Wow. I have never seen Revit required on a COS project. Sounds like the installation had a specific requirement. Do you mind if I as which base was the work done in and which Corp of Engineers District was managing the project?
If the base/installation (client) of the USACE has a specific software requirement, that trumps the Corps requirements. If the installation does not have a requirement and it is a COS project then Bentley is the default.
If the installation does not have a requirement and the project is not part of the COS then the A/E can use whatever they like.
- I don't think Autodesk would buy Bentley as the cost would not match the value.
Yeah- that was wishful thinking on my part.
- Autodesk’s strategy for dealing with the Bentley USACE issue started out fire and brimstone, send in the lawyers to a more grassroots win them over one person at a time approach. I think politically it is too much of a risk.
Unfortunately the single source is leading everyone down a very expensive primrose path- we are having to buy into Bentley- and man it is expensive- $5k for software, another $5k for training, another $5k for help with the datasets- at this cost~ if Bentley appears to do most of what Revit does- why pay for Revi?t- The cost is approaching someones salary- Jobs are at stake.
- …To make matters worse, the USACE is moving the COS projects from Design-Build to Adapt-Build where the designers fees reduced even more.
Can you Cite an article or some source that supports this? I don’t doubt it- but we need to have our info together.
- I am only going by what I have heard in phone conversations and meeting minutes between ACEC and the USACE. I will see if any of the information is available for public consumption. We are beginning to see the first adapt build contracts come our way. Only time will tell I guess.
- AIA, SAME, ACEC and any other professional organizations need to represent their constituents and place congressional pressure on the corp. asking them nicely is not working. They were given an exemption by congress to sole source Bentley years ago. I don't know what the argument was for the exemption, but I'm sure it wouldn't take much to develop a good counter argument.
Agreed- time to get some grass roots moving and get in touch with some congress people- how much will this end up costing the small businesses and in fact the Government itself to continue supporting the antiquated software known as Bentley. Entire states have adopted Revit- I will see exactly how bad the Bentley situation is as we go through training~ ugh~ feels like someone just stole my wallet.
Particularly I want to know where this etherial exemption congress gave them to sole source a provider. Before with flat-cad it wasn't a big deal but BIM is toiugh~ orders of magnitudes more information
The COS projects will put architects out of the game if they can get the system to work.
The "congressional exemption" was a statement made by a USACE representative during a SAME conference I attending in October of 2010 in Baltimore MD. This individual was giving a presentation to an audience of about 100 people when he made this statement.
Putting software aside for a minute, you are right, the intent of adapt-build is to build it better cheaper and faster and part of those savings comes from the architects pockets. The government will get cheaper buildings but not necessarily less expensive. Standardized design just does not work on buildings. We are not building widgets or sprockets. Each building is unique even if only by virtue of it's location. Inevitably changes get made to the "Standard" design and then it is no longer standard.
Its Aprill 2011. Eight years after this thread was initiated, and I still have people asking me these same questions.
At this time the USACE has 3 versions th RFP may manifest itself in for Design Build where BIM is required. ALL COS (Center of Standardization) projects require submittal of Bentley BIM at interim, final and as-built submittals...including all drawings/sheets derived from the Bentley BIM. No way around that.
What is important to know is that in ALL variants of the RFP, the USACE permits REVIT to be used for design.., On COS projects, that means you WILL have a second team reconstructing the design in Bentley, cutting views, and producing CAD sheets for print to PDF. I have seen REVIT teams producing submittal PDFs from REVIT, and getting away with it...put it is just that...getting away with it...
The other two variants will either specificy the BIM platform to be used, or will leave it up to the proposers discretion...either a specified non-Bentley BIM, Proposers discretion, or specified Bentley BIM...all determined PRIOR to issuance of the RFP...so as far as the USACE is concerned...we all know what we are required to do prior to bidding on a project...and they see No Excuse for nonconformance w/contract requirement.
Remember what we're talking about is projects for a Center of STANDARDIZATION...and they picked what they wanted...and here we are 8 years after the thread was started with the same requirements for BIM as at the beginning.
If anyone needs assistance reconstructing projects in Bentley BIM, that's what I do. I would be happy to help. I'm certified in Bentley BIM for Architecture, Structural, Mechanical and Electrical...I've been providing USACE projects since 1989.
Here we are, September 2011,
And just because the status quo is a Bentley deliverables doesn't make it right.
Did you know, that Bentley Building Mechanical and Electrical Systems are only compatible with SelectSeries 1? Not even the most recent version...
The government is paying for an inferior deliverable (Parametric Cell Studio is weak, and most of my Mechanical equipment is broken in the newer version, ironically, XM worked better for Mechanical). To top it all off, I CAN'T USE PARAMETRIC CELLS IN BENTLEY BUILDING ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS. WHAT. THE. HECK.
Hopefully the COS will truly turn the corner and allow for a neutral deliverable.
And yes, I am whining! But in the mean time, our firm HAS ADAPTED and TRAINED at GREAT COST so we can utilize this abhorrent, fragmented, outdated, and backwards software.
We can take our lumps. But that doesn't mean we have to like it.
In addition, it's not like we want to give our government an inferior product. What frustrates me most as a citizen is that I can't give the government a superior product in which they can cost-effectively build a structure and maintain it after it's out of the contractor's hands. Because ultimately we pay for these buildings and designs (I'm sure I pay myself 0.000000001 cents!), and I'd like to know that my money is utilized efficiently.
And as another poster pointed out, the entire idea behind the COS is flawed from the beginning. The location of the building alone is enough to require significant changes in design both architecturally and mechanically. The USACE has been sold the idea that buildings can truly be standardized. And they just can't. Not 8 years ago. And not 8 years from now. Funny to think about but, in 8 years, will there still be a need to build all these maintenance facilities and barracks... not sure.
I have been so frustrated at having my hands tied with this software these years. But the jobs are good, and we have families to feed, so we can't complain too much.
ON A POSITIVE NOTE (I know... Sorry for the vitriolic rant).
The newest version of Microstation (SS3)'s new built-in rendering system (Luxology) is actually quite nice. It is faster, and of superior quality to even that of Revit. I know a lot of Revit users are rendering out in 3DS Max or something, but our company isn't willing to buy a 3DS Max license (we spent all our money at Bentley... ). I really want to experiment with getting my Revit materials into Bentley, but... I think I know how that will turn out.
Access a broad range of knowledge to help get the most out of your products and services.