IDENTIFYING BIM RELATED COSTS DUE TO CHANGES BIM Related... · IDENTIFYING BIM RELATED COSTS DUE TO CHANGES ... • McCoy Electric, Max N. Landon • McPhee, ... Interview Findings

IDENTIFYING BIM RELATED COSTS DUE TO CHANGES

Prepared byHISHAM SAID

Santa Clara University&

JUSTIN REGINATO California State University, Sacramento

Prepared forELECTRI INTERNATIONAL

The Foundation for Electrical Construction Inc.


A Technology Transfer Report

This ELECTRI International research project has been conducted under the auspices of the Research Center. © 2016 ELECTRI International – The Foundation for Electrical Construction, Inc. All Rights Reserved. The material in this publication is copyright protected and may not be reproduced without the permission of ELECTRI International.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

2

ii | DECEMBER 2016

Note: Third parties may have or claim rights to referenced trade/service marks. Any such names/products/services are the property of their respective owners

The research team acknowledges ELECTRI International for its ongoing sponsorship of research supporting the electrical distribution and construction industry. We appreciate every ELECTRI Council member and NECA company that participated in our data collection tasks, interviews, online questionnaire and case studies collection. The investigative team wishes to thank the chair and project committee Task Force members for their guidance, feedback, and insight throughout the project process. The study Task Force included:

Denis St. PierreAlterman Electric

Clinton Beall B&D Industries

Adam RikkolaEgan Industries

Adam RudeERMCO

Greg GossettERMCO (Task Force Chair)

Heather MooreMCA Inc.

Mike GlogovacSprig Electric

Mike JurewiczSprig Electric

Greg StewartThe Superior Group

Brett StacksTrimble MEP Division


3

iii | DECEMBER 2016

ELECTRI Council

PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL - $1,000,000 or more

Contractors• The Hugh D. ‘Buz’ and Irene E. ‘Betty’ Allison Trust, Hugh D. ‘Buz’ Allison, d.• The Richard W. and Darlene Y. McBride Trust, Richard W. McBride*• The Al and Margaret Wendt Trust, Albert G. Wendt*, d.

NECA Chapters and Affiliates• National Electrical Contractors Association*, John M. Grau

Manufacturers, Distributors, Utilities and Affiliates• Schneider Electric / Square D, Neal Lyons

PROGRAM GUARANTOR - $500,000 or more

Contractors• McCormick Systems, Jack McCormick

NECA Chapters and Affiliates• Electrical Contractors Trust of Alameda County, Thomas F. Curran

Manufacturers, Distributors, Utilities and Affiliates• The Okonite Company, Bruce Sellers

AMBASSADOR - $450,000 or more

Contractors• Southern Contracting Company, Timothy McBride

COMMISSIONER - $400,000 or more

NECA Chapters and Affiliates• San Diego County Chapter NECA, Earl C. Restine, Jr.

DIPLOMAT - $350,000 or more

NECA Chapters and Affiliates• Boston Chapter NECA, Joseph H Bodio

Manufacturers, Distributors, Utilities and Affiliates• Eaton Corporation, James L. Golly• Graybar, Anthony Frantal• Trimble, featuring Accubid Products, Paul Goldsmith

ENVOY - $300,000 or more

Contractors• O'Connell Electric Company, Walter T. Parkes* and Michael Parkes

NECA Chapters and Affiliates• Northeastern Line Constructors Chapter NECA, George Troutman• Santa Clara Valley Chapter NECA, Michael Jurewicz• Western Pennsylvania Chapter NECA, Robert L. Bruce

Manufacturers, Distributors, Utilities and Affiliates• Greenlee / A Textron Company, Scott Hall• Viewpoint Construction Software, Karl Rajotte

REGENT - $250,000 or more

Contractors• Cannon & Wendt Electric Company, David E. Fagan• Capital Electric Construction, Robert E. and Sharon Doran* - In memory of Robert E. Doran, Jr.• John R. Colson, TX• Maron Electric Co., Jerold H. Nixon, d., and Eric F. Nixon• Miller Electric Company, H. E. "Buck" Autrey* **, David Long and Henry Brown• Robert L. Pfeil, d., IN

NECA Chapters and Affiliates• Chicago & Cook County Chapter NECA, Eric F. Nixon• New York City Chapter NECA*, Ciro J. Lupo• Northeastern Illinois Chapter NECA, Craig Martin• Northern California Chapter NECA, Greg A. Armstrong• Northern Indiana Chapter NECA, Anthony J. Maloney, III• Puget Sound Chapter NECA, Michael J. Holmes• Southeastern Michigan Chapter NECA*, Thomas Mittelbrun, III

Manufacturers, Distributors, Utilities and Affiliates• Thomas & Betts Corporation, David Dean

CHAMPION - $200,000 or more

NECA Chapters and Affiliates• Greater Toronto Electrical Contractors Association, Paul Sheridan• Illinois Chapter NECA*, E. Wes Anderson• Los Angeles County Chapter NECA, Steve Watts

GOVERNOR - $150,000 or more

Contractors• Bana Electric Corporation, Stephen Bender• Center Line Electric, Inc., Clyde Jones• Chapel Electric Co., LLC, Dennis F. Quebe• Brian Christopher, OR• Clennon Electric, Inc., Lawrence H. Clennon• Cogburn Bros Electric, Inc., Larry Cogburn and Ron L. Cogburn• Ferndale Electric Co., Arthur Ashley• J. Ranck Electric, Inc., Jeremy Rowley• M. J. Electric, LLC, Edward Farrington


4

iv | DECEMBER 2016

• Michels Corporation, Gerald W. Schulz• PPC Partners, Inc., Richard R. Pieper, Sr.*• The Superior Group, A Division of Electrical Specialists, Gregory E. Stewart• Turner Electric Service, Inc., Robert J. Turner, II• United Electric Company, Inc., Dan Walsh• VEC, Inc., Rex A. Ferry• Zenith Systems, LLC, Michael B. Joyce

NECA Chapters and Affiliates• Atlanta Chapter NECA, Chris Foster• Cascade Chapter NECA, Dave Ginestra• Central Indiana Chapter NECA, Darrell Gossett• Dakotas Chapter NECA, Ed Christian• Electrical Contractors Trust of Solano & Napa Counties, Gregory D. Long• Finger Lakes New York Chapter NECA, John Amicucci• Greater Cleveland Chapter NECA, David Haines• Kansas City Chapter NECA, Kenneth C. Borden• Long Island Chapter NECA, Donald Leslie, Jr.• Northern New Jersey Chapter NECA, Henry J. Sassaman• Oregon-Columbia Chapter NECA, George Adams• Oregon Pacific-Cascade Chapter NECA, Thomas Kyle• Penn-Del-Jersey Chapter NECA, Kenneth R. MacDougall• South Florida Chapter NECA, James G. DiLullo• South Texas Chapter NECA, Leslie M. Moynahan• Washington, D.C. Chapter NECA, Andrew A. Porter

Manufacturers, Distributors, Utilities and Affiliates• GE Lighting, Mark Lovdahl• Legrand North America, Steve Killius• Lutron Electronics Co., Inc., Richard Angel• MCA, Inc., Heather Moore• Panduit Corporation

FOUNDER - $100,000 or more

Contractors• Abbott Electric, Inc., Michael C. Abbott• ADCO Electrical Corporation, Gina M. Addeo• Alcan Electrical & Engineering, Inc., Scott Bringmann• Allison Smith Company LLC, Chris Reichart• Alterman, Inc., John C. Wright• Amaya Electric, John Amaya• ARS Proyectos, Mexico, Carlos Anastas• B&D Industries, Inc., Clinton Beall• Bagby & Russell Electric Co., Franklin D. Russell - In memory of Robert L. Russell• Baker Electric, Inc., Ted N. Baker• Boggs Electric Company, Inc., Michael H. Boggs• Daniel Bozick, d., CA• Bruce & Merrilees Electric Co., Jay H. Bruce• Richard L. Burns*, d., FL

• Carl T. Madsen, Inc., Rocky Sharp• Chewning & Wilmer, Inc., Robert M. Zahn• Christenson Electric, Inc., Sonja Rheaume• Collins Electric Company, Inc., Kevin E. Gini• Continental Electrical Construction Co., David A. Witz• Ben and Jolene Cook, TX• Corona Industrial Electric, Herbert P. Spiegel - A tribute in memory of Flora Spiegel• CSI Electrical Contractors, Inc., Steve Watts• Thomas F. and Alana Curran, CA• Daniel's Electrical Construction Company, Inc., Thomas G. Ispas• DiFazio Power & Electric, LLC, Robert DiFazio• Dillard Smith Construction Company, Brian Imsand*• Divane Bros Electric Co., In memory of William T. Divane, Sr. and Daniel J. Divane III• Edward G. Sawyer Company, Inc., Joseph J. McCluskey, Jr.• Electric Power Equipment Company ***• Electrical Corporation of America, Donald Laffoon• ERMCO Electrical and System Contractor, Greg Gossett• Ferguson Electric Construction Co., Ron Markowski• Fisk Electric Company, Orvil Anthony*• Giles Electric Company, Inc., Bradley S. Giles• Gregg Electric, Inc., Randy Fehlman*• Gurtz Electric Company, Frank Gurtz - In honor of Gerald Gurtz• Hardt Electric Inc., Peter D. Hardt• Harrington Electric Co., Thomas A. Morgan• Holmes Electric Company, Michael J. Holmes• Eddie E. Horton, TX• Hunt Electric Corporation, Michael Hanson• Jamerson & Bauwens Electrical Contractors, Inc., Kenneth J. Bauwens• Johnson Electrical Construction Corporation, Donald Leslie, Jr.• Jordan-Smith Electric, Travis A. Smith• Kelso-Burnett Company, Bradley Weir• L. K. Comstock & Co., Inc., Ben D'Alessandro• L.L.D. Electric Co. (Hyslop Shannon Foundation), Tom Morton• Lighthouse Electric Company, Inc., Todd A. Mikec• The Lindheim Family, Michael Lindheim*• Lone Star Electric, Mark A. Huston• Long Electric Company, Gregory D. Long• Mark One Electric Company, Inc., Carl J. Privitera, Sr.• Mayers Electric Company, Howard Mayers• McCoy Electric, Max N. Landon• McPhee, Ltd., Michael E. McPhee• MJM Electric, Inc., Mark J. Mazur• MONA Electric Group, David McKay• Motor City Electric Co., Richard J. Martin*• Newkirk Electric Associates, Inc., Ted C. Anton• Oregon Electric Construction, Jeff Thiede


5

v | DECEMBER 2016

• Parsons Electric Company, Joel Moryn• Peter D. Furness Electric Co., John F. Hahn, Jr.*• Potelco, Inc., Gary A. Tucci• Pritchard Electric Co., Tom Braley• R. W. Leet Electric, Inc., Tim Russell• Red Top Electric Company Emeryville, Inc., Michael C. Curran - In honor of George T. and Mary K. Curran• Rex Electric & Technologies, LLC, Dominic M. Sergi• Robertson Bright, Inc., Wally Budgell• Roman Electric Company, Phillip G. Rose• Sargent Electric Company, Frederic B. Sargent• Schultheis Electric / TSB, Inc., Tim Schultheis• Gerald W. Schulz, WI • Shaw Electric Company, David W. Kurtz• Sidney Electric Company, John S. Frantz• Sprig Electric Company, Inc., Pepper Snyder• St. Francis Electric, Robert Spinardi• TEC-Corp / Thompson Electric Co., Skip Perley - In memory of Alfred C. Thompson• Toomer Electrical Co., Inc., Ronald J. Toomer• Tri-City Electric Co., Inc., D. R. "Rod" Borden, Jr.*• Triangle Electric Company, Roy C. Martin• Truland Systems Corporation ***• Truland Walker Seal Transportation, Inc.***• United Electric Company, Inc., Jarrett D. Hayes• Universal Systems, Gene W. Dennis• Zwicker Electric Company, Inc., David Pinter

NECA Chapters and Affiliates• Alaska Chapter NECA, Larry Bell• American Line Builders Chapter NECA, Richard V. Miller• Arizona Chapter NECA, Philip Dyer• Canadian Electrical Contractors Association, Colin Campbell• Central Ohio Chapter NECA, Brian Damant• Eastern Illinois Chapter NECA, Gregory Outsen• Greater Sacramento Chapter NECA, Frank Schetter• Kansas Chapter NECA, Phil Nelson• Michigan Chapter NECA, Michael L. Crawford• Milwaukee Chapter NECA, Dave Washebek• Minneapolis Chapter NECA, Duane Hendricks• Missouri Valley Line Constructors Chapter NECA, Joe Mitchell• North Central Ohio Chapter NECA, Scott Goodspeed• North Florida Chapter NECA• North Texas Chapter NECA, Steve Hargrove• Rocky Mountain Chapter NECA, Kellie Holland• San Francisco Chapter NECA, Leonard Lynch• Southeastern Line Constructors Chapter NECA, C. Stephen Gaines, Jr.• Southern Indiana Chapter NECA• Southern Nevada Chapter, NECA, Donald Campbell

• UNCE - Union Nacional de Contructores Electromecanicos, A. C. (Mexico), Oscar A. Torres• West Virginia-Ohio Valley Chapter NECA, James Smith• Western Line Constructors Chapter NECA, Jules W. Weaver• Wisconsin Chapter NECA, Daniel Shea

Manufacturers, Distributors, Utilities and Affiliates• 3M, Daniel McGurran• Acuity Brands, Inc., Dennis Noyce• Advance/Philips Electronics, Ray Hurt• Cerro Wire, LLC, Jared Argyle• Cree Inc., John Spencer• Crescent Electric Supply, Darrin W. Anderson• E2E Summit, Timothy Speno• Encore Wire Corporation, Kevin Kieffer• Allen W. Estes, III, WA• Focus Investments Advisors, Andrew Wasa• Forest Lighting, Jian Ni• General Cable, Brian Moriarty• Ideal Industries, Inc., Matthew Barrett• Mayer Electric Supply, Kyle Walters• Milwaukee Tool Corporation, Scott Kopriva• Mosaic Learning, Michael Callanan• Moss-Adams LLP, Buddy Wall• Paradigm Sales Group, Brett Bauz• Philips Lighting, Jon Zelinsky• Rexel/Gexpro, Chris Chickanosky• San Diego Gas & Electric, James Boland• Southwire Company LLC, Tom Feissle• Thomas Industries, Inc.• Werner Company, Jeff P. Campbell• WESCO Distribution, Inc., John Muenchen

* denotes founding member of ELECTRI'21 COUNCIL (1989-1990) ** denotes first contributor *** denotes no longer in business d. denotes deceased.


6

vi | DECEMBER 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary 1

1. Introduction 2

2. Methodology 6

3. Findings and Analysis 7Interview Findings 7Online Questionnaire Findings 11Findings of Collected Case Studies 18

4. Suggestions to Monitor, Control, and Recover BIM Design Change Costs 23

Checklists for Electrical Contractors, General Contractors, and Owners 23Suggested Process for Planning and Control BIM-Related Tasks 27

5. Conclusions and Recommendations 31Recommendation 1: Understand the contract as it pertains to BIM and prefabrication 31Recommendation 2: Be clear with your intentions regarding BIM and prefabrication as early in the project as possible 32Recommendation 3: Effectively execute BIM and prefabrication in the field 32Recommendation 4: Build a virtual cost cycle. Use current costs to estimate future costs 33

Appendix A: Background and Review of Previous Related Studies 34

Appendix B: Information and Data Gathering 35B.1) Interviews 35B.2) Questionnaire 36B.3) Case Studies Collection 37

Appendix C: Online Questionnaire 38

Appendix D: References 42


7

1 | DECEMBER 2016

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Understanding the contractual relationship and how it impacts BIM and prefabrication,

2. Being clear about the contractor’s intention to use BIM,

3. Notifying the owner when prefabrication is about to commence,

4. Tracking BIM and prefabrication costs,

5. Notifying the owner when additional costs, unaccounted for in the original bid or proposal, are being accrued.

Building information modeling (BIM) and prefabrication tools have greatly improved the efficiency of constructing structures. They enable greater quality and enhance field installation coordination. Contractors, particularly specialty contractors, are adopting these tools rapidly and their use is becoming very commonplace on projects.

However, these tools can only enhance construction if the design is reasonably set before their implementation. In fact, BIM and prefabrication become very expensive to use if owners are making changes to the plans once BIM models are developed or prefabrication has commenced. The situation can be worse for specialty contractors. Many of them have invested large sums of capital to develop BIM and prefabrication capabilities and pay significant salaries to the skilled personnel that execute them. Yet, owners are often reluctant to compensate contractors for the additional work associated with the increased work that follows ill-timed changes to the plans.

This report investigates the costs associated with those late changes and how they impact a contractor’s ability to execute the scope of work. This research includes a survey from which a trove of data reveals the difficulties to contractors resulting from such late changes.

In an effort to help contractors avoid these issues, this report provides effective suggestions and recommendations, developed based on interviews with several successful specialty contractors. These findings will help specialty contractors, general contractors and owners create an environment in which BIM and prefabrication will work to deliver the project that owners desire at the lowest possible cost and highest level of quality. These recommendations center on the importance of:

This report presents a process for tracking costs plus checklists, one each for the electrical contractor, general contractor and owner. The objective of this report is to highlight the extra BIM and prefabrication costs borne by electrical contractors due to late changes, but more importantly, this report provides sensible tools for avoiding these costs.


,,When introducing the Model T in 1909, Henry Ford stated:

I will build a car for the great multitude. It will be large enough for the family, but small enough for the individual to run and care for. It will be constructed of the best materials, by the best men hired, after the simplest designs that modern engineers can devise. But it will be so low in price that no man making a good salary will be unable to own one – and enjoy with his family the blessings of hours in God’s great open spaces."

Ford was able to achieve this extraordinary compilation of product attributes by modernizing the automobile manufacturing process, most notably by implementing mass production of standardized parts. Millions of Americans benefitted from Ford’s achievements because he created a well-constructed product and delivered it at an economical price. Fast forward to current times. Modern electrical contractors have adopted technologies, such as building information modeling (BIM) and prefabrication, enabling them to turn work that was commonly pieced together in the field into a process resembling mass production. Like Ford’s Model T, the customers of these electrical contractors benefit from a quality product that is installed at increasingly lower prices. There is a tension in the mass production of any good. While higher quality and lower prices are commonly achieved, they are done so at the expense of random customization. The process works optimally, and results in lowest costs, when the design of the final product is set prior to manufacturing and that design remains unchanged. Ford famously quipped about the Model T that customers “can have any color as long as it’s black,” implying that the low cost and quality that made the Model T available and desirable to a fickle clientele were the result of a design fixed ahead of the mass production process.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

2 | DECEMBER 2016


3 | DECEMBER 2016

While electrical contractors can and, typically, are very willing to accommodate changes in designs, such changes are oftentimes accompanied by additional costs not included in the initial bid. This report investigates some of these additional costs. Specifically, this report presents the results of a research project that investigates the costs associated with BIM when ill-timed changes are made to the design of electrical systems prior to construction. Forward thinking specialty contractors are quickly adopting advanced technologies and techniques that were completely foreign to the construction industry a decade ago. In doing so, these contractors are able to install increasingly complex systems at lower costs that are the result of intense competition. However, the technologies, and the people that operate them, have a cost. The further adoption of technologies, while overwhelmingly benefitting project owners, hinges on the contractors’ ability to be fairly compensated for the use of such technologies. To highlight the benefits of new technologies, it is important to demonstrate the modern process for constructing electrical systems, as displayed in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. Modern process for electrical installation

Step 1: Design the structure with MEP. Perform clash detection.

Step 2a: Prefabricate components in a controlled space for faster production and greater quality.

Step 2b: Use precision surveying instrumentation with model-based coordination data to layout components.

Step 3: Use BIM model for field coordination.

Step 4: Perform construction more efficiently and with

greater quality.

Step 5: Verify as-built conditions.


4 | DECEMBER 2016

BIM has been a successful virtual design/construction (VDC) approach to facilitate communications between designers and constructors to reduce construction costs and schedules. BIM shifts the contractor’s effort from physical coordination to virtual modeling along with related project planning tasks of constructability, fabrication, and layout/installation. Accordingly, BIM and its related planning tasks necessitate the use of more costly, qualified people. While the cost of construction is more heavily front-loaded, the cost of total construction is still typically lower than the cost of conventional (BIM-less) construction.

Like other effective construction tools, the savings realized from using BIM may not offset the cost of rework and design changes. Currently, customers have the wrong understanding that VDC and BIM can make it easy for them to change their design requirements whenever they desire, as changes can be virtually made in the model. This misunderstanding undermines the real benefit of BIM for effective construction collaboration under approved design requirements.

As shown in Figure 2, constructing the “virtual” BIM model follows the same MacLeamy Effort-Time curve of constructing the physical project itself. It is costly for contractors to accommodate design changes after spending considerable effort in each trade’s spatial coordination and constructing the BIM model. These cost impacts will escalate if contractors proceeded with BIM-related tasks of assemblies engineering, fabrication, and jobsite layout.

Design and redesigns are not part of the expected spatial coordination of trade contractors. In a case study obtained by the researchers, an electrical contractor (EC) suffered greatly from customer-initiated changes that were made during the development of the BIM coordination model. As such, the EC submitted a change request of about $1 million to recover the additional required BIM coordination and rework of its related tasks.

It was a challenging task to justify such large cost impacts (200% increase of the original BIM budget) when the owner quantifies the impact only as a 5% design scope change. Accordingly, electrical contractors need to communicate clearly the cost impacts of changing the design-intent BIM model in terms of updating the coordination model and reworking related tasks of engineering, prefabrication, and jobsite layout.

Figure 1. MacLeamy Effort-Time Curve, applicable to both real and virtual construction

Ability to impact cost & Performance

Cost of design changes

Drafting - centric workflow

BIM Workflow

PreliminaryDesign

Detailed Design

Construction Documentation

Construction Operation

Eff

ect

/ C

ost

/ E

ffo

rt

1

2

3

4


5 | DECEMBER 2016

The main goal of this study is to support NECA members in apprising owners, architects and general contractors about the importance of the optimal sequencing of a BIM Execution Plan and the true cost impacts of making changes to a BIM model. Accomplishing this goal requires achieving three main objectives:

Capturing the current industry

experience of developing BIM models and

performing its related planning tasks under

design changes.

Developing best practices to capture, categorize, quantify and communicate the cost

impact of BIM changes in an organized, concise,

uniform manner.

Disseminatingthe outcome of this

study to NECA members and the broader

construction industry.

321


CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY

6 | DECEMBER 2016

The objective of this study was achieved by performing four main research tasks:

Task 1 - Review of Previous Studies Researchers gathered all relevant academic and industry studies relevant to the topic of the financial feasibility and return-on-cost for BIM, in general, and MEP construction firms. The details of the reviewed studies are listed in Appendix A.

Task 2 - Data Collection Study data were collected using interviews, online questionnaires, and case studies. The interviews were helpful in designing the other two data collections tools, as well as for formulating the proposed best practices. The details of the performed data collection can be found in Appendix B.

Task 3 - Data Analysis Data obtained from the interviews, online questionnaire, and collected case studies were analyzed to obtain better understanding of the individual and industry-wide experiences of managing BIM-related tasks under design changes and, then, recovering their cost overruns.

Task 4 - Proposed Best Practices to Monitor, Control, and Recover BIM Design Change Costs: Supported by the data analysis, best practices are recommended for electrical contractors to consider in managing BIM-related tasks under design changes. Also, a checklist of BIM execution expectations from the project participants is proposed so electrical contractors can share with project owners, general contractors, and trade partners. Finally, a systematic process is proposed to control, monitor and report BIM-related costs.


CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

7 | DECEMBER 2016

The following sub-sections summarize the findings from analyzing the quantitative and qualitative data collected from the interviews, online questionnaire, and case studies.

INTERVIEW FINDINGSSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 electrical and mechanical contractors. While the study was initiated by electrical contractors, mechanical contractors were interviewed because mechanical contracting was the first segment of the construction industry to widely adopt BIM and prefabrication. Their experiences, both positive and negative, are important to chronicle as the overall industry strives for improvement.

It would be impossible to present a summary of every topic discussed during the interviews. Key interview findings have been extracted and summarized below.

Current State of BIM and Prefabrication Implementation among Interviewed Firms

Every specialty contractor interviewed utilizes BIM and prefabrication to some degree, whether or not it is required by the owner or general contractor. Contractors use BIM and prefabrication because it is simply easier, less expensive and promotes greater quality by performing a portion of the construction in a controlled space.

It should be noted that electrical contractors utilize BIM less than mechanical contractors. It is common practice for mechanical contractors to prefabricate greater than 50% (in many cases much greater than 50%) of their


8 | DECEMBER 2016

ductwork and associated components off site. Electrical contractors, on the other hand, are more likely to prefabricate approximately 10% of their components, typically branch conduit, major feeders and racks.

There are many reasons for this dichotomy. Mechanical ductwork is larger in volume and field fabrication is difficult and space consuming. Electrical components, on the other hand, are typically installed after mechanical ductwork, meaning electrical contractors must respond to the installation of mechanical ductwork and associated equipment. If field conditions impose modifications to mechanical systems, then electrical contractors are expected to respond by working around such modifications. This highlights the need for early BIM coordination, but also demonstrates that electrical contractors are hamstrung by the work of others in terms of broader prefabrication. Also, it is oftentimes easier for electrical contractors to field-install conduit than it is for mechanical contractors to do so.

The main takeaway is that electrical contractors are not trying to dictate a world where they require owners to set plans in concrete so that all electrical components are modeled in BIM and prefabricated. Rather, ECs are asking for sufficient design completion so that major electrical components can be prefabricated and then benefit the project greatly.

In spite of these benefits, there is a general sense of confusion as to how BIM costs should be reimbursed or incorporated in bids or proposals. Many electrical contractors expressed concerns as to how they should include their costs of BIM and prefabrication in their bids or proposals. The interviewed contractors were divided into two basic categories. The first rarely included the cost of BIM and prefabrication in their bids or proposals. If they did so, they limited their costs to those specifically called for in the project’s general conditions (such as providing someone to participate in BIM coordination meetings).

Other contractors, who not coincidentally, were more successful in terms of being reimbursed for BIM-related change orders, were clearer about the BIM and prefabrication costs they included in their bids and proposals. Furthermore, these contractors spent time dissecting contracts in order to determine how BIM and prefabrication costs should be reimbursed and negotiated in order to have favorable payment terms added to contracts. For example, these contractors determined before the project started whether or not BIM costs should be included in a contractor’s overhead. If so, they negotiated a reasonable overhead or clearly stated early on that such costs would be added separately from overhead. Such firms made it a habit to understand how BIM and prefabrica-tion would be reimbursed and responded accordingly with their bids and proposals.

Understanding the cost of utilizing BIM and prefabrication was difficult for many contractors to articulate. For many electrical contractors, understanding their cost of BIM and prefabrication is difficult because they have only recently begun to collect and measure BIM performance data. Contractors who understand their cost of BIM typically fall into two camps: those who perform detailed bottom-up estimates and track the costs in those estimates against cost codes and others who apply a percentage to their estimates based on previous projects.

It requires greater effort to perform a full estimate of the costs associated with creating a BIM model, and it is particularly difficult to account for the costs of an owner making changes. Likewise, tracking BIM costs is also resource consuming. Yet, companies that do so claimed to be much more successful in recouping the costs associated with BIM and prefabrication in change orders, perhaps because they can articulate base costs up front and understand better how they were impacted. The clearer the cost tracking, the easier it is to make a case to an owner that additional reimbursement is warranted.


9 | DECEMBER 2016

Other companies employed a simpler method of applying a multiplier to their bids to represent the cost of implementing BIM and prefabrication. This multiplier is commonly 3% of the direct labor cost for the project. However, it can range anywhere from 2% to 5%, depending on project parameters such as quality and difficulty of the project, sophistication of other specialty contractors with whom the electrical contractor must interface, etc. While it is much easier from an estimation standpoint to simply add 3% to the direct labor hours or direct labor cost to determine the cost of BIM, it is much more difficult to get an owner to agree to 3% if the backup data used to determine the 3% value is not clearly demonstrated.

In terms of estimating and tracking BIM costs, there are again two primary camps: those who track all BIM, prefabrication, engineering, site layout, etc. costs with multiple, detailed cost codes and those who track all of those cost categories in a single cost code. The separation between the two groups generally comes down to the level of effort each wants to put into tracking costs. It is a greater burden on personnel to track costs across multiple cost codes, yet it yields the best information. However, both groups agree that, realistically, it is next to impossible to manage a BIM department, let alone get compensated for BIM-related change orders, if the costs associated with BIM and related activities are not tracked.

For union mechanical contractors, BIM modelers are covered under most collective bargaining agreements and, as such, BIM modelers are treated as direct labor. Union mechanical contractors simply include BIM hours in their estimates of direct labor. Doing so means that owners are less likely to scrutinize BIM labor costs. If this arrangement is enjoyed, or at least tolerated, by both the owner and mechanical contractors, perhaps it is time for other specialty contractors to follow suit. In these cases, costs are estimated and tracked as direct costs to the project, not as separate BIM costs that can be argued as part of overhead.

Challenges Facing Contractors with Respect to BIM and Prefabrication

Most of interviewed contractors commented that there is a lack of understanding regarding the use of BIM and prefabrication in construction. As previously mentioned, BIM and prefabrication are no longer optional services in construction, but rather are common means and methods. Yet, there are some owners who believe that since they do not explicitly require BIM or prefabrication, they should not pay for it. It needs to be clearly stated that BIM and prefabrication, in these cases, is not an extra elective cost. It is a lower cost and higher quality replacement for expensive field installation.

Along these same lines, owners often equate field activities with project progress. When this is the case, owners fail to recognize that specialty contractors can be making substantial project progress when pre- fabricating components. Basically, owners regard the presence of labor on the project site as a sign of progress. When the work is being performed off site, those progress markers are not present.

When changes are requested, they need to be incorporated into the BIM model, whether owners had requested BIM models or not. A common complaint made by specialty contractors is that ill-timed changes, oftentimes made right before field installation is about to commence, will result in the updating of the BIM model falling behind field progress. In these cases, BIM models stop existing as a tool for field coordination and become simply an expensive form of creating as-built models. While there is considerable value in having accurate as-built models, owners and contractors are forgoing an element of BIM usage that delivers real value to the project.


10 | DECEMBER 2016

There is one other problem echoed by many contractors that results from a lack of understanding regarding BIM: It is using the completion of the BIM model itself as a marker for overall project progress. When this is the case, owners will often push contractors to complete BIM models before the actual building design is complete. There are very real reasons why a project owner would want a completed BIM model before the project is completely designed, for example, to demonstrate to a potential leasee what a space will look like when completed. However, pushing for BIM model completion while the overall project design is still being developed almost ensures that the BIM model will require rework, sometimes significant. While the models exist in an electronic form, the rework is still expensive and labor-consuming. The models are not simply “drag and drop” and easily editable. BIM is expensive to maintain if the project design is unsettled.

Lastly, not all challenges regarding BIM result from a lack of BIM knowledge by owners. Many owners are incredibly knowledgeable regarding the capabilities of BIM. Yet, many of the contractors interviewed expressed challenges regarding owners requiring an L.O.D. that far exceeds the project’s needs. Owners have been discovering the value of BIM models through the lifecycle of the building and are increasingly asking for more detailed BIM models.

Most interviewed contractors routinely model to L.O.D. 300, at a minimum, because that is what is required to facilitate prefabrication and coordination. Going beyond L.O.D. 300, however, becomes increasingly expensive and time consuming. If any of the aforementioned issues also exist, such as incomplete designs or pushing for premature BIM completion as a means to demonstrate project progress, then the costs of modeling beyond L.O.D. 300 and the rework that is sure to follow, grow exponentially. While the contractors interviewed are all capable of modeling beyond L.O.D. 300 and oftentimes do, it is important for the owner and general contractor to acknowledge that there are additional costs and coordination required to do so.

Many of the specialty contractors interviewed have looked at these challenges as opportunities. Many, particularly those that have been more successful at being reimbursed for BIM-related changes than others, have routinely educated their clients regarding the use of BIM and prefabrication. They do this in several manners. First, those contractors who have been the most successful in terms of being reimbursed for BIM-related changes very clearly state up front in a project that they will use BIM and prefabrication if they, in fact, intend to do so. These contractors make this declaration whether or not BIM is a contractual requirement. This is typically the first step in educating clients regarding the use and benefits of BIM and prefabrication.

A second common step in educating clients on the benefits of BIM and prefabrication is demonstrating it to owners. Many successful contractors mentioned that they routinely bring new clients to their prefabrication shops to demonstrate how BIM and prefabrication work and articulate how it ultimately delivers value to the owner. While this requires time and energy, and agreement from clients, it will often clarify how the process works and create a tangible understanding of many costs that are difficult for owners to envision. When contractors create a forum to demonstrate the benefits of BIM and prefabrication and to explain how the costs associated with it are smaller than in-field installation, then owners are much more likely to reimburse for BIM and prefabrication costs when they make decisions that lead to increased BIM and prefabrication costs.

A third common practice among successful contractors is to notify owners and general contractors when prefabrication activities are commencing. Several of the contractors interviewed have developed notices they deliver to general contractors and owners stating that prefabrication is about to start and that, more importantly, any design changes will result in additional costs. These notices articulate that the contractor is about to mass


11 | DECEMBER 2016

produce a particular building component. These components are, based on the interviewees, typically branch conduit, major feeders and racks.

Notifying owners of impending prefabrication is not a foolproof strategy. While the most successful contractors interviewed universally used this tactic, many contractors who have struggled with reimbursements for changes have also employed it. A major takeaway from the interviews is that transparency regarding the use of BIM and prefabrication is an enabler of reimbursement for BIM and prefabrication should changes be requested that impact the BIM model or prefabrication operations.

ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE FINDINGSResearchers received 80 questionnaire responses from 71 unique electrical construction firms. As shown in Figure 3, the questionnaire respondents came from diverse geographic locations that cover the most economically- and construction-active metropolitan areas in the United States of America.

Figure 3. The questionnaire respondents and their geographic distribution

WA

OR

MT ND

OK

KS

NMAZ

COUT

CA

NV

ID WY

NE

SD

ALMS

LA

AR

MO

IL

WI

IA

MN

TX

NC

VA

TN

KY

PAOHIN

MI

WV

FL

SC

GA

NY

VT

ME

NH

MA

RI

DE

NJ

CT

MD

Whitehead, Plan-Group, Southwire, On-Electric Lighthouse, Van-Ert, Intermountain, Parsons, Sequoyah, Electrical-Systems, Maron, Rosendin, Eaton-McCaskill, Guild, Tri-City, Chewnig & Wilmer, Ferndale, Shelley,

Interpid, Egan, Chapel, ERMCO, Rex, Teknon, Collins, Anderson, Fisk, King, Sturgeon hardt, EC, Allison-Smith, Ferguson Valley, Sprig, Giles, SCI, Alcan B&B, Elliott MDE, Schetter, Fuller, Bana, Alterman, Frahler, JH-Kelly,

Center-Line Cochran, Miller, Tice, Cherry-City Dynalectric, OEG, Zenith, Homes, Continental, Forest, Napp, Mayer Heil, Edward-Sawyer, Southern, Legrand, Evergreen-Power, Superior, Kelso-Burnett, Roman,

Redwood, Mill-Plain, Total-Facility


12 | DECEMBER 2016

As shown in Figure 4 below, the surveyed companies constitute a diverse sample that covers a wide spectrum of work volume (less than $5 million up to $1 billion) and BIM staffing (no BIM modelers up to more than 6 modelers). The survey was filled by some non-BIM firms that have mostly small to mid-size work volumes, as shown in Figure 4-a. Different levels of BIM commitment were represented in the respondents sample as shown by their numbers of BIM modelers in Figure 4-b.

Figure 4. Characteristics of the questionnaire respondents: A) their work volume, B) their level of BIM commitment in terms of number of modelers

64% of the respondents reported experiencing BIM-related cost overruns in more than 10% of their projects, as shown Figure 5. Similar experience was reported in previous studies (Becerik-Gerber and Rice 2010, SmartReport 2012), but it is noticeable here that the BIM cost overruns are spread more within electrical contractors. That observation is consistent with the findings of the performed interviews, possibly due to the current practice of stacking electrical system in the BIM model after other building systems, like mechanical and gravity-based plumbing. Furthermore, 49% of the respondents recovered BIM cost overruns in less than 10% of their projects, as shown in Figure 6.

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%< 5 5-20 20-50 50-100 100-500 500-1,000

Pe

rce

nt

of

Tota

l Re

spo

nse

s

Firm's Volume of Work (Million Dollars)

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%None 1 2 3 4 5 6 More

than 6

Pe

rce

nt

of

Tota

l Re

spo

nse

s

Number of BIM Modelers

A

B

All Firms

Bim Firms

No-BIM Firms


13 | DECEMBER 2016

This means the problem of BIM-related cost overruns for electrical contractors is magnified by their inability to recover these cost overruns from project owners. This can be attributed to different factors that were mentioned in the interviews, including: the virtual nature of BIM work that can not be physically observed by the owners/GCs, the contractual obstacles to reclaim these costs, and the lack of effective tracking processes for BIM-related tasks. As shown in Figure 7, the reported BIM-related cost overruns have no clear correlation with the BIM commitment level of the surveyed respondents. This observation supports the conclusion that current industry practices prevent electrical contractors from fully benefiting from BIM and threaten its promised return-on-investment, regardless of their size and level of commitment or maturity.

Figure 6. The ability of the surveyed electrical contractors to recover BIM-related cost overruns

Usually (more than 75%)

Very Frequent (50% - 75%)

Frequent (25%-50%)

Sometimes (10%-25%)

Rare (5%-10%)

Very Rare (less than 5%)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%Firm's Volume of Work (Million Dollars)

Figure 5. The frequency of BIM-related cost overruns, reported by questionnaire respondents

Very Rare (<5%)

Rare (5%-10%)

Sometimes (10%-25%

Frequent (25%-50%)

Very Frequent (50%-75%)

Usually (>75%)

25%

35%11%

11%

11%7%


14 | DECEMBER 2016

The questionnaire helped identify the internal and external drivers for BIM-related cost overruns as experienced by surveyed electrical contractors. As shown in Figure 8-a, the top four BIM-related cost overrun drivers outside the electrical contractor’s control are:

Frequent design changes by the architect and engineer (83% of the respondents)

Frequent scope changes by the owner (72% of the respondents)

Short time allocated for the spatial coordination time the BIM development (63% of the respondents)

Incomplete design-intent BIM model shared by the architect, engineers, and GCs (60% of the respondents)

Figure 7. Frequency of BIM-related cost overruns organized by a) volume of work; b) number of BIM modelers

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

$- $100 $200 $300 $400 $500

Fre

qu

ency

of

BIM

Co

st O

verr

un

s

Volume of Work ($ Million)

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0 2 4 6 8

Fre

qu

ency

of

BIM

Co

st O

verr

un

s


A

B


Unclear BIM Execution plan/protocol

Inadequate coordination by the BIM lead/master in the project team

Unclear scope definition by the owner

Incomplete design-internet BIM model received from the architect, engineering, or GC

Short time allocated for the spatial coordination phase

Frequent scope changes by the owner

Frequent design changes by the architect/engineer

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

31%

72%

63%

60%

50%

36%

83%

15 | DECEMBER 2016

The third top cost overrun driver is supported by another observation from the questionnaire: 63% of the respondents frequently start construction without a reliable BIM model, as shown in Figure 8-b. Starting construction without a reliable BIM model can be caused by the other cost drivers (frequent scope and design changes, incomplete design-intent model), which consume the time allocated for productive BIM coordination effort and force the project owner and GC to risk starting the construction without the completed model.

Cost overruns from such construction commencement with immature models have not been claimed successfully by electrical contractors for different reasons. First, 68% of the surveyed electrical contractors do not track BIM-related costs or do not use a sufficiently-detailed cost coding system for tracking these tasks, as shown in Figure 9. This observation is supported by the fact that very few electrical contractors were able to provide detailed case studies due to the lack of effective tracking systems of BIM-related tasks. Second, surveyed electrical contractors tend to exclude some BIM-related tasks from the contract budget/proposal they share with the project owner and GC, as shown in Figure 10. Between 65% and 75% of the respondents did not budget for prefabrication and automated field layout in the project contract. This is consistent with input from the interviewed contractors who reported depending on these services (prefabrication and automated field layout) to achieve field efficiencies and increase their profit margins. However, BIM changes cause cascading effects and disruptions in the tasks of producing build-sheets for prefabrication, pre-assemblies deliveries, and rework of field layouts.

Figure 8. How we end up with BIM-related cost overruns? a) top drivers; b) frequency of starting the construction before finalizing its BIM.

A

BUsually (>75%)

Very Frequent (50%-75%)

Frequent (25%-50%)

Sometimes (10%-25%

Rare (5%-10%)

Very Rare (<5%)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

6%

18%

11%

31%

32%

3%


16 | DECEMBER 2016

Figure 9. Level of sophistication used in tracking BIM-related tasks

Multiple-levels of cost codes to track the different expenses of EVERY pre-construction BIM-related task

Dedicated cost code for EVERY pre-construction BIM-related tasks

Just a single cost code for all pre-construction BIM-related tasks

N/A (we don't track BIM-related tasks)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

25%

43%

19%

13%

Figure 10. Different approaches used to include the cost of different BIM-related tasks in the project bids/proposals

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%BIM Engineering Auto Field Layout Prefabrication

Pe

rce

nt

of

Tota

l Re

spo

nse

s

Separate line item

Contract Overhead

Included in other line items

Not Budgeted in Contract


17 | DECEMBER 2016

Questionnaire responses also showed other useful information related to BIM execution approaches, requirements, and expectations.

First, the most used level of development (LOD) for BIM development was LOD 300, followed by LOD 350, which is consistent with the findings of the interviews, as shown in Figure 11.

Second, most of the respondents (69%) still prefer the traditional sequential approach of developing the final BIM model by as separate trade models and then integrating them. On the other hand, only 31% of the respondents selected the concurrent approach of developing BIM models with other trades at the same time in a single BIM “cave” room.

Third, the frequency of BIM coordination meetings was mostly weekly (60%). About 23% of the respondents reported multiple meetings per week, as shown in Figure 11.

Fourth, increasing the size of the BIM department (number of BIM modelers) results in a non-linear increase in the productivity of the individual modeler, measured in the value of work modeled, as shown in Figure 12. This can be attributed to the increased collective learning and training for the larger BIM departments within electrical construction firms.

Figure 11. BIM coordination and modeling parameters as reported by the questionnaire respondents

4

4

4

4

LOD 400

LOD 350

LOD 300

LOD 200

LOD 100

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

7%

18%

10%

15%

50%

BIM Level of Development (LOD)

69%Sequential

31%Concurrent

BIM Coordination Styles


18 | DECEMBER 2016

Figure 12. The correlation between the number of BIM modelers and the expected modeled volume of work

FINDINGS OF COLLECTED CASE STUDIES Despite the continuous data collection effort during the study period, few electrical contractors were able to share detailed project case studies to illustrate fully their experiences in managing BIM-related tasks under design changes. Only six case studies collected have different levels of data completeness, as shown in Table 1. The collected case studies are for office, science, senior living, and higher education building construction projects. Case studies #5 and #6 were shared with the most completed data collection forms. Project #5 was still under construction during the time of writing this report, and is expected to be finished in October 2017. The difficulty of collecting more case studies supports the observation from the interviews and online questionnaire that most electrical contractors do not have adequate time and a cost tracking system for BIM-related tasks. Most contractors who could not provide case studies expressed the difficulty of obtaining the required case study data because they did not track them for previous projects. The following discussion will try to derive some useful and proven observations of the performance of BIM-related tasks and the drivers for their cost overruns.

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

00 2 4 6

Vo

lum

e o

f W

ork

wit

h B

IM

mo

de

ling

($ M

illio

n)


R2 = 0.6611

Every Month

3 Weeks

2 Weeks

Weekly

Multiple times per week

0% 20% 40% 60%

10%

0%

60%

23%

7%

Frequency of BIM coordination meetings


19 | DECEMBER 2016

Table 1. Summary of the Collected Case Studies

BIM modeling was the task with the highest reported hours, except for design-build projects where electrical contractors are heavily engaged in design and engineering tasks. Figure 13 shows the cumulative values of the reported BIM-related tasks for the collected case studies. BIM modeling was the task with the most hours, ranging between 84% and 98% of the total reported hours, except for projects #4 (43%) and #5 (60.4%). Project #4 had more engineering hours due to its design-build delivery approach. Project #5 reported having about 32.6% of total BIM-related hours spent on preparing prefabrication build-sheets from the developed BIM model. For project #4, about two-thirds of the reported total engineering hours (424 out of 612 hours) were spent in the first quarter of the total calendar duration (first 200 out of 791 days). After finishing two-thirds of the design effort, BIM modeling started with a very steep productivity rate to reach 80% of the total BIM hours in about 200 calendar days. Only project #5 reported constructability hours, which can correspond to the coordination effort of developing the BIM model.

Type

Total Gross SF

Electrical Construction Value

Total Electrical Labor Hours

Contract Type

Project Delivery

Design Completeness

BIM Coordination Experience

Engineering - Base, hours

Engineering - Changes

BIM - Base, hours

BIM - Changes

Constructability - Base, hours

Constructability - Changes

Prefab - Base, hours

Prefab - Changes

Field Layout - Base, hours

Field Layout - Changes

Case Study PROJECT #1 PROJECT #2 PROJECT #3 PROJECT #4 PROJECT #5 PROJECT #6

Office building & Parking Garage

690,000 offices + 575,000 parking

55.7

201,000

Lump Sum

DA

75%

Good

-

-

2618

69 (2.6%)

-

-

-

-

220

-

Life Science Facility (offices & labs)

225,000

19

104,000

GMP

DA

50%

Bad

-

-

2100

180 (8.6%)

-

-

300

60 (20%)

104

-

Senior Living buildings

188,085

4.8

35,000

-

-

-

Very Good

-

-

746

-

-

-

-

-

17

-

IT company Head - quarter

127,00

13

46,000

-

DB

100%

Very Good

524

88 (17%)

513

-

-

-

-

-

62

-

High Education Building

185,000

4.4

27,000

Lump Sum

DBB

100%

Bad

21

-

334

103 (31%)

169

67 (40%)

-

-

23

6 (26%)

High Education Building Addition

134,000

3.7

23,000*

Lump Sum

DBB

100%

Neutral

-

-

580

412 (71%)

-

-

-

-

60

-

* the labor hours value of project #6 was missing and estimated based on the observed values of the other case studies, with high statistical confidence.


20 | DECEMBER 2016

Figure 13. Cumulative timesheet hours for BIM-related tasks of the collected case studies

BIM modeling hours were used to compare between collected project cases because it was reported in all of them. Figure 14 shows BIM modeling cumulative hours for the projects’ cases over their different durations which can be justified by the project size or delivery method. For example, the longest BIM modeling duration was reported for project case #1 because it was the biggest project in terms of total square feet. Project case #4 did not have a long BIM modeling duration, but witnessed a late start and finish of BIM modeling while waiting for sufficient engineering work to finish under the project’s design-build setting. Excluding project cases #1 and #4, the average BIM coordination duration observed was 210 calendar days (around 7 months).

Simple plotting of work hours over time (see Figure 14) is not a fair approach to further analyze the differences between the performance of BIM-related tasks in the different collected projects. Accordingly, the prime evaluation metric (hours) need to be normalized between the projects using common parameters to neutralize effect of the different attributes between projects, like size, complexity, and type.

Figure 14. Absolute Comparison between the collected case studies, for only BIM hours


21 | DECEMBER 2016

Fair apple-to-apple comparisons between the collected project cases was achieved by analyzing the normalized hours of common BIM-related tasks with respect to the project’s main attributes and the perceived project progress. As shown in Figure 15, the fair comparison between the collected cases was made possible by normalizing the reported BIM hours with respect to three possible project attributes: project size (in 1,000 square feet, FT), project budget (in $ millions), and project labor demand (in 1,000 labor hours). In addition, the normalized hours were plotted over the per-ceived project’s percent-complete (progress) as the ratio between the hours’ report time and the project total duration.

Except for project #5, Figure 15 plots the cumulative hours from the project start (0% progress) to its finish time (100% progress). Because project #5 was still under construction during the case studies’ collection time, it is only plotted up to 30% progress, assuming that the project will be finished as planned in October 2017.

Figure 16 plots a similar relation, but between the normalized robotic field layout hours and the percentage of elapsed time of the project. The comparison between the case projects in Figures 15 and 16 revealed the following observations:

A contradiction was observed between the reported BIM experience for project #6 and its hours for BIM and robotic field layout. A “neutral” BIM experience was reported for this project, but its normalized BIM hours (Figure 15) and field layout hours (Figure 16) were among the highest in all cases, based on the three normalization approaches. This contradiction can be due to the qualitative scale used to report the BIM experience by the case contact person.

There was a correlation between the project’s normalized BIM-related hours and the reported contractor’s experience with the BIM implementation plan. The electrical contractor of projects #2 and #5 reported bad experiences with implementing the BIM protocol (see Table 6.1) and the worst BIM-related tasks performance (in terms of their hours/SF and hours/LH values). The contractor of projects #1 and #3 reported good BIM implementation experiences and the best BIM-related performance. Although project #5 is still in-progress, it reported a weak up-to-date progress combined with a bad experience of the contractor with the BIM protocol implementation.

The design-build nature of project #4 prohibits a clear comparison with the other projects. For BIM hours, project #4 reported a very good BIM implementation experience and one of the lowest report hours using any of the normalization approaches. However, it reported one of the highest field layout hours if normalized by the project area or labor hours, as shown in Figure 16.

Normalizing by project costs appears to distort the comparison between the project in terms of either the BIM hours (Figure 15) or the field layout (Figure 16). Project cost is an attribute that is extremely affected by the project’s geographic location (labor costs are different between large and small metropolitan areas) or cost of seasonal changes or inflation. However, normalizing the hours by project area (SF) or labor hours (LH) can give an unbiased reflection of the project size or complexity.

Evaluating the performance of every project case should consider its different qualitative attributes, such as the project type, delivery system, and design documents completeness. The contractor’s positive experience and performance in project #1 can be attributed to its simple office building type and almost-complete design documents (75%), despite its design-assist approach and the absence of clear BIM protocol. The negative experience and performance in project #2 can be attributed to its complex type (life science facility with labs) and only 50% completeness of the design documents, despite the project’s design-assist approach and availability of a BIM protocol.


22 | DECEMBER 2016

Figure 15. Normalized comparison between the BIM hours in the collected case studies, using three possible project attributes: project area (left), project budget (middle), and labor hours (right).

Figure 16. Normalized comparison between the field layout hours in the collected case studies, using three possible project attributes: project area (left), project budget (middle), and labor hours (right).


CHAPTER 4: SUGGESTIONS TO MONITOR,

CONTROL, AND RECOVERBIM DESIGN CHANGE COSTS

23 | DECEMBER 2016

CHECKLISTS FOR ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, GENERAL CONTRACTORS, AND OWNERS While the problems associated with changes to BIM models are well chronicled above, it does not mean that they cannot be avoided. Several things can be done to minimize unnecessary changes that result in expensive updates to BIM models or resetting prefabrication operations. Proactive strategies for avoiding unnecessary changes are listed below, along with a description of how adopting the strategies in the checklist improves the use of BIM and prefabrication in construction. The recommendations presented in the checklists were gleaned from interviews with contractors who have been successful in terms of managing BIM and prefabrication processes and have worked with owners and general contractors interested in creating a collaborative and successful project environment.

Separate checklists are presented for electrical contractors, general contractors and project owners. While the checklists are individualized, some of the items the checklists are consistent among them and future project participants are encouraged to discuss their individual checklists as a team. Joint meetings will ensure that project strategies, contractual pay issues, the authority of coordination participants, etc. are understood. Establishing this basic understanding at the beginning of a project will go a long way in terms of mitigating problems associated with ill-timed changes to BIM models.


24 | DECEMBER 2016

Pre

cons

truc

tio

n

Electrical Contractor Checklist

Successful companies decide prior to bidding/proposing whether or not (and to what degree) to use BIM, prefabrication, etc. Then, they factor the use of BIM and prefabrication into their bidding strategy and notify the owner and general contractor upon award of their intent to implement BIM and prefabrication.

Decide whether or not to use BIM & Prefabrication early.

Co

nstr

ucti

on

How BIM and prefabrication are compensated may be dictated in the contract documents. Determine whether or not BIM and prefabrication should be included as a separate cost or included in your profit and overhead and price it accordingly. This requires that you know your cost of providing BIM and prefabrication prior to the commencement of the project.

Read the contract to determine how, if at all, BIM and prefabrication will be compensated.

Many companies understand that BIM and prefabrication reduce their cost of construction and utilize them as a means of fee enhancement without knowing the actual cost of implementing either. Successful companies, on the other hand, know their cost of BIM and prefabrication, either determining it as an actual cost or a percentage of project direct man-hours, and incorporate that cost into their bid/proposal and articulate it to the owner.

Know your company's cost of BIM and implementing prefabrication.

Successful companies alert the general contractor and owner as to what components will be included in the BIM model (and state or confirm the L.O.D. of the model) and clearly state which components will be prefabricated and where they will be prefabricated. This clarifies scope up front and makes additional work change orders easier to negotiate should they occur.

State up front what components will be included in the BIM model and which components will be prefabricated.

The person coordinating BIM on behalf of your company for a particular project should have experience in that project type, but should also have the authority to make changes to the BIM model, communicate them to your team, and understand the scope of services in order to identify additional work not covered in the base contract.

Identify the right person to lead the BIM coordination effort for your company for each project.

Create a document that notifies the owner or GC that prefabrication is about to begin and obtains their acknowledgement that changes after this notification will result in potential change orders.

Notify owners of the commencement of prefabrication activities

Develop and track all costs associated with BIM, engineering, prefabrication, field surveying, etc. You can either use a single cost category for all such costs (basic) or use dedicated cost codes for each cost category (more advanced). Costs should be tracked and compared to the costs included in your bid/proposal. Tracking costs will make it easier to justify change orders and make estimating those costs easier for future projects.

Develop cost codes for BIM and prefabrication and track those costs during construction.


25 | DECEMBER 2016

Pre

cons

truc

tio

n

General Contractor Checklist

Understand the extent that BIM should be implemented on the project and plan on compensating for it accordingly. Articulate how BIM will be compensated so that subcontractors can price it ac-cordingly in their bid/proposals.

Clarify how BIM will be compensated in subcontracts.

Co

nstr

ucti

on

Subcontractor BIM models are a reflection of the quality and completeness of the project plans. Assess the plans and work first to ensure that they are reasonably complete. Understand that each change to the project plans can lead to BIM model rework that can result in added costs. Ask subcontractors to begin drafting BIM models at the latest responsible time after the project design has been set.

Assess the quality and completeness of the plans.

Understand how BIM will be used on the project and the client's desires of BIM, if applicable. If BIM is being used only for coordination, then a relatively low L.O.D. (300 or less) can be used. L.O.D. above 300 requires exponentially more labor-hours to create and maintain. Also, changes to models with L.O.D. greater than 300 are more time consuming and costly to incorporate. If the plans are incomplete, then modeling to a high L.O.D. will be problematic and lead to increased costs.

Choose an appropriate Level of Detail (L.O.D.)

Depending of the members of the project team, regional norms, expertise, etc., some members of the project team are better suited to lead the BIM coordination effort. In some cases, the general contractor is the most sophisticated party, in others, the mechanical contractor may be the most sophisticated. Whatever the case, the general contractor should determine and state up front which party will lead the BIM coordination process and relay that decision to the rest of the team.

Identify the best party to coordinate the project's BIM coordination effort.

The person coordinating BIM on behalf of your company for a particular project should have experience in that project type, but should also have the authority to make changes to the BIM model, communicate them to your team, and understand the scope of services in order to identify additional work not covered in the base contract.

Identify the right person to lead the BIM coordination effort for your company for each project.

Subcontractors utilize preconstruction for several reasons and many of those reasons provide direct project benefits to general contractors and project owners. However, when performing prefabrication, that means that measuring percent project complete cannot solely be determined from work performed in the field. Accept that changes made after the commencement of a component's prefabrication will result in additional work and that progress payments to subcontractors should include work prefabricated off site.

Acknowledge and understand that prefabrication may be employed on the project.


26 | DECEMBER 2016

Pre

cons

truc

tio

n

Owner Checklist

BIM is being utilized very regularly in design and construction, regardless of being requested or required by the owner. It is increasingly becoming a standard means and methods. Owner- initiated design changes that require an necessary, yet unplanned, updates to the BIM model lead to increased costs of construction that should not be born by the general contractor or subcontractors.

Recognize that BIM is a very common part of the design and construction process.

Co

nstr

ucti

on

Subcontractor BIM models are a reflection of the quality and completeness of the project plans. Make sure the project's design, or at least the design intent of major components, is complete before requesting BIM models. Understand that each change to the project plans can lead to BIM model rework that can result in added costs. Ask subcontractors to begin drafting BIM models at the latest responsible time after the project design has been set.

Assess the quality and completeness of the plans.

BIM can provide owners with a host of operational benefits. BIM models can be created that contain information for each component, including warranty information, maintenance and replacement schedules, and other valuable information. However, such models are time consuming and expensive to prepare, particularly if the building design is not set. Unless this information is truly desired by the owner, agree upon an L.O.D. appropriate for the goals of the project participants. There are diminishing returns on higher L.O.D.'s for construction.

Choose an appropriate Level of Detail (L.O.D.)

Subcontractors utilize preconstruction for several reasons and many of those reasons provide direct project benefits to general contractors and project owners. However, when performing prefabrication, that means that measuring percent project complete cannot solely be determined from work performed in the field. Accept that changes made after the commencement of a component's prefabrication will result in additional work and that progress payments to subcontractors should include work prefabricated off site.

Acknowledge and understand that prefabrication may be employed on the project.


27 | DECEMBER 2016

SUGGESTED PROCESS FOR PLANNING AND CONTROL BIM-RELATED TASKS The proposed process for planning and controlling BIM-related tasks is based on the premise that they can be managed in the same way physical tasks are planned and controlled. As shown in Figure 7, managing BIM- related tasks should initially go through a thorough planning effort and feedback control cycles to compare against the baseline plan and update it.

Figure 17. Suggested BIM-related tasks planning and control process.

Develop a reasonable number of cost codes1

Plan for BIM's virtual work like you plan for physical work2

Track BIM costs religiously!3

THE FIRST STEP in the process is to develop a reasonable number of cost codes that hits a good balance between the desire to collect detailed control data and the need to minimize the effort for data entry. The cost coding structure should be designed to track and group individual tasks based on the organizational affiliation and hourly rate of their assigned staffing. The minimal suggested cost coding structure to track BIM-related tasks includes the following accounts:

1. Administration - includes copying, scanning, transmittals, etc.

2. Coordination - includes participating in BIM coordination meeting/calls and performing constructability review of the developed models.

3. Modeling - includes creating/updating the BIM models, and generating from this detailed shop drawings, prefabrication build sheets, and installation drawings/labels.

4. Project Management - includes submittals fulfillment/tracking, contracts management, and schedules development.

5. Engineering - includes design-assist effort, value engineering, and design validation.

6. Field work - includes field layout and laser scanning of as-built conditions.

Provide Timely updates to the customer, and communicate clearly any signs of cost overruns4

1


28 | DECEMBER 2016

THE SECOND STEP step in the process is to plan for virtual work the same way as planning for physical work. This is done by defining the scope of BIM-related tasks, using the traditional tool of work breakdown structure (WBS), based on the needs of the project manager and the requirements listed in the project documents (contract, specifications, BIM protocol or implementation plan).

One contractor interviewee has formalized the process of BIM-related tasks scope by developing a “BIM Request Form” that is completed by the project manager and submitted to the head of the construction support services group. This form collects all relevant information that determines or can impact the performance and staffing of BIM tasks. The information in this BIM Request Form includes:

2

The outcome of defining the BIM-related scope is then summarized in a tabulated form (as shown in Figure 18) to facilitate the estimate of expected hours for each BIM-related task in every floor. Estimating the expected hours will require judgement from the BIM/VDC manager based on the collected scope definition information and previous performance witnessed in similar prior projects. Organizing and estimating the tasks per floors have several advantages, including:

a) BIM models are submitted and approved for construction floor by floor or zone by zone. This fast track approach tries to accommodate the current industry trend by owners and general contractors to accelerate project delivery.

b) Floor-based breakdown allows better management of BIM-related tasks and more accurate tracking of their performance, as illustrated in the next step of the process.

IT infrastructure used to exchange files like FTP

protocol, used website for file sharing, and access information

for the design documents.

Project information, such as a description of work scope, budgets (total, engineering, BIM), current project stage

(bid, design, execution, as-built recording), contacts of the

project team and other trade contractors.

Required BIM service to develop either design models,

MEP coordination, shop drawings, or as-built models.

321


THE THIRD STEP in the process is to track BIM-related tasks against the baseline budget using the previously developed cost codes. Before the start of the project, the VDC/BIM manager assigns percentage progress weights for the major milestone of finishing the scope of BIM-related tasks. These milestone are suggested to follow the same floor-based breakdown, as illustrated by the example in Figure 19. These assigned progress weights for the milestones are used to calculate the overall percent complete of the whole BIM-related scope.

For the example in Figure 19, an overall progress of 20% can be reported if the models of the foundation and first floor are already submitted, and half of the work needed for the second floor model is done. This percent complete value is calculated as 5% + 10% + ½*(10%). This percent complete value is consistently calculated in everyprogress meeting of the VDC/BIM team and reported with the cumulative up-to-date hours spent on BIM-related tasks. These progress and effort values are important information assets that can be visually used to track the project virtual performance and to communicate any issues with the owner/GC, as explained next in the final step of the process.

29 | DECEMBER 2016

3

Figure 18. BIM-related tasks planning and estimate sheet

BIM Background Clean Up & Verification

Structural Input

Sleeving

Underground Conduits

Electrical Equipment Room Piping

Branches and Feeders

Hangers (not for fab shop)

Field Points (Sleeves & Hangers)

Field Points Layout

Field Layout Scheduling

Quantity Takeoff

Electrical Prefab Build Sheets

Hangers Fab sheets

Coordination Meetings

Foundation 1st Floor ........ 7th Floor 8th Floor Roof Total

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

— — — — —

Figure 19. An example scope milestones definition to track the progress of BIM-related tasks

Roof... 10%

10th floor... 8%

3rd floor... 15%

2nd floor... 10%

1st floor... 10%

Foundation... 5%

Project Kick-off

10%

———


THE FOURTH AND FINAL STEP step in the process is to assess and communicate the performance of BIM-related tasks in a visual approach that is well-supported by the collected data. Performance is tracked and assessed using a normalized effort-progress graph to allow the comparison between performance in the current projects and previous similar projects, as shown in Figure 20. The calculated percent-complete values, calculated in the previous step, are plotted against the horizontal axis.

The effort expended in BIM-related tasks is normalized as a BIM-related hourly rate over a project attribute that can allow a comparison between different projects, like the hours per 1,000 SF of the project area, per 1,000 labor hours, or per $1,000 of the project budget.

In summary, apple-to-apple comparisons between similar projects of different sizes can be achieved by: 1) tracking normalized hours rate not total hours; and 2) tracking against the percent complete not absolute time.

30 | DECEMBER 2016

4Figure 20. Use of normalized-hours tracking charts to evaluate and communicate the performance of BIM-related tasks

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

00% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

BIM

-re

late

d H

ou

rs /

1,0

00 S

F

% Time to Completion

Positive Scenario

Negative Scenario


CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

31 | DECEMBER 2016

Based on the data and information presented above, several recommendations are offered to electrical contractors to improve BIM and prefabrication processes. These recommendations are intended to improve reimbursement following untimely changes. Yet, if the recommendations are successfully implemented, then the BIM and prefabrication process can be improved to the point where changes are greatly reduced.

These recommended changes are intended to be practical and easily implemented. However, they require organization and communication skills that may not yet exist within your organization, let alone that of the general contractor or owner. These recommendations are ingredients in a comprehensive solution and, as such, they have much greater efficacy when used in concert.

Recommendation 1: Understand the contract as it pertains to BIM and prefabrication.

Of course every contractor, designer and owner should understand the contracts in which they engage, but this recommendation suggests diving deeply into the ways the contract treats all things related to BIM and prefabrication (including engineering, site layout, coordination, etc.). In particular, you need to determine how BIM, prefabrication, etc. are reimbursed, if at all. Many owners or general contractors will try to include BIM in overhead costs, so be aware of that and price your bid accordingly.


32 | DECEMBER 2016

If the project is utilizing a non-negotiable contract, price your BIM and prefabrication efforts based solely on what is allowed by the contract, but be prepared to track every required cost not covered in your bid. If the project includes a contractual organization that is negotiable, be sure to negotiate as such so that BIM and prefabrication are properly compensated and strike any terms from the contract that are clearly unfavorable to the use of BIM and prefabrication.

Recommendation 2: Be clear with your intentions regarding BIM and prefabrication as early in the project as possible.

Many contractors interviewed during the course of this project stated that they wait until after a project is awarded to decide whether or not to implement BIM and prefabrication. Their mentality is to use BIM and prefabrication as a means of fee enhancement on top of what it took to secure the project. However, the contractors who were clear about their intentions to use BIM and prefabrication early in the project, typically when awarded, expressed greater success in being reimbursed for changes. If the owner has made BIM and/or prefabrication a requirement, then it is important to discuss your plans for implementation. If the owner has not required either (and worse, has expressed an aversion to paying for it), state that BIM and prefabrication are a part of your means and methods and essential to your providing the required product.

It may be necessary to educate the owner on the benefits of BIM and prefabrication. Arrange site visits to prefabrication shops for owners and general contractors, if necessary, to demonstrate how you intend to perform work prior to it arriving at the project site. Use other meetings with the owner and general contractor to discuss the items in the checklists presented above and ensure that a concerted strategy for BIM and prefabrication is in place. These meetings include setting an appropriate LOD for the modeling effort, determining who will lead the BIM coordination effort and ensuring people participating in the coordination effort have the required authority to ensure that changes unearthed during coordination meetings can be quickly adopted.

Lastly, negotiate that BIM modeling not start until the project’s design is set. The number of BIM-related changes will drop precipitously if modeling starts at the latest responsive moment once the project’s design is complete or almost complete. It is important to notify the owner that changes made to the design after this point will result in BIM re-work and will be treated as additional costs that will need to be reimbursed.

Recommendation 3: Effectively execute BIM and prefabrication in the field.

Once you are on the same BIM and prefabrication page as the owner and general contractor, it is now time to execute those tools effectively and efficiently. A primary tactic to employ in this effort is to notify the owner when prefabrication is about to begin. This notification serves two purposes. First, it alerts that owner that changes after prefabrication begins can result in substantial rework if it involves changes to the materials and components being prefabricated. Second, it informs the owner that you are performing work, using direct labor, that, while not being performed on site, is moving the project towards completion.


33 | DECEMBER 2016

Next, once work commences, track your BIM and prefabrication costs constantly and consistently. This involves two steps. As a company you must decide how you will track costs. Some companies effectively track BIM, prefabrication, engineering, etc. under a single cost code while others divide those costs into separate cost codes (such as those highlighted in the section above). Either strategy can be effective. However, the more cost codes a company uses, the better it is able to assess the performance of each unit. That said, the more cost codes a company employs, the more effort it takes to track costs. More importantly, based on the feedback from successful contractors, you need to be consistent and make sure all costs are recorded and accounted for.

This leads to the second step. When costs for BIM and prefabrication exceed the originally established contractual amount, notify the general contractor (or owner, if appropriate) and pursue the channels for requesting reimbursement or a change order for additional compensation.

There is an ancillary benefit of tracking costs. Once you have tracked costs from multiple projects, you can establish that the costs being collected are direct project costs. As such, when you are educating customers later on, you can demonstrate that BIM and prefabrication costs are, in fact, not overhead costs. Refer to the ELECTRI research report “Change Order Guidelines for Electrical and Low Voltage Contractors” (2014) by Matt Syal, Joseph Diffendahl and Daniel Duah for more information on how costs should be treated for changes orders.

Recommendation 4: Build a virtual cost cycle. Use current costs to estimate future costs.

Once your firm has begun tracking BIM and prefabrication costs, you will develop an arsenal of data that can be used for estimating BIM and prefabrication costs for future projects. It will take multiple projects before you have adequate data to create a reliable estimate of likely costs. Until that time comes, use the rule of thumb that other established companies use: approximately 3% of direct labor costs to cover BIM. The 3% value is not a hard and fast rule -- it can be adjusted upward or downward, as appropriate, given the difficulty of the project.

Once a reliable database of BIM and prefabrication costs has been developed, supplant the 3% value with your own more reliable data. Using this reliably-developed cost data will also establish, at the beginning of the project, the cost of BIM and prefabrication, thereby making it easier to negotiate change orders later in the project.


34 | DECEMBER 2016

APPENDIX A: BACKGROUND AND REVIEW OF PREVIOUS RELATED STUDIES

Several studies reported great benefits of BIM for owners, general contractors, trade contractors, and engineers in terms of savings the time and costs during the construction for change orders and request for information (SmartReport 2008, Becerik-Gerber and Rice 2010, Giel and Issa 2013, SmartReport 2012). BIM is a very effective tool to enable design coordination tasks in a very dynamic setting, but imposes greater challenges in managing changes in integrated multi-disciplinary designs that reside in a federated environment (Langroodi and Staub-French 2012).

BIM is sometimes seen as overloaded with information, which requires more cooperation effort than would typically be required on a traditional project (Lowe and Muncey 2009).

Some indicators and causes of BIM performance deterioration were observed in previous studies, including:

Study

A critical prerequisite to capture BIM efficiencies is to have all key project parties involved and committed to virtual design and coordination.

Around 20% of the surveyed construction companies reported that BIM either did not change their profitability or actually reduced it.10% of the respondents reported cost and time increases when using BIM.

Surveyed construction companies confirmed that BIM did not completely eliminate changes.More than 50% of the respondents reported the absence of a proper process for updating the BIM model to incorporate design changes during construction. More than 33% of the respondents reported the absence of a tool or approach to calculate cost variances due to BIM changes.

About 30% of the survey respondents reported negative or breakeven return-on-investment (ROI), for both surveys conducts in 2009 and 2012.Negative or breakeven ROI was mostly reported by inexperienced companies, however around 6% of the highly-experienced companies reported negative or breakeven BIM ROI. More jobsite tasks are becoming dependent on BIM. 73% of the respondents reported using model-guided robotic layout stations, 56% used laser scanners to generate BIM as-built models. Other reported tasks include site logistics (storage areas and lift locations), trades management (daily work packages), and materials tracking (using RFID).

The reported average BIM implementation costs (relative to total project cost) is 3.25%, but 9% of the respondents reported BIM costs of more than 5%.51% of respondents indicated that Total Station technology is the most widely used BIM tool.

The highest reported risks associated with BIM are: 1) Lack of BIM protocol or implementation plan (71% of the respondents); 2) Lack of commitment/leadership by others (16%); and 3) cost overruns (14%).

BIM requires new project processes, such as integrated project delivery (IPD) and lean management.The project manager interviewed reflected that the cost of using BIM models at the design stage in the building project may increase around 35% ∼ 40% compared to that without BIM.

Relevant Observations

Lowe and Muncey 2009

Becerik-Gerber and Rice 2010

Shourangiz et al. 2011

SmartReport 2012

Hanna et al. 2013

Hanna et al. 2014

Lu et al. 2015


35 | DECEMBER 2016

APPENDIX B: INFORMATION AND DATA GATHERING

The objective of this study’s data collection effort was to categorize BIM-related cost impacts of design changes, the drivers of their magnitude, and possible approaches to recover such costs. A hybrid data collection approach employed interviews, an online questionnaire, and case studies to obtain and assess the current experiences of the electrical contracting industry with BIM-related cost impacts due to design changes and their compensation practices.

B.1 INTERVIEWS

The researchers conducted a series of interviews with representatives of electrical, mechanical, and general contractors to acquire a basic understanding of the practices and challenges of performing BIM-related tasks under design changes. The interviewees were mainly BIM and virtual construction managers, and also included operation managers, preconstruction services managers, and project managers. Table B.1 identifies the performed interviews and shows that most of the involved companies were represented on the study’s Task Force group.

Table B.1. Construction Companies and their Representatives Involved in the Interviews

No.

Michael Jurewicz, COO; Mike Glogovac, Executive VP; Ryan Moriguchi, BIM-to-

Prefab; Jason Miller, Engineering/Design; Ashkon Kermaniyan, BIM Manager

Frank Lambraia, Project Manager; Kevin Murray, Engineering Coordinator

Adam Rude, Director of Construction Services

Dan Maimonis, Preconstruction Services Manager

David Suddath, Virtual Construction Manager

John Barbour, Director of Preconstruction and Project Support; Bruce Sims, BIM

Manager; Denis St. Pierre, Chief Operating Officer

Bill Hadinger, Vice President

Dave Anderson, Senior Vice President

Greg Stewart, Chief Executive Officer; Leo Poupart, Senior Preconstruction

Director (forthcoming)

Mike Bosco, Executive Vice President; Rei DiFonzo, Preconstruction Manager

Dave Monnens, Senior Project Manager

Elizabeth Barner, VDC Manager

Mike Sierens, BIM/Coordinator; Troy White, Engineering Planner

Kevin Cooper, PE, Senior Design Engineer/PM

Christopher Wilocki, BIM Manager and Project Designer

Eric Hedge, Detailer; Brian Jones, Preconstruction Manager

Company

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Interviewed Representatives

Sprig Electric

E-J Electric

ERMCO

Kelso-Burnett

eckardt

Alterman

UMI Mechanical Inc.

ACCO Engineered Systems

Superior Group

Rex Electric

Contra Costa Electric

P1 Group

Tri-City Electric

Sachs Electric Company

Sturgeon Electric Company

Sequoyah Electric


36 | DECEMBER 2016

The interviews were performed in a semi-structured approach to allow capturing current practices of managing BIM-related tasks under design changes to then use in developing the online questionnaire and the data collection form of the case studies. The researchers started with a set of open-ended questions that were updated as feedback was received over the performed interviews. After several initial interviews, the following questions were asked consistently:

4 How sophisticated are your BIM and prefabrication capabilities?4 How often do you use BIM and prefab on projects?

a) Does it depend on the project delivery model?b) Does it depend on the project contractual arrangement?

4 When deciding to use BIM on a project, how do you account for its cost in the bid/proposal?4 To what Level of Design (LOD) are your typical BIM models?4 Who typically drives the BIM coordination process on the projects in which you are engaged (e.g. GC, mechanical contractor, etc.)?4 Do the projects, in which you typically participate, have a BIM execution plan? If so, how good is it, in your opinion?4 Do you have a detailed process for accounting for BIM and prefab costs?4 How common is it for owners or designers to make changes that result in additional BIM effort directly prior to the commencement of prefabrication?

a) How easy is it for you to get reimbursed for those additional BIM costs?b) What about other costs, such as additional engineering, surveying, prefab preparation?

4 If you are able to get reimbursed to BIM, engineering, site layout/surveying costs associated with change orders, what is your process for doing so? How successful is it?4 Do you have specific examples of projects (or cases within projects) where you were reimbursed for BIM changes, whether successful or not?

B.2 QUESTIONNAIRE

The questionnaire was implemented as a Google Form, and the link requesting participation was shared via lists provided by ELECTRI International and NECA. The questionnaire was available online from April through July 2016.

The survey was designed with direct and short questions (see Appendix A) that would help test the following presumptions:

BIM-related cost impacts of design changes occur due to the required rework in: 1) engineering and design of the electrical system and its assemblies, 2) updating the BIM model, 3) changing the build sheets of prefab assemblies, and 4) linking the changed BIM model to the jobsite by redoing the field layout (using Trimble).

In most projects, ECs are not satisfied with their role in the project’s BIM implementation plan.

In most projects, the actual BIM costs (staffing, equipment, software) exceed its budget line item.


37 | DECEMBER 2016

BIM-related cost impacts of design changes are greater for changes made later in the project compared to those changes made earlier.

BIM-related costs are usually listed as fixed budget line items in electrical construction contracts, not as reimbursable costs.

Electrical contractors experience high resistance from owners for compensation for the additional BIM-related efforts and expenses of design changes.

B.3 CASE STUDIES COLLECTION

A case study analysis approach is utilized to acquire and report specific, detailed experiences with managing BIM-related tasks under design changes. A respondent-driven sampling (Heckathorn 1997, Gile 2011) was used in collecting the case studies from Task Force members (convenience sampling) and, subsequently from companies suggested by those already sampled (snowball sampling). A data collection form was used for every case study project to gather its data related to:

1. Project background information – project type (commercial, healthcare, residential, etc.), size, budget, location, project team, schedule start/finish dates, required LOD for BIM development, experience with BIM implementation plan/protocol. This data will help in understanding the drivers of BIM-related cost overruns.

2. Recorded hours of BIM-related staff – data that can be obtained from the company timesheet and accounting software. The BIM-related tasks covered in the form include BIM modeling, spatial coordination, constructability, engineering, prefabrication, automated field layout.

3. Recorded design changes – the timing, type, and significance of design changes that happened and affected BIM coordination/modeling efforts as well other related tasks such as engineering, prefab, and field layout.


38 | DECEMBER 2016

APPENDIX C: ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE


1. Name: 2. Job Title: 3. Company:

4. Phone Number: 5. Email address: 6. Company’s Volume of Work: 7. Which of the following services apply to your company?

a) Electrical constructionb) Low voltage systemsc) High voltaged) Data systemse) Energy projectsf) Others:

8. How much do you “BIM” in your work?

a) less than 10% b) 10% - 30% c) 30% - 50% d) 50% -70% e) more than 70%

9. How much of the work you “BIM” is required by the owner or the project contract?

a) less than 10% b) 10% - 30% c) 30% - 50% d) 50% -70% e) more than 70%

10. Do you have a prefabrication shop?

Yes No 11. Do you use your own total station (Trimble) to lay down reference points on the job sites?

Yes No


39 | DECEMBER 2016

12. How many BIM modelers/drafters does the company currently employ?

a) Noneb) 1c) 2d) 3e) 4f) 5g) 6h) More than 6

13. How do you budget the following BIM-related preconstruction expenses? Select one or more of the available options.

BIM

Engineering

Trimble field layout

Prefabrication

Separate line item

Contract Overhead

Overload on top of other

line items

We don’t budget it in the contract, we use it to save

on the direct expenses

Other

14. How frequently do each of the following project team members lead the spatial coordination in your projects?

Owner Rep

Architect/Engineer

General Contractor

Electrical Contractor

Mechanical Contractor

Plumbing/Fire Protection Contractor

Very Rare (less than 5%)

Rare (5% – 10%)

Sometimes (10% - 25%)

Frequent (25% - 50%)

Very Frequent(50% - 75%)

Usually (more than 75%)


40 | DECEMBER 2016

15. How frequently do you have COST OVERRUNS for BIM-related tasks?

a) Very Rare (less than 5%)b) Rare (5% – 10%)c) Sometimes (10% - 25%)d) Frequent (25% - 50%)e) Very Frequent (50% - 75%)f) Usually (more than 75%)

16. How frequently do you start construction work (material supply, offsite prefab, onsite layout, in-stallations) before finalizing the BIM model?


17. Select any of the following that contributes to the inability to finish the BIM model before starting the construction work?

a) Unclear scope definition by the ownerb) Frequent design changes by the architect/engineerc) Inadequate coordination by the BIM lead/master in the project teamd) Unclear BIM Execution plan/protocole) Short time allocated for the spatial coordination phasef) Incomplete design-intent BIM model received from the architect, engineering, or GCg) Others

18. In case of design changes, how successful were you in claiming a BIM-related cost overrun from the owner?


19. Which of the following cost coding applies for tracking your BIM-related tasks?

a) N/A (we do not track BIM-related tasks)b) Just a single cost code for all preconstruction BIM-related tasks (engineering, BIM, Trimble, prefab) c) Dedicated cost code for EVERY preconstruction BIM-related task.d) Multiple-levels of cost codes to track the different expenses of EVERY preconstruction BIM-related task (engineering can have multiple codes for tracking budget hours, hours for design changes, redesign)


41 | DECEMBER 2016

20. What is usually the level of development (LOD) of your developed BIM model at the end of the Spatial Coordination phase?

a) LOD 100 (simple representation of the model elements)b) LOD 200 (generic/approximate size/shape/location of fixtures and elements)c) LOD 300 (Design defined with specific size/shape/location)d) LOD 350 (Actual model with catalog number defined with specific size/shape/location)e) LOD 400 (similar to LOD 350 plus attaching non-graphic information)

21. Select any of the following coordination meeting frequencies that were required by the BIM Execution plans of your previous projects:

a) Multiple times per weekb) Weeklyc) Every 2 weeksd) Every 3 weekse) Every month

22. Which of the following approaches do you PREFER for BIM meetings and trades spatial coordination?

a) Concurrent coordination – all contractors coordinate in a single BIM room/cave to develop a single modelb) Sequential – contractors prepare their individual BIM models separately and then integrated together during a subsequent BIM coordination meeting.

23. In your opinion, what are the priorities and order for the following trade contractors to integrate their models into the project unified model? Larger value means the highest priority.

Electrical

Plumping

HVAC

Fire protection

5 4 3 2 1


42 | DECEMBER 2016

APPENDIX D: REFERENCES

SmartMarket (2008). Building Information Modeling (BIM) - Transforming Design and Construction to Achieve Greater Industry Productivity. McGraw Hill Construction, New York, NY.

Lowe R.H. and Muncey J.M. (2009). “ConsensusDOCS 301 BIM Addendum.” Construction Lawyer, Volume 29, Number 1, Winter 2009, the American Bar Association.

Becerik-Gerber B. and Rice S. (2010). “The Perceived Value of Building Information Modeling in the U.S. Building Industry.” Journal of Information Technology in Construction, volume 15, http://www.itcon.org/2010/15.

Shourangiz E., Mohamad M.I., Hassanabadi M.S., Banihashemi S.S., Bakhtiari M., Torabi M. (2011). “Flexibility of BIM towards Design Change.” 2nd International Conference on Construction and Project Management, IACSIT Press, Singapore.

SmartMarket (2012). The Business Value of BIM in North America - Multi-Year Trend Analysis and User Ratings (2007 - 2012). McGraw Hill Construction, New York, NY.

Langroodi B.P. and Staub-French S. (2012). “Change Management with Building Information Models: A Case Study.” Construction Research Congress, ASCE, 1182 - 1191.

Giel, B. and Issa, R. (2013). "Return on Investment Analysis of Using Building Information Modeling in Construction." Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, ASCE, 27(5), 10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000164, 511-521.

Hanna, A., Boodai, F., and El Asmar, M. (2013). "State of Practice of Building Information Modeling in Mechanical and Electrical Construction Industries." Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 139(10), 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000747, 04013009.

Du, J., Liu, R., and Issa, R. (2014). "BIM Cloud Score: Benchmarking BIM Performance." Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 140(11), 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000891, 04014054.

Liu, F., Jallow, A., Anumba, C., and Wu, D. (2014) A Framework for Integrating Change Management with Building Information Modeling. Computing in Civil and Building Engineering (2014): pp. 439-446. doi: 10.1061/9780784413616.055.

Hanna, A., Yeutter, M., and Aoun, D. (2014). "State of Practice of Building Information Modeling in the Electrical Construction Industry." Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 140(12), 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000893, 05014011.

Lu, W., Fung, A., Peng, Y., Liang, C., and Rowlinson, S. (2015). "Demystifying Construction Project Time–Effort Distribution Curves: BIM and Non-BIM Comparison." Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE, 31(6), 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000356, 04015010.

Heckathorn D.D. (1997). “Respondent-driven sampling: A new approach to the study of hidden populations.” Social Problems, 44:174–199.

Gile K.J. (2011). “Improved inference for respondent-driven sampling data with application to hiv prevalence estimation.” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 106(493):135–146, 2011. doi: 10.1198/jasa.2011.ap09475.

Syal, M., Diffendahl, J., and Duah, D. (2014). “Change Order Guidelines for Electrical and Low Voltage Contractors.” ELECTRI International, Bethesda, MD.


3 Bethesda Metro Center, Suite 1100 Bethesda, MD 20814T: 301.215.4538 F: 301.215.4536 www.electri.org

INDEX NO. F3416

© 2016 ELECTRI International – The Foundation for Electrical Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.

Documents

IDENTIFYING BIM RELATED COSTS DUE TO CHANGES BIM Related... · IDENTIFYING BIM RELATED COSTS DUE TO CHANGES ... • McCoy Electric, Max N. Landon • McPhee, ... Interview Findings