Amin Terouhid, Ph.D., CVS

 

Executive takeaway. Value engineering (VE) and constructability reviews address somewhat different questions, but their findings often intersect. VE evaluates whether project, process, or system functions can be delivered with better overall value. Constructability review, on the other hand, evaluates whether the design can be built safely, efficiently, and as intended. Coordinating these services gives owners broader insight while preserving separate objectives, methods, and records.

Different questions, complementary results

Value engineering (VE) is a structured, multidisciplinary process that analyzes project functions and develops VE alternatives or design suggestions to improve value. A function states what the project must accomplish, and performance describes how well that function must be delivered to be able to demonstrate performance in areas such as capacity, safety, reliability, maintainability, and code requirements. Resources typically include money, time, labor, equipment, materials, and energy. SAVE International’s Value Methodology uses function analysis to examine the relationship between function, performance, and resources. [1]

Although VE and constructability reviews address somewhat different questions, their findings often intersect. A constructability review is a systematic examination of design documents by people with relevant construction knowledge. It considers whether the work can be safely built with available access, equipment, labor, materials, sequencing, temporary works, and site controls. The review may also identify incomplete details, conflicts between drawings and specifications, difficult interfaces, unclear bid requirements, and obstacles to inspection or maintenance. USACE describes constructability reviews as evaluating project and contract features for ease of successful and safe execution.

The distinction is practical. For example, VE may ask whether another structural system can transfer the required loads with better life-cycle value. Constructability review, on the other hand, may ask whether the selected system can be fabricated, delivered, erected, connected, inspected, and protected under actual project conditions. Either review may identify cost or schedule benefits, but neither should be reduced to informal cost cutting or routine drawing coordination. The following table compares the primary questions, the main lens through which these types of studies assess the project, and their typical output:

 

Comparison	VE Study	Constructability Review
Primary question	What must the project do, and how can value improve?	Can the design be built safely and efficiently?
Main lens	Function, performance, resources, and life-cycle value	Access, sequencing, means and methods, interfaces, and field conditions
Typical output	Developed design suggestions and VE alternatives with evaluation and recommendations	Comments, risk items, design clarifications, and practical corrections

Overlap occurs when a constructability observation reveals a value opportunity. Limited crane access, for example, may prompt a different assembly strategy. Conversely, a VE alternative may introduce new construction risks that require a closer review. The two services should exchange information, but each finding should retain its origin and evaluation criteria. They have different focus areas.

Coordinate the reviews through one decision process

The owner typically begins with a common information package, consisting of the owner’s project requirements, drawings, specifications, cost estimate, schedule, site and utility information, permit conditions, risk register, and/or major procurement assumptions. The owner’s project requirements define the outcomes and performance the completed facility must achieve.

A qualified VE facilitator leads the structured VE Job Plan, including information, function analysis, idea generation, evaluation, development, and presentation. SAVE International and FHWA describe these phases as an organized process for developing and presenting alternatives. The constructability lead coordinates discipline reviews and consolidates comments on execution, safety, access, sequencing, interfaces, and document completeness. Designers explain the design basis and evaluate changes, and the owner accepts, rejects, or defers recommendations. [1, 2]

A shared issue log can prevent duplication. Each item should record its source, affected requirement, discipline, cost and schedule implications, responsible evaluator, decision, and required follow-up. Similar comments may be combined, but a constructability correction should not be reported as a VE saving unless it has undergone functional and value evaluation. Likewise, a VE alternative should not be recommended for implementation until its constructability has been verified.

Recommendations for owners

Owners are recommended to define separate scopes and deliverables; schedule coordination early enough to influence design; include design, construction, operations, estimating, scheduling, safety, and procurement knowledge; use one controlled issue log; verify VE alternatives for constructability before approval; evaluate constructability ideas through VE when they change function, performance, or life-cycle economics; and document final decisions and assigned actions.

Coordinating the reviews supports that balance by avoiding solutions that appear economical but are difficult to build, operate, or maintain. The objective is not to maximize the number of comments or VE alternatives. Instead, the objective is to produce practical and reasonable VE alternatives or constructability recommendations that are practical, buildable, preserve required functions, meet performance criteria, use resources responsibly, and reduce avoidable project risk.

References

[1] SAVE International. About the Value Methodology.

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