| Strategy Applied Too
Late
In
response to Jeffrey A. Sells and Timothy P. Cohen’s article
Value Engineering—Cutting Corners Can Shortchange Kids
, I would like to suggest that these comments are severely
critical of a methodology that does improve the value of any
product if applied properly (ENR 7/14 p. 55). It has been
my experience that, too often, the value engineering team
is called into the project too late. That is usually after
the expensive design choices have already been made and it
is extremely difficult to make changes that would improve
value without eliminating some of these expensive choices.
This is especially true if an architect’s fee is based
on the total cost of the project and the designer has invested
a significant amount in the design. Naturally, the architect
will be upset if value engineering decisions reduce the overall
cost of the project by 10 to 25% and the designer’s fee
is reduced accordingly.
Best results from VE are achieved
when it is first applied early in the design prior to any
significant design activities. Another study is performed
after the preliminary design, based on the direction from
the first study and available cost estimates. Granted, the
cost savings will not be as apparent when VE is applied in
this way because the unnecessary costs will have been avoided
and not designed into the project in the first place.
Budgets Should Be Better
I
have read the recent articles and letters regarding value
engineering. Based on my 30 years of experience as a general
contractor and construction manager, I would like to add the
following comments to the discussion.
1. What most people refer to as
value engineering is really just cost-cutting. True value
is rarely analyzed or even of interest in these exercises.
2. In 95% of the cases where a cost- cutting effort is pursued
after the construction documents are complete, it is because
the original budget was too low in the first place and nobody
has the guts to go back and ask for more money.
Budgets often are too low because the wrong people are establishing
them. Budgets usually come from administrators, architects,
planners, accountants and politicians. By the time construction
professionals are involved, it’s too late.
My recommendation to architects
tired of their designs being value engineered is to make sure
their clients have a well-prepared budget and a clear program
before starting the plans.
Value Engineering Revealed
I
suggest that Mr. Sells and Mr. Cohen have not participated
in a real value engineering study. What they describe is not
value engineering.
We should all be aware that cost
reduction often masquerades as value engineering. In its simplest
form, cost reduction would say that the way to save the most
money is to adopt the “no-build” solution. However,
that is not what value engineering is really about.
Value engineering should ask:
•Who are the owners, users and stakeholders?
•What does the item do?
•What should it do?
•What else will do the job from a
performance standpoint and an acceptance standpoint?
•What will it cost?
•What solution provides the best balance among performance,
acceptance and cost?
I empathize with the concerns raised by Sells and Cohen, but
the culprit is not value engineering.
Cost-Cutting Culture
It
is unfortunate that Mr. Sells and Mr. Cohen have experienced
the fallout of cost-cutting architecture. Cost-cutting with
a subsequent loss of quality and function is not value engineering.
Value engineering is the systematic use of techniques to identify
the required functions of an item, establish values for those
functions and provide the functions at the lowest overall
cost. The cost-cutting approach used by construction managers
in the school construction projects referred to is not value
engineering. It is doubtful that these CMs follow ASTME 1699—Standard
Practice for Performing Value Analysis of Buildings and Building
Systems. Without proper training and understanding of value
engineering methodology, these CMs cannot perform value engineering.
They perform cost-cutting and they call it value engineering.
That doesn't make it value engineering.
Sells and Cohen have missed the
opportunity to utilize value engineering when it can make
a positive impact on their design and construction project.
If they keep doing things the same old way, they will keep
getting the same unsatisfactory results. Time to try a new
approach.
Designs Should Be Simpler
As
a construction manager, I agree that most value engineering
ideas involve compromise on the quality of something and I
would much prefer to cut elsewhere. But if we suggest cutting
$300,000 by eliminating a long barrel vault skylight in the
main entrance or try to save $50,000 by eliminating or substituting
for the stone at the entry or anything else overdone aesthetically,
we are handed our head on a platter. At the same time, the
owner only has so much money so we don’t have much choice.
I would much rather see the designs
of school buildings simplified or modified than quality cut.
Architects either need to involve us earlier so we can advise
about an expensive design scheme or simply start designing
school buildings that are more straightforward and less expensive
so we can spend money on things that count and things that
last.
The article was right about
the construction manager’s responsibility to defend
quality and to completely explain the downside to many value
engineering ideas.
Owners Have the Last Say
Jeffery
Sells and Timothy Cohen express some valid points on the making
of poor decisions, particularly where maintenance and life-cycle
costs are concerned. But their labeling of value engineering
as an endangerment or as a cost-cutting tool is erroneous.
Value engineering is not a cost-cutting
process and anyone who sees or uses it this way totally misses
the point and the opportunities value engineering offers.
When the correct process is followed, according to the Job
Plan established by SAVE International (www.value-eng.org),
all of the concerns raised by the authors are addressed in
the value engineering study and few, if any, of the problems
mentioned in this article occur.
The value engineering team that
follows the proper methodology assesses functional alternatives
that can improve and enhance the value of a project, process
or product. Many of these alternatives offer cost savings
and some add costs. The end result is not an independent decision
by the team or by the school board or by the contractor. The
recommendations generated in the workshop are returned to
the designers for their assessment and analysis. All recommendations
consider life-cycle costs, which include operations and maintenance.
And, when the members of the design team participate in the
value engineering workshop, all of their expertise and concerns,
like those mentioned in the article, influence which alternatives
are put forth as recommendations.
It is wrong to poorly label, misinterpret
and misrepresent the value engineering profession, as was
done in this article. Value engineering can save the endangered
American education system. But the ultimate decisions rest
with those paying the tab. Right or wrong, as long as their
decision does not endanger public health or safety, or violate
any laws or codes, it is their’s to make and their’s
to live with. You have heard it said before: “You can
only lead a horse to water.....”
|
