Implementing an Effective Model-based Coordination Review Strategy USACE/Industry BIM and CIM Consortia 7 Nov 2017

Transcription

1 Implementing an Effective Model-based Coordination Review Strategy USACE/Industry BIM and CIM Consortia 7 Nov 2017 The views, opinions and findings contained in this report are those of the authors(s) and should not be construed as an official Department of the Army position, policy or decision, unless so designated by other official documentation.

2 Speakers SME/Technical Editor VA Documents BIM Guide, DDR, PG National Standards NCS, NBIMS-US TM, NBGO Johnny Fortune Bullock Tice Associates BIM Director buildingsmart alliance Past Chair, Board of Direction Speaker AU, CSI, SAME, GeoBuiz, NIBS Conf. Steve Hutsell USACE, Seattle District Chief, Geospatial Section USACE/Industry BIM and CIM Consortia Lead and Founder USACE Standards Advanced Modeling Contract Requirements: Specs, PxP, M3, CHX National Standards NBIMS-US TM, NBGO Speaker BIMForum, AU, SPAR 3D, SAME, NIBS Conf.

3 Session Overview This session will highlight how the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), in conjunction with industry leaders, works collaboratively through the USACE/Industry BIM and CIM Consortia (Consortia) to develop a consensus-based approach to defining an Interference Management (3D Coordination) Model Use involving: contract language predefined software templates data exports denoting amount and types of interdisciplinary model element conflicts a means of data review and validation of the Model Use implementation.

4 Learning Objectives Understand the benefit of a USACE and stakeholder consensus-based approach to defining an Interference Management (3D Coordination) Model Use requirement. Gain knowledge of the why and how behind the development and implementation of the Model-based design coordination and constructability review strategy. How to validate that the required Model Use is being implemented by monitoring trends from report data throughout the design and construction of a project. How to avoid a false sense of quality by identifying common pitfalls and irrelevant metrics.

5 WHY? RISK Each project has risk, so what do you do with it? Avoid risk minimizes potential Transfer risk shifts responsibility Accept risk increases cost Mitigate risk balances cost to product Mitigate Interference Management needs to occur throughout the project s development (in Design AND Construction) to help mitigate risk.

6 Why Now? USACE has mandated the implementation of the Interference Management Model Use on projects since 2008, but had not provided specifics on execution and deliverables We polled the Consortia on whether it would be a meaningful standard to develop. The answer: Yes! Many variations in Industry on how Interference Management is being executed Beneficial to USACE, its stakeholders, and Industry Identified project issues that could have been avoided with Interference Management

7 Why Now? Interference Management would have mitigated these marginal errors But those considerably impacting time/cost get EVERYBODY S attention

8 Why Now? Example BIM Project: Discovered during design that modeled main duct runs were in direct collision with the structural beams system Estimated $25,000 to resolve took into account labor for redesign, and costs attributed to construction delays, labor, materials and RFI/Change Order processing IF this had been caught during construction. Other examples: Mech vs. Arch Mech vs. Aircraft

9 Why Now? It Keeps Happening: Financial and schedule impacts happen across the Federal and Private sectors on a regular basis, but are preventable Ensuring Interference Management is properly implemented is good project stewardship

10 Related Effort CIM Consortium developed a process to mitigate the risk of design conflicts occurring with existing surface and subsurface site conditions See article Bringing CIM to the Surface, Journal of the National Institute of Building Sciences (JNIBS), 24.html Example CIM Project: Inadequate coordination resulted in $1 Million in contract modifications for 'Differing Site Conditions' Required time extension for redesign and regrading Caused significant project delays days lost Incurred a 4% increase in project cost!

11 How? How does USACE develop and implement an effective Model-based coordination and constructability review strategy with a means of validating results throughout design and construction? People Process Product

12 People Consortia USACE BIM/CIM managers, Designers and Researchers Industry Architects, Engineers, Constructors, Service Providers, Academia, Legal Brief History BIM Consortium began in Fall of 2006 when USACE established a dialog with BIM-aggressive firms in conducting discussions and workshops on mutually beneficial BIM issues Collaboration provided a tremendous opportunity to work together in strengthening federal and private sector BIM initiatives. Results include Contract Requirements, Standards and Best Practices CIM Consortium initiative began in 2012 towards applying same benefits to site survey, design and construction requirements realized in BIM. Motto Develop processes and deliverables that are fair, reasonable, and practical to all project stakeholders.

13 People Consortia Membership Shawn Foster Independent Contractor

14 People Resulting in a Consensus-Based Requirement that s Fair, Reasonable, & Practical

15 Process Consortia workshops helped determine how to qualify model-based coordination and constructability. Evaluated various techniques and common practices for performing the interference management and coordination process Aimed at striking the right balance between achieving the desired outcome without being too prescriptive. Challenge: Develop requirements that are applicable to wide range of project types, budgets, and teams $ $$ $$$ $$$$

16 Process Consortia Discussions led to several conclusions Trending would be helpful but difficult to require without being overly prescriptive. Contractors can use the tools to identify trends during the Interference Management process and then report on their findings. Evaluating just the number of clashes might not be the most meaningful approach. Depending on how clashes are grouped might skew the data. Validation that Interference Management is occurring is done via the reporting template

17 Product Specification & Guide Templates Project Execution Plan Updated Contract Language Interference Management Guide Example Coordination Models Reporting Template Updated PxP

18 Product Avoids emphasis on clashes (a software detected overlap) Aims to resolve conflicts (an issue in design or construction) Guide Defined previously ambiguous terms Hard Clash Model elements intersecting other model elements. Soft Clash Model element encroaches into the space reservation (Clearance and Access Space, or Non-Modeled Physical Elements) of another model element. Specified Coordination Model criteria: All elements must be color coded. At a minimum, elements are color coded by discipline or trade. Each discipline/trade to be assigned a distinct color from all other discipline/trades. Include preset views capturing each building level and its corresponding interstitial area. Include subterranean view to display how utilities are servicing the building.

19 Product Templates Coordination Model Template Predefined common clash tests and search sets Predefined export settings

20 Product Templates Excel Establishes an Interference Management Log Provides example Color Table for Elements

21 Product Project Execution Plan Establishes how clash tests are organized. Helps identify real constructability issues. Contractor is responsible for developing and implementing their own Quality Control. They use the PxP to document how they are meeting the Model Use Requirements. PxP Tables include examples, NOT pre-defined requirements

22 Resulting Deliverables Supporting documentation (Coordination Model, Clash Exports, Reporting Files) is used to create Interference Management Report Specification requires a formatted Interference Management Report be delivered at each project milestone Delivered at each Project Milestone

23 Summary Engaging USACE and industry stakeholders with various perspectives leads to a fair, reasonable, and practical requirement Utilizing a process where the requirement is developed from best practices and vetted through stakeholder professionals results in mutually beneficial requirement Providing a clear specification and the tools to meet the requirement is key to achieving desired outcomes

24 Contact Info Johnny Fortune Bullock Tice Associates Steve Hutsell US Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District