Wisconsin becomes the first state to require BIM on large, public projects

Thx, this has definitely made my day! _______________________ wtf

Everyone Welcome Texas #2 to the Bandwagon. www.tfc.state.tx.us/newsevents/texas-adopts-building-information-modeling-bim-capability

BIM is a process for which you need to choose your tools wisely. So beware the cool software demos. In the end a BIM project more often than not requires a "CAD Deliverable" in the form of a DWG since most owners have not a clue how to use the model for facilities management or the staff to maintain it afterwards. These DWGs are often defined to meet an existing standard like AEC 3.0. So, when you choose your "BIM" tools make sure that you can still get straight to your drawings from your BIM model without having to handcraft them with complicated post remapping (thus doubling your work and headache). We have to manually remap elements exported to DWG to cleanup levels and then the weights since the tool cannot differentiate between granularity like supply and return duct in my HVAC system. So each time the model changed, the export had to be done again and all of the rework is lost and has to be redone again also. So it never was able meet the standards for drawings straight from the BIM model. When I told the vendor how much additional wasted time I experienced they tell me to inform the clients to change their standard (to meet the limitations of the software).

BIM will only work and perform the function it is intended when the architects and engineers are willing to create complete, detailed, to scale drawings and they are willing to release the computer generated drawings to the contractors, fabricators, and manufacturers for their use. It will also require all design, drafting and detialing software to be interchangeable or compatable. Everyone wants to have the most up-to-date software, but should someone be forced to buy new 3D software when there 2D software is more than adeqaute for the job? Are they being forced out of contracts because maybe they can't afford to upgrade at this time?

Such opposing viewpoints...resembles a Chevy-Ford debate...lots of opinions. Let's not be so naive about BIM and engineering and governing agencies. I doubt there are any registered engineers in the Wisconsin Legislature. Someone lobbied successfully to them and they were "sold a bill of goods." Now if someone can guarantee that the contractors will hire skilled workers and will buy perfect materials and install everything perfectly...oh...but i digress...

Arch84 - I'm suggesting communication among Design Build and Own stakeholders is critical all the way thru the process, and the more complex a project the more a tool like BIM will help keep it all in order. The Hyatt foot bridge is a text book example of how "knowledgable and skilled" parties blew it. It happens every day just not in as tragic a fashion. BIM as I see it will (help) increase effective communication and the related design and construction process decisions. Nothing is perfect (no tool), neither the slide rule or the PC were any use to folks who couldn't apply the principles and work with others. The tools are only as good as the people who use them.

"I recall the foot Hyatt bridge that fell down after being designed and built by good old fashion "nuts and bolts methods"" Huh?! Are you trying to claim BIM would have prevented this!? Its somewhat disingenuous to claim this arose from any particular means of representation, vs. lack of experience and proper analysis...

The above is a very interesting conversation. Thanks to my ASHRAE Newsletter via email for forwarding the link... I suspect the world is heading toward BIM at the very least in enabling a MS SharePoint type collaborative environment, along with engineering and construction techno added in for proof of design and construction management. The benefits of CFD for engineering design and related design validation - prior to actiual construction are well proven - and just like the fellow said above RE BIM, more or less cost justifiable on the larger projects. At least for now. But as the cost comes down and the skill levels go up, and become more widespread, smaller and smaller projects will be able to utilize the tools, realize the benefits. The folks who come out ahead will be the "Baby Boomers" who can function in the computer age, and the "Computer Gamers" who understand physics and engineering fundamentals. Perhaps fees will come down, but costs will too, and quality may well rise while mistakes get weeded out earlier in the process. I recall the foot Hyatt bridge that fell down after being designed and built by good old fashion "nuts and bolts methods" www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_walkway_collapse No design or build process is perfect be it old or new, but in the real world those who can, do - the others should get out of the way. Those who can design and build right will get more work, those who cant really should find new jobs in another industry. Just like they taught us in the stack testing business when CEM came into vogue, a "tech" needs to be smarter than the equipment. Keep up the good work, all.

So the State will give the consultants the BIM model to use on all the renovations. No more field survey work required by the A/E. Then when the RFI comes in that something isn't where it is shown the State gets to pay change order pricing and the A/E writes it up as an Owner Requested Change. Goodbye to Design ommissions and errors. Should be good for our E&O insurance rates.

Survey of the participants in the MEP disciplines. What software are you using? Who is using Bentley? Who is using Revit? Or Other?

We provide Building Information Modeling (BIM) Services which includes modeling the structural and architectural elements along with the various MEP (Mechanical,Electrical and Plumbing) services. The 3D model developed could be used for visualization, renderings,generating elevations and sections, fly through movies, clash detections completeness of construction drawings, etc. The 3D model can also be used to generate a very accurate Bill of Quantities in the format desired. AEC division has already executed 200+ projects including hotels, commercial buildings, Casinos, hospitals, school buildings, residential buildings, stadiums (including main stadium for Olympics 2012 in London), airports (including expansion of Doha International Airport),etc. for organizations like Webcor, Gilbane, Bechtel, Turner, Beck Group, etc. Regards Ashish Kaul +919910449628

BIMboy, good info, thank you! Have a happy 4th! ;-)

From the Jackson Courthouse project: "All major disciplines used BIM and participated in a coordination process for design review and clash detection, which resulted in improved design coordination and estimation of material quantities" 300 NLA Federal Building, Los Angeles. A fully occupied federal building was guided through a 16-phase seismic upgrade and renovation project by using 4D modeling to reduce the overall schedule by 19%, while uncovering major errors in cost assumptions and communicating extensive move operations for tenant agencies. “The 4D construction model of construction and tenant phasing revealed inefficiencies of schedule and communicated what the schedule needed to look like to the contractor,” said Peggy Ho, a leader in the GSA PBS’s 3D/4D BIM program. GSA Central Office Building, Washington, D.C. BIM and IFC data enabled direct model exchange with a consultant for energy analysis of this existing office building. A DOE-2-based program was employed to model energy use based on occupancy activities across a typical work day. U.S. Courthouse, Portland, Ore. 4D modeling integrated design intent, structural engineering, and construction scheduling into one model to foster GSA communication to the public, tenants, and contractors for a seismic upgrade, including base isolators for a historic landmark courthouse building. “The community there was concerned about preservation of this historic building, and the 4D model allowed the public to see what would happen to it,” said Ho. Initial bids on this project came in high, she said, but second-round bids came in lower, in large part due to the use of BIM. GSA estimated that the cost savings on just one of the nine pilot projects offset the cost of conducting the two-year pilot program. That set the stage for the agency mandating a BIM spatial model on all its new projects in November 2006.

Thanks, the links provided are extremely informative; although I must say, I am not finding any specific documentation of "efficiencies achieved" in eith the GSA or the Wisconsin pilot programs!

GSA's journey to BIM: www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentType=GSA_OVERVIEW&contentId=20917 Case study of the Jackson, Miss., courthouse in BIM Pilot Program: www.cdfl.com/news/press/multi-firm-team-uses-bim-for-major-gsa-pilot-program.html See the link in the story above for the Wisconsin pilot program.

BIMboy wrote: "The efficiency achieved from using BIM has been proven time and time again. For examples, see the pilot program the GSA went through before it began requiring a BIM model in late 2006. Also look at the results GSA has since received. For this particular situation, consider the 13 projects Wisconsin delivered in its pilot program before mandating BIM." Interesting, and valuable information, if that is available to the public; is there any documentation of either (the GSA pilot program or the Wisconsin pilot program) on record?

That's just wrong, Arch84. The efficiency achieved from using BIM has been proven time and time again. For examples, see the pilot program the GSA went through before it began requiring a BIM model in late 2006. Also look at the results GSA has since received. For this particular situation, consider the 13 projects Wisconsin delivered in its pilot program before mandating BIM. Seems to me like they've done their due diligence. If you want to talk unintended consequences, such as some firms only paying lipservice to the mandate by making incomplete models and switching to 2D as soon as possible, I'll agree that that will happen. Somebody has to be first, though, and I'm glad Wisconsin's taking this step.

BIMboy wrote: "A client - in this case the Wisconsin State Facilities Division - can demand process efficiencies be used on its projects..." I can understand that a client, and in particular a public entity, can require "efficiencies" to be achieved in terms of performance criteria, i.e., schedule and cost... and I can also accept that as a deliverable, an "as built" will be provided at a specified point of delivery in a specific format, to correspond to the Client's own data format needs; but in this case the "efficiency" of any proprietary PROCESS is unproven. Why not establish a performance criteria, and let the marketplace determine the best PROCESS to achieve the goal?

Very simple, Arch84, because of well-documented process savings (less conflicts, construction errors) that come from using BIM. A client - in this case the Wisconsin State Facilities Division - can demand process efficiencies be used on its projects and an architect or contractor can make the choice to not bid on that owner's projects if his or her 2D process is that important.

I am appalled at the vituperation being published her as acommentary. Shame, attack the problems not the messengers.

I am appalled at the vituperation being published here as acommentary. Shame, attack the problems not the messengers.

eng for bim said "The key is to use BIM as a tool, not as a replacement to engineering, design, or building. BIM should be treated the same as a drill, calculator, pencil, etc. because it is used as a tool to complete a project." If BIM is really a tool why make it a requirement? As an architect, I design the intended result, I don't tell a contractor which tools to use, or not use. I specify the end result, and allow the market to determine which is the best and most cost effective way to achieve the result. Likewise, why not let the market determine if BIM is truly more efficient and cost effective? Legislating BIM as a mandatory requirement sounds like a pork barrel handout to the CADD industy, to me.

There are both pros and cons to requiring BIM on projects. The major issue from the engineering side is just as bwiab said "garbage in, garbage out." DCEngineer has some very valid points regarding the use of BIM software as well (i.e. liability, accuracy, software "auto-design"). The key is to use BIM as a tool, not as a replacement to engineering, design, or building. BIM should be treated the same as a drill, calculator, pencil, etc. because it is used as a tool to complete a project. It should not be used to replace engineering or design or construction knowledge. When used properly as a tool in the design/construction process, BIM provides a number of benefits in efficiency, scheduling, cost reductions, error reductions, up-front decision making, and more.

Wow good for my manufacturer as they are one of the few that has all of their products as BIM objects. Maybe more ICF's in Wisconsin!

Wow good for my manufacturer as they are one of the few that has all of their products as BIM objects. Maybe more ICF's in Wisconsin! www.rewardwalls.com

Some of you are looking at this on a first costs level. Part of the reason WI has mandated BIM on all these projects is to help them begin to create an electronic archive of the +/- 85,000 buildings that they own and maintain, not a small task. Design documents are still largely construction sets and spec''s. Whether you use a bim software or not, as a design professional, it is your responsibility to provide quality control over the doc''s. Garbage in, Garbage out.

OK, this blog has devolved since Builder1 got on board. Who allowed the 12 year old in? For the rest, BIMBoy/Fan/etc.,...I'm not sure if these are actually real people or one fat naked guy. Anyway, this blog is terminated from my end. Go have yourselves a BIM party.

The structural engineers here should check out Bentley Structural. Bentley owns RAM and STAAD and they have made their BIM software Bentley Structural to allow you to go back and forth between the two programs. So build it in RAM and analyze it, then import it into Bentley Structural or vice versa. On a complex building you will want a structural analysis model anyways, this just allows you to only do it once and get your analysis and BIM model in one shot. See technology isn’t all bad!

And I do agree, DCengineer, that there will be some jobs that could be done in 2D CAD that will have to be done in BIM under the new guidelines. I don't see that as a huge downside, though, because I think even these 3-story college and office building projects can be done more efficiently with BIM. The saving won't be anywhwere near what you'd see with the hospital and more complex projects, but there will be some productivity gains for the architects, engineers, and contractors from being forced to make the right decisions early in the process. Isn't that a good thing?

DCEngineer: Wow, what’s to know? Please…take your technology adverse sentiment elsewhere. I got an idea, let's not use computers in any way on projects < $2.5 million. Gimme a break.

How many bread and butter jobs cost more than $2.5 million? Or more accurately SHOULD cost more than that? I agree the threshold might be a little low for some of the tweener projects that are right around the $3 million level, but the new requirements are intended to bring DOWN costs. Firms that don''t want to make the investment in BIM software can always bid on the smaller projects. Check out what was accomplished in Wisconsin''s pilot project and some of the great efficiencies the GSA has achieved since it mandated BIM for the public buildings service in 2006. Particularly the Jackson, Miss., courthouse. The real world savings thanks to BIM is well-documented in these projects.

How many bread and butter jobs cost more than $2.5 million? Or more accurately SHOULD cost more than that? I agree the threshold might be a little low for some of the tweener projects that are right around the $3 million level, but the new requirements are intended to bring DOWN costs. Firms that don't want to make the investment in BIM software can always bid on the smaller projects. Check out what was accomplished in Wisconsin's pilot project and some of the great efficiencies the GSA has achieved since it mandated BIM for the public buildings service in 2006. Particularly the Jackson, Miss., courthouse. The real world savings thanks to BIM is well-documented in these projects.

Builder1: You're ignorant to make such statements. If you only knew...

BIMBoy: One to three story buildings are the bread and butter that most engineers work on, not the "glamour" jobs. I admit that I can see the benefits for using BIM on hospitals, factories, and building systems that have many disciplines with a lot of piping and mechanicals. However, this legistation may backfire if it forces BIM to be used on smaller jobs that can be done more efficiently. I am completely serious about the comparison to Sim City, because I work with people who understand structures in that way. But is today''s BIM really at mature enough level to offer a truly virtual model of reality? Is it an "open" software, allowing for future expansion, or is it in it''s present state propriety based and limited to only a few companies? These are issues and trends that are important, affecting our fees and our liability.

DCEngineer is just another fuddy duddy who is afraid the advancement of technology will make him look bad when others are running circles around him in the design shop. If I’ve seen it once I’ve seen it a thousand times. Ignorance breeds contempt. Wisconsin will realize the ROI when they put their designs in the field to get built. The builders are always the ones who fix things when “something goes wrong” with the designers design and BIM will help find the problem before it’s a problem.

BIMBoy states the point very well - and here's a link to a few presentations I've been giving related to BIM for Construction - www slideshare net / hellomarc Most of the images come from BIM project from firms that top the ENR 500. (By no means are these "...unqualiified firms taking on large projects..." This "change" (BIM) is here to stay. Said better than I could say myself, from Genr'l Shinseki: "If you don't like change, you're going to like irrelevance even less."

DCEngineer, if youd have ever used Tekla or any of the other great BIM structural solutions out there, I think you'd see the situation differently. Designing in BIM actually gives you MORE time for design at the front of end of the process and more collaboration with other disciplines when important design decisions are being made. Serious design tools such as Tekla Structures or Revit Structure have absolutely nothing in common with games like SIM City. You're comparing apples and oranges. They're serious tools for serious design. If you don't believe me look at the structural design of the new Meadowslands Stadium where the New York Giants and Jets will play. Thornton Tomasetti designed it using Tekla.

BIMFan and BIMBoy: Can't say that we've used BIM yet. I am a structural engineer, and we use some great software tools, such as RAMSteel. However, in my 29 years as an structural engineer I have had some really tough situations to solve, requiring knowledge of fundamental theory. An engineer has to really know his stuff, just like that guy on "Man Vs Wild", and I am thankful that I got good grades in Strength of Materials in college!. For structural engineers, there is no way to circumvent an understanding of fundamental theory. BIM marketers will say that we can have both worlds - the "old" guys (Baby Boomers) and the young "video game" guys - but I don't believe it. Software marketers are driven by profits, not professional ethics, and some of us question if more than a few of these stories are news or advertising hype. This legislation, if it takes hold may result in unqualified firms taking on large projects simply because they own a program. BIM may undermine the time required to develop a "philosophy" for a structure. If successful, our fees will get lower and lower, too. And what sort of lessons can we pass on to younger engineers if they're sitting all day long creating computer models, almost like playing SIM City?

We see this as just plain bad news. There is a large arena of uncharted liability law to be explored with BIM. Good luck to WI designers who may be the guinea pigs in test cases. And, if the state doesn't wish to pay more, who will foot the bill for the additional software and training and time expended? How many small firms will be eliminated from competition? $2.5 million is way too low a threshold to require BIM treatment.

DCEngineer, you bring up some very valid points, but in my experience I'd say the engineers are the people who understand BIM and how to design systems in it best. Especially the structural profession which is light years ahead of the architecture profession in BIM adoption (aided by a materials palette that's admittedly much smaller than the architects'). Great feats of structural engineering such as EMPAC (see April and May BD+C stories) have been achieved using BIM. If states can show this process delivers great design and more efficiency to their projects - and Wisconsin's pilot program was robust - why shouldn't they mandate it? After all, they're watchdogs of their constituents tax dollars, too.

This will continue to other states, and finally force some of the design professionals to join us in the 21st century. And improve the quality of the projects being delivered. Good move, Wisconsin.

The BIM lobbyists have accomplished their mission. Good work guys, getting state legistlators to force a requirement that "sounds good" in principle. But what will be the consequences to the design industry? Will BIM reduce engineers to technicians running basically video games? Who will actually understand the structural behavior and take responsibility when something goes wrong? Someday we'll see the result: a demise of the engineering profession, similar to the demise of the newspaper profession. No one will understand theory. But they'll "understand" BIM, paying a few software makers who promoted it and finally weaseled their way into a state mandated requirement.

The BIM lobbyists have accomplished their mission. Good work guys, getting state legistlators to force a requirement that "sounds good" in principle. But what will be the consequences to the design industry? Will BIM reduce engineers to technicians running basically video games? Who will actually understand the structural behavior and take responsibility when something goes wrong? Someday we'll see the result: a demise of the engineering profession, similar to the demise of the newspaper profession. No one will understand theory. But they'll "understand" BIM, paying a few software makers who promoted it and finally weasled their way into a state mandated requirement.