Table : Comparison of Potential Methodology Designs Method Length of Cost [ex GST] Accuracy of Size of survey Pros Cons Overall time output needed [consultations] Method 1. 6-8 months. $120,000+ for Expected to Data capture on Direct access to Quantity Surveyor Extra cost may be Quantity research and have high ~50 Australian professional cost cost estimates justified by the Time for Surveyor ~$15,000 for elemental commercial estimates on a have the direct coverage of each Method data precision, but buildings; consistent basis reputation of the BCA2010 building is purchases (50 results may be covering over time. being excessive change. – expected to * $300) limited by commercial this could lead to be much Data would sample size types/classes, stakeholder longer to relate directly to and diversity across different scepticism assess than last Code change. by region, Australian regarding the NABERS building type. jurisdictions with results. (greater energy patterns detail) A focus on and climate components zones. rather than performance of the whole building. More time required for research into each building using QS Method compared to Method 2 or 3.
Table : Comparison of Potential Methodology Designs Method Length of time Cost [ex GST] Accuracy of output Size of survey needed [consultations] Pros Cons Overall Method 1. Quantity Surveyor Method 6-8 months. Time for each building is expected to be much longer to assess than NABERS (greater detail) $120,000+ for research and ~$15,000 for data purchases (50 * $300) Expected to have high elemental precision, but results may be limited by sample size and diversity by region, building type. Data capture on ~50 Australian commercial buildings; covering commercial types/classes, across different Australian jurisdictions with energy patterns and climate zones. Direct access to professional cost estimates on a consistent basis over time. Data would relate directly to last Code change. Quantity Surveyor cost estimates have the reputation of being excessive – this could lead to stakeholder scepticism regarding the results. A focus on components rather than performance of the whole building. More time required for research into each building using QS Method compared to Method 2 or 3. Extra cost may be justified by the direct coverage of the BCA2010 change.