The Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers Yorkshire Region

Home

Welcome message

Thank you for visiting our site; please explore to find out about our events, the volunteer committee or feel free to send any suggestions to us at

The CIBSE Yorkshire Committee

January 2018

BIM and FM (Soft landings)

In any conversation regarding BIM, comments are always made about the certainty of long term benefits to the client and in particular with regard to FM, but there is very little information and firm knowledge in this area, particularly relating to building handovers.

The first presentation is from Stephen Tyler, Technical Director of Pell Frischmann, who is responsible for managing their Sandwell Schools PFI which they have been Project Sponsor of for the last 12 years. As you would expect he is well placed to comment on both traditional building handovers as well as the opportunities for building occupiers and maintainers provided by BIM during the specification, design and build phases.

Arup will also discuss the findings and benefits of Post Occupancy Evaluation and provide examples of how the feedback has reduced energy consumption and improved the occupants experience of buildings.

The event will be held at the Holmfield Arms, Wakefield and commence at 6.30pm with refreshments provided.

To book your place contact Jill Hoggan at ”

Venue
Holmfield Arms
Denby Dale Road,
Wakefield,
West Yorkshire
WF2 8DY

16/01/2013 18:30:17

Steve Taylors presentation on PFI can up be uploaded from here

Post event overview prepared by Simon Owen.

BIM, Soft Landings and FM or PFI… Where’s the risk?

On Wednesday 16^th January we were joined by Steve Tyler, a Technical Director with Pell Frischmann and Derek Devereaux who is an Associate with Arup in Leeds.

Steve is responsible for Pell Frischmann’s (PF) PFI schemes, two groups of schools of which they have been Service providers and Equity partners for over 12 years.

His background is in Engineering and he has moved in to FM via Reliability Engineering and Asset Management. For their part, PF is better known as a civil engineering consultancy, while they do have a building services arm and are involved with project management across all disciplines.

Steve started off by summarising the structure of PFI, the relationships between the different groups and from the point of view of the presentation, the most important aspect of it all, risk.

Given that finances for the whole lifecycle of the buildings are agreed in advance for the full 25 year term, it is obvious that there is a need for information about the performance of the buildings and their components, more specifically of the cost and service life that can be expected to be incurred over that time period.

The element of risk was further highlighted when Steve discussed how not only was the PFI Investor responsible for assuming the risk of the buildings, but also for the various tariffs associated with them. Ultimately it is the risk and reward of a project which will either attract or deter investors; with it being possible to get returns of 3% on the high street investors need to carefully assess likely returns and possible exposure. To illustrate the cumulative effects of a small variance, Steve showed graphs of Life Cycle risk and Maintenance risk over a 25 year period. When the two were added together, the total has scope to nearly meet the initial Capital cost.

At this point Steve brought Reliability Engineering in to the discussion and to illustrate the point he gave the example of having to replace a fire alarm which needs replacing ahead of its expected service date; the implications are for both capital and life cycle, after all depending at which point it needs replacing in the contract, instead of being replaced once it could need doing twice or may be more…

Moving on to the potential impact for BIM, Steve described that current process where the contract is mobilised and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) manuals are handed over for the buildings which are then manually entered in to the CAFM (Computer Aided Facilities Management) system taking time (and possibly delaying maintenance being carried out on plant) with contracts being examined and the associated potential for litigation, or at the very least frayed nerves; not the ideal start for what is going to be a 25 year relationship where all parties are contractually tied to each other.

BIM offers a great step forward, not least because of the possibility of information being electronically transferred in to CAFM systems minimising the concerns that typically arise at mobilisation. Questions still remain:

- Would involving building maintainers at an earlier stage be beneficial?

- Who owns the building model?

- Who assumes liability for the information?

- How does the FM filter the vast array of information to end up with what is of use?

As part of answering those points Steve asked the question “How close are we to a joined up process?”

Responses were as follows:

- “We need a joined up design process first.”

- There is a lot of value for FM people to be involved, either at project outline and design stage where they can advise on build and maintain ability. This benefit would be massively increased if the FM understood BIM and the dynamic nature of it compared to O&M manuals.

- Intellectual property issues around the model and the data were an obstacle that needed to be addressed and probably will be over time.

The same way that BIM is about information, a big concern was confidentiality and particularly relating to PFI, the PFI Partners seem to want to maintain a high level of confidentiality despite being involved in the same projects with a common objective.

With the discussion of information the matter of benchmarking was raised and how that can aid certainty, but there are issues with this, particularly in relation to buildings where products change over time, new technologies and materials need to be proven while end user aspirations can massively affect the outcomes.

Looking at the wider benefits of BIM, the management of expectations was a key point, for example the availability of a 3D visualisation to show what an Architect would typically describe is a great step forward.

“Soft Landings” is the term used to describe what is effectively an enhanced handover process where the contractor has a greater involvement with the buildings beyond the initial build. With a PFI’s scheme it is closer to this than most as the contractor typically has an equity interest in the project as a partner in the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), as a result their typical 12 year warranty is more likely to be honoured, but not strictly so... The likelihood of work being carried out increases with the clients perceived appetite for litigation.

This is not exactly a sign of unity, so the question of “will it happen?” prompted the response that is was probably more of an aspiration at present. Why:

- Pressures on programme, costs of providing the service and the clients desire for a cheaper building.

- Erosion of commissioning time by delayed build period against fixed handover dates such as new term.

- Typically one person signs off to confirm that work has been carried out limiting how much can be checked, but also exposes the clients to wishes of other people who can influence that person to certify the work.

- Lack of attitude or legislative change relating to the handover of buildings.

- Other options, one suggestion was delaying the Practical Completion Certificate until 18 months after handover and therefore final payment to contractors.

As a general feeling, there was a concern about the reliance on penalties and that the process could be managed differently such as incorporating winter commissioning to optimise performance.

This led in to the subject of Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) which Derek Devereux spoke about and seems to have similar issues from a confidentiality perspective and also questions of timing. Should POE be like a DEC? Is it possible for them to be tied in with air conditioning inspections? What procedure should be adopted?

One of the suggestions was for the requirement of POE to be built in to BREEAM but given the cynical nature of some methods of securing BREEAM points, such as biomass and bike racks being installed but unused, would it be meaningful or just another way to secure points through picking low hanging fruit?

If that is the case it could well be an opportunity missed after all. It was also suggested that there would be a benefit for POE's being carried out annually or when tenants change. That sounds to be interesting as the way a building is used will vary according to who the tenants are and what they do.

Derek asked if anyone remembers the PROBE reports and of those that did there was a lot of support for them; sites were named, there was an open nature and appreciation for the opportunity of learning they provided. It was agreed that it would be a good suggestion to CIBSE that they look to re-introduce them.

The next section looked at PFI 2 where Steve led the discussion. With PFI 2 the key difference is the reduced bidding time from 6 years to 18 months, leading to the building being designed throughout the bidding process and possibly only formalised at contract award. Interestingly, projects can be bid and designed more quickly, the difference being the legal intensity and financial aspects of the schemes.

The first schemes have been valued at £2 billion priority schools), with the next tranche being a further £3 billion of priority schools. Given PFI 2 is going to be applied to social housing the opportunity is immense.