Skip to content
Prysm Edge
Book a Free Audit

The instinct to manage building systems reactively — to call an engineer only when something breaks — is understandable. It feels like cost control. In practice, it is one of the most expensive approaches to building maintenance that an estate operator can take.

The Emergency Premium

Why Reactive Maintenance Is Costing Your Estate Far More Than You Think — inline image 1
Expert asset care in practice

Emergency callout rates for M&E engineering typically run at 1.5–2.5× standard day rates, plus premium mileage and, frequently, premium parts sourcing costs when standard components are not available and a quick fix is needed. A fault that would cost AED 837 to address during a scheduled visit can easily cost AED 1,628–500 as an emergency callout — and that is before accounting for any secondary damage caused by the fault going undetected.

Secondary Damage

A chilled water leak detected by a monitoring sensor and resolved in four hours causes a damp patch. The same leak undetected for two weeks causes structural damage, mould remediation requirements, potential ceiling void damage and — depending on the building — potential impact on tenants below. The cost escalation from a AED 930 fix to a AED 69,750 remediation project is not unusual.

Shortened Asset Life

Why Reactive Maintenance Is Costing Your Estate Far More Than You Think — inline image 2
Expert asset care in practice

M&E equipment maintained to manufacturer specification typically achieves 90–100% of its design life. Equipment that is maintained only reactively — run until failure, repaired, run again — typically achieves 60–75% of design life. For a AED 186,000 chiller plant with a design life of 20 years, the difference between proper maintenance and reactive-only management is roughly 5–7 years of additional service life — equivalent to AED 46,500–14,000 of capital deferral.

The True Cost Comparison

When emergency premiums, secondary damage costs and accelerated replacement costs are aggregated and compared against the cost of a properly structured PPM contract, the economics of reactive maintenance consistently fail to stack up. The conversation about maintenance provision should not be about whether you can afford a maintenance contract — it should be about whether you can afford not to have one.

Monthly Insights

Stay Ahead of the Curve

Technical perspectives on BMS, HVAC, energy management, and smart-building technology — delivered monthly. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.