Case Study 1
Transcript of Case Study 1
© M. A. Mortenson Company. All rights reserved.
TULALIP RESORT HOTEL2009 AIA TAP BIM AWARDSTULALIP RESORT HOTEL2009 AIA TAP BIM AWARDS
THE LAST 100 FEET>> BIM IN THE FIELD
2009 BIM TAP AWARD: The Last 100 Feet © M. A. Mortenson Company. All rights reserved.
TULALIP RESORT HOTEL >>
Architect Statement
Contractor Statement
Owner Statement
Introduction
Organization Chart
BIM Standards
The Last 100 Feet• Beyond BIM• Creating an Innovative Culture• Plan Room Computer• Integrated Work Plan (IWP)• Continuous Improvement
Bridging the Gap
Descriptive Data
Project Data
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2009 BIM TAP AWARD: The Last 100 Feet © M. A. Mortenson Company. All rights reserved.
PROJECT TEAM >>
ARCHITECT STATEMENT:
Our fi rst practical introduction to BIM occurred
on the Tulalip Resort Hotel with the help of
the general contractor. With the construction
drawings 60% complete, the contractor
proposed a series of collaborative working
sessions to meld their 3D model and our
documents. This was to assure the accuracy of
the coordinated on-site drawings – reducing re-
work and creating project savings.
The contractor, in concert with our fi rm, created
a 3-dimensional set of shop drawings that were
used to simultaneously defi ne and coordinate all
building systems. These documents reinforced
confi dence when fabricating and building.
Due to our experience with BIM on the Hotel,
our fi rm has committed to utilizing 3-D
modeling in the future.
CONTRACTOR STATEMENT:
Our fi rm has primarily used BIM in the past
throughout the design phase. These tools are
used to resolve design issues and coordinate
building systems and we learned that with a well-
coordinated design, less fi eld modifi cations have
to be made resulting in an increased protection of
design intent and productivity.
BIM was used on this project to coordinate the
design, but we took it one step further: The Last
Hundred Feet. We created a culture of integration
by giving access to the model and the imperative
information contained within it, to every person on
the ground.
OWNER STATEMENT:
This project was very large and challenging. Due
to the fast-tracked schedule, often times fi nal
designs were not completed until well after the
construction was underway. The contractor’s
eff ective utilization of BIM allowed us to maintain
our very aggressive schedule and overcome
many of the obstacles that otherwise would have
delayed or added costs to the project.
Because of the project team’s eff ort toward
substantial completion, we were able open our
doors to our clients three months before the
grand opening.
Our hotel was completed on time and on budget.
Working with a general contractor who has a
fi rm understanding of the practical application
of technology available made this a successful
project. There is no doubt in my mind that we
would not be where we are today if the team had
not eff ectively and expertly implemented BIM.
This is the fi rst experience using BIM for anyone
in our owner’s group, and after such a positive
one, we will push for these tools to be used on
other building projects.
2009 BIM TAP AWARD: The Last 100 Feet © M. A. Mortenson Company. All rights reserved.
INTRODUCTION >>
The Tulalip Resort is a 12-story hotel, casino and conference center
built using a fast-track schedule. The team was challenged to deliver
the project in 22 months, and to begin the project with design
documents only 60% complete.
To increase effi ciency and quality, the team produced innovative and
practical programs using Building Information Modeling. The use of
BIM on this project resulted in lower delivery costs and a high level of
collaboration from the Owner, Architect, Contractor, Subcontractors,
and most uniquely -- craft and trades people.
Building Area
Total Gross Square Feet 439.860
Estimate Cost
Site Development Cost $5,814,000
Building Cost $124,186,000
Total Construction Cost $130,000,000
Building Cost/GSF $282/sf
DESCRIPTIVE DATA
2009 BIM TAP AWARD: The Last 100 Feet © M. A. Mortenson Company. All rights reserved.
ORG CHART >>
PROJECT TEAM
The Project Team exhibited a strong innovative and
collaborative spirit - always focused on driving ultimate
quality and effi ciency to the project.
The Integrated Construction Coordinator (ICC)
managed model input and produced documents to be
used in the fi eld. They ensured constructability of the
project during design and protected the integrity of
design during construction.
Project Manager
Owner
Architect
Contractor
Superintendent
Foreman
MEP EngineerIntegrated Construction Coordinator
Project Engineer
Field Engineer
Assistant Project Manager
Responsibilities Included:
• Creating model• Model coordination• Distribution of model
documents to fi eld
BUILDING INFORMATION
MODEL
MODEL INFORMATION
2009 BIM TAP AWARD: The Last 100 Feet © M. A. Mortenson Company. All rights reserved.
BIM USE >>
BIM STANDARDS
Building Information Modeling was used throughout the building process. As
with most other projects, BIM was used for prefabrication, MEP coordination,
constructability, preconstruction/quantity survey, site logistics, and 4D scheduling –
all allowing the design to be modifi ed prior to costly and time-consuming confl icts
arising in the fi eld. A project website was used to transfer fi les between the architect,
consultants, the general contractor and subcontractors.
During the course of interior wall coordination between the contractor and architect, three serious structural issues were resolved and 234 dimensional confl icts. These
systems were all verifi ed dimensionally and signed off by both parties, making the
model the most accurate source of information on site.
MEP COORDINATION: Coordination of all building systems is the fi rst step to achieving success in the fi eld. The coordination process began with a standard 3D MEP coordination, which included models for HVAC, Plumbing, Mechanical Piping, Electrical, and Fire Suppression. To ensure a complete coordination, a structural steel model was provided by the steel detailer and the concrete and architectural model was provided by the general contractor.
During the course of interior wall coordination between the contractor and architect, 3 serious
structural issues and 234 dimensional confl icts
were resolved
4D EXAMPLE: The Tulalip Resort Hotel contained 336 typical hotel rooms. The project team used 4D to plan and coordinate the
subcontractor fl ow through the rooms.
By using the model the team resolved over 2500 MEP confl icts
Models augmented and replaced construction
drawings
© M. A. Mortenson Company. All rights reserved.
CREATING AN INNOVATIVE CULTURE
BIM became standard practice by connecting each team member with a practical
application relating to their daily activity.
• The architect was directly involved with BIM during the coordination process.
• The Engineers used IWPs for quality control and the plan room computer.
• The Superintendent was involved in the IWP approval process.
• The MEP Engineer, of 30 years experience, ran clash detection during the MEP
meetings.
• The Assistant Project Manager in charge of enclosure used Revit to build a model of
the typical glazing and metal panel mock up for enclosure review.
• The Subcontractors were involved either with modeling their own scopes of work such
as the MEP trades, or simply through their involvement with the IWP process and use
of the plan room computer.
THE 100 FEET >>
BEYOND BIM
The project team and fi eld crew communicated using a model available on a
community computer setup in the plan room. Any crafts person, at any time, could
walk into the job site trailer and access model information giving the team another
tool to get the job done safer, faster, and with better precision.
For the program to be eff ective, extracting the pertinent information from the model
and delivering it to the fi eld was critical. The vehicle for delivering information into
the fi eld was the Integrated Work Plan (IWP,) a layout drawing given to the fi eld crews
enabling them to work more effi ciently. It was also used by engineers to perform
quality checks in the fi eld.
Bridging the generational gap: The MEP Engineer, of 30 years experience, ran clash
detection during the MEP meetings.
Before the use of BIM, foremen were spending 30% of their time reviewing the architectural drawings, retrieving the information needed, and relaying it to their crew.
2009 BIM TAP AWARD
The Last 100 Feet
• The MEP E
meetings.
• The Assist
the typica
• The Subco
as the ME
of the pla
2009 BIM TAP AWARD: The Last 100 Feet © M. A. Mortenson Company. All rights reserved.
THE 100 FEET >>
PLAN ROOM COMPUTER
For BIM to become a standard practice, users must understand how to leverage
the tools. This means the model must be accessible to everyone for a better
understanding of design intent and constructability issues. Using the model, this
information can be gathered quickly and accurately.
The Plan Room Computer was the tool used by both the offi ce staff and fi eld as a live
and interactive means to communicate in 3-dimensions. The plan room computer
held a version of the model, which included all MEP models, architectural models,
and structural models. Every project team member was trained in using Navis Works
to navigate, dimension, and manipulate objects. Instead of a select few looking for
confl icts, every team member can catch coordination issues. The model on the Plan
Room Computer became the primary source of information on the project.
The plan room computer was so successful, the contractor is now using one on every project
2009 BIM TAP AWARD: The Last 100 Feet © M. A. Mortenson Company. All rights reserved.
THE 100 FEET >>
INTEGRATED WORK PLAN IWP
The purpose of the IWP is to simplify and consolidate all information into one delivery
source, creating a task specifi c document containing all information necessary to
perform a specifi c task of a defi ned scope of work.
The document contains plans and elevations, as well as 3-D views. This is accompanied
by pertinent dimensional information ensuring a higher quality product delivered
more effi ciently.
This fl ow chart depicts the approval process to ensure the accuracy of the IWP.
G
G.1
G.8
4
3
C B
4.1
1200.17
3300.14
2300.14
2'- 3
3/8"
1' - 6 1/2"
6'- 1
"0'
- 71/1
6"
5'- 4
"
2' - 7
15/16
"6'- 1
"
27' -
1 1/2"
7' - 3"
7' - 3"
0'- 1
1 1/2"
0'- 11
1/2"
0'- 11
1/2"
0'- 11
1/2"
403.06
6
Level 10' - 0"
3
3300.14
-1' - 8"-1' - 7 1/2"
1' - 6 1/2"5' - 8 1/2"
7' - 3"
Footing @ G.1 & 3
0' - 8"
SOG - 5"
0' - 8"0' - 10 1/2"
Level 10' - 0"
GG.1
6' - 1"
2' - 7 15/16"
5' - 4"
0' - 7 1/16"
6' - 1"
Depth Varies (TYP)
2300.14
Footing @ G.1 & 3
0' - 8" 0' - 8"0' - 8"0' - 8"
Scale
Project number
Date
Drawn by
Project Address:10200 Quil Ceda Blvd.Tulalip, Wa. 98271
Project Phone #:360-654-2262
Drawing Review
Name Position Y N NAN Kurth Design Coord.
P Greany Project Eng.
J Jones Superintendant
B Remmen Superintendant
Architect: RPA
General Contractor: Mortenson
Structural Engineer: DCI
Interior Designer: IDI
Electrical: Valley
Plumbing: Apollo
Hydronic/HVAC: Hermanson
Fire Protection: SFS
WORK ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION QUANTITY
MATERIAL ONSITE LISTREQ'D
RebarFormsaversSleeves
QTY.ITEM
CONCRETE MIX DESIGNSMIX TYPE.STRENGTH DESCRIPTION
MIX T3045 4000 PSI TYPE A BEAMS, COLUMNS, REINFORCED CONCRETE, SUPPORTED SLABS
MIX T9014 3000 PSI TYPE B SPREAD FOOTINGS, WALL FOOTINGS, WALLS, GRADE BEAMS, PIERS, SUPPORTED SLABS ON COMPOSITE METAL DECK & LINEAR ACCELERATOR VAULT
SIZE
EMBED INFORMATIONAnchor Bolts
EMBED PLATES EMBED ANGLES ANCHOR BOLTSNUMBER SIZE QTY. NUMBER SIZE QTY. NUMBER SIZE QTY.
QUANTITY INFORMATION
MIX XT3045 4000 PSI TYPE A-Xypex TUNNEL ROOF SLAB
MIX XT9014 3000 PSI TYPE B-Xypex AREA P,S - FOUNDATION WALLS, ELEVATOR PIT/TUNNEL WALLSMIX 2709 N/A PSI CLSM BACKFILL OTHER THAN COMPACTED FILLMIX T2708 N/A PSI ALT CLSM BACKFILL OTHER THAN COMPACTED FILL (PUMPABLE)
CARPENTER QUANTITIESFORM WORK
LABOR QUANTITIESCONCRETE WORK
DESCRIPTION QUANTITY
REQ'D
Box Outs
POUR RATE
AIR TEMP.
60 or > 6' / HR40 or 59 5' / HR20 or 39 4' / HR
P= 150 + 9000RT
P = LATERAL PRESSURE , PSER = RATE OF PLACEMENT , FT/HRT = TEMP OF CONCRETE IN FORMS , Deg F
AIR TEMP.AIR TEMP.
1/9/2009 2:11:27 AM
As indicated
300.14
06050015
Tulalip Tribes Hotel &Conference Center
Project
Author
3/16" = 1'-0"1 Dock leveler depressions plan
1/2" = 1'-0"2 Dock Leveler Section 2
1/4" = 1'-0"3 Dock Leveler Section 3 4 Dock Leveler 3D
No. Description Date
Integrated Work Plan (IWP)
3D View: Provides perspective to ensure accuracy
2009 BIM TAP AWARD: The Last 100 Feet © M. A. Mortenson Company. All rights reserved.
THE 100 FEET >>
IWP = CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT
IWPs had a tremendous impact on continuous
improvement.
By using color coded drawings the iron workers
were able to build all of the stud rails at the same
time and distribute them with the exact quantity
and types, decreasing installation time by 20%.
IWPs containing plan and elevation were used
in the forming and pouring of shear walls,
increasing production by 26%. Not one embed,
block out, or sleeve was misplaced.
Increased production rate of shear walls by 26%
H
J
K
L
12 11 10 8 7 5 4 3 1
Yellow/Brown 100U
Yellow/Brown 100U
Blue 100P
Blue 100P
Yellow/Brown 100U
Orange 100T
Orange 100T
Orange 100Y Orange 100S
Blue 100P
Orange 100Q
Orange 100S
Orange 100Q
Orange 100S
Orange 100Q
Yellow/Blue 100Z
Orange 100Q
Yellow/Blue 100Z
Orange 100Q
Orange 100S
Orange 100Q
Orange 100S Orange 100S
Orange 100Q Orange 100Q
Orange 100S
Orange 100Q
Orange 100R
Orange 100S
Orange 100Q
Orange 100Q
Orange 100Q
Orange 100Q
Orange 100S
Orange 100S
Blue 100P
Blue 100P
Orange 100AA
Orange 100Q
Orange 100V
Orange100X
Orange 100W
Orange 100V
Orange 100T
Orange 100T
Orange 100AB
6
Scale
Project number
Date
Drawn by
Project Address:10200 Quil Ceda Blvd.Tulalip, Wa. 98271
Project Phone #:360-654-2262
Drawing Review
Name Position Y N NAN Kurth Design Coord.
P Greany Project Eng.
J Jones Superintendant
B Remmen Superintendant
Architect: RPA
General Contractor: Mortenson
Structural Engineer: DCI
Interior Designer: IDI
Electrical: Valley
Plumbing: Apollo
Hydronic/HVAC: Hermanson
Fire Protection: SFS
WORK ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION QUANTITY
MATERIAL ONSITE LISTREQ'D
RebarFormsaversSleeves
QTY.ITEM
CONCRETE MIX DESIGNSMIX TYPE.STRENGTH DESCRIPTION
MIX T3045 4000 PSI TYPE A BEAMS, COLUMNS, REINFORCED CONCRETE, SUPPORTED SLABS
MIX T9014 3000 PSI TYPE B SPREAD FOOTINGS, WALL FOOTINGS, WALLS, GRADE BEAMS, PIERS, SUPPORTED SLABS ON COMPOSITE METAL DECK & LINEAR ACCELERATOR VAULT
SIZE
EMBED INFORMATIONAnchor Bolts
EMBED PLATES EMBED ANGLES ANCHOR BOLTSNUMBER SIZE QTY. NUMBER SIZE QTY. NUMBER SIZE QTY.
QUANTITY INFORMATION
MIX XT3045 4000 PSI TYPE A-Xypex TUNNEL ROOF SLAB
MIX XT9014 3000 PSI TYPE B-Xypex AREA P,S - FOUNDATION WALLS, ELEVATOR PIT/TUNNEL WALLSMIX 2709 N/A PSI CLSM BACKFILL OTHER THAN COMPACTED FILLMIX T2708 N/A PSI ALT CLSM BACKFILL OTHER THAN COMPACTED FILL (PUMPABLE)
CARPENTER QUANTITIESFORM WORK
LABOR QUANTITIESCONCRETE WORK
DESCRIPTION QUANTITY
REQ'D
Box Outs
POUR RATE
AIR TEMP.
60 or > 6' / HR40 or 59 5' / HR20 or 39 4' / HR
P= 150 + 9000RT
P = LATERAL PRESSURE , PSER = RATE OF PLACEMENT , FT/HRT = TEMP OF CONCRETE IN FORMS , Deg F
AIR TEMP.AIR TEMP.
1/12/2009 1:25:19 PM
1/16" = 1'-0"
302.27
Level 3 - Stud RailLayout
06050015
Tulalip Tribes Hotel &Conference Center
Project
N Kurth
Level 3 - Stud RailLayout
1/16" = 1'-0"1 Level 3 - Stud Rail Layout
No. Description Date
0' - 11 3/8" CL 0' - 11 3/8" CL
0' -
2 5/
8" C
L
0' -
10 3
/8" C
L
0' -
10 3
/8" C
L
0' - 2" 0' - 9 1/8" 0' - 9 1/8"
2' - 0"
2' -
0"4'
- 1"
4' -
1"
0' -
10 1
/8"
0' -
10 1
/8"
White Stud Rail Typ.Column CC1
Revised01/29/06
Shee
t Nam
e
Proj
ect N
ame
Proj
ect N
umbe
rD
ate/
Tim
e St
amp
Shee
t Num
ber
1/12
/200
9 1:
11:2
9 PM
302.
10St
ud R
ail S
yste
m 1
00I
0605
0015
Tula
lip T
ribes
Hot
el &
Con
fere
nce
Cen
ter P
roje
ct
3/4" = 1'-0"1 100I
Not one embed, block out, or sleeve was misplaced
2009 BIM TAP AWARD: The Last 100 Feet © M. A. Mortenson Company. All rights reserved.
THE 100 FEET >>
IWP CONTRACTOR USE
The IWPs contained the following scopes of work:
Pile cap and footing layout
• Allowing all panels to be pre-fabricated for pile caps
Slab on Grade
• Slab edge• Depressions, curbs and housekeeping pads• •Bolt pattern for steel columns
Post-tensioned Decks (Hotel Tower)• Slab edge with block outs, curbs, depressions and
house keeping pads• Sleeve layout • PT head layout• Embed layout• Stud rail layout and fabrication drawings
Shear wall layout• Including elevations with coordinated block outs
and embeds
Through the use of IWPs, man-hours were reduced by
20% to complete the concrete structure. The schedule
for this scope of work was reduced by 10%, shaving 6
weeks off an already tight schedule.Worker-hours were reduced
by 20% and shaved 6 weeks
off schedule
H
J
K
L
12 11 10 3301.21
5' - 8 1/2" 3' - 7" 3' - 8 1/2" 4' - 3 1/2" 3' - 8 1/2"
2' - 7 1/2"
8' - 4 1/2" 6' - 9 1/2"
2' - 2 1/2"
4' - 3 1/2" 3' - 8 1/2" 4' - 4 1/2" 3' - 1" 7' - 6 1/2" 7' - 7 1/2" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 7' - 2 1/8"
6' - 5 1/2" 2' - 9 1/4" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 6' - 9 1/4" 9' - 2 3/4" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 6' - 9 1/4" 9' - 2 3/4" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 6' - 9 1/4" 8' - 10 1/2"
6' - 6 7/8"
1' - 10 7/8"
4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 7' - 6 1/4" 8' - 5 3/4" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 7' - 6 1/4" 8' - 7 1/2" 3' - 10 1/4" 5' - 3"
2' - 8 13/16"
4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0"
6' - 7" 7' - 2 1/2"
302M
303M303M
300M 300M 300M
0' -
6 1/
8"
303M
300M
303M
300M
303M
300M
303M
300M
303M 303M
300M
303M
300M
303M
300M
303M
300M
303M
300M
303M
300M
303M
300M
303M 303M
300M
303M
300M
303M
300M
303M
300M
303M
300M
303M 303M303M
300M
303M 303M
300M
303M
300M
303M
300M
303M
300M 300M
303M
300M
303M
300M
303M
300M
303M
300M 300M
303M 303M
300M 300M
303M
300M
303M
300M
303M 303M 303M
302M 302M 302M
7' - 5" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 8' - 7" 7' - 5" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 8' - 7" 7' - 9" 4' - 0" 2' - 10" 4' - 0" 4' - 0"
4' - 1 1/2"
2' - 10 1/2"
2' - 0 1/2"0' - 4 1/2"
2' - 7"2' - 2" 2' - 8"
0' -
0 7/
8"
0' -
0 7/
8"
0' -
0 7/
8"
0' -
1 1/
2"
0' -
1 1/
2"
0' -
1 1/
2"
0' -
6 1/
8"
0' -
6 1/
8"
0' -
6 1/
8"
0' -
7 1/
4"
0' -
7 1/
2"
0' -
7 1/
2"
13' -
1"
6400.07
304M.1(1) Top (1) Btm
304M(1) Btm
304M(1) Top (1) Btm
304M(1) Btm
Revised Location
0' -
5"
5' - 4 1/2"
5' - 4 1/2"
Revised Location
Revised Location
304M
Scale
Project number
Date
Drawn by
Project Address:10200 Quil Ceda Blvd.Tulalip, Wa. 98271
Project Phone #:360-654-2262
Drawing Review
Name Position Y N NAN Kurth Design Coord.
P Greany Project Eng.
J Jones Superintendant
B Remmen Superintendant
Architect: RPA
General Contractor: Mortenson
Structural Engineer: DCI
Interior Designer: IDI
Electrical: Valley
Plumbing: Apollo
Hydronic/HVAC: Hermanson
Fire Protection: SFS
WORK ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION QUANTITY
MATERIAL ONSITE LISTREQ'D
RebarFormsaversSleeves
QTY.ITEM
CONCRETE MIX DESIGNSMIX TYPE.STRENGTH DESCRIPTION
MIX T3045 4000 PSI TYPE A BEAMS, COLUMNS, REINFORCED CONCRETE, SUPPORTED SLABS
MIX T9014 3000 PSI TYPE B SPREAD FOOTINGS, WALL FOOTINGS, WALLS, GRADE BEAMS, PIERS, SUPPORTED SLABS ON COMPOSITE METAL DECK & LINEAR ACCELERATOR VAULT
SIZE
EMBED INFORMATIONAnchor Bolts
EMBED PLATES EMBED ANGLES ANCHOR BOLTSNUMBER SIZE QTY. NUMBER SIZE QTY. NUMBER SIZE QTY.
QUANTITY INFORMATION
MIX XT3045 4000 PSI TYPE A-Xypex TUNNEL ROOF SLAB
MIX XT9014 3000 PSI TYPE B-Xypex AREA P,S - FOUNDATION WALLS, ELEVATOR PIT/TUNNEL WALLSMIX 2709 N/A PSI CLSM BACKFILL OTHER THAN COMPACTED FILLMIX T2708 N/A PSI ALT CLSM BACKFILL OTHER THAN COMPACTED FILL (PUMPABLE)
CARPENTER QUANTITIESFORM WORK
LABOR QUANTITIESCONCRETE WORK
DESCRIPTION QUANTITY
REQ'D
Box Outs
POUR RATE
AIR TEMP.
60 or > 6' / HR40 or 59 5' / HR20 or 39 4' / HR
P= 150 + 9000RT
P = LATERAL PRESSURE , PSER = RATE OF PLACEMENT , FT/HRT = TEMP OF CONCRETE IN FORMS , Deg F
AIR TEMP.AIR TEMP.
1/12/2009 1:10:16 PM
3/16" = 1'-0"
303.04
Level 2 - Area 3Embed Layout
06050015
Tulalip Tribes Hotel &Conference Center
Project
Author
Level 2 - Area 3 EmbedLayout
3/16" = 1'-0"1 Level 2 - Area 3 Steel Embed Layout
Revision 22 02/19/06
No. Description Date
1 Revision 1 Date 1
2009 BIM TAP AWARD: The Last 100 Feet © M. A. Mortenson Company. All rights reserved.
THE 100 FEET >>
IWP SUBCONTRACTOR USE
The MEP subcontractors were given coordinated layout of all slab penetrations via
IWP. The use of identically coordinated layout drawings by the MEP trades, carpenters
and structural subcontractors meant no fi eld confl icts, ultimately eliminating one day
from the typical PT deck pour cycle. These eff orts resulted in an over 70% more work in
place per RFI written when compared to previous projects.
Coordinated IWPs were used for interior partition walls and CMU walls. The contractor
and the architect coordinated and verifi ed the dimensional placement of every interior
wall, providing the subcontractor with a comprehensive set of drawings.
Over 70% more work in place per RFI
2009 BIM TAP AWARD: The Last 100 Feet © M. A. Mortenson Company. All rights reserved.
BRIDGING THE GAP>>
The progressive culture on this project resulted
in impressive production results:
• The project team broke company records for pouring concrete shear walls by 15% .
• The project team beat the structural schedule by 6 weeks.
• The crew was 20% more effi cient based on our estimate for completing the structure package.
• By using the model, the team was able to coordinate and pour the fi rst deck 2 days after the release of CDs versus the average two to three months.
BRIDGING THE LAST 100 FEET
This project was successful because the integrated team embodied
a culture of innovation and collaboration. One group could not be
successful with out the other. The model served as a catalyst to bridge
the gap - taking the model the last 100 feet into the fi eld.
PROJECT STRUCTURE MONTHS OF CONTRACT BEGINNING FINAL VALUE NUMBER ofNAME TYPE CONSTRUCTION TYPE VALUE INC. CO's % CHANGE RFI's VALUE/RFI
Administrative Building Steel Framed 15 GC/CM $29,000,000 $33,700,000 16.2% 960 $35,104
Conference Center Steel Framed 26 GC/CM $58,000,000 $61,000,000 5.1% 1,388 $43,948
University Eng. Bldg. Concrete Framed 28 GC/CM $48,400,000 $51,200,000 5.8% 1,212 $42,244
Jail/Garage CIP Reinforced 35 GC/CM $90,468,023 $93,500,000 3.4% 2,900 $32,241Concrete
Hospital Concrete w/Steel 23 GC/CM $33,941,520 $38,780,381 14.3% 1,600 $24,237Framing
State Legislative Load-Bearing 28 GC/CM $63,000,000 $90,000,000 42.90% 2,000 $45,000Building (Renovation) Masonry
Tulalip Resort Hotel PT Concrete Slab 16 GMP $130,000,000 $130,000,000 0% 981 $132,517& Steel Frame
Tulalip Resort Hotel: 1 RFI for every $127,401 of work put in placeNon-BIM Project: 1 RFI for every $37,135 of work put in place
The model improved quality, increased schedule, prevented mistakes, enhanced construction documents.
• http://www.uspto.gov/teas/eTEASpageA.htm