Welcome
to
Facilities Cost Monitor (FCM)
The totally unique fully automated
do-it-yourself
Benchmarking and Cost Prediction Program
for
Facilities Services
from
Contact us About FCM FCM EstatesMaster Case studies Authors
FAQs About benchmarking User instructions Consultancy
Trial registration Registration Licence agreement
About FCM
Facilities Cost Monitor is a universally applicable intelligent decision support system for site-specific benchmarking, estimating, planning and controlling the cost of facilities.
How does Facilities Cost Monitor work?
It is a purpose-built model built around detailed analysis of a massive first-hand-assembled database of costs and performance – see below - which it interrogates in depth to draw down accurate and reliable comparables for any specific building type, specification and configuration.
For each facilities service it takes into account the site-specific variables affecting issues such as:
· the scope and quantity of work to be addressed,
· levels of performance,
· the design and specification of buildings and their contents,
· user activity,
· operational conditions,
· internal and external environmental conditions and
· micro/macro-economic market conditions
- at any date past, present or future.
Who is behind Facilities Cost Monitor?
Facilities Cost Monitor was created by Bernard Williams FRICS, formerly senior partner of, and now an active consultant to, Bernard Williams Associates (BWA) a UK-based professional consultancy specialising in facilities economics. BWA are widely recognised as being leaders in the field of benchmarking facilities services; their unique and massive database forms the back-bone of the Facilities Cost Monitor model.
The program is developed and marketed by International Facilities and Property Information Ltd. (IFPI) which also publishes a wide range of books and electronic teaching aids in this specialist field.
What is so special about Facilities Cost Monitor?
Size and accuracy of database
The 2 million-plus data entries from which the base model is constructed is drawn from BWA’s records, painstakingly compiled over 40 years experience of specialist facilities benchmarking consultancy. The data has been gathered and analysed at first hand by BWA’s team of fully qualified Chartered Quantity Surveyors from the facilities cost records of some 500 users in over 10,000 buildings in the UK and internationally.
No second-hand data of any description is used in calibrating the Facilities Cost Monitor program
With Facilities Cost Monitor users are able to benchmark current performance against a modelled peer group for a wide range of facilities services from ‘maintenance’ to ‘document distribution’.
Eliminates ‘background noise’
The program eliminates all the background noise normally associated with conventional high-level estimating and benchmarking processes i.e.: the resource drivers affecting service level requirements, cost of operations, and quality of performance, e.g.
· age,
· labour rates and costs of employment,
· problems of access
· etc. etc.
which are taken into account when extracting the peer group comparisons from the database for estimating and benchmarking.
Uses all the key variables
Facilities Cost Monitor has leap-frogged conventional benchmarking techniques by modeling all the key variables influencing cost and quality and producing a realistic estimate of what a service should cost in any normal range of circumstances if procured and managed efficiently.
Cost comparables offered by the program in each service are the result of a combination of all or most of the following cost drivers which impact upon the cost of each service:
· scope of the service
Cost drivers weighted and valued
The weightings and values of each of these cost drivers have been evaluated by the authors using their vast first-hand-gathered database and practical experience of facilities economics; these weightings and values have been applied not to the cost centre as a whole, but to each sub-element of each cost centre.
So Cleaning, for instance, is analysed in respect of sub-elements such as:
· Walls
· Windows
· Occupiable areas
· Furniture and equipment
· ‘Special’ areas
· Waste management
· Pest control
The level of accuracy of the program is significantly enhanced by modelling the results at this level of detail and can only be achieved because of the robustness of the database and the thoroughness with which it has been modeled.
However users do not need to have their own costs analysed to the same level of detail – they merely need to know the scope of the service and some key facts affecting its delivery.
Accurate
The level of accuracy of the program is significantly enhanced by modelling the results at this level of detail and can only be achieved because of the robustness of the database and the thoroughness with which it has been modeled.
However users do not need to have their own costs analysed to the same level of detail – they merely need to know the scope of the service and some key facts affecting its delivery.
Drilling down
A big feature of the EstatesMaster program is the way it helps you to get a good, reliable initial overview of your facilities’ performance with a very small time-input.
However, having made your first pass at the typical features of your buildings and the quality of their facilities services you can then begin to ‘drill down’ into the detail of the estate by answering the questions in respect of some of the more important buildings on an individual building basis.
Every time you evaluate the estate’s facilities performance using FCM EstatesMaster you can run a Report showing:
Tests any service level or building option – against best performance
Facilities Cost Monitor is much more than just a highly flexible estimating and benchmarking tool: the program can be a catalyst for creation of a best value facilities regime by facilitating instant sophisticated sensitivity analysis of the cost of facilities options.
The database extends across all major building types. Uniquely it is distilled down to include only the best performance results in respect of cost/quality achievement.
User-friendly
The screens require the user to answer straightforward questions about their costs, areas, headcount, building design/specification, performance achievement and other the other key resource drivers described above.
Provided users have a reasonable knowledge of their facilities (or access to others who do – like consultants or contractors) they should have no problem at all in completing the questionnaires which form the basis of the system.
Each screen is supported by a detailed written ‘Helptext’ giving definitions of specialist terms and advice on how to complete the answers to the questions.
Drawing from the autors’ extensive experience of working with Facilities Managers in the course of consultancy activities the whole model has been designed to overcome the worst of the problems which the authors know are likely to occur as a result of:
The program is fully automated being designed to provide reasonably accurate estimates and benchmarks without the need for any consultancy interface. However, there is also a Help-line for users to contact for expert guidance in the unlikely event that they have any problems in filling in the answers to the simple questions posed - or even if they don’t like the results the programs generate!
Universal application
Facilities Cost Monitor is calibrated to estimate and benchmark costs of facilities in the major regions of following countries :
· UK
· USA
· Australia
· Canada
· France
· Germany
· Spain
· Italy
· Republic of Ireland
Other countries can be made available on request and Licensees will be informed of new options as they come on stream.
What does it cost?
Licence fees are payable annually to IFPI Ltd on a set fee scale which varies according to the number of program users (seats) and number and size of buildings. Details of these fees can be made available against a specific proposal.
Fees for one-off applications can be pre-arranged with IFPI Ltd.
CASE STUDIES
CASE STUDY
Facilities Cost Monitor
Facilities Policy and Budget Allocation – Local Authority
A major Local Authority was moving its administrative functions into a new building in the city centre. The newly formed strategic fm group (ICF) were tasked with setting the budgets for all the facilities services and justifying the figures by reference to:
Under the guidance of a facilitator the whole ICF team went through each cost centre using the Facilities Cost Monitor to show them the performances options and their budget implications.
The costs indicated were, of course, generated by the site-specific cost drivers identified by the questions asked in the program.
The ICF found the Helptext really useful when deciding on the appropriate standards of specification in the new building. Every now and then they asked to see the cost implications of the menu options – these were displayed instantly on the screen and enabled the team to make value judgements on the quality ranges in a fraction of the time it would have taken them without access to the program. In fact, the complete process was done and dusted in less than 3 hours.
The ICF’s decisions were encapsulated in the FCM Report which recorded the decisions they had taken in respect of each of the questions in the program. It enabled complete buy-in of the whole team to the policy decided upon –with its cost implications - in every one of the facilities services they would be procuring.
The results of their deliberations using the FCM as a catalyst were as follows:
This information was incorporated in the officers’ report to their Council requesting confirmation of the facilities policy for the new building and the budget implications.
CASE STUDY
FCM EstatesMaster
Re-tender or re-negotiate services contract?
A Central Government Department was deliberating over whether to re-tender a major service contract covering 5 buildings or to re-negotiate with the incumbent provider.
Using the FCM EstatesMaster program they found that the price they were paying was close to best performance for the scope and quality being provided.
They therefore re-negotiated the contract continuing a good partnership without unnecessary costs and disruptions on either
side.
CASE STUDY
Facilities Cost Monitor – EstatesMaster
Global cost management
A major international engineering enterprise used the FCM EstatesMaster program to set up a cost control mechanism for its global estate of 1.2m sq.m.
They appointed a ‘champion’ from among their ICF team to work with a facilitator to set the program up for all their 10 sites – 7 in UK and 3 overseas.
The results identified a good performance in most areas when set against the peer group in the program’s database. However, one or two sites were significantly above the program’s benchmark for some of the services.
Notice that even with over 200 buildings and ½ million sq.m of Gross Floor Area the benchmark is still within 5% of the actual cost for this particular facilities service cost centre. Nevertheless when individual buildings were checked there were some poor as well as excellent outcomes.
The company has used these and the other results to identify best performance on its estate and has made changes which have affected substantial improvements in value for money. Use of the program is now being extended to other parts of the organisation in other countries; EstatesMaster will now be updated on a continual basis as a total estate cost control mechanism .
The following is an extract from the summary:
CASE STUDY
Facilities Cost Monitor – Negotiation of contract extension
A large London financial services organisation had a very good partnership going with their cleaning contractor but the contract period was nearly up – so how could they avoid losing this excellent service provider in a re-tender scenario?
The answer was to use the Facilities Cost Monitor cleaning module to benchmark the contractor’s proposals for an extension of the contract for a further 2 years.
The program was populated and run by an independent surveyor – neither party had any influence on the way the questions were answered other than to provide factual information. The Report from the FCM program showing all the questions as answered was appended to the benchmark result.
Actually the bid was within 1% of the FCM benchmark so there was no contest.
CASE STUDY
FCM EstatesMaster – International benchmarking
An internationally-based dugs company wanted to get a handle on how their costs and performance compared across their portfolio of offices and laboratories in USA, UK and mainland Europe.
The process highlighted some very big differences in costs on some sites between the Benchmarks and Actuals in several of the Services tested using EstatesMaster.
Note that the benchmarks and actuals shown below are given in the local currency – the program does not dabble in currency conversion which is a benchmarking minefield. However the diagram below when converted to a common currency does show a wide disparity of costs as between the sites as well as between the actuals and benchmarks on each site. Sometimes this was justifiable and sometimes it wasn’t – time for a thorough review in a couple of situations
The same company also benchmarked all of the Service Charges on its tenanted properties. This facility is unique to the FCM program and opened up some interesting lines of enquiry
Frequently Asked Questions
Q How do we know the database is accurate?
A. The data has been selected and processed by Bernard Williams Associates (BWA) who are recognised as leading specialists in the field.
The data is collected at first hand by BWA’s team of Chartered Quantity Surveyors in the course of carrying out facilities cost benchmarking studies for major national and international users.
Q Is the program kept up to date?
A The program is updated continually. Licensees automatically access the most up-to date calibrations having been notified of the nature, extent and reasons for the modifictions.
Q Which building types does it cover?
A The program is not user-type-specific – it can be used for offices, retail outlets, schools, hospitals and so on; it asks questions about the building and how it is used, the answers to which generate best performance cost levels appropriate to the job that has to be done in each case. It does of course reflect the physical characteristics of each building and particular specification details
Q How well qualified are the authors of the program?
A The program has been developed from first principles by Bernard Williams FRICS. Bernard is widely regarded as an authority on facilities cost and performance benchmarking having been chosen by Eurofm to validate their facilities benchmarking initiative. He has recently completed a commission from the EC to benchmark the cost of construction in the 15 EU countries.
He is a Visiting Professor at the Centre for Facilities Management and Development at Sheffield University and was recently voted one of the ‘TopTwenty Pioneers of Facilities Management’ by the BIFM’s Facilities Management Journal.
Bernard is author of the best selling reference works ‘An Introduction to Benchmarking Facilities’,‘Facilities Economics’ and ‘Whole-life Economics of Building Services’
Q Does the program take into account regional variations?
A The data is separately indexed to all major economic regions in each country in the database.
Q Does it take into account premium rates that must be paid in certain areas at certain times?
A The program has the facility to take on board any abnormal local premium rates of pay.
Q What happens if our costs include work not envisaged in the scope of the program?
A If your costs include work outside of the scope of the program (e.g. maintenance of special equipment) there is a facility to exclude such costs from the calculations.
Q Can we use our own database in place of the one in the program?
A The database the program uses is specially selected as representing ‘best performance’ cost targets from a much wider selection of cost data covering over 500 top-drawer users in the public and private sectors.
However, if you would prefer to substitute comparative costs from your own database this can be arranged at an extra cost negotiated directly with the Licensor.
Q What sort of companies are in the database?
A The database contains ‘best performance’ cost data drawn from the records of over 500 organisations managing facilities in over 10,000 buildings.
Among the 500+ national and international organisations represented in the core database are:
All the data in the program has been specifically selected as representing best performance in management of facilities costs.
Q. Does anyone else have access to our data and benchmarking surveys?
A. Definitely not – apart from the Licensor and the authors who need to be able to monitor input to the site for purposes of quality control ( see Licence Agreement). The Licence Agreement contains a Confidentiality clause. If required (but really quite unnecessary) your organisation can be entered into the program under a pseudonym and even your buildings can be made anonymous using code numbers
Facilities Cost Monitor
EstatesMaster Version
WHAT IS ESTATESMASTER?
EstatesMaster (EM) provides all the benefits of Facilities Cost Monitor (FCM), to organisations with multiple buildings.
Estatesmaster was conceived, built and developed in response to a real life requirement of a major engineering company with a massive UK and international estate. They originally were impressed by the basic Facilities Cost Monitor program but because it was geared to individual buildings it was obviously impractical for application to each of the 500 + buildings in the portfolio.
IFPI’s consultant team therefore worked out an ingenious way of adapting the FCM single building program so that the questions could be answered for groups of buildings with similar cost drivers.
The authors and system champions within the client organisation then collaborated closely on building identification and data gathering, ensuring that the benchmarks reflected the most accurate and relevant information available in the real world; this made the database thereby derived, when added to BWA’s already massive set of data, a unique resource from which to benchmark other complex estate structures.
Users can monitor, plan and control the costs of providing facilities services across estates which include a diverse range of buildings, each with their own individual physical characteristics and performance requirements .
HOW DOES ESTATESMASTER WORK?
As with the FCM single building version, EstatesMaster is built around a mathematical model, enabling users to accurately predict the ‘best performance’ cost of providing facilities services to all the buildings on each site. This entails breaking the site down into buildings of a similar category of use (offices, warehouses, lecture theatres, ward blocks etc.) and then, within each category, using a simple percentage split between the menus of possible answers to the program’s questions .
Just as in the basic FCM program it takes into account the variables associated with different types of buildings on a site – offices, retail, factories, warehouses, schools, universities, hospitals, police stations, laboratories, engineering and industrial plants, etc.etc. These variables (the Cost Drivers) include the quantity of work involved, the design and specification of buildings and the assets they contain, user activity and operational conditions, internal and external environmental conditions , micro/macro-economic market conditions and so on.
Using these variables, EstatesMaster predicts the cost of providing a full range of services across the estate – cleaning, service and buildings maintenance, security, energy, compressed air, drainage, lifting equipments etc.etc. as well as the traditional office services applications covered by FCM, regardless of the complexity of the requirement.
Furthermore it shows how the benchmark or cost estimate is divided between the different categories of buildings and also between the buildings themselves. Many organizations do not have their actual costs broken down to this level so EstatesMaster can show them – maybe for the first time – where the money is most likely being spent by building or building category.
You can still work out the benchmark for individual buildings if you want to, while at the same time dealing with the others at the estate prediction level. The usual process of operation is to run the whole program at estate prediction level and then gradually delve down into the bigger or higher profile buildings on an individual basis.
This whole process is described in graphic detail in the Instructions section of this web-site
WHO IS BEHIND ESTATESMASTER?
The original FCM was created by Bernard Williams FRICS, formerly senior partner of, and now retained consultant to, Bernard Williams Associates (BWA), a professional consultancy specialising in facilities economics. Bernard and his colleagues at BWA created the FCM system and built the EstatesMaster program on to it.
THE ESTATESMASTER DATABASE
Another big bonus from the development of EstatesMaster has been the enlargement of the original FCM database to incorporate facilities from a wide variety of non-administrative buildings gathered initially from one of the UK’s largest engineering companies and since extended via several companies of similar ilk.
The BWA database already comprised two million or more entries of cost and quality of facilities services, gathered from the facilities cost records of 500 users in more than 10,000 buildings, constantly updated to reflect the latest market and environmental changes and was already the largest of its kind anywhere to be found before this augmentation.
A further bonus has been the amplification of the database of facilities services in countries outside of the UK. Following thorough testing and re-calibration where necessary the program is now valid in:
· USA
· Australia
· Canada
· France
· Germany
· Spain
· Italy
· Republic of Ireland
as well as in the UK
As a result, EstatesMaster provides users responsible for multiple, multi-purpose buildings with an up to the minute benchmarking tool for testing the financial performance of an extensive portfolio of facilities services in every likely environment. They can develop their level of benchmarking detail incrementally to suit their time availability and the cost-sensitivity of different buildings or categories thereof.
WHY YOU SHOULD USE ESTATESMASTER?
EstatesMaster allows organisations to benchmark the financial performance of facilities services accurately across their entire estate. Yet, with the original FCM at its core, it is still possible to benchmark key buildings individually.
It is usually considered impractical to try to gather detailed information from multi-building sites, which will often be performing at different levels, and set it against a ‘real world’ benchmark. By contrast, EstatesMaster gives multi-building organisations the ability to work in tranches of the estate, gathering data and setting building benchmarks as samples which can ultimately be used to accurately predict facilities services costs for groups of buildings within the estate – or for individual buildings themselves.
EstatesMaster is capable of handling as many different building use categories as you want, and the user can create as many groups as desired within its portfolio. Each building is simply given its own unique reference and classified in such a way that its use and special features are instantly identifiable.
EstatesMaster can determine the implications of alternative service levels across the entire estate or according to building type. Users can instantly view whether or not their buildings policies are delivering value for money.
Comparative cost levels are the result of a combination of resource drivers such as : user service level requirements; site-generated problems and hazards; areas or volumes to be dealt with; labour costs; and consumables costs. EstatesMaster takes all of these into account before allocating a challenging yet demonstrably achievable benchmark to each site, category and building.
EstatesMaster allocates the benchmarks for the shared site services like District Heating and Compressed air to individual buildings according to the extent of their use of the service
Organisations using a CAFM system can set up EstatesMaster to draw information directly from the CAFM database.
Facilities service providers and managers find EstatesMaster invaluable for carrying out preliminary budget costing or due diligence on their detailed estimates for multiple-building bids such as in the PFI type of contracts.
The Authors
www.bwa.uk.net
Consultancy
DO YOU NEED HELP FILLING IN THE ANSWERS?
Whether or not you will need any help using the program and interpreting the results depends very largely on your level of experience and familiarity with the many technical terms used in describing building and services specifications.
Fully experienced users should be able to answer all the questions in all of the modules especially as there is a comprehensive Helptext for every question. In the event of any difficulties in meaning or interpretation there is a contact address on each Helptext page through which users can put their queries direct to the authors.
Other less experienced users are advised that facilities benchmarking is a process requiring considerable skill and knowledge and that to attempt to answer the questions on their own without the help of well qualified experts may risk getting an unreliable outcome from a survey. Technical operations like building services and fabric maintenance are particularly difficult for lay people; if possible they should try to enlist the help of specialists – maybe consultants to the organization – to answer some of the more detailed technical questions the answers to which are critical to the accuracy and reliability of the results.
It is probably not a very good idea to enlist the help of contractors or in-house service providers whose work may be under scrutiny as a result of the output of the program!
INTERPRETING THE RESULTS
It is quite common for the initial result of a benchmarking survey to show a wide discrepancy between the Actual Cost and the Benchmark. A COMPLETELY NATURAL AND DEFENSIBLE REACTION IS TO PRESUME THAT THE PROGRAM IS WRONG!
However, you have to understand that the due diligence on the program is sufficiently thorough to ensure that the program will almost always give a valid benchmark based on the building details provided and the answers given to the questions. Unless there is something fundamentally wrong with the way the service is being procured the discrepancy will probably be caused by one or other of :
- possibly all of them!
Very,very occasionally some special features of a building or service may distort the result; if in any doubt about the validity of the result users are invited to contact the licensor’s team of experts who will take a look at the survey as completed and advise on the reliability of the result based on any further information users may be asked to provide.
IFPI’s experts are fully conversant with benchmarking the costs of facilities and will have a good instinctive knowledge of the appropriate benchmark based on the information provided; they can then advise you as to whether or not to accept the result as calculated.
This assistance does not extend to investigating the causes of any discrepancies between benchmark and actual costs; one of the main purposes of this program is to identify the existence of such discrepancies so that users can commission their own in-depth studies into the reasons therefore.
If required IFPI’s team of professional benchmarking consultants will be pleased to offer services in this connection for a reasonable fee.
ABOUT BENCHMARKING
DEFINITION
According to the principal author of this program, Bernard Williams, benchmarking is defined as:
‘a process of comparing a product, service, process – indeed any activity or object – with other samples from a peer group, with a view to identifying ‘best buy’ or ‘best practice’ and targeting oneself to emulate or improve upon it’
(‘Facilities Economics’ IFPI Ltd. 2003).
APPROACHES TO BENCHMARKING
Within the above definition there are a number of different approaches both in terms of the level of detail used and the result sought.
Process benchmarking is, as the name implies, attempting to explore how services or products are best delivered/produced. Sometimes this is pursued following anomalies appearing during the benchmarking of costs and/or service levels.
Performance benchmarking is used when you want to compare the levels of performance of your facilities with those of a a peer group. You cannot do so using cost as a parameter; you have to investigate the service levels in place , the reasons they have been adopted and the output delivered, which is best done in a formal or informal Benchmarking Group or Club.
Cost benchmarking should only be used to find out whether you are getting what you are paying for in terms of quality; many people mistakenly try to use cost benchmarking as a means of comparing performance with their peer group. However, as the FCM program demonstrates so dramatically, costs of a similar service can vary enormously between different buildings for all the reasons identified in the questions posed in the model so direct comparison by cost is meaningless.
Facilities Cost Monitor is a tool for carrying out Cost Benchmarking. It does however take fully into account the levels of service in place and the output being delivered as well as the site-specific factors which will impact significantly on the cost of the latter.
FCM is programmed to ask the same questions that an experienced cost benchmarking consultant would ask if commissioned to benchmark costs of facilities and the answers are calibrated within the model to reflect the costs of each component of the service and its individual cost drivers.
PUBLISHED DATA
Many Facilities Managers and their superiors try to use published statistics either to justify or set targets for their facilities services. As users of this program will quickly realise (if they did not know it already) such attempts are doomed to failure. This is not a reflection on the efforts of the researchers of these published figures although they are usually reliant upon data submitted by subscribers which cannot be edited or verified at first-hand.
The plain fact is that no two facilities are alike and the scope of services varies wildly between similarly named services in different organisations, even when the latter are in the peer grouping.
Indeed, not only will the results almost certainly be useless as a comparable - they will also be misleading to the point of damaging the organization through leading to unrealistic cost targets being set.
LEVEL OF DETAIL
Benchmarking can be carried out at 3 levels of detail:
High level screening is used by consultants and some data analysts to make sure that cost data submitted for benchmarking is not totally erroneous. FCM has been used for this purpose on a number of occasions, using the program in a severely modified form cutting out most of the more detailed questions and setting them all to ‘average’. In certain circumstances published cost data may also be used for this purpose.
‘First Strike’ benchmarking is used when it is considered important to isolate services where the costs are significantly outside of the normal deviations from the norm; this process can often identify mis-analyses and also obviously badly performing services (or,exceptionally, process breakthroughs) in particular buildings.
Facilities Cost Monitor is an ideal vehicle for this process as it is relatively inexpensive, very quick and also capable of achieving a much greater level of accuracy than is really necessary for the process.
Detailed studies
Once you have isolated the ‘sore thumbs’ sticking out from the ‘First Strike’ benchmarking study detailed investigations can be carried out to see how and why (even whether) the distinctive members in the sample are significantly worse or better than the benchmark.
It is highly unlikely that any of the services analysed will be delivered at a significantly better cost than the benchmark assessed by FCM; such outputs should be treated with great scepticism .
CONTACT US
For further details about the program or any of the other products we produce please contact :
International Facilities and Property Information Ltd.
Kings House
32-40 Widmore Road
Bromley
Kent
UK
BR1 1RY
Tel : 00 44 (0)208 464 5418
Fax : 00 44 (0)208 313 3363E-mail: bernardw@int-fpi.com
REGISTRATION
BECOMING A LICENSEE TO USE THE PROGRAM
Once you have decided to register for a licence to operate the program you should contact us at bernardw@int-fpi.com stating the services you would like to benchmark.
We will then send you a quote for the Licence to use the program. You will then be asked to confirm your acceptance of this quote and the terms of the Licence Agreement. If the Licence fee is for £5000 or more you will be sent a downloadable copy of a Licensor/Licensee-specific Licence Agreement for formal completion (see Signatures under Licence Agreement).
Once we have received the Licence fee we will send you the proformas you need to fill in so we can put your buildings on the site.
This can normally be done within 2 days, upon which we will send you a User Name and Password (which you may change by arrangement).
You can then enter the site which will be ready for you to begin answering the questions and establishing the benchmarks or cost predictions for your building(s).
TRIAL REGISTRATION
THE DEMO SITE
Using the demonstration survey
Once you have registered as a visitor to the site you will be given access to a demonstration version of the Cleaning cost centre in the EstatesMaster version.
This program allows you to carry out amendments to a basic benchmarking survey to give you the feeling of how the program works. You can also create new benchmark surveys.
Intentionally distorted calibration
Because of the obvious need to prevent visitors using the demo site for real-life benchmarking we have distorted all the values in the model driving the demo. Consequently the answers you get will be meaningless.
Therefore please do not judge the reliability of the program by the answers you get when experimenting with this demo!
LICENCE FEES
BASIS OF FEES
The fees for using the program are based on:
INTRODUCTORY DISCOUNTS
Discounts are available for Licences taken out before 30th October 2009
QUOTATIONS
When you let us know your requirements in these respects we will
e-mail your quotation.
LICENCE AGREEMENT
The following Licence Agreement is universally applicable. Before registering on the site as a Licensed User you will be required to tick confirm that you accept the terms and conditions of this Agreement at which point you will be deemed to have accepted them in their entirety.
For Licence Fees in excess of £5000 we will require written signatures of both Licensor and Licensee on hard copies of this Licence Agreement which will be presented to you as a Licensee/Licensor – specific document.
For contracts under £5000 this amount this formality is at the option of either party
SOFTWARE LICENCE
Date
Parties:
1. ‘The Licensor’: International Facilities and Property Information Limited (“THE LICENSOR”) whose registered office is at Kings House, 32-40 Widmore Road, Bromley, Kent, BR1 1RY, United Kingdom.
2.
'The Licensee': 
Recital
The Licensor hereby grants the Licensee a non-exclusive, non transferable licence to use the Products listed in the Schedule annexed hereto (“the Schedule”) subject to (a) the use of agreed database(s), (b) the terms of this licence
Definitions
In this agreement unless the context otherwise requires:
"Designated
Equipment" means the minimum equipment specification as published from time to time by The Licensor or the equipment / machine identified in the Schedule"Licence Fee" means the fee for this licence set out in the Schedule
“Internet-enabled
Services’’ means any or all of the pages displayed on the screen of the PC or Laptop (whether or not projected on a remote screen) when the program is accessed.
"Licensed
Programs" means the internet-enabled programs in object code form identified in the Schedule including any new release of the same made or issued together with any new software programs or enhancements to existing software programs developed by the Licensor for use by the Licensee
"Licensed Program
Materials" means the Licensed Programs, the internet-enabled screens they afford and the Program Documentation
"Program
Documentation" means the instruction manuals user guidelines technical literature and other information to be made available from time to time during this Agreement by the Licensor at its discretion in either printed or machine readable form to the Licensee
"Program
Specifications" means the specifications from time to time published by the Licensor in respect of the Licensed Programs
“Products” includes but is not limited to internet-enabled programs, software, user licences, bespoke developments or enhancements and program documentation
“Standard Terms
and Conditions” means the Licensor’s Standard Terms and Conditions of Business prevailing from time to time where such has been made available to the Licensee for inspection
1. Grant of Licence
The Licensor in consideration of the payment by the Licensee of the Licence Fee hereby grants to the Licensee a non-exclusive non-transferable licence to use the Licensed Programs (and where appropriate the Program Documentation) and to possess and refer to the Program Documentation.
2. Licence Fee
In consideration of the grant of this licence by the Licensor the Licensee shall pay to the Licensor the Licence Fee within 30 days of date of Licensor’s invoice for the same or on the date of accessing the program whichever is the earlier. If any further fees shall become payable during this Agreement, the Licensor and the Licensee shall agree the particulars in an addendum to form part of this Agreement; such additional fees due shall be paid within 30 days of date of the Licensor’s invoice for the same or on the date of accessing the programs, documents or other products which are the subject of the extended agreement whichever is the earlier.
3. Property and confidentiality in the Licensed Program Materials
3.1 The Licensed Program Materials contain confidential information of the Licensor and all copyright trade marks and any other industrial or intellectual property rights in the Licensed Program Materials are the exclusive property of and remain vested in the Licensor.
3.2 The Licensee shall not:
3.2.1 save as provided for herein make back-up copies of the Licensed Program Materials;
3.2.2 reverse compile, copy or adapt the whole or any part of the Licensed Program Materials for the purposes of correcting errors in the Licensed Program Materials;
3.2.3 assign transfer sell lease rent charge or otherwise deal in or encumber the Licensed Program Materials or use the Licensed Program Materials on behalf of any third party or make available the same to any third party without the previous consent in writing of the Licensor; or
3.2.4 remove or alter any copyright or other proprietary notice on any of the Licensed Program Materials.
3.3 The Licensee shall:
3.3.1 keep confidential the Licensed Program Materials and limit access to the same to those of its employees agents and sub-contractors who either have a need to know or who are engaged in the Use of the Licensed Programs (including where appropriate the Program Documentation);
3.3.2 reproduce on any copy (whether in machine readable or human readable form) of the Licensed Program Materials the Licensor’s copyright and trade mark notices;
3.3.3 notify the Licensor immediately if the Licensee becomes aware of any unauthorised use of the whole or any part of the Licensed Program Materials by any third party; and without prejudice to the foregoing take all such steps as shall from time to time be necessary to protect the confidential information and intellectual property rights of the Licensor in the Licensed Program Materials.
3.3.4 inform all relevant employees agents and sub-contractors that the Licensed Program Materials constitute confidential information of the Licensor and that all intellectual property rights therein are the property of the Licensor and the Licensee shall take all such steps as shall be necessary to ensure compliance by its employees agents and sub-contractors with the provisions of this clause.
4. Copying of the Licensed Programs
The Licensee shall not make any copies of the internet-enabled screens.
5. Warranty
5.1 Subject to the exceptions set out in clause 6.4 below and the limitations upon its liability referred to below the Licensor warrants that its title to and property in the Licensed Program Materials is free and unencumbered and that it has the right power and authority to license the same upon the terms and conditions of this licence.
5.2 The Licensee shall give notice to the Licensor as soon as it is reasonably able upon becoming aware of a breach of warranty.
5.3 The Licensor shall have no liability to remedy a breach of warranty where such breach arises as a result of any breach by the Licensee of any of its obligations under this licence or other agreement to which the Licensor’s Standard Terms and Conditions of Business apply.
5.4 Subject to the foregoing all conditions warranties terms and undertakings express or implied statutory or otherwise in respect of the Licensed Program Materials are hereby excluded.
6. Limitation of Liability
The provisions set out in the Licensor’s Terms and Conditions of Business state the Licensor’s entire liability (including any liability for the acts and omissions of its employees, agents and sub-contractors).
7. Intellectual Property Rights Indemnity
7.1 The Licensor will indemnify and hold harmless the Licensee against any damages (including costs) that may be awarded or agreed to be paid to any third party in respect of any claim or action that the normal operation of the Licensed Program Materials by the Licensee infringes the patent copyright registered design or trade mark rights of said third party (an “Intellectual Property Infringement”) provided that the Licensee:
7.1.1 gives notice to the Licensor of any Intellectual Property Infringement forthwith upon becoming aware of the same;
7.1.2 gives the Licensor sole conduct of the defence to any claim or action in respect of an Intellectual Property Infringement and does not at any time admit liability or otherwise settle or compromise or attempt to settle or compromise the said claim or action except upon the express instructions of the Licensor; and
7.1.3 acts in accordance with the reasonable instructions of the Licensor and gives to the Licensor such assistance as it shall reasonably require in respect of the conduct of the said defence including without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing the filing of all pleadings and other court processes and the provision of all relevant documents.
7.2 The Licensor shall reimburse the Licensee its reasonable costs incurred in complying with the provisions of clause 8.1 above.
7.3 The Licensor shall have no liability to the Licensee in respect of an Intellectual Property Infringement if the same results from any breach of the Licensee’s obligations under this licence or other agreement between the Licensor and the Licensee to which the Licensor’s Standard Terms and Conditions of Business apply.
7.4 In the event of an Intellectual Property Infringement the Licensor shall be entitled at its own expense and option either to:
7.4.1 procure the right for the Licensee to continue using the Licensed Program Materials; or
7.4.2 make such alterations modifications or adjustments to the Licensed Program Materials so that they become non-infringing without incurring a material diminution in performance or function; or
7.4.3 replace the Licensed Program Materials with non-infringing substitutes provided that such substitutes do not entail a material diminution in performance or function.
8. Agreement between the Parties
8.1 The Licensor shall not be liable to the Licensee for loss arising from or in connection with any representations agreements statements or undertakings made prior to the date of execution of this agreement other than those representations agreements statements and undertakings confirmed by a duly authorised representative of the Licensor in writing or expressly incorporated or referred to in this agreement or the Licensor’s Standard Terms and Conditions of Business.
8.2 The Licensee accepts that the Licensed Program Materials are not designed and produced to its individual requirements and that it was responsible for their selection.
8.3 This agreement together with any other agreement entered into between the Licensor and the Licensee shall form the entire agreement between the parties and no addition to or modification of these shall be binding upon the parties unless made by a written instrument signed by a duly authorised representative of each of the parties.
9 Not used
10 Licensee’s Representatives
The Licensee shall communicate to the Licensor the identity of the persons or the department within its undertaking who shall act as the sole contact point and channel of communication for the provision by the Licensor of the Products, Services or Hardware. The Licensee shall forthwith inform the Licensor of any change in the identity of any such persons or department.
The Licensee will also communicate to the Licensor the names and e-mail addresses of the 3 (three) nominated users of the program who will thereupon be allocate personal User Names and Passwords to enable them to enter into and operate the program. Save for these nominated users (all of whom must be directly employed by the Licensee) no other party is permitted to enter into and/operate the site without the express written permission of the Licensor.
Neither the Licensee nor its nominated users shall divulge the User Names and Passwords to any other person whether or not employed by the Licensee. The Licensor reserves the right to change the User Names and Passwords at any time.
11 Termination
This agreement may be terminated forthwith:
11.1. by the Licensor if the Licensee fails to pay any sum due thereunder within 30 days of the due date therefor;
11.2. by either party if the other commits any material breach of any term of any agreement between the parties and which (in the case of a breach capable of being remedied) shall not have been remedied within 30 days of a Notice being given to remedy the same;
11.3. by either party if the other shall convene a meeting of its creditors or if a proposal shall be made for a voluntary arrangement within Part 1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 or a proposal shall be made for a voluntary arrangement with (or assignment for the benefit of) its creditors or if the other shall be unable to pay its debts within the meaning of section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986 or if a trustee receiver administrative receiver or similar officer is appointed in respect of all or any part of the business or assets of the other or if a petition is presented or a meeting is convened for the purpose of considering a resolution or other steps are taken for the winding up of the other or for the making of an administrative order (otherwise than for the purpose of an amalgamation or reconstruction).
The Termination of any agreement pursuant to this clause shall be without prejudice to any other rights or remedies a party may be entitled to hereunder, other agreement between the parties, or at law and shall not affect any accrued rights or liabilities of either party nor the coming into or continuance in force of any provision hereof or such other agreement which is expressly or by implication intended to come into or continue in force on or after such Termination.
12 Force Majeure
Neither party shall be liable for any breach of its obligations resulting from causes beyond its reasonable control including but not limited to fires strikes (of its own or other employees) insurrection or riots embargoes container shortages wrecks or delays in transportation inability to obtain supplies and raw materials requirements or regulations of any civil or military authority (an “Event of Force Majeure”).
Each of the parties agree to give Notice forthwith to the other upon becoming aware of an Event of Force Majeure such Notice to contain details of the circumstances giving rise to the Event of Force Majeure.
If a default due to an Event of Force Majeure shall continue for more than 26 weeks then the party not in default shall be entitled to Terminate any agreement. Neither party shall have any liability to the other in respect of the Termination of any agreement as a result of an Event of Force Majeure.
13 Waiver
The waiver by the Licensor of a breach or default by the Licensee of any of these terms and conditions or of that contained in any other agreement between the parties shall not be construed as a waiver of any breach of the same or other terms and conditions nor shall any delay or omission on the part of the Licensor to exercise or avail itself of any right power or privilege that it has or may have hereunder operate as a waiver of any breach or default by the Licensee.
14 Notices
Any notice, request, instruction or other document to be given hereunder shall be delivered or sent by first class post or by electronic mail or facsimile transmission (such electronic mail or facsimile transmission notice to be confirmed by letter posted within 12 hours to the address or to the e-mail/facsimile number of the other party set out in this agreement (or such other address or numbers as may have been notified hereunder) and any such notice or other document shall be deemed to have been served (if delivered) at the time of delivery or (if sent by post) upon the expiration of 48 hours after posting.
THE LICENSOR
Address: Kings House 32-40 Widmore Road Bromley Kent UK BR1 1RY
e-mail: info@int-fpi.com
Fax: +44 (0)208 313 3363
THE LICENSEE
Address
Fax:
15 Invalidity and Severability
If any provision of these Standard Terms and Conditions of Business or terms and conditions contained in any other agreement between the parties shall be found by any court or administrative body of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable the invalidity or unenforceability of such term or condition shall not affect other terms and conditions and all such others not affected by such invalidity or unenforceability shall remain in full force and effect. The parties hereby agree to attempt to substitute for any invalid or unenforceable term or condition a valid or enforceable term or condition which achieves to the greatest extent possible the economic legal and commercial objectives of the invalid or unenforceable term or condition.
16 Successors
These terms and conditions together with those contained in any other agreement between the parties shall be binding upon and endure for the benefit of the successors in title of the parties hereto.
17 Assignment and Sub-Licensing
The Licensee shall not be entitled to assign or otherwise transfer any agreement with the Licensor nor any of its rights or obligations thereunder nor sub-licence the use (in whole or in part) of any Products without the prior written consent of the Licensor
18 Headings
Headings to clauses in these Standard Terms and Conditions of Business or other agreement between the parties are for the purpose of information and identification only and shall not be construed as forming part thereof.
19 Limitation of Liability
19.1 The following provisions set out the Licensor’s entire liability (including any liability for the acts and omissions of its employees agents and sub-contractors) to the Licensee in respect of:
19.1.1 any breach of its contractual obligations arising under this Software Licence, or any other agreement entered into between the Licensor and the Licensee; and
19.1.2 any representation statement or tortious act or omission including negligence arising under or in connection with this Software Licence or any other agreement entered into between the Licensor and the Licensee
19.2 Any act or omissions on the part of the Licensor or its employees agents or subcontractors falling within clause 19.1 above shall for the purposes of this clause 19 be known as an “Event of Default”.
19.3 the Licensor’s liability to the Licensee for death or injury resulting from its own or that of its employees’ agents’ or sub-contractors’ negligence shall not be limited.
19.4 the Licensor shall not be liable to the Licensee for loss of data (including loss or damage suffered as a result of an action brought by a third party) even if such loss was reasonably foreseeable or the Licensor had been advised of the possibility of the Licensee incurring the same.
19.5 Subject to the provisions of clause 19.3 above the Licensor’s entire liability in respect of any Event of Default shall be limited to damages of an amount equal to the aggregate of the Licence Fee paid in the immediately preceding period of 12 months.
19.6 Subject to clause 19.3 above the the Licensor shall not be liable to the Licensee in respect of any Event of Default for loss of profits goodwill or any type of special indirect or consequential loss (including loss or damage suffered by the Licensee as a result of an action brought by a third party) even if such loss was reasonably foreseeable or the Licensor has been advised of the possibility of the Licensee incurring the same.
19.7 If a number of Events of Defaults give rise substantially to the same loss then they shall be regarded as giving rise to only one claim.
19.8 The Licensee hereby agrees to afford the Licensor not less than 30 days (following Notice thereof by the Licensee) in which to remedy any Event of Default hereunder.
19.9 Except in the case of an Event of Default arising under clause 19.3 above the Licensor shall have no liability to the Licensee in respect of any Event of Default unless the Licensee shall have served Notice of the same upon the Licensor within 3 months of the date it became aware of the circumstances giving rise to the Event of Default or the date when it ought reasonably to have become so aware.
19.10 Nothing in this clause shall confer any right or remedy upon the Licensee to which it would not otherwise be legally entitled.
20 Disputes
Any dispute which may arise between the parties shall be determined as follows:
20.1. if the dispute shall be of a technical nature concerning Products , Services or Hardware provided or any similar or related matter then such dispute shall be referred for final settlement to an expert nominated jointly by the parties or, failing such nomination within 14 days of either party’s request to the other therefor, nominated at the request of either party by the President from time to time of the British Computer Society. Such expert shall be deemed to act as expert and not as arbitrator. His decision shall (in the absence of clerical or manifest error) be final and binding on the parties and his fees for so acting shall be borne by the parties in equal shares unless he determines that the conduct of either party is such that such party should bear all of such fees;
20.2. in any other case the dispute shall be determined by the High Court of Justice in England.
English Law will govern all contractual agreements entered into by the Licensor and the Licensee hereby agrees to submit to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts.
21 The Service
The Licensee is responsible for providing the necessary documents and other materials and data which it wants to upload on to the Licensor’s site. The Licensee should note the restrictions on the use of the service in terms of the volume of information, materials and data which the Licensee is permitted to store and/or submit.
The Licensor reserve the right to refuse any information, materials and other content which do not meet the requirements of the service.
The Licensor reserve the right to change the service at any time, provided that the modified service will not be of materially worse functionality than before.
The Licensor cannot guarantee that Licensor’s site will be accessible all the time or free from interruption or delay. However the Licensor will take reasonable steps to ensure this. In addition, The Licensor will take reasonable steps to ensure that the Licensor’s site is secure and the content’s integrity maintained and there are suitable back up procedures in place to protect the Licensee’s content. If, however, despite taking these reasonable steps data is lost or becomes corrupted, the Licensor will not be liable for any loss or damage to such content and materials. If any data or content is lost prior to being backed up, Licensee will need to re-input it.
The Licensor will provide assistance to the Licensee as requested via the Helptext function with regard to the interpretation of the contents of the program, meanings of terms used and other matters not directly concerned with the Licensee’s own input to the program and/or the output obtained.
The Licensor will assist the Licensee to overcome any difficulties of an administrative nature encountered in setting up and/or entering data into the program.
The Licensor is not under any obligation to discuss the operation of the program with the Licensee insofar as any query raised relates to the accuracy or reliability of the result obtained from the output, the calibration of the program from which it derives or the accuracy or validity of the Licensee’s input. If required the Licensor will assist the Licensee to procure technical and/or professional consultancy advice in connection with the results of any input and/or the validity of the data input from which a result is derived.
22 Hosting data content
The Licensor will host the content of data entered by Licensee on to the Licensor’s site
The Licensor reserve the right to remove data content without giving prior written notice to the Licensee in the following circumstances:
a) the content of the upload is offensive , illegal or otherwise does not comply with these terms of use.
23 Uploading material to the Licensor’s site
Any material the Licensee uploads to the Licensor’s site will be considered confidential and proprietary, however the Licensor shall have the right to use any such material for the purposes of validating the calibration of the program or for any other purpose connected with improving the quality of the program. The Licensor does not have the right to disclose the Licensee’s identity to any third party without the Licensee’s express written permission
The Licensor will not be responsible, or liable to any third party, for the content or accuracy of any materials posted by the Licensee or any other user of the Licensor’s site.
The Licensee is responsible for ensuring that the equipment the Licensee uses for uploading information, content and/or data onto the Licensor’s site, such as computers, mobile phones or any other means is the Licensee’s personal property. If the equipment does not belong to the Licensee, the Licensee (and/or the owner of the equipment) will incur a charge for the usage of the equipment, it is the Licensee’s responsibility to obtain the owners’ consent prior to uploading any material on to The Licensor’s site.
24 Monitoring Content
The Licensor will actively monitor the content submitted by all Licensees for the purposes described in 23 above.. The Licensee acknowledges that it is solely responsible for all content, data or images that Licensee uploads and/or stores using the service. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the Licensor reserve the right to review materials stored and/or posted and to remove any materials and other content in its sole discretion.
The Licensor reserves the right at all times to disclose any information the Licensor may deem necessary to satisfy any applicable law, regulations, legal process or governmental request, or to edit, refuse to post, suspend or remove any information content or materials, in whole or in part in the Licensor’s sole discretion.
The Licensor also has the right to disclose the Licensee’s identity to any third party who is claiming that any materials posted or uploaded by the Licensee to the Licensor’s site constitutes a violation of their intellectual property rights, or of their right to privacy or is otherwise unlawful or claimed to be unlawful.
25 Intellectual Property in the Licensee’s Content
The Licensor does not claim ownership of the intellectual property rights in relation to the content submitted by the Licensee (“The Licensee’s Content”). However, by submitting The Licensee’s Content to the Licensor’s site the Licensee grants to the Licensor the right to use The Licensee’s Content for the purposes described in 23 above
26 Termination
The Licensor may terminate The Licensee’s registration, and remove The Licensee’s Content, at any time, with or without notice, in the Licensor’s sole discretion, if, the Licensee is in breach of any of these terms of use or if any competent authority requires us to do so.
The Licensor may terminate the hosting of The Licensee’s Content and suspend the Licensor’s site if any event outside the Licensor’s reasonable control affects the Licensor’s ability to provide the service and such event continues for a period of 14 days or more. The Licensor shall not be liable to the Licensee for any delay or failure to perform the service or host the Licensor’s site for any such reason beyond the Licensor’s reasonable control including (without limitation) governmental acts, war, riots, strikes or trader disputes, technical failure, general availability of the internet, power failure, communications failure, weather, flood, fire, explosion, act of God, natural or local emergency.
The contract for the supply of the service will automatically terminate with immediate effect if the Licensor become insolvent, unable to pay its debts, suffer a winding up order or otherwise cease trading.
27 Warranties
The Licensor warrants that it will provide the service with reasonable care and skill. All other warranties, representations, terms and other conditions regarding the service (whether express or implied, statutory or otherwise) are excluded to the fullest extent permissible by law.
28 Liability
Nothing in these terms of use shall operate to exclude or limit the Licensor’s liability for death or person injury caused by the Licensor’s negligence or for any breach of the terms implied by section 12 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 or section 2 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.
Subject to the preceding paragraph and except in relation to any fraudulent misrepresentation made by the Licensor, the Licensor’s entire liability under these terms of use and/or in relation to the performance of the service will not exceed £100.
This does not affect The Licensee’s statutory rights.
29 Notices
A notice given under this agreement:
· shall be in writing in the English language (or be accompanied by a properly prepared translation into English);
· shall be sent for the attention of Customer Services, IFPI Limited or email via the ‘Contact Us’ option (or such other person, address, or email address as the receiving party may have notified to the other, such notice to take effect five days from the notice being received); and
· shall be delivered personally; or
· sent by email; or
· sent by pre-paid first class post, recorded delivery or registered post; or
· (if the notice is to be served or post outside the country from which it was sent) sent by registered airmail.
A notice is deemed to have been received:
· if delivered personally, at the time of delivery; or
· in the case of email, at the time of transmission, provided a confirmatory copy is sent first-class post or by personal delivery before the end of the next Business Day; or
· in the case of pre-paid first-class post, recorded delivery or registered post, 48 hours from the date of posting; or
· in the case of registered airmail, five days from the date of posting; or
· if deemed receipt under the previous paragraphs of this paragraph is not within business hours (meaning 9.00 am to 5.30 pm Monday to Friday on a day that is not a public holiday in the place of receipt), when business next starts in the place of receipt.
To prove service, it is sufficient to prove that the notice was transmitted to the correct email address of the relevant party or, in the case of post, that the envelope containing the notice was properly addressed and posted.
30 Rights of Third Parties
This agreement is made for the benefit of the parties to it and is not intended to benefit, or be enforceable by, any other person.
SCHEDULE
The Licensed Programs are exclusively for use by the Licensee.
Licensed Programs
The Licensed programs are as agreed in correspondence between the parties and as stated in the invoice(s) for the Licence fees. .
Program Specification
Standard Facilities Cost Monitor Version Release. The program modules are currently applicable to the following countries:
Additional countries may be added by the Licensor from time to time as part of the general upgrading of the program. At the Licensee’s request the program may be calibrated for countries other than those available in the standard version; such a service will be the subject of a separate Agreement between the parties in respect of which the Licensor reserves the right to charge an additional Licence Fee.
The buildings which are the subject of this Licence Agreement have been agreed in correspondence between the Licensor and Licensee and will be/have been entered into the program by the Licensor. Further buildings may be entered by agreement with the Licensor. A request for such agreement may not be unreasonably refused and the Licensor reserves the right to require an additional licence fee in respect of such buildings.
Licence Period
The Licence is for a period of 1 year commencing on the date of initial entry to the site as a fully registered Licensee
Licence Fees
The Licence fee for the whole Licence period is as agreed in correspondence between the parties
Payment of the Licence Fee
The Licence fee is payable before entry to the site as a Licensed user.
Program Documentation
Standard User Instructions are accessible via the ‘Instructions’ tab visible on-screen.
Signatures
The following signatures are not required for contracts of under £5000 in value unless specifically requested by either the Licensor or Licensee; in such a case a downloadable version of the document will be made available to the Licensee for conversion to 2 No. hard copies, signature and submission of both copies to the Licensee for counter-signature and return of one fully signed copy to the Licensee..
Signed……………………………………………………..
On behalf of the Licensee
Name…………………………………………..
Position………………………………………..
Date……………………………………………..
Signed……………………………………………………..
On behalf of the Licensor
Name…………………………………………..
Position………………………………………..
Date……………………………………………..
USER INSTRUCTIONS
LOGIN
Once you have registered as a Licensee you will be given a User Name and Password. From the ‘Start Program’ tab on the Welcome Page you will open up the following screen:
In the Client Login section insert your User Name and Password
BUILDINGS AND GROUPS
Buildings
The buildings you want to benchmark/ estimate will have already been entered on your behalf from information you have provided.
The system can handle as many different building use categories as you want in a single group, and the user can create as many groups as desired. Each building is simply given its own unique reference and classified in such a way that its use and special features are instantly identifiable. For example, one user has adopted these classifications:
OH: Offices – headquarters
OB: Offices – back
OA: Offices – attached to industrial buildings
WSG: Workshops – general purpose
WSI: Workshops – with industrial services
LG: Laboratory – general purpose
LS: Laboratory – special purpose
CS: Common support buildings (typically boiler houses, transformer sub-stations and similar types)
You will already have agreed the categories you wish to adopt and their acronyms with the Licensor and they will be displayed with their reference Nos. on the Operating screens we will tell you about below.
Groups
The creation of a Group or Groups of buildings will also have been pre-determined and the allocation of the buildings to their Groups will have been carried out by the Licensor. You can have
as many Groups as you like but it is best if you keep the number as small as possible; ideally buildings should be grouped within their common economic regions within countries. Groups must not span countries and at present the specific cost implications of regional locations within a country can only be shown where they are grouped according to these locations.
Where necessary buildings can be separately assessed for their individual locations.
OPENING UP THE PROGRAM
Click on Next>> on the Registration Screen and the General Options screen will appear.
The only option for Licensees is the first one – ‘Continue to site costing analysis’ because at present the setting up of buildings and groups in the program is the sole responsibility of the Licensor.
Selecting the first option by clicking on Next>> you will then be presented with a screen offering you 3 options as follows:
If you are starting from scratch you must select the option ‘Begin new site costing analysis’’. The other 2 options clearly are only available when you have carried out and saved one or more surveys. If you need to
just click one of the tabs in the top right hand corner of the screen.
BEGIN NEW SITE COSTING ANALYSIS
Naming the analysis
Each survey must have its own identification. We recommend a continuous set of letters and numbers as follows:
e.g. BWDGCL28090909 – 1 where :
n BW = author’s initials
n DG= acronym for the Group – say Demo Group or, if you are just surveying one building, the code for the building – say HO for Head Office (BWHOCL280909)
n CL =Cleaning – but could be SM,FM or SY for Services Maintenance, Fabric Maintenance or Security for example.
n 280909 =date
n -1 =version
Selecting the Group and Cost Centre
You then select the Group the building is in (if applicable) and the Cost Centre you want to test – in this case Cleaning. If you try to select a cost centre that is not yet ready for operation you will get a prompt as follows:
Note the name given here to the proposed new analysis for the Distribution Cost Centre.
We cannot show you the name of the Group in this text as we are taking the screenshots from a live project and must protect the Licensee’s anonymity.
However we show below the Cleaning selected from the full list of modules currently available (including those which are not yet web-enabled) :
By clicking on Next>> we then open up the Cleaning module at the first screen which is part of the Section ‘General’:
The Operational screen
There are several operations to be carried out from this screen, so, starting from the top:
BWDGCL280909-1 and SAVE (also saving the original which will be saved under its own name) or just use the survey for, say, sensitivity testing and don’t bother to SAVE in which case the original will remain intact and all your doodled answers will not be saved.
Whatever you do, do NOT
exit the program via the Close Program button! You will lose all unsaved
information.
· New Name for survey
This is the name you gave the original survey. If you want to save an amended version you can simply copy this into the SAVE box above and add the -1 suffix, so BWDGCL280909-1
· Select sub-element
Each Cost Centre is broken down into the sub-elements which form the total scope of the operations included in the service. These are set out across the screen and you can access the question screens for any one of them by clicking on the name.
The ‘General’ screen for Cleaning is displayed above.
· Other functions
As well as those for accessing the other sub-elements there are buttons for other functions; these are described in more detail below
· Exiting the screens
You can answer the questions in any order but it is best to start at the beginning! Unless you answer all the questions you will not be able to generate a cost benchmark. The current question is lined in red.
The first question asks about the date for the survey and there is a dropdown menu of dates from which to choose.
If you are not sure how to answer the question, or need to know if there is anything special to be taken into consideration before deciding, click on the
alongside the question when
the Helptext will appear on your screen:
Having made your selection you must Click on
which will take you to Q2.
The program will give you a running graphic depiction of the outcome of the selections you have made and the data you have entered; the Actual and Benchmark for the overall survey is given on the left of the graphics box. ’ On the right the benchmarks will be shown for each building category you have included in the survey.
We now skip the next couple of questions and move on to the Operational Screens which form the essence of the program. The EstatesMaster version is illustrated here but the single building version is almost identical.
The screen we are now looking at is in the Occupiable Areas sub-element of Cleaning. We arrive here after all the other screens have been completed and we are now reviewing our answers to this question.
Graphics Box
Note that the Graphics Box at bottom left is registering an excess of Benchmark over Actual (a rare occurrence which probably means something is wrong in the way the questions have been answered!).. Benchmarks for the individual categories of buildings are to the right of the Graphics Box.
Building Categories
The building categories we have selected for this Group are shown on the left-hand edge of the Percentage Allocation Box –see below. The green OK means that answers to this question have been completed for all the building categories in the Group
Percentage Allocation Box
The EstatesMaster version allows you to answer the question either building-by-building or for various proportions of the buildings in each category. The Percentage Allocation Box is used for the latter purpose. Here you can see that all the categories have been estimated at ‘Fairly Low’ (see Helptext for definition) except for the Head Office (OH) which is set at ‘Average’.
The 100% could have been split between the answers to this question for each or any of the categories.In this example the answer for the OH category has been given for the individual building (see below) which is why it is in the column ‘Bld’ (for Building-specific) as opposed to ‘Est’ (for Estimated Percentage). The screenshot below shows this splitting partly completed for the OA category; the -50% is a warning that the allocation must be made up to 100% otherwise the program will not allow you to move on to the next screen.
The program looks up the calibrated cost impact of each answer (Average, Fairly High etc.) and allocates it to the building categories in proportion to their gross floor areas. It further allocates the cost impacts to the buildings in each category according to their gross floor areas.
Splitting the allocation
Answering for individual buildings
The above screenshot also depicts the Individual Building Selection Box. The dropdown menu in the middle of this picture headed ‘Display Building Type’ is set to show all the buildings in the Group. It shows the Building Code - 63.01 etc.- and the category each building is in
Here the OH building is seen as individually selected as ‘Average’; as this is the only building of its category in this Group it is also set as 100% in the ‘Bld’ column of the % allocation Box above. The latter % can only be changed by altering the answer in the Individual Buildings Box. This individual selection is useful in an estate where one or more of the buildings are particularly significant and you want to see how the answer to the question impacts on it directly. It also enables the benchmark locked on to this answer to be allocated directly to the building rather than merely being allocated from the whole category answers. This is only an example and clearly in practice you would not use this feature in a case like this where there is only one building in the category .
You can see all the buildings in one category, e.g. all the OB (Back Offices) here:
And you have the option to ‘Select All’ or Select-None’ of these buildings as an alternative to using the Percentage Allocation Box above , by left-clicking on the Answer column heading. Here the answer Absolute Minimum has been selected for all the OB buildings in the Group.
Moving on
Once you are happy with your answers you can move on to any other question in this or any other sub-element. You can go to the next question by clicking on Next&Save>> or to the previous question using Previous&Save<< . Once you have done this any cost impacts will be brought into play and the new answers will be available in graphic form as below or by going to the Summary – see later.
Moving to another sub-element
Alternatively, click on the sub-element button at the top of the screen if you want to look at one of the other sub-elements e.g Waste Management as shown here.
The Adjustments Screen
On this page you have the opportunity to make adjustments to the calibration for a variety of different eventualities.ie.
Properties.
Click on the Properties button on the top menu bar and you will get a screen which allows you to make notes, comments and queries for future reference in respect of the answers given to individual questions. On completion Click on ‘Return to Questions’ to continue with the survey.
.
View Previous Answers
From the Questions screen you can review the answers you have made to other questions by Clicking on ‘View Previous Answers’. This screen also forms the basis of the Report which the program will provide in pdf format for printing out as necessary.
Waiting for the web-screen
The advantages of having this program web-enabled are enormous, not least because it does not involve updating and sending out software so it can always be instantly updated and improved wherever you are. Nevertheless there will always be times when the internet is exceptionally busy so at these times please be patient – and try to remember how many weeks it used to take consultants to get to an equivalent answer to the one this program can get you to in minutes – and unlikely to be a more reliable one than you get from this program when the questions are properly answered!
The Summary
So now to the output from all the hard work you have put into making all the answers as reliable as possible. Click on ‘Summary’ on the top menu bar:
The orange box at top-left shows the figure you put in at Q2 less any adjustments you have made at Q.38-39 (see above).
The grey box at top-right gives the overall benchmark for the Cost Centre based on the answers you have given to the questions.
The other white boxes show how the benchmark or estimate is divided between the different categories.
The Benchmark
As stated in the Introduction to this program the benchmark produced is a best-performance target based on the answers you have given to the questions – each of which has been identified as being of the greatest significance in terms of the resources that need to be allocated to the service in the particular circumstances.
The benchmarks are specific to your site and buildings and have their roots in the authors’ massive data-base and great experience of estimating and benchmarking costs of facilities services (see Introduction).
If there is a discrepancy between the Actuals and the Benchmarks it will be because :
One thing however you can be sure of –
THE BENCHMARK IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY TO BE WRONG PROVIDED YOU HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS CORRECTLY.
Please don’t fall into the trap of believing that the program is not calculating properly or is wrongly calibrated because it won’t be. The truth may not lie in any inefficiency or exceptional efficiency but in the data being used in the process. If that is all that is wrong it is still as well to find out about it – better than carry on working with unsatisfactory grasp of the cost structure of your facilities!
First strike
The benchmarks have been found over and over again to be very close to the actuals in well-run facilities. However, no claim is made for the program to produce anything other than ‘First Strike’ benchmarks – i.e. benchmarks that will highlight services in buildings which appear to be out of kilter with the norm for what is being provided.
Anything within 10% to 15% of the benchmark may not be considered to be worth investigating further unless it is a large expenditure, although the probability is that the benchmark produced by the model is a realistic target cost for the service.
Individual Building Benchmarks
Finally, the ‘Building Costs’ tab on the top bar menu will take you to an analysis of the benchmark per sq.m GIA for each individual building. This analysis takes into account the %age allocations made for the category and any individually answered questions for specific buildings