Decision to Accept or Reject a Project

  • Rosalie T. Ruegg
  • Harold E. Marshall

Abstract

Designers and managers of buildings frequently must decide whether to accept or reject discretionary investments in buildings—investments which may upgrade quality, extend life, lower costs, or increase revenue relative to the status quo. We call these “accept/reject decisions” because a possible alternative is to do nothing. Accept/reject decisions can be contrasted with design decisions, treated in Chapter 19, which require a selection from among alternative designs. For example, we call deciding whether to add storm windows an accept/reject decision and choosing the window style for a new building a design decision.

Keywords

Heat Exchanger Probability Density Function Cash Flow Cumulative Distribution Function Shopping Center 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1989. Standard Practice for Measuring Ben-efit-to-Cost and Savings-to-Investment Ratios for Buildings and Building Systems. E964–89.Google Scholar
  2. Arkin, H., and R. R. Colton. 1950. Tables for Statisticians. New York: Barnes and Noble.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chapman, Robert E. 1988. The efficiency implications of safety standards. Ph.D. Dissertation for the George Washington University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  4. Chemical Rubber Company. 1965. Standard Mathematical Tables. 14th edition. ed. Samuel M. Selby. Cleveland, Ohio.Google Scholar
  5. Lippiatt, Barbara C, and Rosalie T. Ruegg. 1987. Energy Prices and Discount Factors for Life-Cycle Cost Analysis. NBSIR 85–3273–2. Gaithersburg, Maryland: National Bureau of Standards.Google Scholar
  6. Lippiatt, Barbara C, and Rosalie T. Ruegg. 1988. Energy Prices and Discount Factors for Life-Cycle Cost Analysis. NBSIR 85–3273–3. Gaithersburg, Maryland: National Bureau of Standards.Google Scholar
  7. Marshall, Harold E. 1988. Techniques for Treating Uncertainty and Risk in the Economic Evaluation of Building Investments. SP 757. Gaithersburg, Maryland: National Institute of Standards and Technology.Google Scholar
  8. Ruegg, Rosalie T. 1987. Life-Cycle Costing Manual for the Federal Energy Management Program. NBS Handbook 132. Gaithersburg, Maryland: National Bureau of Standards.Google Scholar
  9. Ruegg, Rosalie T., and Harold E. Marshall. 1984. Economic Evaluation of Building Design, Construction, Operation and Maintenance: Instructor’s Manual, NBS Technical Note 1194. Gaithersburg, Maryland: National Bureau of Standards.Google Scholar
  10. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. 10 Part 436, Section 14.Google Scholar
  11. U.S. Congress. Federal Energy Management Improvement Act of 1986 (P.L. 100–615).Google Scholar
  12. U.S. Congress. Energy Security Act of 1980 (P.L. 96–294, 94 STAT 611, Sec. 405).Google Scholar
  13. U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 1972. Circular A-94 (Revised). Discount rates to be used in evaluating time-distributed costs and benefits. Washington, DC, March 27.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rosalie T. Ruegg
  • Harold E. Marshall

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations