Developing a Value Engineering Change Proposal

Amin Terouhid, Ph.D., CVS

Maryam Mirhadi, Ph.D., MVA

 

Executive takeaway. A Value Engineering Change Proposal (VECP) should allow an owner to confirm that the alternative preserves functions and performance, produces supportable savings, and can be implemented. The proposal should combine technical evidence, contract revisions, cost and schedule analysis, risks, and life-cycle effects.

Understand what qualifies as a VECP

A Value Engineering Change Proposal, or VECP, is a contractor-initiated proposal submitted after contract award under a value engineering provision. It requires a change to the contract and seeks better value without impairing essential functions or characteristics. The Federal Highway Administration explains that a VECP may improve performance, value, or quality; reduce construction cost; or shorten delivery time while considering life-cycle cost and other applicable factors. [1]

A function characterizes what the project must accomplish. Performance defines how well that function must be delivered through measurable requirements. Resources include cost, time, labor, equipment, materials, and energy. Life-cycle value considers performance and resource use during construction, operation, maintenance, and replacement. These characteristics distinguish a VECP from a routine product substitution, correction of a contractor error, change in quantity alone, construction claim, or request for payment for work already required by the contract. The contract governs whether a proposal qualifies, what the contractor must submit, how long the owner has to review it, how proposal data may be used, how savings are shared, and how payment is made. For example, Federal Acquisition Regulation clause 52.248-3 establishes minimum content and a savings-sharing method for federal construction contracts that contain the clause. State, local, and private contracts may differ. Both parties should therefore review the applicable provision before developing the VECP. [2]

Build a decision-ready proposal

The proposal should begin with a concise comparison of the existing requirement and proposed change. It should identify the drawings, specifications, contract sections, permits, and approvals requiring revision, then explain the reasons, advantages, and disadvantages. The owner should be able to see what would change and what would remain unchanged.

The contractor should then demonstrate functional equivalence, meaning that the alternative provides the same required functions or some level of enhancement to the functions at the required level of performance. A function matrix is a compact table that compares those functions and performance criteria for the existing and proposed solutions. Appropriate support may include design calculations, product data, test results, code analysis, prior-use information, quality-control requirements, and required professional approvals. SAVE International’s Value Methodology supports evaluating required functions rather than favoring a particular solution. [4]

The proposal should next explain how the change will be implemented. It should address design responsibility, submittals, permits, procurement, temporary work, installation, inspection, testing, warranties, operations, maintenance, and training. If commissioning is required, the documented testing and verification that systems are ready for service, it should also be included. The contractor should state when written authorization is needed and show the effect on the current project schedule. Until authorization is issued, the existing contract requirements remain in effect. [2]

Present cost and schedule effects transparently

The cost analysis should present separate estimates for the affected existing work and the proposed work using consistent quantities, pricing dates, labor and equipment rates, markups, and assumptions. It should identify contractor development and implementation costs, subcontractor effects, owner review or testing costs, and changes to operating and maintenance costs. The difference between two supplier quotations is not the total saving when the change transfers or adds other costs. The schedule analysis should identify the activities and logic relationships added, removed, or revised by the proposal to determine if any adjustments need to be made to the schedule, and if it is justified.

Use a disciplined owner review

The owner should first screen the proposal for compliance with the contract and for completeness. Technical reviewers should then verify function, performance, code compliance, constructability, the practical ability to build the alternative—safety, quality, schedule, and operational effects. Estimators should reconcile quantities, rates, exclusions, development costs, owner costs, and life-cycle consequences. Questions, assumptions, revisions, and the final decision should be recorded in a controlled decision log.

Owners typically appoint one review lead and establish a response schedule; involve design, construction, estimating, scheduling, operations, maintenance, procurement, legal, and funding representatives as needed; separate documented savings from uncertain benefits; and identify or assess risks. An accepted VECP should be implemented only through the written contract modification required by the contract. A complete proposal makes value visible, testable, and auditable for both parties.

References

[1] Federal Highway Administration. Value Engineering Change Proposals.

[2] Federal Acquisition Regulation 52.248-3. Value Engineering-Construction, October 2025.

[3] Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. 23 CFR Part 627, Value Engineering.

[4] SAVE International. About the Value Methodology.

Preparing for a Value Engineering Workshop

Amin Terouhid, Ph.D., CVS

Maryam Mirhadi, Ph.D., VMA

 

Executive takeaway. A productive value engineering (VE) workshop begins well before the team meets. The owner should define the decisions to be addressed, assemble reliable project information, involve team members or specialists who understand the project’s functions and constraints, and establish how recommendations will be reviewed. Effective preparation provides enough information for analysis while preserving enough flexibility to act on the results.

Define the assignment before assembling the team

Value engineering is a structured, multidisciplinary process for improving value by analyzing required functions and developing alternatives. SAVE International describes the Value Methodology as a systematic process that combines function analysis with creative problem-solving to improve value. [1]

A VE study is the complete analysis and reporting effort; the workshop is the facilitated working session in which the team applies the VE Job Plan. Before that session, the owner and facilitator, who serves as the neutral process leader, should prepare a study brief. This short document defines the project need, study objectives, boundaries, known constraints, required performance, and decisions open to change. It should also identify fixed commitments, including permits, funding conditions, stakeholder agreements, and procurement actions. Clear boundaries keep the team focused on feasible opportunities.

Build one reliable information package

The information package should give every participant the same current basis for analysis. At minimum, it should include the owner’s project requirements; design basis, meaning the criteria and assumptions that guide the design; current narratives, drawings, and calculations; applicable codes and approvals; cost estimate and assumptions; milestone schedule; procurement status; major risks; sustainability and resilience objectives; and available operating and maintenance data. Each document should show its date and status so the team can distinguish approved requirements from working assumptions.

Cost information should be organized by major project elements, not supplied only as a total. A cost model, a structured breakdown showing where resources are concentrated, helps identify functions with the greatest potential for improvement. The milestone schedule should show key design, approval, permitting, procurement, and construction dates that may limit implementation. A risk register, which records identified uncertainties and planned responses, helps the team test whether an alternative creates or reduces exposure. Consistent with this approach, FHWA’s VE Job Plan places information gathering before function analysis. [2]

Select participants for knowledge and decisions

The VE team combines the technical and operational knowledge needed to examine a project from several viewpoints. Depending on the scope, participants may include the owner, designer, estimator, scheduler, construction specialist, operator, maintainer, user representative, permitting specialist, and subject-matter experts, people with specialized knowledge relevant to the study. Select participants for their knowledge, not title alone. It sis generally recommended that five to eight participants with backgrounds suited to the project’s scope and complexity work well. [3]

The designer should explain the design basis and constraints, while independent participants test assumptions without treating the workshop as a critique of the design team. The owner should also name an executive sponsor, meaning the senior representative who supports the study and resolves policy issues, and a decision maker authorized to receive and act on the recommendations.

Prepare participants to work, not merely attend

Several days before the workshop, distribute the study brief, information package, agenda, participant roles, and questions requiring attention. Ask participants to review the material and identify missing information or conflicts before the first session. At the kickoff, confirm terminology, assumptions, constraints, and evaluation criteria. Evaluation criteria are the agreed measures used to compare alternatives, such as function, safety, reliability, cost, schedule, maintainability, environmental impact, and stakeholder acceptance.

The owner should also establish who will validate calculations, price alternatives, review code or permit effects, decide on recommendations, and track implementation. A technically sound proposal creates no value until decision makers act on it. The readiness plan should therefore include review dates, accountable parties, and the evidence required for approval.

Before authorizing the workshop, the owners are recommended to ask:

(1) Are the objectives and boundaries clear?

(2) Is the information current and detailed enough for function, cost, schedule, and life-cycle analysis?

(3) Are technical knowledge, operational experience, stakeholder awareness, and decision authority represented?

(4) Are commitments distinguished from open decisions?

(5) Is there a defined process for validating, deciding, and implementing recommendations?

References

[1] SAVE International. About the Value Methodology.

[2] Federal Highway Administration. The Value Engineering Process and Job Plan.

[3] Federal Highway Administration. Value Engineering Frequently Asked Questions.

FAST Diagrams for Enhancing Value

Amin Terouhid, Ph.D., CVS

Maryam Mirhadi, Ph.D., VMA

 

Executive takeaway. A Function Analysis System Technique (FAST) diagram is a function-logic model used in value engineering (VE). It shows why project functions are needed and how they are achieved. By testing those relationships within a defined study scope, FAST separates needs from proposed solutions and opens the discussion to alternatives.

Start with functions, not components

SAVE International’s Function Analysis Guide presents FAST diagramming technique and relationship validation as tools for organizing functions, while Value Analysis Canada describes FAST as a way to identify missing, duplicated, or unnecessary functions. [1] [2] A function states what a project or system must do. In standard VE practice, the team describes it with an active verb and a measurable noun. The verb states the required action; the noun identifies what receives the action and what the team can evaluate.

This language keeps the analysis focused on need. For example, “install roof drain” is an activity and “roof drain” is a component; both point toward a particular solution. By contrast, “collect water” states the required result without prescribing equipment. Examples of properly worded functions include “control runoff,” “transfer loads,” and “convey passengers.” Measurable means the team can establish performance criteria—requirements used to judge how well the function is performed. [3]

Test the How/Why logic

FAST arranges functions according to function logic: the reasoned relationship between required actions, not the sequence of construction. Moving left to right, the team asks, “How is this function achieved?” The answer is a lower-order function, a more specific action. Moving right to left, it asks, “Why is this function needed?” The answer is a higher-order function, a broader purpose. Reading both ways helps expose unsupported assumptions and missing functions. [2]

The main horizontal chain is commonly called the FAST critical path. Here, the term means the principal How/Why path through the function model. It is not the critical path in a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule, which identifies the sequence of activities controlling project duration. FAST contains no activity durations, dates, or schedule float. The team identifies the functions by asking, “When this function occurs, what else must occur?” In FAST, When expresses a supporting relationship, not clock time.

Use scope lines to focus the study

Scope lines are vertical boundaries defining the part of the function model the VE team will examine. A higher-order function may remain outside the left boundary because it explains the project purpose but is not open to change. A lower-order function may remain outside the right boundary because the logic continues beyond the selected subject. Within the scope, the basic function is the studied system’s principal purpose. Classification depends on scope; a function may be basic in one study and secondary in another.

Hypothetical example: a building roof-drainage system

Assumptions: The study concerns a conventional building roof within a defined property boundary. The illustration is a simplified function model, not a final design.

Figure 1. Simplified FAST model for roof drainage

Arrows label the questions; the connecting lines represent logical relationships, not workflow or elapsed time

 

Reading left to right, the owner protects property by controlling runoff; runoff is controlled by removing water, conveying it, and maintaining the gradient that enables movement. Reading right to left tests why each function exists. The supporting functions, collect water, exclude debris, and permit maintenance, may be essential even though they are not on the main path.

Because the model avoids naming roof drains, downspouts, pipes, scuppers, or detention tanks, the team can compare different ways to perform the functions. Performance criteria may include flow capacity, reliability, maintainability, code compliance, site constraints, and water-quality objectives. Resources include money, materials, labor, energy, and time. Comparing performance with the resources required over design, construction, operation, maintenance, renewal, and disposal connects the discussion to life-cycle value—the value delivered over the system’s useful life—rather than initial cost alone.

Common mistakes that reduce the diagram’s value

Teams sometimes replace functions with components (“roof drain”), specifications (“six-inch pipe”), or activities (“install piping”). Others arrange the boxes in installation order, turning FAST into a process flowchart or CPM schedule. Additional mistakes include leaving scope lines undefined, treating When as elapsed time, accepting logic that works in only one direction, combining competing solutions in one function model, and adding so much detail that the central relationships disappear. A useful FAST model remains implementation-free: it defines required actions without committing the team to a particular component or design solution. [4]

The facilitator’s role and the owner’s next steps

A FAST facilitator is the neutral process leader who guides the analysis without selecting the design. The facilitator draws out functions from knowledgeable participants, challenges solution-oriented wording, tests How/Why logic in both directions, and records disagreements and assumptions. The diagram is a shared model that the technical team validates against project requirements and available evidence, not an answer imposed by the facilitator.

As a professional recommendation, owners should define the study scope and performance criteria before diagramming; involve people who understand design, construction, operations, and maintenance; test every principal-path relationship in both directions; record unresolved assumptions; and use the agreed functions to organize the creative, evaluation, development, and recommendation phases of the VE study. FHWA’s VE Job Plan likewise places function analysis before creative and evaluation work. That sequence reinforces the central point: FAST is successful when it improves the alternatives and decisions that follow. [3]

References

[1] SAVE International. Function Analysis Guide.

[2] Value Analysis Canada. Function Analysis System Technique (FAST).

[3] Federal Highway Administration. The Value Engineering Process and Job Plan.

[4] Borza, J. S. FAST Diagrams: The Foundation for Creating Effective Function Models (2011).

Virtual Lunch-and-Learn Series: Function Analysis

Join us for a two-week virtual Lunch-and-Learn series on Function Analysis and related value-improvement techniques. Three sessions will be offered each week, from September 8 through September 18, 2026.

What Is Function Analysis?

Function Analysis is a systematic approach used in value engineering and value management to identify and evaluate what a project, product, system, or process must accomplish. It defines each function using a concise active verb–measurable noun format and examines the relationship among required functions, performance, cost, and available resources.

Function Analysis helps project teams:

  • Clarify essential project requirements and objectives.

  • Distinguish basic functions from supporting or unnecessary functions.

  • Improve communication and alignment among stakeholders.

  • Identify unnecessary costs and areas of poor value.

  • Encourage creative thinking and the development of alternatives.

  • Improve performance, efficiency, constructability, and life-cycle value.

  • Support objective and transparent decision-making.

Session Schedule

Session 1 — Fundamentals of Function Analysis
September 9, 2026 from 12 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. ET
An introduction to Function Analysis, its purpose, and its role in Value Engineering and Value Management.

Session 2 — Identifying and Defining Functions
September 10, 2026 from 12 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. ET
Techniques for identifying project, product, and process functions and expressing them using the active verb–measurable noun format.

Session 3 — Classifying and Prioritizing Functions
September 11, 2026 from 12 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. ET
Methods for distinguishing basic, secondary, required, and unwanted functions and determining their relative importance.

Session 4 — Function–Cost and Function–Worth Analysis
September 14, 2026 from 12 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. ET
Approaches for allocating costs to functions, estimating function worth, and identifying areas with the greatest potential for value improvement.

Session 5 — Introduction to FAST Diagramming
September 16, 2026 from 12 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. ET
An introduction to the Function Analysis System Technique (FAST), including the “How–Why” logic used to organize functions and understand their relationships.

Session 6 — Applying Function Analysis to Value Improvement
September 18, 2026 from 12 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. ET
A practical session demonstrating how Function Analysis can support creative problem-solving, alternative evaluation, and improvements in project performance and overall value.

Instructor and Registration

The sessions will be taught by Maryam Mirhadi, Ph.D., VMA, PMP, and conducted virtually through Zoom. Participants may attend individual sessions.

To register, please email info@AdroitProjectConsultants.com no later than the day before each session to ensure that the Zoom link can be sent to you in a timely manner.

Function Analysis: Finding Better, Alternative Solutions

Amin Terouhid, Ph.D., CVS

Maryam Mirhadi, Ph.D., VMA

 

Executive takeaway. Function analysis identifies what a project, process, organization, or system must accomplish before the value engineering (VE) team decides how to deliver it. By separating the required purpose from the proposed solution, owners can explore more alternatives while protecting the functions. The resulting discussion supports better decisions about both initial expenditure and long-term ownership of the subject project, process, organization, or system.

Begin with the purpose behind the proposed solution

Value Engineering (VE) is a structured, systematic methodology designed to optimize project outcomes relative to consumed resources. According to SAVE International [1], the process relies on a multidisciplinary team—guided by a certified facilitator—that rigorously analyzes required system functions before generating and evaluating potential alternatives. Function analysis provides the foundational framework and common language that makes this process effective. To apply this methodology effectively, key terminology must be clearly delineated:

  • Component: The physical entity or mechanism that performs a function (e.g., a steel beam).
  • Function: The essential action or purpose a system or component performs (e.g., transfer loads).
  • Specification: The prescriptive parameters governing materials, construction, or performance (e.g., load capacity).

Defining a requirement purely by its function—such as “transfer loads”—allows project teams to evaluate alternative materials and configurations without prematurely committing to a single design path.

Use two words to make the need clear

Function analysis commonly pairs an active verb, which expresses an action, with a measurable noun, which identifies what the action affects. This concise format focuses discussion on one function at a time and helps move attention away from a predetermined solution. [2] Examples of these pairs include:

  • Transfer loads
  • Control temperature
  • Convey passengers

These two-word expressions define what the system must do. However, they do not replace detailed engineering performance criteria. Instead, they serve as a neutral baseline. For instance, while “convey passengers” establishes the core functional need, the project team must still define specific performance parameters—such as peak demand, vertical rise, maximum wait time, accessibility standards, and system reliability.

Classify functions within a defined study scope

Determining functions requires establishing a clear study boundary (scope). Within this boundary, functions are categorized into two primary types, although other types of functions also exist:

  • Basic Functions: The fundamental, primary reasons for the system’s existence.
  • Secondary Functions: Auxiliary tasks that support the basic function or satisfy secondary requirements

SAVE International emphasizes that while basic functions must be preserved, secondary functions often represent significant cost-reduction or optimization opportunities. Importantly, functional classification depends on the defined analytical boundary. For example, “control temperature” represents a basic function when evaluating an HVAC system, but a secondary function when evaluating a complete airport terminal facility. Categorizing a function as secondary does not imply it is optional; many secondary functions remain mandatory for reasons such as operational integrity.

Open alternatives, then test them against the requirements

Reframing the right questions to ask expands the solution space. For example, asking “Which elevator model minimizes equipment cost?” focuses narrowly on procurement, finishes, and vendor pricing. In contrast, asking “How else can we convey passengers between these levels?” encourages the team to evaluate spatial layouts, service relocations, operational adjustments, or existing equipment upgrades alongside new equipment installations.

Proposed alternatives must undergo rigorous technical validation against baseline design criteria. For instance, substituting stairs for an elevator is invalid if regulatory accessibility standards require vertical motorized transit. Similarly, relocating services to reduce foot traffic may create unforeseen operational bottlenecks. As outlined by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the VE process sequentially transitions from function analysis to creative alternative generation, followed by rigorous technical and financial evaluation [3].

This evaluation phase must account for life-cycle performance, balancing initial capital costs against long-term operational expenditures (energy consumption, routine maintenance, and replacement schedules). A low-cost capital option that incurs high maintenance or energy costs over time rarely delivers optimal long-term value.

Practical exercise: rewrite the question

To apply function analysis, consider the baseline proposals in the table below. Identifying the underlying function and establishing clear evaluation criteria allows teams to objectively assess alternative options.

Starting statement

Suggested function

Example evaluation requirement

Use a steel beam

Transfer loads

Required load capacity, span, and allowable deflection limits

Purchase a larger air conditioner

Control temperature

Targeted indoor temperature range under peak environmental loads

Install an additional elevator

Convey passengers

Peak passenger demand, acceptable wait times, accessibility compliance

(Note: The examples provided above are illustrative; exact functions and performance parameters must be calibrated to the specific project scope.)

Implementation Recommendations for Project Teams

To successfully integrate function analysis into upcoming project planning, the following course of actions is recommended:

  • Select a Critical System or component: Document its core functions, quantitative performance criteria, baseline design solution, and projected life-cycle costs.
  • Align Stakeholders: Engage owners, designers, contractors, and facility operators to confirm non-negotiable performance baselines prior to generating solutions.
  • Facilitate Consensus: Conduct structured workshops to resolve scope ambiguities and standardize functional definitions.
  • Document Decisions: Formally log the technical and financial rationale for accepting or rejecting each alternative.

Adopting this structured methodology transforms function analysis from a theoretical exercise into a repeatable, value-adding decision process.

References

[1] SAVE International. About Value Engineering.

[2] Value Analysis Canada. Function Analysis Phase.

[3] FHWA. The Value Engineering Process and Job Plan.

When Should Owners Conduct Value Engineering?

Amin Terouhid, Ph.D., CVS

Maryam Mirhadi, Ph.D.

 

Executive takeaway. Value engineering (VE) is a structured team process for finding better ways to meet a project’s needs. VE studies need to be conducted when the VE team has enough information to compare meaningful alternatives and enough time to implement the findings before major commitments. A design-completion percentage alone cannot establish that balance.

Match the study to the decision

SAVE International characterizes the VE process as a systematic process involving several disciplines and a qualified facilitator. Its emphasis on identifying required functions gives owners a useful starting point: define what the project must accomplish before choosing how to accomplish it. [1]

To determine when owners should conduct VE studies, it is helpful to review the typical phases through which projects are progressed. Concept development establishes needs and broad approaches. Schematic design turns the selected approach into preliminary layouts. Design development refines dimensions, materials, and coordinated building systems.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) advises conducting VE once sufficient information is available and explains that no single best time applies to every project. Earlier studies retain broader choices but depend on less-developed information; later studies permit more detailed comparisons while facing more commitments. The useful study window depends on the decisions being evaluated. [2]

The table below identifies the main development stages in projects and describes which VE decisions are typically suitable for each stage.

 

Milestone

Available information

Suitable VE decisions

Concept development

Needs, site constraints, broad cost ranges

Site strategy, facility size, major alternatives

Schematic design

Layouts, preliminary systems, initial estimates

Space efficiency, system types, access

Design development

System sizes, materials, coordinated drawings

System configuration, materials, maintenance access

Preconstruction

Detailed drawings, bids, supplier terms

Targeted alternatives, installation methods, sequencing

The VE decisions are typical recommendations, not mandatory phase requirements.

 

This table illustrates how the scope of a VE study may change as the design progresses. During concept development and schematic design, the team can examine broad alternatives, such as changing the facility layout or selecting a different building system. During design development and preconstruction, the study generally becomes more focused on improving particular systems, materials, or construction methods. The owner should therefore begin by identifying the decisions the study is intended to influence and determining when those decisions will become difficult or costly to change.

 

The information needed should correspond to those decisions. Comparing alternative layouts requires an understanding of space needs, access, and operating requirements, but may not require detailed equipment selections. Comparing heating and cooling systems requires more specific information about building demands, operating hours, energy use, and maintenance needs.

Waiting for every design detail to be resolved can unnecessarily delay a study; proceeding without information essential to the decision can produce recommendations that cannot be supported. Where uncertainty remains, the team should identify its assumptions and explain whether additional information could change the preferred alternative.

Leave time to turn recommendations into changes

Having enough information is only one part of choosing the right milestone. The study must also finish early enough for its recommendations to be evaluated, approved, and incorporated into the project.

For example, changing the location of major equipment may require revisions to structural supports, electrical connections, and maintenance access. Those revisions involve additional design work and coordination. If equipment has already been ordered, the change may also involve cancellation charges or a different delivery date. Likewise, changes to a design submitted for a permit may require further review by the approving authority.

A practical approach is to work backward from the earliest commitment affected by the proposed study. Allow time for the workshop, technical evaluation, owner approval, design revisions, and any necessary purchasing or permitting changes. This helps establish when the study must begin and whether its anticipated benefits justify the effort required to implement its findings.

Apply the approach to an actual decision

Consider a hypothetical public building project in which heating and cooling equipment must be ordered before the remaining design is finished. If the owner waits for a later overall design milestone, the opportunity to select a different system may already have narrowed.

A better approach is to evaluate the system once the building’s heating and cooling demands, operating requirements, and feasible equipment options are sufficiently understood, while leaving time for approval before the order is placed. The comparison should address both required performance and life-cycle cost—the combined costs of purchasing, operating, maintaining, and replacing the system over the period being evaluated. This approach allows the owner to assess whether an alternative offers lasting value rather than merely a lower purchase price.

If essential information is still missing, the team can first identify promising alternatives and the information needed to evaluate them, then complete the comparison before purchasing. The study’s timing follows the decision and its information needs, rather than an arbitrary percentage of overall design completion.

Revisit the timing when circumstances change

Owners should also reconsider the need for a study when circumstances change. Examples include when a revised estimate exceeds the budget, operating needs change, site investigations reveal new constraints, or equipment delivery times threaten completion. These developments can justify a focused review even if an earlier VE study has been completed.

As a management recommendation, each proposed study should identify the decision to be influenced, the information needed, the people authorized to approve changes, and the last practical date for implementation. Any applicable agency, funding, or contractual requirements should be evaluated separately. Together, these steps help owners commission VE when its findings can still improve project outcomes.

References

[1] SAVE International. About Value Engineering.

[2] FHWA. Frequently Asked Questions: Value Engineering (study timing).

[3] AIA. Defining the Architect’s Basic Services (2023).

[4] AIA. Managing Quality in the Design Development Phase (2023).

Value Engineering Beyond Cost Reduction

Amin Terouhid, Ph.D., CVS

Executive takeaway. A proposed saving creates value only when its effects on required functions, performance, and long-term resources are understood. Owners should require evidence that an alternative delivers the needed outcome, including its operating and implementation consequences, before accepting the lower price.

Start with the required function

SAVE International describes value methodology as a systematic process conducted by a multidisciplinary team and led by a qualified facilitator. Its focus on understanding required functions helps value engineering (VE) teams reconsider how a project meets its purpose. [1] Similarly, FHWA describes VE objectives in terms of reliable, efficient function, overall cost, quality, and completion time. [2] As such, in projects, processes, or organizations, value can improve when performance requires fewer resources, or when a justified increase in resources delivers benefits the owner needs. Safety and mandatory requirements should also remain satisfied.

A structured study provides the evidence

SAVE’s job plan moves through information gathering, function analysis, creativity, evaluation, development, and presentation. A disciplined team clarifies needs before generating alternatives, screens those alternatives, and develops the strongest concepts into supported recommendations. Preparation and implementation follow-through make the study useful beyond the workshop. [1]

The focus of value engineering is not on cost reduction, but instead on enhancing value. As such, actions such as scope deletion are not necessarily the right solution. Scope deletion removes something from the project, but it is not necessarily beneficial. It does not necessarily enhance value either. Scope deletion may be appropriate when a need has changed, or an element is unnecessary, but losing a required function is a scope tradeoff. Product substitution changes the selected item; it may emerge from VE, but a lower quotation alone does not establish equivalent performance. Similarly, budget reduction sets a spending target without identifying how to meet it.

For owners, the practical distinction is the decision record: what function remains, what changes, what evidence supports performance, and what costs or risks move elsewhere. A proposal that cannot answer these questions needs further development before its savings are credited.

Make acceptance criteria explicit

As a practical recommendation, agree on acceptance criteria before comparing prices. The owner identifies service needs; designers establish technical limits; operators explain maintenance constraints; and cost and scheduling specialists assess implementation consequences. For example, two systems with the same nominal capacity may differ in part-load control, noise, maintenance access, or available replacement parts. Record those differences rather than assuming equivalence from a product description. Where a preference can be relaxed, obtain an explicit owner decision and show the resulting tradeoff. Where evidence is incomplete, identify the required investigation and its cost before presenting the alternative as ready for approval.

Based on what we discussed, it is recommended that the following five questions be asked before accepting a saving or VE alternative:

  1. Which required functions and measurable performance criteria remain satisfied?
  2. What calculations, tests, or operating evidence support the alternative?
  3. What is the net life-cycle effect, including redesign, operation, and replacement?
  4. What happens to schedule, reliability, maintainability, and risk?
  5. Who will approve, implement, and verify the promised outcome?

As a practical management recommendation, record the baseline, assumptions, responsible reviewer, and acceptance tests for each proposal. Track proposed savings separately from implemented and verified benefits.

References

[1] SAVE International, “About Value Engineering.”

[2] Federal Highway Administration, “Value Engineering,” About VE.

[3] NIST, Building Life Cycle Cost Programs. To discuss how a function-based value engineering study could support your project, contact us https://www.adroitprojectconsultants.com/contact-us/

Adroit Expands Value Engineering Training Offerings

Adroit Consultants Expands Value Engineering Training Offerings

Adroit Consultants, LLC is pleased to announce the expansion of its Value Engineering (VE) and Value Methodology (VM) training programs, providing professionals with practical, instructor-led training designed to strengthen their ability to apply Value Methodology tools and techniques to real-world projects.

Adroit offers specialized Function Analysis Training, Facilitation Training, and the SAVE International VMF1B VM Study Performance Course.

Function Analysis Training

Adroit offers synchronous, instructor-led Function Analysis Training focused on one of the most important elements of the Value Methodology. Function Analysis provides a structured approach for understanding what a project, system, product, or process must accomplish before alternatives are developed. By focusing on required functions rather than existing solutions, participants learn how to identify opportunities to improve value, performance, cost-effectiveness, and outcomes.

The Function Analysis Training is an 8-hour, synchronous, instructor-led course delivered in a single day. The course combines focused instruction with practical exercises, case studies, examples, and applications drawn from real-world projects to help participants develop a practical understanding of Function Analysis and its role within the Value Methodology. The training covers the following four modules:

  • Module 1 – Function Analysis Fundamentals
    • Role of Function Analysis within the SAVE Value Methodology Job Plan
    • Defining functions using the active verb–measurable noun approach
    • Identifying basic, secondary, required, and supporting functions
    • Applying the Miles Function Thesaurus
    • Understanding function, cost, performance, and value
  • Module 2 – FAST Diagramming
    • Understanding function relationships, hierarchy, and logic
    • Developing and interpreting FAST diagrams
    • Applying “How?” and “Why?” logic
    • Identifying critical, supporting, and independent functions
    • Reviewing examples and common FAST diagramming issues
  • Module 3 – Function Analysis for Value Improvement
    • Applying Function Analysis within the Value Methodology process
    • Supporting creativity and alternative development
    • Identifying value-improvement opportunities
    • Reviewing case studies and examples from real projects
  • Module 4 – Practical Application Workshop
    • Developing function statements and FAST diagrams
    • Applying the Miles Function Thesaurus in exercises
    • Working through practical and real-project examples
    • Reviewing results, lessons learned, and good practices

The single-day format is designed to provide participants with both the fundamental concepts and the hands-on experience needed to apply Function Analysis techniques effectively in real Value Engineering studies and project environments. The course is designed for professionals involved in Value Engineering, design, construction, engineering, project management, cost management, risk management, project controls, and related disciplines, as well as individuals seeking to strengthen their practical understanding of Function Analysis and FAST diagramming.

SAVE International VMF1B VM Study Performance Course

VMF1B is an instructor-led, practical training course that provides participants with the opportunity to apply the workshop phases of the Value Methodology Job Plan to a specific study subject or project. The course is delivered by a SAVE International-approved VMF1B instructor. Rather than focusing only on theory, the course emphasizes hands-on application through structured exercises, case studies, teamwork, and development of Value Methodology recommendations.

Participants gain practical experience in areas including:

  • Applying the Value Methodology Job Plan
  • Function Analysis and FAST diagramming
  • Generating creative alternatives
  • Evaluating and screening ideas
  • Developing value alternatives and recommendations
  • Analyzing cost, performance, and value
  • Developing and presenting value proposals
  • Working collaboratively as part of a Value Study team
  • Applying Value Methodology techniques to realistic project situations

The VMF1B course is a minimum of 24 hours and may be offered virtually or in person.

Prerequisite: Individuals must successfully complete the VMF1A Seminar before attending a VMF1B course.

Following completion of the course and submission of participant information, SAVE International provides participants with a VMF1B Certificate of Completion, along with information regarding registration for the Value Methodology Associate (VMA) examination.

Practical Value Methodology Training

Adroit’s training programs are designed to bridge the gap between Value Methodology theory and its practical application. Participants work through real-world concepts, exercises, and project examples that help develop the skills needed to effectively participate in and support Value Engineering studies.

Whether you are seeking to strengthen your Function Analysis and FAST diagramming skills, expand your Value Engineering capabilities, support your professional development, or pursue SAVE International certification, Adroit’s training programs provide a practical and structured learning experience.

Facilitation Training

Adroit offers synchronous, instructor-led Facilitation Training focused on developing the skills needed to effectively lead and support collaborative Value Methodology workshops, meetings, and team-based decision-making processes. Effective facilitation helps teams remain focused, encourages meaningful participation, manages differing viewpoints, and supports productive discussions that lead to well-developed and actionable outcomes.

The Facilitation Training is an 8-hour, synchronous, instructor-led course delivered in a single day. The course combines focused instruction with practical exercises, case studies, role-playing, and examples drawn from real-world project environments. The training covers the following four modules:

  • Module 1 – Facilitation Fundamentals
    • Role and responsibilities of an effective facilitator
    • Facilitator versus participant and subject-matter expert roles
    • Establishing objectives, expectations, and ground rules
    • Creating an inclusive and productive workshop environment
    • Understanding team dynamics and participant behaviors
  • Module 2 – Communication and Engagement Techniques
    • Using effective questioning, active listening, and paraphrasing
    • Encouraging balanced participation and engagement
    • Managing dominant, quiet, or disengaged participants
    • Building consensus and maintaining team focus
    • Using verbal and non-verbal communication effectively
  • Module 3 – Managing Group Dynamics and Challenges
    • Managing disagreement, conflict, and competing viewpoints
    • Keeping discussions focused, productive, and on schedule
    • Addressing difficult behaviors and challenging situations
    • Facilitating decision-making and consensus development
    • Applying facilitation techniques during Value Methodology workshops
  • Module 4 – Practical Facilitation Workshop
    • Facilitating simulated workshop and meeting scenarios
    • Practicing questioning, engagement, and conflict-management techniques
    • Working through case studies and real-project examples
    • Receiving feedback on facilitation approaches and techniques
    • Reviewing lessons learned, common challenges, and good practices

Contact us at info@AdroitProjectConsultants.com for upcoming course dates, registration information, training opportunities, group enrollment, and customized organizational training.

Adroit’s Principal Consultants, Primary Authors of AACE Recommended Practice 129R-23, Linear Scheduling Method (LSM)

The Association for the Advancement of the Cost Engineering (AACE International) has recently released Recommended Practice 129R-23, Linear Scheduling Method (LSM). Dr. Amin Terouhid, PE, PMP and Dr. Mirhadi, PMP, Adroit’s principal consultants, are the two primary authors of this recommended practice. This recommended Practice has been peer reviewed and approved by AACE’s planning and scheduling subcommittee members and has now been released for public review.

The AACE International Recommended Practices (RPs) contain valuable reference information and serve as references for project management, cost engineering, and construction claims professionals around the globe. These documents are regularly and carefully updated, go through multiple peer reviews and revisions before publication, and are routinely reviewed by numerous relevant practitioners. The AACE International Recommended Practices (RPs) have been subject to a rigorous peer review process and are intended to be the main technical foundation of AACE’s educational, and certification products and services.

Adroit’s consultants have previously authored other recommended practices too. They received the AACE 2018 Technical Excellence Award because of their role in authoring some of the recommended practices published by AACE international (including Recommended Practice 91R-16 Schedule Development, Recommended Practice 89R-16 Management Summary Schedule, and Recommended Practice 92R-17 Analyzing Near-Critical Paths).

Project planning and scheduling professionals use a variety of project scheduling methods depending on the type, size, and nature of projects. The linear scheduling method (LSM) is typically used on projects wherein the majority of the scope is made up of highly repetitive work elements along a horizontal or vertical alignment. Examples of these projects include pipeline, tunnel, airport runway, highway, transmission line, road resurfacing, railroad, or high-rise construction projects. An LSM schedule (also known as a linear schedule or march chart) is the graphical output of the LSM. Linear schedules use velocity diagrams, which will be described below, to represent each activity and the progress rate to be achieved (or alternatively, the progress actually achieved) over time. The schedule format typically provides planned and/or actual production rates on a time-scaled, linear format.

 

This recommended practice (RP) is intended to serve as a guideline, not a standard. As a recommended practice of AACE International, the main objectives of this recommended practice (RP) are to increase LSM usage and enhance project management practices by:

  • Providing an overview of the LSM.
  • Defining characteristics and applications of the LSM.
  • Delineating the steps and main considerations in developing, updating, and managing linear schedules.
  • Highlighting main considerations in interpreting linear schedules

For more information about this recommended practice see:

https://communities.aacei.org/discussion/public-review-draft-129r-23-linear-scheduling-method-lsm-2#bm40b53330-1444-4135-8048-192418b6bd0c

To find out about the strategies for the effective use of project schedules, including the use of Linear Scheduling Method (LSM), please feel free to contact us.

References:

http://web.aacei.org/resources/publications/recommended-practices

The Value Engineering (VE) Process and Its Uses in Various Development Phases of a Construction Project

Amin Terouhid, Ph.D., PE, PMP, VMA

Abstract

This article describes the value methodology, explains how this methodology can be used in various development phases of a construction project and identifies the benefits of value engineering and value analysis studies in various stages of a construction project. The construction process is typically divided into the five essential development phases of planning, conceptual design, detailed design, construction, and close-out. Value studies are conducted in each of these development phases with a slightly different set of objectives. This article will discuss the types of values studies that are performed in each phase and discuss some of the key considerations necessary to perform such studies.

 

Introduction

“The Value Methodology (VM) is a systematic process used by a multidisciplinary team, led by a qualified VM Facilitator, to improve the value of a project, product, process, service, or organization through the analysis of functions (SAVE International, 2020, p. 2).

 

The Code of Federal Regulations defines Value Engineering (VE) analysis as the “systematic process of reviewing and assessing a project by a multidisciplinary team not directly involved in

the planning and development phases of a specific project that follows the VE Job Plan and is conducted to provide recommendations for:

(1) Providing the needed functions, considering community and environmental commitments, safety, reliability, efficiency, and overall lifecycle cost (as defined in 23 U.S.C. 106(f)(2));

(2) Optimizing the value and quality of the project; and

(3) Reducing the time to develop and deliver the project.” (The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): Title 23 CFR Part 627.3 Highways, 2020)

 

Although the value methodology (VM) is often referred to as value engineering, value analysis and value management, these terms are often used in a slightly different way. The term VA is typically used when the VM applies to an existing application (e.g., manufacturing or construction project) whereas VE applies the VM to a new project. Nevertheless, these terms overlap, and the use of more than one term might be appropriate in some cases. Therefore, the terms value methodology, value engineering, value analysis, and value management are often used interchangeably. Yet, no single term is universally accepted. The community of practitioners seems to struggle to use a consistent approach in using a single term. In this article, the term value methodology is used throughout for consistency. What is important to note, however, is that value improvement is the main focus irrespective of the specific term used.

 

Since enhancing the value of a project, product, process, service, or organization is central to value enhancement efforts, it is important to first define the term “value”. Value is typically defined as an “expression of the relationship between the performance of functions relative to the resources required to realize them” (SAVE International, 2020, p. 153) which is expressed as:

 

Value = (Function Performance) / Resources

 

The more we gain in equivalent money, usefulness, or a fair return on services, goods, or products while spending fewer resources, the more overall value is gained. A correct understanding of the term “function” is critical to the definition above. Function is the primary or intended purpose that a project or scope element aims to serve. In value studies, the value team can perform function analysis by:

  • Assessing the functions of key project components and evaluating alternative solutions that satisfy functional requirements
  • Appraising value-enhancing, cost-saving, and/or time-saving opportunities

 

Say a value team is investigating a highway project with certain elements such as a turn lane and a frontage road. To perform function analysis, the team can investigate how the turn lane can have the same function but in a way that the overall cost decreases. For example, the function of a turn lane in a highway project is to allow for shifting traffic to the left. In a highway project, a turn lane can serve the same function if the original concept remains unchanged, but the team shifts the westbound turn lane to the ramp further west to avoid the Right of Way acquisition. As another example, the function of a frontage road is to divert traffic. A frontage road may serve the same function if the team decides to re-use existing frontage roads in specific segments of the highway versus reconstructing them in their entirety.

 

In construction, the value methodology is used to improve a construction project by optimizing costs while maintaining or improving quality and performance. The use of value methodology has a wide range of benefits for construction projects. The key benefits include:

  • Applying the value methodology facilitates reaching time and cost objectives,
  • Assists in saving time and cost with assessing the project function and different alternatives, and
  • Aids in improving the construction performance.

 

Various Development Phases of a Construction Project

The development phases of projects that follow a process-based approach are typically organized using the following steps (PMI, 2021, p. 171):

  1. Initiation: In this stage, a new project or a new phase of an existing project is defined. To achieve this objective, authorization is obtained to commence the project or phase.
  2. Planning is required to establish the scope of the project, refine the project objectives, and establish the course of action needed to achieve the project objectives.
  3. This stage aims to complete the scope of work established in the previous development state to meet the project requirements.
  4. Monitoring and controlling. These processes, which are performed concurrently within the execution, are needed to monitor, review, and control the work progress that is made to achieve project objectives. They help to evaluate the performance of the project team in completing the scope of work. Project monitoring and controlling help the project team to compare the project performance with what was planned to ensure deviations are identified and proper actions are taken to minimize deviations. The outcome of project monitoring and control is typically a series of action plans / corrective actions to better achieve the project objective.
  5. In the end, closing steps are taken to formally complete or close the project. The closing phase may involve different aspects/components. Examples include project document updates, final product transition, a final report, and organizational process asset updates. Some of the main activities during the closing phase include financial/payment closeout, releasing resources, documenting lessons learned, administrative closures and conducting project reviews.

 

The construction process, however, is often divided into a different set of steps as an organizing structure. They are typically divided into the following essential development phases:

  1. Planning,
  2. Conceptual design (as part of preconstruction),
  3. Detailed design,
  4. Construction, and
  5. Close-out.

 

Value studies are conducted in each of these development phases with a slightly different set of objectives. A typical value study is conducted according to a Job Plan which is a” sequential approach for applying the Value Methodology, consisting of the following eight phases: 1) Preparation, 2) Information, 3) Function Analysis, 4) Creativity, 5) Evaluation, 6) Development, 7) Presentation, 8) Implementation” (SAVE International, 2020, p. 153). Each value study aims to address each phase in the VE Job Plan; however, the level of analysis performed, and efforts spent in each VE Job Plan phase may be adjusted not only based on the needs of each project but also based on the needs of the project’s current development phase.

 

In the following section, the main focuses of value studies in each of the typical development phases of construction projects are identified and the details of such studies are discussed:

 

Value Studies in Various Development Phases of a Construction Project

It is important that value studies are conducted at the right times. To achieve this objective, the value team needs to be aware of the benefits of value studies in each of the development phases of a project, and determine what parts or types of studies can be performed in each stage. As noted in the VM Guide, “oftentimes projects are too far along in their development when a VM study is performed. A VM study performed for a project that is 95 percent designed, and nearly ready for construction will not fully realize the benefits of VM had the VM study been performed at the 10 – 15% design level” (SAVE International, 2020, p. 145).

 

In theory, value studies can be applied to any construction project irrespective of its current development phase. However, as noted above, the earlier these studies are performed, the more effective their outcomes are expected to be. Nevertheless, the main focuses of value studies in each of the typical development phases of construction projects are slightly different.

 

The main focuses of value studies in each of the following essential development phases of a construction project are described below:

1-     Planning

 

The application of value studies starts during the planning phase of a construction project. During this phase, the scope of the project is established, project objectives are refined, and the course of action needed to achieve the project objectives is recognized. In this phase, the ability to influence changes in design is relatively high and the cost and effort needed to implement those changes are relatively low. Because the ability to influence changes in design is relatively high in the planning phase, value studies can be conducted with minimal concerns about incurring undue expenses for a redesign. Therefore, value studies conducted during the planning stage have a remarkable potential for enhancing value. The value study can bring a fresh outside view of alternate solutions from other similar projects (Cullen, 2021).

 

In the early stages of the planning phase, value scoping can be performed to determine the mission and direction of the value proposal. Such studies can establish the scope and mission of value studies. Once value scoping is delineated, value studies can start to be implemented. These efforts can help the project owner establish their requirements and define needs and expectations that value studies can satisfy.

 

2-     Conceptual design

Conceptual design is characterized by a large number of design alternatives and a continuous, evolutionary change to the design which requires iterative cycles of idea generation and evaluation. In the early phases of conceptual design, the alternatives evaluation is performed to assess available possibilities and form a basis for design. In this phase, the design has not been frozen yet and design alternatives are being considered. Since the majority of budgetary costs will be committed by project sponsors once the design is frozen, many opportunities are still available during the conceptual design phase to influence the design and reduce or avoid unnecessary costs. The earlier in the design phase value studies are conducted, the greater the opportunities will be to reduce or avoid unnecessary costs. For instance, changing the geometry or boundaries of a highway is much easier in the early stages of the design work than changing them in the later stages of the design.

 

3-     Detailed design

As previously noted, the design is evolved in the early stages of the design work. However, as the design is further developed, the design is solidified and it is ultimately frozen during the detailed design phase. Once the design is frozen, the final design is achieved. This design stage is characterized by the efforts focused on the preparation of final construction plans and detailed

specifications for the performance of construction work.

 

The detailed design phase is the phase in which most value studies are initiated when the design has at least made it to the schematic stage. Most public agencies require at least one value study to be conducted at the design stage on projects over a certain dollar amount. Value studies are often conducted after the completion of the design process. It is important to note, however, that such studies are preferred to be conducted before the design is complete to allow the design team to incorporate the option of using alternative materials and methods. The Federal Highway Administration (2021) defines VE analysis as a systematic process of review and analysis of a project, during the concept and design phases. According to SAVE International, “typically, 70 percent of costs are committed by the time the design is frozen” (SAVE International, 2020, p. 146). According to Anderson et al. (2007), “value engineering is most successful when it is performed early in project development. A value engineering study should be performed within the first 25—30% of the design effort prior to selecting the final design alternative” (p. A-165).

 

The use of the value methodology mindset throughout the design phase can help the project team benefit from the advantages of value studies while maintaining project requirements. In this phase, formal value studies are typically conducted in value workshops by an experienced, multi-disciplinary team of subject matter experts (SMEs) prior to freezing the design. Formal value studies are typically conducted by a team led by someone highly experienced in leading value studies and workshops, usually a Certified Value Specialist (CVS) who ensures the value methodology process is properly used throughout the study. The workshop typically takes three to four days but may take longer depending on the project size and specific needs of the project and/or expectations of project stakeholders. The time and effort spent on the workshop have an insignificant impact on the final project schedule and redesign costs.

 

Typically, in the initial phases of detailed design, a team of independent SMEs, a value methodology facilitator, and often project stakeholders is formed to attend a workshop to conduct value studies in accordance with a Value Engineering (VE) Job Plan. As previously noted, Job plan is a systematic action plan for performing value studies and documenting the outcomes in an organized manner.

 

To follow the action plan delineated in the VE Job Plan, the following phases are completed one after another (SAVE International, 2020):

 

  • Preparation: in this phase, preparatory activities are performed to reach common ground among the members of the value team while facilitating team building.

 

  • Information: project information including scope, objectives, project commitments, and constraints are collected and shared among the members of the value team. In this phase, value team members aim to identify various aspects of the project which are most likely to yield value improvement. To achieve this objective, the team members will utilize a variety of tools and techniques including cost engineering techniques, FAST (Function Analysis Systems Technique), expert judgement and information gathering techniques to identify opportunities for value improvement. These opportunities will be the focus areas of the VE/VA team going forward.

 

  • Function Analysis: the project is analyzed to understand the required functions of various scope elements. To achieve this objective, the value team collaborate and achieve consensus as to the needed functions. This phase serves as an essential component of each value study, and aims to evaluate each selected element (i.e., opportunity for value improvement) to determine its basic and secondary functions. It also aims to assess the costs of the element and the way the costs are distributed among its functions.

 

In this phase, the FAST diagramming technique is used extensively to perform function analysis. This analysis allows a multi-discipline team to collaborate and achieve consensus as to the needed functions (basic and secondary functions along with other functions such as all-time functions), in preparation for generating innovative ideas about how best to achieve the intended functions. In this phase, the team’s collaboration and interactions play central role in identifying functions and assessing value improvement opportunities. The team members collaborate and achieve consensus as to the needed functions in preparation for generating innovative ideas about how best to achieve the intended functions. In this phase, the team’s collaboration and interactions play central role in identifying functions and assessing value improvement opportunities.

 

  • Creativity: the value team generates ideas on ways to accomplish the required functions while enhancing the project’s performance, quality, and/or lower project costs. In this phase, the facilitator encourages the members of the value team to use brainstorming techniques to think creatively to generate ideas. The intent is for them to individually and collectively, come up with creative ideas and creatively identify value improvement opportunities by accounting for the functions identified in the previous phase.

 

 

  • Evaluation: Evaluate VE recommendations and select feasible ideas for development. During this phase, the value team aims to reduce the list of ideas to those most reasonable and feasible by analyzing advantages and disadvantages of each idea. To achieve this objective, a variety of techniques are used to evaluate and prioritize ideas. Examples of these techniques include weighting techniques and life-cycle cost assessment techniques. The facilitator plays a key role in facilitation discussions among the team members to assess the viability and reasonableness of value improvement ideas.

 

  • Development: Develop the selected alternatives into fully supported recommendations. The phase involves the advancement of the VE/VA team’s ideas to the level of value improvement recommendations. The selected recommendations will ultimately be presented as the outcomes of the value study. In this phase, the value team uses a variety of techniques to further develop the ideas. Examples include:
  • Diagramming,
  • Sketching,
  • Perfuming calculations,
  • Preparing graphics,
  • Furnishing reports,
  • Reaching out to other specialists or stakeholders to obtain supplemental information, and
  • Present the selected recommendations as to the outcomes of the value study.

 

In doing so, each team member will contribute to a written report. In general, the value study team will also prepare and deliver a brief presentation at the completion of the study to present the recommendations and share their findings with the executive decision team and other project stakeholders.

 

  • Presentation: In this phase, the outcome of the development phase will be presented on the final study day to project stakeholders and decision-makers who were not directly engaged in value studies. In this phase, the members of the value team collaborate and interact with each other to develop the agreed-upon recommendations for presentation to the project stakeholders and the executive decision team. Team members will present value improvement recommendations in their areas of practice or expertise. They present value improvement recommendations they personally assessed and developed during the study. This information will be incorporated into the final report.

 

  • Implementation: This phase focuses on determining the disposition of the value recommendation and validating its impact on the value of the project.

 

The above-noted steps outlined the main phases of a Job Plan that needs to be followed like an action plan to achieve the objectives of a value study. The following section explains how value studies might be used during the construction phase.

 

4-     Construction

 

During the construction phase, value studies may still be conducted in different forms. The need for conducting value studies arises during the construction phase primarily in the following two situations:

  1. Often a value study performed in the previous development phases of a construction project identifies that further studies should be performed on certain elements of the project scope of work once the work has further progressed. For example, a new construction material is often identified by a value study in the conceptual design phase as a material that potentially results in cost savings. However, such decisions cannot often be finalized unless further investigation is performed during the construction phase to ensure the new material has the characteristics that the design requires.

 

  1. Often a construction contractor identifies elements of the scope of work that can be improved if a value study is performed. In some cases, performing such studies is among the contractual requirements. Because of its potential benefits, some government agencies or project owners have made value studies a required component of construction projects. For example, incentive clauses of some construction contracts often allow for sharing cost savings between a contractor and project owner if the contractor performs a value study and find creative ideas for alternative ways to accomplish the required functions of a work element. Examples of these contract clauses include the value engineering incentive clauses and the value program requirements clauses.

 

Value engineering incentive clauses are utilized for soliciting contractor or vendor inputs. To do so, their inputs as obtained in the form of a change proposal using a mechanism that is referred to as a value engineering change proposal (VECP).  The VM Guide defines VECP as a “change submitted by a contractor, pursuant to a contract provision, to improve the value of the project or product under contract. VECPs are a vehicle to incentivize contractor innovation and are commonly used in public sector contracts” (SAVE International, 2020, p. 139)

 

The Code of Federal Regulations defines VECP as a “construction contract change proposal submitted by the construction contractor based on a VECP provision in the contract. These proposals may improve the project’s performance, value and/or quality, lower construction costs, or shorten the delivery time, while considering their impacts on the project’s overall life-cycle

cost and other applicable factors.” (The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): Title 23 CFR Part 627.3 Highways, 2020) On some projects, the bidders can suggest alternative means and methods and design features to meet the goals of the project at a lesser cost and/or time of performance.

 

Cost savings resulting from approved and implemented VECPs are typically shared (i.e., typically a 50-50 sharing rule is used unless the contract parties agree otherwise) between the project owner and contractor. According to SAVE International, an “acceptable VECP must

meet two tests: it must require a change in some contract provision, and it must reduce the contract price. A complete VECP should contain information similar to a VM

proposal” (SAVE International, 2020, p. 148).

 

Value program requirements clauses are slightly different. Such clauses aim to ensure continuous consideration of potential innovations and improvements over the course of the project. Value program requirements clauses require the construction contractor to conduct value studies that are going to be funded by the owner as a separate line item of work under the contract. They may still allow for incentive sharing for each proposal but typically the contractor’s proportion of cost savings is smaller than under an incentive provision because the cost of such studies is typically paid by the project owner.

 

5-     Close-out

During the closeout phase, the outcomes of value studies performed over the course of the project are documented and lessons learned are recorded. In addition, organizational process assets are updated based on historical records of value studies, and administrative closures are taken place.

 

Conclusion

This article described the value methodology, explained how this methodology can be used in various development phases of a construction project, and identified the benefits of value studies in various stages of a construction project. It was explained that the construction process, is typically divided into the five essential development phases of planning, conceptual design, detailed design, construction, and close-out. Value studies are conducted in each of these development phases with a slightly different set of objectives. A typical value study is conducted according to a Job Plan, and each value study aims to address each phase in the VE Job Plan; however, the level of analysis performed, and efforts spent in each VE Job Plan phase may be adjusted not only based on the needs of each project but also based on the needs of the project’s current development phase.

 

 

 

 

List of References

 

Anderson, S. D., Molenaar, K. R., & Schexnayder, C. J. (2007). Guidance for cost estimation and management for highway projects during planning, programming, and preconstruction (Vol. 574). Transportation Research Board.

Cullen, S. W. (2021). Value Engineering. Whole Building Design Guide. https://www.wbdg.org/resources/value-engineering

FHWA. (2021). The Value Engineering (VE) Process and Job Plan. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ve/veproc.cfm

PMI. (2021). The Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) – Seventh Edition. Project Management Institute.

SAVE International. (2020). VM Guide: A Guide to the Value Methodology Body of Knowledge.

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): Title 23 CFR Part 627.3 Highways. (2020). Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2020-title23-vol1/pdf/CFR-2020-title23-vol1.pdf