Handling Proposal Requests - Design Options or otherwise?

[tracigarner68734770]

We are adding information concerning RFIs, Addenda, and Proposal Requests to our company standards manual. I am curious how others handle this within the Revit model, specifically if you get a PR that involves model changes. Everyone here absolutely hates Design Options - every time we have tried them in a real-world model situation, things break, it unnecessarily complicates the model, things get double-counted in schedules, etc. We are a medium-sized firm with in-house MEP, structural, civil, and building envelope - all disciplines' models are linked together, and we don't use BIM Collaborate - we have an in-house server.

Are Design Options the go-to for everyone else, or do you use other work-arounds? It's been a couple years since I last tried to incorporate them into a project, are there new features/workflows that make Design Options a viable option for a large team that has varying Revit skills?

Just looking for others' thoughts, any insights would be helpful!

Thanks,
Traci

[tedg]

We have used design options with mixed success.
The key is to use them sparingly and not for *major model changes, and hopefully for the client to decide on one.
Then you absorb the chosen design option and get rid of the others as you press forward to IFC or IFB or whatever you call your final stamped documents.

I agree it can become cumbersome and sort of a PITA if not managed properly.

*we had a project with a few design options that were to finish different levels of a building (not major differences between the options), so "base bid" was up to level 2, (where level 3 was a roof) "option 1" was to finish up to level 4, and so on.
That meant we needed to control what you saw in each option, and if you forgot to be in the right option when working, it caused a problem.
Certain framing, columns, and arch elements changed with each option.

I'm still confused when I get into a project like that until I get my bearings.
Thankfully we don't do many of them.

So to recap, my opinion is to do "design options" in Revit only when it's feasible, and to provide a client options to present to stakeholders to make a final design decision.
Then you go forward with the decided design and scrap the "design options" (not recommended for final, IFC drawings).

HTH

[CAtDiva]

Depending on the complexity of the PR, it can be as simple as a marked up PDF. For example, an owner was deciding which drives on their property to repave by giving the GC a PR for the different locations. Rather that manipulating the production file, we marked up the sheet in Bluebeam with areas ... they got their take-off as well as clear delineation of the different options with limited time on our end. In the end, the owner accepted all of the additional costs, so we updated that information into our production file and issued a Construction Change Directive to officially incorporate it into the project contract. Granted this was an ACAD file, but for this application I likely would do the same in Revit.

For a plan/model change, the first thing I am likely to do is ask: is this a "maybe they will, maybe they won't" situation or more a "we need to follow this protocol, but it's gonna happen regardless" situation? If it's the second, then just make the change and move on.

If it's the first and it can't be handled by a sketch or narrative, then I would use Design Options. Yes, they are aggravating, but when you consider the alternative is to make a copy of the Revit model to change and then to have to come back and change the original to incorporate it, I'd rather do Design Options.

I also recognize the Design Options (and Phasing) are a bear for MEP systems.