Production cost comparison - what and who do you believe?

Periodically, articles appear in trade magazines where alternative materials attack cast iron on the basis of being, “the modern alternative”, more cost effective, easier to fit, less labour intensive, and imply incredible savings – claims which often don’t stack up when a full analysis and costing is carried out.

Cast Iron has, for many years, implored the Specifier or Client to look beyond the straight material cost and take into account the installed costs and other hidden - often ignored - costs which are not considered at the time of comparison. For example, damage on site, various protective measures, Life cycle, and maintenance costs.

Consistency in estimating typical Installation costs has always been an issue clouded by mystery - as the sources who provide the comparisons– proudly quoted as ‘Independent’ hide behind ‘confidentiality’ and therefore do not want to be identified when it comes to question time. At this point the article will carefully use the words ‘CAN SAVE’, in case it doesn’t.
We, ourselves, have sources who have supplied comparisons on a ‘confidential’ basis and as such remain so, and are not for publication as it then comes down to a case of take our word for it, we have on authority ‘Guv’.

So, what should you believe? And what should be included in the analysis of installation costs? Calculation of labour hours most definitely, but to whose definition of calculations.

Is it appropriate to ‘take a flyer’ on calculations based on manufacturers boasts which are not supported by factual written evidence, or are based on the most favourable conditions which suit their product or material. Not to mention the benefit of a fantastic installer who is extremely well trained in using that particular product.
Calculation of Labour rates and Hours should be made using recognised industry standards and there are many sources which provide guidance, ie Spons, Griffiths, Wessex, Luckins to name but a few.

The research CIDDA commissioned independent research into installation costs carried out by a reputable named source, Quantity Surveyors EC Harris. Using on site measurement to BS 3138, identified how new cast iron to BS EN877 was much more competitive than was being realised. In fact labour hrs to undertake cast iron joints etc were very much in line with the easiest, lightest of all materials PVC-u. These findings were subsequently accepted by Spons and now represent the rates for cast iron in this publication. Straight facts – not surrounded by cloud.

What else should be considered? To bring other materials up to the performance of Cast Iron, extras required include fire collars, sound protection, additional brackets which are installed on a rail system, thermal limiters, expansion joints, and bedding protection. The list CAN be lengthy depending on the type of building. We still haven’t touched on breakages incurred on site, and future maintenance.

A legal issue can then be thrown in as an added peace of mind thing, ie risk assessment and cost of failure, and finally the LCA of the product, with cast iron having the longest proven life span. So what are we trying to say?

Our message to all Clients, Specifiers, and Contractors is simple. When comparing materials , evaluate the total installed costs based on proven, recognised methodology, if you are enticed by the thought of saving bucks, ensure all claims of ‘significant’ savings are fully explained and are backed by factual evidence, before proceeding on to find they do not materialise.

With Cast Iron there are no magical enticements. Cast Iron is easy to fit, its performance is exceptional and there are no added extras - for a lifetime.