ** Additional filters: new build; date range 2007 - 2015; GIFA 3,000-30,000m2; 3-7 storeys ** Additional filters: new build; date range 2007 - 2015; GIFA 1000 - 15000m2

^ Gross internal floor area. ^ Gross internal floor area. ^ Gross internal floor area.

Homes (Private, Mannock building)

BCIS data* (816 - Flats / apartments)**

Preston Barracks

Retail Space BCIS data* (345 - Shops)**

Preston Barracks

Health Centre BCIS data* (421 - Health Centre)**

Preston Barracks

GIFA^ (m2) 8,231 1,750 GIFA^ (m2) 1,903 2,500 GIFA^ (m2) 12,258 1,200

Element (BCIS Group Elemental) Element cost (£)

Cost / m2 (£)

% of contract

New budget (£) Element (BCIS Group Elemental) Element value (£)

Cost / m2 (£)

% of contract

New budget (£) Element (BCIS Group Elemental) Element cost (£)

Cost / m2 (£)

% of contract

New budget (£)

1. Substructure 189,776 23 1.8 40,348 1. Substructure 459,723 242 15.1 603,945 1. Substructure 1,390,287 113 5.5 136,102

2. Superstructure 3,433,976 417 33.3 730,100 2. Superstructure 1,242,964 653 40.9 1,632,901 2. Superstructure 7,113,002 580 28.0 696,329

3. Finishes 1,188,613 144 11.5 252,712 3. Finishes 62,515 33 2.1 82,127 3. Finishes 1,314,815 107 5.2 128,714

4. Fittings and furnishings 525,151 64 5.1 111,653 4. Fittings and furnishings 3,220 2 0.1 4,230 4. Fittings and furnishings 754,812 62 3.0 73,893

5. Services 1,852,712 225 18.0 393,907 5. Services 127,380 67 4.2 167,341 5. Services 6,725,231 549 26.5 658,368

BUILDING SUB-TOTAL (1 to 5) 7,190,228 874 69.8 1,528,721 BUILDING SUB-TOTAL (1 to 5) 1,895,802 996 62.3 2,490,544 BUILDING SUB-TOTAL (1 to 5) 17,298,149 1,411 68.2 1,693,407

6. External works 1,634,044 199 15.9 347,416 6. External works 701,989 369 23.1 922,214 6. External works 4,149,988 339 16.4 406,264

7. Preliminaries 982,756 119 9.5 208,945 7. Preliminaries 351,593 185 11.6 461,893 7. Preliminaries 3,161,841 258 12.5 309,529

8. Contingencies 497,737 60 4.8 105,824 8. Contingencies 93,045 49 3.1 122,235 8. Contingencies 763,440 62 3.0 74,737

CONTRACT SUM 10,304,765 1,252 100.0 2,190,905 CONTRACT SUM 3,042,429 1,599 100.0 3,996,885 CONTRACT SUM 25,373,418 2,070 100.0 2,483,937

* BCIS costs are totals from selected projects (x6). 3 x further projects rejected as too dissimilar * BCIS costs are totals from selected projects (x7). 1 x further project rejected as too dissimilar * BCIS costs are totals from selected projects (x11)

** Additional filters: rehabilitation/conversions; date range 2007 - 2015; GIFA 500-10,000m2; 1-4 storeys ** Additional filters: new build; date range 2007 - 2015 (no other filters as few retail projects exist in the database) ** Additional filters: new build; date range 2009 - 2015; GIFA 1200m2 (default range); 2-4 storeys

^ Gross internal floor area. ^ Gross internal floor area. ^ Gross internal floor area.

Homes (Affordable)

BCIS data* (816 - Flats / apartments)**

Preston Barracks

Cost Plan Summary GIFA^ (m2) 36,184 5,800 Construction Budget (£)

Element (BCIS Group Elemental) Element cost (£)

Cost / m2 (£)

% of contract

New budget (£) Student accommodation 26,355,916

1. Substructure 3,546,654 98 6.8 568,500 350 new homes (Private - new build) 31,142,981

2. Superstructure 19,445,239 537 37.2 3,116,913 350 new homes (Private - Mannock building refurbishment) 2,190,905

3. Finishes 4,471,338 124 8.6 716,719 350 new homes (Affordable) 8,374,690

4. Fittings and furnishings 2,018,339 56 3.9 323,523 Central Research Lab 17,059,150

5. Services 9,882,169 273 18.9 1,584,031 Health centre 2,483,937

BUILDING SUB-TOTAL (1 to 5) 39,363,738 1,088 75.3 6,309,686 Retail space 3,996,885

6. External works 6,366,619 176 12.2 1,020,517 Infrastructure (@10% of contract sum) 9,160,446

7. Preliminaries 6,060,393 167 11.6 971,432 CONTRACT SUM TOTAL 100,764,911

8. Contingencies 455,767 13 0.9 73,056

CONTRACT SUM 52,246,517 1,444 100.0 8,374,690

* BCIS costs are totals from selected projects (x8). 4 x further projects rejected as too dissimilar

** Additional filters: rehabilitation/conversions; date range 2007 - 2015; GIFA 500-10,000m2; 1-4 storeys

^ Gross internal floor area.

Cost & Value Management BE215 2014/15

Section 3 Page 6 of 10

3 Tender Cashflow Forecast (for Client)

3.1 Assumptions

 BCIS data was analysed and the following programme timelines selected for each of the

construction types. Client assumptions regarding phasing has also been included:

○ Student Accommodation: 30 months (start as soon as possible)

○ Affordable Homes (20% of 350): 15 months (start as soon as possible)

○ Private Homes (Mannock building redevelopment): 15 months (start as soon as possible)

○ Private Homes (new build): 60 months (4 equal phases of 15 months)

○ Health Centre: 9 months (completion to coincide with that of the final housing)

○ Central Research Lab: 18 months (start as soon as possible)

○ Retail Space: 12 months (completion to coincide with that of the final housing)

 Construction elements (group level) are distributed on the programme timeline after reviewing a

an example by (Illingworth, 2000) and sense checking cost against the S curve norm which says

that 25% of costs are incurred in the first third of the contract period, 50% in the middle third and

25% in the final third

 At its most detailed level, time is broken down into quarter years in order to fit into the A3 format

required. It is apparent that many periods are either over or under-stated regarding likely costs

incurred however the student understands the S curve principle

 Contingencies (BCIS stage #8) have been included as these values represent the average required

for (sampled) projects submitted to BCIS

 Infrastructure: an allowance of 10% of the contract sum (student’s estimate) includes:

○ Landscaping

○ Roadways, footpaths & paved areas

○ Street lighting & traffic management

○ Car park (100 bay)

○ Amenity area

 Retention money: 3% is selected as a common value. The principle is to hold back money due to

the contractor to maintain motivation...half is released at Practical Completion and the last half at

the end of the Rectification Period (often 12 months).

Cost & Value Management BE215 2014/15

Section 3 Page 7 of 10

3.2 Cashflow Data (page 1 of 2)

2,015 2,016 2,017 2,018 2,019 2,020 2,021

Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

Activity Value (£) -4 -3 -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Student Accommodation

1. Substructure 1,348,486 674,243 674,243

2. Superstructure 8,467,335 1,411,222 1,411,222 1,411,222 1,411,222 1,411,222 1,411,222

3. Finishes 2,248,350 562,088 562,088 562,088 562,088

4. Fittings and furnishings 1,179,311 589,656 589,656

5. Services 6,846,726 1,141,121 1,141,121 1,141,121 1,141,121 1,141,121 1,141,121

6. External works 3,005,950 1,001,983 1,001,983 1,001,983

7. Preliminaries 3,137,737 313,774 313,774 313,774 313,774 313,774 313,774 313,774 313,774 313,774 313,774

8. Contingencies 122,020 12,202 12,202 12,202 12,202 12,202 12,202 12,202 12,202 12,202 12,202

Total 26,355,916

New Homes (Private, New Build - Phase A)

1. Substructure 335,515 335,515

2. Superstructure 2,948,626 982,875 982,875 982,875

3. Finishes 734,337 367,168 367,168

4. Fittings and furnishings 356,925 356,925

5. Services 1,565,451 391,363 391,363 391,363 391,363

6. External works 804,323 402,162 402,162

7. Preliminaries 983,068 196,614 196,614 196,614 196,614 196,614

8. Contingencies 57,501 11,500 11,500 11,500 11,500 11,500

Total 7,785,745

New Homes (Private, New Build - Phase B)

1. Substructure 335,515 335,515

2. Superstructure 2,948,626 982,875 982,875 982,875

3. Finishes 734,337 367,168 367,168

4. Fittings and furnishings 356,925 356,925

5. Services 1,565,451 391,363 391,363 391,363 391,363

6. External works 804,323 402,162 402,162

7. Preliminaries 983,068 196,614 196,614 196,614 196,614 196,614

8. Contingencies 57,501 11,500 11,500 11,500 11,500 11,500

Total 7,785,745

New Homes (Private, New Build - Phase C)

1. Substructure 335,515 335,515

2. Superstructure 2,948,626 982,875 982,875 982,875

3. Finishes 734,337 367,168 367,168

4. Fittings and furnishings 356,925 356,925

5. Services 1,565,451 391,363 391,363 391,363 391,363

6. External works 804,323 402,162 402,162

7. Preliminaries 983,068 196,614 196,614 196,614 196,614 196,614

8. Contingencies 57,501 11,500 11,500 11,500 11,500 11,500

Total 7,785,745

New Homes (Private, New Build - Phase D)

1. Substructure 335,515 335,515

2. Superstructure 2,948,626 982,875 982,875 982,875

3. Finishes 734,337 367,168 367,168

4. Fittings and furnishings 356,925 356,925

5. Services 1,565,451 391,363 391,363 391,363 391,363

6. External works 804,323 402,162 402,162

7. Preliminaries 983,068 196,614 196,614 196,614 196,614 196,614

8. Contingencies 57,501 11,500 11,500 11,500 11,500 11,500

Total 7,785,745

Total All Phases (A, B, C, D) 31,142,981

New Homes (Private, Manock building refurbishment)

1. Substructure 40,348 40,348

2. Superstructure 730,100 243,367 243,367 243,367

3. Finishes 252,712 126,356 126,356

4. Fittings and furnishings 111,653 111,653

5. Services 393,907 98,477 98,477 98,477 98,477

6. External works 347,416 347,416

7. Preliminaries 208,945 41,789 41,789 41,789 41,789 41,789

8. Contingencies 105,824 21,165 21,165 21,165 21,165 21,165

Total 2,190,905

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

Cashflow forecast continued on the following page >>>

Cost & Value Management BE215 2014/15

Section 3 Page 8 of 10

3.3 Cashflow Data (page 2 of 2)

2,015 2,016 2,017 2,018 2,019 2,020 2,021

Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

Activity Value (£) -4 -3 -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

New Homes (Affordable Housing)

1. Substructure 568,500 568,500

2. Superstructure 3,116,913 1,038,971 1,038,971 1,038,971

3. Finishes 716,719 358,359 358,359

4. Fittings and furnishings 323,523 323,523

5. Services 1,584,031 396,008 396,008 396,008 396,008

6. External works 1,020,517 510,259 510,259

7. Preliminaries 971,432 194,286 194,286 194,286 194,286 194,286

8. Contingencies 73,056 14,611 14,611 14,611 14,611 14,611

Total 8,374,690

Retail Space

1. Substructure 603,945 603,945

2. Superstructure 1,632,901 816,450 816,450

3. Finishes 82,127 41,063 41,063

4. Fittings and furnishings 4,230 4,230

5. Services 167,341 55,780 55,780 55,780

6. External works 922,214 461,107 461,107

7. Preliminaries 461,893 115,473 115,473 115,473 115,473

8. Contingencies 122,235 30,559 30,559 30,559 30,559

Total 3,996,885

Central Research Lab

1. Substructure 959,707 959,707

2. Superstructure 5,683,937 1,420,984 1,420,984 1,420,984 1,420,984

3. Finishes 886,755 295,585 295,585 295,585

4. Fittings and furnishings 570,166 570,166

5. Services 5,258,556 1,051,711 1,051,711 1,051,711 1,051,711 1,051,711

6. External works 1,106,994 553,497 553,497

7. Preliminaries 2,090,656 348,443 348,443 348,443 348,443 348,443 348,443

8. Contingencies 502,379 83,730 83,730 83,730 83,730 83,730 83,730

Total 17,059,150

Health Centre

1. Substructure 136,102 136,102

2. Superstructure 696,329 348,165 348,165

3. Finishes 128,714 128,714

4. Fittings and furnishings 73,893 73,893

5. Services 658,368 329,184 329,184

6. External works 406,264 406,264

7. Preliminaries 309,529 103,176 103,176 103,176

8. Contingencies 74,737 24,912 24,912 24,912

Total 2,483,937

Infrastructure

Car park, roadways, footpaths, amenity areas 9,160,446 458,022 458,022 458,022 458,022 458,022 458,022 458,022 458,022 458,022 458,022 458,022 458,022 458,022 458,022 458,022 458,022 458,022 458,022 458,022 458,022

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TOTAL VALUE 100,764,911

Non-Construction Contract Activities

Demolitions (13,200m3 @ £30/m3) 396,000 198,000 198,000

Removal of hazardous materials (5343m2 @ £50/m2) 267,150 133,575 133,575

Relocation of MoD (to 500m2 GIFA building) 1,000,000 1,000,000

Consultant's Fees (@10% contract sum) 10,076,491 458,022 458,022 458,022 458,022 458,022 458,022 458,022 458,022 458,022 458,022 458,022 458,022 458,022 458,022 458,022 458,022 458,022 458,022 458,022 458,022 458,022 458,022

Planning fees 100,699 100,699

Building control fees 100,000 100,000

Site investigation 50,000 50,000

Total 11,990,340

PROJECT TOTAL 112,755,251

GROSS QUARTERLY VALUE FORCAST 1,381,575 331,575 658,721 458,022 7,200,372 9,863,379 9,189,136 11,477,726 11,264,449 7,643,286 5,938,803 4,527,581 6,486,388 5,121,479 1,861,835 2,498,396 2,498,396 2,865,565 2,641,776 1,861,835 3,709,480 4,129,015 4,730,328 4,416,132

NETT QUARTERLY INTERIM PAYMENTS 1,340,128 321,628 638,960 444,282 6,984,361 9,567,477 8,913,462 11,133,394 10,926,516 7,413,988 5,760,639 4,391,753 6,291,797 4,967,834 1,805,980 2,423,444 2,423,444 2,779,598 2,562,523 1,805,980 3,598,196 4,005,144 4,588,418 4,283,648

CUMULATIVE INTERIM PAYMENTS 1,661,756 2,300,715 2,744,997 9,729,357 19,296,835 28,210,297 39,343,691 50,270,207 57,684,194 63,444,833 67,836,586 74,128,383 79,096,217 80,902,198 83,325,642 85,749,086 88,528,684 91,091,207 92,897,187 96,495,383 100,500,527 105,088,945 109,372,594

AFTER COMPLETION (1.5% RETENTION RELEASED) 1,691,329

AFTER RECTIFICATION (1.5% RETENTION RELEASED) 1,691,329

PROJECT TOTAL 112,755,251

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

Cost & Value Management BE215 2014/15

Section 4 Page 9 of 10

4 Developer’s Equation

4.1 Introduction

 The Cathedral Group call Preston Barracks a £150 million development on their website however the scope is

slightly different and rental values (which dictate yield) are constantly changing. This student has estimated

current letting values to provide an updated development value. This will be used to ascertain the current land

value, which in turn informs the decision to develop or not

 Sources for estimated letting values:

○ Student Accommodation: University of Brighton average current halls of residence rates

○ 350 homes (1, 2 and 3 bed apartments): www.zoopla.co.uk average value of current similar lets in Brighton

○ Retail space: www.shopproperty.co.uk average value of current similar lets in the south (currently a very

variable market with sinking values (Retail Week, 2014) and ‘POA’ as advertised requires negotiation)

○ Central Research Lab: rates are difficult to establish. The student sense checked quality office rates in central

Brighton (£250/m2 p.a.) and used this value because (a) it should be representative and (b) this represents

the opportunity cost to the developer

○ Health Centre: www.rightmove.co.uk lists very few currently for let in the south. The student sense checked

quality office rates in central Brighton (£250/m2 p.a.) and used this because of the reasons stated above for

the CRL

 YP perp @ 7% is used because it is a representative property yield

 Purchaser's cost @ 6% is taken from lecture notes provided

 Marketing budget has not been researched – the figure used is for example only

 Agents' & solicitors' fees percentages are taken from lecture notes.

GROSS DEVELOPMENT VALUE Nett to gross ratio of 80%

Property Type Rate (£) Rate (units) Lettable space

Nett income (£/p.a.)

Student accommodation 7,250 1 student 50 week 500 3,625,000

350 new homes (1 bed) 1,000 1 home / month 176 2,112,000

350 new homes (2 bed) 1,200 1 home / month 216 3,110,400

350 new homes (3 bed) 1,500 1 home / month 33 594,000

Central Research Lab 250 m2 5,500 1,375,000

Health centre 250 m2 1,200 300,000

Retail space 250 m2 2,500 625,000

TOTAL INCOME 11,741,400

YP perp @ 7% 14.29

Value (£) 167,784,606

Less purchaser's cost @ 6% 10,067,076

Nett proceeds 157,717,530

DEVELOPMENT COSTS Cost £

Construction costs

Construction (Excludes profit (15% removed from BCIS values) 100,764,911

Demolitions 396,000

Removal of hazardous materials 267,150

Relocation of MoD 1,000,000

Consultant's Fees 10,076,491

Planning fees 100,699

Building control fees 100,000

Site investigation 50,000

Total 112,755,251

Construction costs finance

£48,995,062 for 15 months @ 4% 2,461,881

Marketing budget

For all property types 100,000

Contingencies

Say 5% of all costs 5,765,857

Agents' & solicitors' fees

Letting: 20% of rent 2,348,280

Sale 1.5% on nett proceeds 2,365,763

Developer's profit @ 15% GDV

Say 5% of all costs 23,657,629

TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS 149,454,662

Gross residual land value 8,262,868

Less purchaser's costs & land holding costs over dev. period @ 20% gross residual land value 1,652,573

NETT RESIDUAL LAND VALUE 6,610,294

http://www.zoopla.co.uk/

http://www.shopproperty.co.uk/

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/

Cost & Value Management BE215 2014/15

References Page 10 of 10

References

BadAsbestos. 2015, How Much Does Asbestos Removal Cost?, [online] www: BadAsbestos, Available from: http://badasbestos.org.uk/asbestos-removal-cost/ [10/05/2015].

Brighton and Hove City Council. 2015, Building Control Fees, [online] www: Brighton and Hove City Council, Available from: http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/content/planning/building-control/forms- fees-and-guidance [08/05/2015].

Brighton and Hove City Council. 2015, Planning Fees, [online] www: Brighton and Hove City Council, Available from: https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/content/planning/local-requirements-planning- application-forms/fees [08/05/2015].

Brook, M., 2008, Estimating and Tendering for Construction Work, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Building. 2006, Spotlight on Demolition, [online] www: Building magazine, Available from: http://www.building.co.uk/ [08/05/2015].

Designing Buildings Wiki. 2015, Building design and construction fees, [online] www: Designing Buildings Limited, Available from: http://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Building_design_and_construction_fees [10/05/2015].

Illingworth, J., 2000, Construction methods and planning, London: E & FN Spon.

Retail Week. 2014, Vacant shop rates reveal England's North-South retail divide, [online] www: Retail Week, Available from: http://www.retail-week.com/property/vacant-shop-rates-reveal-englands- north-south-retail-divide/5071710.article [06/05/2015].

RIBA. 2013, RIBA Plan of Work 2013, [online] www: Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), Available from: http://www.ribaplanofwork.com/PlanOfWork.aspx [05/05/2015].

http://badasbestos.org.uk/asbestos-removal-cost/

http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/content/planning/building-control/forms-fees-and-guidance

http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/content/planning/local-requirements-planning-application-forms/fees

http://www.building.co.uk/

http://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Building_design_and_construction_fees

http://www.retail-week.com/property/vacant-shop-rates-reveal-englands-north-south-retail-divide/5071710.article

http://www.ribaplanofwork.com/PlanOfWork.aspx