Analysis of The Impact of Input Data

sustainability
Article
Analysis of the Impact of Input Data on the Planned Costs of
Building Maintenance
Edyta Plebankiewicz * and Jakub Gracki
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Cracow University of Technology, 31-155 Cracow, Poland; jakub.gracki@pk.edu.pl
* Correspondence: edyta.plebankiewicz@pk.edu.pl
Abstract: The aim of the article is to analyze the method of determining the maintenance costs of
buildings based on the method proposed in Polish legal regulations. The analysis of the sensitivity of
the method shows that the assumed number of product use cycles during the calculation period has
the greatest impact, while the adopted warranty period has the lowest impact. A multi-functional
building combining housing, office, service and commercial was analyzed in order to obtain a broader
picture of the model’s operation. The results of the analyses allow us to conclude that despite the
higher price of materials, the most durable solutions, which are the most expensive to purchase,
turn out to be the most advantageous in the entire life cycle of the building. The method proposed
in Polish law regulations has certain limitations. In order to level them, it was proposed to extend
the method by using NPV (Net Present Value) for calculations and extending the life cycle of the
building to 80 years.
Keywords: life cycle costs; maintenance costs; warranty period; number of use cycles

Citation: Plebankiewicz, E.; Gracki, J.

Analysis of the Impact of Input Data
on the Planned Costs of Building 1. Introduction
Maintenance. Sustainability 2021, 13, The costs associated with a construction object are influenced by many factors. In the
12220. https://doi.org/10.3390/ broadest scope, these costs are captured as LCC—Life Cycle Costs.
su132112220 Life cycle costing interests EU bodies. The EU document regulating the application
of the idea of life cycle costs is the Directive 2014/24/UE of the European Parliament and
Academic Editors: Oleg Kapliński, the Council of 26th February 2014 on public procurement and repealing [1]. Article 67 of
Lili Dong, Agata Bonenberg and
the Directive concerning criteria states that the most economically advantageous tender
Wojciech Bonenberg
from the point of view of the contracting authority is determined based on the price or cost,
using a cost-effectiveness approach such as life cycle costing in art. 68. Article 68 indicates
Received: 8 September 2021
that life cycle costing in an appropriate range shall cover some or all of the following costs
Accepted: 3 November 2021
during the life cycle of a product, service, or works:
Published: 5 November 2021
(a) Costs incurred by the contracting authority or other users, such as:
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral • Acquisition-related costs;
with regard to jurisdictional claims in • Costs of use, such as consumption of energy and other resources;
published maps and institutional affil- • Maintenance costs;
iations. • End-of-life costs, such as demolition and recycling costs;
(b) Costs attributed to environmental externalities associated with a product, service or
work over their life cycle, provided that their monetary value can be determined and
verified; such costs may include greenhouse gas and other pollutant emission costs
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. and other climate change mitigation costs.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
According to the Directive, when contracting authorities estimate costs using a life
distributed under the terms and cycle costing approach, they specify in the procurement documents the data that bidders
conditions of the Creative Commons should provide and the method that the contracting authority will use to determine the
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// life-cycle costs based on these data.
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ There are various forms of implementation of the Directive in the European Union
4.0/). countries. In reference to the EU provisions, provisions regarding the calculation of life cycle
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12220. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132112220 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 12220 2 of 16
costs have been included in the Polish Public Procurement Law (PPL). As a consequence
of the provisions of the Public Procurement Law, on 13 July 2018, the Regulation of the
Minister of Investment and Development of 11 July 2018, on the method of calculating the
life cycle costs of buildings and the method of presenting information on these costs was
published [2].
One of the components of life cycle costs, which are particularly difficult to determine,
are the costs incurred during the operation of the building, in particular the costs of building
maintenance. They are related to the natural process of decreasing the utility value of an
object over time and the need to carry out construction works that restore the technical and
functional features of construction objects [3].
The article analyzes the calculation of some chosen building maintenance costs
(i.e., windows, doors, roofing and flooring) based on the method proposed in the reg-
ulation. The purpose of this paper was the attempt of finding weaknesses in the regulation
method based on calculations given for some chosen products. The second authors’ goal
was the implementation of some novelties which possibly could be useful in broadening
the models’ implication possibilities. The influence of the input data on the results was
analyzed, and the possibility of extending the method by NPV calculation as well as the
calculation period extension up to 80 years.
2. Literature Summary
Proper maintenance of the building aims to ensure that it is maintained in a good
technical and aesthetic condition throughout the entire life cycle of the building. For this
purpose, the building owner/facility manager undertakes a number of activities, mainly
consisting of the maintenance and repair of individual building elements.
The owner of the building, apart from the obligatory activities related to maintaining
the proper technical condition of the building, resulting from the applicable regulations,
has a choice of many options for repairing and improving the standard of the building.
Each of them is associated with the corresponding costs. Therefore, one of the basic issues
affecting the costs incurred at the operational stage of the facility is defining the building
maintenance strategy.
The ISO standard 15686-5:2017 Buildings and constructed assets –Service life plan-
ning Part 5: life cycle costing [4] and standard EN 13306:2017-Maintenance-Maintenance
terminology characterizes [5] synthetically two main types of maintenance. The first of
the given strategies is called preventive maintenance, and the next one is called corrective
maintenance. In the literature [6–9], other variants with a wider range of maintenance
types can be found.
Making decisions regarding the maintenance of buildings requires taking into con-
sideration many factors. Therefore, this problem is often solved using MCDM (Multiple
Criteria Decision Making) methods [10–18]. Peach and Visser [19] analyze the problem of
including human factors in maintenance. Much of the articles are devoted to the proper
planning schedule repairs [20–22].
There are many attempts in the literature to develop models that would estimate
the cost of building maintenance. Kim et al. [23] propose a model that determines the
maintenance and repair costs by means of a statistical analysis of actual cost data. The
authors conducted a study of maintenance and repair expenses in educational establish-
ments to determine key performance indicators (KPIs) and to develop an integrated facility
management cost estimation model. The study used a multiple regression analysis method
to generate a model for determining maintenance and repair costs.
The authors also used the example of a university. Farahani et al. [24], to investigate
the problem, presented a case study on the maintenance phase of four university buildings
on the campus of the National Taiwan University. Using historical data on maintenance and
repair over 42 years, a life cycle cost prediction (LCC) model was determined using three
different methods: simple linear regression (SLR), multiple regression (MR), and finally,
backpropagation artificial neural network (BNP). In [25], the benefits of proper monitoring
of the building’s condition on the example of roofing material have been presented.
The proposed models for determining the maintenance costs of building objects
use both a simple and a complex mathematical apparatus. A brief overview of simple
models supporting the estimation of the budget for maintenance of buildings we can find,
for instance, in [26]. The slightly more complex models include the one developed by
Kwon et al. [27] based on case-based reasoning and genetic algorithm. Fregonara and
Ferrando [28] developed the Stochastic Annuity Method for Supporting Maintenance Costs
Planning. Determining the costs of building maintenance is often based on incomplete
and imprecise data, which is well represented by fuzzy sets and neural networks [29–32].
Models in this area also often capture the risk [33]. There have also been attempts to use
BIM technology to solve this problem [34–37].
3. Calculation of Maintenance Costs in Accordance to Polish Regulations

One of the options for calculating the building maintenance costs is presented in the
Regulation of the Minister of Investment and Development of 11 July 2018, on the method
of calculating the life cycle costs of buildings and the method of presenting information
on these costs. This regulation is based on the Directive 2014/24/EU. According to the
ordinance, the life cycle costs of a building are calculated as the sum of the costs of
purchasing, using and maintaining a building according to the formula:
Cg = Cn + Cuz + Cut (1)
where: Cg —life cycle costs during a 30-year life cycle of the building, called “calculation
period”, Cn —acquisition costs, defined based on the offer price, Cuz —costs of use, Cut —
maintenance costs.
The cost of maintenance included in Formula (1) is primarily the costs of repairs and
ongoing maintenance, which allow the building to maintain in a proper technical and
aesthetic condition.
These costs should be calculated according to the formula:
Cut = ∑( Ai − Bi ) (2)
where: i—every further product, Ai —maintenance cost of ith product in the calculation
period, Bi —producers’ warranty value of the ith product.
Maintenance costs of the ith product:
Ai = I × K × N (3)
where: I—number of product units, K—cost of replacement of the product unit, N—number
of product use cycles during the calculation period.
Producers’ warranty value of the ith product:
Bi = Ai × Og/30 (4)
where: Og —warranty period of the ith product given in years.

According to the regulation, the calculation of the life cycle cost of the building is
calculated as the sum of the costs of acquisition, use and maintenance. Thirty years of
building life is adopted as a calculation period. The cost of maintenance is calculated as the
sum of the unit cost of maintaining products during the calculation period reduced by the
contractor’s guarantee value for a given product. The unit costs of maintaining products
are designated as the multiplication of the number of individual units, the costs of replacing
the product unit, and the number of product use cycles during the calculation period.
In accordance with the regulation, the contracting authority specifies, among others,
types of products taken into account in determining the maintenance costs paying attention
to their impact on the functioning of the building and the estimated cost of products
In accordance with the regulation, the contracting authority specifies,
types of products taken into account in determining the maintenance cost
tion to their impact on the functioning of the building and the estimated c
including
including assembly.
assembly. Products
Products listed in listed in the are:
the regulation regulation
windows; are:
doors;windows;
flooring; door
stallations(plumbing,
installations (plumbing, gas, electricity,
gas, electricity, air conditioning,
air conditioning, etc.);
etc.); elevators; elevators;
façade; roofing façad
and other products recognized by the contracting authority
other products recognized by the contracting authority as valid. as valid.
The product use cycle is the period after which the product should be replaced. When
The product use cycle is the period after which the product should be r
specifying the number of life cycles of the product, not only the physical life of the product
specifying
may theconsideration
be taken into number ofbut lifealso
cycles of the product,
its expectations related tonot
the only theitsphysical
need for more life
frequent
may beor taken
rare exchange due to the nature but
into consideration of thealso
building. The number of use
its expectations cycles to
related for the ne
products specifies the Annex to the Regulation. For most products, a cycle varies between
frequent or rare exchange due to the nature of the building. The number o
1–3 but, for example, for PVC panels floors 3–5 cycles; for roofing 2–4 cycles.
products specifies
The contractor the Annex
determines to thewarranty
the product Regulation.
period. For most
It can applyproducts,
to the wholea cycle
product
1–3 but, for example, for PVC panels floors 3–5 cycles; for the
(e.g., a whole window or its elements; for example, a warranty for profile 2–4
roofing is cycl
5 years, and for the whole window only 3 years).
The contractor determines the product warranty period. It can appl
4.product (e.g., a whole
Model Sensitivity Analysiswindow or its elements; for example, a warranty for
years, and data
The basic for the
to bewhole
assumed window only 3 years).
for the calculation of maintenance costs are therefore:
I—number of product units, K—cost of replacement of the product unit, N—number of
product use cycles during the calculation period as well as Og —warranty period of the ith
4. Model
product givenSensitivity
in years. The Analysis
authors decided to perform a simple sensitivity analysis. It
shows how
The basic data toinfluence
the adopted data the finalfor
be assumed results.
the calculation of maintenance cost
The following data were assumed:
I—number2 of product units, K—cost of replacement of the product unit,
I = 2500 m ;
product
K = 200useEUR;cycles during the calculation period as well as Og—warranty p
product
N = 2; given in years. The authors decided to perform a simple sensitiv
Og = 3how
shows years.the adopted data influence the final results.
In The
the following
followingvariants,
dataone of theassumed:
were input data (independent variable) was changed,
the remaining data were taken as constants, and its influence on the obtained Cut values
I = 2500
(dependent m2; was examined. The scope of the adopted variables and the final
variable)
results K
are=presented
200 EUR; in Table 1. The obtained results in each variant are presented in the
charts shown in Figures 1–4.
N = 2;
Table 1. O g = 3 years.
Assumed variants and results presentation.
In the following
Independent variants, one
Range of the of the input data (independent
The Dependent Variable variable
Variant Interval
Variable Variables Difference
the remaining data were taken as constants, and its influence on the obta (EUR)
I
(dependent I (m2 )
variable) was 1800–2200
examined. The100scope of the adopted144,000 variables a
II K (EUR) 180–220 10 144,000
sults
III are presented
N (cycle) in Table 1–4
1. The obtained 1 results in1,080,000
each variant are pr
IV Og (lata) 1–4 1 8000
charts shown in Figures 1–4.
€ 850,000
€ 792,000
€ 800,000 € 756,000
€ 750,000 € 720,000
€ 684,000
€ 700,000 € 648,000
€ 650,000
€ 600,000
1800 1900 2000 2100 2200
number of product units [m2]
Figure
Figure 1. Obtained
1. Obtained results results for
for variant I. variant I.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Sustainability 2021,2021,
x FOR
12220 PEER REVIEW 5 of 16
€ 850,000
€ 850,000 € 792,000
€ 800,000 € 792,000
€ 800,000 € 756,000
€ 756,000
€ 750,000 € 720,000
€ 750,000 € 720,000
€ 684,000
€ 700,000 € 684,000
€ 700,000 € 648,000
€ 648,000
€€ 650,000
650,000
€€ 600,000
600,000
180
180 190
190 200
200 210
210 220
220
costofofreplacement
cost replacement[EUR]
[EUR]
Figure
Figure
Figure 2. Obtained
Obtained
2. Obtained results
results results
for for
for
variant variantII.II.
II. variant
€ 1,600,000
1,600,000 € 1,440,000
€ 1,440,000
€€ 1,400,000
€ €1,080,000
1,080,000
€€ 1,200,000
1,000,000
€ 1,000,000
€€720,000
720,000
€€ 800,000
800,000
€€ 600,000
600,000 €€ 360,000
360,000
€€ 400,000
400,000
€€ 200,000
200,000 11 22 33 44
€€ 00
number of product use cycles
number of product use cycles
Figure 3. Obtained results for variant III.

Figure
Figure 3. Obtained
3. Obtained results
results for variantfor
III. variant III.
€ 773,333
€ 780,000 € 773,333
€ 780,000
€ 760,000 € 746,667
€ 760,000 € 746,667
€ 740,000
€ 740,000 € 720,000
€ 720,000
€ 720,000
€ 720,000 € 693,333
€ 700,000 € 693,333
€ 700,000
€ 680,000
€ 680,000 1 2 3 4
1 2 3
warranty period [years] 4
warranty period [years]
Figure 4. Obtained results for variant IV.

Figure
Figure 4. Obtained
4. Obtained results
results for variantfor
IV. variant IV.
Table
The 1. Assumed
presented variants
results and results
of the sensitivity presentation.
analysis show that the influence of all variables
isTable
linear.1.The
Assumed variants
variable N has the and results
greatest presentation.
impact. Increasing it by one cycle causes an
increase in the value of the cost of living by about 25%. A change in the number of units Th
Independent Range of the
Variant
of a product by 100 affects the end results as much as a change in the cost Interval
of replacing Va
Independent
Variable Range of the
Variables
Variant Interval
Variable Variables
I I (m2) 1800–2200 100
III K I(EUR)
(m 2) 180–220
1800–2200 10100
a unit by 10 EUR, which equals 5%. The adopted warranty period has the least impact.
Extending the warranty period by 1 year reduces costs by less than 4%.
5. Model Analysis on the Example of A Multi-Functional Building

In real circumstances, dependencies in the analyzed formula, allowing the determi-
nation of maintenance costs, are more complex. For example, higher purchase costs and,
at the same time, replacing a given element generate higher durability translating into a
smaller number of exchange cycles and often also a longer warranty period provided by
the manufacturer. It shall also be noted that the regulation does not consider the refur-
bishment of some items, such as, for instance, doors or windows, which require periodic
maintenance to maintain their condition and operability. The formula limitations may arise
from the fact that the model given in the regulation that is analyzed was designed only for
a comparison of given offers and shall help in the decision of which offer is the best during
public auctions.
In order to obtain a broader image of the model action, the building presented in BCO
(Bulletin of Building Prices) for the first quarter of 2021, building 1122-407 on the name
“Housing, office and service apartment building”, was chosen. The building has 15 stories
with a 3-story underground garage. It is a multi-functional building combining housing
and office functions located on the overground floors as well as service and commercial
parts on the ground floor section. The property also has three underground floors where
parking spaces in the garage space and technical infrastructure are located. The object
is placed on a reinforced concrete foundation slab. Concrete monolithic structural walls
(in the underground made in diaphragm wall technology) and all slabs are also reinforced,
and monolithic concrete inverted flat roof is designed.
The analysis included four elements of the building, i.e., windows and external doors,
internal doors, floors with terracotta and roofing. For each of the analyzed elements, the
number of product use cycles was established during the calculation period, consistent
with the compartment given in Annex 1 to the Regulation of the Minister of Investment
and Development from 11 July 2018. Specified solutions were adopted for these elements,
and the necessary data were established to determine the costs of living in accordance with
the Regulation.
It must be noted that the analyses took into account only selected elements of the build-
ing that the contracting authority may take into account in the analysis of the maintenance
costs. It is practically impossible to determine the total maintenance costs in accordance
with the ordinance. As was already mentioned, the formula provided in the regulation
takes into account only the cost of replacing building elements without taking into account
the costs of their ongoing maintenance. For this reason, following the regulation, it is
difficult to determine the maintenance costs of elements, such as pumps, elevators, HVAC
equipment, escalators, lamps or water and fire devices. The assumption adopted in the
regulation allows, for instance, for the inclusion of the maintenance costs of elevators, but
only in the case of their replacement 1–3 times. In practice, such actions do not take place
with a building’s 30-year life cycle.
5.1. Windows and External Doors

The overall surface of the windows and external doors in the analyzed building
equals 5 315 m2 . Four different solutions were found for windows and external doors,
in which both the number of product use cycles during the calculation period, as well as
the warranty period, has been changed depending on the assumed solution. For various
variants, prices were found in the range of 128 EUR/m2 –628 EUR/m2 , and they were PVC
windows, wooden windows as well as aluminum windows. Details of data adopted in
specified variants are presented in Table 2.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16
Table 2. Data given for the windows and external doors.

Table 2. Data given for the windows and external doors.
Variant K (EUR/m2) N Og (Years) Cut
Variant K (EUR/m2) N Og (years) Cut(EUR)
(EUR)
PVC
PVCwindows
windows (1) (1) 128128 4 4 2 2 2,549,421
2,549,421
PVC windows (2) 260 3 3 3,733,015
PVC windows (2) 260 3 3 3,733,015
wooden windows 318 2 5 2,821,026
wooden windows
wooden coated 318 2 5 2,821,026
628 1 10 2,224,956
wooden coated
aluminum aluminum
windows
628 1 10 2,224,956
windows
Figure
Figure55shows
showsthe thecosts
costsof
ofmaintaining
maintainingthe thepresented
presentedelement
elementfor
forfour
foursolutions.
solutions.The
The
cheapest
cheapest maintenance
maintenance costs
costs were
were obtained
obtained for for the
themost
mostdurable
durablesolution,
solution, and
andthus
thusthe
the
most
mostexpensive;
expensive;however,
however,the theleast
leastdurable
durablesolution
solutiondid
didnot
notturn
turnout
outininthis
thiscase,
case,the
themost
most
expensive
expensive solution
solution from
from the
the maintaining
maintaining costcost point
point of
ofview
viewananelement
elementthroughout
throughoutthethe
entire
entire computing period of the building. It turned out that medium-lastingsolutions
computing period of the building. It turned out that medium-lasting solutionsare
are
the
theleast
leastcost-effective,
cost-effective,presumably
presumablydue dueto
tothethefact
factthat
thatthey
theyare
aremore
moreexpensive
expensivethan
thanthe
the
least-durable
least-durablevariant,
variant,andandatatthe
thesame
sametime,
time,the thenumber
numberof ofproduct
productuse
usecycles
cyclesduring
duringthe
the
calculation period is not sufficiently reduced to comply with higher purchase
calculation period is not sufficiently reduced to comply with higher purchase costs. costs.
€ 4,000,000
€ 3,000,000 € 3,733,015
€ 2,000,000 € 2,821,026
€ 2,549,421
€ 2,224,956
€ 1,000,000
€0
4 3 2 1 N
Figure5.5.Summary
Figure Summaryof
ofthe
theassumed
assumedsolutions
solutionsfor
forthe
thewidows
widowsand
andexternal
externaldoors.
doors.
5.2.
5.2.Internal
InternalDoors
Doors
The
The overall surface
overall surface of
of the
theinternal
internal doors
doors in
inthe
theanalyzed
analyzed building
building equals
equals 22496
496m m22..
Three
Threedifferent
differentsolutions
solutionsfor
forinternal
internaldoors
doorswere
werefound.
found.For
Forvarious
variousvariants,
variants,prices
priceswere
were
found 2 2
foundin inthe
therange
rangeofof192
192EUR/m
EUR/m –322
2 –322EUR/m
EUR/m . In this case, the economic
2 economic profitability
profitabilityof
of
the
theproposed
proposedsolutions
solutions increases
increases with
withincreasing
increasingthethedurability
durabilityof
ofthe
theelement
elementand
andthus
thus
the
theincrease
increaseininthe
thepurchase
purchaseprice.
price.Details
Detailsof
ofdata
dataadopted
adoptedininthese
thesevariants
variantsare
arepresented
presented
in Table 3.
in Table 3.
Table3.3.Data
Table Datagiven
givenfor
forthe
theinterior
interiordoors.
doors.
2) N Ogg(years)
Variant
Variant K (EUR/m
K (EUR/m2) N O (Years) CutC(EUR)
ut (EUR)
interior doors (1) 192 3

interior doors (1) 192 3 22 1,339,891
1,339,891
interior doors (2) 230 2 3 1,033,640
interior
interior doorsdoors
(3) (2) 322 230 1 2 35 1,033,640
669,953
interior doors (3) 322 1 5 669,953
The internal doors maintenance costs during the whole life cycle are shown on the
The internal doors maintenance costs during the whole life cycle are shown on the
Figure 6.
Figure 6.
€ 1,600,000
€ 1,600,000
€ 1,400,000
€ 1,400,000
€ 1,200,000 € 1,339,892
€ 1,200,000 € 1,339,892
€ 1,000,000
€ 1,000,000 € 1,033,640
€ 800,000 € 1,033,640
€ 800,000
€ 600,000
€ 669,953
€ 600,000
€ 400,000 € 669,953
€ 400,000 N
€ 200,000
N
€ 200,000
€0
€0 3 2 1
3 2 1
Figure6.6.Summary
Figure Summaryof
ofthe
theassumed
assumedsolutions
solutionsfor
forthe
theinterior
interiordoors
doorselement.
element.
Figure 6. Summary of the assumed solutions for the interior doors element.
5.3.
5.3.Roof
Roof
5.3. Roof
The
Theoverall
overallsurface
surfaceofofthe roof
the inin
roof thethe
analyzed building
analyzed equals
building 3823
equals m2 .mThree
3823 different
2. Three differ-
The for
solutions overall
ent solutions the surface
forroof roofofdesigned.
the were the roof
were inFor
designed.thevarious
analyzed building
variants,
For various equals
prices
variants, were 3823
prices m2. in
found
were Three differ-
the range
found in the
ent
of solutions
135 EUR/m 2 –174
for the roof
EUR/m were2 . For
designed.
the For
solutions various
adopted variants,
for the prices
roof as were
well found
as the in the
floors,
range of 135 EUR/m –174 EUR/m . For the solutions adopted for the roof as well as
2 2
similar
range conclusions
floors,of 135 EUR/m
similar can be EUR/m
2–174
conclusions drawn
can be2as forthe
.drawn
For interior doors.
assolutions In thefor
adopted
for interior doors. case theofroof
In the a roof,
case as athe
of well most
as
roof, the
durable
floors, solution
similar
most durable turns out
conclusions
solution turnstocanbe the
out be most
be thecost-effective
to drawn as for
most considering
interior doors.
cost-effective In the
themaintenance
considering case
theof a roof,costs
maintenance the
of thisdurable
most
costs structure
of element
solution
this structure overout
turns
element the
toentire
over bethe life cycle
theentire
most calculation
cost-effective
life period.period.
considering
cycle calculation Details of the of
theDetails
maintenancedata
the
adopted
costs of in these
this variants
structure are
element presented
over the in Table
entire
data adopted in these variants are presented in Table 4. 4.
life cycle calculation period. Details of the
data adopted in these variants are presented in Table 4.
Table4.4.Data
Table Datagiven
givenfor
forthe
theroof.
roof.
Table 4. Data given for the roof.
2 )2
Variant
Variant KK(EUR/m
(EUR/m ) NN OOgg(Years)
(years) CCutut(EUR)
(EUR)
Variant
roofing
roofing K (EUR/m
135
135
2) N
33 O g (years)
55 C ut (EUR)
1,293,088
1,293,088
roofing
green
green roof
roof(1)(1) 135
162
162 23
2 75
7 1,293,088
951,713
951,713
green
green roof
roof(2)
(1)
green roof (2) 174
162
174 12
1 10 7
10 444,065
951,713
444,065
green roof (2) 174 1 10 444,065
The roof maintenance costs during the whole life cycle are shown on the Figure 7.
The
Theroof
roofmaintenance
maintenancecosts
costsduring
duringthe
thewhole
wholelife
lifecycle
cycleare
areshown
shownon
onthe
theFigure
Figure7.7.
€ 1,400,000
€ 1,400,000
€ 1,200,000 € 1,293,088
€ 1,200,000 € 1,293,088
€ 1,000,000
€ 1,000,000
€ 800,000 € 951,713
€ 800,000 € 951,713
€ 600,000
€ 600,000
€ 400,000
€ 400,000 € 444,065
€ 200,000 € 444,065
€ 200,000
€0
€0 3 2 1 N
3 2 1 N
Figure 7. Summary of the assumed solutions for the roof element.

Sustainability2021, 13,12220
x FOR PEER REVIEW 99of
of16
16
5.4.
5.4. Flooring
Flooring
The
The overall
overall surface
surface of
of the
theflooring
flooringin inthe
theanalyzed
analyzedbuilding
buildingequals 34,459mm2 2. . Two
equals34,459 Two
different
differentsolutions
solutionsfor
forthe
theterracotta
terracottaflooring
flooringwere
weredesigned.
designed.The
Thedifference
differencebetween
betweenthese these
variants
variants waswas the
the durability
durability of ofthe
theflooring.
flooring. TheThe cheaper
cheaper variant
variant assumed
assumed one
one change
changeof of
flooring in the building during the calculation period, whereas the more
flooring in the building during the calculation period, whereas the more expensive one, expensive one,
as
as well
well asas more
more durable
durable one,
one, assumed
assumed one one flooring
flooring during
during the
the whole
whole buildings’
buildings’ life
life cycle.
cycle.
The first option was priced at 28 EUR/m 22, while the second one was estimated at the point
The first option was priced at 28 EUR/m , while the second one was estimated at the point
of 2 Taking into account the prices, the number of product life cycles in the
of 41
41 EUR/m
EUR/m2.. Taking into account the prices, the number of product life cycles in the
calculation
calculationperiod
periodas
aswell
wellasasthe
thewarranty
warrantyperiods,
periods,the
themore
moredurable
durableoption
optionturned
turnedout outtoto
be the more cost-effective one throughout the life cycle. Details of the data adopted
be the more cost-effective one throughout the life cycle. Details of the data adopted in the in the
two
two designed
designedvariants
variantsare
arepresented
presentedin inTable
Table5.5.
Table5.5.Data
Table Datagiven
givenfor
forthe
thefloors.
floors.
Variant
Variant K (EUR/m2 )2)
K (EUR/m N
N O
Ogg (Years)
(Years) C
Cutut (EUR)
(EUR)
flooring (1)
flooring (1) 28
28 22 22 1,788,560
1,788,560
flooring (2)
flooring (2) 41
41 11 66 1,124,347
1,124,347
The flooring maintenance costs during the whole life cycle are shown on the Figure
8. The flooring maintenance costs during the whole life cycle are shown on the Figure 8.
€ 2,000,000
€ 1,500,000 € 1,788,560
€ 1,000,000
€ 1,124,347
€ 500,000
€0
2 1 N
Figure8.
Figure 8. Summary
Summary of
of the
the assumed
assumed solutions
solutionsfor
forthe
theterracotta
terracottaflooring
flooringelement.
element.
5.5.
5.5. The
The Solutions
Solutions Analysis
Analysis
The
The analysescarried
analyses carriedout
outininthe
thearticle allowed
article determining
allowed determiningthethe
impact of variables
impact on
of variables
the maintenance
on the costscosts
maintenance and and
to select the variants
to select generating
the variants the highest
generating and the
the highest andlowest cost
the lowest
values. The summary
cost values. The summaryof these results
of these is presented
results in Figure
is presented 9.
in Figure 9.
Figure 9 allows concluding that, despite the higher price of materials at the beginning
of production, the most beneficial solutions in the entire life cycle of the facility turn out to
be the most durable solutions, which are the most expensive to purchase. This trend has
worked well for all four cases considered.
€ 3,000,000
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW € 2,549,421 10 of 16
€ 2,500,000
€ 2,224,956
€ 2,000,000
€ 1,788,560
€ 3,000,000
€ 1,500,000 € 1,339,892
€ 2,549,421
€ 2,500,000 € 1,293,088 € 1,124,347
€ 1,000,000
€ 2,224,956
€ 2,000,000 € 669,953
€ 500,000 € 1,788,560
€ 444,065
€ 1,500,000 € 1,339,892
€0
Min. durability of the material
€ 1,293,088 Max. durability of the material
€ 1,124,347
€ 1,000,000
Windows and external doors Internal doors
€ 669,953
€ 500,000
Roofing Flooring (terracotta)
€ 444,065
€0
Figure 9. The most and least preferred
Min. durability solutions summary.
of the material Max. durability of the material
Figure 9 allows Windows and external

concluding that, doors Internal
despite the higher doors
price of materials at the beginning
of production, the most beneficial solutions in Flooring
Roofing the entire life cycle of the facility turn out
(terracotta)
to be the most durable solutions, which are the most expensive to purchase. This trend
has worked
Figure
Figure 9.9.The well
Themost for
andall
mostand four
least
least cases considered.
preferred
preferred solutionssummary.
solutions summary.
5.6.
5.6. Share
Figure
Share of
of Maintenance Costs
Costsin
9 allows concluding
Maintenance inThe
TheTotal
that, Life
despite
Total Cycle
Lifethe Costs
higher
Cycle Costsprice of materials at the beginning
of production,
The
The calculated the most
calculated maintenancebeneficial
maintenance costs solutions
costs ofof the in the
thefacility entire
facilityduring lifethe
during cycle
the of the facility
calculation
calculation periodturn
period wereout
were
to beanalyzed
also
also the mostindurable
analyzed relationsolutions,
relation tothe
to which
theentire
entire life are
life
cyclethecosts
cycle most
costsofexpensive
of
thethe to purchase.
building
building over
over This
the the trend
30-year
30-year life-
has worked
lifetime well for
building. all four
For cases
this considered.
time of the building. For this purpose, acquisition costs were assumed in the amountof
of the purpose, acquisition costs were assumed in the amount of
construction
constructioncosts costsspecified
specifiedin inthe
theBCO
BCOand andoperating
operatingcostscostsbased
basedon onthe
theaverage
averagedemand
demand
5.6.utilities
for
for Share ofper
utilities Maintenance
per m 2
m2 of theCosts
of the in The
facility.
facility. OnTotal
On the Life Cycle
thebasis
basis of theCosts
ofthe calculated
calculatedvalues,
values,ititwas
wasfound
foundthat
that
when
whenTheusing
using solutions
calculated
solutions with
witha lower
maintenancea lower durability,
costs of thethe
durability, share
facility
the of calculated
during
share building
the calculation
of calculated maintenance
period
building were
mainte-
costs
nance incosts
the total
also analyzed in incosts
the totalincurred
relation to the
costs in 30 years
entire
incurred life
in 30 ofyears
usecosts
cycle isofabout is5%
of the
use higher
building
about compared
5%over to higher
thecompared
higher 30-year life-
to
durability
of solutions.
the building. TheForconclusions
this purpose, described above
acquisition are
costs presented
higher durability solutions. The conclusions described above are presented in Figure 10.of
time were in
assumed Figure
in the10.
amount
construction costs specified in the BCO and operating costs based on the average demand
for utilities per m2 of the facility. On the basis of the calculated values, it was found that
100.00%
when using solutions with 20.94%a lower durability, the share of 16.62% calculated building mainte-
80.00%
nance costs in the total costs incurred in 30 years of use is about 5% higher compared to
23.53%
22.31%
higher
60.00% durability solutions. The conclusions described above are presented in Figure 10.
40.00%
100.00%
56.75% 59.85%
20.94% 16.62%
20.00%
80.00%
23.53%
0.00% 22.31%
60.00%
Minimal durability Maximal durability
40.00%
Cn Cuz Cut
56.75% 59.85%
20.00%
Figure10.
10. Percentage life cycle costs summary of the most and the least preferred solutions sum-
0.00% Percentage life cycle costs summary of the most and the least preferred solutions summary
Figure
mary for the maintenance costs.
for the maintenance costs.
Minimal durability Maximal durability
6. Extension
6. Extension of of the
the Method
Method Adopted
AdoptedCn inThe
in The Regulation
Cuz Regulation
Cut
Themethod
The methodwhich
whichisisapplied
applied in in
thethe regulation
regulation is aissimple
a simple method—does
method—does not into
not take take
Figure
account 10.
into account Percentage
changeschanges life
in the in cycle costs
the of
value value summary
moneyof money of the most and
overAnother
over time. the
time. Anotherleast
limitation preferred
limitation solutions sum-
is 30-year
is also the also thelife
30-
marylife
year
cycle for the
that hasmaintenance
cycle that
to be has tocosts.
imposed. be imposed.
6. Extension
6.1. of the Method Adopted in The Regulation
NPV Addition
The
In themethod which
first stage, the is appliedresults
obtained in thewere
regulation is a to
compared simple method—does
the method not take
determining the
into account
present value changes
of NPV. in the value of money over time. Another limitation is also the 30-
year life cycle that has to be imposed.
6.1. NPV Addition

Sustainability 2021, 13, 12220 6.1. NPV Addition 11 of 16
In the first stage, the obtained results were compared to the method determining the
In the
present firstofstage,
value NPV.the obtained results were compared to the method determining the
present value of NPV.
The basic calculation formula is as follows:
The basic calculation formulaisisas
The basic calculation formula asfollows:
follows:
𝐸𝑆𝐿
ESL 𝐶𝐹𝑖
𝐸𝑆𝐿
CF
𝐿𝐶𝑁𝑃𝑉
LCNPV = =∑∑ (1 𝐶𝐹 i (5)
(5)
𝐿𝐶𝑁𝑃𝑉 = ∑ + 𝑖𝑟)
i
𝑖
(5)
(
𝑖=0 1
i =0 (1 ++ r )𝑟)𝑖
𝑖=0
where: CFi—cash
where: flow in
CFi—cash ith in
flow ith ESL—estimated
year, service
year, ESL—estimated life in life
service years, i—subsequent
in years, year,
i—subsequent
year,where:
r—discount CFi—cash
rate.
r—discount rate. flow in ith year, ESL—estimated service life in years, i—subsequent
year,Figures
r—discount
Figures 11
11and
andrate.
12
12show
showthetheresults
resultsfor
forthe
themaintenance
maintenancecosts
costsof ofwindows
windowsand andexternal
external
doors Figures 11
determinedandby 12 show
the the
simple results
and NPVfor the maintenance
methods, assuming costs of windows
different
doors determined by the simple and NPV methods, assuming different interest and
interest external
rates.
rates. The
The
same cost assumptions as for the simple method and the 5-year warranty period forThe
doors
same determined
cost by
assumptions the
assimple
for the and NPV
simple methods,
method andassuming
the different
5-year warrantyinterest rates.
period for all
all
same
variantscost assumptions
were adopted.
variants were adopted. as for the simple method and the 5-year warranty period for all
variants were adopted.
€ 4,000,000
€ 4,000,000 € 3,456,495
€ 3,500,000 € 3,456,495
€ 3,500,000 € 2,821,026
€ 3,000,000 € 2,781,195
€ 2,821,026
€ 3,000,000 € 2,781,195
€ 2,500,000 € 2,276,269 € 2,192,442
€ 2,500,000 € 2,276,269 € 2,192,442
€ 2,000,000
€ 1,548,318
€ 2,000,000
€ 1,253,181 € 1,548,318 € 1,145,815
€ 1,500,000 € 1,135,650
€ 1,500,000 € 1,253,181 € 1,145,815
€ 872,169 € 1,135,650
€ 1,000,000 € 872,169 € 720,110
€ 1,124,620 € 720,110 € 643,506
€ 1,000,000
€ 1,124,620 € 643,506
€ 500,000
€ 500,000 € 623,263 € 365,358
€ 623,263 € 469,861
€0 € 365,358
€ 469,861
€0 1 2 3 4
1
Simple method NPV 2(r=3%) NPV3 (r=5%) 4 (r=7%)
NPV
Simple method NPV (r=3%) NPV (r=5%) NPV (r=7%)
Figure11.
Figure 11. Cost
Cost breakdown
breakdown for
for windows
windowsand
andexternal
externaldoors
doorselement
elementforfor
each variant
each calculated
variant calculated
Figuresimple
using 11. Cost
andbreakdown for windows and external doors element for each variant calculated
NPV methods.
using simple and NPV methods.
using simple and NPV methods.
100.00%
100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
90.00%
100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
80.00%
70.00% 63.43%
70.00% 55.05% 63.43% Simple method
60.00%
60.00% 55.05% Simple method
50.00% 44.79% NPV(r=3)
44.79% 40.26% 41.20% NPV(r=3)
50.00% 38.32%
40.00% 40.26% 41.20% NPV (r=5)
38.32%
40.00% NPV (r=5)
30.00% 25.53% 23.14% NPV (r=7%)
30.00% 25.53% 23.14% NPV (r=7%)
20.00%
20.00% 32.54%
10.00% 32.54%
10.00% 27.38% 16.66% 13.14%
0.00% 27.38% 16.66% 13.14%
0.00% N=4 N=3 N=2 N=1
N=4 N=3 N=2 N=1
Figure 12. Percentage life cycle costs summary of each variant of windows and external doors ele-
Figurecalculated
ment
Figure 12. Percentage
12. using life
Percentage lifecycle
simple costs
and
cycle NPV
costssummary ofof
methods.
summary each variant
each of windows
variant andand
of windows external doors
external ele-
doors
ment calculated using simple and NPV methods.
element calculated using simple and NPV methods.
The results presented above show that the most durable variant is the most profita-
Theresults
ble, The results
assuming presented
presented
that the NPVabove
above show
show
discount that
that
rate the
is the most
most
equal durable
durable
to 7%. variant
variant
Besides is the
is the
the most
most profita-
profitable,
calculation method
ble, assuming that the NPV discount rate is equal to 7%. Besides the calculation method
assuming that the NPV discount rate is equal to 7%. Besides the calculation method choice,
the most durable option turned out to be the most profitable option each time, while
the least profitable one is the one assuming 3 product life cycles during the assumed
calculation period.

choice, the
choice, the most
most durable
durable option
option turned
turned out
out to
to be
be the
the most
most profitable
profitable option
option each
each time,
time,
while the least profitable one is the one assuming 3 product life cycles during
while the least profitable one is the one assuming 3 product life cycles during the assumed the assumed
calculation period.
calculation period.
Figure
Figure 13
13presents
presentsthe
theaverage
averagepercentage
percentageresults
resultsfor
forall
allmaterials
materialsincluded
includedininthe
the
study.Figure
The 13 presents
presented the
results average
also show percentage
that the results
most for
durable all materials
materials included
turn out to in
be the
the
study. The
study. The presented results
presented taking also
resultsinto show
alsoaccount that
show that the
the most
most durable
durable materials
materials turn out to be the
turn out to be the
cheapest
cheapest to
to maintain,
maintain, taking into account the
the entire
entirelife
lifecycle
cycle ofof
the
thefacility.
facility.
cheapest to maintain, taking into account the entire life cycle of the facility.
100.00%
100.00%
90.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
90.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
80.00%
80.00%
70.00% 61.10%
70.00% 61.10%
60.00% 55.05% 52.44%
60.00% 55.05% 52.44%
50.00% 43.32% 41.20%
50.00% 38.32% 43.32% 41.20%
40.00% 38.32% 34.78%
40.00% 34.78%
30.00% 23.14%
30.00% 23.14%
20.00%
20.00%
10.00%
10.00% 27.38% 31.59% 23.70% 13.14%
27.38% 31.59% 23.70% 13.14%
0.00%
0.00%
N=4 N=3 N=2 N=1
N=4 N=3 N=2 N=1
Simple method NPV(r=3) NPV (r=5) NPV (r=7%)
Simple method NPV(r=3) NPV (r=5) NPV (r=7%)
Figure 13. Percentage average

Percentageaverage results
average summary
results of all
summary materials
of materials calculated
all materials using simplesimple
calculated and NPV
Figure
Figure 13.
13. Percentage results summary of all calculated usingusing and
simple and NPV
methods.
NPV methods.
methods.
Figure14
Figure
Figure 14shows
14 showsthe
shows theresults
the results
results of
ofof the
thethe analysis
analysis
analysis for
forfor the
thethe total
total maintenance
maintenance
total maintenance costs
costscosts offacility
of the
of the fa-
the fa-
cility
in in
the in
cility the calculation
calculation period
periodperiod
the calculation in relation
in relation to the
to thetoentire
in relation entire life
life cycle
the entire cycle costs
costscosts
life cycle of the building
of theofbuilding over
overover
the building the
the 30-year
30-year lifetime of the building. The list was prepared for the NPV
the 30-year lifetime of the building. The list was prepared for the NPV variants withthe
lifetime of the building. The list was prepared for the NPV variants
variants with
with the
the
assumptionof
assumption
assumption ofaaa3%,
of 3%,5%
3%, 5%and
5% and7%
and 7%discount
7% discountrate.
discount rate.
rate.
100.00%
100.00% 7.61% 10.35% 9.19%
16.68% 7.61% 14.07% 10.35% 12.30% 9.19%
16.68% 14.07% 12.30%
26.07% 25.30% 25.63%
26.07% 24.25% 25.30% 24.75% 25.63%
23.51% 24.25% 24.75%
23.51%
59.81% 66.31% 61.68% 64.35% 62.95% 65.18%

59.81% 66.31% 61.68% 64.35% 62.95% 65.18%
0.00%
0.00%
max. durability min. durability max. durability min. durability max. durability min. durability
max. durability min. durability max. durability min. durability max. durability min. durability
NPV (r=3) NPV (r=5) NPV (r=7)
NPV (r=3) NPV (r=5) NPV (r=7)
Cn Cuz Cut
Cn Cuz Cut
Figure 14. Percentage life cycle costs summary of the most and the least preferred solutions sum-
Figure14.
14.Percentage
Percentagelife
life cyclecosts
costssummary
summaryofof the most and
thethe least preferred solutions sum-
Figure
mary for the maintenancecycle
costs. (NPV). the most and least preferred solutions summary
mary for the maintenance costs.
for the maintenance costs. (NPV). (NPV).
On the
On the basis
basis of
of the
the calculated
calculated values,
values, it
it was
was found
found that
that when
when using
using solutions
solutions with
with aa
On the basis of the calculated values, it was found that when using solutions with a
lower durability,
lower durability,
durability,the the share
theshare
shareofof calculated
ofcalculated building
calculatedbuilding maintenance
buildingmaintenance costs
maintenancecosts
costsin in the
inthe total
thetotal 30
total30 years
30years
years
lower
life cycle
life cycle is always
always higher
higher than
than when
when using
using solutions
solutions with
with higher
higher durability.
durability. However,
However,
life cycle isis always higher than when using solutions with higher durability. However,
this difference
this difference is smaller
difference is smaller than in the case of calculations performed in accordance with the
the
this smaller than
thanin inthe
thecase
caseofofcalculations
calculationsperformed
performed in in
accordance
accordance with
with
regulation
regulation and decreases
andand
decreases with
with the increase
the the
increase in the
in the discount
discount rate. Assuming
rate.rate.
Assuming a discount
a discount rate
rate
the regulation decreases with increase in the discount Assuming a discount
rate of 3%, the difference equals 2.56%, assuming a 5% discount rate, the difference equals
1.05%, while assuming a 7% discount rate, the difference equals only 0,88%.
Sustainability 13, x13,
FOR PEER
x FOR REVIEW
PEER REVIEW 13 of1316of 16

of 3%, the the
of 3%, difference equals
difference 2.56%,
equals assuming
2.56%, assuming a 5% discount
a 5% rate,
discount the the
rate, difference equals
difference equals
1.05%, while
1.05%, assuming
while a 7%
assuming discount
a 7% rate,
discount the the
rate, difference equals
difference only
equals 0,88%.
only 0,88%.
6.2.6.2.
TheThe
6.2. LifeLife
The Cycle
Life Cycle Equals
Equals
Cycle 80 80
Equals 80 Years
Years
Years
AnAnAn attempt to extend thelife
attempt
attempt to to extend
extend the
the life cycle
cycle
life was
was
cycle also
also
was made.
made.
also made. The
The 30-year
30-year
The lifelife
life
30-year cycle
cycle of the
of
cycle the building
build-
of the build-
ing(imposed
(imposed byby the
the regulation)
regulation) was
was extended
extended
ing (imposed by the regulation) was extended to 80 years.to 80
to 80years.
years.
Figure
Figure
Figure15 1515shows
showsshowsthethe
the results
results forfor
results thethe
for maintenance
maintenance
the maintenance costs
costs of
of windows
of windows
costs windowsandand external
external
and doors.
doors.
external doors.
The
TheThe same
samesame cost
costcost assumptions
assumptions
assumptions were
werewere adopted
adopted as
as for
adopted for the
the the
as for simple
simple method,
method,
simple method, and
andand the
the the number
number
numberof of
of
product
product
product life
lifelife cycles
cycles
cycles in
in the the calculation
calculation
in the calculation period
period was
waswas
period assumed
assumed
assumed proportionally
proportionally
proportionally greater
greater than
than
greater thethe
than the
designed
designed
designed lifelife cycle
cycle
life period.
period.
cycle period.
€ 12,000,000
€ 12,000,000 € 10,646,005
€ 10,646,005
€ 9,520,963
€ 9,520,963
€ 10,000,000 € 8,760,764
€ 8,760,764
€ 10,000,000
€ 7,323,895
€ 7,323,895
€ 8,000,000
€ 8,000,000
€ 6,000,000
€ 6,000,000
€ 4,000,000
€ 4,000,000
€ 2,000,000
€ 2,000,000
€0 €0
11 11 8 8 6 6 3 3
N N
Figure 15. The

Figure costcost
15. The
The breakdown for each
breakdown variant
for each
each of windows
variant andand
of windows
windows external doors
external element assuming
doors
Figure 15. cost breakdown for variant of and external doors element
element assuming
assuming
80-year life cycle period.
TheThepresented
The presented
presented data show
data
data show
show that in in
that
that the
inthecase
the of of
case
case windows
ofwindows
windows and external
and
and doors,
external
external assuming
doors,
doors, assuming
assuming
an an80-year
an80-year life
80-yearlife cycle of
lifecycle the
cycleof
ofthebuilding,
thebuilding, the
building,the least
theleastdurable
leastdurable solution
durablesolution is the
solutionisisthecheapest
thecheapest solution
cheapestsolution (11(11
solution (11
lifelife
cycles
life of
cycles the
of product
the productwere assumed).
were assumed). Intermediate
Intermediate solutions are
solutions
cycles of the product were assumed). Intermediate solutions are the most expensive, the
are most
the expensive,
most expensive,
and andthethe
and most
the most
most durable option
durable
durable option
option is the
isisthesecond
the second
second most economically
most
most economically
economically profitable
profitable
profitable option.
option.
option.
Other
Other elements,
Otherelements, i.e., internal
elements,i.e.,
i.e.,internal doors,
internaldoors, roof
doors,roof and
roofandfloors,
and remain
floors,
floors, remain
remain the cheapest
thethe in
cheapest
cheapest in the case
in the
the casecase
of
of choosing
of choosing
choosing the most
thethe
most durable
most durable
durable solutions
solutions
solutions and
and the
andthe most
the expensive
most
most in the
expensiveininthe
expensive case of
thecase choosing
caseofofchoosing
choosingthethe
the
least durable.
least
least durable.
durable. Figure 16 16
Figure
Figure shows
16shows
shows thethe results
the described
results
results described
described above.
above.
above.
Figure
Figure 16. 16.
CostCost breakdown
breakdown for for each
each element
element assuming
assuming 80-year
80-year lifelife cycle
cycle period.
period.
Figure 16. Cost breakdown for each element assuming 80-year life cycle period.
7. Discussion
7. Discussion
7. Discussion
The article analyzes the determination of building maintenance costs based on the
TheThe
method article analyzes
article
proposed the the
analyzes
in Polishdetermination
determination
legal of building
regulations. maintenance
of Itbuilding
should maintenance
be noted herecosts based
costs
that theon
based the the
on
method
method
methodproposed
proposed in Polish
in legal
Polish regulations.
legal regulations.It should
It shouldbe noted
be notedhere that
here the
that
proposed in Polish regulation has certain limitations. The formula is fixed, and some method
the methodpro-
pro-
posed in Polish
posed in are
variables regulation
Polish has
notregulation certain limitations.
has certain
easy to implement The
in alimitations. formula
TheOne
realistic way. is
formula fixed,
of theismain and some variables
fixed,limitations
and some isvariables
taking
into account only the costs of replacing individual elements without the possibility of
calculating refurbishment costs, which, in many cases, constitute a significant piece of the
maintenance budget. The assumption made in the regulation regarding the calculation
of maintenance of some elements is directly contrary to real conditions. For instance, the
inclusion of the maintenance costs of elevators requires their replacement 1–3 times, and
such actions do not take place in real conditions with a building’s 30-year life cycle. The
method used for calculations does not take into account changes in the value of money
over time. Another limitation is also the life cycle has to be designated as 30 years.
Another limitation is, for instance, that the warranty period is fixed to one period
of time for the whole product calculation, which does not take into account the possibil-
ity that, in the whole calculated period, products with different warranty periods will
be implemented.
The formula limitations may arise from the fact that the model analyzed, which is
given in the regulation, was designed only for the comparison of given offers and shall help
in making a decision of which offer is the best during the public procurement procedure.
The restrictions imposition is aimed at adopting the same assumptions by all tenderers,
which facilitates the evaluation of tenders by the procurer, giving a picture of how the
higher initial cost translates into savings during the operation of the building. However,
all the above-mentioned limitations make it practically impossible to determine the total
maintenance costs in accordance with the regulation. For this reason, the authors decided to
carry out a maintenance cost calculation, limited to the cost of replacement, of the selected
building elements.
8. Conclusions
One of the components of the life cycle costs of a building, which is particularly
difficult to determine, is its maintenance costs incurred during its operation. The article
analyzes the determination of building maintenance costs based on the method proposed
in Polish legal regulations.
The method’s sensitivity analysis shows that the assumed number of life cycles has
the greatest impact. An increase by one cycle increases the value of the maintenance
cost by about 25%. The adopted warranty period has the least impact. These are certain
dependencies that should be taken into account when considering the obtained results.
In order to obtain a broader picture of the model’s usefulness, a multi-family resi-
dential, office and service building was analyzed. The results of the analyses allow us to
conclude that, despite the higher price of materials, the most durable solutions, which are
the most expensive to purchase, turn out to be the most advantageous in the entire life
cycle of the building. It was found that when using solutions with a lower durability, the
share of calculated building maintenance costs in the total costs incurred in 30 years of use
is about 5% higher than when using solutions with higher durability.
In the extension of the method, the use of NPV for calculations was proposed. From
the obtained results, it can be concluded that the most durable materials turn out to be
the most profitable to apply, taking into account the entire life cycle of the facility. On
the basis of the calculated values, it was found that when using solutions with a lower
durability, the share of calculated building maintenance costs in the total costs incurred in
30 years of maintenance is always higher than when using solutions with higher durability.
However, this difference is smaller than in the case of calculations in accordance with
the Polish regulation and decreases with the increase in the discount rate. Extending the
life cycle of a building to 80 years is primarily associated with increasing the number
of product life cycles, which largely translates into the obtained results. In the case of
windows and external doors, assuming an 80-year life cycle, the cheapest solution is the
least durable solution (11 product life cycles were assumed). Intermediate solutions are the
most expensive, and the most durable option is the second most economically profitable
option. Other elements, i.e., internal doors, roof and floors, remain the most reasonable
from the costing point of view for the choice of the most durable solutions, and the least
durable appears to be the most expensive ones.
The formula proposed in the regulation is intended for specific purposes (comparison
of tenders) and contains many generalizations and simplifications. However, in the authors’
opinion, it can be used to estimate the maintenance costs of selected building elements.
The changes proposed by the authors may enable the model given in the Polish
regulation, which is used nowadays only in public procurement areas in Poland, to extend
the implementation possibilities both for other areas in Poland as well as in other countries.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, E.P.; methodology, E.P.; resources, J.G.; data curation,
J.G..; writing—original draft preparation, J.G.; writing—review and editing, E.P. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is
not applicable to this article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Directive 2014/24/UE of the European Parliament and the Council of 26th February 2014 on Public Procurement and Repealing.
Available online: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eudr/2014/24/contents (accessed on 10 October 2021).
2. Regulation of the Minister of Investment and Development of 11 July 2018 on the Method of Calculating the Costs of the Life
Cycle of Buildings and the Method of Presenting Information on These Cost. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/
DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20180001357 (accessed on 10 October 2021). (In Polish)
3. Baryłka, A.; Baryłka, J. Eksploatacja Obiektów Budowlanych. Poradnik dla Właścicieli Zarzadców
˛ Nieruchomości; Wydawnictwo CRB:
Łomianki, Poland, 2016. (In Polish)
4. ISO 15686-5:2017-Buildings and Constructed Assets-Service Life Planning Part 5: Life cycle costing. Available online: https:
//www.iso.org/standard/61148.html (accessed on 10 October 2021).
5. EN 13306:2017-Maintenance-Maintenance Terminology. Available online: https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/cen/5af7
7559-ca38-483a-9310-823e8c517ee7/en-13306-2017 (accessed on 10 October 2021).
6. Burt, N. Facilities Management—Good Practice Guide; Facility Management Association of Australia Ltd.: Docklands, VIC, Australia,
2012. Available online: https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/good-practice-guide-facilities-management.
pdf (accessed on 10 October 2021).
7. Jońska, B. Zarzadzanie
˛ Nieruchomościami Komercyjnymi; C.H. BECK: Frankfurt, Germany, 2014. (In Polish)
8. Roper, K.; Payant, R. The Facility Management Handbook; AMACOM: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
9. Sullivan, G.; Pugh, R.; Melendez, A.P.; Hunt, W.D. Operations & Maintenance Best Practices—A Guide to Achieving Operational
Efficiency (Release 3). 2010. Available online: https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1034595/ (accessed on 10 October 2021).
10. Kaklauskas, A.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Raslanas, S. Multivariant design and multiple criteria analysis of building refurbishments.
Energy Build. 2005, 37, 361–372. [CrossRef]
11. Starynina, J.; Ustinovichius, L. A multi-criteria decision-making synthesis method to determine the most effective option for
modernizing a public building. Tech. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2020, 26, 1237–1262. [CrossRef]
12. Nagar, A. Development of Fuzzy Multi Criteria Decision Making Method for Selection of Optimum Maintenance Alternative.
Int. J. Appl. Res. Mech. Eng. 2012, 1, 206–211. [CrossRef]
13. Tupenaite, L.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Kaklauskas, A.; Turskis, Z.; Seniut, M. Multiple Criteria Assessment Of Alternatives For Built And
Human Environment Renovation. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2010, 16, 257–266. [CrossRef]
14. Zavadskas, E.K.; Kaklauskas, A.; Gulbinas, A. Multiple criteria decision support web-based system for building refurbishment.
J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2004, 10, 77–85. [CrossRef]
15. Bucoń, R. Model supporting decisions on renovation and modernization of public utility buildings. Open Eng. 2019, 9, 178–185.
[CrossRef]
16. Nowogonska, B. Preventive Services of Residential Buildings According to the Pareto Principle. IOP Conf. Series: Mater. Sci. Eng.
2019, 471, 112034. [CrossRef]
17. Ighravwea, D.E.; Sunday, A.O. A multi-criteria decision-making framework for selecting a suitable maintenance strategy for
public buildings using sustainability criteria. J. Build. Eng. 2019, 24, 100753. [CrossRef]
18. Ji, A.; Xue, X.; Wang, Y.; Luo, X.; Zhang, M. An Integrated Multi-Objectives Optimization Approach On Modelling Pavement
Maintenance Strategies For Pavement Sustainability. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2020, 26, 717–732. [CrossRef]
19. Peach, R.H.; Visser, J.K. Measuring human factors in maintenance: A literature review. S. Afr. J. Ind. Eng. 2020, 31, 104–114.
20. Zhong, S.; Pantelous, A.A.; Goh, M.; Zhou, J. A reliability-and-cost-based fuzzy approach to optimize preventive maintenance
scheduling for offshore wind farms. Mech. Syst. Signal Pract. 2019, 124, 643–663.
21. Batinić, D.D.; Bukvić, A. Use of OEE in Optimization of Maintenance Schedule. Available online: https://www.wirenet.org/
wire-journal-international) (accessed on 10 October 2021).
22. Al-Refaie, A.; Al-Shalaldeh, H.; Lepkova, N. Proposed Procedure for Optimal Maintenance Scheduling Under Emergent Failures.
J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2020, 26, 396–409. [CrossRef]
23. Kim, J.-M.; Kim, T.; Yu, Y.-J.; Son, K. Development of a Maintenance and Repair Cost Estimation Model for Educational Buildings
Using Regression Analysis. J. Asian Arch. Build. Eng. 2018, 17, 307–312. [CrossRef]
24. Farahani, A.; Wallbaum, H.; Dalenbäck, J.-O. Optimized maintenance and renovation scheduling in multifamily buildings—A
systematic approach based on condition state and life cycle cost of building components. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2018, 37, 139–155.
[CrossRef]
25. Li, C.-S.; Guo, S.-J. Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Maintenance Costs and Budgets for University Buildings in Taiwan. J. Asian Arch.
Build. Eng. 2012, 11, 87–94. [CrossRef]
26. Le, A.T.H.; Domingo, N.; Rasheed, E.; Park, K.S. Building Maintenance Cost Planning and Estimating: A Literature Review.
In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Association of Researchers in Construction Management Conference, ARCOM 2018, Belfast,
UK, 3–5 September 2018.
27. Kwon, N.; Song, K.; Ahn, Y.; Park, M.; Jang, Y. Maintenance cost prediction for aging residential buildings based on case-based
reasoning and genetic algorithm. J. Build. Eng. 2019, 28, 101006. [CrossRef]
28. Fregonara, E.; Ferrando, D.G. The Stochastic Annuity Method for Supporting Maintenance Costs Planning and Durability in the
Construction Sector: A Simulation on a Building Component. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2909. [CrossRef]
29. Otmani, A.; Bouabaz, M.; Al-Hajj, A. Predicting Maintenance and Rehabilitation Cost for Buildings Based on Artificial Neural
Network and Fuzzy Logic. Int. J. Comput. Intell. Appl. 2020, 19, 2050001. [CrossRef]
30. Juszczyk, M.; Leśniak, A.; Zima, K. ANN Based Approach for Estimation of Construction Costs of Sports Fields. Complexity 2018,
2018, 1–11. [CrossRef]
31. Leśniak, A.; Wieczorek, D.; Górka, M. Costs of facade systems execution. Arch. Civ. Eng. 2020, 66, 81–95.
32. Konior, J.; Stachoń, T. Bayes Conditional Probability of Fuzzy Damage and Technical Wear of Residential Buildings. Appl. Sci.
2021, 11, 2518. [CrossRef]
33. Wieczorek, D.; Plebankiewicz, E.; Zima, K. Model Estimation of the Whole Life Cost of a Building with Respect to Risk Factors.
Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2019, 25, 20–38. [CrossRef]
34. Chen, C.; Tang, L. BIM-based integrated management workflow design for schedule and cost planning of building fabric
maintenance. Autom. Constr. 2019, 107, 102944. [CrossRef]
35. Lee, M.; Lee, U.-K. A framework for evaluating an integrated BIM ROI based on preventing rework in the construction phase. J.
Civ. Eng. Manag. 2020, 26, 410–420. [CrossRef]
36. Leśniak, A.; Górka, M.; Skrzypczak, I. Barriers to BIM Implementation in Architecture, Construction, and Engineering Projects—
The Polish Study. Energies 2021, 14, 2090. [CrossRef]
37. Zima, K.; Plebankiewicz, E.; Wieczorek, D. A SWOT analysis of the use of BIM technology in the Polish construction industry.
Buildings 2020, 10, 16. [CrossRef]

Analysis of The Impact of Input Data

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Analysis of The Impact of Input Data

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysis of The Impact of Input Data

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Citation: Plebankiewicz, E.; Gracki, J.

Sustainability 2021, 13, 12220. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132112220 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

3. Calculation of Maintenance Costs in Accordance to Polish Regulations

Cg = Cn + Cuz + Cut (1)

where: Og —warranty period of the ith product given in years.

Figure 3. Obtained results for variant III.

Figure 4. Obtained results for variant IV.

5. Model Analysis on the Example of A Multi-Functional Building

5.1. Windows and External Doors

Table 2. Data given for the windows and external doors.

interior doors (1) 192 3

Figure 7. Summary of the assumed solutions for the roof element.

Figure 9 allows Windows and external

6.1. NPV Addition

Sustainability 2021, 13, 12220 12 of 16

Figure 13. Percentage average

59.81% 66.31% 61.68% 64.35% 62.95% 65.18%

Sustainability 2021, 13, 12220 13 of 16

Figure 15. The

You might also like