6 thoughts on “BIM and Collaborative Construction Delivery Methods Legislation Proposed”

1. The bill says nothing about Integrated Project Delivery. It does refer to integrated design processes. Here is the definition from the bill text: INTEGRATED DESIGN
   PROCESS- The term ‘integrated design process’ means a process for the design and construction of a building or space that involves the collaboration of architects, engineers, contractors, building owners, commissioning agents, occupants, management staff, and other appropriate personnel during all phases of the design and construction of such building or space with the goal of reducing waste and duplication and achieving high-performance building characteristics identified at the beginning of the project.

   Reply
   1. Hello Susan,

      The bill targets “Integrated Design Process and BIM”, or more specifically how to achieve “high-performance Federal buildings through an improved approach to building utilization, design, construction, and operations and maintenance, and for other purposes.”
      As BIM is the life-cycle management of facilities supported by digital technology… efficient collaborative and transparent project delivery methods are a critical component of a successful strategy.

      Construction delivery methods dictate the structure, tone, and success/failure of a project. IPD (Integrated Project Delivery) is central to BIM vs. traditional and antagonistic construction delivery methods such as design-bid-build (DBB) or “more recent” attempts to improve our non-productive industry, such as design-build (DB).

      It is indeed unfortuntate that the bill seems to target new contruction vs. existing building stock. In order to make any signifcant progress toward sustainability and meeting global climate change goals, existing structures must be the focus.

      HR 3371 IH

      112th CONGRESS

      1st Session

      H. R. 3371

      To produce high-performance Federal buildings through an improved approach to building utilization, design, construction, and operations and maintenance, and for other purposes.

      IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

      November 4, 2011

      Mr. CARNAHAN (for himself, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. WELCH, Mr. QUIGLEY, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. PERLMUTTER, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Ms. EDWARDS, Mr. POLIS, Mr. GARAMENDI, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, Mr. HONDA, Mr. GRIJALVA, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, and Ms. TSONGAS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

      A BILL

      To produce high-performance Federal buildings through an improved approach to building utilization, design, construction, and operations and maintenance, and for other purposes.

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

      SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

      (a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the ‘High-Performance Federal Buildings Act of 2011’.

      (b) Table of Contents- The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

      Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

      Sec. 2. Consideration of life-cycle cost required.

      Sec. 3. Long-term savings through life-cycle cost analysis.

      Sec. 4. Building commissioning.

      Sec. 5. Integrated design processes and building information modeling.

      Sec. 6. Reporting of Federal building performance data.

      Sec. 7. Verification of compliance with requirements.

      Sec. 8. Availability of funds for design updates to meet standards.

      Sec. 9. Updating Federal building energy efficiency performance standards.

      Sec. 10. Establishing and updating Federal building water efficiency performance standards.

      SEC. 2. CONSIDERATION OF LIFE-CYCLE COST REQUIRED.

      (a) Requirement- The head of a Federal department or agency involved in the construction of a building described in subsection (b) shall ensure that the life-cycle cost of the building is considered during the design of the building.

      (b) Federal Buildings Subject to Requirement- A building is subject to the requirement under subsection (a) if–

      (1) construction of the building begins after the date of enactment of this Act;

      (2) the estimated construction costs of the building exceed $1,000,000; and

      (3) Federal funding comprises more than 50 percent of the funding for the estimated construction costs of the building.

      (c) Definitions- In this section, the following definitions apply:

      (1) LIFE-CYCLE COST- The term ‘life-cycle cost’ means the sum of the following costs, as estimated for the lifetime of a building:

      (A) Investment costs.

      (B) Capital costs.

      (C) Installation costs.

      (D) Energy costs.

      (E) Operating costs.

      (F) Maintenance costs.

      (G) Replacement costs.

      (2) LIFETIME OF A BUILDING- The term ‘lifetime of a building’ means, with respect to a building, the greater of–

      (A) the period of time during which the building is projected to be utilized; or

      (B) 50 years.

      SEC. 3. LONG-TERM SAVINGS THROUGH LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS.

      Section 3307(b) of title 40, United States Code, is amended–

      (1) in paragraph (6) by striking ‘and’ at the end;

      (2) in paragraph (7) by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘; and’; and

      (3) by adding at the end the following:

      ‘(8) with respect to any prospectus for the construction, alteration, or acquisition of any building or space to be leased, a statement by the Administrator describing the use of life-cycle cost analysis and any increased design, construction, or acquisition costs identified by such analysis that are offset by lower long-term costs.’.

      SEC. 4. BUILDING COMMISSIONING.

      (a) Federal Building Commissioning Standards- Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of General Services shall issue regulations establishing Federal building commissioning standards, modeled on existing private sector standards and guidelines, for–

      (1) the commissioning process generally;

      (2) the commissioning of individual building systems, including heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning, building envelope, and fire protection and life safety systems; and

      (3) the use of building automation systems to perform ongoing commissioning of connected building systems.

      (b) Requirement- With respect to each building constructed or altered by the Administrator or the head of any other Federal department or agency after the date on which regulations are issued under paragraph (1), the Administrator or the head of such department or agency shall require commissioning with respect to such building that meets or exceeds the standards established under such regulations.

      (c) Commissioning Defined- In this section, the term ‘commissioning’ means a process for examining and evaluating a building or individual building system for the purpose of verifying and delivering a building or system that meets the building owner’s requirements for use.

      SEC. 5. INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESSES AND BUILDING INFORMATION MODELING.

      (a) Integrated Design Processes and Building Information Modeling-

      (1) STUDY- The Comptroller General, in consultation with representatives of relevant professional societies and industry associations, shall conduct a study on the use of integrated design processes and building information modeling with respect to the design and construction of Federal buildings.

      (2) REPORT- Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report on the results of the study conducted under paragraph (1), including a description of–

      (A) the legal, institutional, and other constraints on the use of integrated design processes and building information modeling by the Federal Government;

      (B) the likely impact of the use of integrated design processes and building information modeling on the procurement and budgeting process over the life of a facility;

      (C) the potential impact of the use of integrated design processes and building information modeling on private sector firms and an analysis of measures to mitigate any negative impacts on small businesses;

      (D) an analysis of the amount of product information that has building information modeling profiles and what level of product profiles must be available in order for building information modeling to be effectively used throughout the life of a facility;

      (E) an analysis of the benefits of the use of integrated design processes and building information modeling during the life cycle of a facility; and

      (F) recommendations for the development of a streamlined process for the design and construction of Federal buildings using integrated design processes and building information modeling.

      (b) Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings- Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the duties of the Director of the Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings shall include–

      (1) providing technical assistance and guidance to Federal departments and agencies with respect to the utilization of building information modeling, commissioning, and integrated design processes;

      (2) identification of best practices with respect to the utilization of building information modeling, commissioning, and integrated design processes, including identifying appropriate case studies from the Federal Government and the private sector;

      (3) disseminating to Federal departments and agencies, State and local governments, and the private sector, through a publically available Web-based system or other means, information on best practices identified under paragraph (2); and

      (4) identifying the research and technologies necessary to understand the interactions of building systems and effectively predict the outcomes of such interactions.

      (c) Definitions- In this section, the following definitions apply:

      (1) BUILDING INFORMATION MODELING- The term ‘building information modeling’ means the development and use of a computer-based model to document a building design and simulate the construction and operation of a building with respect to which various users can extract and add information to generate feedback on and improve the building’s design, construction, operation, and maintenance.

      (2) COMMISSIONING- The term ‘commissioning’ has the meaning given that term in section 4(c) of this Act.

      (3) INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS- The term ‘integrated design process’ means a process for the design and construction of a building or space that involves the collaboration of architects, engineers, contractors, building owners, commissioning agents, occupants, management staff, and other appropriate personnel during all phases of the design and construction of such building or space with the goal of reducing waste and duplication and achieving high-performance building characteristics identified at the beginning of the project.

      SEC. 6. REPORTING OF FEDERAL BUILDING PERFORMANCE DATA.

      Section 543 of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8253) is amended–

      (1) by redesignating the second subsection (f), as added by section 434(a) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140), as subsection (g); and

      (2) in subsection (f) by adding at the end the following:

      ‘(12) REPORTING ON COMMISSIONING AND ENERGY AND WATER SAVINGS MEASURES-

      ‘(A) IN GENERAL- Each energy manager shall submit the evaluations, commissioning reports, plans, measurements, and verifications under paragraphs (3) and (5) to the Web-based system established under paragraph (7) or to another publicly available Web-based system identified by the Secretary.

      ‘(B) STANDARDIZING REPORTING FORMATS- Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator of General Services and representatives of relevant professional societies and industry associations, shall recognize or develop a standardized format for obtaining and submitting the information specified in subparagraph (A).

      ‘(13) ANNUAL REPORT ON FEDERAL BUILDING ENERGY AND WATER CHARACTERISTICS- Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this paragraph, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to Congress and other Federal departments and agencies, and make available to the public, a report summarizing the energy use, water use, and high-performance attributes of Federal buildings, which shall include–

      ‘(A) energy use, water use, and greenhouse gas emissions data by Department of Energy climate zone, building type, primary building use, department or agency, and building vintage;

      ‘(B) data on total energy usage and energy usage by heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning, water heating, lighting, plug-loads, and other subsystems;

      ‘(C) data on the energy, water, greenhouse gas emissions, and cost savings attributable to compliance with relevant Federal law and the baseline used for a determination of such savings;

      ‘(D) a description of the requirements and programs relating to energy use, water use, or greenhouse gas emissions applicable to the design and operation of Federal buildings and the outcomes, including energy, water, greenhouse gas emissions, and cost savings, of such requirements and programs (such requirements and programs include green building and energy rating systems and energy codes and standards);

      ‘(E) a description of the use of design or technological features that contribute to reductions in energy and water use, including features relating to building controls, heating and cooling, ventilation, efficient lighting, lighting controls, daylighting, plumbing fixtures, water heating systems, food preparation equipment, building envelopes, orientation, site selection, integrated design, building information modeling, commissioning, and other features determined appropriate for inclusion by the Secretary;

      ‘(F) a description of any lessons learned from and case studies included in the information submitted under paragraph (12);

      ‘(G) a description of the characteristics of high-performance buildings and high-performance green buildings, as such terms are defined under section 401 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17061), including with respect to–

      ‘(i) indoor environmental quality;

      ‘(ii) air and water pollution;

      ‘(iii) waste generation;

      ‘(iv) impacts on transportation due to building location and site design;

      ‘(v) safety, security, and resiliency attributes;

      ‘(vi) historic preservation; and

      ‘(vii) operation and functionality characteristics; and

      ‘(H) additional information determined appropriate for inclusion by the Secretary.’.

      SEC. 7. VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS.

      (a) Postconstruction Reporting- Not later than one year after the date of substantial completion of the construction or alteration of a building, the construction or alteration of which was approved under section 3307(a) of title 40, United States Code, and biennially thereafter, the Administrator of General Services shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget a report with respect to such building demonstrating compliance with requirements under part 3 of title V of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8251 et seq.), subtitle II of title 40, United States Code, subtitle F of title I of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 8262 et seq.), sections 305 and 306 of the Energy Conservation and Production Act (42 U.S.C. 6834 and 6835), and other laws and regulations relating to the design, construction, and alteration of public buildings.

      (b) Verification of Postconstruction Reporting- Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with representatives of relevant private sector organizations, shall recognize or develop mechanisms for the measurement and verification of compliance with the requirements specified under subsection (a).

      (c) Inspector General Review-

      (1) IN GENERAL- Each Inspector General appointed under the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) shall conduct reviews of the department or agency applicable to such Inspector General with respect to the compliance, and cost savings attributable to the compliance, of such department or agency with requirements under part 3 of title V of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8251 et seq.), subtitle II of title 40, United States Code, and other laws and regulations relating to the design, construction, and alteration of public buildings, to the extent that such reviews are not inconsistent with the performance of the required duties of such Inspector General.

      (2) TIMING- Reviews under paragraph (1) shall be conducted at least biennially by each Inspector General, unless the applicable department or agency has not engaged in the design, construction, or alteration of a public building and has not provided for the operation and maintenance of a public building since the last such review of such department or agency.

      (3) TRANSMISSION OF REPORTS- Each Inspector General shall submit to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Secretary of Energy, the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate a report on each review conducted under paragraph (1) by that Inspector General. The Secretary of Energy shall include reports submitted to the Secretary under this paragraph in the annual report required under section 543(f)(13) of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (as added by section 6 of this Act).

      SEC. 8. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DESIGN UPDATES TO MEET STANDARDS.

      With respect to a building or space receiving approval under section 3307(a) of title 40, United States Code, the design of which has been substantially completed but the construction of which has not yet begun, the Administrator may use amounts from the Federal Building Fund Capital Account to update the design of such building or space to meet Federal building energy and water efficiency standards. With respect to each such building or space, amounts used under this section may not exceed 125 percent of the estimated energy, water, operations and maintenance, and other cost savings determined to be associated with the applicable design update by a life-cycle cost analysis.

      SEC. 9. UPDATING FEDERAL BUILDING ENERGY EFFICIENCY PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.

      Subparagraph (B) of section 305(a)(3) of the Energy Conservation and Production Act (42 U.S.C. 6834(a)(3)) is amended to read as follows:

      ‘(B) Not later than one year after the date of approval of each subsequent revision of the ASHRAE Standard or the International Energy Conservation Code, the ASHRAE Standard or the International Energy Conservation Code specified in subparagraph (A)(i)(I) shall be treated as updated to the revised version unless the Secretary has determined that, based on cost effectiveness, the percentage identified in such subparagraph should be adjusted.’.

      SEC. 10. ESTABLISHING AND UPDATING FEDERAL BUILDING WATER EFFICIENCY PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.

      (a) Establishment- Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with appropriate Federal departments and agencies and relevant codes and standards development organizations, shall issue regulations establishing Federal building water efficiency standards that require Federal buildings constructed after the date on which such regulations are issued to incorporate water efficiency measures that are technologically feasible and economically justified.

      (b) Contents- The standards established under subsection (a) shall–

      (1) include water efficiency measures that meet or exceed the water efficiency measures of national consensus-based minimum plumbing codes published as of the date of enactment of this Act; and

      (2) to the extent practicable, use the same format as such codes.

      (c) Updates- At least once every 3 years, the Secretary shall review the Federal building water efficiency standards established under subsection (a) and, if significant water savings would result, shall revise such standards to include additional water efficiency measures that are technologically feasible and economically justified.

      (d) Considerations- In considering revisions under subsection (c), the Secretary shall consider any water-related provisions of the most recent versions of national consensus-based above-minimum plumbing codes.

      Reply
2. Certainly you are correct that the A/E/C community is slow to embrace change and is one of the few industries that has failed to increase productivity over the last 20 years or so. Transparency and trust are critical and yet by siloing designers and construction professionals, as the design-bid-build method does, there is no incentive to share information.

   However you neglect to note the role that the contractual form plays in either encouraging or discouraging collaboration. Allow me to borrow from Marshall McLuhan by saying: The contract IS the delivery method. The contract dictates the terms, allocates the risk, and plays a central role in setting the tone, and structure you reference. Design-build is an integrated approach that delivers design and construction services under one contract with a single point of responsibility.

   “Integrated Project Delivery” or “IPD “ has recently come to refer to a contractual model where the owner, constructor, designer and potentially others enter into a single, multi-party contract. Although there have been relatively few projects delivered through the use of this multi-party model, the contract forms currently available anticipate that the owner, constructor and designer will enter into the same agreement, share some of the risks and rewards of the contract and potentially limit the liability among the parties. The multi-party forms also provide that management of the project is governed by a committee that strives for unanimous decision making. Although both the design-build single entity model and this IPD multi-party model have features in common, including the goal to achieve effective integration, there can be substantial differences between these systems.
   • Selection method. Best practices in design-build may use either qualifications based selection or a best value model, where price as well as non-price qualifications factors are taken into account. In the multi-party model, pure qualifications based selection is essential.
   • Degree of owner involvement. In the design-build model, while the owner defines the performance expectations for the project, the design-builder is primarily responsible for managing the details of the design and construction effort. With this foundation, the owner can select its level of participation along a broad spectrum: from fully participatory to a more “hands off” approach. In the multi-party model, the contracting parties form a team which assumes joint responsibility for both the definition of the project and the management of the process. The owner participates on this team and is also the ultimate decision maker when the parties cannot agree. The owner, therefore, must have the willingness, capacity and skill to participate actively and make the decisions.
   • Price and schedule commitments. In design-build, the owner typically receives a price commitment, either in the form of a lump sum agreement or a guaranteed maximum price, plus a commitment for dates of substantial and final completion. The owner retains the ability to pursue legal remedies against the design-builder to enforce these commitments. Conversely, in the multi-party model, the owner does not receive price or schedule guarantees from the other parties. The owner pays for the cost of the work, even if it exceeds the budgetary goal and even if the project is delivered late. The liability of the other participants is usually limited to the proportion of their fee that they put at risk, and the designer and constructor are not otherwise at risk for overruns or delays. These characteristics of the multi-party model may be further reinforced by contract clauses restricting the owner’s ability to pursue legal remedies from the other parties.
   • Accountability and risk. The design-builder accepts risk for designing and constructing the project in accordance with the project criteria. The owner can look to the design-builder as a single point of accountability. In the multi-party model, by contrast, the owner contracts with at least two other parties and yet retains ultimate accountability and risk for decision-making and the project outcome.
   • Availability of model. Design-build is legally authorized for most public projects, whereas the multi-party form is currently not available to public entities. There is no statutory authority for use of this model and certain features of the model may conflict with public procurement laws. The multi-party model is also much less widely used and accepted in the private sector.
   How would you address these issues?

   Reply
3. Hello Susan,

   Thank you for your valuable comments. I wish that more folks would join the discussion.
   As you note (and as I responded recently), the project delivery method… inclusive of the contract/contractual form, and associated technology, standardized taxonomy… plays a central role in encouraging or discouraging collaboration, as well as determining the success or failure the project from concept thru ongoing operations, maintenance, etc…. life-cycle management.

   Design-build is an attempt to mitigate the traditional adversarial approach of design-bid-build, however, it doesn’t go far enough.. in my opinion…and it still can pit two parties/interests against others. Also, I agree that any contract should be performance-based. Risk and reward constributed to and “owned” by all involved parties.

   Actually IPD isn’t “new”, it has been around for well over a decade and there are thousands of examples. From a new construction perspective, it has been used extensively in Europe, and used in the United States, though to a lesser extent for new construction. From a repair, renovation, sustainability perspective, our clients have been using JOC (JOC is a form of IPD for renovation, repair, sustainability projects) for over ten years. Many major building portfolio owners in the public sector already support IPD and/or JOC and the number is rapidly growing.. and will continue to do so as BIM takes hold. (True BIM that is… life-cycle facility managment supported by technology… and not simply the 3D visualization component)

   As you have correctly pointed out, education/awareness is a central issue in our industry and the key barrier to BIM, IPD, DB, etc. etc., is cultural. That is specfically why these discussion need to be had across our industry.

   Relative to the specifics you noted

   • Selection method. Best practices may be used in IPD/JOC, aka qualifications based selection or a best value model, where price as well as non-price qualifications factors are taken into account. For example owners can run their own internal cost estimates and compare them to a team of providers, and/or use a single provider based upon the contract, owner preference, etc.

   • Degree of owner involvement. Similarly, within IPD/JOC the owner can define the performance expectations for the project, from fully participatory to a more “hands off” approach… we see it all the time. “Projects”, or more appropriately “Programs”, as IPD/JOC are typically multi-year in duration, and are tailored to meet hte Owner’s changin requirements, like design-build. The Contractor/AE is also responsible for details of the design and construction effort, though, the Owner is, and should be actively involved in certain aspects.
   • Price and schedule commitments. IPD/JOC contracts can be either in the form of a lump sum agreement or a guaranteed minimum/maximum price, plus a commitment for dates of substantial and final completion on a project by project basis.
   • Accountability and risk. In the multi-party model, the owner contracts with other parties and retains ultimate accountability and risk for decision-making and the project outcome. However, the performance-basis is clear in terms of established fees, schedules, outcomes and the reward of future work. I can’t over-emphasize that the ongoing collaborative relationship is what contributes to the higher level and likelyhood of mutually beneficial outcomes.
   • Availability of model. JOC/IPD is available to a large and continually growing number of public entities. Statutory authority for use of this model is clearly defined with set dollar limits in some cases.

   Reply
   1. Peter,
      Thanks for responding to my post. Yes, it is unfortunate that more people don’t weigh in. I would be grateful if you could point to some specific projects that use the multiparty agreement either here or in Europe. AIA seems to want to hedge on IPD by setting it up as a spectrum that includes design-build. While this may be the case in theory (certainly it makes sense that design-build, as we know and practice it today, will ultimately evolve into something different) but it is not particularly useful to people in the A/E/C industry and in fact just subsumes design-build under a less-tested model. Since the AIA has never been particularly supportive of design-build, it isn’t surprising. In fact the famous AIA California Council IPD Case Studies Report, included one project that was not IPD at all—the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University; a very successful example of design-build. There are also owners who wish to engage in IPD but find themselves unable to do so, and go to design-Build. The Ray and Dagmar Regeneration Medicine Building is a stunning example of design-build.
      You point about culture is spot on. DBIA has long recognized that a mental shift is required on the part of both owners and practitioners wishing for a successful project—the contract alone can’t provide the atmosphere of open and honest communication and trust that is essential to what DBIA calls “design-build done right.” Integration is what allows for optimized solutions
      I’m sure you understand that while BIM necessarily moves people toward integration, they can go there kicking and screaming or with an understanding of how they need to change their attitudes and outlook to derive the most value from it. That is why we offer extensive education and training and certification in design-build for owners, designer, and construction professionals. We stress that design-build is not just a tweaking of design-bid-build: It is different in every way and requires a shift from a segregated mentality to an integrated mentality.
      Responsible owners understand that communicating knowledge and data relevant to the project via performance based requirements, firmly establishing its own role and responsibilities during the project and verifying that the team it selects clearly understands their specific tasks and responsibilities with regard to the project is the primary means for any owner to ensure a design-build successful project. The DOE’s net-zero office building in Golden Colorado (NREL) is the result of an owner who employed these practices with tremendous success.
      Given the distinct and separate training of design and construction professions and their resistance to change, a mental shift is key to their success as well. However, the process of design, though well understood by architects, is often a mystery to the team members responsible for managing the design, managing the risk and delivering the project. The schedule and budget driven process of construction is poorly understood by designers. Closing gaps in understanding of roles and process make design-build teams more effective, collaborative and integrated. Responsible design-build teams employ strategies such as colocation of team members and owner, and promote an atmosphere respects diverse opinions, and values not knowing over rigid and ego driven stances.
      I’m sure you, personally, have experienced how essential these elements are to BIM and to any successful project that is delivered on time, on budget and with high lifecycle performance in mind.

      Reply
4. Great discussion guys. I’m really pleased to see such an insightful discussion. I’m working in BIM/VDC in the horizontal design and construction world which sorely could use an infusion of the benefits to quality/schedule/cost that IPD and its sister methods of BIM/VDC offer.

   Reply