Detailed Retail Construction Drawings Play a Key Role in Design-Bid-Build Projects

The design-build model of project delivery is one of the most used approaches, particularly for large-scale, high-end architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) projects. These include infrastructure projects, such as healthcare and medical research facilities, airport terminals, bridges, educational institutes, and large custom homes. Nevertheless, very few residential and retail construction/redevelopment projects, primarily with tight budgets, use the design-build delivery method. Department stores, supermarkets, warehouse stores, and shopping centres / malls which are not linked to multinational retail owners and have a limited geographical reach fall into this category.

In case of such projects, a design/architectural firm is contracted to come up with the designs, plans, drawings, and detailed specifications which clearly convey the architect's / designer's intent. After initial meetings between the owner and architect/designer, all retail construction drawings are finalised. Depending on the scope of the project, this set includes floor plans, internal& external elevations, construction plans, setting out drawings, composite plans, finishing plans, lighting plans, ceiling plans and sections.

Once all the plans and CAD drawings are in place, the project undergoes a competitive bidding process used to shortlist a general contractor (main contractor) to implement the construction work mapped out in the detailed retail construction documents. Since this design-bid-build method of project delivery involves roping in distinct teams for design/planning and construction, detailed and accurate retail construction drawing sets play a key role in ensuring that the change orders on-site are avoided. Owing to a significant reduction of change orders during construction, the time, effort, and resources that would have been wasted on rework or modification are saved.

Whilst the retail construction drawing sets are important to seek site permits and regional building licenses, the level of detail/development necessitated by the permit documents are far less than what ideally need to be passed on to the general contractors (main contractors). Moreover, in the design-bid-build method, the amount of information incorporated in the construction drawing sets determine, to a large extent, the number of change orders. Since the construction documents are made especially to seek permits from the local authorities feature less detail, the competitive bids from all the participating general contractors (main contractors) will be lower; however, the lower bids will not truly reflect the nature of project's requirements.

As a result, detailed, clear, and unambiguous retail design drawings significantly lessen the chances of unanticipated change orders on site. When the chances of change orders reduce, the project becomes more profitable and completes on time, which is precisely what all the key parties involved in the project strive for. In order to achieve this, designers/architects involved in such design-bid-build projects perform constructability review of design at regular phases during the pricing phases.

In some cases, designers/architects rope in offshore CAD services providers to prepare detailed production drawing sets for them. Experienced companies providing retail design and documentation services take basic conceptual and schematic designs or sketches from the architects and deliver detailed construction drawing sets as per requirements. This enables architects to efficiently focus on seeking client's and local council's approvals over schematic designs, manage the project effectively, and administer construction-related issues.

All things considered, detailed retail construction drawing sets and specifications not only benefit designers, architects, and contractors but also reduces construction change-orders, which effectively leads to on-time and within-budget project delivery for relatively small-scale retail construction projects using design-bid-build delivery method.

Outsourcing vs. Completing Retail Designs In-House

When planning store refurbishment exercises or when opening new stores major retailers across the world face tough decisions about their design process and whether to handle all (or a part of) the retail design and documentation work in-house or to engage the services of a skilled outsourced CAD services provider to assist them with some or all of the retail design and drafting process. Choosing one of the two options is not only a difficult task but also depends upon several factors unique to each retail firm and the availability and selection of an outsourced design partner.

For retailers, looking inward at their own team it is of course good practice to evaluate the internal design support capabilities vis-à-vis the retail chain's strategic goals. The evaluation should be two-pronged: firstly, the availability of in-house skills with respect to the expected design standards and secondly, on the basis of the speed of the design cycle the internal team can provide to support the firm’s growth objectives. Any shortcoming in one of these two areas is a strong reason to partner with an experienced offshore retail CAD team to successfully drive the retailer’s strategic objectives.

Entering into an architectural CAD / BIM outsourcing services model can also help the retailers accelerate their time to market especially in cases where the internal design team has the requisite skills but finds it difficult to meet the rapid turnaround expectations of the fast-paced retail environment. The key point, however, is to choose the 'right' service partner - a partner that seamlessly extends the in-house capacity, meets the design standards and fits into the required workflow.  The vendor should also have established work processes, virtual communication tools and quality control procedures in place. The best way to evaluate all the above factors is to meet offshore partners on a face-to-face level. 

Meeting the offshore partner in their environment in face-to-face meetings allows interaction with the management and drafting/modelling team of the potential partner in a way that cannot be replicated remotely via email and telephone calls.  This will also allow the retailer an opportunity to review and validate the skills, processes, technology backbone, experience and quality levels of the outsourced partner. A face-to-face meeting or set of meetings will also allow the retailer to understand and familiarise themselves with the underlying culture of the partner organisation and whether it is conducive to an effective working relationship. The outsourcing partner's culture and way of working will dictate the success of communication for the relationship. Communication is arguably the greatest challenge facing firms that engage outsourcing models and it is only with face-to-face meetings that the retailer will gain an understanding of communication effectiveness. In most cases the retailer may also wish to understand the social values and aims of the partner in both a formal and informal environment. This will provide further insights into the culture of that partner and allow the retailer to understand the potential partner in a different context.

Whether face-to-face or remotely another factor that retailers need to review is the relative experience of their internal resources versus the outsourcing team, especially on projects that the firm is embarking on for the first time. For instance, if the in-house design/documentation team has been using AutoCAD as a preferred drafting tool and the retail firm decides to adopt the building information modeling (BIM) process across all the new projects, it is advisable to partner with a vendor which has suitable experience in handling projects having a similar scope. It is also worth checking whether the firm is familiar with the requisite processes associated with BIM, including worksharing, IFC linking, family modeling, interoperability, material takeoff, clash detection and support with other CAD/BIM tools. An experienced team that has relatively more experience than the in-house team can help the retailer to smoothly transition to the new process with ease.

Whilst it is essential to focus on building a strong internal team, there are scenarios wherein retail design outsourcing adds significant value in terms of increasing success rates on projects never undertaken by the in-house team, speeding up the turnaround times on high-priority projects and extending the capacity of the in-house team without increasing direct overheads.

At XS CAD, we work with retailers across the globe, supplying retail construction drawing sets, 3D BIM models and computer-generated images that are used for pre-construction planning, construction build and project management purposes. We have experience working seamlessly with our clients’ local design teams and providing production drawing services for a range of retailing organisations operating in the apparel, fashion, banking, fast food, restaurant, electronics, telecoms and IT sectors.

BIM: More Than Just an Extension of 3D CAD

In the AEC industry, the advent of building information modelling (BIM) concept was viewed by many as an evolution to better 2D and 3D computer-aided design (CAD) techniques. Very few saw it as an interdisciplinary, collaborative tool that would drastically change the design-build project workflow, the management structure of AEC firms, the teaming models, the delivery standards, and the role of key disciplines involved.

As opposed to the vertical communication channels and delivery methods required by the traditional design-build approaches which mainly employ CAD, BIM necessitates an open and integrated horizontal collaboration channel between all the key stakeholders of the project: facility owners, designers/architects, MEP (M&E) engineers, consultants and contractors. To realise the benefits of employing BIM as compared to 3D CAD modelling tools, firms need to significantly invest in knowledge/skills development, personnel training, management restructuring, and software tools. However, more than these tangible investments, AEC companies need a complete change in mind set in case they want to adopt BIM for their projects.

Whilst many professionals, especially those from small and medium-sized firms, see it as an extension of 3D CAD, BIM is anything but 3D CAD. It is a much larger concept which involves extensive pre-construction planning and multidisciplinary coordination to virtually model building facilities using smart parametric objects embedded with rich accurate information. This intelligent model then can be used by all stakeholders to extract respective views and relevant information thereby resulting in timely decision-making and project delivery.

Though BIM and 3D CAD are not mutually exclusive to each other, they have major differences as far as the approach and the output is concerned. In traditional 3D CAD, depending on the scope of project, architects prepare a set of construction drawings, including the plans, sections, and elevations. Since all these views are independent entities, any change in one view has to be manually updated in others. As a result, the process is not only time-consuming but also increases the scope for errors.

On the contrary, a building information model contains the architectural, structural and MEP system models of the proposed facility. It is prepared during the design and planning stage using details from all the key stakeholders including designers, engineers, MEP contractors, and subcontractors. Since a single database-driven model represents details required by all disciplines, any changes made by any of the team members are automatically updated across the model to plans, sections and elevations. Hence, all the project team members are updated on all the changes made by others thereby saving time, reducing cost resulting from duplication of efforts, and increasing the overall quality of construction drawing sets. Thus, making small changes to the architectural plan would result in those changes appearing simultaneously in the section, elevation or schedule.

Furthermore, the building blocks of 3D CAD models are lines, circles, arcs, and other graphical entities, which lack the flexibility of data analysis. These models only serve as geometric objects devoid of detailed parameters which are required by the entire AEC supply chain. In contrast, BIM models comprise building elements and intelligent systems, including columns, beams, and walls, which contain rich data related to parameters. If needed, additional parameters can be added to the pre-existing ones for more detail. And, this rich data can be effectively shared across disciplines for rich collaboration and on-time delivery.

Nevertheless, the success of any project which employs BIM depends mainly on factors which include the richness of information embedded in the 3D models, the degree of openness in the interdisciplinary data-sharing and collaboration standards, and the level of mutual trust among all the professionals involved. If prudently planned and implemented, a BIM model not only represents the essential building elements in detail; valuable information concerning spatial coordination, geographic location, quantity take-offs, material requirements, time schedule, and project cost can be extracted when needed.

In essence, a well-planned BIM model accurately represents the entire project design lifecycle. Though preparing for and implementing BIM strategies requires considerable investment of time, money, and effort, its benefits are multi-faceted and long-term.

As a result, if your firm operates in the AEC industry and is looking for an outsourcing vendor offering a cost-effective, high-quality BIM modelling and CAD drafting services, kindly contact us.

Approaching MEP BIM Projects Using Coordination Specialists

The MEP (M&E) design and contracting industry across the globe faces renewed challenges with the advent of BIM which is increasingly used by AEC firms. Firstly, of all the major stakeholders involved in an AEC project, building systems design and engineering historically formed the last phase of design, however BIM dictates a more synchronised approach by all disciplines, requiring them to work in parallel from the early stages of AEC design. Secondly, the facility owners and investors always demand increased efficiency, waste reduction and on-time/in-budget completion.

As a result, progressive MEP engineering firms are increasingly adopting MEP (M&E) BIM practices to, a) work in parallel with other disciplines; and, b) meet complex project demands from project stakeholders.

Implementing BIM can pose a challenge as its adoption requires significant investment in equipment and training as well as changes to overall workflow and internal processes. With this in mind, many MEP engineering firm’s partner with 3D BIM modelling and building services coordination specialists, such firms possess expertise of parametric modelling and BIM development. As well as immediate expertise offered by such coordination support firms, transitioning to a BIM-based MEP workflow from a conventional CAD-based design workflow requires the type of planning and workflow streamlining that many firms are only just implementing and therefore the skills to handle such projects immediately are not in place.

Once the specialist MEP coordination firms are on board, they face the challenge of handling BIM projects and in particular maintaining a version controlled model. When using BIM for pre-construction planning and construction documentation effective communication and the use of modern collaboration platforms, usually hosted in the cloud, help to maintain a version controlled model. 

The BIM managers representing key project teams: architectural, structural, and MEP (M&E) engineering must collaborate and communicate to ensure the integrity of design data as well as adherence to project deliverables. For his/her part, the MEP (M&E) BIM manager will need to gain an insight into the architectural and structural BIM models prepared by the respective teams and use that data for his own inputs. As well as a detailed review of the current BIM standards of the project, knowing the specific components that will be used and then planning the coordination efficiently to include bracketing, lagging, access and maintenance will be taken into account. This insight can then be used to prepare an MEP central file that serves as a reference point to the downstream MEP design team.

The emerging standard of LOD (level of detail) means that the BIM manager representing the MEP (M&P) team must work to the specified LOD for the project, this will influence the detail within the drawings whether it is at the schematic design (SD), detailed design (DD) and then  construction documentation (CD) phase of the project. This ensures the model does not contain elements that are not required or will not be of any use to the trade subcontractors. Another key decision before the MEP design team starts modeling is how much custom content (parametric families) will need to be created within the BIM application in addition to the information that will need to be developed in a CAD package and linked to the BIM application.

If the above aspects are considered before initiating upon a new BIM-enabled MEP (M&E) design project, the MEP (M&E) BIM manager will serve as a primary link between the in-house design team and the architectural / structural BIM managers (who represent their respective teams). As a result, any update on the architectural or structural models will be communicated to the MEP BIM manager who can then update the MEP central file which in turn acts a point of reference for the downstream MEP design team to model upon. This sets the stage for streamlined and coordinated MEP designs using smart parametric models.

 

For more information about our dedicated MEP (M&E) BIM modelling support and coordination service for MEP (M&P) designers, consultants and contractors contact us.

As-Built Construction Assets: Key to Future Planning and Facilities Management

Preparing ‘as-built’ drawings and models is certainly one of the most crucial requirements of any design-build project. These final set of construction assets validates how the contractor built the structure including all the changes and modifications that were made in the process. The finalised drawings and models are passed on from the contractors to the building owners and property managers.

The set of as-built drawings and models, though underestimated and neglected, broadly serve a dual purpose. Firstly, the as-built drawings and models act as a guidebook to the AEC (architecture, engineering, and construction) firms that are contracted for renovation and refurbishment of an existing structure. So, the time, cost, and resources that would have been utilised during pre-renovation survey are saved. Secondly, they help owners and facilities managers to conveniently undertake maintenance and refurbishment activities besides helping them during emergency situations e.g. for rapid evacuation.

Whereas data-rich as-built 3D building information models have obvious benefits over 2D drawing sets, the decision to choose one over the other mainly involves factors, such as the scale of the project, owner’s preference, and the design-build teaming structure. The owners of relatively small building projects may prefer 2D as-built drawings of an existing building, prepared by a technician after collecting accurate data on site. On the contrary, large-scale design-build and renovation projects may require BIM-driven as-built 3D models.

Assuming that the project in question has not had a BIM model for the design process which is then updated during the as-built stage of the project, there are two typical ways of preparing as-built BIM models. Firstly, using the as-built drawings and other construction drawing sets as the starting point, 3D BIM models can be prepared using applications such as Autodesk Revit. The second method involves the Scan to BIM technique where   point cloud data of the structures. This point cloud data is then converted into an intelligent BIM model using tools such as Cloudworx and Scan to BIM applications such as Revit.

The as-built drawings and BIM models serve as a comprehensive reference tool for owners and property managers. They benefit from these as-built drawings and models in the following ways:-

·     The finalised as-built construction assets make future project planning, including renovations, extensions, and redevelopments, convenient and cost effective for the owners.

·     Since the as-built drawings and BIM models contain complete details related to dimensions, fabrication, erection, elevations, sizing, materials, location, and mechanical/electrical/plumbing utilities, the owners can use this data and conveniently manage facilities within budget.

·     The owners can use these as-built assets to resolve disputes regarding insurance claims. In case of a massive loss due to extreme disasters, the insurance company will require extensive documentation, including the as-built drawings and models to support your claims.

As the as-built drawings and models are prepared by combining the drawings/models of all the building services, the owners and property managers can schedule maintenance operations of the building’s MEP (M&E) systems in a timely manner.

Issues Affecting The Adoption of 3D BIM Modelling

Issues including cost and time overruns, material wastage, and process inefficiency have marred the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry worldwide. Whilst the reasons behind this may differ from project to project, lack of interdisciplinary coordination amongst the designers, the building services engineers, and the contractors is the most common of all. Considering these unfavourable project outcomes, there is a significant push from the governments, mainly in developed nations, to accelerate or mandate the adoption of 3D BIM modelling in varying levels for government-funded projects.

Whilst parametric modeling tools such as BIM technology is being increasingly used for government projects private construction projects are also seeing the benefits with many employing  forward-looking AEC firms that have already transitioned to using information-embedded Revit 3D models for design as well as construction stages. Although moving from traditional CAD-based design processes to modern BIM-enabled workflows is essential to eliminate design/coordination clashes and maximise project efficiency, there are some key inhibitions and apprehensions to what is a paradigm shift for the industry.

Firstly, many AEC firms have long been using the traditional 2D as well as non-BIM 3D CAD workflow for pre-construction 3D planning and are highly resistant to change their current conventional processes. More often than not, such firms are completely apprehensive of embracing new technology or are slow adopters of new technology and decide to change only if requested by clients or if they are part of a framework agreement requiring adoption of such technology.

 Another factor that pushes potential BIM implementers back is the steep learning curve of its tools and their real-life applications specific to disciplines, such as architecture, MEP engineering, and structural engineering. One common concern is training CAD technicians, who are familiar with drafting tools such as AutoCAD, and BIM and clash detection applications, such as Autodesk Revit and Navisworks.

The biggest impeding factor to BIM implementation is the perception amongst certain groups that current projects during the BIM transition period, will suffer. As BIM adoption is much more than just software training, it requires an overall change in the way a building project is conceptualised, designed, constructed, and maintained. Whilst the traditional design methods required CAD managers with a team of CAD technicians, the modern BIM-based projects require BIM managers who liaise with discipline-specific representatives to map out the level of details (LOD) or BIM Phases required by the client, worksharing protocols/processes, and assess the adherence to interoperability and information-exchange standards.

Furthermore, there is a widespread opinion amongst the AEC fraternity that whilst adopting a full-fledged 3D BIM modelling for the entire lifecycle of a building drives cost, time, and energy performance efficiencies, tremendous effort goes into preparing custom detailed content to client’s specifications. This group believes that whilst the generic libraries can be used for design and clash detection, accurately detailed models are needed to optimally use BIM for aspects, such as cost estimation, time scheduling, and quantity take-offs.

The requirement for BIM adoption also requires a level of interaction along the design and contracting teams that is not usual and has certainly been accelerated with the use of BIM practices.  Clearly defining BIM scope and requirements between the parties involved is already becoming a challenge, especially for the MEP sector where designers and trade contractors have traditionally handled conceptual design and detailed design individually.  The overlap in conceptual design and detailed design is becoming the type of challenge that MEP trades and MEP designers are getting used to resolving as part of BIM adoption.

Collectively these issues pose a challenge and sometimes cause the apprehension involved for BIM project take up, something that we observe will change with continued demand for intelligent building design.