The revised draft of the lifecycle costing standard, BS 8544, includes recommendations on how data should be handed over to clients.

Several sections of the draft tackle the standard of information and how it should be handed over. For example, section 7 notes that lifecycle costing information should be identified as an organisational information requirement, an asset information requirement, or a project information requirement.

It also states: “The contractual lifecycle costing deliverables should include any exchange information requirements issued by the appointing party to the appropriate supply chain appointee or in-house responsible party, as well as stating the nature of the lifecycle costing deliverable required.

“The exchange information requirements should also specify any acceptance criteria against which the deliverable is to be assessed, in particular data structures, file formats, classification systems and file naming conventions that the appointing party requires its supply chain to use.”

The ideal asset register

Section 11 specifically addresses the handover from construction to maintenance. First, it emphasises the need for early engagement with the FM team: “Maintenance stakeholders shall be engaged during the design and construction phases to define maintainability requirements and lifecycle cost implications.”

Second, it details what should be in the “complete and structured” asset register, subject to the agreed scope of the project:

• asset type location unique identifier;
• manufacturer model details;
• maintenance requirements and intervals;
• expected service life and replacement cycles;
• warranty and service agreements;
• asset register with unique asset identifiers;
• maintenance schedules and maintenance strategies aligned with SFG20 or equivalent, if these are appointing party requirements;
• manufacturers’ data, warranties and lifecycle cost data;
• digital O&M manuals in COBie, as outlined in ISO 19650, or equivalent open searchable format;
• building logbook as at handover or other agreed date;
• safety case documentation;
• all handover documentation in a CDE; and
• data that is interoperable and conforms to the 19650 series.

Section 11 also notes that asset and maintenance data should be delivered in a format compatible with BIM and the organisation’s CAFM systems. The preferred format for this should be agreed as part of the brief for the analysis.