Chapter 3 Discussion Questions (Continued)
4.7.4 Change Deliverable Requirements
Modify Contracts and Contract Language
Owners can control which BIM applications are implemented on their projects through the type of project delivery process they select and with BIM - specifi c contractual or RFP requirements. Changing the delivery process is often more diffi cult than changing the requirements. Many owners fi rst start with changes in the RFP and contracts in three areas:
1. Scope and detail of the model information. This includes defi ning the format of project documentation and changing from 2D paper to a 3D digital model. Owners may choose to forego specifi c requirements pertaining to the 3D format and the types of information service providers include in the model (see Figure 4 - 18 and Section 4.6 ); or owners can provide detailed language for those requirements (see the Camino Group Medical Building case study). As owners gain experience, the nature of these requirements will better refl ect the types of BIM applications an owner desires and the information that the owner team demands throughout the delivery process and subsequent operation of the facility. Table 4 - 6 provides a reference for the types of information an owner should consider relative to desired BIM applications.
2. Uses of model information. This includes specifying services more readily performed with BIM tools, such as 3D coordination, real - time review of design, frequent value engineering using cost estimating software, or energy analysis. All of these services could be performed with traditional 2D and 3D technologies; but providers using BIM tools would most likely be more com- petitive and capable of providing such services. For example, 3D coordination is greatly facilitated through BIM tools. Tables 4 - 1 , 4 - 2 , and 4 - 6 provide a
c04.indd 137
c04.indd 137 12/19/07 1:57:30 PM12/19/07 1:57:30 PM
summary of the BIM applications owners can use as a basis to describe the services relevant to their specifi c projects.
3. Organization of model information. This includes project work break- down structure and is discussed in Section 4.5.1 . Many owners overlook this type of requirement. Today, CAD layer standards or Primavera activity fi elds are templates for how designers organize the project documentation and the building information. Similarly, owners or the project team need to establish an initial information organization structure. This may be based on the geome- try of the project site (Northeast section) or the building structure (East wing, Building X). The One Island East and Camino Medical Building case studies both discuss the project work breakdown structure that the teams employed to facilitate the exchange of building information model information and project documentation. Efforts are underway to establish building model standards, such as the National Building Information Model Standard. The NBIMS should provide much - needed defi nition and a useful resource for owners to defi ne the project work breakdown structure. The U.S. Coast Guard, for example, refer- ences these within their milestones.
These requirements, however, are often diffi cult to meet without some modifi cations to the fee structure and relationships between project participants or without the use of incentive plans that defi ne the workfl ow and digital hand - offs between disciplines. Often, these are more diffi cult to defi ne in a workfl ow centered on a digital model, as opposed to fi les and documents.
Additionally, approval agencies still require 2D project documentation as do standard professional contracts (as was the case in the Penn National Parking Structure case study). Consequently, many owners maintain the traditional document and fi le - based deliverables (see Figure 4 - 19 ); and they insert digital 3D workfl ows and deliverables into the same process. That is, each discipline works independently on their scope and BIM applications and hands - off the 3D digital model at specifi ed times.
The case studies contained in Chapter 9 provide excellent examples of how owners have modifi ed their delivery processes to support a more collaborative real - time workfl ow. These modifi cations include:
Modifi ed design - build delivery. The GM Production Plant project dem- onstrates a collaborative process achieved through modifi cations to the design - build delivery process. GM hired the design - build team and then participated in the selection of subcontractors and additional design con- sultants. The goal was to form the team as early as possible and engage them from the outset.
c04.indd 138
c04.indd 138 12/19/07 1:57:30 PM12/19/07 1:57:30 PM
Masses Spaces Site Architectural Structural MEP Utilities Prefabricated Components Custom Components
Pro Forma Analysis Scenario Exploration Program Compliance Building Performance Operation Simulation Code Compliance Cost
Coordination Schedule Prefabrication
Configuration Commissioning Facility Management Financial Asset management Operation Simulation Performance monitoring Built
Configuration (retrofit)
Geometric Properties
BIM Scope Component Property Types
Concept
Constru- ction Level Generic
Material Properties Functional Cost Constructability (Method) Manufacturer BIM Application Area
Design/Construction
Post Construction/Operations
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• • • •
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Table 4-6 Relationship between the BIM application area and the required scope and level of detail in the building model.
c04.indd 139
c04.indd 139 12/19/07 1:57:31 PM12/19/07 1:57:31 PM
Performance - based contracts. Performance - based contracts or perform- ance - based acquisition (PBA) focus on results, are typically fi xed - fee, and allow service providers to deliver a facility or their services using their own best practices (Department of Defense 2000). This emphasizes the outcome, as defi ned by the owner, rather than intermediate milestones or deliverables. Many government agencies are moving to this approach, targeting 40 %– 50% of new work using this approach (General Services Administration 2007). This type of contract typically requires that the owner spend more time early in the project to defi ne the facility require- ments and structure the contracts to accommodate such an approach. This approach may seem a contradiction to the previous recommendations; but service providers utilizing BIM will most likely be more competitive and requirements can be BIM - based.
Traditional Deliverables
to Owner Market Demands/
Needs
Feasibility/Concept Development
(Chapter 5)
Facility Delivery Process and Lifecycle
Design and Engineering
(Chapter 5)
Construction (Chapter 6 and 7)
Occupy/Startup (Chapter 4)
Operate/Maintain (Chapter 4) Project Scope/
Objectives
Construction Drawings and Specifications Conceptual Plan,
Preliminary Design
As-Built Drawings
Deliverables with BIM technologies and process
Project Scope/
Objectives
Building Model Conceptual Building Model,
Estimate, Plan
As-Built Building Model FIGURE 4-19
Typical contract deliv- erables as a function of the traditional design- bid-build process com- pared to the types of deliverables that result from a collaborative BIM-based process.
Owners will need to change contracts and language to promote the use of BIM.
c04.indd 140
c04.indd 140 12/19/07 1:57:31 PM12/19/07 1:57:31 PM
Shared Incentive plans. Performance - based contracts are often imple- mented with shared incentive plans. When all members collaborate on most phases of building, there is no clear partitioning of organization contributions. The Camino Group Medical Building case study provides an example of a shared incentive plan designed to distribute cost savings to the project team. It provides fi nancial incentives based on the overall project performance and not solely on individual organizational perform- ance. These plans are often diffi cult to defi ne and implement, as the case study demonstrates. Nonetheless, shared incentive plans reward teams for collaborative performance rather than local optimization of discipline - specifi c performance.