Why can't I get models from engineers

[Mark]

I am like 0 and 7 in asking engineers to let me have models to bid
from. In the requests I send I explain that I accept all the risk and
am trying to test the process. Weather I get anything useful in the
process to help an estimate is secondary.
We have to do something to change the way the industary thinks about
this process. What is the point of making these exchanges work if we
can't get the data????

[Craiglas]

I work for a small commercial structural engineering firm and we
started using Revit about a year and half ago. We have sent off two
models to fabricators and of course sent them with a formal disclosure
pretty much taken word-for-word from the AIA template. I'm not even
sure if our insurers know about this or not.

Of course it is possible that the engineers you requested from are
just a-holes. But, I'm thinking the problem is most likely with their
insurers and not them. From a lot of the talk I have heard through
BIM seminars and forums (as far as commercial is concerned in the
Baton Rouge area) the lawyers have kinda tried to keep a lid on
sharing BIM models. Of course with information sharing the liability
is shifting around and it is scary for most people. Personally, we
pay a lot for liability insurance as it is and if we were required to
pay more to share our models we probably would not do it.

I think once the lawyers have gotten a grip on the whole process and
have established some precedence, everyone involved will have some
experience with informal model sharing, and things will fall in to
place rather quickly. At least the way we are told they should by the
product developers. Unfortunately I think this is several years away
unless there is a lot of pressure put on the lawyers to get it figured
out. However, most BIM users either don't have the time devote to BIM
development or have no incentive to send out models at no charge and
incur more insurance cost.

[Luke]

I know lawyers are often our favorite punching bags, but there have
been a number that have worked hard to try to get active and educated
with BIM. What we have to remember is that we're dealing with decades
and decades of case history.

I think Mark and I share an opinion on this; that being what we're
trying to do does not dramatically alter liability that much. We're
all still responsible to do our jobs, we just have better tools now.

[Craiglas]

I agree. I don't think liability is shifting drastically. But, look
at every other aspect of business. As a doctor you make a small
mistake and you're sued for millions. You give someone an unfavorable
reference and you can be sued. I think there is a lot of potential
for problems, as small as they may be, for engineers to take the risk
and feel confident that it won't affect their bottom line in any way.
I love what I do, but I do it for money and I can't afford for
anything to affect that.

[Mark]

In most if not all of the times I have asked for a model it was when I
was bidding a project and my request came with a statement that I
requested the model at my risk alone. I also said in my request that
part of my goal was to work with the contractor or engineer to test a
BIM exchange before the project started.
In one case I was working with a contractor "testing" BIM and then as
soon as there was a real project to try to develop a bid from, my
request for a current model on the very job we were testing was
rejected.
I don't think lawers are the cause. I think people give BIM a lot of
lip service but when it comes time to try something new ~ we fall back
on our old was.
What a waste.

> > > > can't get the data????- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Mark]

Last night I gave a talk on BIM to the local chapter of ASCE. It was
my usual talk about the data exchange and what we can gain from the
process. In the room was a very well respected structural engineer
from the Omaha area. When it came time for questions he asked the
questions I have heard several times in the past. "you want my model,
the architect wants me to make a model but I don't get paid in my fees
for the model" and this comment "my applications don't accept the
kinds of things you want in a model".
I have and answer I have given in the past but I wanted to ask here
about the fee structure engineers use and how they can or can't
account for the work to create a model the architect wants. As far as
the engineers model and what I want in it as a fabricator ~ all I want
is main members in the right location. Let me put in all the little
stuff.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[dfitzpatrick]

We have been using BIM in some of our projects for about 2 1/2 yrs. To
date, no one has been willing to pay us any adidtional fee for these
projects and only on one occasion have we actually been asked to share
our data with a fabricator (by "contract" actually). In my mind, I
think you can classify the fee issue as either an investment or a
cost.

We have found that the productivity gains we get internally
(regardless of whether we share information with anyone) allow us a
little more freedom (time/fee) to embellish our models with
miscellaneous framing (more than beams and columns) that needs to get
onto the plans anyway - if the model is correct, then the plans are
correct. In addition, we've been linking in our analytical data and
don't have to worry (as much) about red mark transferring mistakes.
So, we have chosen to view this new workflow as an investment in our
future, expecting that somewhere down the line, BIM will be the
standard of care, and we'll have been doing it for a while. Yes, it
has been a bit painful at times but we think it's worth it.

On the other hand, if you're waiting for everything to be perfect or
insisting that you get paid extra for it because it's extra work then
you fall into the cost category for this new workflow.

I don't think either perspective is right or wrong, it's more of a
company culture thing. Just like some companies tend to be more on the
front end of the innovation curve versus the tail end.