Building Information Modeling for Airports (2016)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

CONTENTS VII ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY 1 SUMMARY 3 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Building Information Modeling Description, 3 Synthesis Study Methodology and Results Summary, 5 Audience, 8 Report Organization, 8 Costs and Benefits of Building Information Modeling (business case), 8 Background, 8 Airport Experience—Survey Results and Case Examples, 10 14 CHAPTER TWO BUILDING INFORMATION MODELING PURPOSE, PROCESSES, AND TOOLS Background, 14 Airport Experience—Survey Results and Case Examples, 19 23 CHAPTER THREE ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION Background, 23 Airport Experience—Survey Results and Case Examples, 26 31 CHAPTER FOUR TECHNICAL ISSUES—CONTRACTS, RESOURCES, AND REQUIREMENTS Background, 31 Airport Experience—Survey Results and Case Examples, 34 38 CHAPTER FIVE FACILITY LIFE-CYCLE MANAGEMENT Background, 38 Airport Experience—Survey Results and Case Examples, 41 43 CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSIONS Summary, 43 Trends and Issues, 43 Knowledge Gaps and Future Research, 44 45 REFERENCES 47 BIBLIOGRAPHY 48 APPENDIX A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE AND CONSOLIDATED RESPONSES 65 APPENDIX B MASSPORT BIM ROADMAP 66 APPENDIX C MASSPORT BIM DECISION MATRIX 67 APPENDIX D LAWA PROJECT REQUIREMENT (PR-20) 87 APPENDIX E BIM FOR AIRPORTS: A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION (WEB-ONLY) Note: Many of the photographs, figures, and tables in this report have been converted from color to grayscale for printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.

SUMMARY BUILDING INFORMATION MODELING FOR AIRPORTS Building information modeling (BIM) is a digital representation of a facility’s physical and functional characteristics. It can be shared by planners, designers, constructors, opera- tors, and maintainers to provide reliable information for decision making throughout the facility’s life cycle. BIM offers tools that allow airport decision makers to understand all components of a facility, their location, and their attributes, both graphically and systemati- cally, to minimize the total cost of owning and operating an airport facility. The objective of this synthesis is to deliver information about the general, current state of the art and practice in BIM applications in industry and to provide a snapshot of exist- ing experience related to the emergence of BIM in North American airports. The goal is to provide information about BIM and assist airports in understanding available opportuni- ties, benefits, and value related to engaging in BIM. Currently, little guidance is available for airport operators on how to implement BIM from project conception through planning, design, construction, commissioning, opera- tion, maintenance, and demolition. Although several airports have utilized some BIM tools and processes in their development programs, there is a shortage of documentation on benefit metrics and lessons learned. The synthesis study methodology included a comprehensive literature search and sur- vey (i.e., questionnaire and case example interviews), designed to capture current airport BIM practices and experiences. Purposive sampling was used to target a group of airports in North America, as well as other airport architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) professionals, with known BIM use or use of BIM-related technologies. Fourteen of the solicited 19 airports provided survey responses. Adding in AECs, a total of 18 orga- nizations participated in the survey. Although only potential BIM adopters were targeted, all levels of BIM engagement are demonstrated in the results, from no engagement to full engagement, as presented in this report. Trends, knowledge gaps, and future research needs were identified by comparing state- of-the-art BIM in various industries as determined in literature with state-of-the-practice BIM in respondent airports as revealed in the survey instruments. Specifically, BIM activ- ity profiles were developed for each of the respondents to provide context for results and to reveal trends. The study reveals that most of the respondent airports targeted in this study are in the early phases of BIM adoption—discovering barriers and overcoming barriers to imple- mentation related to integration issues, such as organizational readiness, standards devel- opment, contract language creation, and system interconnections. However, a few airports are at the forefront of implementing and deploying BIM, such as Denver, Los Angeles, and Boston Logan. The results showed that BIM benefits are not generally realized in the short term. The importance of quantifying BIM benefit for cost savings and committing to long-term

2 implementation was noted. Although the BIM activity levels for the airports currently range from low to very high, airports are realizing (basic) project-level BIM benefits, such as cost savings generated from early detection of issues. However, most have not yet fully integrated BIM throughout their organizations and are, therefore, not realizing organization-level (full facility life cycle) benefits, which is where the greatest benefit of BIM is realized. This study identified a number of knowledge gaps related to business processes and BIM. There is little guidance for airports in the areas of • Implementing a comprehensive BIM-enabled facility management strategy, • Developing meaningful key performance indicators for BIM, • Calculating return on investment for BIM, and • Creating the contract language and documents to facilitate a full BIM implementation. Results indicate a shift in airport BIM activity from project-level (beginning to basic) implementation to organization-level (intermediate to advanced) implementation. All air- ports report the expectation of increasing BIM use in the future that will facilitate the air- ports’ expansion or advancement of their current use of BIM throughout all facility life-cycle phases. This will lead to greater BIM implementation maturity (experience, project imple- mentation, and BIM use across the life cycle) and, in turn, will translate to greater benefits.

3 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION The National BIM Standard (NBIMS) defines building information modeling (BIM) as multi-dimensional, intelligent facility information (NBIMS 2015). In 2012, a general survey of owners, architects, engineers, constructors, and owners revealed the BIM adoption rate to be 71%, compared with 28% in 2007, a 75% growth surge in five years (McGraw-Hill 2012). BIM is increasingly being applied by organizations, including airports, to facilitate the process of planning, design, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance of facilities (FAA 2015a; NBIMS 2015). Because BIM adoption is relatively new, a non-sector-specific BIM Planning Guide for Facility Owners was released in 2013 to assist organizations (Penn State 2013). The objective of this synthesis is to deliver information about the current state of the art in BIM applications in industry and to provide insight related to the emergence of BIM in North American airports. This chapter provides a general description of BIM, a summary of literature about BIM in airports, an overview of the study’s methodology and survey results, a BIM activity profile for survey participants, a description of the intended synthesis audience, and an outline of the synthesis topics. BUILDING INFORMATION MODELING DESCRIPTION What Is BIM? NBIMS version 3 (2015) defines BIM as an acronym that is used to describe three separate but linked functions. The first func- tion is described by building information modeling, which is a business process for generating and leveraging building data to design, construct, and operate a building during its life cycle. The second function is described by building information model. According to NBIMS (2015), a building information model is a digital representation of a building’s physical and functional characteristics that serves as a shared knowledge resource for infor- mation about a facility. The third definition—for which the acronym BIM is rarely used—is building information management, which combines the first two functions to organize and control the business process of building information modeling by utiliz- ing the information in the building information model to enhance the sharing of information over the entire life cycle of an asset. BIM in the Facility Life Cycle Facility owners use BIM as a decision-making tool to support the creation and management of assets across a facility’s life cycle (GSA 2016). During the feasibility, planning, and development phase, BIM provides owners with information about the current state of the facility and generates information for analysis. During design and construction, BIM primarily supports information capture, communication, coordination, and construction. During the operations phase, BIM supports the performance moni- toring of a facility and its systems. For an owner, full life-cycle BIM use requires an enterprise BIM approach, which involves implementation at the organization level. Project-level BIM is implemented on a project-by-project basis only. Both approaches are supported with technology and methods that include multiple stakeholders, processes, and tasks. Although enterprise BIM focuses on streamlining business operations, establishing a consistent working environment, and increasing work effort devoted to value-added tasks (i.e., decreasing effort for non-value-added tasks) across an organization’s operations, project-level BIM is limited to improving the processes of facility design and construction through reduced initial cost or shortened construction time (Smith and Tardif 2009). Enterprise BIM also supports asset management, the “strategic approach to the optimal capital and operational spending on assets to ensure control of cost and risk, asset life, performance, and stakeholder satisfaction” (Shool- estani et al. 2015). Figure 1 provides an example (schematic) of BIM use throughout the facility life cycle. A link to web-only Appendix E, a PowerPoint Presentation outlining powerful uses of BIM at airports and other information contained in the report, is provided on the TRB web page for ACRP Synthesis 70. One common misconception is that BIM is just a 3D model. True BIM requires intelligent data to be input by the various disciplines working within the project and thus elevate the BIM model to its full potential. – Gatwick Airport 2014

4 FIGURE 1 Example (schematic of BIM) over a facility life cycle (McCuen and Pittenger 2015). For real property owners and managers, BIM holds great promise beyond improving productivity in the design and construction process. Ultimately, this technology has the potential to enable the seamless transfer of knowledge from facility planning through design, construction, facility management, and operation, and recapitalization or disposal. While all parties involved in design and construction stand to gain from the adoption of BIM, it is the owners who will potentially benefit the most, through the use of the facility model and its embedded knowledge throughout the 30 to 50 year facility life cycle. – GSA (2016) BIM Users/Stakeholders in an Organization BIM users in an organization are classified by discipline and by the facility’s life-cycle phase for which they input or consume BIM information (Smith and Tardif 2009). A facility’s life cycle begins at the feasibility, planning, and development phase, and typical stakeholders may include the owner, planner, architect, and constructor. The second phase—design and construc- tion—may include the owner, designers, engineers, cost estimators, consultants, general contractors, subcontractors, fabrica- tors, suppliers, manufacturers, facility managers, and code officials. Operations and maintenance is the third phase of a facility’s life cycle and may include the owner, facility managers, maintenance personnel, occupants, space manager, security manager, network manager, and first responders. Renewal is the final phase and may include the owner, recyclers, and archivists. A more comprehensive list of stakeholders and their associated uses of BIM can be found on page 23 of NBIMS version 1, part 1 (2007). History of BIM at Airports (Published Literature) BIM use has been documented at Frankfurt Airport in Germany (approximately 65 million enplanements/year). It imple- mented BIM in 2003 and developed a centralized database to support its operations and facilities management and enable “engineering, finance, operations, maintenance, security and emergency response teams to visualize mission critical facility information through interactive facility maps, to find relevant data more quickly, and to minimize operations downtime” (Shoolestani et al. 2015). London Heathrow Airport (approximately 73 million enplanements/year) reported using BIM since 2004. A case study was conducted on its BIM use during a 2008 airport terminal project. It reported a high rate of savings directly related to its approach (buildingSMART UK 2010). In 2010, Gatwick Airport in London (approximately 38 million enplanements/year) implemented BIM to support its bil- lion-dollar capital improvement program after a transition to private ownership occurred. It aims to integrate BIM with its existing processes and implement BIM in all life-cycle phases. Although it is has not completed full BIM implementation, it reports that BIM “has transformed project delivery and asset management” at the airport (Neath et al. 2014).

5 Effectively managing facility information from design through demolition for all of the FAA’s buildings and systems is a fundamental element of operating and maintaining the NAS. An integral part of the NextGen transformation is to efficiently manage the FAA’s Building and System information. BIM allows for such efficient information management. – FAA (2015a, b) The United Kingdom will start requiring BIM for all its public projects in 2016. The Cabinet Office has stated that it has not gotten full value from public sector construction; and it has failed to exploit the potential for public procurement of construction and infrastructure projects to drive growth. The government expects BIM to reduce inaccurate, incomplete and ambiguous information and mitigate unnecessary additional capital delivery costs amounting to 20–25%. The new BIM requirement is expected to impact BIM in the private sector also. – Gatwick Airport (2014) The Denver International Airport (approximately 53 million enplanements/year) began to implement BIM in 2010 with its Hotel and Transit center project (Ball 2015). It has since institutionalized BIM and has extended its use to all life-cycle phases of its assets. It expects that its long-term strategy will produce economic returns (Ball 2015). In 2011, FAA initiated its BIM Implementation Roadmap pursuant to its Naval Air Station Brunswick BIM Pilot Proj- ect, which was used to demonstrate the benefits of a full BIM implementation (FAA 2015a). FAA has since decided to institutionalize BIM and has been developing its BIM Implementation Plan, along with its BIM Standards, Guidelines and Infrastructure documents (FAA 2015a, b). FAA is currently in its pilot projects and solution development phase. The plan is to incrementally integrate BIM functionality related to facility life cycle into FAA operations: BIM will be implemented in the design and construction phases, then progress to providing access to information to support Facilities Management and Geographic Information Systems capabilities (FAA 2015b). Little has been published about the status of BIM in airports because it is an emerging technology that is only recently being implemented in airports in North America. Therefore, this study will seek to broadly synthesize existing literature and practice. SYNTHESIS STUDY METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS SUMMARY This synthesis study methodology included a comprehensive literature search and survey of airport professionals (i.e., ques- tionnaire and case example interviews) to provide a “snapshot of existing experience” related to BIM in airports in North America. Trends, knowledge gaps, and future research needs were identified by comparing state-of-the-art BIM in various industries as determined in literature with state-of-the-practice BIM in respondent airports as revealed in the survey instru- ments. The findings are presented in this report. Literature Search Relevant BIM-related literature found in the Transportation Research Information Documentation database and other information services and libraries was reviewed. The effort provided general information related to opportunities, benefits, and value of BIM, as well as identified current and common BIM implementation and usage practices. Airport Survey—Questionnaire and Case Examples Based on the literature review topics, a concise questionnaire was created according to standard principles (Oppenheim 1992) and was designed to capture current airport BIM practices and experiences. Purposive sampling was used to target a group of airports, as well as other airport AEC professionals, with known BIM use or use of BIM-related technologies. The ques- tionnaire, shown in Appendix A, was administered online to U.S. and Canadian airports and organizations. Because of the diverse nature of BIM application and administration, participant profiles and responses vary. Resultant data were reduced and analyzed. Aggregate responses are also contained in Appendix A. To ascertain trends among respondent types, the data from the two survey groups (airport and AEC) are reported separately, where applicable, throughout the report. Myth: BIM is reserved for large organizations who can afford the investment and for large projects with complex geometries. Fact: All size organizations are realizing benefits on all size/shape of projects. The level of investment and commitment is scalable. – AGC 2008

6 A summary of the results is presented in this section to provide a brief description of the survey participants along with respective levels of BIM activity and progressive BIM use. Detailed results will be presented in subsequent chapters. In total, 18 organizations responded to the questionnaire (Table 1, Figure 2), representing small, medium, and large hub airports (airport authorities) and other stakeholders (designers and contractors with airport project experience). Fourteen of the respondents reported using BIM. For the purposes of this report, responses from internal airport owner and operator personnel will be denoted “Airport” and responses from external stakeholders that offer BIM services for airport projects (designer/contractors) will be denoted “AEC.” TABLE 1 QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES REGARDING BIM USE—ALL PARTICIPANTS Response to: Does your organization use BIM? Percent Count Airport AEC Yes 77.8 10 4 No 22.2 4 0 Total Respondents 14 4 FIGURE 2 Geographic distribution of respondents. BIM Adoption Status. Figure 3 shows the distribution of survey responses related to current BIM adoption status (as defined by McGraw-Hill 2009). Two airports and three AECs have fully adopted BIM and are currently realizing the associated ben- efits. One airport and one AEC are currently completing BIM adoption (overcoming barriers to adoption), whereas two others are integrating BIM adoption with existing operations (discovering barriers to adoption). FIGURE 3 BIM adoption status in 2015—All respondents (McCuen and Pittenger 2015). Three of the airports surveyed are beginning to adopt BIM, whereas six airports have not yet adopted BIM but are inter- ested in BIM (considering/preparing for it). Therefore, survey results throughout the rest of this report are based on 12 respon- dents: the eight airports and four AECs that report BIM use (represented in Categories 2 through 5 in Figure 2).

7 Barriers to BIM Adoption. Some common barriers attributed to BIM adoption, industrywide and cited in this study, are related to (Penn State 2010; Khosrowshahi and Arayici 2012) the following: • Lack of organizational readiness to change • Lack of expertise • Greater system complexity • Lack of system interoperability • Lack of industry standards. All of these issues are inherent to the paradigm shift related to the emerging technology-intensive approach of BIM. BIM Activity Profiles. An organization’s BIM activity level can be evaluated based on its BIM experience, expertise, adop- tion, and implementation intensity over the project life cycle (McGraw-Hill 2014; Jung and Lee 2015). Using self-assessment criteria, the level of BIM activity for the 12 respondents that are currently adopting or have adopted BIM has been determined and is summarized in Figure 4. FIGURE 4 Respondent profile based on BIM activity level (McCuen and Pittenger 2015). Progression of BIM Implementation at Airports. The survey results indicate an airport-expected progression of BIM activ- ity and implementation. Based on use of BIM and types of use that facilitate implementation, BIM implementation maturity can be evaluated (Khosrowshahi and Arayici 2012). Figure 5 shows the status of current and future (expected) implementation maturity of the eight respondent airports based on their reported current and future expected BIM use. FIGURE 5 Current and future (expected) BIM use implementation by airport respondents (McCuen and Pittenger 2015). The results indicate a shift from project-level (beginning to basic) implementation to an organization-level (intermedi- ate to advanced) implementation. These results are fairly consistent with the self-assessment results in the previous section, highlighting the link between BIM use and BIM activity level across the life cycle. Increasing BIM benefits are associated with increasing implementation (McGraw-Hill 2009). Therefore, it is expected that the “Realizing Benefits” segment noted in Figure 2 should increase for these airports as they increasingly integrate BIM into their processes.

8 Based on the questionnaire results, case examples were created with five airports and two AECs, guided by standard protocol (Yin 1994). The case examples serve to highlight airport BIM experience consistent with the report topics. The open- ended interview with the case example participants was conducted by telephone. The case example participants and general topics summary of content located throughout this report are as follows: • Denver International Airport: Realizing Benefits of Full BIM Implementation • San Francisco Airport Commission: Undertaking a New Full BIM Implementation • Los Angeles World Airports: Realizing Benefits of Project-Level BIM • Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport: Realizing Benefits of Organization-Level BIM • Massachusetts Port Authority: Roadmapping BIM Implementation • Iron Horse Architects: BIM for Airports—A Designer’s Perspective • Balfour Beatty Construction: BIM for Airports—A Contractor’s Perspective. AUDIENCE The goal of this effort is to provide a “snapshot of existing experience” that will inform airports about BIM and assist airports in understanding available opportunities, benefits, and value related to engaging in BIM. The intended audience is airport decision makers who are considering or are currently engaged in the implementation of BIM. However, owing to the organi- zationwide-application nature of BIM and the diversity of BIM experience represented in the survey results, the synthesis may inform a broader range of airport stakeholders that have involvement in any part of the asset life cycle. REPORT ORGANIZATION This report presents state of the art and state of the practice related to BIM in North America based on available literature and tailored to the specified audience. The following topics were established for the subsequent chapters, to include effective practices and lessons learned: • Costs and Benefits of BIM (Business Case) • BIM Purpose, Processes, and Tools • Adoption and Implementation • Technical Issues: Contracts, System, Resources, and Maintenance • Facility Life-Cycle Management. All have a similar format: each chapter begins with a general background section to provide the context for the survey results and case examples section, which highlights the airport experience. The conclusions section includes trends, knowl- edge gaps, and future research needs that were identified in the study. COSTS AND BENEFITS OF BUILDING INFORMATION MODELING (BUSINESS CASE) An organization’s BIM effort often begins with consideration of the business case. Calculating BIM-associated costs is gener- ally straightforward, as costs are often discrete and trackable. This is not the case with BIM-associated benefits, the value of which are often accrued across the entire organization through increased efficiency of operations and enhanced facility (asset) performance. Currently, there is no guidance on how to quantify BIM benefits. However, both the calculated and perceived return on investment (ROI) associated with BIM is believed to be significant. This chapter provides general information related to the initial and recurring costs of BIM, the benefits of BIM, and the metrics and key performance indicators used in evaluating BIM ROI. It also provides the airport experience related to the business case for BIM. BACKGROUND Costs of BIM Costs associated with BIM occur initially with adoption and recur during its implementation and use. Initial costs generally include the following: BIM is a disruptive and transformative process. – Denver International Airport

9 1. Personnel training, 2. Lost productivity during the learning curve, 3. Hardware costs, and 4. Software costs (Eastman et al. 2011). Much of the initial costs will recur as an organiza- tion maintains/updates software and expands its use of BIM. Over time, the initial costs of adoption and implementation are amortized as internal BIM pro- cesses are standardized, and the organization will begin to realize benefits from its BIM implementation. Benefits of BIM In 2007, the obstacle that was most cited by industry for delaying BIM adoption was lack of objective documentation of attributable benefits (McGraw-Hill 2012). A recent survey of industry participants revealed that organizations have since begun to collect and analyze data to track benefits (McGraw-Hill 2014). The following list includes common project-level and organizationwide benefits identified: • Reduced cost • Better cost control/predictability • Increased profitability • Increased productivity (e.g., reducing redundant work) • Fewer requests for information (RFIs), errors and omissions, and rework (project-level) • Reduced cycle times for project workflows and approvals • Fewer unplanned project changes • Less disruption in project process • Improved visualization • Linking of vital information such as vendors for specific materials, location of details, and quantities required for esti- mation and tendering • Collaboration among project/facility teams using a single source of information • Shortened construction duration • Facilitation of analysis of design and compliance • Single repository for building system information • Improved safety • Increased competitiveness and enhanced image • Increased operations/maintenance efficiency (organization level) • Reduced operations/maintenance personnel costs (organization level) • Space management • Enhanced asset (facilities) management (organization level). The single-largest BIM benefit identified for the project phase was reduced errors and omissions in construction docu- ments used (McGraw-Hill 2012). Essentially, owners realize cost savings through the use of clash detection (i.e., spatial coordination) during construction, which saves time and reduces rework. During the operations phase, the owners realize increased building value through improved overall building performance as well as optimization of facility operations and maintenance using the as-built BIM as the database for rooms, spaces, and equipment (Eastman et al. 2011). Early-stage BIM users need to compare performance metrics from pre-BIM projects to establish the value of basic BIM benefits, such as virtual coordination, and to justify their continued BIM investments. More experienced BIM firms are to analyze their completed BIM projects to refine the approach to more complex BIM uses on their new projects. – McGraw-Hill (2014) Evaluating the overall costs and benefits of a BIM approach is not straightforward. There is no standard methodology and no consistency in measuring benefits gained. Nonetheless, case studies—and even anecdotal evidence—indicate that there are benefits to be gained. – buildingSMART UK (2010)

10 Metrics and Key Performance Indicators Key performance indicators (KPIs) refer to the use of specific data to measure the performance of service delivery against previously defined metrics. KPIs will differ by industry and sector. For example, the six primary KPIs used in the construc- tion industry are quality control, on-time completion, cost, safety, dollars/unit performed, and units per man hours. Typi- cally construction organizations will utilize these same KPIs whether measuring “traditional” processes or BIM processes (Suermann and Issa 2009). However, the KPIs used for facility operations and asset management differ, as the purpose for establishing metrics is to measure performance data relative to the established business objectives and requirements of the enterprise. An organization’s KPIs are measures that most directly correlate with successful achievement of its strategic business objectives (Hollman 2006). Therefore, individual facility owners need to establish their own KPIs based on the key business objectives their organization seeks to achieve. The following is a brief list of possible KPIs for operations and maintenance and asset management: • ROI • No loss of business as a result of facility failure • Safe environment • Effective utilization of space • Building performance as designed • Meeting completion deadlines • Correction of faults • Management of building information • Energy performance • Open work orders versus closed work orders • Response times and job closure • Corrective versus preventive maintenance. ROI is considered the most important business requirement for most enterprises and is defined as a single measure that expresses the value of an investment over its life cycle to the enterprise (Hollman 2006). A recent survey of BIM users revealed there is no industry-standard method to calculate ROI for BIM; however, most users have a perception about the value they receive through the time, money, and effort they have invested. Sixty-two percent (62%) of the survey respon- dents indicated a positive BIM ROI, and users self-reporting as being very high in their engagement level of BIM have seen a positive BIM ROI over 25% (McGraw-Hill 2012, p. 24). Reports indicate that the majority of BIM users have not formally measured their actual BIM ROI but rather report according to perceived ROI. The Business Case for BIM at Massport Massport uses information developed across projects and operational activities to make sound facility life cycle decisions supporting the public good. When used successfully, BIM offers higher quality information for better decision support. This information is more coordinated, reliable and reusable, allowing Massport teams to be more productive and the design solutions functional, cost effective, and sustainable. Facilities information, created during a BIM project, can be repurposed, reducing costly information management redundancies for post-construction operations. – Massport BIM Guide (2015) AIRPORT EXPERIENCE—SURVEY RESULTS AND CASE EXAMPLES Figure 5 displays BIM benefits reported by the survey respondents (eight airports and four AECs) that have been realized during the facility life cycle. Improved visualization, through a representation of the facility or facility elements to support decision making about the facility’s design or construction, was the most commonly cited benefit. Better cost control/predict- ability was also cited by respondents, as it enables analysis of a facility and facility elements in all life-cycle phases. Consistent with literature, reduced errors and omissions (early detection of issues) was also frequently cited. The San Francisco Airport Commission (SFO) and Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) noted that BIM benefits—result- ing from the modeling/simulating elements before construction—are related to enhancing construction and building perfor- mance through better information, which in turn fundamentally affects the quality of large capital projects at the airport. At the highest level of KPIs, BIM simulations can provide early detection of issues, or “red flags,” that indicate potential for

11 escalating costs associated with changes in the construction or operations/maintenance phases if not addressed. Specifically, BIM use helps these airports to mitigate the negative impact on efficiency (e.g., schedule and cost) and risk. Figure 6 also shows organization-level BIM benefits accrued by the two airport respondents that use BIM during the operations phase. Both airports cite benefits related to optimization of facility operations and maintenance and enhanced asset (facilities) management, consistent with literature. FIGURE 6 Survey results for BIM benefits (McCuen and Pittenger 2015). Both SFO and Anchorage International Airport (ANC) acknowledge that the BIM implementation program leverages the accumulating value of BIM data collection through design and construction for facilities maintenance and operations. The ANC BIM adoption approach is organization driven, not project driven (i.e., the effort is not tied to a specific project that provided an opportunity to implement BIM). Therefore, project-related BIM teams and tools are not currently in place at ANC. However, ANC is using BIM to document existing conditions for the purpose of sharing that information with current stakeholders and future project teams, supporting ANC’s business case for BIM. Many owners currently do not understand (and therefore do not leverage) the value that BIM can bring to the operation phase. – Balfour Beatty Construction

12 Some of the performance metrics used by the few airport respondents that assess ROI are listed as follows. Most cited metrics are related to reduced errors and omissions and RFIs, consistent with literature. One airport indicated that KPIs and ROIs were currently being developed. • Reduced design errors and omissions • Reduced RFIs during construction • Reduced initial costs • Reduced life-cycle costs • Shortened construction duration • Compared life-cycle performance of past BIM projects with current BIM projects. The results about BIM-added value related to BIM activity are consistent with literature. Eleven (of 12) respondents (92%) report value added in the design and construction phase. Seven of the respondents (representing medium to very high levels of BIM activity) report tracking costs or calculating ROI related to BIM. Of those who do not calculate ROI, four respondents perceive that BIM has added value and one (with low engagement level) perceives no added value. In the operations and maintenance phase, three of four respondents (75%) track costs/calculate ROI and report value added by BIM. The remaining respondent that stated “no added value” does not track ROI. These results are consistent with literature that states “[e]xpert level BIM users believe BIM contributes highly to reduction in total project cost and overall schedule. Beginner level BIM users are less likely to see these benefits. Survey results indicate that with experience users will realize the benefits of BIM on a project” (McGraw-Hill 2009). ROI at Denver International Airport Establishing ROI for BIM can be a little tricky, especially when an organization may not have historically been tracking the right key performance indicators to calculate ROI. Although a key part of BIM is data collection, DEN’s biggest challenge has been the lack of sufficient and valid historical data. Lessons Learned: A change management process is needed when implementing BIM because ROIs require valid historical asset data. – Denver International Airport Denver International Airport (DEN) has focused on a number of areas in which to assess ROI on its BIM use. Two exam- ples in which it reports a positive ROI are tracking design fees and maintenance costs: • BIM-savvy designers: Common belief holds that BIM increases project costs, but DEN has found that it can decrease them. Although one can expect an initial increase in design fees and construction costs, BIM projects can accrue overall project cost savings. DEN has found that when the designer and the client (owner) routinely use BIM, project costs can decrease. For example, DEN still uses “pre-BIM” project design budget estimation owing to availability of historical data. A clear trend has been observed between the fees of BIM-savvy designers (consistently below budget) and those not savvy with BIM (consistently above budget). This result is often attributed to design fees that are increased because of the anticipated BIM learning curve related to the designer’s and/or client’s limited or lack of experience with BIM tools and processes. • Preventive maintenance: Although not all DEN assets are modeled in BIM, DEN is better at tracking the types of maintenance being done and the associated costs. DEN has been able to determine that on an airportwide scale, correc- tive maintenance costs five times as much as preventive maintenance on a man-hour basis. Therefore, DEN’s goal is to reduce the amount of corrective maintenance required. For each 5% reduction in annual corrective maintenance, a cost savings of $5 million will be generated. SFO also cited the challenge of developing ROIs for BIM because BIM affects so many areas of airport operations. Another benefit that is difficult to quantify is the deeper under- standing of BIM that allows the airport to provide the project team (consultants) with better initial information during the design/construction process, which positively affects the qual- Many owners currently do not understand (and therefore do not leverage) the value that BIM can bring to the operation phase. – Balfour Beatty Construction BIM benefits are not realized in the short term. It is critical to quantify benefit of BIM in terms of cost savings and commit to long-term implementation. – Denver International Airport

13 ity of large capital projects. Therefore, SFOs strategy is to identify specific business cases for stakeholder groups (throughout all life-cycle phases) and to track the effects of optimized processes related to BIM implementation. ROI at Los Angeles World Airports LAWA did a case study to evaluate the ROI associated with using BIM for cost avoidance on a large capital project it recently completed (Peters 2011). It was estimated that the cost avoidance and cost savings related to reduced design errors and omissions were significant. For example, BIM coordination allowed early detection of the issue related to the lack of required penetrations in the structural elements of the gate shear walls to accommodate the Mechanical-Electrical- Plumbing (MEP) systems. Because of the amount of reinforcing steel located in the wall, cutting the penetrations into the built walls would have rendered them nonstructural, which would not have been an option. It would have potentially cost $2.5 million to correct the issue in the field because the walls would have had to be demolished and reconstructed. Gate shear wall as modeled from Structural Design Documents (left); gate shear wall as modeled after BIM coordination, additional wall penetrations required for MEPs (right). Although LAWA focuses mainly on BIM ROI in the construction phase, it stated that it is currently working with its facilities management group to develop meaningful KPIs in an effort to calculate ROI for BIM use in the operations and maintenance phase. It noted that a primary benefit is improvement in the process of managing information that supports the executive decision-making process.