Engineering Inc. - March/April 2008 - 16

T he ability to spot design conflicts early in a project is a huge benefit. a growing number of mid-size and small firms are adopting it as well,” says Charles Matta, director of federal buildings and modernization for GSA, which manages upwards of 350 million square feet of warehouse and building space. The agency is so serious about the transition that it offers financial incentives to partner firms using BIM. “The biggest value of Building Information Modeling is not the core software package, it’s all the add-ons that you can apply to the model to take full advantage of the technology, whether you’re talking about energy modeling or quality surveying, cost estimating or other elements,” explains Matta. GSA already is realizing some clear-cut benefits of the technology, which it first experimented with in 2003. “We have seen a reduction in change orders, better communication, improved designs and better overall project information,” explains Matta. “We’re now working with models that are a lot more accurate because we have the most current data available.” Designs on the Future ter to establish standards. JoSeph Gott Gott says NAVFAC must u.S. naval FacilitieS enGineerinG first understand the migra- coMMand tion path and data-flow changes necessary before it commits to a transition. “The ability to spot design conflicts early in a project is a huge benefit—particularly with long lead times for fabricated steel and other items,” says Gott. “Everyone recognizes the value of BIM. Unfortunately, the current state of the software and environment is about where CAD was three or four years after its infancy. We don’t have the budget or the inclination to support multiple platforms. We’re waiting for a common architecture.” Corps administrators continue to keep a close eye on BIM. Dalton says that the agency has piloted a few BIM projects and is moving toward widespread adoption later this year. Where NAVFAC remains unsure about what platform to build its system on, Dalton says, the Corps will deploy technology from Bentley Systems (because most of its legacy applications also run on Bentley) for a subset of projects developed under its standard facility designs approach. Though Bentley is its platform of choice now, Dalton says, the Corps is constantly monitoring the landscape and expects to see expanded interoperability between platforms soon. “Our goal isn’t to exclude any engineering firms. It’s simply not practical to adopt multiple platforms for our reusable designs.” Apart from its recent warehouse project, the Corps also used BIM for a barracks renewal project at Fort Lewis in Washington. In both cases, Dalton says, the projects combined 3D modeling with materials acquisition. The Corps also is using BIM in a variety of large-scale civil engineering projects—including the Mississippi River Lock and Dam 22 outside Hannibal, Mo.—to simulate and test possible renovation techniques prior to committing to a design. With BIM, “we can view different options and scenarios and determine the best approach,” says Dalton. GSA is another federal agency heavily invested in BIM. The agency, responsible for government acquisitions, requires all of its building projects—and the A/E/C firms it contracts with—to submit and exchange files in IFC format (a nonproprietary interoperability standard), which encodes layers of data and makes it compatible within BIM systems. The agency works with several BIM applications, including products from Autodesk, Graphisoft, Bentley, Common Point, Solibri, Onuma and Riuska. GSA requires that all projects funded by Congress beginning in fiscal year 2007 be BIM- and IFC-compatible. “Most larger firms already have the technology in place, and 16 ENGINEERING INC. MARCH / APRIL 2008 Though engineers across the board agree that BIM is the way of the future in collaboration and design, the ability to achieve results still is uncertain. Far from the next logical step beyond CAD, BIM is an entirely different software package with more complex features. “You don’t just move up a version,” points out Daniel DeYoung, president and founder of DJG, Inc., a Williamsburg, Va.-based engineering firm. “Essentially, you start all over with a whole new application.” For A/E/C firms doing business with multiple government agencies—or a single agency that requires more than one BIM application—the cost of deploying software and training personnel can represent an enormous challenge. “At a certain point, the question becomes: ‘Is it possible to recoup my investment and derive the maximum benefit from the software?’” says KCI’s Blake. “There’s a certain amount of risk associated with installing multiple applications and not knowing which will prevail in the marketplace.” Some engineering firms report having received requests for proposals in a variety of BIM formats and say BIM’s incompatibility across platforms makes it impossible to compete openly for contracts. Though emerging interoperability standards such as IFC are helping GSA and other agencies address certain compatibility issues, there still is no single, open standard on which to build the technology. The problem has led some executives to question whether moving to BIM, given its current interoperability issues, is wise. One criticism is that highly qualified firms—particularly smaller firms—will be unfairly excluded from bidding on projects. What’s more, critics say, incompatible platforms and systems can skew the selection process and increase job costs while lowering performance. The prospect of measuring cost benefits—and, more important, return on investment—on what is essentially an imma-

Engineering Inc. - March/April 2008

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Engineering Inc. - March/April 2008