{"text_format":"1","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":61,"sheets":["Intro","Asses Check","Description","Input","1.1.Design","1.1.Impl","1.1.Compl","1.1.Oper","1.2.Design","1.2.Impl","1.2.Compl","1.2.Oper","2.1.Design","2.1.Impl","2.1.Compl","2.1.Oper","2.2.S1.Design","2.2.S1.Impl","2.2.S1.Compl","2.2.S1.Oper","2.2.S2.Design","2.2.S2.Impl","2.2.S2.Compl","2.2.S2.Oper","2.2.S3.Design","2.2.S3.Impl","2.2.S3.Compl","2.2.S3.Oper","2.3.Design","2.3.Impl","2.3.Compl","2.3.Oper","3.1.Design","3.1.Impl","3.1.Compl","3.1.Oper","4.1.Design","4.1.Impl","4.1.Compl","4.1.Oper","4.2.Design","4.2.Impl","4.2.Compl","4.2.Oper","5.1.Design","5.1.Impl","5.1.Compl","5.1.Oper","6.1.Design","6.1.Impl","6.1.Compl","6.1.Oper","6.2.Design","6.2.Impl","6.2.Compl","6.2.Oper","LCA.Design","LCA.Impl","LCA.Compl","LCA.Oper","worksheet"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":8,"macros":1,"external_links":0,"defined_names":3064,"comments":54,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900"}

{"sheet":"Intro","index":0,"n_rows":32,"n_cols":19,"rows_kept":32,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[2,1,2,5],[10,1,10,5],[2,11,27,11],[20,1,20,9]]}
[]
[]
[null,"Level(s) reporting tool, Beta v1.1",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"The three Levels represent a progression in terms of the accuracy and reliability of carrying out a performance assessment, as well as the level of professional expertise and capability required to use each Level.  "]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"Reporting at different project stages"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"Different Levels of performance assessment"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"\n\n"]

{"sheet":"Asses Check","index":1,"n_rows":39,"n_cols":7,"rows_kept":39,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[1,1,1,5],[3,3,7,5],[3,1,7,2],[3,6,7,13],[8,1,12,2],[8,3,12,5],[8,6,12,13],[33,1,37,2],[33,3,37,5],[38,1,43,2],[38,3,43,5],[13,3,18,5],[19,1,29,2],[19,3,29,5],[30,1,32,2],[30,3,32,5],[13,1,18,2],[13,6,18,13],[19,6,29,13],[30,6,32,13],[33,6,37,13],[38,6,43,13]]}
[]
[null,"Assessment checklist"]
[]
[null,null,null,"Step 1: \nChoose the indicators and tools to work with",null,null,"•Part 2 provides a general introduction to each indicator and tool.  \n•Check through the guidance and rules in order to inform your choice of indicators and tools.\n•We would recommend to brief the technical team go through the performance assessment requirements. "]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Step 2: \nChoose the level of performance assessment",null,null,"• Based on the goal and scope of the performance assessment, select the appropriate assessment level for the project from the three available options.  \n• Part 1, section 3.2 provides further guidance on the difference between the three levels."]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Step 3: \nDefine the building to be reported on",null,null,"• Download the report spreadsheet and start by entering the description of the building and select your Level(s) reporting scope.  \n• Part 3, section 1.1 should be followed in order to define the building, and the associated goal and scope of the performance assessment. \n• If you are testing several building types you may need to create a separate spreadsheet for each. "]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Step 4: \nFollow the guidance and rules on how to carry out an assessment",null,null,"• Part 2 provides a general introduction to each indicator.  \n• Part 3 should then be consulted for guidance on how to carry out a performance assessment.  Rules are also laid down for reporting in the public domain.\n• The Level 1 guidance forms the common basis for all assessments, and should be consulted before using Levels 2 and 3. \n• Pay special attention to the reference materials, methods and standards that should be used and any specific guidance that is provided.  It may be possible to use data from other assessments and sources used on the project, which could save time and resources.\n• The format comprises combination of data fields, background information requirements and checklists\nYou can request help on any aspect of the Level(s) guidance and methodology by writing with precise and specific queries to the JRC Level(s) helpdesk email: jrc_b5_levels@ec.europa.eu"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Step 5: \nComplete the reporting format",null,null,"• In each set of technical guidance in Part 3, a format for reporting is provided."]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Step 6: \nDetermine the valuation influence and reliability of the assessment ",null,null,"• As an optional last step for each indicator, the potential influence on a property valuation and reliability of the data and calculation method may be rated and reported on.  \n• Part 3 provides a rating methodology for each indicator."]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Step 7: \nFinalisation the assessment for submission ",null,null,"• Once you have completed the performance assessment for a specific project stage, or compiled data for one or more completed stages, you will be ready to submit your results to the Commission. \nCompleted spreadsheets shall be submitted to the to the JRC Level(s) helpdesk email: jrc_b5_levels@ec.europa.eu"]

{"sheet":"Description","index":2,"n_rows":19,"n_cols":9,"rows_kept":19,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[1,1,1,2],[12,4,13,4]]}
[]
[null,"Project contact",null,null,"Parameter","Office buildings",null,"Parameter","Residential buildings"]
[null,"Contact person",null,null,"Location",null,null,"Location"]
[null,"Telephone",null,null,"Climate zone","Select",null,"Climate zone","Select"]
[null,"E-mail",null,null,"Project type","Select",null,"Project type","Select"]
[null,null,null,null,"Year of construction",null,null,"Year of construction"]
[null,null,null,null,"Original year of construction",null,null,"Original year of construction"]
[null,"Parameter","Buildings",null,"Service life or holding period",null,null,"Service life or holding period"]
[null,"Property code",null,null,"Building form","Select",null,"Building form","Select"]
[null,"Brief Description",null,null,null,"If other describe here",null,null,"If other describe here"]
[null,"Building type","Mix",null,"Property schedule",null,null,"Property schedule"]
[null,null,null,null,"Floor area measurement",null,null,"Floor area measurement"]
[null,null,null,null,"Market segment\n-International base definition\n-Metropolitan base definition","Select",null,"Market segment","Select"]
[null,null,null,null,null,"Select"]
[null,null,null,null,"Servicing",null,null,"Servicing"]
[null,null,null,null,"Conditions of use",null,null,"Conditions of use"]
[null,null,null,null,"Projected occupancy density",null,null,"Projected occupancy density","n/a"]
[null,null,null,null,"Projected pattern of occupation",null,null,"Projected pattern of occupation","n/a"]
[null,null,null,null,"Assumed void rate",null,null,"Assumed void rate"]

{"sheet":"Input","index":3,"n_rows":17,"n_cols":8,"rows_kept":17,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[1,2,2,2],[1,3,1,6],[15,7,15,11]]}
[]
[null,null,"Indicators and Tools","Project Stages"]
[null,null,null,"Design Stage","Implementation stage","Completion and handover stage","Operation and occupation stage"]
[null,null,"Indicator 1.1 Use stage energy performance:\n- 1.1.1 Primary energy demand\n- 1.1.2 Delivered energy demand","not used","not used","not used","not used"]
[null,null,"Indicator 1.2\nLife cycle Global Warming Potential","not used","not used","not used","not used"]
[null,null,"Tool 2.1\nLife cycle tools: Building bill of materials","not used","not used","not used","not used"]
[null,null,"Tool 2.2 - Scenario 1\nBuilding and elemental service life planning","not used","not used","not used","not used"]
[null,null,"Tool 2.2 - Scenario 2\nDesign for adaptability and refurbishment","not used","not used","not used","not used"]
[null,null,"Tool 2.2 - Scenario 3\nDesign for deconstruction, reuse and recyclability","not used","not used","not used","not used"]
[null,null,"Indicator 2.3\nConstruction and demolition waste","not used","not used","not used","not used"]
[null,null,"Indicator 3.1\nTotal water consumption","not used","not used","not used","not used"]
[null,null,"Indicator 4.1 Indoor air quality\n- 4.1.1: Good quality indoor air conditions\n- 4.1.2: Target air pollutants ","not used","not used","not used","not used"]
[null,null,"Indicator 4.2\nTime outside of thermal comfort range","not used","not used","not used","not used"]
[null,null,"Tool 5.1 Scenarios for projected future climatic conditions: Protection of occupier health and thermal comfort","not used","not used","not used","not used"]
[null,null,"Indicator 6.1\nLife cycle costs","not used","not used","not used","not used"]
[null,null,"Indicator 6.2\nValue creation and risk factors","not used","not used","not used","not used","Reporting sheet for indicator 6.2 will be automatically created when you generate the reporting sheet for an indicator or tool"]
[null,null,"LCA\nOverarching assessment tool: Cradle to cradle Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)","not used","not used","not used","not used"]

{"sheet":"1.1.Design","index":4,"n_rows":50,"n_cols":25,"rows_kept":50,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[29,2,29,5],[25,2,25,12],[37,9,37,10],[38,9,38,10],[31,7,31,11],[31,2,31,5],[32,2,33,3],[32,4,33,4],[32,7,32,8],[32,5,33,5],[32,9,32,10],[33,9,33,10],[33,7,33,8],[29,7,29,11],[34,7,34,8],[34,9,34,10],[39,2,39,3],[40,2,40,3],[41,2,41,3],[34,2,34,3],[35,2,35,3],[36,2,36,3],[38,2,38,4],[41,4,42,4],[6,14,6,15],[22,2,22,3],[23,2,23,3],[24,2,24,3],[21,2,21,3],[14,2,15,4],[14,5,15,6],[11,2,11,6],[12,2,13,4],[12,5,13,6],[20,2,20,12],[6,5,7,6],[22,24,22,25],[23,24,23,25],[17,24,18,25],[17,26,18,26],[20,24,20,25],[21,24,21,25],[2,21,2,25],[3,24,3,25],[4,24,4,25],[5,24,5,25],[6,24,6,25],[3,21,3,22],[4,21,4,22],[5,21,5,22],[6,21,6,22],[7,24,7,25],[8,24,8,25],[18,4,19,4],[18,2,19,3],[6,2,7,4],[8,2,9,2],[8,3,8,4],[8,5,8,6],[9,3,9,4],[9,5,9,6],[9,16,10,16],[7,21,7,22],[6,16,6,17],[17,2,17,12],[18,5,18,12],[8,21,8,22],[2,14,2,18],[3,14,3,15],[4,14,4,15],[5,14,5,15],[2,2,2,6],[3,2,3,4],[3,5,3,6],[4,2,5,4],[3,16,3,17],[4,16,4,17],[5,16,5,17],[4,5,5,6],[42,7,42,9],[47,7,47,9],[49,7,50,8],[35,7,35,8],[36,7,36,8],[37,7,37,8],[38,7,38,8],[44,7,45,8],[48,7,48,8],[43,7,43,8],[40,7,40,8],[35,9,35,10],[36,9,36,10]]}
[null,null,"LEVEL 1",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 2",null,null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 3"]
[]
[null,null,"Part 1: Type of performance assessment",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Inputs to the simulation of a building that shall be fixed",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Design optimisation aspects addressed"]
[null,null,"Reporting item",null,null,"Reporting\n(select/delete as appropriate)",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Use of standard input data",null,"Data provided at national level or the default data provided in Annex G of EN ISO 13790 shall be used.  This shall include the use of standard occupancy data (see Annex G.8).",null,null,null,null,"Aspect",null,"Addressed?\n(yes/no)","Notes on data sources and calculation method"]
[null,null,"Energy Performance of Buildings \nassessment type",null,null,"Calculated (asset)",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Choice of calculation method",null,"The quasi-steady state and simplified hourly dynamic methods described in EN ISO 13790 may be used.  If a dynamic method is chosen, the results shall be validated according to the criteria and test cases in EN 15265 and the variance rating reported.",null,null,null,null,"Aspect 1.1 - Technical representativeness of the building use patterns"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Climate data",null,"For measured assessment, the performance shall be corrected in relation to the test reference year for the local area or region, following the method in EN 15603.",null,null,null,null,"Aspect 1.2-  Technical  representativeness of the input data used"]
[null,null,"Energy Performance of Buildings assessment sub-type",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Primary energy factor",null,"The system boundary shall encompass the primary energy required to extract and transport the energy carried to the building, as well as any other associated operations.",null,null,null,null,"Aspect 2.1 - Geographical representativeness of the weather data used"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 2.2 -Geographical representativeness of the primary energy factors"]
[null,null,"Calculation method","EN standard compliant calculation method?",null,"Yes",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 3.1 - Time representativeness of the calculation method"]
[null,null,null,"Specific method used and related CEN standard series"]
[]
[null,null,"Unregulated (non-EPB) energy uses"]
[null,null,"Does your national calculation method allow for a design estimate of unregulated energy uses?",null,null,"No"]
[]
[null,null,"What is the scope of the energy uses estimated?"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Part 2: Performance assessment results"]
[null,null,"Reporting headings",null,"Total (kWh/m2/yr)","Energy uses (kWh/m2/yr)"]
[null,null,null,null,null,"Heating","Cooling","Ventilation","Hot water","Lighting","Small power","Other uses","Notes"]
[null,null,"1.1.1 Use stage primary energy demand"]
[null,null,"Total primary energy demand",null,{"$f":"F22+G22+H22+I22+J22","v":0}]
[null,null,"Non-renewable primary energy demand",null,{"$f":"F23+G23+H23+I23+J23","v":0}]
[null,null,"Renewable primary energy demand",null,{"$f":"F24+G24+H24+I24+J24","v":0}]
[null,null,"Exported energy generated",null,{"$f":"F25+G25+H25+I25+J25","v":0}]
[null,null,"1.1.2 Use stage delivered energy demand"]
[null,null,"Heating","Natural Gas",{"$f":"F27+G27+H27+I27+J27","v":0}]
[]
[]
[null,null,"The potential for a positive influence on a market valuation ",null,null,null,null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment"]
[]
[null,null,"Checklist 1 – Evaluation of potentially positive influences on the market performance",null,null,null,null,"Rating 1 - Basis for the performance assessment"]
[null,null,"Potential influence",null,"Evaluated?","Resulting assumptions used in the appraisal",null,"RATING ASPECT",null,"Brief description of the aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"1.1 Technical representativeness of the building use patterns ",null,"Reflecting the actual conditions of use, occupancy patterns and behaviour"]
[null,null,"Potential influence 1\nIncreased revenues due to market recognition and lower void rates.",null,null,null,null,"1.2 Technical  representativeness of the input data used ",null,"The extent to which building materials and services input data reflect the surveyed building or as-built construction."]
[null,null,"Potential influence 2\nReduced operational, maintenance, repair and/or replacement costs.",null,null,null,null,"2.1 Geographical representativeness of the weather data used ",null,"The use of climate data that reflect the building location."]
[null,null,"Potential influence 3\nReduced future risk of increased overheads or loss of income.",null,null,null,null,"2.2 Geographical representativeness of the primary energy factors ",null,"The use of primary energy factors that reflect the building location."]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"3.1 Time representativeness of the calculation method ",null,"The extent to which simulations are a more dynamic representation of performance."]
[null,null,"Checklist 2 – Accounting for a Level(s) assessment in the valuation criteria used",null,null,null,null,"3.2 Time representativeness of the energy demand profiling ",null,"The extent to which demand profiles support the optimisation of supply and demand."]
[null,null,"Valuation criteria set used"]
[null,null,"Version of the criteria set used",null,null,null,null,"Indicator 1.1 \nIndicator Reliability Rating",null,{"$f":"SUM(MIN(L34,L35),MIN(L36,L37),MIN(L38,L39))/3","v":0}]
[null,null,"Criteria which the assessment has influenced",null,"Influence on the valuation or rating"]
[null,null,"Valuation criterion","Sub-criterion",null,null,null,"Rating 2 – Professional capabilities"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"2. Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating 3 – Independent verification"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"3. Independent verification of the assessment"]

{"sheet":"1.1.Impl","index":5,"n_rows":50,"n_cols":25,"rows_kept":50,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[31,2,31,5],[4,5,5,6],[6,5,7,6],[41,2,41,3],[34,2,34,3],[35,2,35,3],[36,2,36,3],[39,2,39,3],[40,2,40,3],[38,2,38,4],[41,4,42,4],[8,2,9,2],[8,3,8,4],[8,5,8,6],[17,2,17,12],[20,2,20,12],[2,2,2,6],[2,14,2,18],[2,21,2,25],[3,2,3,4],[3,5,3,6],[3,14,3,15],[3,16,3,17],[3,21,3,22],[3,24,3,25],[4,21,4,22],[4,24,4,25],[6,2,7,4],[6,14,6,15],[6,16,6,17],[6,21,6,22],[5,14,5,15],[5,16,5,17],[5,21,5,22],[5,24,5,25],[6,24,6,25],[7,21,7,22],[7,24,7,25],[4,2,5,4],[4,14,4,15],[4,16,4,17],[8,21,8,22],[8,24,8,25],[9,3,9,4],[9,5,9,6],[9,16,16,16],[11,2,11,6],[12,2,13,4],[12,5,13,6],[14,2,15,4],[14,5,15,6],[17,24,18,25],[17,26,18,26],[18,2,19,3],[18,4,19,4],[18,5,18,12],[20,24,20,25],[21,2,21,3],[21,24,21,25],[22,2,22,3],[22,24,22,25],[23,24,23,25],[24,2,24,3],[25,2,25,12],[29,2,29,5],[29,7,29,11],[23,2,23,3],[32,2,33,3],[32,4,33,4],[32,5,33,5],[32,7,32,8],[33,7,33,8],[42,7,42,9],[48,7,48,8],[32,9,32,10],[33,9,33,10],[31,7,31,11],[40,7,40,8],[34,7,34,8],[35,7,35,8],[36,7,36,8],[37,7,37,8],[38,7,38,8],[34,9,34,10],[35,9,35,10],[36,9,36,10],[37,9,37,10],[38,9,38,10],[49,7,50,8],[49,9,50,9],[47,7,47,9],[43,7,43,8],[44,7,45,8],[44,9,45,9]]}
[null,null,"LEVEL 1",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 2",null,null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 3"]
[]
[null,null,"Part 1: Type of performance assessment",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Inputs to the simulation of a building that shall be fixed",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Design optimisation aspects addressed"]
[null,null,"Reporting item",null,null,"Reporting\n(select/delete as appropriate)",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Use of standard input data",null,"Data provided at national level or the default data provided in Annex G of EN ISO 13790 shall be used.  This shall include the use of standard occupancy data (see Annex G.8).",null,null,null,null,"Aspect",null,"Addressed?\n(yes/no)","Notes on data sources and calculation method"]
[null,null,"Energy Performance of Buildings \nassessment type",null,null,"Calculated (asset)",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Choice of calculation method",null,"The quasi-steady state and simplified hourly dynamic methods described in EN ISO 13790 may be used.  If a dynamic method is chosen, the results shall be validated according to the criteria and test cases in EN 15265 and the variance rating reported.",null,null,null,null,"Aspect 1.1 - Technical representativeness of the building use patterns"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Climate data",null,"For measured assessment, the performance shall be corrected in relation to the test reference year for the local area or region, following the method in EN 15603.",null,null,null,null,"Aspect 1.2-  Technical  representativeness of the input data used"]
[null,null,"Energy Performance of Buildings assessment sub-type",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Primary energy factor",null,"The system boundary shall encompass the primary energy required to extract and transport the energy carried to the building, as well as any other associated operations.",null,null,null,null,"Aspect 2.1 - Geographical representativeness of the weather data used"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 2.2 -Geographical representativeness of the primary energy factors"]
[null,null,"Calculation method","EN standard compliant calculation method?",null,"Select",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 3.1 - Time representativeness of the calculation method"]
[null,null,null,"Specific method used and related CEN standard series"]
[]
[null,null,"Unregulated (non-EPB) energy uses"]
[null,null,"Does your national calculation method allow for a design estimate of unregulated energy uses?",null,null,"No"]
[]
[null,null,"What is the scope of the energy uses estimated?"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Part 2: Performance assessment results"]
[null,null,"Reporting headings",null,"Total (kWh/m2/yr)","Energy uses (kWh/m2/yr)"]
[null,null,null,null,null,"Heating","Cooling","Ventilation","Hot water","Lighting","Small power","Other uses","Notes"]
[null,null,"1.1.1 Use stage primary energy demand"]
[null,null,"Total primary energy demand",null,{"$f":"F22+G22+H22+I22+J22","v":0}]
[null,null,"Non-renewable primary energy demand",null,{"$f":"F23+G23+H23+I23+J23","v":0}]
[null,null,"Renewable primary energy demand",null,{"$f":"F24+G24+H24+I24+J24","v":0}]
[null,null,"Exported energy generated",null,{"$f":"F25+G25+H25+I25+J25","v":0}]
[null,null,"1.1.2 Use stage delivered energy demand"]
[null,null,"Electricity","Non renewable",{"$f":"F27+G27+H27+I27+J27","v":0}]
[]
[]
[null,null,"The potential for a positive influence on a market valuation ",null,null,null,null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment"]
[]
[null,null,"Checklist 1 – Evaluation of potentially positive influences on the market performance",null,null,null,null,"Rating 1 - Basis for the performance assessment"]
[null,null,"Potential influence",null,"Evaluated?","Resulting assumptions used in the appraisal",null,"RATING ASPECT",null,"Brief description of the aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"1.1 Technical representativeness of the building use patterns ",null,"Reflecting the actual conditions of use, occupancy patterns and behaviour"]
[null,null,"Potential influence 1\nIncreased revenues due to market recognition and lower void rates.",null,null,null,null,"1.2 Technical  representativeness of the input data used ",null,"The extent to which building materials and services input data reflect the surveyed building or as-built construction."]
[null,null,"Potential influence 2\nReduced operational, maintenance, repair and/or replacement costs.",null,null,null,null,"2.1 Geographical representativeness of the weather data used ",null,"The use of climate data that reflect the building location."]
[null,null,"Potential influence 3\nReduced future risk of increased overheads or loss of income.",null,null,null,null,"2.2 Geographical representativeness of the primary energy factors ",null,"The use of primary energy factors that reflect the building location."]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"3.1 Time representativeness of the calculation method ",null,"The extent to which simulations are a more dynamic representation of performance."]
[null,null,"Checklist 2 – Accounting for a Level(s) assessment in the valuation criteria used",null,null,null,null,"3.2 Time representativeness of the energy demand profiling ",null,"The extent to which demand profiles support the optimisation of supply and demand."]
[null,null,"Valuation criteria set used"]
[null,null,"Version of the criteria set used",null,null,null,null,"Indicator 1.1 \nIndicator Reliability Rating",null,{"$f":"SUM(MIN(L34,L35),MIN(L36,L37),MIN(L38,L39))/3","v":0}]
[null,null,"Criteria which the assessment has influenced",null,"Influence on the valuation or rating"]
[null,null,"Valuation criterion","Sub-criterion",null,null,null,"Rating 2 – Professional capabilities"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"2. Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating 3 – Independent verification"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"3. Independent verification of the assessment"]

{"sheet":"1.1.Compl","index":6,"n_rows":50,"n_cols":25,"rows_kept":50,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[32,2,33,3],[4,5,5,6],[6,5,7,6],[41,2,41,3],[34,2,34,3],[35,2,35,3],[36,2,36,3],[39,2,39,3],[40,2,40,3],[38,2,38,4],[41,4,42,4],[8,2,9,2],[8,3,8,4],[8,5,8,6],[17,2,17,12],[20,2,20,12],[2,2,2,6],[2,14,2,18],[2,21,2,25],[3,2,3,4],[3,5,3,6],[3,14,3,15],[3,16,3,17],[3,21,3,22],[3,24,3,25],[4,21,4,22],[4,24,4,25],[6,2,7,4],[6,14,6,15],[6,16,6,17],[6,21,6,22],[5,14,5,15],[5,16,5,17],[5,21,5,22],[5,24,5,25],[6,24,6,25],[7,21,7,22],[7,24,7,25],[4,2,5,4],[4,14,4,15],[4,16,4,17],[8,21,8,22],[8,24,8,25],[9,3,9,4],[9,5,9,6],[9,16,16,16],[11,2,11,6],[12,2,13,4],[12,5,13,6],[14,2,15,4],[14,5,15,6],[17,24,18,25],[17,26,18,26],[18,2,19,3],[18,4,19,4],[18,5,18,12],[20,24,20,25],[21,2,21,3],[21,24,21,25],[22,2,22,3],[22,24,22,25],[23,24,23,25],[24,2,24,3],[25,2,25,12],[29,2,29,5],[31,2,31,5],[31,7,31,11],[23,2,23,3],[32,4,33,4],[32,5,33,5],[32,7,32,8],[33,7,33,8],[32,9,32,10],[33,9,33,10],[40,7,40,8],[34,7,34,8],[35,7,35,8],[36,7,36,8],[37,7,37,8],[38,7,38,8],[34,9,34,10],[35,9,35,10],[36,9,36,10],[37,9,37,10],[38,9,38,10],[43,7,43,8],[44,7,45,8],[42,7,42,9],[48,7,48,8],[49,7,50,8],[47,7,47,9]]}
[null,null,"LEVEL 1",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 2",null,null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 3"]
[]
[null,null,"Part 1: Type of performance assessment",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Inputs to the simulation of a building that shall be fixed",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Design optimisation aspects addressed"]
[null,null,"Reporting item",null,null,"Reporting\n(select/delete as appropriate)",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Use of standard input data",null,"Data provided at national level or the default data provided in Annex G of EN ISO 13790 shall be used.  This shall include the use of standard occupancy data (see Annex G.8).",null,null,null,null,"Aspect",null,"Addressed?\n(yes/no)","Notes on data sources and calculation method"]
[null,null,"Energy Performance of Buildings \nassessment type",null,null,"Calculated (asset)",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Choice of calculation method",null,"The quasi-steady state and simplified hourly dynamic methods described in EN ISO 13790 may be used.  If a dynamic method is chosen, the results shall be validated according to the criteria and test cases in EN 15265 and the variance rating reported.",null,null,null,null,"Aspect 1.1 - Technical representativeness of the building use patterns"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Climate data",null,"For measured assessment, the performance shall be corrected in relation to the test reference year for the local area or region, following the method in EN 15603.",null,null,null,null,"Aspect 1.2-  Technical  representativeness of the input data used"]
[null,null,"Energy Performance of Buildings assessment sub-type",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Primary energy factor",null,"The system boundary shall encompass the primary energy required to extract and transport the energy carried to the building, as well as any other associated operations.",null,null,null,null,"Aspect 2.1 - Geographical representativeness of the weather data used"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 2.2 -Geographical representativeness of the primary energy factors"]
[null,null,"Calculation method","EN standard compliant calculation method?",null,"Yes",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 3.1 - Time representativeness of the calculation method"]
[null,null,null,"Specific method used and related CEN standard series"]
[]
[null,null,"Unregulated (non-EPB) energy uses"]
[null,null,"Does your national calculation method allow for a design estimate of unregulated energy uses?",null,null,"No"]
[]
[null,null,"What is the scope of the energy uses estimated?"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Part 2: Performance assessment results"]
[null,null,"Reporting headings",null,"Total (kWh/m2/yr)","Energy uses (kWh/m2/yr)"]
[null,null,null,null,null,"Heating","Cooling","Ventilation","Hot water","Lighting","Small power","Other uses","Notes"]
[null,null,"1.1.1 Use stage primary energy demand"]
[null,null,"Total primary energy demand",null,{"$f":"SUM($F22:$J22)","v":0}]
[null,null,"Non-renewable primary energy demand",null,{"$f":"SUM($F23:$J23)","v":0}]
[null,null,"Renewable primary energy demand",null,{"$f":"SUM($F24:$J24)","v":0}]
[null,null,"Exported energy generated",null,{"$f":"SUM($F25:$J25)","v":0}]
[null,null,"1.1.2 Use stage delivered energy demand"]
[null,null,null,null,{"$f":"SUM($F27:$J27)","v":0}]
[]
[]
[null,null,"The potential for a positive influence on a market valuation ",null,null,null,null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment"]
[]
[null,null,"Checklist 1 – Evaluation of potentially positive influences on the market performance",null,null,null,null,"Rating 1 - Basis for the performance assessment"]
[null,null,"Potential influence",null,"Evaluated?","Resulting assumptions used in the appraisal",null,"RATING ASPECT",null,"Brief description of the aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"1.1 Technical representativeness of the building use patterns ",null,"Reflecting the actual conditions of use, occupancy patterns and behaviour"]
[null,null,"Potential influence 1\nIncreased revenues due to market recognition and lower void rates.",null,null,null,null,"1.2 Technical  representativeness of the input data used ",null,"The extent to which building materials and services input data reflect the surveyed building or as-built construction."]
[null,null,"Potential influence 2\nReduced operational, maintenance, repair and/or replacement costs.",null,null,null,null,"2.1 Geographical representativeness of the weather data used ",null,"The use of climate data that reflect the building location."]
[null,null,"Potential influence 3\nReduced future risk of increased overheads or loss of income.",null,null,null,null,"2.2 Geographical representativeness of the primary energy factors ",null,"The use of primary energy factors that reflect the building location."]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"3.1 Time representativeness of the calculation method ",null,"The extent to which simulations are a more dynamic representation of performance."]
[null,null,"Checklist 2 – Accounting for a Level(s) assessment in the valuation criteria used",null,null,null,null,"3.2 Time representativeness of the energy demand profiling ",null,"The extent to which demand profiles support the optimisation of supply and demand."]
[null,null,"Valuation criteria set used"]
[null,null,"Version of the criteria set used",null,null,null,null,"Indicator 1.1 \nIndicator Reliability Rating",null,{"$f":"SUM(MIN(L34,L35),MIN(L36,L37),MIN(L38,L39))/3","v":0}]
[null,null,"Criteria which the assessment has influenced",null,"Influence on the valuation or rating"]
[null,null,"Valuation criterion","Sub-criterion",null,null,null,"Rating 2 – Professional capabilities"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"2. Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating 3 – Independent verification"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"3. Independent verification of the assessment"]

{"sheet":"1.1.Oper","index":7,"n_rows":50,"n_cols":25,"rows_kept":50,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[31,2,31,5],[4,5,5,6],[6,5,7,6],[41,2,41,3],[34,2,34,3],[35,2,35,3],[36,2,36,3],[39,2,39,3],[40,2,40,3],[38,2,38,4],[41,4,42,4],[8,2,9,2],[8,3,8,4],[8,5,8,6],[17,2,17,12],[20,2,20,12],[2,2,2,6],[2,14,2,18],[2,21,2,25],[3,2,3,4],[3,5,3,6],[3,14,3,15],[3,16,3,17],[3,21,3,22],[3,24,3,25],[4,21,4,22],[4,24,4,25],[6,2,7,4],[6,14,6,15],[6,16,6,17],[6,21,6,22],[5,14,5,15],[5,16,5,17],[5,21,5,22],[5,24,5,25],[6,24,6,25],[7,21,7,22],[7,24,7,25],[4,2,5,4],[4,14,4,15],[4,16,4,17],[8,21,8,22],[8,24,8,25],[9,3,9,4],[9,5,9,6],[9,16,16,16],[11,2,11,6],[12,2,13,4],[12,5,13,6],[14,2,15,4],[14,5,15,6],[17,24,18,25],[17,26,18,26],[18,2,19,3],[18,4,19,4],[18,5,18,12],[20,24,20,25],[21,2,21,3],[21,24,21,25],[22,2,22,3],[22,24,22,25],[23,24,23,25],[24,2,24,3],[25,2,25,12],[29,2,29,5],[29,7,29,11],[23,2,23,3],[32,2,33,3],[32,4,33,4],[32,5,33,5],[32,7,32,8],[33,7,33,8],[31,7,31,11],[40,7,40,8],[34,7,34,8],[35,7,35,8],[36,7,36,8],[37,7,37,8],[38,7,38,8],[34,9,34,10],[35,9,35,10],[36,9,36,10],[37,9,37,10],[38,9,38,10],[42,7,42,9],[44,9,45,9],[48,7,48,8],[32,9,32,10],[33,9,33,10],[49,7,50,8],[47,7,47,9],[49,9,50,9],[43,7,43,8],[44,7,45,8]]}
[null,null,"LEVEL 1",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 2",null,null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 3"]
[]
[null,null,"Part 1: Type of performance assessment",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Inputs to the simulation of a building that shall be fixed",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Design optimisation aspects addressed"]
[null,null,"Reporting item",null,null,"Reporting\n(select/delete as appropriate)",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Use of standard input data",null,"Data provided at national level or the default data provided in Annex G of EN ISO 13790 shall be used.  This shall include the use of standard occupancy data (see Annex G.8).",null,null,null,null,"Aspect",null,"Addressed?\n(yes/no)","Notes on data sources and calculation method"]
[null,null,"Energy Performance of Buildings \nassessment type",null,null,"Measured (operational)",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Choice of calculation method",null,"The quasi-steady state and simplified hourly dynamic methods described in EN ISO 13790 may be used.  If a dynamic method is chosen, the results shall be validated according to the criteria and test cases in EN 15265 and the variance rating reported.",null,null,null,null,"Aspect 1.1 - Technical representativeness of the building use patterns"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Climate data",null,"For measured assessment, the performance shall be corrected in relation to the test reference year for the local area or region, following the method in EN 15603.",null,null,null,null,"Aspect 1.2-  Technical  representativeness of the input data used"]
[null,null,"Energy Performance of Buildings assessment sub-type",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Primary energy factor",null,"The system boundary shall encompass the primary energy required to extract and transport the energy carried to the building, as well as any other associated operations.",null,null,null,null,"Aspect 2.1 - Geographical representativeness of the weather data used"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 2.2 -Geographical representativeness of the primary energy factors"]
[null,null,"Calculation method","EN standard compliant calculation method?",null,"Select",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 3.1 - Time representativeness of the calculation method"]
[null,null,null,"Specific method used and related CEN standard series"]
[]
[null,null,"Unregulated (non-EPB) energy uses"]
[null,null,"Does your national calculation method allow for a design estimate of unregulated energy uses?",null,null,"No"]
[]
[null,null,"What is the scope of the energy uses estimated?"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Part 2: Performance assessment results"]
[null,null,"Reporting headings",null,"Total (kWh/m2/yr)","Energy uses (kWh/m2/yr)"]
[null,null,null,null,null,"Heating","Cooling","Ventilation","Hot water","Lighting","Small power","Other uses","Notes"]
[null,null,"1.1.1 Use stage primary energy demand"]
[null,null,"Total primary energy demand",null,{"$f":"F22+G22+H22+I22+J22+K22+L22","v":0}]
[null,null,"Non-renewable primary energy demand",null,{"$f":"F23+G23+H23+I23+J23+K23+L23","v":0}]
[null,null,"Renewable primary energy demand",null,{"$f":"F24+G24+H24+I24+J24+K24+L24","v":0}]
[null,null,"Exported energy generated",null,{"$f":"F25+G25+H25+I25+J25+K25+L25","v":0}]
[null,null,"1.1.2 Use stage delivered energy demand"]
[null,null,null,null,{"$f":"F27+G27+H27+I27+J27+K27+L27","v":0}]
[]
[]
[null,null,"The potential for a positive influence on a market valuation ",null,null,null,null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment"]
[]
[null,null,"Checklist 1 – Evaluation of potentially positive influences on the market performance",null,null,null,null,"Rating 1 - Basis for the performance assessment"]
[null,null,"Potential influence",null,"Evaluated?","Resulting assumptions used in the appraisal",null,"RATING ASPECT",null,"Brief description of the aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"1.1 Technical representativeness of the building use patterns ",null,"Reflecting the actual conditions of use, occupancy patterns and behaviour"]
[null,null,"Potential influence 1\nIncreased revenues due to market recognition and lower void rates.",null,null,null,null,"1.2 Technical  representativeness of the input data used ",null,"The extent to which building materials and services input data reflect the surveyed building or as-built construction."]
[null,null,"Potential influence 2\nReduced operational, maintenance, repair and/or replacement costs.",null,null,null,null,"2.1 Geographical representativeness of the weather data used ",null,"The use of climate data that reflect the building location."]
[null,null,"Potential influence 3\nReduced future risk of increased overheads or loss of income.",null,null,null,null,"2.2 Geographical representativeness of the primary energy factors ",null,"The use of primary energy factors that reflect the building location."]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"3.1 Time representativeness of the calculation method ",null,"The extent to which simulations are a more dynamic representation of performance."]
[null,null,"Checklist 2 – Accounting for a Level(s) assessment in the valuation criteria used",null,null,null,null,"3.2 Time representativeness of the energy demand profiling ",null,"The extent to which demand profiles support the optimisation of supply and demand."]
[null,null,"Valuation criteria set used"]
[null,null,"Version of the criteria set used",null,null,null,null,"Indicator 1.1 \nIndicator Reliability Rating",null,{"$f":"SUM(MIN(L34,L35),MIN(L36,L37),MIN(L38,L39))/3","v":0}]
[null,null,"Criteria which the assessment has influenced",null,"Influence on the valuation or rating"]
[null,null,"Valuation criterion","Sub-criterion",null,null,null,"Rating 2 – Professional capabilities"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"2. Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating 3 – Independent verification"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"3. Independent verification of the assessment"]

{"sheet":"1.2.Design","index":8,"n_rows":31,"n_cols":14,"rows_kept":31,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[5,13,9,13],[30,6,30,7],[30,8,30,9],[24,6,24,9],[25,6,25,7],[25,8,25,9],[16,7,16,8],[3,2,3,9],[5,11,9,11],[5,12,9,12],[4,2,9,2],[29,8,29,9],[26,8,26,9],[17,7,17,8],[18,7,18,8],[19,7,19,8],[20,7,20,8],[29,6,29,7],[28,6,28,9],[15,2,15,4],[16,4,17,4],[13,2,13,4],[16,2,17,2],[22,2,22,4],[23,2,23,3],[24,2,24,3],[25,2,25,3],[25,4,26,4],[15,6,15,9],[13,6,13,9],[22,6,22,8],[26,6,26,7],[16,3,17,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Global Warming Potential for each life cycle stage"]
[null,null,"Scenario","Indicator","Unit","Product\n(A1-3)","Construction process (A4-5)","Use stage\n(B1-7)","End of life\n(C1-4)","Benefits and loads beyond\nthe system boundary (D)",null,"Checklist","Additional Info (write directly or attach files)","Notes"]
[null,null,null,"(1) GWP - fossil","kg CO2 eq",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Those in RED are optional for Level 1:\n•Objectives, users and audience\n•Min scope covered\n•System boundaries and cut-off rules\n•Consistency with energy and water modelling\n•Consistency with scenario modelling\n•Data sources \n•Software\n•LCIA methods\n•Calculation of data quality index\n•Interpretation \n•Critical review\n",null,"Impacts referred to the use of 1 m2 of useable internal floor per year for a default reference study period of 60 years (A further table shall be prepared if, in addition to the reference study period, an intended service life has been modelled.).\nResults shall be reported for Design Options and Scenarios that have been modelled.\nSi (= Scenario) and DOj (= Design Option) can refer to:\n• Reference study period\n• Intended service life or investment holding period according to clients requirements\n• Building and elemental service life planning (2.2 life cycle tools, scenario 1)\n• Design for adaptability and refurbishment (2.2 life cycle tools, scenario 2)\n• Design for deconstruction, reuse and recyclability (2.2 life cycle tools, scenario 3)\n• Future climate change (5.1 life cycle tools, scenario 1)"]
[null,null,null,"(2) GWP - biogenic","kg CO2 eq"]
[null,null,null,"GWP – GHGs (1+2)","kg CO2 eq",{"$f":"F6+F7","v":0},{"$f":"G6+G7","v":0},{"$f":"H6+H7","v":0},{"$f":"I6+I7","v":0},{"$f":"J6+J7","v":0}]
[null,null,null,"(3) GWP – land use and land transformation","kg CO2 eq"]
[null,null,null,"GWP – overall (1+2+3)","kg CO2 eq",{"$f":"F8+F9","v":0},{"$f":"G8+G9","v":0},{"$f":"H8+H9","v":0},{"$f":"I8+I9","v":0},{"$f":"J8+J9","v":0}]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,"The potential for a positive influence on a market valuation ",null,null,null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment"]
[]
[null,null,"Checklist 1 – Evaluation of potentially positive influences on the market performance",null,null,null,"Rating 1 - Basis for the performance assessment"]
[null,null,"Potential influence","Evaluated?","Resulting assumptions used in the appraisal",null,"RATING ASPECT","Brief description of the aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"1.1 Technical representativeness","Degree to which the dataset reflects the true population of interest regarding technology (e.g. the technological characteristics, including operating conditions)",null,0]
[null,null,"Potential influence 1\nIncreased revenues due to market recognition and lower void rates.",null,null,null,"2.1 Geographical representativeness ","Degree to which the dataset reflects the true population of interest regarding geography (e.g. the given location/site, region, country, market, continent)",null,0]
[null,null,"Potential influence 2\nReduced operational, maintenance, repair and/or replacement costs.",null,null,null,"3.1 Time-related representativeness","Degree to which the dataset reflects the specific conditions of the system being considered regarding the time/age of the data (e.g. the given year compared to the reference year of the analysis)",null,0]
[null,null,"Potential influence 3\nReduced future risk of increased overheads or loss of income.",null,null,null,"4.1 Uncertainly","Qualitative expert judgment or relative standard deviation expressed as a percentage.",null,0]
[]
[null,null,"Checklist 2 – Accounting for a Level(s) assessment in the valuation criteria used",null,null,null,"Indicator 1.2 \nIndicator Reliability Rating",null,null,{"$f":"((J18+J19+J20)/3+J21)/2","v":0}]
[null,null,"Valuation criteria set used"]
[null,null,"Version of the criteria set used",null,null,null,"Rating 2 – Professional capabilities"]
[null,null,"Criteria which the assessment has influenced",null,"Influence on the valuation or rating",null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,"Valuation criterion","Sub-criterion",null,null,"2. Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment",null,0]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating 3 – Independent verification"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"3. Independent verification of the assessment",null,0]

{"sheet":"1.2.Impl","index":9,"n_rows":31,"n_cols":14,"rows_kept":31,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[5,12,9,12],[5,13,9,13],[18,7,18,8],[5,11,9,11],[13,2,13,4],[13,6,13,9],[15,2,15,4],[15,6,15,9],[25,2,25,3],[25,4,26,4],[22,2,22,4],[3,2,3,9],[4,2,9,2],[16,2,17,2],[16,3,17,3],[16,4,17,4],[16,7,16,8],[17,7,17,8],[19,7,19,8],[20,7,20,8],[22,6,22,8],[23,2,23,3],[24,2,24,3],[24,6,24,9],[29,6,29,7],[29,8,29,9],[30,6,30,7],[30,8,30,9],[25,6,25,7],[25,8,25,9],[26,6,26,7],[26,8,26,9],[28,6,28,9]]}
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Global Warming Potential for each life cycle stage"]
[null,null,"Scenario","Indicator","Unit","Product\n(A1-3)","Construction process (A4-5)","Use stage\n(B1-7)","End of life\n(C1-4)","Benefits and loads beyond\nthe system boundary (D)",null,"Checklist","Additional Info (write directly or attach files)","Notes"]
[null,null,null,"(1) GWP - fossil","kg CO2 eq",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Those in RED are optional for Level 1:\n•Objectives, users and audience\n•Min scope covered\n•System boundaries and cut-off rules\n•Consistency with energy and water modelling\n•Consistency with scenario modelling\n•Data sources \n•Software\n•LCIA methods\n•Calculation of data quality index\n•Interpretation \n•Critical review\n",null,"Impacts referred to the use of 1 m2 of useable internal floor per year for a default reference study period of 60 years (A further table shall be prepared if, in addition to the reference study period, an intended service life has been modelled.).\nResults shall be reported for Design Options and Scenarios that have been modelled.\nSi (= Scenario) and DOj (= Design Option) can refer to:\n• Reference study period\n• Intended service life or investment holding period according to clients requirements\n• Building and elemental service life planning (2.2 life cycle tools, scenario 1)\n• Design for adaptability and refurbishment (2.2 life cycle tools, scenario 2)\n• Design for deconstruction, reuse and recyclability (2.2 life cycle tools, scenario 3)\n• Future climate change (5.1 life cycle tools, scenario 1)"]
[null,null,null,"(2) GWP - biogenic","kg CO2 eq"]
[null,null,null,"GWP – GHGs (1+2)","kg CO2 eq",{"$f":"F6+F7","v":0},{"$f":"G6+G7","v":0},{"$f":"H6+H7","v":0},{"$f":"I6+I7","v":0},{"$f":"J6+J7","v":0}]
[null,null,null,"(3) GWP – land use and land transformation","kg CO2 eq"]
[null,null,null,"GWP – overall (1+2+3)","kg CO2 eq",{"$f":"F8+F9","v":0},{"$f":"G8+G9","v":0},{"$f":"H8+H9","v":0},{"$f":"I8+I9","v":0},{"$f":"J8+J9","v":0}]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,"The potential for a positive influence on a market valuation ",null,null,null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment"]
[]
[null,null,"Checklist 1 – Evaluation of potentially positive influences on the market performance",null,null,null,"Rating 1 - Basis for the performance assessment"]
[null,null,"Potential influence","Evaluated?","Resulting assumptions used in the appraisal",null,"RATING ASPECT","Brief description of the aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"1.1 Technical representativeness","Degree to which the dataset reflects the true population of interest regarding technology (e.g. the technological characteristics, including operating conditions)",null,0]
[null,null,"Potential influence 1\nIncreased revenues due to market recognition and lower void rates.",null,null,null,"2.1 Geographical representativeness ","Degree to which the dataset reflects the true population of interest regarding geography (e.g. the given location/site, region, country, market, continent)",null,0]
[null,null,"Potential influence 2\nReduced operational, maintenance, repair and/or replacement costs.",null,null,null,"3.1 Time-related representativeness","Degree to which the dataset reflects the specific conditions of the system being considered regarding the time/age of the data (e.g. the given year compared to the reference year of the analysis)",null,0]
[null,null,"Potential influence 3\nReduced future risk of increased overheads or loss of income.",null,null,null,"4.1 Uncertainly","Qualitative expert judgment or relative standard deviation expressed as a percentage.",null,0]
[]
[null,null,"Checklist 2 – Accounting for a Level(s) assessment in the valuation criteria used",null,null,null,"Indicator 1.2 \nIndicator Reliability Rating",null,null,{"$f":"((J18+J19+J20)/3+J21)/2","v":0}]
[null,null,"Valuation criteria set used"]
[null,null,"Version of the criteria set used",null,null,null,"Rating 2 – Professional capabilities"]
[null,null,"Criteria which the assessment has influenced",null,"Influence on the valuation or rating",null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,"Valuation criterion","Sub-criterion",null,null,"2. Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment",null,0]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating 3 – Independent verification"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"3. Independent verification of the assessment",null,0]

{"sheet":"1.2.Compl","index":10,"n_rows":31,"n_cols":14,"rows_kept":31,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[5,12,9,12],[5,13,9,13],[18,7,18,8],[5,11,9,11],[13,2,13,4],[13,6,13,9],[15,2,15,4],[15,6,15,9],[25,2,25,3],[25,4,26,4],[22,2,22,4],[3,2,3,9],[4,2,9,2],[16,2,17,2],[16,3,17,3],[16,4,17,4],[16,7,16,8],[17,7,17,8],[19,7,19,8],[20,7,20,8],[22,6,22,8],[23,2,23,3],[24,2,24,3],[24,6,24,9],[29,6,29,7],[29,8,29,9],[30,6,30,7],[30,8,30,9],[25,6,25,7],[25,8,25,9],[26,6,26,7],[26,8,26,9],[28,6,28,9]]}
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Global Warming Potential for each life cycle stage"]
[null,null,"Scenario","Indicator","Unit","Product\n(A1-3)","Construction process (A4-5)","Use stage\n(B1-7)","End of life\n(C1-4)","Benefits and loads beyond\nthe system boundary (D)",null,"Checklist","Additional Info (write directly or attach files)","Notes"]
[null,null,null,"(1) GWP - fossil","kg CO2 eq",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Those in RED are optional for Level 1:\n•Objectives, users and audience\n•Min scope covered\n•System boundaries and cut-off rules\n•Consistency with energy and water modelling\n•Consistency with scenario modelling\n•Data sources \n•Software\n•LCIA methods\n•Calculation of data quality index\n•Interpretation \n•Critical review\n",null,"Impacts referred to the use of 1 m2 of useable internal floor per year for a default reference study period of 60 years (A further table shall be prepared if, in addition to the reference study period, an intended service life has been modelled.).\nResults shall be reported for Design Options and Scenarios that have been modelled.\nSi (= Scenario) and DOj (= Design Option) can refer to:\n• Reference study period\n• Intended service life or investment holding period according to clients requirements\n• Building and elemental service life planning (2.2 life cycle tools, scenario 1)\n• Design for adaptability and refurbishment (2.2 life cycle tools, scenario 2)\n• Design for deconstruction, reuse and recyclability (2.2 life cycle tools, scenario 3)\n• Future climate change (5.1 life cycle tools, scenario 1)"]
[null,null,null,"(2) GWP - biogenic","kg CO2 eq"]
[null,null,null,"GWP – GHGs (1+2)","kg CO2 eq",{"$f":"F6+F7","v":0},{"$f":"G6+G7","v":0},{"$f":"H6+H7","v":0},{"$f":"I6+I7","v":0},{"$f":"J6+J7","v":0}]
[null,null,null,"(3) GWP – land use and land transformation","kg CO2 eq"]
[null,null,null,"GWP – overall (1+2+3)","kg CO2 eq",{"$f":"F8+F9","v":0},{"$f":"G8+G9","v":0},{"$f":"H8+H9","v":0},{"$f":"I8+I9","v":0},{"$f":"J8+J9","v":0}]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,"The potential for a positive influence on a market valuation ",null,null,null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment"]
[]
[null,null,"Checklist 1 – Evaluation of potentially positive influences on the market performance",null,null,null,"Rating 1 - Basis for the performance assessment"]
[null,null,"Potential influence","Evaluated?","Resulting assumptions used in the appraisal",null,"RATING ASPECT","Brief description of the aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"1.1 Technical representativeness","Degree to which the dataset reflects the true population of interest regarding technology (e.g. the technological characteristics, including operating conditions)",null,0]
[null,null,"Potential influence 1\nIncreased revenues due to market recognition and lower void rates.",null,null,null,"2.1 Geographical representativeness ","Degree to which the dataset reflects the true population of interest regarding geography (e.g. the given location/site, region, country, market, continent)",null,0]
[null,null,"Potential influence 2\nReduced operational, maintenance, repair and/or replacement costs.",null,null,null,"3.1 Time-related representativeness","Degree to which the dataset reflects the specific conditions of the system being considered regarding the time/age of the data (e.g. the given year compared to the reference year of the analysis)",null,0]
[null,null,"Potential influence 3\nReduced future risk of increased overheads or loss of income.",null,null,null,"4.1 Uncertainly","Qualitative expert judgment or relative standard deviation expressed as a percentage.",null,0]
[]
[null,null,"Checklist 2 – Accounting for a Level(s) assessment in the valuation criteria used",null,null,null,"Indicator 1.2 \nIndicator Reliability Rating",null,null,{"$f":"((J18+J19+J20)/3+J21)/2","v":0}]
[null,null,"Valuation criteria set used"]
[null,null,"Version of the criteria set used",null,null,null,"Rating 2 – Professional capabilities"]
[null,null,"Criteria which the assessment has influenced",null,"Influence on the valuation or rating",null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,"Valuation criterion","Sub-criterion",null,null,"2. Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment",null,0]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating 3 – Independent verification"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"3. Independent verification of the assessment",null,0]

{"sheet":"1.2.Oper","index":11,"n_rows":31,"n_cols":14,"rows_kept":31,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[5,12,9,12],[5,13,9,13],[18,7,18,8],[5,11,9,11],[13,2,13,4],[13,6,13,9],[15,2,15,4],[15,6,15,9],[25,2,25,3],[25,4,26,4],[22,2,22,4],[3,2,3,9],[4,2,9,2],[16,2,17,2],[16,3,17,3],[16,4,17,4],[16,7,16,8],[17,7,17,8],[19,7,19,8],[20,7,20,8],[22,6,22,8],[23,2,23,3],[24,2,24,3],[24,6,24,9],[29,6,29,7],[29,8,29,9],[30,6,30,7],[30,8,30,9],[25,6,25,7],[25,8,25,9],[26,6,26,7],[26,8,26,9],[28,6,28,9]]}
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Global Warming Potential for each life cycle stage"]
[null,null,"Scenario","Indicator","Unit","Product\n(A1-3)","Construction process (A4-5)","Use stage\n(B1-7)","End of life\n(C1-4)","Benefits and loads beyond\nthe system boundary (D)",null,"Checklist","Additional Info (write directly or attach files)","Notes"]
[null,null,null,"(1) GWP - fossil","kg CO2 eq",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Those in RED are optional for Level 1:\n•Objectives, users and audience\n•Min scope covered\n•System boundaries and cut-off rules\n•Consistency with energy and water modelling\n•Consistency with scenario modelling\n•Data sources \n•Software\n•LCIA methods\n•Calculation of data quality index\n•Interpretation \n•Critical review\n",null,"Impacts referred to the use of 1 m2 of useable internal floor per year for a default reference study period of 60 years (A further table shall be prepared if, in addition to the reference study period, an intended service life has been modelled.).\nResults shall be reported for Design Options and Scenarios that have been modelled.\nSi (= Scenario) and DOj (= Design Option) can refer to:\n• Reference study period\n• Intended service life or investment holding period according to clients requirements\n• Building and elemental service life planning (2.2 life cycle tools, scenario 1)\n• Design for adaptability and refurbishment (2.2 life cycle tools, scenario 2)\n• Design for deconstruction, reuse and recyclability (2.2 life cycle tools, scenario 3)\n• Future climate change (5.1 life cycle tools, scenario 1)"]
[null,null,null,"(2) GWP - biogenic","kg CO2 eq"]
[null,null,null,"GWP – GHGs (1+2)","kg CO2 eq",{"$f":"F6+F7","v":0},{"$f":"G6+G7","v":0},{"$f":"H6+H7","v":0},{"$f":"I6+I7","v":0},{"$f":"J6+J7","v":0}]
[null,null,null,"(3) GWP – land use and land transformation","kg CO2 eq"]
[null,null,null,"GWP – overall (1+2+3)","kg CO2 eq",{"$f":"F8+F9","v":0},{"$f":"G8+G9","v":0},{"$f":"H8+H9","v":0},{"$f":"I8+I9","v":0},{"$f":"J8+J9","v":0}]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,"The potential for a positive influence on a market valuation ",null,null,null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment"]
[]
[null,null,"Checklist 1 – Evaluation of potentially positive influences on the market performance",null,null,null,"Rating 1 - Basis for the performance assessment"]
[null,null,"Potential influence","Evaluated?","Resulting assumptions used in the appraisal",null,"RATING ASPECT","Brief description of the aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"1.1 Technical representativeness","Degree to which the dataset reflects the true population of interest regarding technology (e.g. the technological characteristics, including operating conditions)",null,0]
[null,null,"Potential influence 1\nIncreased revenues due to market recognition and lower void rates.",null,null,null,"2.1 Geographical representativeness ","Degree to which the dataset reflects the true population of interest regarding geography (e.g. the given location/site, region, country, market, continent)",null,0]
[null,null,"Potential influence 2\nReduced operational, maintenance, repair and/or replacement costs.",null,null,null,"3.1 Time-related representativeness","Degree to which the dataset reflects the specific conditions of the system being considered regarding the time/age of the data (e.g. the given year compared to the reference year of the analysis)",null,0]
[null,null,"Potential influence 3\nReduced future risk of increased overheads or loss of income.",null,null,null,"4.1 Uncertainly","Qualitative expert judgment or relative standard deviation expressed as a percentage.",null,0]
[]
[null,null,"Checklist 2 – Accounting for a Level(s) assessment in the valuation criteria used",null,null,null,"Indicator 1.2 \nIndicator Reliability Rating",null,null,{"$f":"((J18+J19+J20)/3+J21)/2","v":0}]
[null,null,"Valuation criteria set used"]
[null,null,"Version of the criteria set used",null,null,null,"Rating 2 – Professional capabilities"]
[null,null,"Criteria which the assessment has influenced",null,"Influence on the valuation or rating",null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,"Valuation criterion","Sub-criterion",null,null,"2. Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment",null,0]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating 3 – Independent verification"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"3. Independent verification of the assessment",null,0]

{"sheet":"2.1.Design","index":12,"n_rows":14,"n_cols":11,"rows_kept":14,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[1,2,1,3],[11,2,12,2],[11,3,12,3],[11,4,12,4],[11,5,12,5],[10,2,10,10],[11,6,11,10]]}
[]
[null,null,"Part 1 – Mass of different materials in the building material bank"]
[null,null,"Material type","Mass (t)"]
[null,null,"Metal",{"$f":"SUM($G:$G)/1000","v":0}]
[null,null,"Non-metallic mineral",{"$f":"SUM($H:$H)/1000","v":0}]
[null,null,"Biomass",{"$f":"SUM($I:$I)/1000","v":0}]
[null,null,"Fossil energy",{"$f":"SUM($J:$J)/1000","v":0}]
[null,null,"TOTAL",{"$f":"SUM(D4:D7)","v":0}]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Part 2 - Bill of materials organised by the main building parts and elements"]
[null,null,"Building element\n(substructure and superstructure)","Building parts","Related building elements","Bill of Quantities (units)","Bill of Materials by material type (kg)"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Metal","Non-metallic mineral","Biomass","Fossil energy","TOTAL"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"G14+H14+I14+J14","v":0}]

{"sheet":"2.1.Impl","index":13,"n_rows":14,"n_cols":11,"rows_kept":14,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[1,2,1,3],[10,2,10,10],[11,2,12,2],[11,3,12,3],[11,4,12,4],[11,5,12,5],[11,6,11,10]]}
[]
[null,null,"Part 1 – Mass of different materials in the building material bank"]
[null,null,"Material type","Mass (t)"]
[null,null,"Metal",{"$f":"SUM($G:$G)/1000","v":0}]
[null,null,"Non-metallic mineral",{"$f":"SUM($H:$H)/1000","v":0}]
[null,null,"Biomass",{"$f":"SUM($I:$I)/1000","v":0}]
[null,null,"Fossil energy",{"$f":"SUM($J:$J)/1000","v":0}]
[null,null,"TOTAL",{"$f":"SUM(D4:D7)","v":0}]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Part 2 - Bill of materials organised by the main building parts and elements"]
[null,null,"Building element\n(substructure and superstructure)","Building parts","Related building elements","Bill of Quantities (units)","Bill of Materials by material type (kg)"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Metal","Non-metallic mineral","Biomass","Fossil energy","TOTAL"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"G14+H14+I14+J14","v":0}]

{"sheet":"2.1.Compl","index":14,"n_rows":14,"n_cols":11,"rows_kept":14,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[1,2,1,3],[10,2,10,10],[11,2,12,2],[11,3,12,3],[11,4,12,4],[11,5,12,5],[11,6,11,10]]}
[]
[null,null,"Part 1 – Mass of different materials in the building material bank"]
[null,null,"Material type","Mass (t)"]
[null,null,"Metal",{"$f":"SUM($G:$G)/1000","v":0}]
[null,null,"Non-metallic mineral",{"$f":"SUM($H:$H)/1000","v":0}]
[null,null,"Biomass",{"$f":"SUM($I:$I)/1000","v":0}]
[null,null,"Fossil energy",{"$f":"SUM($J:$J)/1000","v":0}]
[null,null,"TOTAL",{"$f":"SUM(D4:D7)","v":0}]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Part 2 - Bill of materials organised by the main building parts and elements"]
[null,null,"Building element\n(substructure and superstructure)","Building parts","Related building elements","Bill of Quantities (units)","Bill of Materials by material type (kg)"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Metal","Non-metallic mineral","Biomass","Fossil energy","TOTAL"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"G14+H14+I14+J14","v":0}]

{"sheet":"2.1.Oper","index":15,"n_rows":14,"n_cols":11,"rows_kept":14,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[1,2,1,3],[10,2,10,10],[11,2,12,2],[11,3,12,3],[11,4,12,4],[11,5,12,5],[11,6,11,10]]}
[]
[null,null,"Part 1 – Mass of different materials in the building material bank"]
[null,null,"Material type","Mass (t)"]
[null,null,"Metal",{"$f":"SUM($G:$G)/1000","v":0}]
[null,null,"Non-metallic mineral",{"$f":"SUM($H:$H)/1000","v":0}]
[null,null,"Biomass",{"$f":"SUM($I:$I)/1000","v":0}]
[null,null,"Fossil energy",{"$f":"SUM($J:$J)/1000","v":0}]
[null,null,"TOTAL",{"$f":"SUM(D4:D7)","v":0}]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Part 2 - Bill of materials organised by the main building parts and elements"]
[null,null,"Building element\n(substructure and superstructure)","Building parts","Related building elements","Bill of Quantities (units)","Bill of Materials by material type (kg)"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Metal","Non-metallic mineral","Biomass","Fossil energy","TOTAL"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"G14+H14+I14+J14","v":0}]

{"sheet":"2.2.S1.Design","index":16,"n_rows":7,"n_cols":6,"rows_kept":7,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[0,1,0,5],[3,1,3,5],[5,1,5,5],[6,1,6,5]]}
[null,"Scenario 1, Common for all levels \nBuilding and elemental service life planning"]
[]
[]
[null,"Generic service life planning reporting format"]
[null,"Building element","Building parts","Related building elements","Expected lifespan (years)","Data sources"]
[]
[null,"Shell (substructure and superstructure) & Core (fittings, furnishings and services)"]

{"sheet":"2.2.S1.Impl","index":17,"n_rows":7,"n_cols":6,"rows_kept":7,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[0,1,0,5],[3,1,3,5],[5,1,5,5],[6,1,6,5]]}
[null,"Scenario 1, Common for all levels \nBuilding and elemental service life planning"]
[]
[]
[null,"Generic service life planning reporting format"]
[null,"Building element","Building parts","Related building elements","Expected lifespan (years)","Data sources"]
[]
[null,"Shell (substructure and superstructure) & Core (fittings, furnishings and services)"]

{"sheet":"2.2.S1.Compl","index":18,"n_rows":7,"n_cols":6,"rows_kept":7,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[0,1,0,5],[3,1,3,5],[5,1,5,5],[6,1,6,5]]}
[null,"Scenario 1, Common for all levels \nBuilding and elemental service life planning"]
[]
[]
[null,"Generic service life planning reporting format"]
[null,"Building element","Building parts","Related building elements","Expected lifespan (years)","Data sources"]
[]
[null,"Shell (substructure and superstructure) & Core (fittings, furnishings and services)"]

{"sheet":"2.2.S1.Oper","index":19,"n_rows":7,"n_cols":6,"rows_kept":7,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[0,1,0,5],[3,1,3,5],[5,1,5,5],[6,1,6,5]]}
[null,"Scenario 1, Common for all levels \nBuilding and elemental service life planning"]
[]
[]
[null,"Generic service life planning reporting format"]
[null,"Building element","Building parts","Related building elements","Expected lifespan (years)","Data sources"]
[]
[null,"Shell (substructure and superstructure) & Core (fittings, furnishings and services)"]

{"sheet":"2.2.S2.Design","index":20,"n_rows":42,"n_cols":16,"rows_kept":42,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[5,15,12,23],[5,9,12,13],[14,9,14,11],[15,9,15,11],[37,2,37,4],[37,7,37,8],[33,2,33,3],[34,2,34,3],[28,2,28,5],[33,7,33,8],[34,7,34,8],[35,2,35,3],[36,7,36,8],[30,7,30,8],[31,2,32,3],[31,4,32,4],[15,5,16,7],[39,2,39,3],[38,2,38,3],[14,12,14,13],[15,12,15,13],[16,9,16,11],[16,12,16,13],[31,5,32,5],[31,7,31,8],[40,2,40,3],[40,4,41,4],[0,2,0,7],[1,2,1,7],[22,2,22,7],[5,2,12,7],[23,2,23,5],[23,6,25,7],[24,2,24,3],[24,4,24,5],[25,2,25,3],[25,4,25,5],[28,7,28,9],[30,2,30,5],[15,2,15,4],[14,2,14,7]]}
[null,null,"Scenario 2, common performance assessment reporting format\nDesign for adaptability and refurbishment"]
[null,null,"The method to be followed for each level varies according to the level of detail at which they address the resource efficiency aspect and the extent to which the benefits and burdens and potential trade-offs between different building design scenarios are modelled and quantified:\n1. Common performance level (qualitative): A checklist of the most important design aspects that can be taken into consideration and whether/how they are addressed.\n2. Comparative performance level (semi-qualitative):  Design aspects that are important to consider are given weightings and the scores achieved by a design are then added to give an overall performance which can be reported on.  This performance can be compared if the same weighting methodology has been used.\n3. Performance optimisation level (quantitative): The analysis of the environmental performance of designs using other indicators of this framework, such as 1.2 (life cycle GWP) or 2.4 (cradle to cradle LCA), so that they can be evaluated, compared and reported on."]
[]
[null,null,"LEVEL 1",null,null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 2",null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 3"]
[]
[null,null,"Users shall identify from the checklists provided those design aspects implemented in the building design. The reporting differs depending on whether the building is an office or residential:\no For offices, the checklist of design aspects focuses on flexibility within the office market, as well as flexibility to change use within the property market.  \no For residential properties, the checklist focuses on the potential to adapt to changing family and personal circumstances over time, as well as flexibility to change use within the property market.\n",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Users shall use a pre-existing index, scoring or calculator tool which provides a numerical output.  The tool used shall be clearly identified in the reporting.  This is to ensure that comparisons are only made between buildings assessed using the same tool.  \n\nGuidance note 2.2 in part 3 of the Level(s) documentation provides suggestions and more information about currently available tools that can be used.",null,null,null,null,null,"Users choosing to carry out a life cycle GWP assessment or a cradle to cradle LCA for a building can additionally report on the improvement potential of their chosen adaptability measures. \nThe results of the scenario are incorporated into the reporting format for both life cycle GWP (see indicator 1.2) and cradle to cradle LCA.\nTo ensure consistency, the specific rules laid down in section 2.2.3 in part 3 of the Level(s) documentation shall be followed, together with the additional notes that are specific to scenario 2 (see section 2.2.2.2)"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Part 1 - Design aspects addressed",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Design tool used"]
[null,null,"Aspects addressed",null,null,"Description of design solution(s)",null,null,null,"Version of the tool of standard used"]
[null,null,"Building Type","Focus area","Design aspect",null,null,null,null,"Building adaptability score or index result"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Part 2 – Supporting property market check"]
[null,null,"Check by local property market expert carried out?"]
[null,null,"Additional design aspects identified by them?"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"The potential for a positive influence on a market valuation ",null,null,null,null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment"]
[]
[null,null,"Checklist 1 – Evaluation of potentially positive influences on the market performance",null,null,null,null,"RATING 1",null,"Data Quality Evaluation matrix"]
[null,null,"Potential influence",null,"Evaluated?","Resulting assumptions used in the appraisal",null,"Scenario 2\nDesign for adaptability and refurbishment"]
[]
[null,null,"Potential influence 1\nIncreased revenues due to market recognition and lower void rates.",null,null,null,null,"RATING 2",null,"Professional Capabilities"]
[null,null,"Potential influence 2\nReduced operational, maintenance, repair and/or replacement costs.",null,null,null,null,"Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment"]
[null,null,"Potential influence 3\nReduced future risk of increased overheads or loss of income."]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"RATING 3",null,"Independent Verification"]
[null,null,"Checklist 2 – Accounting for a Level(s) assessment in the valuation criteria used",null,null,null,null,"Independent verification of the assessment"]
[null,null,"Valuation criteria set used"]
[null,null,"Version of the criteria set used"]
[null,null,"Criteria which the assessment has influenced",null,"Influence on the valuation or rating"]
[null,null,"Valuation criterion","Sub-criterion"]

{"sheet":"2.2.S2.Impl","index":21,"n_rows":42,"n_cols":16,"rows_kept":42,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[34,7,34,8],[35,2,35,3],[36,7,36,8],[37,2,37,4],[37,7,37,8],[34,2,34,3],[31,4,32,4],[31,5,32,5],[31,7,31,8],[30,2,30,5],[33,7,33,8],[33,2,33,3],[0,2,0,7],[1,2,1,7],[5,2,12,7],[5,9,12,13],[28,2,28,5],[28,7,28,9],[22,2,22,7],[23,2,23,5],[23,6,25,7],[24,2,24,3],[24,4,24,5],[25,2,25,3],[25,4,25,5],[39,2,39,3],[38,2,38,3],[40,2,40,3],[40,4,41,4],[5,15,12,23],[15,2,15,4],[15,5,16,7],[15,9,15,11],[15,12,15,13],[16,9,16,11],[16,12,16,13],[14,2,14,7],[14,9,14,11],[14,12,14,13],[30,7,30,8],[31,2,32,3]]}
[null,null,"Scenario 2, common performance assessment reporting format\nDesign for adaptability and refurbishment"]
[null,null,"The method to be followed for each level varies according to the level of detail at which they address the resource efficiency aspect and the extent to which the benefits and burdens and potential trade-offs between different building design scenarios are modelled and quantified:\n1. Common performance level (qualitative): A checklist of the most important design aspects that can be taken into consideration and whether/how they are addressed.\n2. Comparative performance level (semi-qualitative):  Design aspects that are important to consider are given weightings and the scores achieved by a design are then added to give an overall performance which can be reported on.  This performance can be compared if the same weighting methodology has been used.\n3. Performance optimisation level (quantitative): The analysis of the environmental performance of designs using other indicators of this framework, such as 1.2 (life cycle GWP) or 2.4 (cradle to cradle LCA), so that they can be evaluated, compared and reported on."]
[]
[null,null,"LEVEL 1",null,null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 2",null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 3"]
[]
[null,null,"Users shall identify from the checklists provided those design aspects implemented in the building design. The reporting differs depending on whether the building is an office or residential:\no For offices, the checklist of design aspects focuses on flexibility within the office market, as well as flexibility to change use within the property market.  \no For residential properties, the checklist focuses on the potential to adapt to changing family and personal circumstances over time, as well as flexibility to change use within the property market.\n",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Users shall use a pre-existing index, scoring or calculator tool which provides a numerical output.  The tool used shall be clearly identified in the reporting.  This is to ensure that comparisons are only made between buildings assessed using the same tool.  \n\nGuidance note 2.2 in part 3 of the Level(s) documentation provides suggestions and more information about currently available tools that can be used.",null,null,null,null,null,"Users choosing to carry out a life cycle GWP assessment or a cradle to cradle LCA for a building can additionally report on the improvement potential of their chosen adaptability measures. \nThe results of the scenario are incorporated into the reporting format for both life cycle GWP (see indicator 1.2) and cradle to cradle LCA.\nTo ensure consistency, the specific rules laid down in section 2.2.3 in part 3 of the Level(s) documentation shall be followed, together with the additional notes that are specific to scenario 2 (see section 2.2.2.2)"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Part 1 - Design aspects addressed",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Design tool used"]
[null,null,"Aspects addressed",null,null,"Description of design solution(s)",null,null,null,"Version of the tool of standard used"]
[null,null,"Building Type","Focus area","Design aspect",null,null,null,null,"Building adaptability score or index result"]
[null,null,"Residential","Change of use for units or floors for multi family buildings","Greater floor to ceiling heights"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Part 2 – Supporting property market check"]
[null,null,"Check by local property market expert carried out?"]
[null,null,"Additional design aspects identified by them?"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"The potential for a positive influence on a market valuation ",null,null,null,null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment"]
[]
[null,null,"Checklist 1 – Evaluation of potentially positive influences on the market performance",null,null,null,null,"RATING 1",null,"Data Quality Evaluation matrix"]
[null,null,"Potential influence",null,"Evaluated?","Resulting assumptions used in the appraisal",null,"Scenario 2\nDesign for adaptability and refurbishment",null,0]
[]
[null,null,"Potential influence 1\nIncreased revenues due to market recognition and lower void rates.",null,null,null,null,"RATING 2",null,"Professional Capabilities"]
[null,null,"Potential influence 2\nReduced operational, maintenance, repair and/or replacement costs.",null,null,null,null,"Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment"]
[null,null,"Potential influence 3\nReduced future risk of increased overheads or loss of income."]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"RATING 3",null,"Independent Verification"]
[null,null,"Checklist 2 – Accounting for a Level(s) assessment in the valuation criteria used",null,null,null,null,"Independent verification of the assessment"]
[null,null,"Valuation criteria set used"]
[null,null,"Version of the criteria set used"]
[null,null,"Criteria which the assessment has influenced",null,"Influence on the valuation or rating"]
[null,null,"Valuation criterion","Sub-criterion"]

{"sheet":"2.2.S2.Compl","index":22,"n_rows":42,"n_cols":16,"rows_kept":42,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[34,7,34,8],[35,2,35,3],[36,7,36,8],[37,2,37,4],[37,7,37,8],[34,2,34,3],[31,4,32,4],[31,5,32,5],[31,7,31,8],[30,2,30,5],[33,7,33,8],[33,2,33,3],[0,2,0,7],[1,2,1,7],[5,2,12,7],[5,9,12,13],[28,2,28,5],[28,7,28,9],[22,2,22,7],[23,2,23,5],[23,6,25,7],[24,2,24,3],[24,4,24,5],[25,2,25,3],[25,4,25,5],[39,2,39,3],[38,2,38,3],[40,2,40,3],[40,4,41,4],[5,15,12,23],[15,2,15,4],[15,5,16,7],[15,9,15,11],[15,12,15,13],[16,9,16,11],[16,12,16,13],[14,2,14,7],[14,9,14,11],[14,12,14,13],[30,7,30,8],[31,2,32,3]]}
[null,null,"Scenario 2, common performance assessment reporting format\nDesign for adaptability and refurbishment"]
[null,null,"The method to be followed for each level varies according to the level of detail at which they address the resource efficiency aspect and the extent to which the benefits and burdens and potential trade-offs between different building design scenarios are modelled and quantified:\n1. Common performance level (qualitative): A checklist of the most important design aspects that can be taken into consideration and whether/how they are addressed.\n2. Comparative performance level (semi-qualitative):  Design aspects that are important to consider are given weightings and the scores achieved by a design are then added to give an overall performance which can be reported on.  This performance can be compared if the same weighting methodology has been used.\n3. Performance optimisation level (quantitative): The analysis of the environmental performance of designs using other indicators of this framework, such as 1.2 (life cycle GWP) or 2.4 (cradle to cradle LCA), so that they can be evaluated, compared and reported on."]
[]
[null,null,"LEVEL 1",null,null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 2",null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 3"]
[]
[null,null,"Users shall identify from the checklists provided those design aspects implemented in the building design. The reporting differs depending on whether the building is an office or residential:\no For offices, the checklist of design aspects focuses on flexibility within the office market, as well as flexibility to change use within the property market.  \no For residential properties, the checklist focuses on the potential to adapt to changing family and personal circumstances over time, as well as flexibility to change use within the property market.\n",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Users shall use a pre-existing index, scoring or calculator tool which provides a numerical output.  The tool used shall be clearly identified in the reporting.  This is to ensure that comparisons are only made between buildings assessed using the same tool.  \n\nGuidance note 2.2 in part 3 of the Level(s) documentation provides suggestions and more information about currently available tools that can be used.",null,null,null,null,null,"Users choosing to carry out a life cycle GWP assessment or a cradle to cradle LCA for a building can additionally report on the improvement potential of their chosen adaptability measures. \nThe results of the scenario are incorporated into the reporting format for both life cycle GWP (see indicator 1.2) and cradle to cradle LCA.\nTo ensure consistency, the specific rules laid down in section 2.2.3 in part 3 of the Level(s) documentation shall be followed, together with the additional notes that are specific to scenario 2 (see section 2.2.2.2)"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Part 1 - Design aspects addressed",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Design tool used"]
[null,null,"Aspects addressed",null,null,"Description of design solution(s)",null,null,null,"Version of the tool of standard used"]
[null,null,"Building Type","Focus area","Design aspect",null,null,null,null,"Building adaptability score or index result"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Part 2 – Supporting property market check"]
[null,null,"Check by local property market expert carried out?"]
[null,null,"Additional design aspects identified by them?"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"The potential for a positive influence on a market valuation ",null,null,null,null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment"]
[]
[null,null,"Checklist 1 – Evaluation of potentially positive influences on the market performance",null,null,null,null,"RATING 1",null,"Data Quality Evaluation matrix"]
[null,null,"Potential influence",null,"Evaluated?","Resulting assumptions used in the appraisal",null,"Scenario 2\nDesign for adaptability and refurbishment",null,0]
[]
[null,null,"Potential influence 1\nIncreased revenues due to market recognition and lower void rates.",null,null,null,null,"RATING 2",null,"Professional Capabilities"]
[null,null,"Potential influence 2\nReduced operational, maintenance, repair and/or replacement costs.",null,null,null,null,"Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment"]
[null,null,"Potential influence 3\nReduced future risk of increased overheads or loss of income."]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"RATING 3",null,"Independent Verification"]
[null,null,"Checklist 2 – Accounting for a Level(s) assessment in the valuation criteria used",null,null,null,null,"Independent verification of the assessment"]
[null,null,"Valuation criteria set used"]
[null,null,"Version of the criteria set used"]
[null,null,"Criteria which the assessment has influenced",null,"Influence on the valuation or rating"]
[null,null,"Valuation criterion","Sub-criterion"]

{"sheet":"2.2.S2.Oper","index":23,"n_rows":42,"n_cols":16,"rows_kept":42,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[34,7,34,8],[35,2,35,3],[36,7,36,8],[37,2,37,4],[37,7,37,8],[34,2,34,3],[31,4,32,4],[31,5,32,5],[31,7,31,8],[30,2,30,5],[33,7,33,8],[33,2,33,3],[0,2,0,7],[1,2,1,7],[5,2,12,7],[5,9,12,13],[28,2,28,5],[28,7,28,9],[22,2,22,7],[23,2,23,5],[23,6,25,7],[24,2,24,3],[24,4,24,5],[25,2,25,3],[25,4,25,5],[39,2,39,3],[38,2,38,3],[40,2,40,3],[40,4,41,4],[5,15,12,23],[15,2,15,4],[15,5,16,7],[15,9,15,11],[15,12,15,13],[16,9,16,11],[16,12,16,13],[14,2,14,7],[14,9,14,11],[14,12,14,13],[30,7,30,8],[31,2,32,3]]}
[null,null,"Scenario 2, common performance assessment reporting format\nDesign for adaptability and refurbishment"]
[null,null,"The method to be followed for each level varies according to the level of detail at which they address the resource efficiency aspect and the extent to which the benefits and burdens and potential trade-offs between different building design scenarios are modelled and quantified:\n1. Common performance level (qualitative): A checklist of the most important design aspects that can be taken into consideration and whether/how they are addressed.\n2. Comparative performance level (semi-qualitative):  Design aspects that are important to consider are given weightings and the scores achieved by a design are then added to give an overall performance which can be reported on.  This performance can be compared if the same weighting methodology has been used.\n3. Performance optimisation level (quantitative): The analysis of the environmental performance of designs using other indicators of this framework, such as 1.2 (life cycle GWP) or 2.4 (cradle to cradle LCA), so that they can be evaluated, compared and reported on."]
[]
[null,null,"LEVEL 1",null,null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 2",null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 3"]
[]
[null,null,"Users shall identify from the checklists provided those design aspects implemented in the building design. The reporting differs depending on whether the building is an office or residential:\no For offices, the checklist of design aspects focuses on flexibility within the office market, as well as flexibility to change use within the property market.  \no For residential properties, the checklist focuses on the potential to adapt to changing family and personal circumstances over time, as well as flexibility to change use within the property market.\n",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Users shall use a pre-existing index, scoring or calculator tool which provides a numerical output.  The tool used shall be clearly identified in the reporting.  This is to ensure that comparisons are only made between buildings assessed using the same tool.  \n\nGuidance note 2.2 in part 3 of the Level(s) documentation provides suggestions and more information about currently available tools that can be used.",null,null,null,null,null,"Users choosing to carry out a life cycle GWP assessment or a cradle to cradle LCA for a building can additionally report on the improvement potential of their chosen adaptability measures. \nThe results of the scenario are incorporated into the reporting format for both life cycle GWP (see indicator 1.2) and cradle to cradle LCA.\nTo ensure consistency, the specific rules laid down in section 2.2.3 in part 3 of the Level(s) documentation shall be followed, together with the additional notes that are specific to scenario 2 (see section 2.2.2.2)"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Part 1 - Design aspects addressed",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Design tool used"]
[null,null,"Aspects addressed",null,null,"Description of design solution(s)",null,null,null,"Version of the tool of standard used"]
[null,null,"Building Type","Focus area","Design aspect",null,null,null,null,"Building adaptability score or index result"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Part 2 – Supporting property market check"]
[null,null,"Check by local property market expert carried out?"]
[null,null,"Additional design aspects identified by them?"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"The potential for a positive influence on a market valuation ",null,null,null,null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment"]
[]
[null,null,"Checklist 1 – Evaluation of potentially positive influences on the market performance",null,null,null,null,"RATING 1",null,"Data Quality Evaluation matrix"]
[null,null,"Potential influence",null,"Evaluated?","Resulting assumptions used in the appraisal",null,"Scenario 2\nDesign for adaptability and refurbishment",null,0]
[]
[null,null,"Potential influence 1\nIncreased revenues due to market recognition and lower void rates.",null,null,null,null,"RATING 2",null,"Professional Capabilities"]
[null,null,"Potential influence 2\nReduced operational, maintenance, repair and/or replacement costs.",null,null,null,null,"Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment"]
[null,null,"Potential influence 3\nReduced future risk of increased overheads or loss of income."]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"RATING 3",null,"Independent Verification"]
[null,null,"Checklist 2 – Accounting for a Level(s) assessment in the valuation criteria used",null,null,null,null,"Independent verification of the assessment"]
[null,null,"Valuation criteria set used"]
[null,null,"Version of the criteria set used"]
[null,null,"Criteria which the assessment has influenced",null,"Influence on the valuation or rating"]
[null,null,"Valuation criterion","Sub-criterion"]

{"sheet":"2.2.S3.Design","index":24,"n_rows":54,"n_cols":19,"rows_kept":54,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[5,14,13,20],[26,2,27,2],[26,3,27,3],[37,2,37,3],[35,2,35,4],[31,4,31,7],[32,5,32,7],[19,2,19,7],[16,2,16,3],[17,2,17,3],[20,2,21,2],[15,2,15,4],[26,4,26,7],[36,2,36,3],[30,2,30,7],[19,14,19,16],[20,14,20,15],[42,2,42,5],[15,18,15,20],[16,18,16,19],[17,18,17,19],[20,4,20,7],[21,5,21,7],[25,2,25,7],[31,2,32,2],[33,5,33,7],[20,3,21,3],[31,3,32,3],[28,5,28,7],[27,5,27,7],[40,2,40,5],[0,2,0,14],[1,2,1,14],[51,2,51,3],[52,2,52,3],[52,4,53,4],[45,2,45,3],[46,2,46,3],[47,2,47,3],[49,2,49,4],[50,2,50,3],[43,2,44,3],[43,4,44,4],[43,5,44,5],[15,14,15,16],[16,14,16,15],[17,14,17,15],[45,7,45,8],[46,7,46,8],[48,7,48,8],[49,7,49,8],[5,2,12,5],[40,7,40,9],[42,7,42,8],[43,7,43,8],[5,9,13,12],[15,11,15,12],[16,11,16,12],[17,11,17,12],[15,9,15,10],[16,9,16,10],[17,9,17,10]]}
[null,null,"Scenario 3, mmon performance assessment reporting format\nDesign for deconstruction, reuse and recycling"]
[null,null,"The method to be followed for each level varies according to the level of detail at which they address the resource efficiency aspect and the extent to which the benefits and burdens and potential trade-offs between different building design scenarios are modelled and quantified:\n1. Common performance level (qualitative): A checklist of the most important design aspects that can be taken into consideration and whether/how they are addressed.\n2. Comparative performance level (semi-qualitative):  Design aspects that are important to consider are given weightings and the scores achieved by a design are then added to give an overall performance which can be reported on.  This performance can be compared if the same weighting methodology has been used.\n3. Performance optimisation level (quantitative): The analysis of the environmental performance of designs using other indicators of this framework, such as 1.2 (life cycle GWP) or 2.4 (cradle to cradle LCA), so that they can be evaluated, compared and reported on."]
[]
[null,null,"LEVEL 1",null,null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 2",null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 3"]
[]
[null,null,"Users shall identify from the checklists provided those design aspects implemented in the building design. Users should identify for each building part addressed which design aspects have been implemented.",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Users shall use a pre-existing index, scoring or calculator tool which provides a numerical output.  The tool used shall be clearly identified in the reporting.  This is to ensure that comparisons are only made between buildings assessed using the same tool.  See guidance note 2.4 in part 3 of the Level(s) documentation for suggestions on currently available tools that can be used.   \n\nAssumptions relating to the ease of disassembly, reuse and recycling shall be based on solutions and technologies that have already proven to be economically and technically viable.  In other words, assumptions should be based on existing solutions and technologies.",null,null,null,null,"Users choosing to carry out a life cycle GWP assessment or a cradle to cradle LCA for a building can additionally report on the improvement potential of their chosen deconstruction, reuse and recycling measures. \n\nThe results of the scenario are incorporated into the reporting format for both life cycle GWP (see indicator 1.2) and cradle to cradle LCA  \n\nTo ensure consistency, the specific rules laid down in section 2.2.3 in part 3 of the Level(s) documentation shall be followed, together with the additional notes that are specific to scenario 3 (see section 2.2.2.3):\n"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Part 1 - General information",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Design tool used",null,null,null,null,"Part 1 - Demolition and waste management expert check",null,null,null,"Part 2 - End of life scenario selection"]
[null,null,"Element and systems inventory available?",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Version of the tool of standard used",null,null,null,null,"Local demolition/waste management expert check carried out?",null,null,null,"Default scenario used?"]
[null,null,"Deconstruction plan made available?",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Building adaptability score or index result",null,null,null,null,"Identification of local design aspects",null,null,null,"Scenario source"]
[]
[null,null,"Part 2 - Ease of disassembly reporting",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Part 3 - Building material bank passport "]
[null,null,"Scope of part","Building part","Design aspects checked/implemented",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Has a building material bank passport been developed?"]
[null,null,null,null,"Ease of disassembly aspect","Description of design solution(s)"]
[null,null,"Core","Lighting services"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Part 3 - Ease of reuse reporting"]
[null,null,"Scope of part","Building part","Design aspects checked/implemented"]
[null,null,null,null,"Ease of reuse aspect","Description of design solution(s)"]
[null,null,"Shell","Foundations"]
[]
[null,null,"Part 4 - Ease of recycling"]
[null,null,"Scope of part","Building part","Design aspects checked/implemented"]
[null,null,null,null,"Ease of disassembly aspect","Description of design solution(s)"]
[null,null,"Shell","Foundations"]
[]
[null,null,"Part 5 - Demolition and waste management expert check"]
[null,null,"Expert check carried out?"]
[null,null,"Additional design aspects identified?"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"The potential for a positive influence on a market valuation ",null,null,null,null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment"]
[]
[null,null,"Checklist 1 – Evaluation of potentially positive influences on the market performance",null,null,null,null,"RATING 1",null,"Data Quality Evaluation matrix"]
[null,null,"Potential influence",null,"Evaluated?","Resulting assumptions used in the appraisal",null,"Scenario 3 \nDesing for deconstruction, reuse and recyclability",null,0]
[]
[null,null,"Potential influence 1\nIncreased revenues due to market recognition and lower void rates.",null,null,null,null,"RATING 2",null,"Professional Capabilities"]
[null,null,"Potential influence 2\nReduced operational, maintenance, repair and/or replacement costs.",null,null,null,null,"Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment"]
[null,null,"Potential influence 3\nReduced future risk of increased overheads or loss of income."]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"RATING 3",null,"Independent Verification"]
[null,null,"Checklist 2 – Accounting for a Level(s) assessment in the valuation criteria used",null,null,null,null,"Independent verification of the assessment"]
[null,null,"Valuation criteria set used"]
[null,null,"Version of the criteria set used"]
[null,null,"Criteria which the assessment has influenced",null,"Influence on the valuation or rating"]
[null,null,"Valuation criterion","Sub-criterion"]

{"sheet":"2.2.S3.Impl","index":25,"n_rows":53,"n_cols":19,"rows_kept":53,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[15,2,15,4],[15,9,15,10],[15,11,15,12],[15,14,15,16],[15,18,15,20],[0,2,0,14],[1,2,1,14],[5,2,12,5],[5,9,13,12],[5,14,13,20],[17,2,17,3],[17,9,17,10],[17,11,17,12],[17,14,17,15],[17,18,17,19],[16,2,16,3],[16,9,16,10],[16,11,16,12],[16,14,16,15],[16,18,16,19],[27,5,27,7],[19,2,19,7],[19,14,19,16],[20,2,21,2],[20,3,21,3],[20,4,20,7],[20,14,20,15],[21,5,21,7],[24,2,24,7],[25,2,26,2],[25,3,26,3],[25,4,25,7],[26,5,26,7],[41,2,41,5],[41,7,41,8],[29,2,29,7],[30,2,31,2],[30,3,31,3],[30,4,30,7],[31,5,31,7],[32,5,32,7],[34,2,34,4],[35,2,35,3],[36,2,36,3],[39,2,39,5],[39,7,39,9],[42,2,43,3],[42,4,43,4],[42,5,43,5],[42,7,42,8],[44,2,44,3],[44,7,44,8],[45,7,45,8],[46,2,46,3],[47,7,47,8],[48,2,48,4],[48,7,48,8],[49,2,49,3],[50,2,50,3],[51,2,51,3],[51,4,52,4],[45,2,45,3]]}
[null,null,"Scenario 3, mmon performance assessment reporting format\nDesign for deconstruction, reuse and recycling"]
[null,null,"The method to be followed for each level varies according to the level of detail at which they address the resource efficiency aspect and the extent to which the benefits and burdens and potential trade-offs between different building design scenarios are modelled and quantified:\n1. Common performance level (qualitative): A checklist of the most important design aspects that can be taken into consideration and whether/how they are addressed.\n2. Comparative performance level (semi-qualitative):  Design aspects that are important to consider are given weightings and the scores achieved by a design are then added to give an overall performance which can be reported on.  This performance can be compared if the same weighting methodology has been used.\n3. Performance optimisation level (quantitative): The analysis of the environmental performance of designs using other indicators of this framework, such as 1.2 (life cycle GWP) or 2.4 (cradle to cradle LCA), so that they can be evaluated, compared and reported on."]
[]
[null,null,"LEVEL 1",null,null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 2",null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 3"]
[]
[null,null,"Users shall identify from the checklists provided those design aspects implemented in the building design. Users should identify for each building part addressed which design aspects have been implemented.",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Users shall use a pre-existing index, scoring or calculator tool which provides a numerical output.  The tool used shall be clearly identified in the reporting.  This is to ensure that comparisons are only made between buildings assessed using the same tool.  See guidance note 2.4 in part 3 of the Level(s) documentation for suggestions on currently available tools that can be used.   \n\nAssumptions relating to the ease of disassembly, reuse and recycling shall be based on solutions and technologies that have already proven to be economically and technically viable.  In other words, assumptions should be based on existing solutions and technologies.",null,null,null,null,"Users choosing to carry out a life cycle GWP assessment or a cradle to cradle LCA for a building can additionally report on the improvement potential of their chosen deconstruction, reuse and recycling measures. \n\nThe results of the scenario are incorporated into the reporting format for both life cycle GWP (see indicator 1.2) and cradle to cradle LCA  \n\nTo ensure consistency, the specific rules laid down in section 2.2.3 in part 3 of the Level(s) documentation shall be followed, together with the additional notes that are specific to scenario 3 (see section 2.2.2.3):\n"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Part 1 - General information",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Design tool used",null,null,null,null,"Part 1 - Demolition and waste management expert check",null,null,null,"Part 2 - End of life scenario selection"]
[null,null,"Element and systems inventory available?",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Version of the tool of standard used",null,null,null,null,"Local demolition/waste management expert check carried out?",null,null,null,"Default scenario used?"]
[null,null,"Deconstruction plan made available?",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Building adaptability score or index result",null,null,null,null,"Identification of local design aspects",null,null,null,"Scenario source"]
[]
[null,null,"Part 2 - Ease of disassembly reporting",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Part 3 - Building material bank passport "]
[null,null,"Scope of part","Building part","Design aspects checked/implemented",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Has a building material bank passport been developed?"]
[null,null,null,null,"Ease of disassembly aspect","Description of design solution(s)"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Part 3 - Ease of reuse reporting"]
[null,null,"Scope of part","Building part","Design aspects checked/implemented"]
[null,null,null,null,"Ease of reuse aspect","Description of design solution(s)"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Part 4 - Ease of recycling"]
[null,null,"Scope of part","Building part","Design aspects checked/implemented"]
[null,null,null,null,"Ease of disassembly aspect","Description of design solution(s)"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Part 5 - Demolition and waste management expert check"]
[null,null,"Expert check carried out?"]
[null,null,"Additional design aspects identified?"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"The potential for a positive influence on a market valuation ",null,null,null,null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment"]
[]
[null,null,"Checklist 1 – Evaluation of potentially positive influences on the market performance",null,null,null,null,"RATING 1",null,"Data Quality Evaluation matrix"]
[null,null,"Potential influence",null,"Evaluated?","Resulting assumptions used in the appraisal",null,"Scenario 3 \nDesing for deconstruction, reuse and recyclability",null,0]
[]
[null,null,"Potential influence 1\nIncreased revenues due to market recognition and lower void rates.",null,null,null,null,"RATING 2",null,"Professional Capabilities"]
[null,null,"Potential influence 2\nReduced operational, maintenance, repair and/or replacement costs.",null,null,null,null,"Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment"]
[null,null,"Potential influence 3\nReduced future risk of increased overheads or loss of income."]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"RATING 3",null,"Independent Verification"]
[null,null,"Checklist 2 – Accounting for a Level(s) assessment in the valuation criteria used",null,null,null,null,"Independent verification of the assessment"]
[null,null,"Valuation criteria set used"]
[null,null,"Version of the criteria set used"]
[null,null,"Criteria which the assessment has influenced",null,"Influence on the valuation or rating"]
[null,null,"Valuation criterion","Sub-criterion"]

{"sheet":"2.2.S3.Compl","index":26,"n_rows":53,"n_cols":19,"rows_kept":53,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[15,2,15,4],[15,9,15,10],[15,11,15,12],[15,14,15,16],[15,18,15,20],[0,2,0,14],[1,2,1,14],[5,2,12,5],[5,9,13,12],[5,14,13,20],[17,2,17,3],[17,9,17,10],[17,11,17,12],[17,14,17,15],[17,18,17,19],[16,2,16,3],[16,9,16,10],[16,11,16,12],[16,14,16,15],[16,18,16,19],[27,5,27,7],[19,2,19,7],[19,14,19,16],[20,2,21,2],[20,3,21,3],[20,4,20,7],[20,14,20,15],[21,5,21,7],[24,2,24,7],[25,2,26,2],[25,3,26,3],[25,4,25,7],[26,5,26,7],[41,2,41,5],[41,7,41,8],[29,2,29,7],[30,2,31,2],[30,3,31,3],[30,4,30,7],[31,5,31,7],[32,5,32,7],[34,2,34,4],[35,2,35,3],[36,2,36,3],[39,2,39,5],[39,7,39,9],[42,2,43,3],[42,4,43,4],[42,5,43,5],[42,7,42,8],[44,2,44,3],[44,7,44,8],[45,7,45,8],[46,2,46,3],[47,7,47,8],[48,2,48,4],[48,7,48,8],[49,2,49,3],[50,2,50,3],[51,2,51,3],[51,4,52,4],[45,2,45,3]]}
[null,null,"Scenario 3, mmon performance assessment reporting format\nDesign for deconstruction, reuse and recycling"]
[null,null,"The method to be followed for each level varies according to the level of detail at which they address the resource efficiency aspect and the extent to which the benefits and burdens and potential trade-offs between different building design scenarios are modelled and quantified:\n1. Common performance level (qualitative): A checklist of the most important design aspects that can be taken into consideration and whether/how they are addressed.\n2. Comparative performance level (semi-qualitative):  Design aspects that are important to consider are given weightings and the scores achieved by a design are then added to give an overall performance which can be reported on.  This performance can be compared if the same weighting methodology has been used.\n3. Performance optimisation level (quantitative): The analysis of the environmental performance of designs using other indicators of this framework, such as 1.2 (life cycle GWP) or 2.4 (cradle to cradle LCA), so that they can be evaluated, compared and reported on."]
[]
[null,null,"LEVEL 1",null,null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 2",null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 3"]
[]
[null,null,"Users shall identify from the checklists provided those design aspects implemented in the building design. Users should identify for each building part addressed which design aspects have been implemented.",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Users shall use a pre-existing index, scoring or calculator tool which provides a numerical output.  The tool used shall be clearly identified in the reporting.  This is to ensure that comparisons are only made between buildings assessed using the same tool.  See guidance note 2.4 in part 3 of the Level(s) documentation for suggestions on currently available tools that can be used.   \n\nAssumptions relating to the ease of disassembly, reuse and recycling shall be based on solutions and technologies that have already proven to be economically and technically viable.  In other words, assumptions should be based on existing solutions and technologies.",null,null,null,null,"Users choosing to carry out a life cycle GWP assessment or a cradle to cradle LCA for a building can additionally report on the improvement potential of their chosen deconstruction, reuse and recycling measures. \n\nThe results of the scenario are incorporated into the reporting format for both life cycle GWP (see indicator 1.2) and cradle to cradle LCA  \n\nTo ensure consistency, the specific rules laid down in section 2.2.3 in part 3 of the Level(s) documentation shall be followed, together with the additional notes that are specific to scenario 3 (see section 2.2.2.3):\n"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Part 1 - General information",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Design tool used",null,null,null,null,"Part 1 - Demolition and waste management expert check",null,null,null,"Part 2 - End of life scenario selection"]
[null,null,"Element and systems inventory available?",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Version of the tool of standard used",null,null,null,null,"Local demolition/waste management expert check carried out?",null,null,null,"Default scenario used?"]
[null,null,"Deconstruction plan made available?",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Building adaptability score or index result",null,null,null,null,"Identification of local design aspects",null,null,null,"Scenario source"]
[]
[null,null,"Part 2 - Ease of disassembly reporting",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Part 3 - Building material bank passport "]
[null,null,"Scope of part","Building part","Design aspects checked/implemented",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Has a building material bank passport been developed?"]
[null,null,null,null,"Ease of disassembly aspect","Description of design solution(s)"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Part 3 - Ease of reuse reporting"]
[null,null,"Scope of part","Building part","Design aspects checked/implemented"]
[null,null,null,null,"Ease of reuse aspect","Description of design solution(s)"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Part 4 - Ease of recycling"]
[null,null,"Scope of part","Building part","Design aspects checked/implemented"]
[null,null,null,null,"Ease of disassembly aspect","Description of design solution(s)"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Part 5 - Demolition and waste management expert check"]
[null,null,"Expert check carried out?"]
[null,null,"Additional design aspects identified?"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"The potential for a positive influence on a market valuation ",null,null,null,null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment"]
[]
[null,null,"Checklist 1 – Evaluation of potentially positive influences on the market performance",null,null,null,null,"RATING 1",null,"Data Quality Evaluation matrix"]
[null,null,"Potential influence",null,"Evaluated?","Resulting assumptions used in the appraisal",null,"Scenario 3 \nDesing for deconstruction, reuse and recyclability",null,0]
[]
[null,null,"Potential influence 1\nIncreased revenues due to market recognition and lower void rates.",null,null,null,null,"RATING 2",null,"Professional Capabilities"]
[null,null,"Potential influence 2\nReduced operational, maintenance, repair and/or replacement costs.",null,null,null,null,"Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment"]
[null,null,"Potential influence 3\nReduced future risk of increased overheads or loss of income."]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"RATING 3",null,"Independent Verification"]
[null,null,"Checklist 2 – Accounting for a Level(s) assessment in the valuation criteria used",null,null,null,null,"Independent verification of the assessment"]
[null,null,"Valuation criteria set used"]
[null,null,"Version of the criteria set used"]
[null,null,"Criteria which the assessment has influenced",null,"Influence on the valuation or rating"]
[null,null,"Valuation criterion","Sub-criterion"]

{"sheet":"2.2.S3.Oper","index":27,"n_rows":53,"n_cols":19,"rows_kept":53,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[15,2,15,4],[15,9,15,10],[15,11,15,12],[15,14,15,16],[15,18,15,20],[0,2,0,14],[1,2,1,14],[5,2,12,5],[5,9,13,12],[5,14,13,20],[17,2,17,3],[17,9,17,10],[17,11,17,12],[17,14,17,15],[17,18,17,19],[16,2,16,3],[16,9,16,10],[16,11,16,12],[16,14,16,15],[16,18,16,19],[27,5,27,7],[19,2,19,7],[19,14,19,16],[20,2,21,2],[20,3,21,3],[20,4,20,7],[20,14,20,15],[21,5,21,7],[24,2,24,7],[25,2,26,2],[25,3,26,3],[25,4,25,7],[26,5,26,7],[41,2,41,5],[41,7,41,8],[29,2,29,7],[30,2,31,2],[30,3,31,3],[30,4,30,7],[31,5,31,7],[32,5,32,7],[34,2,34,4],[35,2,35,3],[36,2,36,3],[39,2,39,5],[39,7,39,9],[42,2,43,3],[42,4,43,4],[42,5,43,5],[42,7,42,8],[44,2,44,3],[44,7,44,8],[45,7,45,8],[46,2,46,3],[47,7,47,8],[48,2,48,4],[48,7,48,8],[49,2,49,3],[50,2,50,3],[51,2,51,3],[51,4,52,4],[45,2,45,3]]}
[null,null,"Scenario 3, mmon performance assessment reporting format\nDesign for deconstruction, reuse and recycling"]
[null,null,"The method to be followed for each level varies according to the level of detail at which they address the resource efficiency aspect and the extent to which the benefits and burdens and potential trade-offs between different building design scenarios are modelled and quantified:\n1. Common performance level (qualitative): A checklist of the most important design aspects that can be taken into consideration and whether/how they are addressed.\n2. Comparative performance level (semi-qualitative):  Design aspects that are important to consider are given weightings and the scores achieved by a design are then added to give an overall performance which can be reported on.  This performance can be compared if the same weighting methodology has been used.\n3. Performance optimisation level (quantitative): The analysis of the environmental performance of designs using other indicators of this framework, such as 1.2 (life cycle GWP) or 2.4 (cradle to cradle LCA), so that they can be evaluated, compared and reported on."]
[]
[null,null,"LEVEL 1",null,null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 2",null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 3"]
[]
[null,null,"Users shall identify from the checklists provided those design aspects implemented in the building design. Users should identify for each building part addressed which design aspects have been implemented.",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Users shall use a pre-existing index, scoring or calculator tool which provides a numerical output.  The tool used shall be clearly identified in the reporting.  This is to ensure that comparisons are only made between buildings assessed using the same tool.  See guidance note 2.4 in part 3 of the Level(s) documentation for suggestions on currently available tools that can be used.   \n\nAssumptions relating to the ease of disassembly, reuse and recycling shall be based on solutions and technologies that have already proven to be economically and technically viable.  In other words, assumptions should be based on existing solutions and technologies.",null,null,null,null,"Users choosing to carry out a life cycle GWP assessment or a cradle to cradle LCA for a building can additionally report on the improvement potential of their chosen deconstruction, reuse and recycling measures. \n\nThe results of the scenario are incorporated into the reporting format for both life cycle GWP (see indicator 1.2) and cradle to cradle LCA  \n\nTo ensure consistency, the specific rules laid down in section 2.2.3 in part 3 of the Level(s) documentation shall be followed, together with the additional notes that are specific to scenario 3 (see section 2.2.2.3):\n"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Part 1 - General information",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Design tool used",null,null,null,null,"Part 1 - Demolition and waste management expert check",null,null,null,"Part 2 - End of life scenario selection"]
[null,null,"Element and systems inventory available?",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Version of the tool of standard used",null,null,null,null,"Local demolition/waste management expert check carried out?",null,null,null,"Default scenario used?"]
[null,null,"Deconstruction plan made available?",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Building adaptability score or index result",null,null,null,null,"Identification of local design aspects",null,null,null,"Scenario source"]
[]
[null,null,"Part 2 - Ease of disassembly reporting",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Part 3 - Building material bank passport "]
[null,null,"Scope of part","Building part","Design aspects checked/implemented",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Has a building material bank passport been developed?"]
[null,null,null,null,"Ease of disassembly aspect","Description of design solution(s)"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Part 3 - Ease of reuse reporting"]
[null,null,"Scope of part","Building part","Design aspects checked/implemented"]
[null,null,null,null,"Ease of reuse aspect","Description of design solution(s)"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Part 4 - Ease of recycling"]
[null,null,"Scope of part","Building part","Design aspects checked/implemented"]
[null,null,null,null,"Ease of disassembly aspect","Description of design solution(s)"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Part 5 - Demolition and waste management expert check"]
[null,null,"Expert check carried out?"]
[null,null,"Additional design aspects identified?"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"The potential for a positive influence on a market valuation ",null,null,null,null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment"]
[]
[null,null,"Checklist 1 – Evaluation of potentially positive influences on the market performance",null,null,null,null,"RATING 1",null,"Data Quality Evaluation matrix"]
[null,null,"Potential influence",null,"Evaluated?","Resulting assumptions used in the appraisal",null,"Scenario 3 \nDesing for deconstruction, reuse and recyclability",null,0]
[]
[null,null,"Potential influence 1\nIncreased revenues due to market recognition and lower void rates.",null,null,null,null,"RATING 2",null,"Professional Capabilities"]
[null,null,"Potential influence 2\nReduced operational, maintenance, repair and/or replacement costs.",null,null,null,null,"Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment"]
[null,null,"Potential influence 3\nReduced future risk of increased overheads or loss of income."]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"RATING 3",null,"Independent Verification"]
[null,null,"Checklist 2 – Accounting for a Level(s) assessment in the valuation criteria used",null,null,null,null,"Independent verification of the assessment"]
[null,null,"Valuation criteria set used"]
[null,null,"Version of the criteria set used"]
[null,null,"Criteria which the assessment has influenced",null,"Influence on the valuation or rating"]
[null,null,"Valuation criterion","Sub-criterion"]

{"sheet":"2.3.Design","index":28,"n_rows":38,"n_cols":26,"rows_kept":38,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[28,23,28,24],[23,20,23,21],[24,20,24,21],[25,20,25,21],[26,20,26,21],[23,23,23,24],[24,23,24,24],[25,23,25,24],[26,23,26,24],[27,23,27,24],[28,20,28,21],[27,20,27,21],[19,22,19,23],[20,22,20,23],[11,20,15,21],[18,22,18,23],[22,20,22,24],[11,22,12,22],[16,22,17,22],[16,20,20,21],[3,1,3,4],[10,1,10,12],[11,1,11,2],[11,3,11,4],[11,5,11,6],[11,7,11,8],[11,9,11,10],[11,11,11,12],[4,1,6,2],[7,1,8,2],[8,14,8,15],[18,6,18,9],[13,1,14,1],[5,14,5,15],[7,14,7,15],[17,1,17,2],[18,1,18,4],[12,1,12,2],[15,1,15,2],[16,1,16,2],[4,26,4,27],[4,28,4,29],[3,20,3,25],[4,24,5,24],[4,25,5,25],[4,20,5,21],[4,22,5,23],[4,17,4,18],[3,14,3,18],[13,22,13,23],[14,22,14,23],[15,22,15,23],[10,22,10,23],[9,22,9,23],[8,22,8,23],[4,14,4,15],[6,14,6,15],[8,17,8,18],[5,17,5,18],[6,17,6,18],[7,17,7,18],[6,22,7,22],[6,20,10,21],[20,1,20,4],[20,6,20,8],[21,1,21,2],[22,1,22,2],[28,1,28,2],[28,3,28,4],[21,6,21,8],[27,1,27,2],[27,3,27,4],[23,1,23,2],[24,1,24,2],[22,6,22,8],[29,1,29,2],[29,3,30,4],[29,6,29,8],[23,6,23,8],[24,6,24,8],[25,6,25,8],[27,6,27,8],[26,1,26,4],[37,6,37,8],[31,3,31,4],[33,6,33,8],[31,6,31,9],[35,6,35,9],[32,6,32,8],[36,6,36,8]]}
[]
[null,"LEVEL 1",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 2",null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 3"]
[]
[null,"Part 1 - Activity and waste sources being reported on",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Part 2 – Selected estimation tool (for each activity identified in Part1)",null,null,null,null,null,"Part 2 - Performance assessment results (based on activities in Part 1)"]
[null,"Deconstruction/demolition",null,"Pre-estimate","YES",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Default data aspect",null,"Estimation tool used","Version of the tool or standard used",null,null,"Project stage",null,"Waste and material streams",null,"kg/m2","% of total\nmass flow"]
[null,null,null,"Actual from the site",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Demolition mass estimates"]
[null,null,null,"Module D - estimate",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Ready to use construction product packaging estimates",null,null,null,null,null,"Select and report for each relevant process prior to construction taking place on site:\n­ Deconstruction and demolition: site clearance \n­ Part deconstruction/remodelling of a building(s) to facilitate in-situ reuse of the structure\n­ Preparatory works prior to a major renovation",null,"Waste disposed of:","Hazardous"]
[null,"Construction",null,"Pre-estimate",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Waste destination and diversion rates",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Non-hazardous"]
[null,null,null,"Actual from the site",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Other parameters (please specify)",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Components for re-use"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Materials for recycling"]
[null,"Part 2 - Performance assessment results",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Other material recovery operations (including backfilling and energy recovery)"]
[null,null,null,"Deconstruction: Pre-estimate",null,"Deconstruction: Actual from the site",null,"Demolition: Module D-estimate",null,"Construction: Pre-estimate",null,"Construction: Actual from the site",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Construction on site: new building or major renovation works",null,"Waste disposed of:","Hazardous"]
[null,"Waste and material streams",null,"kg/m2","% of total\nmass flow","kg/m2","% of total\nmass flow","kg/m2","% of total\nmass flow","kg/m2","% of total\nmass flow","kg/m2","% of total\nmass flow",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Non-hazardous"]
[null,"Waste disposed of:\n","hazardous",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Components for re-use"]
[null,null,"Non-hazardous",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Materials for recycling"]
[null,"Diversion for reuse and recycling",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Other material recovery operations (including backfilling and energy recovery)"]
[null,"Diversion for other material recovery operations (including backfilling and energy recovery)",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Deconstruction and demolition: future scenario at end of life",null,"Waste disposed of:","Hazardous"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Non-hazardous"]
[null,"The potential for a positive influence on a market valuation ",null,null,null,null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Components for re-use"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Materials for recycling"]
[null,"Checklist 1 – Evaluation of potentially positive influences on the market performance",null,null,null,null,"RATING ASPECT",null,null,"Data Quality Evaluation matrix",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Other material recovery operations (including backfilling and energy recovery)"]
[null,"Potential influence",null,"Evaluated?","Resulting assumptions used in the appraisal",null,"1. Technical representativeness of the deconstruction and demolition waste estimates"]
[null,"Potential influence 1\nIncreased revenues due to market recognition and lower void rates.",null,null,null,null,"2.1 Technical  representativeness of the on-site construction waste estimates",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Part 3 - Optimisation aspects addressed"]
[null,"Potential influence 2\nReduced operational, maintenance, repair and/or replacement costs.",null,null,null,null,"2.2 Technical  representativeness of the off-site construction waste estimates",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect",null,"Addressed? (yes/no)","Notes on data sources and calculation method"]
[null,"Potential influence 3\nReduced future risk of increased overheads or loss of income.",null,null,null,null,"3. Technical  representativeness of the future deconstruction potential",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 1 – Deconstruction/demolition waste technical representativeness and precision"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"4. Precision of the waste accounting on site",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 2.1 – Construction site waste technical representativeness and precision"]
[null,"Checklist 2 – Accounting for a Level(s) assessment in the valuation criteria used",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 2.2 – Off-site construction technical representativeness"]
[null,"Valuation criteria set used",null,null,null,null,"Indicator 2.3.1 \nIRI estimates and potential (design stage)",null,null,{"$f":"SUM(J22,MIN(J23,J24),J25)/3","v":0},null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 3 –Future deconstruction (Module D) technical representativeness"]
[null,"Version of the criteria set used",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 4 – Waste accounting precision"]
[null,"Criteria which the assessment has influenced",null,"Influence on the valuation or rating",null,null,"Indicator 2.3.2 \nIRI on site accounting (construction stage)",null,null,{"$f":"J26","v":0}]
[null,"Valuation criterion","Sub-criterion"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating 2 – Professional capabilities"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating aspect",null,null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"2. Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating 3 – Independent verification"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating aspect",null,null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"3. Independent verification of the assessment"]

{"sheet":"2.3.Impl","index":29,"n_rows":38,"n_cols":26,"rows_kept":38,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[33,6,33,8],[35,6,35,9],[36,6,36,8],[37,6,37,8],[29,1,29,2],[29,3,30,4],[29,6,29,8],[31,3,31,4],[31,6,31,9],[32,6,32,8],[28,1,28,2],[28,3,28,4],[28,20,28,21],[28,23,28,24],[25,6,25,8],[25,20,25,21],[25,23,25,24],[26,1,26,4],[26,20,26,21],[26,23,26,24],[27,1,27,2],[27,3,27,4],[27,6,27,8],[27,20,27,21],[27,23,27,24],[23,1,23,2],[23,6,23,8],[23,20,23,21],[23,23,23,24],[24,1,24,2],[24,6,24,8],[24,20,24,21],[24,23,24,24],[21,1,21,2],[21,6,21,8],[22,1,22,2],[22,6,22,8],[22,20,22,24],[16,1,16,2],[16,20,20,21],[16,22,17,22],[17,1,17,2],[18,1,18,4],[18,6,18,9],[18,22,18,23],[19,22,19,23],[20,1,20,4],[20,6,20,8],[20,22,20,23],[10,1,10,12],[10,22,10,23],[11,1,11,2],[11,3,11,4],[11,5,11,6],[11,7,11,8],[11,9,11,10],[11,11,11,12],[11,20,15,21],[11,22,12,22],[12,1,12,2],[13,1,14,1],[13,22,13,23],[14,22,14,23],[15,1,15,2],[15,22,15,23],[7,1,8,2],[7,14,7,15],[7,17,7,18],[8,14,8,15],[8,17,8,18],[8,22,8,23],[4,26,4,27],[4,28,4,29],[5,14,5,15],[5,17,5,18],[6,14,6,15],[6,17,6,18],[6,20,10,21],[6,22,7,22],[9,22,9,23],[3,1,3,4],[3,14,3,18],[3,20,3,25],[4,1,6,2],[4,14,4,15],[4,17,4,18],[4,20,5,21],[4,22,5,23],[4,24,5,24],[4,25,5,25]]}
[]
[null,"LEVEL 1",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 2",null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 3"]
[]
[null,"Part 1 - Activity and waste sources being reported on",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Part 2 – Selected estimation tool (for each activity identified in Part1)",null,null,null,null,null,"Part 2 - Performance assessment results (based on activities in Part 1)"]
[null,"Deconstruction/demolition",null,"Pre-estimate",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Default data aspect",null,"Estimation tool used","Version of the tool or standard used",null,null,"Project stage",null,"Waste and material streams",null,"kg/m2","% of total\nmass flow"]
[null,null,null,"Actual from the site",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Demolition mass estimates"]
[null,null,null,"Module D - estimate",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Ready to use construction product packaging estimates",null,null,null,null,null,"Select and report for each relevant process prior to construction taking place on site:\n­ Deconstruction and demolition: site clearance \n­ Part deconstruction/remodelling of a building(s) to facilitate in-situ reuse of the structure\n­ Preparatory works prior to a major renovation",null,"Waste disposed of:","Hazardous"]
[null,"Construction",null,"Pre-estimate",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Waste destination and diversion rates",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Non-hazardous"]
[null,null,null,"Actual from the site",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Other parameters (please specify)",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Components for re-use"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Materials for recycling"]
[null,"Part 2 - Performance assessment results",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Other material recovery operations (including backfilling and energy recovery)"]
[null,null,null,"Deconstruction: Pre-estimate",null,"Deconstruction: Actual from the site",null,"Demolition: Module D-estimate",null,"Construction: Pre-estimate",null,"Construction: Actual from the site",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Construction on site: new building or major renovation works",null,"Waste disposed of:","Hazardous"]
[null,"Waste and material streams",null,"kg/m2","% of total\nmass flow","kg/m2","% of total\nmass flow","kg/m2","% of total\nmass flow","kg/m2","% of total\nmass flow","kg/m2","% of total\nmass flow",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Non-hazardous"]
[null,"Waste disposed of:\n","hazardous",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Components for re-use"]
[null,null,"Non-hazardous",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Materials for recycling"]
[null,"Diversion for reuse and recycling",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Other material recovery operations (including backfilling and energy recovery)"]
[null,"Diversion for other material recovery operations (including backfilling and energy recovery)",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Deconstruction and demolition: future scenario at end of life",null,"Waste disposed of:","Hazardous"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Non-hazardous"]
[null,"The potential for a positive influence on a market valuation ",null,null,null,null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Components for re-use"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Materials for recycling"]
[null,"Checklist 1 – Evaluation of potentially positive influences on the market performance",null,null,null,null,"RATING ASPECT",null,null,"Data Quality Evaluation matrix",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Other material recovery operations (including backfilling and energy recovery)"]
[null,"Potential influence",null,"Evaluated?","Resulting assumptions used in the appraisal",null,"1. Technical representativeness of the deconstruction and demolition waste estimates"]
[null,"Potential influence 1\nIncreased revenues due to market recognition and lower void rates.",null,null,null,null,"2.1 Technical  representativeness of the on-site construction waste estimates",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Part 3 - Optimisation aspects addressed"]
[null,"Potential influence 2\nReduced operational, maintenance, repair and/or replacement costs.",null,null,null,null,"2.2 Technical  representativeness of the off-site construction waste estimates",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect",null,"Addressed? (yes/no)","Notes on data sources and calculation method"]
[null,"Potential influence 3\nReduced future risk of increased overheads or loss of income.",null,null,null,null,"3. Technical  representativeness of the future deconstruction potential",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 1 – Deconstruction/demolition waste technical representativeness and precision"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"4. Precision of the waste accounting on site",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 2.1 – Construction site waste technical representativeness and precision"]
[null,"Checklist 2 – Accounting for a Level(s) assessment in the valuation criteria used",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 2.2 – Off-site construction technical representativeness"]
[null,"Valuation criteria set used",null,null,null,null,"Indicator 2.3.1 \nIRI estimates and potential (design stage)",null,null,{"$f":"SUM(J22,MIN(J23,J24),J25)/3","v":0},null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 3 –Future deconstruction (Module D) technical representativeness"]
[null,"Version of the criteria set used",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 4 – Waste accounting precision"]
[null,"Criteria which the assessment has influenced",null,"Influence on the valuation or rating",null,null,"Indicator 2.3.2 \nIRI on site accounting (construction stage)",null,null,{"$f":"J26","v":0}]
[null,"Valuation criterion","Sub-criterion"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating 2 – Professional capabilities"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating aspect",null,null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"2. Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating 3 – Independent verification"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating aspect",null,null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"3. Independent verification of the assessment"]

{"sheet":"2.3.Compl","index":30,"n_rows":38,"n_cols":26,"rows_kept":38,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[33,6,33,8],[35,6,35,9],[36,6,36,8],[37,6,37,8],[29,1,29,2],[29,3,30,4],[29,6,29,8],[31,3,31,4],[31,6,31,9],[32,6,32,8],[28,1,28,2],[28,3,28,4],[28,20,28,21],[28,23,28,24],[25,6,25,8],[25,20,25,21],[25,23,25,24],[26,1,26,4],[26,20,26,21],[26,23,26,24],[27,1,27,2],[27,3,27,4],[27,6,27,8],[27,20,27,21],[27,23,27,24],[23,1,23,2],[23,6,23,8],[23,20,23,21],[23,23,23,24],[24,1,24,2],[24,6,24,8],[24,20,24,21],[24,23,24,24],[21,1,21,2],[21,6,21,8],[22,1,22,2],[22,6,22,8],[22,20,22,24],[16,1,16,2],[16,20,20,21],[16,22,17,22],[17,1,17,2],[18,1,18,4],[18,6,18,9],[18,22,18,23],[19,22,19,23],[20,1,20,4],[20,6,20,8],[20,22,20,23],[10,1,10,12],[10,22,10,23],[11,1,11,2],[11,3,11,4],[11,5,11,6],[11,7,11,8],[11,9,11,10],[11,11,11,12],[11,20,15,21],[11,22,12,22],[12,1,12,2],[13,1,14,1],[13,22,13,23],[14,22,14,23],[15,1,15,2],[15,22,15,23],[7,1,8,2],[7,14,7,15],[7,17,7,18],[8,14,8,15],[8,17,8,18],[8,22,8,23],[4,26,4,27],[4,28,4,29],[5,14,5,15],[5,17,5,18],[6,14,6,15],[6,17,6,18],[6,20,10,21],[6,22,7,22],[9,22,9,23],[3,1,3,4],[3,14,3,18],[3,20,3,25],[4,1,6,2],[4,14,4,15],[4,17,4,18],[4,20,5,21],[4,22,5,23],[4,24,5,24],[4,25,5,25]]}
[]
[null,"LEVEL 1",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 2",null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 3"]
[]
[null,"Part 1 - Activity and waste sources being reported on",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Part 2 – Selected estimation tool (for each activity identified in Part1)",null,null,null,null,null,"Part 2 - Performance assessment results (based on activities in Part 1)"]
[null,"Deconstruction/demolition",null,"Pre-estimate",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Default data aspect",null,"Estimation tool used","Version of the tool or standard used",null,null,"Project stage",null,"Waste and material streams",null,"kg/m2","% of total\nmass flow"]
[null,null,null,"Actual from the site",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Demolition mass estimates"]
[null,null,null,"Module D - estimate",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Ready to use construction product packaging estimates",null,null,null,null,null,"Select and report for each relevant process prior to construction taking place on site:\n­ Deconstruction and demolition: site clearance \n­ Part deconstruction/remodelling of a building(s) to facilitate in-situ reuse of the structure\n­ Preparatory works prior to a major renovation",null,"Waste disposed of:","Hazardous"]
[null,"Construction",null,"Pre-estimate",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Waste destination and diversion rates",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Non-hazardous"]
[null,null,null,"Actual from the site",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Other parameters (please specify)",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Components for re-use"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Materials for recycling"]
[null,"Part 2 - Performance assessment results",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Other material recovery operations (including backfilling and energy recovery)"]
[null,null,null,"Deconstruction: Pre-estimate",null,"Deconstruction: Actual from the site",null,"Demolition: Module D-estimate",null,"Construction: Pre-estimate",null,"Construction: Actual from the site",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Construction on site: new building or major renovation works",null,"Waste disposed of:","Hazardous"]
[null,"Waste and material streams",null,"kg/m2","% of total\nmass flow","kg/m2","% of total\nmass flow","kg/m2","% of total\nmass flow","kg/m2","% of total\nmass flow","kg/m2","% of total\nmass flow",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Non-hazardous"]
[null,"Waste disposed of:\n","hazardous",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Components for re-use"]
[null,null,"Non-hazardous",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Materials for recycling"]
[null,"Diversion for reuse and recycling",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Other material recovery operations (including backfilling and energy recovery)"]
[null,"Diversion for other material recovery operations (including backfilling and energy recovery)",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Deconstruction and demolition: future scenario at end of life",null,"Waste disposed of:","Hazardous"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Non-hazardous"]
[null,"The potential for a positive influence on a market valuation ",null,null,null,null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Components for re-use"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Materials for recycling"]
[null,"Checklist 1 – Evaluation of potentially positive influences on the market performance",null,null,null,null,"RATING ASPECT",null,null,"Data Quality Evaluation matrix",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Other material recovery operations (including backfilling and energy recovery)"]
[null,"Potential influence",null,"Evaluated?","Resulting assumptions used in the appraisal",null,"1. Technical representativeness of the deconstruction and demolition waste estimates"]
[null,"Potential influence 1\nIncreased revenues due to market recognition and lower void rates.",null,null,null,null,"2.1 Technical  representativeness of the on-site construction waste estimates",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Part 3 - Optimisation aspects addressed"]
[null,"Potential influence 2\nReduced operational, maintenance, repair and/or replacement costs.",null,null,null,null,"2.2 Technical  representativeness of the off-site construction waste estimates",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect",null,"Addressed? (yes/no)","Notes on data sources and calculation method"]
[null,"Potential influence 3\nReduced future risk of increased overheads or loss of income.",null,null,null,null,"3. Technical  representativeness of the future deconstruction potential",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 1 – Deconstruction/demolition waste technical representativeness and precision"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"4. Precision of the waste accounting on site",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 2.1 – Construction site waste technical representativeness and precision"]
[null,"Checklist 2 – Accounting for a Level(s) assessment in the valuation criteria used",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 2.2 – Off-site construction technical representativeness"]
[null,"Valuation criteria set used",null,null,null,null,"Indicator 2.3.1 \nIRI estimates and potential (design stage)",null,null,{"$f":"SUM(J22,MIN(J23,J24),J25)/3","v":0},null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 3 –Future deconstruction (Module D) technical representativeness"]
[null,"Version of the criteria set used",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 4 – Waste accounting precision"]
[null,"Criteria which the assessment has influenced",null,"Influence on the valuation or rating",null,null,"Indicator 2.3.2 \nIRI on site accounting (construction stage)",null,null,{"$f":"J26","v":0}]
[null,"Valuation criterion","Sub-criterion"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating 2 – Professional capabilities"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating aspect",null,null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"2. Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating 3 – Independent verification"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating aspect",null,null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"3. Independent verification of the assessment"]

{"sheet":"2.3.Oper","index":31,"n_rows":38,"n_cols":26,"rows_kept":38,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[33,6,33,8],[35,6,35,9],[36,6,36,8],[37,6,37,8],[29,1,29,2],[29,3,30,4],[29,6,29,8],[31,3,31,4],[31,6,31,9],[32,6,32,8],[28,1,28,2],[28,3,28,4],[28,20,28,21],[28,23,28,24],[25,6,25,8],[25,20,25,21],[25,23,25,24],[26,1,26,4],[26,20,26,21],[26,23,26,24],[27,1,27,2],[27,3,27,4],[27,6,27,8],[27,20,27,21],[27,23,27,24],[23,1,23,2],[23,6,23,8],[23,20,23,21],[23,23,23,24],[24,1,24,2],[24,6,24,8],[24,20,24,21],[24,23,24,24],[21,1,21,2],[21,6,21,8],[22,1,22,2],[22,6,22,8],[22,20,22,24],[16,1,16,2],[16,20,20,21],[16,22,17,22],[17,1,17,2],[18,1,18,4],[18,6,18,9],[18,22,18,23],[19,22,19,23],[20,1,20,4],[20,6,20,8],[20,22,20,23],[10,1,10,12],[10,22,10,23],[11,1,11,2],[11,3,11,4],[11,5,11,6],[11,7,11,8],[11,9,11,10],[11,11,11,12],[11,20,15,21],[11,22,12,22],[12,1,12,2],[13,1,14,1],[13,22,13,23],[14,22,14,23],[15,1,15,2],[15,22,15,23],[7,1,8,2],[7,14,7,15],[7,17,7,18],[8,14,8,15],[8,17,8,18],[8,22,8,23],[4,26,4,27],[4,28,4,29],[5,14,5,15],[5,17,5,18],[6,14,6,15],[6,17,6,18],[6,20,10,21],[6,22,7,22],[9,22,9,23],[3,1,3,4],[3,14,3,18],[3,20,3,25],[4,1,6,2],[4,14,4,15],[4,17,4,18],[4,20,5,21],[4,22,5,23],[4,24,5,24],[4,25,5,25]]}
[]
[null,"LEVEL 1",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 2",null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 3"]
[]
[null,"Part 1 - Activity and waste sources being reported on",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Part 2 – Selected estimation tool (for each activity identified in Part1)",null,null,null,null,null,"Part 2 - Performance assessment results (based on activities in Part 1)"]
[null,"Deconstruction/demolition",null,"Pre-estimate",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Default data aspect",null,"Estimation tool used","Version of the tool or standard used",null,null,"Project stage",null,"Waste and material streams",null,"kg/m2","% of total\nmass flow"]
[null,null,null,"Actual from the site",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Demolition mass estimates"]
[null,null,null,"Module D - estimate",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Ready to use construction product packaging estimates",null,null,null,null,null,"Select and report for each relevant process prior to construction taking place on site:\n­ Deconstruction and demolition: site clearance \n­ Part deconstruction/remodelling of a building(s) to facilitate in-situ reuse of the structure\n­ Preparatory works prior to a major renovation",null,"Waste disposed of:","Hazardous"]
[null,"Construction",null,"Pre-estimate",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Waste destination and diversion rates",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Non-hazardous"]
[null,null,null,"Actual from the site",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Other parameters (please specify)",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Components for re-use"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Materials for recycling"]
[null,"Part 2 - Performance assessment results",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Other material recovery operations (including backfilling and energy recovery)"]
[null,null,null,"Deconstruction: Pre-estimate",null,"Deconstruction: Actual from the site",null,"Demolition: Module D-estimate",null,"Construction: Pre-estimate",null,"Construction: Actual from the site",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Construction on site: new building or major renovation works",null,"Waste disposed of:","Hazardous"]
[null,"Waste and material streams",null,"kg/m2","% of total\nmass flow","kg/m2","% of total\nmass flow","kg/m2","% of total\nmass flow","kg/m2","% of total\nmass flow","kg/m2","% of total\nmass flow",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Non-hazardous"]
[null,"Waste disposed of:\n","hazardous",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Components for re-use"]
[null,null,"Non-hazardous",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Materials for recycling"]
[null,"Diversion for reuse and recycling",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Other material recovery operations (including backfilling and energy recovery)"]
[null,"Diversion for other material recovery operations (including backfilling and energy recovery)",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Deconstruction and demolition: future scenario at end of life",null,"Waste disposed of:","Hazardous"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Non-hazardous"]
[null,"The potential for a positive influence on a market valuation ",null,null,null,null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Components for re-use"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Materials for recycling"]
[null,"Checklist 1 – Evaluation of potentially positive influences on the market performance",null,null,null,null,"RATING ASPECT",null,null,"Data Quality Evaluation matrix",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Other material recovery operations (including backfilling and energy recovery)"]
[null,"Potential influence",null,"Evaluated?","Resulting assumptions used in the appraisal",null,"1. Technical representativeness of the deconstruction and demolition waste estimates"]
[null,"Potential influence 1\nIncreased revenues due to market recognition and lower void rates.",null,null,null,null,"2.1 Technical  representativeness of the on-site construction waste estimates",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Part 3 - Optimisation aspects addressed"]
[null,"Potential influence 2\nReduced operational, maintenance, repair and/or replacement costs.",null,null,null,null,"2.2 Technical  representativeness of the off-site construction waste estimates",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect",null,"Addressed? (yes/no)","Notes on data sources and calculation method"]
[null,"Potential influence 3\nReduced future risk of increased overheads or loss of income.",null,null,null,null,"3. Technical  representativeness of the future deconstruction potential",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 1 – Deconstruction/demolition waste technical representativeness and precision"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"4. Precision of the waste accounting on site",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 2.1 – Construction site waste technical representativeness and precision"]
[null,"Checklist 2 – Accounting for a Level(s) assessment in the valuation criteria used",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 2.2 – Off-site construction technical representativeness"]
[null,"Valuation criteria set used",null,null,null,null,"Indicator 2.3.1 \nIRI estimates and potential (design stage)",null,null,{"$f":"SUM(J22,MIN(J23,J24),J25)/3","v":0},null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 3 –Future deconstruction (Module D) technical representativeness"]
[null,"Version of the criteria set used",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 4 – Waste accounting precision"]
[null,"Criteria which the assessment has influenced",null,"Influence on the valuation or rating",null,null,"Indicator 2.3.2 \nIRI on site accounting (construction stage)",null,null,{"$f":"J26","v":0}]
[null,"Valuation criterion","Sub-criterion"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating 2 – Professional capabilities"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating aspect",null,null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"2. Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating 3 – Independent verification"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating aspect",null,null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"3. Independent verification of the assessment"]

{"sheet":"3.1.Design","index":32,"n_rows":35,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":35,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[13,1,13,3],[7,1,7,4],[8,1,8,2],[9,1,9,2],[10,1,10,2],[12,1,12,4],[3,1,5,4],[3,7,5,10],[7,7,7,10],[8,7,8,8],[9,7,9,8],[10,7,10,8],[12,7,12,10],[3,13,5,16],[7,13,7,16],[8,13,8,14],[9,13,9,14],[10,13,10,14],[14,16,15,16],[13,14,15,14],[13,13,15,13],[23,13,23,16],[12,13,12,16],[13,15,13,16],[14,15,15,15],[16,7,16,10],[17,7,17,8],[18,7,18,8],[24,13,24,14],[20,7,20,10],[29,1,29,3],[0,1,0,13],[31,1,31,2],[32,1,32,3],[33,1,33,2],[33,3,34,3],[30,1,30,2],[13,7,13,9],[14,7,14,10],[17,1,17,2],[18,1,18,2],[14,1,14,4],[16,1,16,4],[25,13,25,14],[26,13,26,14],[27,13,27,14],[20,1,20,4],[26,1,26,2],[23,1,23,2],[22,1,22,4],[28,1,28,3],[24,1,24,2],[25,1,25,2]]}
[null,"The generic water calculation tool\nThe generic calculation method and accompanying excel tool to be used for performance assessments has been developed based on the current approaches to water consumption estimates in the EU. The calculation can be carried out using the dedicated excel spreadsheet tool, which can be found attached to this worksheet. \n\nResults are generated on a per occupant basis at both a daily and an annual level. When converting daily data to annual data, it is necessary to state how many days the building will be used in the year. \n\nFor normalising cleaning or irrigation water consumption, it is necessary to know how many people (full-time equivalents) will be using the building.\n\nGuidance note 3.1 in Part 3 of the Level(s) documentation provides an overview of how the generic calculation tool should be used at each assessment level."]
[]
[null,"LEVEL 1",null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 2",null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 3"]
[null,"Common performance assessment\nWater use calculations shall be made using the Level(s) calculation tool.  The results shall then be reported using this worksheet. Flexibility is provided to customise consumption rates and usage factors and other parameters in order to simulate water use in the building for: \n\n(i) sanitary fittings/devices and \n(ii) water using appliances.\n\nIrrigation is not included in Level 1 calculations since it may appear to complex to calculate for entry level users (requires the measurement and definition of the vegetated area and the number of building occupants). For Level 1, there is no need to define the number of building occupants since all uses covered are ocucpant dependent. \n",null,null,null,null,null,"Comparative assessment\nWater use calculations shall be made using the Level(s) calculation tool.  The results shall then be reported using this worksheet. Flexibility is provided to customise consumption rates but usage factors are set to fixed values in order to simulate water use in the building for:\n(i) sanitary fittings/devices and, for residential buildings only, \n(ii) water using appliances.\n\nFixed default values are set for:\n• building use factor (days/year) is fixed at 335 d/yr for residential buildings or 250 d/yr for office buildings;\n• the split between male and female occupants is fixed at 0.5:0.5 in office buildings; \n• usage factors (e.g. flushes/occupant/day) are fixed. \n\nIrrigation is not included in Level 2 calculations because it would affect comparability between buildings with and without vegetated landscapes. There is no need to define the number of building occupants since all uses covered are ocucpant dependent. \n",null,null,null,null,null,"Design optimisation aspects addressed\nUsers who wish to demonstrate the effect of different design assumptions with the aim of improving the accuracy of estimated water consumption should use level 3. The calculation method is the same as level 1 but further flexibility is added for some aspects such as: \n\n• Aspect 1: Where multiple taps, showers and toilets of differing efficiencies are installed, the option to define if some will be used more frequently than others (based on their location and building use patterns) is provided. For office buildings, the potential inclusion of other water consuming features may also be included in Level 3 (e.g. floor and window cleaning, fountains, swimming pools and HVAC systems) but this would also require the number of occupants to be defined too.\n\n• Aspect 2: Reporting on non-potable water use in buildings in any river basin (including low WEI+ basins) and also including irrigation as a potential use of non-potable water. \n\n• Aspect 3: Using use more geographically representative environmental data (i.e. ET and rainfall at sub-basin or site level instead of the larger river basin level) to better estimate \nirrigation water requirements and rainfall collection potential. The option to calculate \nirrigation water consumption in line with intended irrigation protocols (i.e. days/year, \nminutes per day and L/min consumption rates) instead of simply estimating the minimum \nrequired irrigation water at a monthly time resolution is provided. \n\nFor Level 3 if irrigation is reported on, it will be necessary to define the number of occupants \nin the building or buildings with common access to and use of the irrigated area(s).  \n"]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"Part 1 - Performance assessment report",null,null,null,null,null,"Part 1 - Performance assessment report",null,null,null,null,null,"Part 1 - Performance assessment report"]
[null,"Sanitary fittings and devices (i.e. toilets, urinals, taps, baths and showers).",null,null,"m3/occupant/yr",null,null,"Sanitary fittings and devices (i.e. toilets, urinals, taps, baths and showers).",null,null,"m3/occupant/yr",null,null,"Net potable water consumption",null,null,"m3/occupant/yr"]
[null,"Residential only: Water using appliances (i.e. dishwashers and washing machines).",null,null,"m3/occupant/yr",null,null,"Residential only: Water using appliances (i.e. dishwashers and washing machines).",null,null,"m3/occupant/yr",null,null,"Non-potable water consumption",null,null,"m3/occupant/yr"]
[null,"Total water consumption",null,{"$f":"D10+D9","v":0},"m3/occupant/yr",null,null,"Total water consumption",null,{"$f":"J10+J9","v":0},"m3/occupant/yr",null,null,"Potable water substitution rate",null,{"$f":"P10/(P9+P10)","v":{"$error":"#DIV/0!"}},"%"]
[]
[null,"Water Exploitation Index (WEI+) ",null,null,null,null,null,"Water Exploitation Index (WEI+) ",null,null,null,null,null,"Part 2 - Breakdown of performance by operational water uses and water grade"]
[null,"Water Exploitation Index for location\n(summer multi-annual)",null,null,null,null,null,"Water Exploitation Index for location\n(summer multi-annual)",null,null,null,null,null,"Operationa water uses","Total for each use (m3/occupant  per year)","Water use by grade"]
[null,{"$f":"IF(E14<20%, \"no water stress\", \"water stress\")","v":"no water stress"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"IF(K14<20%, \"no water stress\", \"water stress\")","v":"no water stress"},null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Potable water use (m3/occupant  per year)","Non-potable water use (m3/occupant per year)"]
[]
[null,"Part 2 - Optional reporting \n(mandatory in areas of water stress (i.e. WEI+ >20%)",null,null,null,null,null,"Part 2 - Optional reporting \n(mandatory in areas of water stress (i.e. WEI+ >20%)",null,null,null,null,null,"Sanitary fittings and devices (e.g. toilets, urinals, taps, baths and showers)."]
[null,"Total potable water consumption",null,null,"m3/occupant/yr",null,null,"Total potable water consumption",null,null,"m3/occupant/yr",null,null,"Residential only: Water using appliances (e.g. dishwashers and washing machines)."]
[null,"Total non-potable water consumption",null,null,"m3/occupant/yr",null,null,"Total non-potable water consumption",null,null,"m3/occupant/yr",null,null,"Office buildings only: Cleaning of floors and windows"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Irrigation"]
[null,"The potential for a positive influence on a market valuation ",null,null,null,null,null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment",null,null,null,null,null,"Other uses (please specify)"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Total",{"$f":"SUM(O17:O21)","v":0},{"$f":"SUM(P17:P21)","v":0},{"$f":"SUM(Q17:Q21)","v":0}]
[null,"Checklist 1 – Evaluation of potentially positive influences on the market performance",null,null,null,null,null,"RATING ASPECT","Data Quality Evaluation matrix"]
[null,"Potential influence",null,"Evaluated?","Resulting assumptions used in the appraisal",null,null,"1. Technical representativeness  of water fittings estimated  performance and use pattern",null,null,null,null,null,"Part 3 - Optimisation aspects addressed"]
[null,"Potential influence 1\nIncreased revenues due to market recognition and lower void rates.",null,null,null,null,null,"2. Technical representativeness of the opportunities to substitute fresh, potable water consumption ",null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect",null,"Addressed? (yes/no)","Notes on data sources and calculation method"]
[null,"Potential influence 2\nReduced operational, maintenance, repair and/or replacement costs.",null,null,null,null,null,"3. Irrigation water geographical representativeness ",null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 1 – Technical representativeness  of water fittings estimated  performance and use pattern"]
[null,"Potential influence 3\nReduced future risk of increased overheads or loss of income.",null,null,null,null,null,"Indicator 3.1\nIndicator reliability Rating",{"$f":"(MIN(I24,I25) + I26)/2","v":0},null,null,null,null,"Aspect 2 – Technical representativeness of opportunities to substitute fresh, potable water consumption "]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 3 – Irrigation water geographical representativeness "]
[null,"Checklist 2 – Accounting for a Level(s) assessment in the valuation criteria used",null,null,null,null,null,"RATING 2","Professional Capabilities"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment"]
[null,"Valuation criteria set used"]
[null,"Version of the criteria set used",null,null,null,null,null,"RATING 3","Independent Verification"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Independent verification of the assessment"]
[null,"Criteria which the assessment has influenced",null,"Influence on the valuation or rating"]
[null,"Valuation criterion","Sub-criterion"]

{"sheet":"3.1.Impl","index":33,"n_rows":36,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":36,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[0,1,0,13],[3,1,5,4],[3,7,5,10],[3,13,5,16],[7,1,7,4],[7,7,7,10],[7,13,7,16],[8,1,8,2],[8,7,8,8],[8,13,8,14],[9,1,9,2],[9,7,9,8],[9,13,9,14],[10,1,10,2],[10,7,10,8],[10,13,10,14],[12,1,12,4],[12,7,12,10],[12,13,12,16],[13,1,13,3],[13,7,13,9],[13,13,15,13],[13,14,15,14],[13,15,13,16],[14,1,14,4],[14,7,14,10],[14,15,15,15],[14,16,15,16],[26,13,26,14],[16,1,16,4],[16,7,16,10],[17,1,17,2],[17,7,17,8],[18,1,18,2],[18,7,18,8],[23,13,23,16],[24,13,24,14],[25,13,25,14],[21,1,21,4],[21,7,21,10],[23,1,23,4],[24,1,24,2],[25,1,25,2],[26,1,26,2],[34,1,34,2],[34,3,35,3],[27,13,27,14],[31,1,31,2],[33,1,33,3],[27,1,27,2],[29,1,29,3],[32,1,32,2]]}
[null,"The generic water calculation tool\nThe generic calculation method and accompanying excel tool to be used for performance assessments has been developed based on the current approaches to water consumption estimates in the EU. The calculation can be carried out using the dedicated excel spreadsheet tool, which can be found attached to this worksheet. \n\nResults are generated on a per occupant basis at both a daily and an annual level. When converting daily data to annual data, it is necessary to state how many days the building will be used in the year. \n\nFor normalising cleaning or irrigation water consumption, it is necessary to know how many people (full-time equivalents) will be using the building.\n\nGuidance note 3.1 in Part 3 of the Level(s) documentation provides an overview of how the generic calculation tool should be used at each assessment level."]
[]
[null,"LEVEL 1",null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 2",null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 3"]
[null,"Common performance assessment\nWater use calculations shall be made using the Level(s) calculation tool.  The results shall then be reported using this worksheet. Flexibility is provided to customise consumption rates and usage factors and other parameters in order to simulate water use in the building for: \n\n(i) sanitary fittings/devices and \n(ii) water using appliances.\n\nIrrigation is not included in Level 1 calculations since it may appear to complex to calculate for entry level users (requires the measurement and definition of the vegetated area and the number of building occupants). For Level 1, there is no need to define the number of building occupants since all uses covered are ocucpant dependent. \n",null,null,null,null,null,"Comparative assessment\nWater use calculations shall be made using the Level(s) calculation tool.  The results shall then be reported using this worksheet. Flexibility is provided to customise consumption rates but usage factors are set to fixed values in order to simulate water use in the building for:\n(i) sanitary fittings/devices and, for residential buildings only, \n(ii) water using appliances.\n\nFixed default values are set for:\n• building use factor (days/year) is fixed at 335 d/yr for residential buildings or 250 d/yr for office buildings;\n• the split between male and female occupants is fixed at 0.5:0.5 in office buildings; \n• usage factors (e.g. flushes/occupant/day) are fixed. \n\nIrrigation is not included in Level 2 calculations because it would affect comparability between buildings with and without vegetated landscapes. There is no need to define the number of building occupants since all uses covered are ocucpant dependent. \n",null,null,null,null,null,"Design optimisation aspects addressed\nUsers who wish to demonstrate the effect of different design assumptions with the aim of improving the accuracy of estimated water consumption should use level 3. The calculation method is the same as level 1 but further flexibility is added for some aspects such as: \n• Where multiple taps, showers and toilets of differing efficiencies are installed, the option to define if some will be used more frequently than others (based on their location and building use patterns) is provided.\n• The option to calculate irrigation water consumption in line with intended irrigation protocols (i.e. days/year, minutes per day and L/min consumption rates) instead of simply estimating the minimum required irrigation water at a monthly time resolution is provided. \n• The option to use more representative rainfall data (i.e. at sub-basin or site level) to better estimate rainwater harvesting potential is provided.\n• The option to include other water consuming features of the building, such as swimming pools, fountains and HVAC if data is available is provided.\nThe effect of different design assumptions can be compared side by side in the spreadsheet \ntool for calculations under level 3. This may be important in decision making with clients \nabout design features, or when attempting to market or value the water efficient features of the \nbuilding.\n"]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"Part 1 - Performance assessment report",null,null,null,null,null,"Part 1 - Performance assessment report",null,null,null,null,null,"Part 1 - Performance assessment report"]
[null,"Sanitary fittings and devices (e.g. toilets, urinals, taps, baths and showers).",null,null,"m3/occupant/yr",null,null,"Sanitary fittings and devices (e.g. toilets, urinals, taps, baths and showers).",null,null,"m3/occupant/yr",null,null,"Net potable water consumption",null,null,"m3/occupant/yr"]
[null,"Residential only: Water using appliances (e.g. dishwashers and washing machines).",null,null,"m3/occupant/yr",null,null,"Residential only: Water using appliances (e.g. dishwashers and washing machines).",null,null,"m3/occupant/yr",null,null,"Non-potable water consumption",null,null,"m3/occupant/yr"]
[null,"Total water consumption",null,{"$f":"D10+D9","v":0},"m3/occupant/yr",null,null,"Total water consumption",null,{"$f":"J10+J9","v":0},"m3/occupant/yr",null,null,"Potable water substitution rate",null,{"$f":"P10/(P9+P10)","v":{"$error":"#DIV/0!"}},"%"]
[]
[null,"Water Exploitation Index (WEI+) ",null,null,null,null,null,"Water Exploitation Index (WEI+) ",null,null,null,null,null,"Part 2 - Breakdown of performance by operational water uses and water grade"]
[null,"Water Exploitation Index for location\n(summer multi-annual)",null,null,null,null,null,"Water Exploitation Index for location\n(summer multi-annual)",null,null,null,null,null,"Operationa water uses","Total for each use (m3/occupant  per year)","Water use by grade"]
[null,{"$f":"IF(E14<20%, \"no water stress\", \"water stress\")","v":"no water stress"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"IF(K14<20%, \"no water stress\", \"water stress\")","v":"no water stress"},null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Potable water use (m3/occupant  per year)","Non-potable water use (m3/occupant per year)"]
[]
[null,"Part 2 - Optional reporting \n(mandatory in areas of water stress (i.e. WEI+ >20%)",null,null,null,null,null,"Part 2 - Optional reporting \n(mandatory in areas of water stress (i.e. WEI+ >20%)",null,null,null,null,null,"Sanitary fittings and devices (e.g. toilets, urinals, taps, baths and showers)."]
[null,"Total potable water consumption",null,null,"m3/occupant/yr",null,null,"Total potable water consumption",null,null,"m3/occupant/yr",null,null,"Residential only: Water using appliances (e.g. dishwashers and washing machines)."]
[null,"Total non-potable water consumption",null,null,"m3/occupant/yr",null,null,"Total non-potable water consumption",null,null,"m3/occupant/yr",null,null,"Office buildings only: Cleaning of floors and windows"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Irrigation"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Other uses (please specify)"]
[null,"The potential for a positive influence on a market valuation ",null,null,null,null,null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment",null,null,null,null,null,"Total",{"$f":"SUM(O17:O21)","v":0},{"$f":"SUM(P17:P21)","v":0},{"$f":"SUM(Q17:Q21)","v":0}]
[]
[null,"Checklist 1 – Evaluation of potentially positive influences on the market performance",null,null,null,null,null,"RATING ASPECT","Data Quality Evaluation matrix",null,null,null,null,"Part 3 - Optimisation aspects addressed"]
[null,"Potential influence",null,"Evaluated?","Resulting assumptions used in the appraisal",null,null,"1. Technical representativeness  of water fittings estimated  performance and use pattern",null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect",null,"Addressed? (yes/no)","Notes on data sources and calculation method"]
[null,"Potential influence 1\nIncreased revenues due to market recognition and lower void rates.",null,null,null,null,null,"2. Technical representativeness of the opportunities to substitute fresh, potable water consumption ",null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 1 – Technical representativeness  of water fittings estimated  performance and use pattern"]
[null,"Potential influence 2\nReduced operational, maintenance, repair and/or replacement costs.",null,null,null,null,null,"3. Irrigation water geographical representativeness ",null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 2 – Technical representativeness of opportunities to substitute fresh, potable water consumption "]
[null,"Potential influence 3\nReduced future risk of increased overheads or loss of income.",null,null,null,null,null,"Indicator 3.1\nIndicator reliability Rating",{"$f":"(MIN(I25,I26) + I27)/2","v":0},null,null,null,null,"Aspect 3 – Irrigation water geographical representativeness "]
[]
[null,"Checklist 2 – Accounting for a Level(s) assessment in the valuation criteria used",null,null,null,null,null,"RATING 2","Professional Capabilities"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment"]
[null,"Valuation criteria set used"]
[null,"Version of the criteria set used",null,null,null,null,null,"RATING 3","Independent Verification"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Independent verification of the assessment"]
[null,"Criteria which the assessment has influenced",null,"Influence on the valuation or rating"]
[null,"Valuation criterion","Sub-criterion"]

{"sheet":"3.1.Compl","index":34,"n_rows":36,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":36,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[0,1,0,13],[3,1,5,4],[3,7,5,10],[3,13,5,16],[7,1,7,4],[7,7,7,10],[7,13,7,16],[8,1,8,2],[8,7,8,8],[8,13,8,14],[9,1,9,2],[9,7,9,8],[9,13,9,14],[10,1,10,2],[10,7,10,8],[10,13,10,14],[12,1,12,4],[12,7,12,10],[12,13,12,16],[13,1,13,3],[13,7,13,9],[13,13,15,13],[13,14,15,14],[13,15,13,16],[14,1,14,4],[14,7,14,10],[14,15,15,15],[14,16,15,16],[23,13,23,16],[24,13,24,14],[25,13,25,14],[21,1,21,4],[21,7,21,10],[23,1,23,4],[25,1,25,2],[24,1,24,2],[16,1,16,4],[16,7,16,10],[17,1,17,2],[17,7,17,8],[18,1,18,2],[18,7,18,8],[34,1,34,2],[34,3,35,3],[27,13,27,14],[31,1,31,2],[26,13,26,14],[26,1,26,2],[27,1,27,2],[29,1,29,3],[32,1,32,2]]}
[null,"The generic water calculation tool\nThe generic calculation method and accompanying excel tool to be used for performance assessments has been developed based on the current approaches to water consumption estimates in the EU. The calculation can be carried out using the dedicated excel spreadsheet tool, which can be found attached to this worksheet. \n\nResults are generated on a per occupant basis at both a daily and an annual level. When converting daily data to annual data, it is necessary to state how many days the building will be used in the year. \n\nFor normalising cleaning or irrigation water consumption, it is necessary to know how many people (full-time equivalents) will be using the building.\n\nGuidance note 3.1 in Part 3 of the Level(s) documentation provides an overview of how the generic calculation tool should be used at each assessment level."]
[]
[null,"LEVEL 1",null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 2",null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 3"]
[null,"Common performance assessment\nWater use calculations shall be made using the Level(s) calculation tool.  The results shall then be reported using this worksheet. Flexibility is provided to customise consumption rates and usage factors and other parameters in order to simulate water use in the building for: \n\n(i) sanitary fittings/devices and \n(ii) water using appliances.\n\nIrrigation is not included in Level 1 calculations since it may appear to complex to calculate for entry level users (requires the measurement and definition of the vegetated area and the number of building occupants). For Level 1, there is no need to define the number of building occupants since all uses covered are ocucpant dependent. \n",null,null,null,null,null,"Comparative assessment\nWater use calculations shall be made using the Level(s) calculation tool.  The results shall then be reported using this worksheet. Flexibility is provided to customise consumption rates but usage factors are set to fixed values in order to simulate water use in the building for:\n(i) sanitary fittings/devices and, for residential buildings only, \n(ii) water using appliances.\n\nFixed default values are set for:\n• building use factor (days/year) is fixed at 335 d/yr for residential buildings or 250 d/yr for office buildings;\n• the split between male and female occupants is fixed at 0.5:0.5 in office buildings; \n• usage factors (e.g. flushes/occupant/day) are fixed. \n\nIrrigation is not included in Level 2 calculations because it would affect comparability between buildings with and without vegetated landscapes. There is no need to define the number of building occupants since all uses covered are ocucpant dependent. \n",null,null,null,null,null,"Design optimisation aspects addressed\nUsers who wish to demonstrate the effect of different design assumptions with the aim of improving the accuracy of estimated water consumption should use level 3. The calculation method is the same as level 1 but further flexibility is added for some aspects such as: \n• Where multiple taps, showers and toilets of differing efficiencies are installed, the option to define if some will be used more frequently than others (based on their location and building use patterns) is provided.\n• The option to calculate irrigation water consumption in line with intended irrigation protocols (i.e. days/year, minutes per day and L/min consumption rates) instead of simply estimating the minimum required irrigation water at a monthly time resolution is provided. \n• The option to use more representative rainfall data (i.e. at sub-basin or site level) to better estimate rainwater harvesting potential is provided.\n• The option to include other water consuming features of the building, such as swimming pools, fountains and HVAC if data is available is provided.\nThe effect of different design assumptions can be compared side by side in the spreadsheet \ntool for calculations under level 3. This may be important in decision making with clients \nabout design features, or when attempting to market or value the water efficient features of the \nbuilding.\n"]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"Part 1 - Performance assessment report",null,null,null,null,null,"Part 1 - Performance assessment report",null,null,null,null,null,"Part 1 - Performance assessment report"]
[null,"Sanitary fittings and devices (e.g. toilets, urinals, taps, baths and showers).",null,null,"m3/occupant/yr",null,null,"Sanitary fittings and devices (e.g. toilets, urinals, taps, baths and showers).",null,null,"m3/occupant/yr",null,null,"Net potable water consumption",null,null,"m3/occupant/yr"]
[null,"Residential only: Water using appliances (e.g. dishwashers and washing machines).",null,null,"m3/occupant/yr",null,null,"Residential only: Water using appliances (e.g. dishwashers and washing machines).",null,null,"m3/occupant/yr",null,null,"Non-potable water consumption",null,null,"m3/occupant/yr"]
[null,"Total water consumption",null,{"$f":"D10+D9","v":0},"m3/occupant/yr",null,null,"Total water consumption",null,{"$f":"J10+J9","v":0},"m3/occupant/yr",null,null,"Potable water substitution rate",null,{"$f":"P10/(P9+P10)","v":{"$error":"#DIV/0!"}},"%"]
[]
[null,"Water Exploitation Index (WEI+) ",null,null,null,null,null,"Water Exploitation Index (WEI+) ",null,null,null,null,null,"Part 2 - Breakdown of performance by operational water uses and water grade"]
[null,"Water Exploitation Index for location\n(summer multi-annual)",null,null,null,null,null,"Water Exploitation Index for location\n(summer multi-annual)",null,null,null,null,null,"Operationa water uses","Total for each use (m3/occupant  per year)","Water use by grade"]
[null,{"$f":"IF(E14<20%, \"no water stress\", \"water stress\")","v":"no water stress"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"IF(K14<20%, \"no water stress\", \"water stress\")","v":"no water stress"},null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Potable water use (m3/occupant  per year)","Non-potable water use (m3/occupant per year)"]
[]
[null,"Part 2 - Optional reporting \n(mandatory in areas of water stress (i.e. WEI+ >20%)",null,null,null,null,null,"Part 2 - Optional reporting \n(mandatory in areas of water stress (i.e. WEI+ >20%)",null,null,null,null,null,"Sanitary fittings and devices (e.g. toilets, urinals, taps, baths and showers)."]
[null,"Total potable water consumption",null,null,"m3/occupant/yr",null,null,"Total potable water consumption",null,null,"m3/occupant/yr",null,null,"Residential only: Water using appliances (e.g. dishwashers and washing machines)."]
[null,"Total non-potable water consumption",null,null,"m3/occupant/yr",null,null,"Total non-potable water consumption",null,null,"m3/occupant/yr",null,null,"Office buildings only: Cleaning of floors and windows"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Irrigation"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Other uses (please specify)"]
[null,"The potential for a positive influence on a market valuation ",null,null,null,null,null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment",null,null,null,null,null,"Total",{"$f":"SUM(O17:O21)","v":0},{"$f":"SUM(P17:P21)","v":0},{"$f":"SUM(Q17:Q21)","v":0}]
[]
[null,"Checklist 1 – Evaluation of potentially positive influences on the market performance",null,null,null,null,null,"RATING ASPECT","Data Quality Evaluation matrix",null,null,null,null,"Part 3 - Optimisation aspects addressed"]
[null,"Potential influence",null,"Evaluated?","Resulting assumptions used in the appraisal",null,null,"1. Technical representativeness  of water fittings estimated  performance and use pattern",null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect",null,"Addressed? (yes/no)","Notes on data sources and calculation method"]
[null,"Potential influence 1\nIncreased revenues due to market recognition and lower void rates.",null,null,null,null,null,"2. Technical representativeness of the opportunities to substitute fresh, potable water consumption ",null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 1 – Technical representativeness  of water fittings estimated  performance and use pattern"]
[null,"Potential influence 2\nReduced operational, maintenance, repair and/or replacement costs.",null,null,null,null,null,"3. Irrigation water geographical representativeness ",null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 2 – Technical representativeness of opportunities to substitute fresh, potable water consumption "]
[null,"Potential influence 3\nReduced future risk of increased overheads or loss of income.",null,null,null,null,null,"Indicator 3.1\nIndicator reliability Rating",{"$f":"(MIN(I25,I26) + I27)/2","v":0},null,null,null,null,"Aspect 3 – Irrigation water geographical representativeness "]
[]
[null,"Checklist 2 – Accounting for a Level(s) assessment in the valuation criteria used",null,null,null,null,null,"RATING 2","Professional Capabilities"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment"]
[null,"Valuation criteria set used"]
[null,"Version of the criteria set used",null,null,null,null,null,"RATING 3","Independent Verification"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Independent verification of the assessment"]
[null,"Criteria which the assessment has influenced",null,"Influence on the valuation or rating"]
[null,"Valuation criterion","Sub-criterion"]

{"sheet":"3.1.Oper","index":35,"n_rows":36,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":36,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[0,1,0,13],[3,1,5,4],[3,7,5,10],[3,13,5,16],[7,1,7,4],[7,7,7,10],[7,13,7,16],[8,1,8,2],[8,7,8,8],[8,13,8,14],[9,1,9,2],[9,7,9,8],[9,13,9,14],[10,1,10,2],[10,7,10,8],[10,13,10,14],[12,1,12,4],[12,7,12,10],[12,13,12,16],[13,1,13,3],[13,7,13,9],[13,13,15,13],[13,14,15,14],[13,15,13,16],[14,1,14,4],[14,7,14,10],[14,15,15,15],[14,16,15,16],[26,13,26,14],[16,1,16,4],[16,7,16,10],[17,1,17,2],[17,7,17,8],[18,1,18,2],[18,7,18,8],[23,13,23,16],[24,13,24,14],[25,13,25,14],[21,1,21,4],[21,7,21,10],[23,1,23,4],[24,1,24,2],[25,1,25,2],[26,1,26,2],[34,1,34,2],[34,3,35,3],[27,13,27,14],[31,1,31,2],[33,1,33,3],[27,1,27,2],[29,1,29,3],[32,1,32,2]]}
[null,"The generic water calculation tool\nThe generic calculation method and accompanying excel tool to be used for performance assessments has been developed based on the current approaches to water consumption estimates in the EU. The calculation can be carried out using the dedicated excel spreadsheet tool, which can be found attached to this worksheet. \n\nResults are generated on a per occupant basis at both a daily and an annual level. When converting daily data to annual data, it is necessary to state how many days the building will be used in the year. \n\nFor normalising cleaning or irrigation water consumption, it is necessary to know how many people (full-time equivalents) will be using the building.\n\nGuidance note 3.1 in Part 3 of the Level(s) documentation provides an overview of how the generic calculation tool should be used at each assessment level."]
[]
[null,"LEVEL 1",null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 2",null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 3"]
[null,"Common performance assessment\nWater use calculations shall be made using the Level(s) calculation tool.  The results shall then be reported using this worksheet. Flexibility is provided to customise consumption rates and usage factors and other parameters in order to simulate water use in the building for: \n\n(i) sanitary fittings/devices; \n(ii) water using appliances.\n\nIrrigation is not included in Level 1 calculations since it may appear to complex to calculate for entry level users (requires the measurement and definition of the vegetated area and the number of building occupants). For Level 1, there is no need to define the number of building occupants since all uses covered are ocucpant dependent. \n",null,null,null,null,null,"Comparative assessment\nWater use calculations shall be made using the Level(s) calculation tool.  The results shall then be reported using this worksheet. Flexibility is provided to customise consumption rates but usage factors are set to fixed values in order to simulate water use in the building for:\n(i) sanitary fittings/devices and, for residential buildings only, \n(ii) water using appliances.\n\nFixed default values are set for:\n• building use factor (days/year) is fixed at 335 d/yr for residential buildings or 250 d/yr for office buildings;\n• the split between male and female occupants is fixed at 0.5:0.5 in office buildings; \n• usage factors (e.g. flushes/occupant/day) are fixed. \n\nIrrigation is not included in Level 2 calculations because it would affect comparability between buildings with and without vegetated landscapes. There is no need to define the number of building occupants since all uses covered are ocucpant dependent. \n",null,null,null,null,null,"Design optimisation aspects addressed\nUsers who wish to demonstrate the effect of different design assumptions with the aim of improving the accuracy of estimated water consumption should use level 3. The calculation method is the same as level 1 but further flexibility is added for some aspects such as: \n• Where multiple taps, showers and toilets of differing efficiencies are installed, the option to define if some will be used more frequently than others (based on their location and building use patterns) is provided.\n• The option to calculate irrigation water consumption in line with intended irrigation protocols (i.e. days/year, minutes per day and L/min consumption rates) instead of simply estimating the minimum required irrigation water at a monthly time resolution is provided. \n• The option to use more representative rainfall data (i.e. at sub-basin or site level) to better estimate rainwater harvesting potential is provided.\n• The option to include other water consuming features of the building, such as swimming pools, fountains and HVAC if data is available is provided.\nThe effect of different design assumptions can be compared side by side in the spreadsheet \ntool for calculations under level 3. This may be important in decision making with clients \nabout design features, or when attempting to market or value the water efficient features of the \nbuilding.\n"]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"Part 1 - Performance assessment report",null,null,null,null,null,"Part 1 - Performance assessment report",null,null,null,null,null,"Part 1 - Performance assessment report"]
[null,"Sanitary fittings and devices (e.g. toilets, urinals, taps, baths and showers).",null,null,"m3/occupant/yr",null,null,"Sanitary fittings and devices (e.g. toilets, urinals, taps, baths and showers).",null,null,"m3/occupant/yr",null,null,"Net potable water consumption",null,null,"m3/occupant/yr"]
[null,"Residential only: Water using appliances (e.g. dishwashers and washing machines).",null,null,"m3/occupant/yr",null,null,"Residential only: Water using appliances (e.g. dishwashers and washing machines).",null,null,"m3/occupant/yr",null,null,"Non-potable water consumption",null,null,"m3/occupant/yr"]
[null,"Total water consumption",null,{"$f":"D10+D9","v":0},"m3/occupant/yr",null,null,"Total water consumption",null,{"$f":"J10+J9","v":0},"m3/occupant/yr",null,null,"Potable water substitution rate",null,{"$f":"P10/(P9+P10)","v":{"$error":"#DIV/0!"}},"%"]
[]
[null,"Water Exploitation Index (WEI+) ",null,null,null,null,null,"Water Exploitation Index (WEI+) ",null,null,null,null,null,"Part 2 - Breakdown of performance by operational water uses and water grade"]
[null,"Water Exploitation Index for location\n(summer multi-annual)",null,null,null,null,null,"Water Exploitation Index for location\n(summer multi-annual)",null,null,null,null,null,"Operationa water uses","Total for each use (m3/occupant  per year)","Water use by grade"]
[null,{"$f":"IF(E14<20%, \"no water stress\", \"water stress\")","v":"no water stress"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"IF(K14<20%, \"no water stress\", \"water stress\")","v":"no water stress"},null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Potable water use (m3/occupant  per year)","Non-potable water use (m3/occupant per year)"]
[]
[null,"Part 2 - Optional reporting \n(mandatory in areas of water stress (i.e. WEI+ >20%)",null,null,null,null,null,"Part 2 - Optional reporting \n(mandatory in areas of water stress (i.e. WEI+ >20%)",null,null,null,null,null,"Sanitary fittings and devices (e.g. toilets, urinals, taps, baths and showers)."]
[null,"Total potable water consumption",null,null,"m3/occupant/yr",null,null,"Total potable water consumption",null,null,"m3/occupant/yr",null,null,"Residential only: Water using appliances (e.g. dishwashers and washing machines)."]
[null,"Total non-potable water consumption",null,null,"m3/occupant/yr",null,null,"Total non-potable water consumption",null,null,"m3/occupant/yr",null,null,"Office buildings only: Cleaning of floors and windows"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Irrigation"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Other uses (please specify)"]
[null,"The potential for a positive influence on a market valuation ",null,null,null,null,null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment",null,null,null,null,null,"Total",{"$f":"SUM(O17:O21)","v":0},{"$f":"SUM(P17:P21)","v":0},{"$f":"SUM(Q17:Q21)","v":0}]
[]
[null,"Checklist 1 – Evaluation of potentially positive influences on the market performance",null,null,null,null,null,"RATING ASPECT","Data Quality Evaluation matrix",null,null,null,null,"Part 3 - Optimisation aspects addressed"]
[null,"Potential influence",null,"Evaluated?","Resulting assumptions used in the appraisal",null,null,"1. Technical representativeness  of water fittings estimated  performance and use pattern",null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect",null,"Addressed? (yes/no)","Notes on data sources and calculation method"]
[null,"Potential influence 1\nIncreased revenues due to market recognition and lower void rates.",null,null,null,null,null,"2. Technical representativeness of the opportunities to substitute fresh, potable water consumption ",null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 1 – Technical representativeness  of water fittings estimated  performance and use pattern"]
[null,"Potential influence 2\nReduced operational, maintenance, repair and/or replacement costs.",null,null,null,null,null,"3. Irrigation water geographical representativeness ",null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 2 – Technical representativeness of opportunities to substitute fresh, potable water consumption "]
[null,"Potential influence 3\nReduced future risk of increased overheads or loss of income.",null,null,null,null,null,"Indicator 3.1\nIndicator reliability Rating",{"$f":"(MIN(I25,I26) + I27)/2","v":0},null,null,null,null,"Aspect 3 – Irrigation water geographical representativeness "]
[]
[null,"Checklist 2 – Accounting for a Level(s) assessment in the valuation criteria used",null,null,null,null,null,"RATING 2","Professional Capabilities"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment"]
[null,"Valuation criteria set used"]
[null,"Version of the criteria set used",null,null,null,null,null,"RATING 3","Independent Verification"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Independent verification of the assessment"]
[null,"Criteria which the assessment has influenced",null,"Influence on the valuation or rating"]
[null,"Valuation criterion","Sub-criterion"]

{"sheet":"4.1.Design","index":36,"n_rows":104,"n_cols":11,"rows_kept":104,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[99,9,100,9],[99,10,100,10],[103,9,104,9],[103,10,104,10],[103,6,104,6],[89,6,90,6],[91,6,93,6],[103,7,104,7],[98,1,98,2],[98,3,99,3],[99,6,100,6],[99,7,100,7],[95,2,95,3],[96,2,96,3],[92,1,92,2],[94,1,94,3],[91,1,91,2],[88,1,88,4],[90,1,90,2],[80,4,80,5],[81,4,81,5],[82,4,82,5],[83,4,83,5],[84,4,84,5],[83,1,83,2],[84,1,84,2],[80,1,80,2],[81,1,81,2],[82,1,82,2],[89,1,89,2],[2,2,2,5],[4,1,4,5],[5,2,5,5],[6,2,6,5],[7,2,7,5],[8,2,8,5],[11,2,11,5],[10,2,10,5],[9,1,10,1],[9,2,9,5],[13,2,13,5],[16,1,17,1],[30,2,30,5],[44,2,44,5],[50,2,50,5],[16,2,17,2],[19,1,21,1],[22,1,25,1],[26,1,27,1],[37,1,40,5],[58,2,58,5],[15,1,15,5],[16,3,16,5],[32,1,32,5],[33,2,33,5],[46,1,46,5],[52,1,52,5],[60,1,60,5],[69,2,69,5],[71,1,71,5],[72,1,72,2],[72,3,72,5],[86,6,86,8],[73,1,73,2],[74,1,74,2],[75,1,76,1],[78,1,78,5],[79,1,79,2],[79,4,79,5],[73,3,73,5],[74,3,74,5],[75,3,75,5],[76,3,76,5],[86,1,86,4]]}
[null,"LEVEL 1"]
[]
["NO","Project stage","Design stage 1: Simulation of the ventilation strategy"]
[]
[null,"Indicator 4.1.1 Design indoor air conditions"]
[null,"Indoor air conditions","Reporting"]
[null,"Ventilation rate\n(l/s/m2)\n"]
[null,"CO2 concentration (ppm)"]
[null,"Relative humidity (%)"]
[null,"Benzene and\nParticulates (PM 2.5/10.0)\n","Outdoor Air Quality category"]
[null,null,"Ventilation filter classes used:"]
[null,"Radon \n(Bq/m3)\n"]
[]
["NO","Project stage","Design stage 2: Use of product testing as a means of source control"]
[]
[null,"Indicator 4.1.2 Target air pollutants for source control"]
[null,"Building products","Product type or application","Target pollutants"]
[null,null,null,"Carcinogenic VOCs\n(μg/m³)","LCI (Lowest Concentration of Interest) ratio (if > 1,0)","Formaldehyde\n(μg/m³)"]
[null,"Ceiling tiles"]
[null,"Paints and varnishes","walls and ceiling"]
[null,null,"floors and stairs"]
[null,null,"doors and windows"]
[null,"Floor coverings","textile coverings"]
["`",null,"laminate and flexible coverings"]
[null,null,"wooden coverings"]
[null,null,"associated adhesives and sealants"]
[null,"Renovation products","internal insulation"]
[null,null,"interior surface treatments (e.g. to resist damp)"]
[null,"Other (please specify)","Other (please specify)"]
[]
["NO","Project stage","Design stage 3: Risk assessment to prevent mould"]
[]
[null,"Indicator 4.1.1 Design indoor air conditions"]
[null,"Mould","YES"]
[]
[]
[null,"LEVEL 2"]
[null,"Default parameters used for simulation and sampling\nWhere the performance of the indoor air conditions and quality is reported in the public domain, the following parameters shall be adhered to and, where applicable, shall be reported on in order to be able to make comparative assertions:\n• The design simulation tool for indoor air quality conditions.\n• The timing of the testing and the selection of sample rooms in accordance \n• with the guidance provided in the sampling protocol for rooms and spaces (see guidance note 4.4).\n• The sampling and detection methods laid down in Aspect 5 of the level 3 performance assessment.\n• The expert assessment rating of mould presence and severity.\nIn all cases, the relevant reference standards as specified in this guidance shall also have been adhered to."]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"LEVEL 3"]
[]
["NO","Project stage","Post-completion stage 1: Functional performance testing of ventilation systems"]
[]
[null,"Indoor air results from project stages"]
[null,"Indoor air quality condition","Design stage\n(l/s/m2)","Commissioning stage\n(l/s/m2)","Post-completion","Occupation"]
[null,"Ventilation rate"]
[]
["NO","Project stage","Post-completion stage 2: Testing for target air pollutants"]
[]
[null,"Indoor air results from project stages"]
[null,"Indoor air quality condition","Design stage","Commissioning stage","Post-completion (μg/m³)","Occupation (μg/m³)"]
[null,"Formaldehyde"]
[null,"Benzene"]
[null,"Particulates (PM 2.5/10.0)"]
[]
["NO","Project stage","Occupation stage 1: Testing for target air pollutants"]
[]
[null,"Indoor air results from project stages"]
[null,"Indoor air quality condition","Design stage","Commissioning stage","Post-completion","Occupation"]
[null,"CO2 concentration (ppm)"]
[null,"Relative hunidity (%)"]
[null,"Formaldehyde (μg/m³)"]
[null,"Benzene (μg/m³)"]
[null,"Particulates (PM 2.5/10.0) - (μg/m³)"]
[null,"Radon (Bq/m³)"]
[]
["NO","Project stage","Occupation stage 2: Inspection for target air pollutants"]
[]
[null,"Mould inspection reporting"]
[null,"Assessment and rating method used"]
[null,"Expert inspection carried out prior to renovaton?"]
[null,"Expert inspection carried out post-occupancy?"]
[null,"Rated performance","Pre-renovation"]
[null,null,"Post-occupancy"]
[]
[null,"Performance aspects reporting format"]
[null,"Aspect",null,"Addressed? (yes/no)","Notes on the modelling and sampling routine adopted"]
[null,"Aspect 1 – Time representativeness of the ventilation design simulation"]
[null,"Aspect 2 – Post occupancy testing of indoor air conditions"]
[null,"Aspect 3 – Mould inspection  to ensure technical representativeness of remedial measures"]
[null,"Aspect 4 – Geographical representativeness of the local air quality assessment"]
[null,"Aspect 5 – Post completion and occupancy target pollutant testing"]
[]
[null,"The potential for a positive influence on a market valuation ",null,null,null,null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment"]
[]
[null,"Checklist 1 – Evaluation of potentially positive influences on the market performance",null,null,null,null,"Sub-indicator","Rating aspect","Rating score\n(reflecting the deree of representativeness)"]
[null,"Potential influence",null,"Evaluated?","Resulting assumptions used in the appraisal",null,"4.1.1 Indoor air quality","1. Ventilation design simulation time representativeness"]
[null,"Potential influence 1\nIncreased revenues due to market recognition and lower void rates.",null,null,null,null,null,"2. Post occupancy technical representativeness of the indoor air conditions tested"]
[null,"Potential influence 2\nReduced operational, maintenance, repair and/or replacement costs.",null,null,null,null,"4.1.2 Target pollutants","3. Mould inspection  to ensure technical representativeness of remedial measures "]
[null,"Potential influence 3\nReduced future risk of increased overheads or loss of income.",null,null,null,null,null,"4. Local air quality geographical representativeness "]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"5. Post completion and occupancy air quality testing technical representativeness"]
[null,"Checklist 2 – Accounting for a Level(s) assessment in the valuation criteria used"]
[null,"Valuation criteria set used",null,null,null,null,"Indicator 4.1.1\nIndicator Reliability Rating",{"$f":"SUM(I90,I91)/2","v":0},null,"Indicator 4.1.2\nIndicator Reliability Rating",{"$f":"SUM(MIN(I92,I94),I93)/2","v":0}]
[null,"Version of the criteria set used"]
[]
[null,"Criteria which the assessment has influenced",null,"Influence on the valuation or rating",null,null,"RATING 2","Professional Capabilities",null,"RATING 2","Professional Capabilities"]
[null,"Valuation criterion","Sub-criterion",null,null,null,"Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment",null,null,"Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"RATING 3","Independent Verification",null,"RATING 3","Independent Verification"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Independent verification of the assessment",null,null,"Independent verification of the assessment"]

{"sheet":"4.1.Impl","index":37,"n_rows":104,"n_cols":11,"rows_kept":104,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[99,7,100,7],[99,9,100,9],[99,10,100,10],[103,6,104,6],[103,7,104,7],[103,9,104,9],[103,10,104,10],[99,6,100,6],[94,1,94,3],[95,2,95,3],[96,2,96,3],[98,1,98,2],[98,3,99,3],[88,1,88,4],[89,1,89,2],[89,6,90,6],[90,1,90,2],[91,1,91,2],[91,6,93,6],[92,1,92,2],[86,6,86,8],[80,1,80,2],[80,4,80,5],[81,1,81,2],[81,4,81,5],[82,1,82,2],[82,4,82,5],[83,1,83,2],[83,4,83,5],[84,1,84,2],[84,4,84,5],[86,1,86,4],[75,1,76,1],[75,3,75,5],[76,3,76,5],[78,1,78,5],[79,1,79,2],[79,4,79,5],[72,1,72,2],[72,3,72,5],[73,1,73,2],[73,3,73,5],[74,1,74,2],[74,3,74,5],[71,1,71,5],[30,2,30,5],[32,1,32,5],[33,2,33,5],[37,1,40,5],[44,2,44,5],[46,1,46,5],[50,2,50,5],[52,1,52,5],[58,2,58,5],[60,1,60,5],[69,2,69,5],[26,1,27,1],[9,1,10,1],[9,2,9,5],[10,2,10,5],[11,2,11,5],[13,2,13,5],[15,1,15,5],[16,1,17,1],[16,2,17,2],[16,3,16,5],[19,1,21,1],[22,1,25,1],[8,2,8,5],[2,2,2,5],[4,1,4,5],[5,2,5,5],[6,2,6,5],[7,2,7,5]]}
[null,"LEVEL 1"]
[]
["NO","Project stage","Design stage 1: Simulation of the ventilation strategy"]
[]
[null,"Indicator 4.1.1 Design indoor air conditions"]
[null,"Indoor air conditions","Reporting"]
[null,"Ventilation rate\n(l/s/m2)\n"]
[null,"CO2 concentration (ppm)"]
[null,"Relative humidity (%)"]
[null,"Benzene and\nParticulates (PM 2.5/10.0)\n","Outdoor Air Quality category"]
[null,null,"Ventilation filter classes used:"]
[null,"Radon \n(Bq/m3)\n"]
[]
["NO","Project stage","Design stage 2: Use of product testing as a means of source control"]
[]
[null,"Indicator 4.1.2 Target air pollutants for source control"]
[null,"Building products","Product type or application","Target pollutants"]
[null,null,null,"Carcinogenic VOCs\n(μg/m³)","LCI (Lowest Concentration of Interest) ratio (if > 1,0)","Formaldehyde\n(μg/m³)"]
[null,"Ceiling tiles"]
[null,"Paints and varnishes:\n","walls and ceiling"]
[null,null,"floors and stairs"]
[null,null,"doors and windows"]
[null,"Floor coverings:\n","textile coverings"]
["`",null,"laminate and flexible coverings"]
[null,null,"wooden coverings"]
[null,null,"associated adhesives and sealants"]
[null,"Renovation products:\n","internal insulation"]
[null,null,"interior surface treatments (e.g. to resist damp)"]
[null,"Other (please specify)","Other (please specify)"]
[]
["NO","Project stage","Design stage 3: Risk assessment to prevent mould"]
[]
[null,"Indicator 4.1.1 Design indoor air conditions"]
[null,"Mould","YES"]
[]
[]
[null,"LEVEL 2"]
[null,"Default parameters used for simulation and sampling\nWhere the performance of the indoor air conditions and quality is reported in the public domain, the following parameters shall be adhered to and, where applicable, shall be reported on in order to be able to make comparative assertions:\n• The design simulation tool for indoor air quality conditions.\n• The timing of the testing and the selection of sample rooms in accordance \n• with the guidance provided in the sampling protocol for rooms and spaces (see guidance note 4.4).\n• The sampling and detection methods laid down in Aspect 5 of the level 3 performance assessment.\n• The expert assessment rating of mould presence and severity.\nIn all cases, the relevant reference standards as specified in this guidance shall also have been adhered to."]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"LEVEL 3"]
[]
["NO","Project stage","Post-completion stage 1: Functional performance testing of ventilation systems"]
[]
[null,"Indoor air results from project stages"]
[null,"Indoor air quality condition","Design stage\n(l/s/m2)","Commissioning stage\n(l/s/m2)","Post-completion","Occupation"]
[null,"Ventilation rate"]
[]
["NO","Project stage","Post-completion stage 2: Testing for target air pollutants"]
[]
[null,"Indoor air results from project stages"]
[null,"Indoor air quality condition","Design stage","Commissioning stage","Post-completion (μg/m³)","Occupation (μg/m³)"]
[null,"Formaldehyde"]
[null,"Benzene"]
[null,"Particulates (PM 2.5/10.0)"]
[]
["NO","Project stage","Occupation stage 1: Testing for target air pollutants"]
[]
[null,"Indoor air results from project stages"]
[null,"Indoor air quality condition","Design stage","Commissioning stage","Post-completion","Occupation"]
[null,"CO2 concentration (ppm)"]
[null,"Relative hunidity (%)"]
[null,"Formaldehyde (μg/m³)"]
[null,"Benzene (μg/m³)"]
[null,"Particulates (PM 2.5/10.0) - (μg/m³)"]
[null,"Radon (Bq/m³)"]
[]
["NO","Project stage","Occupation stage 2: Inspection for target air pollutants"]
[]
[null,"Mould inspection reporting"]
[null,"Assessment and rating method used"]
[null,"Expert inspection carried out prior to renovaton?"]
[null,"Expert inspection carried out post-occupancy?"]
[null,"Rated performance","Pre-renovation"]
[null,null,"Post-occupancy"]
[]
[null,"Performance aspects reporting format"]
[null,"Aspect",null,"Addressed? (yes/no)","Notes on the modelling and sampling routine adopted"]
[null,"Aspect 1 – Time representativeness of the ventilation design simulation"]
[null,"Aspect 2 – Post occupancy testing of indoor air conditions"]
[null,"Aspect 3 – Mould inspection  to ensure technical representativeness of remedial measures"]
[null,"Aspect 4 – Geographical representativeness of the local air quality assessment"]
[null,"Aspect 5 – Post completion and occupancy target pollutant testing"]
[]
[null,"The potential for a positive influence on a market valuation ",null,null,null,null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment"]
[]
[null,"Checklist 1 – Evaluation of potentially positive influences on the market performance",null,null,null,null,"Sub-indicator","Rating aspect","Rating score\n(reflecting the deree of representativeness)"]
[null,"Potential influence",null,"Evaluated?","Resulting assumptions used in the appraisal",null,"4.1.1 Indoor air quality","1. Ventilation design simulation time representativeness"]
[null,"Potential influence 1\nIncreased revenues due to market recognition and lower void rates.",null,null,null,null,null,"2. Post occupancy technical representativeness of the indoor air conditions tested"]
[null,"Potential influence 2\nReduced operational, maintenance, repair and/or replacement costs.",null,null,null,null,"4.1.2 Target pollutants","3. Mould inspection  to ensure technical representativeness of remedial measures "]
[null,"Potential influence 3\nReduced future risk of increased overheads or loss of income.",null,null,null,null,null,"4. Local air quality geographical representativeness "]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"5. Post completion and occupancy air quality testing technical representativeness"]
[null,"Checklist 2 – Accounting for a Level(s) assessment in the valuation criteria used"]
[null,"Valuation criteria set used",null,null,null,null,"Indicator 4.1.1\nIndicator Reliability Rating",{"$f":"SUM(I90,I91)/2","v":0},null,"Indicator 4.1.2\nIndicator Reliability Rating",{"$f":"SUM(MIN(I92,I94),I93)/2","v":0}]
[null,"Version of the criteria set used"]
[]
[null,"Criteria which the assessment has influenced",null,"Influence on the valuation or rating",null,null,"RATING 2","Professional Capabilities",null,"RATING 2","Professional Capabilities"]
[null,"Valuation criterion","Sub-criterion",null,null,null,"Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment",null,null,"Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"RATING 3","Independent Verification",null,"RATING 3","Independent Verification"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Independent verification of the assessment",null,null,"Independent verification of the assessment"]

{"sheet":"4.1.Compl","index":38,"n_rows":104,"n_cols":11,"rows_kept":104,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[99,7,100,7],[99,9,100,9],[99,10,100,10],[103,6,104,6],[103,7,104,7],[103,9,104,9],[103,10,104,10],[99,6,100,6],[94,1,94,3],[95,2,95,3],[96,2,96,3],[98,1,98,2],[98,3,99,3],[88,1,88,4],[89,1,89,2],[89,6,90,6],[90,1,90,2],[91,1,91,2],[91,6,93,6],[92,1,92,2],[86,6,86,8],[80,1,80,2],[80,4,80,5],[81,1,81,2],[81,4,81,5],[82,1,82,2],[82,4,82,5],[83,1,83,2],[83,4,83,5],[84,1,84,2],[84,4,84,5],[86,1,86,4],[75,1,76,1],[75,3,75,5],[76,3,76,5],[78,1,78,5],[79,1,79,2],[79,4,79,5],[72,1,72,2],[72,3,72,5],[73,1,73,2],[73,3,73,5],[74,1,74,2],[74,3,74,5],[71,1,71,5],[30,2,30,5],[32,1,32,5],[33,2,33,5],[37,1,40,5],[44,2,44,5],[46,1,46,5],[50,2,50,5],[52,1,52,5],[58,2,58,5],[60,1,60,5],[69,2,69,5],[26,1,27,1],[9,1,10,1],[9,2,9,5],[10,2,10,5],[11,2,11,5],[13,2,13,5],[15,1,15,5],[16,1,17,1],[16,2,17,2],[16,3,16,5],[19,1,21,1],[22,1,25,1],[8,2,8,5],[2,2,2,5],[4,1,4,5],[5,2,5,5],[6,2,6,5],[7,2,7,5]]}
[null,"LEVEL 1"]
[]
["NO","Project stage","Design stage 1: Simulation of the ventilation strategy"]
[]
[null,"Indicator 4.1.1 Design indoor air conditions"]
[null,"Indoor air conditions","Reporting"]
[null,"Ventilation rate\n(l/s/m2)\n"]
[null,"CO2 concentration (ppm)"]
[null,"Relative humidity (%)"]
[null,"Benzene and\nParticulates (PM 2.5/10.0)\n","Outdoor Air Quality category"]
[null,null,"Ventilation filter classes used:"]
[null,"Radon \n(Bq/m3)\n"]
[]
["NO","Project stage","Design stage 2: Use of product testing as a means of source control"]
[]
[null,"Indicator 4.1.2 Target air pollutants for source control"]
[null,"Building products","Product type or application","Target pollutants"]
[null,null,null,"Carcinogenic VOCs\n(μg/m³)","LCI (Lowest Concentration of Interest) ratio (if > 1,0)","Formaldehyde\n(μg/m³)"]
[null,"Ceiling tiles"]
[null,"Paints and varnishes:\n","walls and ceiling"]
[null,null,"floors and stairs"]
[null,null,"doors and windows"]
[null,"Floor coverings:\n","textile coverings"]
["`",null,"laminate and flexible coverings"]
[null,null,"wooden coverings"]
[null,null,"associated adhesives and sealants"]
[null,"Renovation products:\n","internal insulation"]
[null,null,"interior surface treatments (e.g. to resist damp)"]
[null,"Other (please specify)","Other (please specify)"]
[]
["NO","Project stage","Design stage 3: Risk assessment to prevent mould"]
[]
[null,"Indicator 4.1.1 Design indoor air conditions"]
[null,"Mould","YES"]
[]
[]
[null,"LEVEL 2"]
[null,"Default parameters used for simulation and sampling\nWhere the performance of the indoor air conditions and quality is reported in the public domain, the following parameters shall be adhered to and, where applicable, shall be reported on in order to be able to make comparative assertions:\n• The design simulation tool for indoor air quality conditions.\n• The timing of the testing and the selection of sample rooms in accordance \n• with the guidance provided in the sampling protocol for rooms and spaces (see guidance note 4.4).\n• The sampling and detection methods laid down in Aspect 5 of the level 3 performance assessment.\n• The expert assessment rating of mould presence and severity.\nIn all cases, the relevant reference standards as specified in this guidance shall also have been adhered to."]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"LEVEL 3"]
[]
["NO","Project stage","Post-completion stage 1: Functional performance testing of ventilation systems"]
[]
[null,"Indoor air results from project stages"]
[null,"Indoor air quality condition","Design stage\n(l/s/m2)","Commissioning stage\n(l/s/m2)","Post-completion","Occupation"]
[null,"Ventilation rate"]
[]
["NO","Project stage","Post-completion stage 2: Testing for target air pollutants"]
[]
[null,"Indoor air results from project stages"]
[null,"Indoor air quality condition","Design stage","Commissioning stage","Post-completion (μg/m³)","Occupation (μg/m³)"]
[null,"Formaldehyde"]
[null,"Benzene"]
[null,"Particulates (PM 2.5/10.0)"]
[]
["NO","Project stage","Occupation stage 1: Testing for target air pollutants"]
[]
[null,"Indoor air results from project stages"]
[null,"Indoor air quality condition","Design stage","Commissioning stage","Post-completion","Occupation"]
[null,"CO2 concentration (ppm)"]
[null,"Relative hunidity (%)"]
[null,"Formaldehyde (μg/m³)"]
[null,"Benzene (μg/m³)"]
[null,"Particulates (PM 2.5/10.0) - (μg/m³)"]
[null,"Radon (Bq/m³)"]
[]
["NO","Project stage","Occupation stage 2: Inspection for target air pollutants"]
[]
[null,"Mould inspection reporting"]
[null,"Assessment and rating method used"]
[null,"Expert inspection carried out prior to renovaton?"]
[null,"Expert inspection carried out post-occupancy?"]
[null,"Rated performance","Pre-renovation"]
[null,null,"Post-occupancy"]
[]
[null,"Performance aspects reporting format"]
[null,"Aspect",null,"Addressed? (yes/no)","Notes on the modelling and sampling routine adopted"]
[null,"Aspect 1 – Time representativeness of the ventilation design simulation"]
[null,"Aspect 2 – Post occupancy testing of indoor air conditions"]
[null,"Aspect 3 – Mould inspection  to ensure technical representativeness of remedial measures"]
[null,"Aspect 4 – Geographical representativeness of the local air quality assessment"]
[null,"Aspect 5 – Post completion and occupancy target pollutant testing"]
[]
[null,"The potential for a positive influence on a market valuation ",null,null,null,null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment"]
[]
[null,"Checklist 1 – Evaluation of potentially positive influences on the market performance",null,null,null,null,"Sub-indicator","Rating aspect","Rating score\n(reflecting the deree of representativeness)"]
[null,"Potential influence",null,"Evaluated?","Resulting assumptions used in the appraisal",null,"4.1.1 Indoor air quality","1. Ventilation design simulation time representativeness"]
[null,"Potential influence 1\nIncreased revenues due to market recognition and lower void rates.",null,null,null,null,null,"2. Post occupancy technical representativeness of the indoor air conditions tested"]
[null,"Potential influence 2\nReduced operational, maintenance, repair and/or replacement costs.",null,null,null,null,"4.1.2 Target pollutants","3. Mould inspection  to ensure technical representativeness of remedial measures "]
[null,"Potential influence 3\nReduced future risk of increased overheads or loss of income.",null,null,null,null,null,"4. Local air quality geographical representativeness "]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"5. Post completion and occupancy air quality testing technical representativeness"]
[null,"Checklist 2 – Accounting for a Level(s) assessment in the valuation criteria used"]
[null,"Valuation criteria set used",null,null,null,null,"Indicator 4.1.1\nIndicator Reliability Rating",{"$f":"SUM(I90,I91)/2","v":0},null,"Indicator 4.1.2\nIndicator Reliability Rating",{"$f":"SUM(MIN(I92,I94),I93)/2","v":0}]
[null,"Version of the criteria set used"]
[]
[null,"Criteria which the assessment has influenced",null,"Influence on the valuation or rating",null,null,"RATING 2","Professional Capabilities",null,"RATING 2","Professional Capabilities"]
[null,"Valuation criterion","Sub-criterion",null,null,null,"Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment",null,null,"Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"RATING 3","Independent Verification",null,"RATING 3","Independent Verification"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Independent verification of the assessment",null,null,"Independent verification of the assessment"]

{"sheet":"4.1.Oper","index":39,"n_rows":104,"n_cols":11,"rows_kept":104,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[99,7,100,7],[99,9,100,9],[99,10,100,10],[103,6,104,6],[103,7,104,7],[103,9,104,9],[103,10,104,10],[99,6,100,6],[94,1,94,3],[95,2,95,3],[96,2,96,3],[98,1,98,2],[98,3,99,3],[88,1,88,4],[89,1,89,2],[89,6,90,6],[90,1,90,2],[91,1,91,2],[91,6,93,6],[92,1,92,2],[86,6,86,8],[80,1,80,2],[80,4,80,5],[81,1,81,2],[81,4,81,5],[82,1,82,2],[82,4,82,5],[83,1,83,2],[83,4,83,5],[84,1,84,2],[84,4,84,5],[86,1,86,4],[75,1,76,1],[75,3,75,5],[76,3,76,5],[78,1,78,5],[79,1,79,2],[79,4,79,5],[72,1,72,2],[72,3,72,5],[73,1,73,2],[73,3,73,5],[74,1,74,2],[74,3,74,5],[71,1,71,5],[30,2,30,5],[32,1,32,5],[33,2,33,5],[37,1,40,5],[44,2,44,5],[46,1,46,5],[50,2,50,5],[52,1,52,5],[58,2,58,5],[60,1,60,5],[69,2,69,5],[26,1,27,1],[9,1,10,1],[9,2,9,5],[10,2,10,5],[11,2,11,5],[13,2,13,5],[15,1,15,5],[16,1,17,1],[16,2,17,2],[16,3,16,5],[19,1,21,1],[22,1,25,1],[8,2,8,5],[2,2,2,5],[4,1,4,5],[5,2,5,5],[6,2,6,5],[7,2,7,5]]}
[null,"LEVEL 1"]
[]
["NO","Project stage","Design stage 1: Simulation of the ventilation strategy"]
[]
[null,"Indicator 4.1.1 Design indoor air conditions"]
[null,"Indoor air conditions","Reporting"]
[null,"Ventilation rate\n(l/s/m2)\n"]
[null,"CO2 concentration (ppm)"]
[null,"Relative humidity (%)"]
[null,"Benzene and\nParticulates (PM 2.5/10.0)\n","Outdoor Air Quality category"]
[null,null,"Ventilation filter classes used:"]
[null,"Radon \n(Bq/m3)\n"]
[]
["NO","Project stage","Design stage 2: Use of product testing as a means of source control"]
[]
[null,"Indicator 4.1.2 Target air pollutants for source control"]
[null,"Building products","Product type or application","Target pollutants"]
[null,null,null,"Carcinogenic VOCs\n(μg/m³)","LCI (Lowest Concentration of Interest) ratio (if > 1,0)","Formaldehyde\n(μg/m³)"]
[null,"Ceiling tiles"]
[null,"Paints and varnishes:\n","walls and ceiling"]
[null,null,"floors and stairs"]
[null,null,"doors and windows"]
[null,"Floor coverings:\n","textile coverings"]
["`",null,"laminate and flexible coverings"]
[null,null,"wooden coverings"]
[null,null,"associated adhesives and sealants"]
[null,"Renovation products:\n","internal insulation"]
[null,null,"interior surface treatments (e.g. to resist damp)"]
[null,"Other (please specify)","Other (please specify)"]
[]
["NO","Project stage","Design stage 3: Risk assessment to prevent mould"]
[]
[null,"Indicator 4.1.1 Design indoor air conditions"]
[null,"Mould","YES"]
[]
[]
[null,"LEVEL 2"]
[null,"Default parameters used for simulation and sampling\nWhere the performance of the indoor air conditions and quality is reported in the public domain, the following parameters shall be adhered to and, where applicable, shall be reported on in order to be able to make comparative assertions:\n• The design simulation tool for indoor air quality conditions.\n• The timing of the testing and the selection of sample rooms in accordance \n• with the guidance provided in the sampling protocol for rooms and spaces (see guidance note 4.4).\n• The sampling and detection methods laid down in Aspect 5 of the level 3 performance assessment.\n• The expert assessment rating of mould presence and severity.\nIn all cases, the relevant reference standards as specified in this guidance shall also have been adhered to."]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"LEVEL 3"]
[]
["NO","Project stage","Post-completion stage 1: Functional performance testing of ventilation systems"]
[]
[null,"Indoor air results from project stages"]
[null,"Indoor air quality condition","Design stage\n(l/s/m2)","Commissioning stage\n(l/s/m2)","Post-completion","Occupation"]
[null,"Ventilation rate"]
[]
["NO","Project stage","Post-completion stage 2: Testing for target air pollutants"]
[]
[null,"Indoor air results from project stages"]
[null,"Indoor air quality condition","Design stage","Commissioning stage","Post-completion (μg/m³)","Occupation (μg/m³)"]
[null,"Formaldehyde"]
[null,"Benzene"]
[null,"Particulates (PM 2.5/10.0)"]
[]
["NO","Project stage","Occupation stage 1: Testing for target air pollutants"]
[]
[null,"Indoor air results from project stages"]
[null,"Indoor air quality condition","Design stage","Commissioning stage","Post-completion","Occupation"]
[null,"CO2 concentration (ppm)"]
[null,"Relative hunidity (%)"]
[null,"Formaldehyde (μg/m³)"]
[null,"Benzene (μg/m³)"]
[null,"Particulates (PM 2.5/10.0) - (μg/m³)"]
[null,"Radon (Bq/m³)"]
[]
["NO","Project stage","Occupation stage 2: Inspection for target air pollutants"]
[]
[null,"Mould inspection reporting"]
[null,"Assessment and rating method used"]
[null,"Expert inspection carried out prior to renovaton?"]
[null,"Expert inspection carried out post-occupancy?"]
[null,"Rated performance","Pre-renovation"]
[null,null,"Post-occupancy"]
[]
[null,"Performance aspects reporting format"]
[null,"Aspect",null,"Addressed? (yes/no)","Notes on the modelling and sampling routine adopted"]
[null,"Aspect 1 – Time representativeness of the ventilation design simulation"]
[null,"Aspect 2 – Post occupancy testing of indoor air conditions"]
[null,"Aspect 3 – Mould inspection  to ensure technical representativeness of remedial measures"]
[null,"Aspect 4 – Geographical representativeness of the local air quality assessment"]
[null,"Aspect 5 – Post completion and occupancy target pollutant testing"]
[]
[null,"The potential for a positive influence on a market valuation ",null,null,null,null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment"]
[]
[null,"Checklist 1 – Evaluation of potentially positive influences on the market performance",null,null,null,null,"Sub-indicator","Rating aspect","Rating score\n(reflecting the deree of representativeness)"]
[null,"Potential influence",null,"Evaluated?","Resulting assumptions used in the appraisal",null,"4.1.1 Indoor air quality","1. Ventilation design simulation time representativeness"]
[null,"Potential influence 1\nIncreased revenues due to market recognition and lower void rates.",null,null,null,null,null,"2. Post occupancy technical representativeness of the indoor air conditions tested"]
[null,"Potential influence 2\nReduced operational, maintenance, repair and/or replacement costs.",null,null,null,null,"4.1.2 Target pollutants","3. Mould inspection  to ensure technical representativeness of remedial measures "]
[null,"Potential influence 3\nReduced future risk of increased overheads or loss of income.",null,null,null,null,null,"4. Local air quality geographical representativeness "]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"5. Post completion and occupancy air quality testing technical representativeness"]
[null,"Checklist 2 – Accounting for a Level(s) assessment in the valuation criteria used"]
[null,"Valuation criteria set used",null,null,null,null,"Indicator 4.1.1\nIndicator Reliability Rating",{"$f":"SUM(I90,I91)/2","v":0},null,"Indicator 4.1.2\nIndicator Reliability Rating",{"$f":"SUM(MIN(I92,I94),I93)/2","v":0}]
[null,"Version of the criteria set used"]
[]
[null,"Criteria which the assessment has influenced",null,"Influence on the valuation or rating",null,null,"RATING 2","Professional Capabilities",null,"RATING 2","Professional Capabilities"]
[null,"Valuation criterion","Sub-criterion",null,null,null,"Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment",null,null,"Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"RATING 3","Independent Verification",null,"RATING 3","Independent Verification"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Independent verification of the assessment",null,null,"Independent verification of the assessment"]

{"sheet":"4.2.Design","index":40,"n_rows":42,"n_cols":19,"rows_kept":42,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[4,1,4,4],[5,1,5,2],[5,3,5,4],[6,1,6,2],[6,3,6,4],[7,1,8,1],[9,17,10,17],[9,18,10,20],[5,15,5,16],[6,15,6,16],[7,15,7,16],[8,15,8,16],[7,3,7,4],[8,3,8,4],[9,15,10,16],[4,6,11,13],[4,15,4,20],[5,18,5,20],[6,18,6,20],[7,18,7,20],[8,18,8,20],[18,1,19,2],[20,1,21,2],[17,1,17,2],[10,1,10,4],[11,1,11,2],[12,1,12,2],[13,1,13,2],[14,1,14,2],[16,1,16,4],[30,1,30,2],[31,1,31,2],[34,1,34,2],[25,6,25,10],[28,6,29,6],[27,6,27,8],[28,7,28,8],[29,7,29,8],[25,1,25,4],[27,1,27,4],[28,1,28,2],[29,1,29,2],[31,6,31,8],[30,6,30,8],[32,6,32,8],[39,3,39,4],[33,1,33,4],[34,3,34,4],[35,3,35,4],[35,1,35,2],[36,1,36,3],[37,1,37,2],[37,3,38,4],[40,6,40,7],[40,8,40,9],[41,6,41,7],[41,8,41,9],[34,9,35,9],[37,6,37,7],[38,6,38,7],[37,8,37,9],[38,8,38,9],[34,6,35,8]]}
[]
[null,"LEVEL 1",null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 2",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 3"]
[]
[]
[null,"Part 1 - Type of performance assessment",null,null,null,null,"Making a comparative performance assessment\nAt Level 2 number of parameters and items of input data used in the simulation of a building are required to be fixed.  To do this, the following rules shall be followed: \n• Choice of thermal simulation method: The quasi-steady state and simplified hourly methods described in EN ISO 13790 may be used.  Alternatively, if a dynamic method is used, the results shall be validated according to EN ISO 52016-1 or the criteria and test cases in EN 15265.\n• Use of standard input data for the thermal simulation: Data provided at national level or the default data provided in Annex G of EN ISO 13790 (or EN ISO 52016-1) shall be used.  This shall include the use of standard occupancy and conditions of data for the building type (see Annex G.8).\n• PPD thermal parameter input data: For the six parameters identified in EN ISO 7730, the default or reference national or regional data for the building type shall be used.\n• Climate data: The test reference year stipulated by the national or regional calculation method shall be used, corrected in the case of measured data following the methods in EN \n15603 and EN ISO 52000-1.\n• Heating and cooling seasons: The heating and cooling seasons defined in the relevant \nnational calculation method shall be used.\n• Temperature ranges: The Category II temperature ranges, as stipulated in EN 15251 and \nEN 16978-1, shall be used in all cases.",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Design optimisation aspects addressed"]
[null,"Energy Performance of Buildings assessment type",null,"Calculated (asset)",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect",null,"Addressed?\n (yes/no)","Notes on data sources and calculation method"]
[null,"Energy Performance of Buildings assessment sub-type",null,"Design or as built or standard",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 1 – Weather data geographical  representativeness"]
[null,"Calculation method","EN standard compliant thermal simulation?",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 2 – Calculation method time representativeness"]
[null,null,"Method and EN standard series",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 3 – Extreme weather event time representativeness"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 4 – Technical representativeness of factors that can cause localised thermal discomfort"]
[null,"Part 2 - Performance assessment results"]
[null,"Performance aspect",null,"Heating season","Cooling season"]
[null,"Operative temperature range (oC)"]
[null,"Time out of range (%)\n- without mechanical heating and cooling"]
[null,"Time out of range (%)\n- with mechanical heating and cooling"]
[]
[null,"Part 3 - Optional results for later comparison if a post-occupancy assessment is to be carried out"]
[null,"Performance aspect",null,"Heating season","Cooling season"]
[null,"Thermal environment categories\n- with mechanical heating and cooling",null,"EN 16798 Annex H.1 categories:","EN 16798 Annex H.1 categories:"]
[]
[null,"Thermal environment categories\n- without mechanical heating and cooling",null,"EN 16798 Annex H.2 categories:","EN 16798 Annex H.2 categories:"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"The potential for a positive influence on a market valuation ",null,null,null,null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment"]
[]
[null,"Checklist 1 – Evaluation of potentially positive influences on the market performance",null,null,null,null,"RATING ASPECT",null,null,"Data Quality Evaluation matrix"]
[null,"Potential influence",null,"Evaluated?","Resulting assumptions used in the appraisal",null,"1. Technical representativeness  of water fittings estimated  performance and use pattern","The use of weather data that reflect the building location."]
[null,"Potential influence 1\nIncreased revenues due to market recognition and lower void rates.",null,null,null,null,null,"The extent to which the weather data that reflects the Urban Heat Island effect for the location."]
[null,"Potential influence 2\nReduced operational, maintenance, repair and/or replacement costs.",null,null,null,null,"2. Technical representativeness of the opportunities to substitute fresh, potable water consumption "]
[null,"Potential influence 3\nReduced future risk of increased overheads or loss of income.",null,null,null,null,"3. Irrigation water geographical representativeness "]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"4. Technical representativeness of factors that can cause localised thermal discomfort "]
[null,"Checklist 2 – Accounting for a Level(s) assessment in the valuation criteria used"]
[null,"Valuation criteria set used",null,null,null,null,"Indicator 4.2 \nIndicator Reliability Rating\n",null,null,{"$f":"(J33+MIN(J29,J30)+MIN(J31,J32))/3","v":0}]
[null,"Version of the criteria set used"]
[]
[null,"Criteria which the assessment has influenced",null,"Influence on the valuation or rating",null,null,"RATING 2",null,"Professional capabilities"]
[null,"Valuation criterion","Sub-criterion",null,null,null,"2. Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"RATING 3",null,"Independent Verification"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"3. Independent verification of the assessment"]

{"sheet":"4.2.Impl","index":41,"n_rows":42,"n_cols":19,"rows_kept":42,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[4,1,4,4],[4,6,11,13],[4,15,4,20],[5,1,5,2],[5,3,5,4],[5,15,5,16],[5,18,5,20],[6,1,6,2],[6,3,6,4],[6,15,6,16],[6,18,6,20],[7,1,8,1],[7,3,7,4],[7,15,7,16],[7,18,7,20],[8,3,8,4],[8,15,8,16],[8,18,8,20],[20,1,21,2],[9,15,10,16],[9,17,10,17],[9,18,10,20],[10,1,10,4],[11,1,11,2],[12,1,12,2],[13,1,13,2],[14,1,14,2],[16,1,16,4],[17,1,17,2],[18,1,19,2],[33,1,33,4],[25,1,25,4],[25,6,25,10],[27,1,27,4],[27,6,27,8],[28,1,28,2],[28,6,29,6],[28,7,28,8],[29,1,29,2],[29,7,29,8],[30,1,30,2],[30,6,30,8],[31,1,31,2],[31,6,31,8],[32,6,32,8],[34,1,34,2],[34,3,34,4],[34,6,35,8],[34,9,35,9],[35,1,35,2],[35,3,35,4],[36,1,36,3],[37,1,37,2],[37,3,38,4],[37,6,37,7],[37,8,37,9],[38,6,38,7],[38,8,38,9],[39,3,39,4],[40,6,40,7],[40,8,40,9],[41,6,41,7],[41,8,41,9]]}
[]
[null,"LEVEL 1",null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 2",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 3"]
[]
[]
[null,"Part 1 - Type of performance assessment",null,null,null,null,"Making a comparative performance assessment\nAt Level 2 number of parameters and items of input data used in the simulation of a building are required to be fixed.  To do this, the following rules shall be followed: \n• Choice of thermal simulation method: The quasi-steady state and simplified hourly methods described in EN ISO 13790 may be used.  Alternatively, if a dynamic method is used, the results shall be validated according to EN ISO 52016-1 or the criteria and test cases in EN 15265.\n• Use of standard input data for the thermal simulation: Data provided at national level or the default data provided in Annex G of EN ISO 13790 (or EN ISO 52016-1) shall be used.  This shall include the use of standard occupancy and conditions of data for the building type (see Annex G.8).\n• PPD thermal parameter input data: For the six parameters identified in EN ISO 7730, the default or reference national or regional data for the building type shall be used.\n• Climate data: The test reference year stipulated by the national or regional calculation method shall be used, corrected in the case of measured data following the methods in EN \n15603 and EN ISO 52000-1.\n• Heating and cooling seasons: The heating and cooling seasons defined in the relevant \nnational calculation method shall be used.\n• Temperature ranges: The Category II temperature ranges, as stipulated in EN 15251 and \nEN 16978-1, shall be used in all cases.",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Design optimisation aspects addressed"]
[null,"Energy Performance of Buildings assessment type",null,"Calculated (asset)",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect",null,"Addressed?\n (yes/no)","Notes on data sources and calculation method"]
[null,"Energy Performance of Buildings assessment sub-type",null,"Design or as built or standard",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 1 – Weather data geographical  representativeness"]
[null,"Calculation method","EN standard compliant thermal simulation?",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 2 – Calculation method time representativeness"]
[null,null,"Method and EN standard series",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 3 – Extreme weather event time representativeness"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 4 – Technical representativeness of factors that can cause localised thermal discomfort"]
[null,"Part 2 - Performance assessment results"]
[null,"Performance aspect",null,"Heating season","Cooling season"]
[null,"Operative temperature range (oC)"]
[null,"Time out of range (%)\n- without mechanical heating and cooling"]
[null,"Time out of range (%)\n- with mechanical heating and cooling"]
[]
[null,"Part 3 - Optional results for later comparison if a post-occupancy assessment is to be carried out"]
[null,"Performance aspect",null,"Heating season","Cooling season"]
[null,"Thermal environment categories\n- with mechanical heating and cooling",null,"EN 16798 Annex H.1 categories:","EN 16798 Annex H.1 categories:"]
[]
[null,"Thermal environment categories\n- without mechanical heating and cooling",null,"EN 16798 Annex H.2 categories:","EN 16798 Annex H.2 categories:"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"The potential for a positive influence on a market valuation ",null,null,null,null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment"]
[]
[null,"Checklist 1 – Evaluation of potentially positive influences on the market performance",null,null,null,null,"RATING ASPECT",null,null,"Data Quality Evaluation matrix"]
[null,"Potential influence",null,"Evaluated?","Resulting assumptions used in the appraisal",null,"1. Technical representativeness  of water fittings estimated  performance and use pattern","The use of weather data that reflect the building location."]
[null,"Potential influence 1\nIncreased revenues due to market recognition and lower void rates.",null,null,null,null,null,"The extent to which the weather data that reflects the Urban Heat Island effect for the location."]
[null,"Potential influence 2\nReduced operational, maintenance, repair and/or replacement costs.",null,null,null,null,"2. Technical representativeness of the opportunities to substitute fresh, potable water consumption "]
[null,"Potential influence 3\nReduced future risk of increased overheads or loss of income.",null,null,null,null,"3. Irrigation water geographical representativeness "]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"4. Technical representativeness of factors that can cause localised thermal discomfort "]
[null,"Checklist 2 – Accounting for a Level(s) assessment in the valuation criteria used"]
[null,"Valuation criteria set used",null,null,null,null,"Indicator 4.2 \nIndicator Reliability Rating\n",null,null,{"$f":"(J33+MIN(J29,J30)+MIN(J31,J32))/3","v":0}]
[null,"Version of the criteria set used"]
[]
[null,"Criteria which the assessment has influenced",null,"Influence on the valuation or rating",null,null,"RATING 2",null,"Professional capabilities"]
[null,"Valuation criterion","Sub-criterion",null,null,null,"2. Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"RATING 3",null,"Independent Verification"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"3. Independent verification of the assessment"]

{"sheet":"4.2.Compl","index":42,"n_rows":42,"n_cols":19,"rows_kept":42,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[4,1,4,4],[4,6,11,13],[4,15,4,20],[5,1,5,2],[5,3,5,4],[5,15,5,16],[5,18,5,20],[6,1,6,2],[6,3,6,4],[6,15,6,16],[6,18,6,20],[7,1,8,1],[7,3,7,4],[7,15,7,16],[7,18,7,20],[8,3,8,4],[8,15,8,16],[8,18,8,20],[20,1,21,2],[9,15,10,16],[9,17,10,17],[9,18,10,20],[10,1,10,4],[11,1,11,2],[12,1,12,2],[13,1,13,2],[14,1,14,2],[16,1,16,4],[17,1,17,2],[18,1,19,2],[33,1,33,4],[25,1,25,4],[25,6,25,10],[27,1,27,4],[27,6,27,8],[28,1,28,2],[28,6,29,6],[28,7,28,8],[29,1,29,2],[29,7,29,8],[30,1,30,2],[30,6,30,8],[31,1,31,2],[31,6,31,8],[32,6,32,8],[34,1,34,2],[34,3,34,4],[34,6,35,8],[34,9,35,9],[35,1,35,2],[35,3,35,4],[36,1,36,3],[37,1,37,2],[37,3,38,4],[37,6,37,7],[37,8,37,9],[38,6,38,7],[38,8,38,9],[39,3,39,4],[40,6,40,7],[40,8,40,9],[41,6,41,7],[41,8,41,9]]}
[]
[null,"LEVEL 1",null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 2",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 3"]
[]
[]
[null,"Part 1 - Type of performance assessment",null,null,null,null,"Making a comparative performance assessment\nAt Level 2 number of parameters and items of input data used in the simulation of a building are required to be fixed.  To do this, the following rules shall be followed: \n• Choice of thermal simulation method: The quasi-steady state and simplified hourly methods described in EN ISO 13790 may be used.  Alternatively, if a dynamic method is used, the results shall be validated according to EN ISO 52016-1 or the criteria and test cases in EN 15265.\n• Use of standard input data for the thermal simulation: Data provided at national level or the default data provided in Annex G of EN ISO 13790 (or EN ISO 52016-1) shall be used.  This shall include the use of standard occupancy and conditions of data for the building type (see Annex G.8).\n• PPD thermal parameter input data: For the six parameters identified in EN ISO 7730, the default or reference national or regional data for the building type shall be used.\n• Climate data: The test reference year stipulated by the national or regional calculation method shall be used, corrected in the case of measured data following the methods in EN \n15603 and EN ISO 52000-1.\n• Heating and cooling seasons: The heating and cooling seasons defined in the relevant \nnational calculation method shall be used.\n• Temperature ranges: The Category II temperature ranges, as stipulated in EN 15251 and \nEN 16978-1, shall be used in all cases.",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Design optimisation aspects addressed"]
[null,"Energy Performance of Buildings assessment type",null,"Calculated (asset)",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect",null,"Addressed?\n (yes/no)","Notes on data sources and calculation method"]
[null,"Energy Performance of Buildings assessment sub-type",null,"Design or as built or standard",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 1 – Weather data geographical  representativeness"]
[null,"Calculation method","EN standard compliant thermal simulation?",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 2 – Calculation method time representativeness"]
[null,null,"Method and EN standard series",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 3 – Extreme weather event time representativeness"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 4 – Technical representativeness of factors that can cause localised thermal discomfort"]
[null,"Part 2 - Performance assessment results"]
[null,"Performance aspect",null,"Heating season","Cooling season"]
[null,"Operative temperature range (oC)"]
[null,"Time out of range (%)\n- without mechanical heating and cooling"]
[null,"Time out of range (%)\n- with mechanical heating and cooling"]
[]
[null,"Part 3 - Optional results for later comparison if a post-occupancy assessment is to be carried out"]
[null,"Performance aspect",null,"Heating season","Cooling season"]
[null,"Thermal environment categories\n- with mechanical heating and cooling",null,"EN 16798 Annex H.1 categories:","EN 16798 Annex H.1 categories:"]
[]
[null,"Thermal environment categories\n- without mechanical heating and cooling",null,"EN 16798 Annex H.2 categories:","EN 16798 Annex H.2 categories:"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"The potential for a positive influence on a market valuation ",null,null,null,null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment"]
[]
[null,"Checklist 1 – Evaluation of potentially positive influences on the market performance",null,null,null,null,"RATING ASPECT",null,null,"Data Quality Evaluation matrix"]
[null,"Potential influence",null,"Evaluated?","Resulting assumptions used in the appraisal",null,"1. Technical representativeness  of water fittings estimated  performance and use pattern","The use of weather data that reflect the building location."]
[null,"Potential influence 1\nIncreased revenues due to market recognition and lower void rates.",null,null,null,null,null,"The extent to which the weather data that reflects the Urban Heat Island effect for the location."]
[null,"Potential influence 2\nReduced operational, maintenance, repair and/or replacement costs.",null,null,null,null,"2. Technical representativeness of the opportunities to substitute fresh, potable water consumption "]
[null,"Potential influence 3\nReduced future risk of increased overheads or loss of income.",null,null,null,null,"3. Irrigation water geographical representativeness "]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"4. Technical representativeness of factors that can cause localised thermal discomfort "]
[null,"Checklist 2 – Accounting for a Level(s) assessment in the valuation criteria used"]
[null,"Valuation criteria set used",null,null,null,null,"Indicator 4.2 \nIndicator Reliability Rating\n",null,null,{"$f":"(J33+MIN(J29,J30)+MIN(J31,J32))/3","v":0}]
[null,"Version of the criteria set used"]
[]
[null,"Criteria which the assessment has influenced",null,"Influence on the valuation or rating",null,null,"RATING 2",null,"Professional capabilities"]
[null,"Valuation criterion","Sub-criterion",null,null,null,"2. Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"RATING 3",null,"Independent Verification"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"3. Independent verification of the assessment"]

{"sheet":"4.2.Oper","index":43,"n_rows":42,"n_cols":19,"rows_kept":42,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[4,1,4,4],[4,6,11,13],[4,15,4,20],[5,1,5,2],[5,3,5,4],[5,15,5,16],[5,18,5,20],[6,1,6,2],[6,3,6,4],[6,15,6,16],[6,18,6,20],[7,1,8,1],[7,3,7,4],[7,15,7,16],[7,18,7,20],[8,3,8,4],[8,15,8,16],[8,18,8,20],[20,1,21,2],[9,15,10,16],[9,17,10,17],[9,18,10,20],[10,1,10,4],[11,1,11,2],[12,1,12,2],[13,1,13,2],[14,1,14,2],[16,1,16,4],[17,1,17,2],[18,1,19,2],[33,1,33,4],[25,1,25,4],[25,6,25,10],[27,1,27,4],[27,6,27,8],[28,1,28,2],[28,6,29,6],[28,7,28,8],[29,1,29,2],[29,7,29,8],[30,1,30,2],[30,6,30,8],[31,1,31,2],[31,6,31,8],[32,6,32,8],[34,1,34,2],[34,3,34,4],[34,6,35,8],[34,9,35,9],[35,1,35,2],[35,3,35,4],[36,1,36,3],[37,1,37,2],[37,3,38,4],[37,6,37,7],[37,8,37,9],[38,6,38,7],[38,8,38,9],[39,3,39,4],[40,6,40,7],[40,8,40,9],[41,6,41,7],[41,8,41,9]]}
[]
[null,"LEVEL 1",null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 2",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 3"]
[]
[]
[null,"Part 1 - Type of performance assessment",null,null,null,null,"Making a comparative performance assessment\nAt Level 2 number of parameters and items of input data used in the simulation of a building are required to be fixed.  To do this, the following rules shall be followed: \n• Choice of thermal simulation method: The quasi-steady state and simplified hourly methods described in EN ISO 13790 may be used.  Alternatively, if a dynamic method is used, the results shall be validated according to EN ISO 52016-1 or the criteria and test cases in EN 15265.\n• Use of standard input data for the thermal simulation: Data provided at national level or the default data provided in Annex G of EN ISO 13790 (or EN ISO 52016-1) shall be used.  This shall include the use of standard occupancy and conditions of data for the building type (see Annex G.8).\n• PPD thermal parameter input data: For the six parameters identified in EN ISO 7730, the default or reference national or regional data for the building type shall be used.\n• Climate data: The test reference year stipulated by the national or regional calculation method shall be used, corrected in the case of measured data following the methods in EN \n15603 and EN ISO 52000-1.\n• Heating and cooling seasons: The heating and cooling seasons defined in the relevant \nnational calculation method shall be used.\n• Temperature ranges: The Category II temperature ranges, as stipulated in EN 15251 and \nEN 16978-1, shall be used in all cases.",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Design optimisation aspects addressed"]
[null,"Energy Performance of Buildings assessment type",null,"Measured (operational)",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect",null,"Addressed?\n (yes/no)","Notes on data sources and calculation method"]
[null,"Energy Performance of Buildings assessment sub-type",null,"Standard",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 1 – Weather data geographical  representativeness"]
[null,"Calculation method","EN standard compliant thermal simulation?",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 2 – Calculation method time representativeness"]
[null,null,"Method and EN standard series",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 3 – Extreme weather event time representativeness"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 4 – Technical representativeness of factors that can cause localised thermal discomfort"]
[null,"Part 2 - Performance assessment results"]
[null,"Performance aspect",null,"Heating season","Cooling season"]
[null,"Operative temperature range (oC)"]
[null,"Time out of range (%)\n- without mechanical heating and cooling"]
[null,"Time out of range (%)\n- with mechanical heating and cooling"]
[]
[null,"Part 3 - Optional results for later comparison if a post-occupancy assessment is to be carried out"]
[null,"Performance aspect",null,"Heating season","Cooling season"]
[null,"Thermal environment categories\n- with mechanical heating and cooling",null,"EN 16798 Annex H.1 categories:","EN 16798 Annex H.1 categories:"]
[]
[null,"Thermal environment categories\n- without mechanical heating and cooling",null,"EN 16798 Annex H.2 categories:","EN 16798 Annex H.2 categories:"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"The potential for a positive influence on a market valuation ",null,null,null,null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment"]
[]
[null,"Checklist 1 – Evaluation of potentially positive influences on the market performance",null,null,null,null,"RATING ASPECT",null,null,"Data Quality Evaluation matrix"]
[null,"Potential influence",null,"Evaluated?","Resulting assumptions used in the appraisal",null,"1. Technical representativeness  of water fittings estimated  performance and use pattern","The use of weather data that reflect the building location."]
[null,"Potential influence 1\nIncreased revenues due to market recognition and lower void rates.",null,null,null,null,null,"The extent to which the weather data that reflects the Urban Heat Island effect for the location."]
[null,"Potential influence 2\nReduced operational, maintenance, repair and/or replacement costs.",null,null,null,null,"2. Technical representativeness of the opportunities to substitute fresh, potable water consumption "]
[null,"Potential influence 3\nReduced future risk of increased overheads or loss of income.",null,null,null,null,"3. Irrigation water geographical representativeness "]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"4. Technical representativeness of factors that can cause localised thermal discomfort "]
[null,"Checklist 2 – Accounting for a Level(s) assessment in the valuation criteria used"]
[null,"Valuation criteria set used",null,null,null,null,"Indicator 4.2 \nIndicator Reliability Rating\n",null,null,{"$f":"(J33+MIN(J29,J30)+MIN(J31,J32))/3","v":0}]
[null,"Version of the criteria set used"]
[]
[null,"Criteria which the assessment has influenced",null,"Influence on the valuation or rating",null,null,"RATING 2",null,"Professional capabilities"]
[null,"Valuation criterion","Sub-criterion",null,null,null,"2. Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"RATING 3",null,"Independent Verification"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"3. Independent verification of the assessment"]

{"sheet":"5.1.Design","index":44,"n_rows":39,"n_cols":19,"rows_kept":39,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[2,7,8,13],[10,7,10,9],[11,8,11,9],[12,8,12,9],[2,1,3,4],[10,1,10,3],[11,2,11,3],[12,2,12,3],[32,1,32,2],[32,3,32,4],[29,1,29,2],[26,1,26,2],[27,1,27,2],[25,1,25,2],[25,3,25,4],[26,3,26,4],[27,3,27,4],[31,1,31,4],[15,10,15,11],[15,4,15,5],[15,2,15,3],[14,1,14,5],[15,1,16,1],[2,16,5,18],[38,1,39,2],[38,3,39,4],[33,1,34,2],[33,3,34,4],[36,1,36,4],[37,1,37,2],[37,3,37,4],[10,16,10,18],[21,1,21,5],[23,1,23,5],[24,1,24,2],[24,3,24,4],[14,7,14,11],[15,7,16,7],[15,8,15,9]]}
[]
[null,"LEVEL 1",null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 2",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 3"]
[null,"The modelling shall, as a minimum, be based on the UN IPCC 'mitigation' (SRES E1) emissions scenario.  A second worst case scenario 'medium-high' (SRES A1B) emissions scenario may also be considered.  ",null,null,null,null,null,"For Level 2 assessments the following parameters shall be fixed:\n•Temperature ranges: The Category II temperature ranges, as stipulated in EN 15251, shall be used in all cases.  \n• Summer season: The cooling seasons defined in the National Calculation method shall be used.  The present weather data shall be the design summer year derived from time series with a minimum of 20 years for the nearest local weather station.\n• PPD thermal parameter input data: For the six parameters identified in EN ISO 7730 the default or reference national or regional data for the building type shall be used.  \nEither the quasi-steady state (monthly) or the simplified hourly methods as described in EN ISO 13790 may be used.  The method used may form part of a national calculation method/overheating assessment.  In all cases, the calculation method shall be reported.  The future weather file may be either: \n• a design summer year based on monthly data, or \n• hourly data for a defined summer season.",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"GWP (1.2) and LCA\nUsers choosing to carry out a life cycle GWP assessment or a cradle to cradle LCA in order to model the scenario can additionally report on the improvement potential of their chosen climate resilience measures. The results of the scenario are incorporated into the reporting format for 1.2 life cycle GWP and cradle to cradle LCA.  To ensure consistency, the specific rules laid down in section 5.1.3 of Part 3 of the Level(s) documentation shall be followed."]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"Part 1 - Climate change projections used",null,null,null,null,null,"Part 1 - Climate change projections used",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Performance optimisation aspects addressed"]
[null,"Weather file source",null,null,null,null,null,"Weather file source",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect","Addressed? (yes/no)","Notes on data sources and calculation method"]
[null,"Scenarios modelled",null,null,null,null,null,"Scenarios modelled",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 1 – Projected weather file time representativeness and uncertainty."]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 2 – The technical representativeness of inherently thermal resilience building designs"]
[null,"Part 2 - Performance assessment results",null,null,null,null,null,"Part 2 - Performance assessment results",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 3 – The technical representativeness of  shading and microclimate benefits from green infrastructure features"]
[null,"Performance aspect","2030 scenario",null,"2050 scenario",null,null,"Performance aspect","2030 scenario",null,"2050 scenario"]
[null,null,"E1","A1B","E1","A1B",null,null,"E1","A1B","E1","A1B"]
[null,"Time out of range (%)\n- without mechanical cooling",null,null,null,null,null,"Time out of range (%)\n- without mechanical cooling"]
[null,"Time out of range (%)\n- with mechanical cooling",null,null,null,null,null,"Time out of range (%)\n- with mechanical cooling"]
[]
[]
[null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment"]
[]
[null,"Rating 1 - Basis for the performance assessment"]
[null,"Sub-indicator",null,"RATING ASPECT",null,"Rating score"]
[null,"1. Projected weather file time representativeness and uncertainty.",null,"The extent to which simulations are based on a combination of probabilistic downscaling and local/regional interpolation."]
[null,"2. Technical representativeness of inherently resilience building design features",null,"The extent to which the structure, envelope, façade and air intake systems contribute to thermal resilience."]
[null,"3. Technical representativeness of the shading and microclimate benefits of green infrastructure features",null,"The extent to which the potential benefit of green infrastructure has been factored into designs and simulations."]
[]
[null,"Indicator 1.1 \nIndicator Reliability Rating",null,{"$f":"SUM(F26,MIN(F27,F28))/2","v":0}]
[]
[null,"Rating 2 – Professional capabilities"]
[null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,"2. Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment"]
[]
[]
[null,"Rating 3 – Independent verification"]
[null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,"3. Independent verification of the assessment"]

{"sheet":"5.1.Impl","index":45,"n_rows":39,"n_cols":19,"rows_kept":39,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[2,1,3,4],[2,7,8,13],[2,16,5,18],[10,1,10,3],[10,7,10,9],[10,16,10,18],[15,10,15,11],[11,2,11,3],[11,8,11,9],[12,2,12,3],[12,8,12,9],[14,1,14,5],[14,7,14,11],[15,1,16,1],[15,2,15,3],[15,4,15,5],[15,7,16,7],[15,8,15,9],[31,1,31,4],[21,1,21,5],[23,1,23,5],[24,1,24,2],[24,3,24,4],[25,1,25,2],[25,3,25,4],[26,1,26,2],[26,3,26,4],[27,1,27,2],[27,3,27,4],[29,1,29,2],[38,1,39,2],[38,3,39,4],[32,1,32,2],[32,3,32,4],[33,1,34,2],[33,3,34,4],[36,1,36,4],[37,1,37,2],[37,3,37,4]]}
[]
[null,"LEVEL 1",null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 2",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 3"]
[null,"The modelling shall, as a minimum, be based on the UN IPCC 'mitigation' (SRES E1) emissions scenario.  A second worst case scenario 'medium-high' (SRES A1B) emissions scenario may also be considered.  ",null,null,null,null,null,"For Level 2 assessments the following parameters shall be fixed:\n•Temperature ranges: The Category II temperature ranges, as stipulated in EN 15251, shall be used in all cases.  \n• Summer season: The cooling seasons defined in the National Calculation method shall be used.  The present weather data shall be the design summer year derived from time series with a minimum of 20 years for the nearest local weather station.\n• PPD thermal parameter input data: For the six parameters identified in EN ISO 7730 the default or reference national or regional data for the building type shall be used.  \nEither the quasi-steady state (monthly) or the simplified hourly methods as described in EN ISO 13790 may be used.  The method used may form part of a national calculation method/overheating assessment.  In all cases, the calculation method shall be reported.  The future weather file may be either: \n• a design summer year based on monthly data, or \n• hourly data for a defined summer season.",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"GWP (1.2) and LCA\nUsers choosing to carry out a life cycle GWP assessment or a cradle to cradle LCA in order to model the scenario can additionally report on the improvement potential of their chosen climate resilience measures. The results of the scenario are incorporated into the reporting format for 1.2 life cycle GWP and cradle to cradle LCA.  To ensure consistency, the specific rules laid down in section 5.1.3 of Part 3 of the Level(s) documentation shall be followed."]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"Part 1 - Climate change projections used",null,null,null,null,null,"Part 1 - Climate change projections used",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Performance optimisation aspects addressed"]
[null,"Weather file source",null,null,null,null,null,"Weather file source",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect","Addressed? (yes/no)","Notes on data sources and calculation method"]
[null,"Scenarios modelled",null,null,null,null,null,"Scenarios modelled",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 1 – Projected weather file time representativeness and uncertainty."]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 2 – The technical representativeness of inherently thermal resilience building designs"]
[null,"Part 2 - Performance assessment results",null,null,null,null,null,"Part 2 - Performance assessment results",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 3 – The technical representativeness of  shading and microclimate benefits from green infrastructure features"]
[null,"Performance aspect","2030 scenario",null,"2050 scenario",null,null,"Performance aspect","2030 scenario",null,"2050 scenario"]
[null,null,"E1","A1B","E1","A1B",null,null,"E1","A1B","E1","A1B"]
[null,"Time out of range (%)\n- without mechanical cooling",null,null,null,null,null,"Time out of range (%)\n- without mechanical cooling"]
[null,"Time out of range (%)\n- with mechanical cooling",null,null,null,null,null,"Time out of range (%)\n- with mechanical cooling"]
[]
[]
[null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment"]
[]
[null,"Rating 1 - Basis for the performance assessment"]
[null,"Sub-indicator",null,"RATING ASPECT",null,"Rating score"]
[null,"1. Projected weather file time representativeness and uncertainty.",null,"The extent to which simulations are based on a combination of probabilistic downscaling and local/regional interpolation."]
[null,"2. Technical representativeness of inherently resilience building design features",null,"The extent to which the structure, envelope, façade and air intake systems contribute to thermal resilience."]
[null,"3. Technical representativeness of the shading and microclimate benefits of green infrastructure features",null,"The extent to which the potential benefit of green infrastructure has been factored into designs and simulations."]
[]
[null,"Indicator 1.1 \nIndicator Reliability Rating",null,{"$f":"SUM(F26,MIN(F27,F28))/2","v":0}]
[]
[null,"Rating 2 – Professional capabilities"]
[null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,"2. Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment"]
[]
[]
[null,"Rating 3 – Independent verification"]
[null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,"3. Independent verification of the assessment"]

{"sheet":"5.1.Compl","index":46,"n_rows":39,"n_cols":19,"rows_kept":39,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[2,1,3,4],[2,7,8,13],[2,16,5,18],[10,1,10,3],[10,7,10,9],[10,16,10,18],[15,10,15,11],[11,2,11,3],[11,8,11,9],[12,2,12,3],[12,8,12,9],[14,1,14,5],[14,7,14,11],[15,1,16,1],[15,2,15,3],[15,4,15,5],[15,7,16,7],[15,8,15,9],[31,1,31,4],[21,1,21,5],[23,1,23,5],[24,1,24,2],[24,3,24,4],[25,1,25,2],[25,3,25,4],[26,1,26,2],[26,3,26,4],[27,1,27,2],[27,3,27,4],[29,1,29,2],[38,1,39,2],[38,3,39,4],[32,1,32,2],[32,3,32,4],[33,1,34,2],[33,3,34,4],[36,1,36,4],[37,1,37,2],[37,3,37,4]]}
[]
[null,"LEVEL 1",null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 2",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 3"]
[null,"The modelling shall, as a minimum, be based on the UN IPCC 'mitigation' (SRES E1) emissions scenario.  A second worst case scenario 'medium-high' (SRES A1B) emissions scenario may also be considered.  ",null,null,null,null,null,"For Level 2 assessments the following parameters shall be fixed:\n•Temperature ranges: The Category II temperature ranges, as stipulated in EN 15251, shall be used in all cases.  \n• Summer season: The cooling seasons defined in the National Calculation method shall be used.  The present weather data shall be the design summer year derived from time series with a minimum of 20 years for the nearest local weather station.\n• PPD thermal parameter input data: For the six parameters identified in EN ISO 7730 the default or reference national or regional data for the building type shall be used.  \nEither the quasi-steady state (monthly) or the simplified hourly methods as described in EN ISO 13790 may be used.  The method used may form part of a national calculation method/overheating assessment.  In all cases, the calculation method shall be reported.  The future weather file may be either: \n• a design summer year based on monthly data, or \n• hourly data for a defined summer season.",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"GWP (1.2) and LCA\nUsers choosing to carry out a life cycle GWP assessment or a cradle to cradle LCA in order to model the scenario can additionally report on the improvement potential of their chosen climate resilience measures. The results of the scenario are incorporated into the reporting format for 1.2 life cycle GWP and cradle to cradle LCA.  To ensure consistency, the specific rules laid down in section 5.1.3 of Part 3 of the Level(s) documentation shall be followed."]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"Part 1 - Climate change projections used",null,null,null,null,null,"Part 1 - Climate change projections used",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Performance optimisation aspects addressed"]
[null,"Weather file source",null,null,null,null,null,"Weather file source",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect","Addressed? (yes/no)","Notes on data sources and calculation method"]
[null,"Scenarios modelled",null,null,null,null,null,"Scenarios modelled",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 1 – Projected weather file time representativeness and uncertainty."]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 2 – The technical representativeness of inherently thermal resilience building designs"]
[null,"Part 2 - Performance assessment results",null,null,null,null,null,"Part 2 - Performance assessment results",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 3 – The technical representativeness of  shading and microclimate benefits from green infrastructure features"]
[null,"Performance aspect","2030 scenario",null,"2050 scenario",null,null,"Performance aspect","2030 scenario",null,"2050 scenario"]
[null,null,"E1","A1B","E1","A1B",null,null,"E1","A1B","E1","A1B"]
[null,"Time out of range (%)\n- without mechanical cooling",null,null,null,null,null,"Time out of range (%)\n- without mechanical cooling"]
[null,"Time out of range (%)\n- with mechanical cooling",null,null,null,null,null,"Time out of range (%)\n- with mechanical cooling"]
[]
[]
[null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment"]
[]
[null,"Rating 1 - Basis for the performance assessment"]
[null,"Sub-indicator",null,"RATING ASPECT",null,"Rating score"]
[null,"1. Projected weather file time representativeness and uncertainty.",null,"The extent to which simulations are based on a combination of probabilistic downscaling and local/regional interpolation."]
[null,"2. Technical representativeness of inherently resilience building design features",null,"The extent to which the structure, envelope, façade and air intake systems contribute to thermal resilience."]
[null,"3. Technical representativeness of the shading and microclimate benefits of green infrastructure features",null,"The extent to which the potential benefit of green infrastructure has been factored into designs and simulations."]
[]
[null,"Indicator 1.1 \nIndicator Reliability Rating",null,{"$f":"SUM(F26,MIN(F27,F28))/2","v":0}]
[]
[null,"Rating 2 – Professional capabilities"]
[null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,"2. Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment"]
[]
[]
[null,"Rating 3 – Independent verification"]
[null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,"3. Independent verification of the assessment"]

{"sheet":"5.1.Oper","index":47,"n_rows":39,"n_cols":19,"rows_kept":39,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[2,1,3,4],[2,7,8,13],[2,16,5,18],[10,1,10,3],[10,7,10,9],[10,16,10,18],[15,10,15,11],[11,2,11,3],[11,8,11,9],[12,2,12,3],[12,8,12,9],[14,1,14,5],[14,7,14,11],[15,1,16,1],[15,2,15,3],[15,4,15,5],[15,7,16,7],[15,8,15,9],[31,1,31,4],[21,1,21,5],[23,1,23,5],[24,1,24,2],[24,3,24,4],[25,1,25,2],[25,3,25,4],[26,1,26,2],[26,3,26,4],[27,1,27,2],[27,3,27,4],[29,1,29,2],[38,1,39,2],[38,3,39,4],[32,1,32,2],[32,3,32,4],[33,1,34,2],[33,3,34,4],[36,1,36,4],[37,1,37,2],[37,3,37,4]]}
[]
[null,"LEVEL 1",null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 2",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 3"]
[null,"The modelling shall, as a minimum, be based on the UN IPCC 'mitigation' (SRES E1) emissions scenario.  A second worst case scenario 'medium-high' (SRES A1B) emissions scenario may also be considered.  ",null,null,null,null,null,"For Level 2 assessments the following parameters shall be fixed:\n•Temperature ranges: The Category II temperature ranges, as stipulated in EN 15251, shall be used in all cases.  \n• Summer season: The cooling seasons defined in the National Calculation method shall be used.  The present weather data shall be the design summer year derived from time series with a minimum of 20 years for the nearest local weather station.\n• PPD thermal parameter input data: For the six parameters identified in EN ISO 7730 the default or reference national or regional data for the building type shall be used.  \nEither the quasi-steady state (monthly) or the simplified hourly methods as described in EN ISO 13790 may be used.  The method used may form part of a national calculation method/overheating assessment.  In all cases, the calculation method shall be reported.  The future weather file may be either: \n• a design summer year based on monthly data, or \n• hourly data for a defined summer season.",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"GWP (1.2) and LCA\nUsers choosing to carry out a life cycle GWP assessment or a cradle to cradle LCA in order to model the scenario can additionally report on the improvement potential of their chosen climate resilience measures. The results of the scenario are incorporated into the reporting format for 1.2 life cycle GWP and cradle to cradle LCA.  To ensure consistency, the specific rules laid down in section 5.1.3 of Part 3 of the Level(s) documentation shall be followed."]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"Part 1 - Climate change projections used",null,null,null,null,null,"Part 1 - Climate change projections used",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Performance optimisation aspects addressed"]
[null,"Weather file source",null,null,null,null,null,"Weather file source",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect","Addressed? (yes/no)","Notes on data sources and calculation method"]
[null,"Scenarios modelled",null,null,null,null,null,"Scenarios modelled",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 1 – Projected weather file time representativeness and uncertainty."]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 2 – The technical representativeness of inherently thermal resilience building designs"]
[null,"Part 2 - Performance assessment results",null,null,null,null,null,"Part 2 - Performance assessment results",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 3 – The technical representativeness of  shading and microclimate benefits from green infrastructure features"]
[null,"Performance aspect","2030 scenario",null,"2050 scenario",null,null,"Performance aspect","2030 scenario",null,"2050 scenario"]
[null,null,"E1","A1B","E1","A1B",null,null,"E1","A1B","E1","A1B"]
[null,"Time out of range (%)\n- without mechanical cooling",null,null,null,null,null,"Time out of range (%)\n- without mechanical cooling"]
[null,"Time out of range (%)\n- with mechanical cooling",null,null,null,null,null,"Time out of range (%)\n- with mechanical cooling"]
[]
[]
[null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment"]
[]
[null,"Rating 1 - Basis for the performance assessment"]
[null,"Sub-indicator",null,"RATING ASPECT",null,"Rating score"]
[null,"1. Projected weather file time representativeness and uncertainty.",null,"The extent to which simulations are based on a combination of probabilistic downscaling and local/regional interpolation."]
[null,"2. Technical representativeness of inherently resilience building design features",null,"The extent to which the structure, envelope, façade and air intake systems contribute to thermal resilience."]
[null,"3. Technical representativeness of the shading and microclimate benefits of green infrastructure features",null,"The extent to which the potential benefit of green infrastructure has been factored into designs and simulations."]
[]
[null,"Indicator 1.1 \nIndicator Reliability Rating",null,{"$f":"SUM(F26,MIN(F27,F28))/2","v":0}]
[]
[null,"Rating 2 – Professional capabilities"]
[null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,"2. Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment"]
[]
[]
[null,"Rating 3 – Independent verification"]
[null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,"3. Independent verification of the assessment"]

{"sheet":"6.1.Design","index":48,"n_rows":40,"n_cols":22,"rows_kept":40,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[35,16,39,21],[30,6,30,8],[27,6,27,7],[28,6,28,7],[26,11,26,12],[34,6,35,7],[37,6,37,9],[38,6,38,7],[39,6,40,7],[33,8,33,9],[34,8,35,9],[32,6,32,9],[33,6,33,7],[38,8,38,9],[39,8,40,9],[25,6,25,12],[30,9,30,10],[26,6,26,7],[27,8,27,10],[28,8,28,10],[27,11,27,12],[28,11,28,12],[22,6,22,12],[22,18,23,18],[21,16,23,17],[22,1,22,4],[24,1,24,4],[24,16,24,17],[25,1,26,2],[25,3,26,3],[25,4,26,4],[31,1,31,3],[34,3,35,3],[27,1,27,2],[28,1,28,2],[29,1,29,2],[32,1,32,2],[33,1,33,2],[34,1,34,2],[12,3,12,4],[11,3,11,4],[4,1,4,5],[5,1,6,1],[6,3,6,4],[5,2,5,5],[7,3,7,4],[8,1,10,1],[10,3,10,4],[8,3,8,4],[9,3,9,4],[17,19,17,21],[19,7,19,9],[19,10,19,12],[18,10,18,12],[18,7,18,9],[20,16,20,21],[22,19,22,21],[21,18,21,21],[18,16,18,17],[18,19,18,21],[25,16,25,17],[26,16,26,17],[32,16,32,17],[33,16,33,17],[34,16,34,17],[27,16,27,17],[28,16,28,17],[29,16,29,17],[30,16,30,17],[31,16,31,17],[2,7,2,14],[2,16,4,21],[3,7,10,14],[6,16,6,17],[7,16,7,17],[8,16,8,17],[9,16,9,17],[10,18,10,21],[9,18,9,21],[8,18,8,21],[7,18,7,21],[6,18,6,21],[10,16,11,17],[11,18,11,21],[13,18,13,21],[13,16,13,17],[12,7,12,11],[17,10,17,12],[17,7,17,9],[15,7,15,12],[16,10,16,12],[16,7,16,9],[13,7,13,8],[13,9,13,11],[15,16,15,21],[16,16,16,17],[16,19,16,21],[12,16,12,17],[12,18,12,21],[17,16,17,17]]}
[]
[null,"LEVEL 1",null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 2",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 3"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Comparative performance reporting format",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"The reporting of costs shall be by life cycle stage.  The costs reported under each life cycle stage shall be disaggregated into one-off costs (e.g. construction of a building), annual recurrent costs (e.g. utility costs) and projected non-annual costs (e.g. unscheduled and planned maintenance)."]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Making a comparative performance assessment\nAt Level 2 a number of rules that fix parameters for the calculation of costs shall be followed.  These are described below: \n• The reference study period shall be 60 years.  The client's intended service life or investment holding period shall additionally be reported.\n• A discount rate of 4% shall be used to calculate the net present costs reported on. The discount rate stipulated by the client for internal appraisal purposes shall additionally be reported.  \n• Construction costs shall be adjusted to reflect current prices from the reference year 2015.\n• The cash flows generated shall be discounted over the reference study period to give the net present costs of the building.  \n• Average national utility costs for households or services shall be used . The future projections provided by the European Commission in the guidance to Delegated Regulation (EU) No 244/2012 may be used as reference values.\nAlternatively, the comparative reporting rules of another building assessment or reporting scheme may be chosen, in which case the scheme and the associated parameters used for \ncost modelling shall be reported in order to identify the comparative basis."]
[null,"Performance assessment results"]
[null,"Type of costs","Cost by life cycle stage (€/m2/yr)"]
[null,null,"A\nProduct and Construction stages","B\nUse stage",null,"C\nEnd of life stage",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Parameters",null,"Selected variables and supporting assumptions"]
[null,"One off costs",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Reference year"]
[null,"Annual recurrent costs","-",null,null,"-",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Discount rate"]
[null,null,"-",null,null,"-",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Intended service life"]
[null,null,"-",null,null,"-",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Cost escalation over time \n- Inflation\n- Energy prices\n"]
[null,"Projected non-annual costs","-",null,null,"-"]
[null,"Total costs",{"$f":"C8","v":0},{"$f":"D8+D9+E9+D10+D11+D12","v":0},null,{"$f":"F8","v":0},null,"Part 1 – The basis for reporting",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Refurbishment scenario"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Basis for reporting",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"End of life scenario"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Part 2 - Parameters used in calculating the reported results",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Design optimisation aspects addressed"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Reference discount rate",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect",null,"Addressed?\n (yes/no)","Notes on data sources and calculation method"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Comparative investors discount rate",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 1 – Quality and representativeness of the cost data used"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Reference year",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 2 – Quality and representativeness of maintenance, repair and replacement plans and projections"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Life cycle stages"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Data transparency"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Building elements",null,"Types of data source used for the identified life cycle stages *"]
[null,"The potential for a positive influence on a market valuation ",null,null,null,null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"A\nProduct and construction stages\n","Basis for future assumptions"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"B2 Maintenance","B3         Repair","B4    Replacement"]
[null,"Checklist 1 – Evaluation of potentially positive influences on the market performance",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Foundations"]
[null,"Potential influence",null,"Evaluated?","Resulting assumptions used in the appraisal",null,"Rating 1 - Basis for the performance assessment",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Load bearing structural frame"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Sub-indicator",null,null,"RATING ASPECT",null,"Rating score",null,null,null,null,"Non-load bearing elements"]
[null,"Potential influence 1\nIncreased revenues due to market recognition and lower void rates.",null,null,null,null,"1. Quality and representativeness of the cost data used ",null,"The potential accuracy of the sources of cost data for building elements and components.",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Facades"]
[null,"Potential influence 2\nReduced operational, maintenance, repair and/or replacement costs.",null,null,null,null,"2. Quality and representativeness of maintenance, repair and replacement plans and projections ",null,"The extent to which maintenance, repair and replacement plans and projections are based on the best available data, knowledge and experience.",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Roof"]
[null,"Potential influence 3\nReduced future risk of increased overheads or loss of income.",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Parking facilities"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Indicator 6.1\nIndicator Reliability Rating\n",null,null,{"$f":"SUM(L28,L29)/2","v":0},null,null,null,null,null,null,"Fixed lighting system"]
[null,"Checklist 2 – Accounting for a Level(s) assessment in the valuation criteria used",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Energy system"]
[null,"Valuation criteria set used",null,null,null,null,"Rating 2 – Professional capabilities",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Ventilation system"]
[null,"Version of the criteria set used",null,null,null,null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Sanitary systems"]
[null,"Criteria which the assessment has influenced",null,"Influence on the valuation or rating",null,null,"2. Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Miscellaneous systems"]
[null,"Valuation criterion","Sub-criterion",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"* types of data sources:\n1. Generic or default national or EU data\n1a. Default data provided at EU or national level\n1b. Default data provided by an existing assessment or reporting scheme\n2. Older or less geographically specific benchmarked and averaged data\n2a. Published benchmark data, aggregated and averaged from similar projects\n2b. Estimates from published, average cost data obtained from contractors and suppliers\n3. Recent tender and market estimates\n3a. Analysis of the bills of quantities and schedules from other similar projects\n4. Current tender and market estimates\n4a. Direct estimates based on offers from contractors and suppliers\n"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating 3 – Independent verification"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"3. Independent verification of the assessment"]

{"sheet":"6.1.Impl","index":49,"n_rows":40,"n_cols":22,"rows_kept":40,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[34,1,34,2],[34,3,35,3],[34,6,35,7],[34,8,35,9],[34,16,34,17],[35,16,39,21],[37,6,37,9],[38,6,38,7],[38,8,38,9],[39,6,40,7],[39,8,40,9],[30,16,30,17],[32,1,32,2],[32,6,32,9],[32,16,32,17],[33,1,33,2],[33,6,33,7],[33,8,33,9],[33,16,33,17],[31,1,31,3],[31,16,31,17],[28,16,28,17],[27,1,27,2],[27,6,27,7],[27,8,27,10],[27,11,27,12],[27,16,27,17],[29,1,29,2],[29,16,29,17],[30,6,30,8],[30,9,30,10],[25,1,26,2],[25,3,26,3],[25,4,26,4],[25,6,25,12],[25,16,25,17],[26,6,26,7],[26,11,26,12],[26,16,26,17],[28,1,28,2],[28,6,28,7],[28,8,28,10],[28,11,28,12],[22,1,22,4],[22,6,22,12],[22,18,23,18],[22,19,22,21],[24,1,24,4],[24,16,24,17],[19,7,19,9],[19,10,19,12],[20,16,20,21],[21,16,23,17],[21,18,21,21],[17,7,17,9],[17,10,17,12],[17,16,17,17],[17,19,17,21],[18,7,18,9],[18,10,18,12],[18,16,18,17],[18,19,18,21],[15,7,15,12],[15,16,15,21],[16,7,16,9],[16,10,16,12],[16,16,16,17],[16,19,16,21],[12,3,12,4],[12,7,12,11],[12,16,12,17],[12,18,12,21],[13,7,13,8],[13,9,13,11],[13,16,13,17],[13,18,13,21],[9,3,9,4],[9,16,9,17],[9,18,9,21],[10,3,10,4],[10,16,11,17],[10,18,10,21],[11,3,11,4],[11,18,11,21],[2,7,2,14],[2,16,4,21],[3,7,10,14],[4,1,4,5],[5,1,6,1],[5,2,5,5],[6,3,6,4],[6,16,6,17],[6,18,6,21],[7,3,7,4],[7,16,7,17],[7,18,7,21],[8,1,10,1],[8,3,8,4],[8,16,8,17],[8,18,8,21]]}
[]
[null,"LEVEL 1",null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 2",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 3"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Comparative performance reporting format",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"The reporting of costs shall be by life cycle stage.  The costs reported under each life cycle stage shall be disaggregated into one-off costs (e.g. construction of a building), annual recurrent costs (e.g. utility costs) and projected non-annual costs (e.g. unscheduled and planned maintenance)."]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Making a comparative performance assessment\nAt Level 2 a number of rules that fix parameters for the calculation of costs shall be followed.  These are described below: \n• The reference study period shall be 60 years.  The client's intended service life or investment holding period shall additionally be reported.\n• A discount rate of 4% shall be used to calculate the net present costs reported on. The discount rate stipulated by the client for internal appraisal purposes shall additionally be reported.  \n• Construction costs shall be adjusted to reflect current prices from the reference year 2015.\n• The cash flows generated shall be discounted over the reference study period to give the net present costs of the building.  \n• Average national utility costs for households or services shall be used . The future projections provided by the European Commission in the guidance to Delegated Regulation (EU) No 244/2012 may be used as reference values.\nAlternatively, the comparative reporting rules of another building assessment or reporting scheme may be chosen, in which case the scheme and the associated parameters used for \ncost modelling shall be reported in order to identify the comparative basis."]
[null,"Performance assessment results"]
[null,"Type of costs","Cost by life cycle stage (€/m2/yr)"]
[null,null,"A\nProduct and Construction stages","B\nUse stage",null,"C\nEnd of life stage",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Parameters",null,"Selected variables and supporting assumptions"]
[null,"One off costs",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Reference year"]
[null,"Annual recurrent costs","-",null,null,"-",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Discount rate"]
[null,null,"-",null,null,"-",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Intended service life"]
[null,null,"-",null,null,"-",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Cost escalation over time \n- Inflation\n- Energy prices\n"]
[null,"Projected non-annual costs","-",null,null,"-"]
[null,"Total costs",{"$f":"C8","v":0},{"$f":"D8+D9+E9+D10+D11+D12","v":0},null,{"$f":"F8","v":0},null,"Part 1 – The basis for reporting",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Refurbishment scenario"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Basis for reporting",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"End of life scenario"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Part 2 - Parameters used in calculating the reported results",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Design optimisation aspects addressed"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Reference discount rate",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect",null,"Addressed?\n (yes/no)","Notes on data sources and calculation method"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Comparative investors discount rate",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 1 – Quality and representativeness of the cost data used"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Reference year",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 2 – Quality and representativeness of maintenance, repair and replacement plans and projections"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Life cycle stages"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Data transparency"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Building elements",null,"Types of data source used for the identified life cycle stages *"]
[null,"The potential for a positive influence on a market valuation ",null,null,null,null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"A\nProduct and construction stages\n","Basis for future assumptions"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"B2 Maintenance","B3         Repair","B4    Replacement"]
[null,"Checklist 1 – Evaluation of potentially positive influences on the market performance",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Foundations"]
[null,"Potential influence",null,"Evaluated?","Resulting assumptions used in the appraisal",null,"Rating 1 - Basis for the performance assessment",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Load bearing structural frame"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Sub-indicator",null,null,"RATING ASPECT",null,"Rating score",null,null,null,null,"Non-load bearing elements"]
[null,"Potential influence 1\nIncreased revenues due to market recognition and lower void rates.",null,null,null,null,"1. Quality and representativeness of the cost data used ",null,"The potential accuracy of the sources of cost data for building elements and components.",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Facades"]
[null,"Potential influence 2\nReduced operational, maintenance, repair and/or replacement costs.",null,null,null,null,"2. Quality and representativeness of maintenance, repair and replacement plans and projections ",null,"The extent to which maintenance, repair and replacement plans and projections are based on the best available data, knowledge and experience.",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Roof"]
[null,"Potential influence 3\nReduced future risk of increased overheads or loss of income.",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Parking facilities"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Indicator 6.1\nIndicator Reliability Rating\n",null,null,{"$f":"SUM(L28,L29)/2","v":0},null,null,null,null,null,null,"Fixed lighting system"]
[null,"Checklist 2 – Accounting for a Level(s) assessment in the valuation criteria used",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Energy system"]
[null,"Valuation criteria set used",null,null,null,null,"Rating 2 – Professional capabilities",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Ventilation system"]
[null,"Version of the criteria set used",null,null,null,null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Sanitary systems"]
[null,"Criteria which the assessment has influenced",null,"Influence on the valuation or rating",null,null,"2. Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Miscellaneous systems"]
[null,"Valuation criterion","Sub-criterion",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"* types of data sources:\n1. Generic or default national or EU data\n1a. Default data provided at EU or national level\n1b. Default data provided by an existing assessment or reporting scheme\n2. Older or less geographically specific benchmarked and averaged data\n2a. Published benchmark data, aggregated and averaged from similar projects\n2b. Estimates from published, average cost data obtained from contractors and suppliers\n3. Recent tender and market estimates\n3a. Analysis of the bills of quantities and schedules from other similar projects\n4. Current tender and market estimates\n4a. Direct estimates based on offers from contractors and suppliers\n"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating 3 – Independent verification"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"3. Independent verification of the assessment"]

{"sheet":"6.1.Compl","index":50,"n_rows":40,"n_cols":22,"rows_kept":40,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[34,1,34,2],[34,3,35,3],[34,6,35,7],[34,8,35,9],[34,16,34,17],[35,16,39,21],[37,6,37,9],[38,6,38,7],[38,8,38,9],[39,6,40,7],[39,8,40,9],[30,16,30,17],[32,1,32,2],[32,6,32,9],[32,16,32,17],[33,1,33,2],[33,6,33,7],[33,8,33,9],[33,16,33,17],[31,1,31,3],[31,16,31,17],[28,16,28,17],[27,1,27,2],[27,6,27,7],[27,8,27,10],[27,11,27,12],[27,16,27,17],[29,1,29,2],[29,16,29,17],[30,6,30,8],[30,9,30,10],[25,1,26,2],[25,3,26,3],[25,4,26,4],[25,6,25,12],[25,16,25,17],[26,6,26,7],[26,11,26,12],[26,16,26,17],[28,1,28,2],[28,6,28,7],[28,8,28,10],[28,11,28,12],[22,1,22,4],[22,6,22,12],[22,18,23,18],[22,19,22,21],[24,1,24,4],[24,16,24,17],[19,7,19,9],[19,10,19,12],[20,16,20,21],[21,16,23,17],[21,18,21,21],[17,7,17,9],[17,10,17,12],[17,16,17,17],[17,19,17,21],[18,7,18,9],[18,10,18,12],[18,16,18,17],[18,19,18,21],[15,7,15,12],[15,16,15,21],[16,7,16,9],[16,10,16,12],[16,16,16,17],[16,19,16,21],[12,3,12,4],[12,7,12,11],[12,16,12,17],[12,18,12,21],[13,7,13,8],[13,9,13,11],[13,16,13,17],[13,18,13,21],[9,3,9,4],[9,16,9,17],[9,18,9,21],[10,3,10,4],[10,16,11,17],[10,18,10,21],[11,3,11,4],[11,18,11,21],[2,7,2,14],[2,16,4,21],[3,7,10,14],[4,1,4,5],[5,1,6,1],[5,2,5,5],[6,3,6,4],[6,16,6,17],[6,18,6,21],[7,3,7,4],[7,16,7,17],[7,18,7,21],[8,1,10,1],[8,3,8,4],[8,16,8,17],[8,18,8,21]]}
[]
[null,"LEVEL 1",null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 2",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 3"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Comparative performance reporting format",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"The reporting of costs shall be by life cycle stage.  The costs reported under each life cycle stage shall be disaggregated into one-off costs (e.g. construction of a building), annual recurrent costs (e.g. utility costs) and projected non-annual costs (e.g. unscheduled and planned maintenance)."]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Making a comparative performance assessment\nAt Level 2 a number of rules that fix parameters for the calculation of costs shall be followed.  These are described below: \n• The reference study period shall be 60 years.  The client's intended service life or investment holding period shall additionally be reported.\n• A discount rate of 4% shall be used to calculate the net present costs reported on. The discount rate stipulated by the client for internal appraisal purposes shall additionally be reported.  \n• Construction costs shall be adjusted to reflect current prices from the reference year 2015.\n• The cash flows generated shall be discounted over the reference study period to give the net present costs of the building.  \n• Average national utility costs for households or services shall be used . The future projections provided by the European Commission in the guidance to Delegated Regulation (EU) No 244/2012 may be used as reference values.\nAlternatively, the comparative reporting rules of another building assessment or reporting scheme may be chosen, in which case the scheme and the associated parameters used for \ncost modelling shall be reported in order to identify the comparative basis."]
[null,"Performance assessment results"]
[null,"Type of costs","Cost by life cycle stage (€/m2/yr)"]
[null,null,"A\nProduct and Construction stages","B\nUse stage",null,"C\nEnd of life stage",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Parameters",null,"Selected variables and supporting assumptions"]
[null,"One off costs",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Reference year"]
[null,"Annual recurrent costs","-",null,null,"-",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Discount rate"]
[null,null,"-",null,null,"-",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Intended service life"]
[null,null,"-",null,null,"-",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Cost escalation over time \n- Inflation\n- Energy prices\n"]
[null,"Projected non-annual costs","-",null,null,"-"]
[null,"Total costs",{"$f":"C8","v":0},{"$f":"D8+D9+E9+D10+D11+D12","v":0},null,{"$f":"F8","v":0},null,"Part 1 – The basis for reporting",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Refurbishment scenario"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Basis for reporting",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"End of life scenario"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Part 2 - Parameters used in calculating the reported results",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Design optimisation aspects addressed"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Reference discount rate",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect",null,"Addressed?\n (yes/no)","Notes on data sources and calculation method"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Comparative investors discount rate",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 1 – Quality and representativeness of the cost data used"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Reference year",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 2 – Quality and representativeness of maintenance, repair and replacement plans and projections"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Life cycle stages"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Data transparency"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Building elements",null,"Types of data source used for the identified life cycle stages *"]
[null,"The potential for a positive influence on a market valuation ",null,null,null,null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"A\nProduct and construction stages\n","Basis for future assumptions"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"B2 Maintenance","B3         Repair","B4    Replacement"]
[null,"Checklist 1 – Evaluation of potentially positive influences on the market performance",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Foundations"]
[null,"Potential influence",null,"Evaluated?","Resulting assumptions used in the appraisal",null,"Rating 1 - Basis for the performance assessment",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Load bearing structural frame"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Sub-indicator",null,null,"RATING ASPECT",null,"Rating score",null,null,null,null,"Non-load bearing elements"]
[null,"Potential influence 1\nIncreased revenues due to market recognition and lower void rates.",null,null,null,null,"1. Quality and representativeness of the cost data used ",null,"The potential accuracy of the sources of cost data for building elements and components.",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Facades"]
[null,"Potential influence 2\nReduced operational, maintenance, repair and/or replacement costs.",null,null,null,null,"2. Quality and representativeness of maintenance, repair and replacement plans and projections ",null,"The extent to which maintenance, repair and replacement plans and projections are based on the best available data, knowledge and experience.",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Roof"]
[null,"Potential influence 3\nReduced future risk of increased overheads or loss of income.",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Parking facilities"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Indicator 6.1\nIndicator Reliability Rating\n",null,null,{"$f":"SUM(L28,L29)/2","v":0},null,null,null,null,null,null,"Fixed lighting system"]
[null,"Checklist 2 – Accounting for a Level(s) assessment in the valuation criteria used",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Energy system"]
[null,"Valuation criteria set used",null,null,null,null,"Rating 2 – Professional capabilities",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Ventilation system"]
[null,"Version of the criteria set used",null,null,null,null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Sanitary systems"]
[null,"Criteria which the assessment has influenced",null,"Influence on the valuation or rating",null,null,"2. Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Miscellaneous systems"]
[null,"Valuation criterion","Sub-criterion",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"* types of data sources:\n1. Generic or default national or EU data\n1a. Default data provided at EU or national level\n1b. Default data provided by an existing assessment or reporting scheme\n2. Older or less geographically specific benchmarked and averaged data\n2a. Published benchmark data, aggregated and averaged from similar projects\n2b. Estimates from published, average cost data obtained from contractors and suppliers\n3. Recent tender and market estimates\n3a. Analysis of the bills of quantities and schedules from other similar projects\n4. Current tender and market estimates\n4a. Direct estimates based on offers from contractors and suppliers\n"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating 3 – Independent verification"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"3. Independent verification of the assessment"]

{"sheet":"6.1.Oper","index":51,"n_rows":40,"n_cols":22,"rows_kept":40,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[34,1,34,2],[34,3,35,3],[34,6,35,7],[34,8,35,9],[34,16,34,17],[35,16,39,21],[37,6,37,9],[38,6,38,7],[38,8,38,9],[39,6,40,7],[39,8,40,9],[30,16,30,17],[32,1,32,2],[32,6,32,9],[32,16,32,17],[33,1,33,2],[33,6,33,7],[33,8,33,9],[33,16,33,17],[31,1,31,3],[31,16,31,17],[28,16,28,17],[27,1,27,2],[27,6,27,7],[27,8,27,10],[27,11,27,12],[27,16,27,17],[29,1,29,2],[29,16,29,17],[30,6,30,8],[30,9,30,10],[25,1,26,2],[25,3,26,3],[25,4,26,4],[25,6,25,12],[25,16,25,17],[26,6,26,7],[26,11,26,12],[26,16,26,17],[28,1,28,2],[28,6,28,7],[28,8,28,10],[28,11,28,12],[22,1,22,4],[22,6,22,12],[22,18,23,18],[22,19,22,21],[24,1,24,4],[24,16,24,17],[19,7,19,9],[19,10,19,12],[20,16,20,21],[21,16,23,17],[21,18,21,21],[17,7,17,9],[17,10,17,12],[17,16,17,17],[17,19,17,21],[18,7,18,9],[18,10,18,12],[18,16,18,17],[18,19,18,21],[15,7,15,12],[15,16,15,21],[16,7,16,9],[16,10,16,12],[16,16,16,17],[16,19,16,21],[12,3,12,4],[12,7,12,11],[12,16,12,17],[12,18,12,21],[13,7,13,8],[13,9,13,11],[13,16,13,17],[13,18,13,21],[9,3,9,4],[9,16,9,17],[9,18,9,21],[10,3,10,4],[10,16,11,17],[10,18,10,21],[11,3,11,4],[11,18,11,21],[2,7,2,14],[2,16,4,21],[3,7,10,14],[4,1,4,5],[5,1,6,1],[5,2,5,5],[6,3,6,4],[6,16,6,17],[6,18,6,21],[7,3,7,4],[7,16,7,17],[7,18,7,21],[8,1,10,1],[8,3,8,4],[8,16,8,17],[8,18,8,21]]}
[]
[null,"LEVEL 1",null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 2",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"LEVEL 3"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Comparative performance reporting format",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"The reporting of costs shall be by life cycle stage.  The costs reported under each life cycle stage shall be disaggregated into one-off costs (e.g. construction of a building), annual recurrent costs (e.g. utility costs) and projected non-annual costs (e.g. unscheduled and planned maintenance)."]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Making a comparative performance assessment\nAt Level 2 a number of rules that fix parameters for the calculation of costs shall be followed.  These are described below: \n• The reference study period shall be 60 years.  The client's intended service life or investment holding period shall additionally be reported.\n• A discount rate of 4% shall be used to calculate the net present costs reported on. The discount rate stipulated by the client for internal appraisal purposes shall additionally be reported.  \n• Construction costs shall be adjusted to reflect current prices from the reference year 2015.\n• The cash flows generated shall be discounted over the reference study period to give the net present costs of the building.  \n• Average national utility costs for households or services shall be used . The future projections provided by the European Commission in the guidance to Delegated Regulation (EU) No 244/2012 may be used as reference values.\nAlternatively, the comparative reporting rules of another building assessment or reporting scheme may be chosen, in which case the scheme and the associated parameters used for \ncost modelling shall be reported in order to identify the comparative basis."]
[null,"Performance assessment results"]
[null,"Type of costs","Cost by life cycle stage (€/m2/yr)"]
[null,null,"A\nProduct and Construction stages","B\nUse stage",null,"C\nEnd of life stage",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Parameters",null,"Selected variables and supporting assumptions"]
[null,"One off costs",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Reference year"]
[null,"Annual recurrent costs","-",null,null,"-",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Discount rate"]
[null,null,"-",null,null,"-",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Intended service life"]
[null,null,"-",null,null,"-",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Cost escalation over time \n- Inflation\n- Energy prices\n"]
[null,"Projected non-annual costs","-",null,null,"-"]
[null,"Total costs",{"$f":"C8","v":0},{"$f":"D8+D9+E9+D10+D11+D12","v":0},null,{"$f":"F8","v":0},null,"Part 1 – The basis for reporting",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Refurbishment scenario"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Basis for reporting",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"End of life scenario"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Part 2 - Parameters used in calculating the reported results",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Design optimisation aspects addressed"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Reference discount rate",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect",null,"Addressed?\n (yes/no)","Notes on data sources and calculation method"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Comparative investors discount rate",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 1 – Quality and representativeness of the cost data used"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Reference year",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Aspect 2 – Quality and representativeness of maintenance, repair and replacement plans and projections"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Life cycle stages"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Data transparency"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Building elements",null,"Types of data source used for the identified life cycle stages *"]
[null,"The potential for a positive influence on a market valuation ",null,null,null,null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"A\nProduct and construction stages\n","Basis for future assumptions"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"B2 Maintenance","B3         Repair","B4    Replacement"]
[null,"Checklist 1 – Evaluation of potentially positive influences on the market performance",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Foundations"]
[null,"Potential influence",null,"Evaluated?","Resulting assumptions used in the appraisal",null,"Rating 1 - Basis for the performance assessment",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Load bearing structural frame"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Sub-indicator",null,null,"RATING ASPECT",null,"Rating score",null,null,null,null,"Non-load bearing elements"]
[null,"Potential influence 1\nIncreased revenues due to market recognition and lower void rates.",null,null,null,null,"1. Quality and representativeness of the cost data used ",null,"The potential accuracy of the sources of cost data for building elements and components.",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Facades"]
[null,"Potential influence 2\nReduced operational, maintenance, repair and/or replacement costs.",null,null,null,null,"2. Quality and representativeness of maintenance, repair and replacement plans and projections ",null,"The extent to which maintenance, repair and replacement plans and projections are based on the best available data, knowledge and experience.",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Roof"]
[null,"Potential influence 3\nReduced future risk of increased overheads or loss of income.",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Parking facilities"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Indicator 6.1\nIndicator Reliability Rating\n",null,null,{"$f":"SUM(L28,L29)/2","v":0},null,null,null,null,null,null,"Fixed lighting system"]
[null,"Checklist 2 – Accounting for a Level(s) assessment in the valuation criteria used",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Energy system"]
[null,"Valuation criteria set used",null,null,null,null,"Rating 2 – Professional capabilities",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Ventilation system"]
[null,"Version of the criteria set used",null,null,null,null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Sanitary systems"]
[null,"Criteria which the assessment has influenced",null,"Influence on the valuation or rating",null,null,"2. Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Miscellaneous systems"]
[null,"Valuation criterion","Sub-criterion",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"* types of data sources:\n1. Generic or default national or EU data\n1a. Default data provided at EU or national level\n1b. Default data provided by an existing assessment or reporting scheme\n2. Older or less geographically specific benchmarked and averaged data\n2a. Published benchmark data, aggregated and averaged from similar projects\n2b. Estimates from published, average cost data obtained from contractors and suppliers\n3. Recent tender and market estimates\n3a. Analysis of the bills of quantities and schedules from other similar projects\n4. Current tender and market estimates\n4a. Direct estimates based on offers from contractors and suppliers\n"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating 3 – Independent verification"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"3. Independent verification of the assessment"]

{"sheet":"6.2.Design","index":52,"n_rows":18,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":18,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[1,1,1,4],[1,8,1,9],[12,1,13,1]]}
[]
[null,"Reliability ratings for each performance assessment",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating key"]
[null,"Indicator or scenario","1. Technical reliability rating","2. Professional capabilities rating","3. Independent verification rating",null,null,null,null,"Rating aspect not addressed"]
[null,"Indicator 1.1 Use stage energy performance:\n- 1.1.1 Primary energy demand\n- 1.1.2 Delivered energy demand",{"$f":"'1.1.Design'!J41","v":0},{"$f":"'1.1.Design'!J45","v":0},{"$f":"'1.1.Design'!J50","v":0},null,null,null,null,"Low"]
[null,"Indicator 1.2\nLife cycle Global Warming Potential",{"$f":"'1.2.Design'!J23","v":0},{"$f":"'1.2.Design'!I27","v":0},{"$f":"'1.2.Design'!I31","v":0},null,null,null,null,"Medium"]
[null,"Tool 2.1\nLife cycle tools: Building bill of materials",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"High"]
[null,"Tool 2.2 - Scenario 1\nBuilding and elemental service life planning"]
[null,"Tool 2.2 - Scenario 2\nDesign for adaptability and refurbishment",{"$f":"'2.2.S3.Design'!J33","v":0},{"$f":"'2.2.S3.Design'!J36","v":0},{"$f":"'2.2.S3.Design'!J39","v":0}]
[null,"Tool 2.2 - Scenario 3\nDesign for deconstruction, reuse and recyclability",{"$f":"'2.2.S3.Design'!J44","v":0},{"$f":"'2.2.S3.Design'!J47","v":0},{"$f":"'2.2.S3.Design'!J50","v":0}]
[null,"Indicator 2.3.1 - IRI estimates and potential\nConstruction and demolition waste",{"$f":"'2.3.Design'!J28","v":0},{"$f":"'2.3.Design'!J34","v":0},{"$f":"'2.3.Design'!J38","v":0}]
[null,"Indicator 2.3.2 - IRI on site accounting\nConstruction and demolition waste",{"$f":"'2.3.Design'!J30","v":0},{"$f":"'2.3.Design'!J35","v":0},{"$f":"'2.3.Design'!J39","v":0}]
[null,"Indicator 3.1\nTotal water consumption",{"$f":"'3.1.Design'!I27","v":0},{"$f":"'3.1.Design'!I30","v":0},{"$f":"'3.1.Design'!I33","v":0}]
[null,"Indicator 4.1 Indoor air quality\n\n- 4.1.1: Good quality indoor air conditions\n\n- 4.1.2: Target air pollutants",{"$f":"'4.1.Design'!H96","v":0},{"$f":"'4.1.Design'!H100","v":0},{"$f":"'4.1.Design'!H104","v":0}]
[null,null,{"$f":"'4.1.Design'!K96","v":0},{"$f":"'4.1.Design'!K100","v":0},{"$f":"'4.1.Design'!K104","v":0}]
[null,"Indicator 4.2\nTime outside of thermal comfort range",{"$f":"'4.2.Design'!J35","v":0},{"$f":"'4.2.Design'!I39","v":0},{"$f":"'4.2.Design'!I42","v":0}]
[null,"Tool 5.1 Scenarios for projected future climatic conditions: Protection of occupier health and thermal comfort",{"$f":"'5.1.Design'!D30","v":0},{"$f":"'5.1.Design'!D34","v":0},{"$f":"'5.1.Design'!D39","v":0}]
[null,"Indicator 6.1\nLife cycle costs",{"$f":"'6.1.Design'!J31","v":0},{"$f":"'6.1.Design'!I35","v":0},{"$f":"'6.1.Design'!I40","v":0}]
[null,"LCA\nOverarching assessment tool: Cradle to cradle Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)",{"$f":"LCA.Design!J26","v":0},{"$f":"LCA.Design!J30","v":0},{"$f":"LCA.Design!J35","v":0}]

{"sheet":"6.2.Impl","index":53,"n_rows":18,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":18,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[1,1,1,4],[1,8,1,9],[12,1,13,1]]}
[]
[null,"Reliability ratings for each performance assessment",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating key"]
[null,"Indicator or scenario","1. Technical reliability rating","2. Professional capabilities rating","3. Independent verification rating",null,null,null,null,"Rating aspect not addressed"]
[null,"Indicator 1.1 Use stage energy performance:\n- 1.1.1 Primary energy demand\n- 1.1.2 Delivered energy demand",{"$f":"'1.1.Impl'!J41","v":0},{"$f":"'1.1.Impl'!J45","v":0},{"$f":"'1.1.Impl'!J50","v":0},null,null,null,null,"Low"]
[null,"Indicator 1.2\nLife cycle Global Warming Potential",{"$f":"'1.2.Impl'!J23","v":0},{"$f":"'1.2.Impl'!I27","v":0},{"$f":"'1.2.Impl'!I31","v":0},null,null,null,null,"Medium"]
[null,"Tool 2.1\nLife cycle tools: Building bill of materials",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"High"]
[null,"Tool 2.2 - Scenario 1\nBuilding and elemental service life planning"]
[null,"Tool 2.2 - Scenario 2\nDesign for adaptability and refurbishment",{"$f":"'2.2.S2.Impl'!J33","v":0},{"$f":"'2.2.S2.Impl'!J36","v":0},{"$f":"'2.2.S2.Impl'!J39","v":0}]
[null,"Tool 2.2 - Scenario 3\nDesign for deconstruction, reuse and recyclability",{"$f":"'2.2.S3.Impl'!J43","v":0},{"$f":"'2.2.S3.Impl'!J46","v":0},{"$f":"'2.2.S3.Impl'!J49","v":0}]
[null,"Indicator 2.3.1 - IRI estimates and potential\nConstruction and demolition waste",{"$f":"'2.3.Impl'!J28","v":0},{"$f":"'2.3.Impl'!J34","v":0},{"$f":"'2.3.Impl'!J38","v":0}]
[null,"Indicator 2.3.2 - IRI on site accounting\nConstruction and demolition waste",{"$f":"'2.3.Impl'!J30","v":0},{"$f":"'2.3.Impl'!J35","v":0},{"$f":"'2.3.Impl'!J39","v":0}]
[null,"Indicator 3.1\nTotal water consumption",{"$f":"'3.1.Impl'!I28","v":0},{"$f":"'3.1.Impl'!I31","v":0},{"$f":"'3.1.Impl'!I34","v":0}]
[null,"Indicator 4.1 Indoor air quality\n\n- 4.1.1: Good quality indoor air conditions\n\n- 4.1.2: Target air pollutants",{"$f":"'4.1.Impl'!H96","v":0},{"$f":"'4.1.Impl'!H100","v":0},{"$f":"'4.1.Impl'!H104","v":0}]
[null,null,{"$f":"'4.1.Impl'!K96","v":0},{"$f":"'4.1.Impl'!K100","v":0},{"$f":"'4.1.Impl'!K104","v":0}]
[null,"Indicator 4.2\nTime outside of thermal comfort range",{"$f":"'4.2.Impl'!J35","v":0},{"$f":"'4.2.Impl'!I39","v":0},{"$f":"'4.2.Impl'!I42","v":0}]
[null,"Tool 5.1 Scenarios for projected future climatic conditions: Protection of occupier health and thermal comfort",{"$f":"'5.1.Impl'!D30","v":0},{"$f":"'5.1.Impl'!D34","v":0},{"$f":"'5.1.Impl'!D39","v":0}]
[null,"Indicator 6.1\nLife cycle costs",{"$f":"'6.1.Impl'!J31","v":0},{"$f":"'6.1.Impl'!I35","v":0},{"$f":"'6.1.Impl'!I40","v":0}]
[null,"LCA\nOverarching assessment tool: Cradle to cradle Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)",{"$f":"LCA.Impl!J26","v":0},{"$f":"LCA.Impl!J30","v":0},{"$f":"LCA.Impl!J35","v":0}]

{"sheet":"6.2.Compl","index":54,"n_rows":18,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":18,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[1,1,1,4],[1,8,1,9],[12,1,13,1]]}
[]
[null,"Reliability ratings for each performance assessment",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating key"]
[null,"Indicator or scenario","1.Technical reliability rating","2.Professional capabilities rating","3.Independent verification rating",null,null,null,null,"Rating aspect not addressed"]
[null,"Indicator 1.1 Use stage energy performance:\n- 1.1.1 Primary energy demand\n- 1.1.2 Delivered energy demand",{"$f":"'1.1.Compl'!J41","v":0},{"$f":"'1.1.Compl'!J45","v":0},{"$f":"'1.1.Compl'!J50","v":0},null,null,null,null,"Low"]
[null,"Indicator 1.2\nLife cycle Global Warming Potential",{"$f":"'1.2.Compl'!J23","v":0},{"$f":"'1.2.Compl'!I27","v":0},{"$f":"'1.2.Compl'!I31","v":0},null,null,null,null,"Medium"]
[null,"Tool 2.1\nLife cycle tools: Building bill of materials",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"High"]
[null,"Tool 2.2 - Scenario 1\nBuilding and elemental service life planning"]
[null,"Tool 2.2 - Scenario 2\nDesign for adaptability and refurbishment",{"$f":"'2.2.S3.Compl'!J33","v":0},{"$f":"'2.2.S3.Compl'!J36","v":0},{"$f":"'2.2.S3.Compl'!J39","v":0}]
[null,"Tool 2.2 - Scenario 3\nDesign for deconstruction, reuse and recyclability",{"$f":"'2.2.S3.Compl'!J43","v":0},{"$f":"'2.2.S3.Compl'!J46","v":0},{"$f":"'2.2.S3.Compl'!J49","v":0}]
[null,"Indicator 2.3.1 - IRI estimates and potential\nConstruction and demolition waste",{"$f":"'2.3.Compl'!J28","v":0},{"$f":"'2.3.Compl'!J34","v":0},{"$f":"'2.3.Compl'!J38","v":0}]
[null,"Indicator 2.3.2 - IRI on site accounting\nConstruction and demolition waste",{"$f":"'2.3.Compl'!J30","v":0},{"$f":"'2.3.Compl'!J35","v":0},{"$f":"'2.3.Compl'!J39","v":0}]
[null,"Indicator 3.1\nTotal water consumption",{"$f":"'3.1.Compl'!I28","v":0},{"$f":"'3.1.Compl'!I31","v":0},{"$f":"'3.1.Compl'!I34","v":0}]
[null,"Indicator 4.1 Indoor air quality\n\n- 4.1.1: Good quality indoor air conditions\n\n- 4.1.2: Target air pollutants",{"$f":"'4.1.Compl'!H96","v":0},{"$f":"'4.1.Compl'!H100","v":0},{"$f":"'4.1.Compl'!H104","v":0}]
[null,null,{"$f":"'4.1.Compl'!K96","v":0},{"$f":"'4.1.Compl'!K100","v":0},{"$f":"'4.1.Compl'!K104","v":0}]
[null,"Indicator 4.2\nTime outside of thermal comfort range",{"$f":"'4.2.Compl'!J35","v":0},{"$f":"'4.2.Compl'!I39","v":0},{"$f":"'4.2.Compl'!I42","v":0}]
[null,"Tool 5.1 Scenarios for projected future climatic conditions: Protection of occupier health and thermal comfort",{"$f":"'5.1.Compl'!D30","v":0},{"$f":"'5.1.Compl'!D34","v":0},{"$f":"'5.1.Compl'!D39","v":0}]
[null,"Indicator 6.1\nLife cycle costs",{"$f":"'6.1.Compl'!J31","v":0},{"$f":"'6.1.Compl'!I35","v":0},{"$f":"'6.1.Compl'!I40","v":0}]
[null,"LCA\nOverarching assessment tool: Cradle to cradle Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)",{"$f":"LCA.Compl!J26","v":0},{"$f":"LCA.Compl!J30","v":0},{"$f":"LCA.Compl!J35","v":0}]

{"sheet":"6.2.Oper","index":55,"n_rows":18,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":18,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[1,1,1,4],[1,8,1,9],[12,1,13,1]]}
[]
[null,"Reliability ratings for each performance assessment",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating key"]
[null,"Indicator or scenario","1. Technical reliability rating","2. Professional capabilities rating","3. Independent verification rating",null,null,null,null,"Rating aspect not addressed"]
[null,"Indicator 1.1 Use stage energy performance:\n- 1.1.1 Primary energy demand\n- 1.1.2 Delivered energy demand",{"$f":"'1.1.Oper'!J41","v":0},{"$f":"'1.1.Oper'!J45","v":0},{"$f":"'1.1.Oper'!J50","v":0},null,null,null,null,"Low"]
[null,"Indicator 1.2\nLife cycle Global Warming Potential",{"$f":"'1.2.Oper'!J23","v":0},{"$f":"'1.2.Oper'!I27","v":0},{"$f":"'1.2.Oper'!I31","v":0},null,null,null,null,"Medium"]
[null,"Tool 2.1\nLife cycle tools: Building bill of materials",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"High"]
[null,"Tool 2.2 - Scenario 1\nBuilding and elemental service life planning"]
[null,"Tool 2.2 - Scenario 2\nDesign for adaptability and refurbishment",{"$f":"'2.2.S3.Oper'!J33","v":0},{"$f":"'2.2.S3.Oper'!J36","v":0},{"$f":"'2.2.S3.Oper'!J39","v":0}]
[null,"Tool 2.2 - Scenario 3\nDesign for deconstruction, reuse and recyclability",{"$f":"'2.2.S3.Oper'!J43","v":0},{"$f":"'2.2.S3.Oper'!J46","v":0},{"$f":"'2.2.S3.Oper'!J49","v":0}]
[null,"Indicator 2.3.1 - IRI estimates and potential\nConstruction and demolition waste",{"$f":"'2.3.Oper'!J28","v":0},{"$f":"'2.3.Oper'!J34","v":0},{"$f":"'2.3.Oper'!J38","v":0}]
[null,"Indicator 2.3.2 - IRI on site accounting\nConstruction and demolition waste",{"$f":"'2.3.Oper'!J30","v":0},{"$f":"'2.3.Oper'!J35","v":0},{"$f":"'2.3.Oper'!J39","v":0}]
[null,"Indicator 3.1\nTotal water consumption",{"$f":"'3.1.Oper'!I28","v":0},{"$f":"'3.1.Oper'!I31","v":0},{"$f":"'3.1.Oper'!I34","v":0}]
[null,"Indicator 4.1 Indoor air quality\n\n- 4.1.1: Good quality indoor air conditions\n\n- 4.1.2: Target air pollutants",{"$f":"'4.1.Oper'!H96","v":0},{"$f":"'4.1.Oper'!H100","v":0},{"$f":"'4.1.Oper'!H104","v":0}]
[null,null,{"$f":"'4.1.Oper'!K96","v":0},{"$f":"'4.1.Oper'!K100","v":0},{"$f":"'4.1.Oper'!K104","v":0}]
[null,"Indicator 4.2\nTime outside of thermal comfort range",{"$f":"'4.2.Oper'!J35","v":0},{"$f":"'4.2.Oper'!I39","v":0},{"$f":"'4.2.Oper'!I42","v":0}]
[null,"Tool 5.1 Scenarios for projected future climatic conditions: Protection of occupier health and thermal comfort",{"$f":"'5.1.Oper'!D30","v":0},{"$f":"'5.1.Oper'!D34","v":0},{"$f":"'5.1.Oper'!D39","v":0}]
[null,"Indicator 6.1\nLife cycle costs",{"$f":"'6.1.Oper'!J31","v":0},{"$f":"'6.1.Oper'!I35","v":0},{"$f":"'6.1.Oper'!I40","v":0}]
[null,"LCA\nOverarching assessment tool: Cradle to cradle Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)",{"$f":"LCA.Oper!J26","v":0},{"$f":"LCA.Oper!J30","v":0},{"$f":"LCA.Oper!J35","v":0}]

{"sheet":"LCA.Design","index":56,"n_rows":38,"n_cols":14,"rows_kept":38,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[3,11,11,11],[3,12,11,12],[3,13,11,13],[3,2,11,2],[1,2,1,9],[29,9,30,9],[34,9,35,9],[17,7,17,9],[19,7,19,9],[27,7,27,9],[32,7,32,9],[33,7,33,8],[34,7,35,8],[28,7,28,8],[29,7,30,8],[27,4,29,4],[27,5,29,5],[31,2,31,5],[25,7,25,8],[17,2,17,5],[19,2,19,5],[20,2,20,3],[20,7,20,8],[21,7,21,8],[22,7,22,8],[23,7,23,8],[24,7,24,8],[38,4,38,5],[32,2,32,5],[35,2,35,5],[21,2,23,3],[21,4,23,4],[21,5,23,5],[33,2,33,3],[34,2,34,3],[36,2,36,3],[33,4,33,5],[34,4,34,5],[36,4,37,5],[24,2,26,3],[24,4,26,4],[24,5,26,5],[27,2,29,3]]}
[]
[null,null,"Global Warming Potential for each life cycle stage"]
[null,null,"Scenario","Indicator","Unit","Product\n(A1-3)","Construction process (A4-5)","Use stage\n(B1-7)","End of life\n(C1-4)","Benefits and loads beyond\nthe system boundary (D)",null,"Checklist","Additional Info (write directly or attach files)","Notes"]
[null,null,null,"Global Warming Potential (GWP)","kg CO2 eq",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Those in red are optional for Level 1:\n• Objectives, users and audience\n• Min scope covered\n• System boundaries and cut-off rules\n• Consistency with energy and water modelling\n• Consistency with scenario modelling\n• Data sources \n• Software\n• LCIA methods\n• Calculation of data quality index\n• Interpretation \n• Critical review",null,"Impacts referred to the use of 1 m2 of useable internal floor per year for a default reference study period of 60 years . \nResults shall be reported for Design Options and Scenarios that have been modelled.\nSi (= Scenario) and DOj (= Design Option) can refer to\n• Reference study period \n• Intended service life or investment holding period according to clients requirements\n• Building and elemental service life planning (2.2 Life cycle tools: scenario 1)\n• Design for adaptability and refurbishment (2.2 Life cycle tools: scenario 2)\n• Design for deconstruction, reuse and recyclability (2.2 Life cycle tools: scenario 3)\n• Future climate change (5.1 Life cycle tools: scenario 1)"]
[null,null,null,"Depletion potential of the stratospheric ozone layer (ODP)","kg CFC11 eq"]
[null,null,null,"Acidification Potential of land and water (AP)","kg SO2 eq"]
[null,null,null,"Eutrophication Potential (EP)","kg (PO4)3 eq"]
[null,null,null,"Formation potential of tropospheric ozone photochemical oxidants (POCP)","kg C2H4 eq"]
[null,null,null,"ADP elements","kg Sb eq"]
[null,null,null,"ADP fossil fuels","MJ (LHV)"]
[null,null,null,"Use of renewable primary energy resources used as raw material","MJ"]
[null,null,null,"Use of non-metallic mineral resources","kg"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,"The potential for a positive influence on a market valuation ",null,null,null,null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment"]
[]
[null,null,"Checklist 1 – Evaluation of potentially positive influences on the market performance",null,null,null,null,"Data quality evaluation matrix"]
[null,null,"Potential influence",null,"Evaluated?","Resulting assumptions used in the appraisal",null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,"Potential influence 1\nIncreased revenues due to market recognition and lower void rates.",null,null,null,null,"Technological representativeness"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Geographical representativeness"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Time-related representativeness"]
[null,null,"Potential influence 2\nReduced operational, maintenance, repair and/or replacement costs.",null,null,null,null,"Uncertainty"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"TOTAL",null,{"$f":"((J22+J23+J24)/3+J25)/2","v":0}]
[]
[null,null,"Potential influence 3\nReduced future risk of increased overheads or loss of income.",null,null,null,null,"Rating 2 – Professional capabilities"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment"]
[]
[null,null,"Checklist 2 – Accounting for a Level(s) assessment in the valuation criteria used"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating 3 – Independent verification"]
[null,null,"Valuation criteria set used",null,null,null,null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,"Version of the criteria set used",null,null,null,null,"Independent verification of the assessment"]
[]
[null,null,"Criteria which the assessment has influenced",null,"Influence on the valuation or rating"]
[null,null,"Valuation criterion","Sub-criterion"]

{"sheet":"LCA.Impl","index":57,"n_rows":38,"n_cols":14,"rows_kept":38,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[27,2,29,3],[27,4,29,4],[24,2,26,3],[24,4,26,4],[24,5,26,5],[24,7,24,8],[25,7,25,8],[20,2,20,3],[20,7,20,8],[21,2,23,3],[21,4,23,4],[1,2,1,9],[3,2,11,2],[21,5,23,5],[21,7,21,8],[22,7,22,8],[23,7,23,8],[3,12,11,12],[3,13,11,13],[17,2,17,5],[17,7,17,9],[19,2,19,5],[19,7,19,9],[3,11,11,11],[27,5,29,5],[27,7,27,9],[28,7,28,8],[29,7,30,8],[29,9,30,9],[34,7,35,8],[34,9,35,9],[35,2,35,5],[31,2,31,5],[32,2,32,5],[32,7,32,9],[33,2,33,3],[33,4,33,5],[33,7,33,8],[36,2,36,3],[36,4,37,5],[38,4,38,5],[34,2,34,3],[34,4,34,5]]}
[]
[null,null,"Global Warming Potential for each life cycle stage"]
[null,null,"Scenario","Indicator","Unit","Product\n(A1-3)","Construction process (A4-5)","Use stage\n(B1-7)","End of life\n(C1-4)","Benefits and loads beyond\nthe system boundary (D)",null,"Checklist","Additional Info (write directly or attach files)","Notes"]
[null,null,null,"Global Warming Potential (GWP)","kg CO2 eq",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Those in red are optional for Level 1:\n• Objectives, users and audience\n• Min scope covered\n• System boundaries and cut-off rules\n• Consistency with energy and water modelling\n• Consistency with scenario modelling\n• Data sources \n• Software\n• LCIA methods\n• Calculation of data quality index\n• Interpretation \n• Critical review",null,"Impacts referred to the use of 1 m2 of useable internal floor per year for a default reference study period of 60 years . \nResults shall be reported for Design Options and Scenarios that have been modelled.\nSi (= Scenario) and DOj (= Design Option) can refer to\n• Reference study period \n• Intended service life or investment holding period according to clients requirements\n• Building and elemental service life planning (2.2 Life cycle tools: scenario 1)\n• Design for adaptability and refurbishment (2.2 Life cycle tools: scenario 2)\n• Design for deconstruction, reuse and recyclability (2.2 Life cycle tools: scenario 3)\n• Future climate change (5.1 Life cycle tools: scenario 1)"]
[null,null,null,"Depletion potential of the stratospheric ozone layer (ODP)","kg CFC11 eq"]
[null,null,null,"Acidification Potential of land and water (AP)","kg SO2 eq"]
[null,null,null,"Eutrophication Potential (EP)","kg (PO4)3 eq"]
[null,null,null,"Formation potential of tropospheric ozone photochemical oxidants (POCP)","kg C2H4 eq"]
[null,null,null,"ADP elements","kg Sb eq"]
[null,null,null,"ADP fossil fuels","MJ (LHV)"]
[null,null,null,"Use of renewable primary energy resources used as raw material","MJ"]
[null,null,null,"Use of non-metallic mineral resources","kg"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,"The potential for a positive influence on a market valuation ",null,null,null,null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment"]
[]
[null,null,"Checklist 1 – Evaluation of potentially positive influences on the market performance",null,null,null,null,"Data quality evaluation matrix"]
[null,null,"Potential influence",null,"Evaluated?","Resulting assumptions used in the appraisal",null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,"Potential influence 1\nIncreased revenues due to market recognition and lower void rates.",null,null,null,null,"Technological representativeness"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Geographical representativeness"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Time-related representativeness"]
[null,null,"Potential influence 2\nReduced operational, maintenance, repair and/or replacement costs.",null,null,null,null,"Uncertainty"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"TOTAL",null,{"$f":"((J22+J23+J24)/3+J25)/2","v":0}]
[]
[null,null,"Potential influence 3\nReduced future risk of increased overheads or loss of income.",null,null,null,null,"Rating 2 – Professional capabilities"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment"]
[]
[null,null,"Checklist 2 – Accounting for a Level(s) assessment in the valuation criteria used"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating 3 – Independent verification"]
[null,null,"Valuation criteria set used",null,null,null,null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,"Version of the criteria set used",null,null,null,null,"Independent verification of the assessment"]
[]
[null,null,"Criteria which the assessment has influenced",null,"Influence on the valuation or rating"]
[null,null,"Valuation criterion","Sub-criterion"]

{"sheet":"LCA.Compl","index":58,"n_rows":38,"n_cols":14,"rows_kept":38,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[27,2,29,3],[27,4,29,4],[24,2,26,3],[24,4,26,4],[24,5,26,5],[24,7,24,8],[25,7,25,8],[20,2,20,3],[20,7,20,8],[21,2,23,3],[21,4,23,4],[1,2,1,9],[3,2,11,2],[21,5,23,5],[21,7,21,8],[22,7,22,8],[23,7,23,8],[3,12,11,12],[3,13,11,13],[17,2,17,5],[17,7,17,9],[19,2,19,5],[19,7,19,9],[3,11,11,11],[27,5,29,5],[27,7,27,9],[28,7,28,8],[29,7,30,8],[29,9,30,9],[34,7,35,8],[34,9,35,9],[35,2,35,5],[31,2,31,5],[32,2,32,5],[32,7,32,9],[33,2,33,3],[33,4,33,5],[33,7,33,8],[36,2,36,3],[36,4,37,5],[38,4,38,5],[34,2,34,3],[34,4,34,5]]}
[]
[null,null,"Global Warming Potential for each life cycle stage"]
[null,null,"Scenario","Indicator","Unit","Product\n(A1-3)","Construction process (A4-5)","Use stage\n(B1-7)","End of life\n(C1-4)","Benefits and loads beyond\nthe system boundary (D)",null,"Checklist","Additional Info (write directly or attach files)","Notes"]
[null,null,null,"Global Warming Potential (GWP)","kg CO2 eq",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Those in red are optional for Level 1:\n• Objectives, users and audience\n• Min scope covered\n• System boundaries and cut-off rules\n• Consistency with energy and water modelling\n• Consistency with scenario modelling\n• Data sources \n• Software\n• LCIA methods\n• Calculation of data quality index\n• Interpretation \n• Critical review",null,"Impacts referred to the use of 1 m2 of useable internal floor per year for a default reference study period of 60 years . \nResults shall be reported for Design Options and Scenarios that have been modelled.\nSi (= Scenario) and DOj (= Design Option) can refer to\n• Reference study period \n• Intended service life or investment holding period according to clients requirements\n• Building and elemental service life planning (2.2 Life cycle tools: scenario 1)\n• Design for adaptability and refurbishment (2.2 Life cycle tools: scenario 2)\n• Design for deconstruction, reuse and recyclability (2.2 Life cycle tools: scenario 3)\n• Future climate change (5.1 Life cycle tools: scenario 1)"]
[null,null,null,"Depletion potential of the stratospheric ozone layer (ODP)","kg CFC11 eq"]
[null,null,null,"Acidification Potential of land and water (AP)","kg SO2 eq"]
[null,null,null,"Eutrophication Potential (EP)","kg (PO4)3 eq"]
[null,null,null,"Formation potential of tropospheric ozone photochemical oxidants (POCP)","kg C2H4 eq"]
[null,null,null,"ADP elements","kg Sb eq"]
[null,null,null,"ADP fossil fuels","MJ (LHV)"]
[null,null,null,"Use of renewable primary energy resources used as raw material","MJ"]
[null,null,null,"Use of non-metallic mineral resources","kg"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,"The potential for a positive influence on a market valuation ",null,null,null,null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment"]
[]
[null,null,"Checklist 1 – Evaluation of potentially positive influences on the market performance",null,null,null,null,"Data quality evaluation matrix"]
[null,null,"Potential influence",null,"Evaluated?","Resulting assumptions used in the appraisal",null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,"Potential influence 1\nIncreased revenues due to market recognition and lower void rates.",null,null,null,null,"Technological representativeness"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Geographical representativeness"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Time-related representativeness"]
[null,null,"Potential influence 2\nReduced operational, maintenance, repair and/or replacement costs.",null,null,null,null,"Uncertainty"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"TOTAL",null,{"$f":"((J22+J23+J24)/3+J25)/2","v":0}]
[]
[null,null,"Potential influence 3\nReduced future risk of increased overheads or loss of income.",null,null,null,null,"Rating 2 – Professional capabilities"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment"]
[]
[null,null,"Checklist 2 – Accounting for a Level(s) assessment in the valuation criteria used"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating 3 – Independent verification"]
[null,null,"Valuation criteria set used",null,null,null,null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,"Version of the criteria set used",null,null,null,null,"Independent verification of the assessment"]
[]
[null,null,"Criteria which the assessment has influenced",null,"Influence on the valuation or rating"]
[null,null,"Valuation criterion","Sub-criterion"]

{"sheet":"LCA.Oper","index":59,"n_rows":38,"n_cols":14,"rows_kept":38,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[27,2,29,3],[27,4,29,4],[24,2,26,3],[24,4,26,4],[24,5,26,5],[24,7,24,8],[25,7,25,8],[20,2,20,3],[20,7,20,8],[21,2,23,3],[21,4,23,4],[1,2,1,9],[3,2,11,2],[21,5,23,5],[21,7,21,8],[22,7,22,8],[23,7,23,8],[3,12,11,12],[3,13,11,13],[17,2,17,5],[17,7,17,9],[19,2,19,5],[19,7,19,9],[3,11,11,11],[27,5,29,5],[27,7,27,9],[28,7,28,8],[29,7,30,8],[29,9,30,9],[34,7,35,8],[34,9,35,9],[35,2,35,5],[31,2,31,5],[32,2,32,5],[32,7,32,9],[33,2,33,3],[33,4,33,5],[33,7,33,8],[36,2,36,3],[36,4,37,5],[38,4,38,5],[34,2,34,3],[34,4,34,5]]}
[]
[null,null,"Global Warming Potential for each life cycle stage"]
[null,null,"Scenario","Indicator","Unit","Product\n(A1-3)","Construction process (A4-5)","Use stage\n(B1-7)","End of life\n(C1-4)","Benefits and loads beyond\nthe system boundary (D)",null,"Checklist","Additional Info (write directly or attach files)","Notes"]
[null,null,null,"Global Warming Potential (GWP)","kg CO2 eq",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Those in red are optional for Level 1:\n• Objectives, users and audience\n• Min scope covered\n• System boundaries and cut-off rules\n• Consistency with energy and water modelling\n• Consistency with scenario modelling\n• Data sources \n• Software\n• LCIA methods\n• Calculation of data quality index\n• Interpretation \n• Critical review",null,"Impacts referred to the use of 1 m2 of useable internal floor per year for a default reference study period of 60 years . \nResults shall be reported for Design Options and Scenarios that have been modelled.\nSi (= Scenario) and DOj (= Design Option) can refer to\n• Reference study period \n• Intended service life or investment holding period according to clients requirements\n• Building and elemental service life planning (2.2 Life cycle tools: scenario 1)\n• Design for adaptability and refurbishment (2.2 Life cycle tools: scenario 2)\n• Design for deconstruction, reuse and recyclability (2.2 Life cycle tools: scenario 3)\n• Future climate change (5.1 Life cycle tools: scenario 1)"]
[null,null,null,"Depletion potential of the stratospheric ozone layer (ODP)","kg CFC11 eq"]
[null,null,null,"Acidification Potential of land and water (AP)","kg SO2 eq"]
[null,null,null,"Eutrophication Potential (EP)","kg (PO4)3 eq"]
[null,null,null,"Formation potential of tropospheric ozone photochemical oxidants (POCP)","kg C2H4 eq"]
[null,null,null,"ADP elements","kg Sb eq"]
[null,null,null,"ADP fossil fuels","MJ (LHV)"]
[null,null,null,"Use of renewable primary energy resources used as raw material","MJ"]
[null,null,null,"Use of non-metallic mineral resources","kg"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,"The potential for a positive influence on a market valuation ",null,null,null,null,"Reliability rating of the performance assessment"]
[]
[null,null,"Checklist 1 – Evaluation of potentially positive influences on the market performance",null,null,null,null,"Data quality evaluation matrix"]
[null,null,"Potential influence",null,"Evaluated?","Resulting assumptions used in the appraisal",null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,"Potential influence 1\nIncreased revenues due to market recognition and lower void rates.",null,null,null,null,"Technological representativeness"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Geographical representativeness"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Time-related representativeness"]
[null,null,"Potential influence 2\nReduced operational, maintenance, repair and/or replacement costs.",null,null,null,null,"Uncertainty"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"TOTAL",null,{"$f":"((J22+J23+J24)/3+J25)/2","v":0}]
[]
[null,null,"Potential influence 3\nReduced future risk of increased overheads or loss of income.",null,null,null,null,"Rating 2 – Professional capabilities"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Technical capability of the personnel carrying out the assessment"]
[]
[null,null,"Checklist 2 – Accounting for a Level(s) assessment in the valuation criteria used"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Rating 3 – Independent verification"]
[null,null,"Valuation criteria set used",null,null,null,null,"Rating aspect",null,"Rating score"]
[null,null,"Version of the criteria set used",null,null,null,null,"Independent verification of the assessment"]
[]
[null,null,"Criteria which the assessment has influenced",null,"Influence on the valuation or rating"]
[null,null,"Valuation criterion","Sub-criterion"]

{"sheet":"worksheet","index":60,"n_rows":76,"n_cols":48,"rows_kept":76,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[83,14,83,18],[13,28,13,29],[32,4,32,6],[13,9,13,12],[13,14,13,19],[13,21,13,26]]}
[]
[]
[]
[null,"Description","Select","Select","Select",null,"Project Stages",null,"Levels",null,null,"Rating","Building Type",null,"Focus area",null,"Change in user space requirements",null,"Changes to building servicing",null,"Change to building structure",null,"Focus area",null,"Changes in user space requirements",null,"Changes in building level requirements",null,"Change of use for units or floors (for multi-family buildings)",null,"Scope of parts",null,"Shell",null,"Core",null,null,"Ventilation Rate",null,"Benzene",null,"BEnzene2",null,"ODA 1",null,"ODA 2",null,"ODA 3"]
[null,null,"Investment","A: Premium rental","centralized ventilation only",null,"Design Stage",null,"not used",null,"Select",0,"Office",null,"Change in user space requirements",null,"Column grid spans",null,"Flexible access to services",null,"Façade design for flexibility",null,"Changes in user space requirements",null,"Access and ability to manoeuvre within each residential unit",null,"Ease of access to each residential unit",null,"Wall systems that support layout changes",null,"Shell",null,"Foundations",null,"Fit out(floors, walls and ceilings)",null,null,"EN 16798, Annex I performance category I",null,"Outdoor Air Quality category",null,"Ventilation filter classes used:",null,"IDA 1(High): F9",null,"IDA 1(High): F7+F9",null,"IDA 1(High): F7+GF+F9"]
[null,null,"Institutional","B: Average rental","centralized heating only",null,"Implementation stage",null,"Level 1",null,"YES",1,"Residential",null,"Changes to building servicing",null,"Internal wall system",null,"Ease of access to plant rooms",null,"Future-proofng of load bearing capacity",null,"Changes in building level requirements",null,"The potential for ground floor conversion to a contained unit",null,null,null,"Greater floor to ceiling heights",null,"Core",null,"Load bearing structural frame",null,"Lighting services",null,null,"EN 16798, Annex I performance category II",null,"EN 13779, Outdoor Air Quality category ODA_1",null,null,null,"IDA 2(Medium): F8",null,"IDA 2(Medium): F6+F8",null,"IDA 2(Medium): F7+GF+F9"]
[null,null,"Speculative","C: Below average rental","centralized ventilation and heating",null,"Completion and handover stage",null,"Level 2",null,"NO",2,"Mix",null,"Change to building structure",null,"Unit size and access",null,"Flexible cabling patterns",null,"Structural design to support expansion",null,"Change of use for units or floors for multi family buildings",null,"Ease of access to the building services",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Non-load bearing elements",null,"Energy services",null,null,"EN 16798, Annex I performance category III",null,"EN 13779, Outdoor Air Quality category ODA_2",null,null,null,"IDA 3(Moderate): F7",null,"IDA 3(Moderate): F5+F7",null,"IDA 3(Moderate): F5+F7"]
[null,null,null,null,"air conditioning only",null,"Operation and occupation stage",null,"Level 3",null,null,3,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Greater floor to floor heights",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Facades (including windows and doors)",null,"Ventilation services",null,null,"EN 16798, Annex I performance category IV",null,"EN 13779, Outdoor Air Quality category ODA_3",null,null,null,"IDA 4(Low): F5",null,"IDA 4(Low): F5+F6",null,"IDA 4(Low): F5+F6"]
[null,null,null,null,"air conditioning with centralized ventilation and heating",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Roof",null,"Sanitation services"]
[null,null,null,null,"no centralised systems"]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Energy Performance of Buildings \nassessment type","Energy Performance of Buildings assessment sub-type","Fuel","Heating","Electricity",null,null,"Ind.2.1",null,null,null,null,"Shell",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Core",null,null,null,null,null,null,"External",null,null,null,"EN 16798 Annex H.1 categories:",null,"EN 16798 Annex H.2 categories:",null,"ind22-S2",null,"ind22-S3"]
[null,"Ind1.1","Select","Select","Select","Select","Select",null,null,"Building Parts","Shell","Core","External",null,"Foundations","Load","Non-load","Facades","Roof","Parking facilities",null,"Fittings","In-built","Energy","Ventilation","Sanitary","Other",null,"Utilities","Landscaping",null,null,"Category I",null,"Category I",null,"DGNB CORE 14",null,"DGNB Germany (2015)"]
[null,null,"Calculated (asset)","Calculated (asset): Design or as built or standard                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     ","Natural gas","District heating","Renewable",null,null,"Shell","Foundation_Substructure","Fittings_and_furnishings","Utilities",null,"Piles","Frame (beams, columns and slabs)","Ground floor slab","External wall systems, cladding and shading devices","Strucutre","Above ground and underground (within the curtilage of the building and servicing the building occupiers)",null,"Sanitary fittings","Light fittings","Heating plant and distribution","Air handling units","Cold water distribution","Lifts and escalators",null,"Connections and diversions","Paving and other hard surfacing",null,null,"Category II",null,"Category II",null,"BREEAM-NL",null,"Canadian Standards Association, Z783/12 (2016)"]
[null,null,"Measured (operational)","Measured (operational): standard","Fuel oil","Solar thermal","Non Renewable",null,null,"Core","Load_bearing_structural_frame","In_built_lighting_system","Landscaping",null,"Basements","Upper floors","Internal walls, partitions and doors","Façade openings (including windows and external doors)","Weatherproofing",null,null,"Cupboards, wardrobes and worktops (where provided in residential property)","Control systems and sensors","Cooling plant and distribution","Ductwork and distribution","Hot water distribution","Firefighting installations",null,"Substations and equipment","Fencing, railings and walls",null,null,"Category III",null,"Category III",null,"Lifetime Homes"]
[null,null,null,null,"Coal","Other",null,null,null,"External","Non_load_bearing_elements","Energy_system",null,null,"Retaining walls","External walls","Stairs and ramps","External paints, coatings and renders",null,null,null,"Ceilings",null,"Electricity generation and distribution",null,"Water treatment systems","Communication and security installations",null,null,"Drainage systems",null,null,"Category IV"]
[null,null,null,null,"Biomass",null,null,null,null,null,"Facades","Ventilation_system",null,null,null,"Balconies",null,null,null,null,null,"Wall and ceiling finishes",null,null,null,"Drainage system","Telecoms and data installations"]
[null,null,null,null,"Other",null,null,null,null,null,"Roof","Sanitary_systems",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Floor coverings and finishes"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Parking_facilities","Other_systems"]
[null,"Ind.2.1 2.2",null,"SHELL","CORE"]
[null,null,"Select","Select","Select"]
[null,null,"Shell","Load bearing structural frame","Fittings and furnishings"]
[null,null,"Core","Non-load bearing elements","In-built lighting system"]
[null,null,null,"Facades","Energy system"]
[null,null,null,"Roof","Ventilation system"]
[null,null,null,"Parking facilities","Sanitary systems"]
[null,null,null,null,"Other systems"]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,null,"Focus Area",null,null,null,112,null,"Fuels","District_Energy","Heating","Electricity",null,null,"Calculated",null,"Measured",null,"Calc",null,"Mea"]
[null,"Ind.2.2 S3","Building parts",null,"Design aspect","Design aspect","Design aspect",null,"Fuels",null,"Natural Gas",null,"District heating","Renewable",null,null,"Calculated: Design (for compliance and permitting)",null,"Measured: Standard - climate and use corrected (for EPCs and compliance)"]
[null,null,"Select",null,"Select","Select","Select",null,"District_Energy",null,"Fuel Oil",null,"Solar thermal","Non renewable",null,null,"Calculated: As built (from construction drawings)",null,"Measured: Climate corrected (if working at level 3)"]
[null,null,"Shell: Foundations",null,"Connections are mechanical and reversible.","Prefabricated elements and parts use standardised dimensions.","Parts made of compatible or homogenous materials.",null,"Heating",null,"Coal",null,"Other",null,null,null,"Calculated: Tailored (if working at Level 3)",null,"Measured: Use corrected (if working at level 3)"]
[null,null,"Shell: Load bearing structural frame",null,"Elements and their parts are independent and easily separable.","Design supports future adaptation to changes in functional needs.","There are established recycling options for constituent parts or materials.",null,"Electricity",null,"Biomass"]
[null,null,"Shell: Non-load bearing elements",null,"Connections are easily accessible and reversible.","Use of modular building services.","Constituent materials can be easily separated.",null,null,null,"Other"]
[null,null,"Shell: facades (including window and doors)",null,"The number and complexity of the disassembly steps are low."]
[null,null,"Shell: Roof"]
[null,null,"Core: Fit out (floors, walls and ceilings)"]
[null,null,"Core: Lighting services"]
[null,null,"Core: Energy services"]
[null,null,"Core: Ventilation services"]
[null,null,"Core: Sanitation services"]
[]
[]
[null,"Ind. 2.3","Select activity"]
[null,null,"Deconstruction/demolition: Pre-estimate"]
[null,null,"Deconstruction/demolition: Actual from the site"]
[null,null,"Deconstruction/demolition: Module D estimate"]
[null,null,"Construction: Pre-estimate"]
[null,null,"Construction: Actual from the site"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"Ind. 4.1","Select"]
[null,null,"Design stage 1: Simulation of the ventilation strategy"]
[null,null,"Design Stage 2: Use of product testing as a means of source control"]
[null,null,"Design Stage 3: Risk Assessment"]
[null,null,"Post-completion Stage 1: Functional performance testing of ventilation systems"]
[null,null,"Post-completion  Stage 2: Testing for target air pollutants"]
[null,null,"Occupation Stage 1: Testing for target air pollutants"]
[]
[null,"Ind. 4.2","Select","Select"]
[null,null,"Calculated (asset)","Calculated (asset): Design or as built or standard"]
[null,null,"Measured (operational)","Measured (operational): Standard"]