Business Case Generator
Build data-driven capital renewal business cases with NPV, ROI, and risk analysis
Financial Assumptions
Adjust assumptions to model different scenarios. Results update automatically.
Current Settings
Methodology
NPV uses discounted cash flow of reactive savings minus upfront investment.
Reactive escalation follows IFMA decay curve principles for aging assets.
Risk scoring: criticality x condition for assets rated Poor/Failed.
Executive Summary
Capital Renewal Business Case
This business case proposes a $1,295,000 capital renewal investment across 6 assets in the portfolio. The portfolio has an average condition score of 3.8/5 with 4 assets rated critical or failed. Current annual reactive maintenance costs of $120,000 are projected to escalate by 12% annually without intervention. The proposed investment delivers a -59% ROI with a 13.5-year payback period and $-660,078 in savings over 5 years.
Financial Analysis
Total Cost of Ownership Comparison
Annual cost: "Do Nothing" escalating reactive path vs proposed renewal investment path
Investment by Asset Type
Proposed capital spend breakdown by asset category
Condition Distribution
Asset count by IPWEA condition grade (1=Excellent, 5=Failed)
Cumulative Cost & Payback Analysis
Cumulative cost comparison — crossover point indicates payback period
Risk Matrix
Criticality vs condition — bubble size = replacement cost
Year-by-Year Projection
Cost comparison and cumulative savings over projection period
| Year | Current Path | Proposed Path | Cumulative Saving |
|---|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | $120,000 | $24,000 | $96,000 |
| Year 2 | $134,400 | $24,720 | $205,680 |
| Year 3 | $150,528 | $25,462 | $330,746 |
| Year 4 | $168,591 | $26,225 | $473,112 |
| Year 5 | $188,822 | $27,012 | $634,922 |
| Total | $762,342 | $1,422,419 | $-660,078 |
Risk Assessment
4 of 6 assets are rated Poor or Failed condition. The combined safety risk score is 77 (above acceptable thresholds). Deferring renewal increases the probability of unplanned failure, service disruption and potential regulatory non-compliance.
| Asset | Type | Condition | Criticality | Risk Score | Replacement Cost | Annual Reactive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Switchboard | Electrical | 5 Failed | 5 | 25 | $185,000 | $15,000 |
| Main Chiller Plant | HVAC | 4 Poor | 5 | 20 | $280,000 | $35,000 |
| Passenger Lifts (x3) | Lifts | 4 Poor | 5 | 20 | $450,000 | $28,000 |
| Roof Membrane | Building Fabric | 4 Poor | 3 | 12 | $165,000 | $22,000 |
Recommendations
Ranked Actions
6 recommendations sorted by priority| # | Priority | Asset | Type | Action | Cost | Benefit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Critical | Main Switchboard | Electrical | Immediate replacement | $185,000 | Eliminate $15,000/yr reactive cost, mitigate failure risk |
| 2 | High | Main Chiller Plant | HVAC | Planned replacement within 12 months | $280,000 | Reduce reactive spend by $28,000/yr |
| 3 | High | Passenger Lifts (x3) | Lifts | Planned replacement within 12 months | $450,000 | Reduce reactive spend by $22,400/yr |
| 4 | High | Roof Membrane | Building Fabric | Planned replacement within 12 months | $165,000 | Reduce reactive spend by $17,600/yr |
| 5 | Medium | Fire Alarm Panel | Fire Services | Schedule replacement within 24 months | $95,000 | Proactive renewal before condition deteriorates further |
| 6 | Medium | BMS System | HVAC | Schedule replacement within 24 months | $120,000 | Proactive renewal before condition deteriorates further |