In construction, design is not static; it continually evolves or adapts. As a project advances, so do priorities, limitations, and technical specifications.
You must have experienced a construction schedule stretch due to MEP conflicts. For architects and general contractors, this problem is common. Believe it or not, design changes occur in almost every project, irrespective of its scale. Still, very few acknowledge that late design changes hit MEP systems harder than building layouts.
If you pay closer attention, it is easily identifiable that MEP teams face dramatically greater challenges when designs shift late. Such changes to mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems lead to pervasive overspending on projects. Coordination failures become inevitable as a result. These issues have far-reaching ramifications for construction for months to come.
Understanding the reasons for MEPs reacting differently matters to GCs and architects who manage complex projects. Note that, in most cases, this difference stems from the fundamental nature of MEP systems. We know they work closely together within building spaces.
The Context
Research and real-world evidence indicate that about 25% of overall construction budgets are allocated to MEP systems. As opposed to architectural aspects, MEP calls for accurate routing through crowded spaces. This rigid requirement indicates that while architects can reposition walls comparatively easily, MEP specialists are seldom left scrambling to reroute intricate ducts and conduits within the limitations of a shrinking ceiling plenum.
Mostly, late changes contribute to substandard layouts. They result in compliance issues and high-priced rework. GCs can see these difficulties emerge at the time of installation. So, early understanding can effectively eliminate such expensive surprises.
MEP Systems are Subject to Unique Spatial Limitations
Indeed, it is a considerable struggle for MEP systems to deal with limited building space. There should be extra room above ceilings for mechanical ducts. Electrical cable trays coexist in the same area. Besides, plumbing risers and fire suppression lines also share the same vertical shafts. It is important to understand that these systems compete for narrow ceiling cavities. As a result, when architects change layouts too late, it is quite difficult to relocate MEP systems.
Evidently, even a single architectural decision has widespread implications for MEP recalculations. For instance, architects need to move a partition wall by two feet. The mechanical team must immediately redesign ductwork transitions, while the electrical team should reroute power distribution paths. Moreover, the plumbing team must simultaneously adjust the riser penetration. These adjustments create a snowball effect. One change spills over throughout all MEP verticals. What GCs get to see are schedules slipping as teams keep coordinating fixes.
The main impact of architectural alterations can be observed in spatial planning. Contrary to architectural changes that have minimal domino effects, adjustments in MEP systems position a significant cross-disciplinary chain reaction.
Remember that a simple decrease in ceiling height is never merely a visual change. Instead, it forces a complete redesign of the existing HVAC system. It subsequently modifies electrical loads and calls for fresh fire protection calculations. This shift then spreads, mandating that structural specialists review new wall openings and that code officials reassess the entire layout for compliance. Essentially, though an architect can easily change a finish, an MEP modification requires a fresh start for almost every trade on a project.
Economic Impact Hits MEP the Hardest
When MEP changes take place too late in the process, the consequences are specific, quantifiable expenditures. It is true that approximately 5-10% of the total construction budget goes to rework-related activities. MEP is the system that bears the heaviest burden. Efficient GCs monitor such expenses across materials, labor, and delays.
Take into account the following documented expense breakdowns from industry case studies:
- The labor rework costs for each project can range from $15,000 to $18,000. Installation mistakes make it compulsory to reinstall the complete system.
- When the field crew remains idle, it adds about $8,000 to $10,000 to the overall budget. What happens next is that trades keep waiting for the most recent modified clash-free designs.
- When it comes to material waste and reordering, extra expenses of $5,000 to $7,000 are not uncommon. Keep in mind that rerouting brings about unusable components.
- The expenses behind inspection delays and subcontractor rescheduling add another $4,000 to $6,000 to the budget.
What Uppteam has noticed across its previous projects is that failing to coordinate MEP properly results in an average 8-10% increase in anticipated project costs. We have seen these numbers continue to compound across several projects.
MEP Concealment Contributes to Hidden Risks
MEP systems work, hidden behind walls and above ceilings. Until commissioning is executed, problems remain undetected. Architectural errors are generally easier to detect and resolve at the outset of the framing stage. Whereas MEP systems are mostly invisible, cloistered behind walls and above finished ceilings. Since these systems are concealed, major issues are seldom overlooked until the very end of construction.
On the other hand, contemporary codes require stringent MEP adherence. Each vertical of an MEP system should follow the standards below:
- Mechanical system following ASHRAE norms
- Electrical system meeting NEC specifications
- Plumbing system conforming to IPC regulations
Indisputably, late-stage design changes necessitate robust code revalidation. There are rare instances when architects face equal regulatory scrutiny. Every single MEP modification needs engineering review and validation by the authority. The outcome of these is stretching schedules by additional weeks.
Inevitably, inadequate MEP routing establishes permanent economic burdens for owners. Although architectural mistakes are seldom aesthetically related, substandard systems result in decades of maintenance issues and high energy bills. This makes it essential to prioritize MEP stability through early coordination. It safeguards a building’s long-lasting performance, the project timeframe, and the owner’s bottom line.
BIM Coordination for Limiting Expensive Field Changes
BIM-powered clash detection is extremely effective at drastically reducing the impact of late changes. Projects with 3D coordination encounter a notable reduction in change orders. Consequently, architects can spot conflicts during design, and GCs can avert reactive on-site fixes.
Early-phase MEP involvement during schematic design yields the best results. Spatial conflicts appear when solutions are still inexpensive. 3D models facilitate disciplines to visualize interactions concurrently. Under these circumstances, conflicts become clear before fabrication commences, fostering architects’ confidence in spatial allocations. Finally, contractors start sequencing trades without any surprises.
Real-time collaboration is among the most unique features of federated BIM models. Each discipline team can then review models together, enabling ambiguities to be addressed immediately. Furthermore, constructible solutions arise naturally. In the end, GCs have the chance to convert coordination from defensive reaction into preemptive planning, and architects assuredly deliver clash-free designs.
Verified Strategies for Architects and GCs
GCs and architects need to incorporate the following proven initiatives:
- Engaging MEP at the very beginning of the SD phase to avoid waiting for static architectural layouts.
- Scheduling 3D coordination reviews every week to expose conflicts before they can compound into something bigger.
- Freezing architectural choices ahead of finalizing the MEP system. This helps shield system layouts from late changes.
- Assessing MEP effects for all change requests to grasp downstream consequences without wasting time.
- Leveraging real-world occupancy data for error-free load calculations. This, in turn, eliminates rules-of-thumb inaccuracies.
By operating together from the very start, architects can avoid creating impossible puzzles for the MEP team to resolve. When each vertical respects project constraints from the beginning, teamwork occurs naturally. This guarantees that GCs can keep up with the actual project schedule and budget.
Conclusion
Apparently, late design alterations impact MEP systems much more than they do architectural elements. Early MEP involvement emerges as the most effective solution to prevent a range of chain reactions resulting from late-stage design changes.
If you are facing similar problems, the best support option in the U.S. is the National MEP Engineers. Our organization is committed to delivering established solutions to these challenges. Our MEP BIM solutions help expose clashes before actual construction. Architects benefit from this and start making knowledgeable choices with confidence. National MEP Engineers’ sustainability design solutions ensure the maintenance of energy performance regardless of modifications.
