The Impact of Building Information Modeling on Project Delivery Methods

In the Architecture, Engineering and Construction industry (AEC) there are a handful of project delivery methods that continue to be the most frequently implemented modes of bringing building proposals to fruition. These methods serve as the trusted templates for undertaking any variety of construction projects, and improvisation or added intricacies upon them are entirely dependent on the scope and idiosyncrasies of each, singular endeavor. Reports composed by both Mahdi and Alreshaid (2005), and Gransberg, Horman, Korkmaz, and Molenaar (2009) cite that the three most prevalent processes are Design-Bid-Build, Construction Manager at Risk, and Design-Build. The details and implications of each of these methods will be discussed in this paper, along with the recent advent of Building Information Modeling (BIM). The latter refers to the production of comprehensive, computer-generated building models – a now widely used tool that has contributed tremendous benefits to traditional project delivery methods. Research conducted by Azhar, Hein, and Sketo (2008) details how, when effectively utilized, the advantages of BMI make it worth integrating into these existing methods.

To gain an adequate understanding of the impact of BIM on the AEC industry, it is important to first have a grasp on the variation of popular project delivery methods. The first, and most commonly used, is the design-bid-build Method (Mahdi & Alreshaid, 2005). This process begins with the owner, whose initial responsibilities are to conceptualize and finance the project, and define the terms of the contract that is to be administered to the architect and general contractor. (Mahdi & Alreshaid, 2005). Once in the employ of the owner, the architect is expected to both provide extensive design services, and act as the owner’s agent. What this means is that once the project is fully modeled, it is up to the architect to “advertise and award the separate construction contract” to a general contractor based on one of four procurement procedures (Gransberg et al., 2009). The contractor is then in charge of the construction of the project. Their shared commitment to the owner of the building “creates an independent relationship between the architect and the contractor,” which is considered to yield high-caliber results (Mahdi & Alreshaid, 2005).

These four main procurement procedures (which are instrumental to the employment of both the designer and contractor) range from low-bid procurement to sole-source procurement (Gransberg et al., 2009). Low-bid procurement is simply making a selection based on the lowest proposed bid, while sole-source – categorized as “non-compete agreement negotiation” – refers to reaching financial agreements with a single firm (Gransberg et al., 2009). Within this range there is also the best-value and qualification-based procurement procedures. Best-value procurement involves the consideration of additional components aside from cost alone such as, “qualifications, time, technical design, and other items that meet the project requirements” (Gransberg et al., 2009). Qualification-based selections are, more or less, self-explanatory: the contract is granted to the architect or contractor who is best suited for the job, regardless of price (Gransberg et al., 2009). It is important to note that these procedures are not exclusive to the design-bid-build project delivery method, and are utilized as a means of hiring the necessary firms and individuals for all methods.

Another popular project delivery method is called construction manager at risk. In this scenario the general contractor hired to build the project also serves as the construction manager (CM), a title which carries with it a significantly increased amount of involvement and responsibility. When this is the case, a CM may be taken on earlier in the development of the project than in the design-bid-build scenario, potentially granting the CM a portion of the design input. With this “overlap” in processes, the owner may see a faster output of labor toward the end result (Mahdi & Alreshaid, 2005). The CM also budgets the project, retains the control of hiring sub-contractors, and is tasked with maintaining the overall quality of construction (Mahdi & Alreshaid, 2005). So much of the process is in the hands of the CM that it is advisable to implement a quality-based procurement procedure. While this ensures good work it will, in all probability, be more expensive for the owner than a design-bid-build project staffed on the lowest bid.

The third most frequently employed project delivery method is simply referred to as design-build. Mahdi and Alreshaid (2005) claim that, “the design-build project delivery system has grown in popularity and is seen by some in the industry as the perfect solution in addressing the limitations of other methods.” This conclusion is most likely based on the fact that this is a streamlined version of the other two methods, in which there is only one contract and one party (a “design-builder”) responsible for the execution of the project (Gransberg et al., 2009). This eliminates conflicts of interest that may arise between the multiple principles involved in the other methods, but also requires a substantial amount of trust on the part of the owner. Again, it does not seem wise to rely on a low-bid procurement procedure when exercising this method, as the close owner-contractor relationship must be based on confidence.

The report drafted by Mahdi and Alreshaid (2005) hones in specifically on the factors that should be taken into account when selecting the best project delivery method for any given build. As part of their research, they isolated thirty-four of these essential considerations, and then composited them into seven all-encompassing categories which include: the characteristics of the owner, project, design, and contractor; regulatory factors which account for the “desired contractual relationship” associated with the project, among other crucial aspects of management; risk protocol, as well as that of claims and disputes (Mahdi & Alreshaid, 2005). These factors are unique to one another and to each individual project, resulting in a variation of delivery method success rates. As Mahdi & Alreshaid (2005) point out, “All of the project delivery methods have distinct advantages and disadvantages with the best choice being governed by the requirements of the specific project.”

The usage of building information modeling, however, seems to be increasing the productivity of these methods across the board. Azhar et al. (2008) define the result of BIM as “a data-rich, object-oriented, intelligent and parametric digital representation of the facility, from which views and data appropriate to various users’ needs can be extracted and analyzed to generate information that can be used to make decisions and to improve the process of delivering the facility.” Utilizing BIM for any given project enables those involved to (among other uses) closely approximate construction budgets, predict obstructions such as pipes and tree roots, formulate effective building progressions, and view the structure to scale (Azhar et al., 2008). While this is advantageous to the AEC industry as a whole, BIM also presents specific benefits to the individual project delivery methods discussed here.

Building information modeling can be an asset to the design-bid-build method in a number of ways. One of the negative aspects of design-bid-build is that it can often breed contention between the architect and the general contractor. This is due to the fact that the contractor has little, if any, input concerning design decisions – a factor that can also lead to disputes during construction should the contractor find issues with executing the design (Gransberg et al., 2009). This method is also notorious for the “extended time involved in designing and constructing the project” as the design is generally fully complete before the architect even begins to shop around for a contractor (Mahdi & Alreshaid, 2005). Building information modeling improves upon this method by both expediting the design process, and providing the foresight of potential obstacles before construction even begins. Data collected from 32 “major projects using BIM” showed a decrease in total production time of up to 7% (Azhar et al., 2008), which suggests that the implementation of building information models for design-bid-build projects could improve the time management issues associated with the method.

In fact, the increased productivity speed that BIM provides presents benefits to all project delivery methods – not just design-bid-build. Integrating BIM into construction manager at risk projects could also prove to be advantageous. Since the construction manager is brought on earlier in this method than in others, and is given the opportunity to contribute to the overall design, the function of BIM which allows users to “rigorously analyze” construction plans via quick simulation provides a more convenient collaborative platform. The CM is often trusted to “handle many details of a project’s life-cycle” (Gransberg et al., 2009), perhaps a good decision for a less knowledgeable owner. In that case, the comprehensive structural overview meets accessibility standards through building information models, and delivers a better understanding for what might otherwise be a disjointed partnership. Azhar et al. (2008) observe that, “proposals are better understood through accurate visualization.” It is for this reason that BIM may also improve the relationship between owner and design-builder in the design-build project delivery method.

Conclusion

The popularity of the project delivery methods discussed in this paper (especially in regards to design-bid-build) is due in part to tradition. While building information modeling may fall outside the parameters of the AEC industry’s time-honored processes, it may be universally beneficial for these technological improvements to become the new tradition of project delivery.

References

Azhar, S., Hein, M., & Sketo, B. (n.d.). Building information modeling (BIM): Benefits, risks and challenges. Associated Schools of Construction. Retrieved October 22, 2013, from http://ascpro.ascweb.org

Mahdi, I., & Alreshaid, K. (2005). Decision support system for selecting the proper project delivery method using analytical hierarchy process (AHP). International Journal of Project Management, 23(7), 564-572.

Molenaar, K., Gransberg, D., Korkmaz, S., & Horman, M. (2009, September 1). Sustainable, high performance projects and project delivery methods: A state-of-practice report. Holder Construction. Retrieved from http://holderconstruction.com