Construction contracts in the USA frequently contain a clause on "Value Engineering" — an interesting and curious clause — allowing contractor-initiated design changes. Misleading is the interpretation of value engineering to imply cost savings shared with the owner, and its implementation, just before or during actual construction, is problematic. It is not surprising that such a clause would simply be ignored because it involves changes in design, often major changes in very short time; and change is feared, and moreover, vehemently resisted by all parties, owner, designer, and contractor. The problem may lie in the divergence and separation of the two entities, designer/engineer and builder/contractor, assigned to the "one" engineering project. Their priorities and incentives are very different. The engineer spends years, even decades, in design and prepares contract documents often without a deep-seated understanding of construction methods, including geotechnical construction. Even worse, given the tremendous computational advancements, the designer submits plans that are inexcusably exaggerated code-based design with excessive safety factors. The contractor on the other hand, often builds, without appreciation of design principles or regard for design engineers. Owner budget and schedule constraints (not commensurate with his demands) and the ever-increasing litigious climate have exacerbated the situation. Adverse and hostile relationship between the various groups is often the norm resulting in extended disputes and claims, not to mention the excessive costs these entail. Redesign to apply a new technology or optimization of an inferior design just before construction becomes unthinkable. Major design changes were nevertheless successfully implemented in record speed on several very large projects in the metropolitan New York area. Four case histories spanning from 1998 to 2002 are presented.
展开▼
