BCIS alternatives: free UK construction cost data for small practices

What the free sources cover, where they fall short, and how to stitch them together.

Trails Research·Updated 2026-04-18·5 min read
Example: the same ONS figure a QS might check
Latest COPI
YoYOutput price
Labour YoYStill rising fast
Materials YoYStabilised

All four figures pulled live from ONS and MHCLG sources. They're the same numbers BCIS reports, just reached by a different (free) path.

BCIS is the UK's standard construction cost data service and it's excellent, but at roughly £600 to £2,000 a year, it's priced for larger practices and public-sector QSs. For a small design-build firm with one QS and budget scrutiny, the subscription often doesn't make the cut.

The good news: between ONS, MHCLG, Costmodelling and the free market reports from the major consultancies, you can cover most of what a small-practice QS actually needs for free. This page compares the options, flags where each falls short, and explains how to stitch them together.

The free sources compared

SourceWhat it coversUpdateRegionalFree?
BCIS (RICS)Tender price index, elemental cost plans, building costs by typeQuarterly, live onlinePaid
ONS Construction Output Price IndicesBlended output prices (new work + R&M), UK aggregateQuarterly (~6 weeks lag)No
MHCLG Monthly Building Materials~15 individual material indices (bricks, timber, steel, etc.)MonthlyNo
Costmodelling.comIndicative tender / building cost indices, regional factorsPeriodic, not live
Turner & Townsend / Gleeds market reportsNarrative commentary, forecast direction, anecdotal benchmarksQuarterly or annual PDFs
Trails Cost TrackerONS + MHCLG aggregated; regional factors; interactive adjustmentLive; refreshed each quarter

What each source does well (and doesn't)

BCIS (RICS)

Strength: Gold standard; elemental breakdowns unmatched elsewhere

Weakness: Subscription; out of reach for small practices

ONS Construction Output Price Indices

Strength: Authoritative, openly licensed, used in public contracts

Weakness: Blended only; no regional split; no elemental breakdown

MHCLG Monthly Building Materials

Strength: Granular material-specific signal; earliest indicator of input shocks

Weakness: Materials only; no labour; flat CSVs that need parsing

Costmodelling.com

Strength: Free regional factors in a usable form

Weakness: Static HTML; no interactive tools; irregular updates

Turner & Townsend / Gleeds market reports

Strength: Good for narrative context and forecasts

Weakness: Not a dataset; hard to use programmatically

Trails Cost Tracker

Strength: Combines free sources with an interactive tool + inflation adjustment

Weakness: Not elemental (yet); blended where ONS is blended

How to stitch them together

For most small-practice use cases, this combination gets you roughly 90% of what BCIS would:

  • Inflation adjustment on historical quotes: Use the ONS Construction Output Price Index via the Trails Cost Tracker. It applies the multiplier for you, including quarter-to-quarter precision.
  • Per-m² benchmarks by project type: Turner & Townsend and Gleeds publish indicative ranges in their free annual reports. Trails publishes a live-adjusted benchmark table that combines these with current ONS adjustment.
  • Material price signals: MHCLG's monthly building materials dataset is granular and free. The Cost Tracker surfaces the most-watched 10 to 15 commodities as a live grid.
  • Regional factors: Costmodelling publishes a usable table, and the same factors are applied automatically in the Cost Tracker when you select a region.
  • Market narrative / forecasts: Turner & Townsend's quarterly market intelligence and Gleeds' annual construction review are both free PDFs and good for the "where are costs going?" conversation with clients.

Where BCIS is still worth it

Three cases where the BCIS subscription earns its keep:

  1. Elemental cost plans at NRM2 level of detail. BCIS's element-by-element breakdowns by building type aren't matched in any free source. If you're doing cost-plan work regularly from scratch, the saved hours justify the cost.
  2. Non-residential tendering. Free sources are heavily residential-biased. For commercial, healthcare, education or industrial work, BCIS is still the shortest path to defensible numbers.
  3. Large-project dispute support. BCIS data has a court-tested provenance that free sources don't yet have. For PI or adjudication contexts, the pedigree matters.

For residential extensions, refurbishments, and small new-build work (the typical small design-build portfolio), the free stack is usually enough.

A quick rule of thumb

If your firm bills under ~£1m/year and your QS is a generalist who spends less than 20% of their time on cost planning from scratch, the free stack covers you. Above that, or if you're pricing commercial work, BCIS pays back.

Either way: the data above is always live on the Trails Cost Tracker and free to use.

Frequently asked questions

What are the best free alternatives to BCIS for UK construction cost data?
Four sources cover most of what a small practice QS needs without a BCIS subscription. ONS Construction Output Price Indices give blended output prices by building type. MHCLG Monthly Statistics of Building Materials and Components give material-level index series. Turner & Townsend and Gleeds publish quarterly market reports with regional and tender price commentary in free PDFs. Costmodelling publishes free index series including a useful BCIS-equivalent tender price indicator. Trails Cost Tracker stitches these together with regional factors and anchor conversion. None individually replaces BCIS line-item rates, but the combination covers indexing and benchmarking.
Can I use ONS data instead of BCIS for cost planning?
For indexing and inflation adjustments, yes. ONS Construction Output Price Indices are accepted by most parties for indexing historical cost plans forward, and COPI is what JCT fluctuation Option C defaults to in the formula rules. Where ONS does not substitute for BCIS is in elemental and unit rate build-ups. BCIS publishes median rates by element (substructure, superstructure, finishes) and by building type, which ONS does not. For cost planning use ONS for inflation and a combination of Turner & Townsend, Gleeds, and your own project history for elemental rates.
How current is MHCLG building materials data compared to BCIS?
MHCLG publishes monthly, typically on a three to four week lag, and covers roughly 60 material categories with price indices and some physical volume data. BCIS Online updates its materials indices quarterly. For sensitive materials like steel, timber, and concrete products, MHCLG is actually more timely than BCIS. Where BCIS wins is the breadth of engineered components (mechanical, electrical, finishes) where MHCLG's coverage is thin. A sensible free workflow: track MHCLG for the raw commodities that move fast, cross-check against T&T's quarterly commentary.
Is Trails Cost Tracker really free, or is it a free trial?
The cost tracker pages are free to use indefinitely, no signup. The data is pulled from ONS and MHCLG under the Open Government Licence and enriched with regional factors derived from published Turner & Townsend, Gleeds, and Costmodelling data. The tracker's value over raw ONS is that the index adjustments, regional premiums, and anchor conversions are pre-computed. Trails sells a separate platform for design-build firms (planning application tracking, prospect reports), but the cost tracker is an open tool.
When is BCIS worth paying for despite free alternatives?
BCIS is worth the subscription when the firm runs elemental cost planning to NRM2 structure at volume, needs tender price forecasting for bid strategy, or is working on complex non-residential projects where elemental BCIS rates are the market benchmark. For small practices doing mostly residential extensions and loft conversions under £500k, the free stack (ONS + MHCLG + T&T free reports + your own project history) is usually sufficient. RICS Practice Standards do not mandate BCIS specifically; they mandate a defensible and transparent methodology.