Value Engineering



  • Avatar
    Osman Bilger

    The answer could be A, but realistically it would be too preliminary to be effective. After DD makes most sense . At this point the layout of the building and arrangement of assemblies have been established. VEing a project at planning would essentially be useless as the project has too many unknowns.

  • Avatar
    Theodore Diamond

    I agree with Osman on this.  I work for a state agency and VE is codified as occurring after DD.  Prior to that, numbers tend to be Rough Order of Magnitude, which is useful, but not at the level that VE requires.

  • Avatar
    David Kaplan

    Too often in the real world, the answer is C or D unfortunately, but since the question asks about the ideal time, I agree with these guys above.  After DD would be the ideal spot.  At that point, the drawings aren't so far along that we have to go back and redraw everything like they would be in C or D.  In A, the drawings really aren't far enough along at that point to know if Value Engineering is truly needed.

  • Avatar
    Rebecca Palmquist

    I would look at the clues in the question to help answer it. The question asks for the "ideal" time, which is as soon as possible. The questions on the ARE aren't going to ask you regurgitate something you learned or pick the answer that is most familiar given your experience, but are going to ask you to answer the question based on what it says. Look to the question to find the answer. Good luck!

  • Avatar
    Kurt Fanderclai

    The Ballast explanation is really an odd-sounding take on value engineering.  In the first paragraph of the explanation, they describe the use of value engineering as a tool  to be used very early in the process that can/should be implemented and performed by architects.  And yet, the process they refer to as 'value engineering' in which goals and options are evaluated -- well this sounds an awful lot like the architect's routine duties per Article 3 of the B101 -- objectives and systems to match the Owner's needs are already being generally analyzed by the architect and the various consultants as part of the AIA contract prescribed approach and agreement.  So, if an architect is performing per the contract, it would seem to me that early stage "value engineering" would be a redundant additional layer to what should already be taking place in the design process.

    So the premise then seems to be that the architect's value engineering is a more specific look at client goals and chosen systems.  OK, but again -- in the Ballast explanation, they are saying that the architect herself / himself will then provide then provide this specific cost information to allow identification of items where savings can be realized.  What new information would this value engineering at this stage be based upon?  Where would that new info suddenly come from?       

    Specific cost info is not in an architect's wheelhouse, and, more importantly, the B101 is set up to minimize the architect's responsibilites regarding specific cost information.  And yet, without specific, hang-your-hat-on-it, market-based information, what is the value of " value engineering"?  You'd need specific info -- but who can provide this info?  It's the folks who actually buy the materials and labor to build buildings -- GC's and their subs. 

    In a typical design-bid-build scenario, the GC necessary to provide value engineering information is not typically on the scene yet.  They arrive to bid after CD's have been completed.  But, OK, say they are available earlier -- or that it's a CMa or CMc situation.  This can be of some value, but can they give very specific cost info when there is not yet very specific documentation available? No, and they avoid doing so with good reason.  At an early stage, GC's or CM's can offer that RTU's are typically the cheapest, or that brick on block is more expensive that wood stud and fiber cement board siding -- but, so can architects and their consultants. 

    I'm having trouble buying that the process commonly defined in the industry as 'value engineering' can be implmented early in the design process.      


  • Avatar
    Liliana X. Lais Nuh

    I am also confused with this VE phasing to my experience after DD would be the most appropriate time, even tough in real life it usually happens during or after CDs...Could someone from NCARB give us a comment as to which is the way we should approach this question? To my knowledge during "Initial planning stages" it seems to be a bit early to even get into VE seems to me that end of DD is bit more realistic...

  • Avatar
    Liliana X. Lais Nuh

    NCARB give us some feedback please!

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Powered by Zendesk