Reducing the Cost of Project Change by Peter Timler, West-Cascadia Consultants

Reducing the Cost of Project
Change
Peter Timler, M.Sc., P.Eng.

Copyright © 2016 AVEVA Solutions Limited and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved.
Peter Timler, West-Cascadia Consultants, explores ‘Reducing the Cost of
Project Change’ at the AVEVA World Summit 2016, New Orleans. Peter
shares and reviews 3 different Project Cases and demonstrates all
projects were only possible due to the model-centric information delivery
process that had been conceptualized, researched, tested and developed
by AVEVA technology.
Find out more how AVEVA can transform your business
www.aveva.com

“Harnessing Downstream Knowledge to
Influence and Reduce the Cost of Change.”
• Agree with the statement due to direct
observations over a diverse career in
engineering and construction.
• General Construction Industry in NA is still
awaiting sustainable innovation that
perpetuates efficiency gain.
• Notwithstanding, the alternate project
delivery methods of D-A, D-B and IPD upon
which most “wait” for invitation to
participate, allows for downstream input
for improved results.

“Harnessing Downstream Knowledge to
Influence and Reduce the Cost of Change.”
• Suggest direct sourcing to secure
opportunities through ID Target Price
Validation  IPD.
VIRTUAL (DESIGN) REAL (CONSTRUCT)
PREDICTABLE
SCOPE, SCHEDULE
RISK, PERFORMANCE &
COST
FOR
THE PROJECT
VIRTUAL DESIGN & CONSTRUCT
WHAT IS BUILT
WHO WILL BUILD
HOW IT WILL BE BUILT
Strategize what your
value proposition is.

Why? (Steel Sub-contractor’s Perspective.)
• Conventionally procured building projects
are driven by market pressures that
squeeze the design & build time.
• It is very common that designs are
incomplete for numerous reasons (now the
“norm”).
• Request for Information (RFI) process adds
significantly to project administration
stress and endorses adversarial
positioning.

Driving Effective Process Change Within:
• Tired of inadequate/incomplete designs
that lead to contractual conflict.
• Early involvement permits more influence
(control over destiny) through advanced
construction methods, technology and
interoperability (virtual design).
• Customized solutions for the project,
owner, and design team.
Strategize what your
value proposition is.

Review of 3 Different Project Cases:
1. Large Project > $100M : D-A by
competitive tender.
2. Mid-sized Project > $50M : ID  IPD by
sole-source negotiation.
3. Small sized Project > $10M : IPD by direct
invitation through reputation.
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3

Case 1: EIA Air Terminal Building Expansion
• Provided pre-construction advice on
modifying proposed structural system to
improve schedule.
• Also advised on appropriate conditions for
D-A Tendering Process.
• Tender would coincide with release of 30%
DD stage drawings.
• Award would be after 3+ week tender
closing for GMP.

• Performed by Supreme Steel (Edmonton).
• Accelerated fabrication to permit erection
in 3 consecutive fronts.
• Approval period was fast-tracked
(electronic environment).
• Design-Assist process facilitated the
achievement of a fast-tracked construction
schedule.

3DMM @ Tender Structural Modeling @ Tender

0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
30%DD 30%Opt. 50%DD *Opt.#1 Opt. #2 Opt. #3 Final Mill
Order
IFC AsBuilt
EIA Design/Assist Project - (Tonnes/Time)
Steel Mass Verses Design Progress
Total
D
C
B
A
Optimization Blocks Mass Reduction = 190 Tonnes (210 Tons)

• Composite floor design changed to non-
composite for gravity loads.
• Concentric braced frame design changed
to moment frame for lateral loads.
• Beam and OWSJ roof spans changed to
elaborate AESS truss designs for roof
loads.
• Column location adjustments for
functionality.
• Building envelope design progressed.

Hammer Head (HH) Before : 30% DD HH After : Mill Order (3-½ Weeks)

Conventional
AE Document
Dominant
BIM
AE Model
Dominant
SF Model
Dominant
EIA - ATB

Owner
DesignerContractor
Fabricator

Case 2: Capitol Theatre
• A modern replication of the former
heritage structure.
• Already determined to be delivered as IPD,
by City of Edmonton (1st): low value = low
risk.
• Invited by Architect to be “on the team”
due to reputation gained locally from the
EIA Air Terminal Building Expansion Project
(Supreme Steel (Edmonton)).
• Fast tracked, in a truly BIM managed
environment.

• Setting of Stage by Architect:
• “There are, without a doubt, many issues that can be
laid out and I do not want to marginalize any
concerns about liability, responsibility, risk, etc. We
could quickly get bogged down in them and we end
up in discussions that superimpose adversely on the
schedule we face for Capitol Theatre. So let’s be
generally right and move ahead than try to be
prescriptively correct and go nowhere.”
Allan Partridge AAA, MRAIC, MAIBC, LEED® AP, SCO.
• Pioneering leadership by Architect, established
the necessary trust and confidence in the
team.

SPUR Model
(Revit)
3DMM
(Native)
Revit
(Stand-Alone)
3DMM
(Reference)
IFC
Conversion
Linkage
IFC

File – Fabrication - Field

• Process permitted early clash detection
with MEP trades.
• Foresaw opportunity to  cost to project
by adding miscellaneous works (catwalks,
etc.), to structural supply & install scope
due to mobilization.
• Delivered with 0 RFIs.
• Substantially met budget and delivered on
schedule.

Owner
DesignerContractor
Fabricator

Case 3: EIA Renaissance Hotel
• Fabricator Led: Proposed ID  Target Price
Validation  IPD.
• Approval period was fast-tracked through
facilitated review with SEOR.
• IPD process fast-tracked to match major
airport terminal expansion opening.

Concrete Solution Has 50% Higher Embodied C02 than
Steel Solution!

Concrete Solution Has 70% Higher Embodied C02 than
Mixed Solution!

• Supreme Steel (Edmonton) proposed a
preliminary design and budget verification
for a Girder-Slab® Method of Construction
structural solution (Canada’s First).
• Delivered by the fabricator as a complete
design (RAM Structural System) through
collaborative meetings with the already
assembled design team in just a few
weeks.
• SEOR confirmed the design & approved
within 2 weeks due to interactive sessions.

• Changed from concrete CIP design.
• Steel braced elevator and stair well cores
for lateral system.
• In restrictive site (air traffic) capable of
adding an 8th floor (low floor-to-floor
height solution).
• Schedule  by 8 months (2 months in
design + 6 months in construction).
• No heating & hoarding during winter.
• 15%  on capital cost of structure.

Owner
DesignerContractor
Fabricator

Summary, Case 1: (D-A - EIA ATB)
• Committed to value proposition of
“controlling” design creep through
structural optimization.
• Managed the structural design information
during remaining DD.
• On site before IFC drawings officially
issued, hence redundant to steel
fabricator/erector’s scope (entirely virtual
planning).
• Delivered 1year ahead of schedule with
25% savings reported by owner.

Summary, Case 2: (IPD - Capitol Theatre)
• Invited by virtue of reputation on EIA Air
Terminal Express Project (no participation
in call for interest in project) – considered
“innovative and collaborative”.
• Fully participated in robustly managed BIM
environment.
• Sourced other savings potential
(miscellaneous steel fabrication and
installation).
• Delivered with zero conflicts contractually.

Summary, Case 3: (IDIPD – Renaissance)
• Developed & led process for preliminary
design & Target Price Validation for
acceptance by design team & owner.
• Introduced a new building method to
Canada for improved value by  capital
cost,  schedule,  risk.
• Sourced other savings potential (stair
fabrication & installation).
• Delivered 8 months sooner and at 15%
savings.

General Conclusions:
• Demonstrated early involvement can 
project benefit by:
• Reducing $ of Project Change, even when
working in a radically evolving environment;
• Robustly managing BIM projects where early
insight for other savings potential can also 
scope and benefit; and
• Introducing innovative systems (by others) that
can radically improve the anticipated on-site
performance compared to conventional means.

Necessary Foundational Ingredients:
• Model-centric technical project platforms.
• Innovative, sustainable composite building
systems evolution.
• Advanced Project Delivery Methods which
permit versatility in application to suit
project parameters (D-A, D-B, IPD &
IDIPD).
• Confident promoter, skillful technological
team and courageous owner.

Recommendations:
• Sweet-spot was the IDIPD process,
directly negotiated, with structural
information full management.
• Contracted directly by owner.
• Met the Target Price with a previously
agreed to variability.
• Achieved planned profitability.

Closing Remarks:
• Majority of what’s been shared has only
been possible due to the model-centric
information delivery process that’s been
conceptualized, researched, tested and
developed by the design industry’s
progressive software developers (AVEVA).
• There is a great pool of downstream
partners out there than can be called on to
make every project more successful using
some of the techniques demonstrated
(software/systems/methods).

Thank You!
Peter Timler, M.Sc., P.Eng.

These case studies demonstrate early involvement can increase project benefit by reducing
cost of project change, robustly manage BIM projects and improve on-site performance. Learn
how you can make your project more successful using AVEVA technology here >>
www.aveva.com or click here to get in touch with our team.
avevaworld.com
@aveva
/aveva

Reducing the Cost of Project Change by Peter Timler, West-Cascadia Consultants

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Reducing the Cost of Project Change by Peter Timler, West-Cascadia Consultants

Similar to Reducing the Cost of Project Change by Peter Timler, West-Cascadia Consultants (20)

More from AVEVA Group plc

More from AVEVA Group plc (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Reducing the Cost of Project Change by Peter Timler, West-Cascadia Consultants