Solve and ProveFeasibility Proof Report
Cooling Plant Replacement Options Study
12,000 m2 office building: which system should we install?
- Client
- Example Contractors Ltd (fictional mid-size MEP contractor)
- Prepared by
- Pro Solutors
- Reference
- PS-SAMPLE-001
- Edition
- Sample, October 2026
This is an illustrative sample. The company, project and all figures are fictional and are not real client data or real client results. It shows the structure and standard of our reports.
01
The result at a glance
- 900 kW
- design cooling load after load review
- 1,980k
- 10-year cost of the recommended option (USD)
- 77 / 100
- weighted score of the recommended option
- 7 to 8 yrs
- payback of the extra upfront cost
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Client | Example Contractors Ltd (fictional mid-size MEP contractor) |
| Our solution | Solve and Prove |
| Duration | Options study with a 5-week decision window |
| Outcome | Option C (water-cooled chillers with cooling towers) has the lowest 10-year cost and the highest score, subject to a roof check and a secure water supply. |
All results are fictional and illustrative.
02
The challenge
The building is a six-storey office of about 12,000 m2, occupied throughout the year. Cooling comes from two air-cooled chillers installed more than 25 years ago, serving a chilled-water loop to fan-coil and air-handling units. The building stays occupied, shutdowns are only possible at weekends, the upfront budget cap is about 800k and new plant must run before next summer, about 9 months away.
Reliability
11 breakdown call-outs in the last 24 months; two days of reduced cooling in the hottest weeks.
Refrigerant
The units use an older refrigerant that is being phased out, so repairs and recharging are becoming harder and more costly.
Running cost
Energy use per m2 is well above comparable buildings, and efficiency is falling each year.
Sizing
Original design assumed 1,000 kW. A load review gives a peak of 900 kW, so a like-for-like replacement would be oversized.
03
Our approach
Check the load
Confirm the 900 kW peak before sizing anything.
Shortlist
Three options that fit the site and budget cap: air-cooled chillers, a VRF system, and water-cooled chillers with towers.
Cost model
Capital, energy and maintenance over 10 years.
Stress test
Repeat the model with energy prices rising 3% and 6% a year.
Score
Rate each option 1 to 5 on six weighted criteria agreed before any prices were seen.
Risk review
List what could go wrong with the leading option and how to control it.
04
The roadmap
- Step 1 · Weeks 1 to 2
Verify
Roof structure, water supply, plant room access
Goal: Confirm Option C is possible
- Step 2 · Weeks 3 to 4
Price
Fixed-price quotes from three suppliers
Goal: Update the cost model
- Step 3 · Week 5
Decide
Final decision
Goal: Option C, or Option A if a condition failed
- Step 4 · Months 2 to 3
Procure
Tender, long-lead order, shutdown windows
Goal: Secure equipment and dates
- Step 5 · Months 4 to 8
Install
Two weekend phases, commissioning
Goal: Hand over with a maintenance plan
05
The evidence and results
| Option | Capital (USD k) | 10-year total (USD k) | Weighted score |
|---|---|---|---|
| A. Air-cooled chillers | 620 | 2,020 | 72 / 100 |
| B. VRF system | 540 | 2,190 | 62 / 100 |
| C. Water-cooled + towers | 780 | 1,980 | 77 / 100 |
Recommendation: Option C, water-cooled chillers with cooling towers
The gap between Option C and Option A is 40k at flat prices, 87k at +3% a year and 141k at +6% a year. Higher energy prices only strengthen the recommendation.
| Period | Value |
|---|---|
| A. Air-cooled | 2,020k |
| B. VRF | 2,190k |
| C. Water-cooled | 1,980k |
06
Main risks and how to control them
Cost overrun on a 1,980k option (medium)
Get fixed-price supplier quotes before tender; hold a 5% contingency.
Delay to long-lead chillers (high)
Place the equipment order early; confirm delivery dates in writing.
Failure during weekend shutdown work (medium)
Phase the work over two weekends; keep a temporary chiller on standby.
Higher maintenance with cooling towers (medium)
Agree a service contract and water treatment plan at purchase.
07
Conditions to confirm first
- Roof structure: a structural engineer confirms the roof can carry the cooling towers.
- Water supply: a reliable supply and a water treatment plan are confirmed.
- Plant room access: a route exists to remove the old chillers and bring in the new ones.
Assumptions and limits
- All prices, energy figures and the building itself are fictional and for illustration only.
- Costs are undiscounted and ignore inflation, except in the energy price tests shown.
- This study compares options. It is not a detailed design or a construction price.
- In a real project, every figure would come from the client data and supplier quotes.
This is an illustrative sample. The company, project and all figures are fictional and are not real client data or real client results. It shows the structure and standard of our reports.
Related case studies
Improve and InnovateManufacturingImproving Production Flow and Output
- +33%
- daily output (18 to 24 elements)
- 9% to 3.5%
- rework rate
Read the case studyPS-SAMPLE-002
Illustrative sample · Fictional company
Align Your Technical DataDesign consultancyOne Source of Truth for Technical Data
- -72%
- time searching and reconciling data (6.5 to 1.8 hours a week)
- 22% to 5%
- drawing and calculation mismatches at checking
Read the case studyPS-SAMPLE-003
Illustrative sample · Fictional company
Feasibility Proof Report
Tell us the decision you face. An engineer reads it and tells you clearly whether a feasibility proof report would help.
What happens after you submit
Problem received
You describe it through the form.
Read by an engineer
Every submission is read by an engineer.
A clear yes or no, and a next step
You hear back within 2 working days.