I find that two things are true, in this regard:

1. We get what wepay for.
2. Its the people we choose to work with that are the issue, not the tool.

Revit MEP obviously takes more patience to use, than Revit for Architecture. But there is a SMALL list of Engineers and BIM Modeling Teams for Structure and MEP that i work with, where the models come out fantastic AND the engineering is very well done. Its no longer good enough (my opinion) for a firm to be a decent engineering firm, but turn over a piece of **** model.

I'm now doing model audits for several clients, and i don't hesitate to use phrases like "we don't recommend working with this engineer again," in our notes. Ive written that note about three different engineering firms this month alone. To be fair, i've also pointed out (to my clients) which of their consultants are going above and beyond, in terms of model quality.

But a lot of these clients act like they should still be able to select consultants based on fee alone. Well, that comes down to the folks we choose to work with. There is a GC out there that has asked my team for a proposal on no less than three jobs, now. And we've lost all three of those jobs, to other consultants with lower fees. And im TOTALLY good with that. On the last job, they told us they really wanted to go with us, but our fee was higher than the other consultant that they have had quality issues with in the past. But im not unwise to this game: Their hope is our number si going to come down: It isnt. Quality isnt always something that comes free.

If the models are ****, get new consultants, or start training them up and see if they really want to learn to be better. And if not, fire their asses.

This has nothing to do with the state of Revit and it's implementation for Structural and MEP. Revit is a tool, and it's effectiveness is solely dependent on the person using it. That goes for ALL disciplines... including architecture. The issues you're describing would still exist regardless of the design software that is being used.

This is what weekly coordination meetings are for. If quality still doesn't improve, try a different approach like daily emails with screenshots. Explain the importance of well-coordinated multi-disciplinary Revit models. If a consultant's model is barely usable, you always have the option to seek out services from a different firm on your next project.

Partly what I was getting regarding "implementation" is that many engineers have implemented Revit solely for purpose of producing construction drawings. Architects demand they use it, so the use it, but they miss the point that we want them to use it for collaboration, and instead model only as well as is necessary for it to look correct on paper. If that means a beam is at the wrong elevation, that's fine. If that means a column base doesn't go down to the footing, that's fine too. So long as it shows up on their own sheets properly.

One problem we're facing is that these engineers consistently miss their model-posting dates, so we don't have anything to link in and compare.

As far as getting what we pay for, not entirely true. One of these firms is generally more expensive than the competition. I worked for them many years ago before Revit was used by many, and I can say that their engineering work and AutoCAD drafting work was superb. When they started transitioning to Revit (I was working elsewhere by this point), they charged an additional fee if the architect wanted the project done in Revit. I don't think they're still charging the extra fee, but they're still more expensive than the competition, and their models are often laughable.

What I'm seeing from this small amount of feedback so far is that we really should shop around for new engineers.

You also need to have kickoff meetings to explain what needs to be modeled, and that it's no negotiable. I have (recently) sat in kickoff meetings (pre contract signing) with the OWNERS in the room, and stipulated:

1. Typical details DO NOT mean you don't also have to model it.

2. The MODEL must match the drawn documents, and must be to scale and accurate, for all elements listed in the BEP.

3. Failure to meet the above means not getting paid until it's right.

Get them all on the same page and see who really wants to play ball.

Sent from my Phablet. Please excuse typos... and bad ideas.

Aaron Maller
Director
Parallax Team, Inc.

From the engineering / MEP side for you

I agree with some of the points above - in reality there are several issues.
As explained revit is a tool, don't blame the hammer if its not hammering the nail in straight.
Whats the expression? A poor workman blames his tools? This is true across the board.

But what is really the source of the poor quality?
Is it that teams need training? This is fixed pretty easily.
In the tender phase - the project manager/coordinator should be asking offers to be accompanied by revit competency checklists. Prepare a checklist it might be very limited but its a basic check that can help filter out some chaffe.
In addition, strongly defined deadlines (and penalties as mentioned above) to be included and communicated in the contracts.
Also a well defined BEP and MIDP/TIDP document set will go a long way to enforcing those contractual obligations.
Put all the expectations on the table before the offers go out - and communicate it well in early meetings.
It will probably be obvious in early DD meetings who is struggling with the TIDP or simply doesnt understand what their deliverables are.

Things such as columns not connecting - can be easily detected/resolved with strong coordination tools (Solibri will pick up these kind of errors) then you need good communication and resolution methods.

All of these expectations can be communicated in early meetings and pull up your consultants, develop good relationships with those that are willing to up their game.

As a structural drafter I prefer to model so that things are as they should be in reality.
We are all human and mistakes and omissions happen thats what QA is for. If the mistakes are inherent in the poor workflows & modeling habits then this can be fixed.

If the contractor is unwilling (or more rarely - unable) to improve their quality then quite simply they arent meeting their contractual obligations and you should shop elsewhere. - Again this is where a BEP/TIDP will help you evaluate if the obligations are even being attempted to be hit.

I forgot to mention - in your checklist ask if your engineer is using Revit in conjunction with other software (and if so, which ones)
If your engineer is using bi-directional links to do analysis (for example) - you can assume a reasonably high level of accuracy because things will HAVE TO BE connected properly for their analysis packages. Also ask if they have (or demand) an internal coordinator that validates model accuracy before issuing. Internal and regular model audits should be part of a well coordinated (internal) team/discipline. If no one is checking the modelers work then well, you are the one doing the checking - and you should expect to be issuing large laundry lists.

Oh and finally
Even duct tape can't fix stupid, but it can muffle the sound.

I've never worked with an S or MEP who uses Revit. Some have it 'but they don't like to use it'. It's telling in one way:

Engineers seem to always trail in adoption of new technologies and practices, where I work. CAD, FAX, E-mail, Web Sites, you name it, the Engineers are always last to adopt it. I had one engineer who just never stopped bending my ear about how DOS was so much better because it didn't waste all of that processing power on that silly graphical interface. That was a long time ago, but there's a conservatism with the mindset that I've observed.

So yeah you engineers aren't big on their Revit practice - It's how they seem to roll if you ask me. And they are conditioned to pass off a lot of coordination and practical issues to the architect. Their plans suck because the Architect (or Contractor) always gets stuck with making it all fit - and this has been my experience whether is was pencil/velum, ink/mylar or CAD.

Trailing in adoption has been obvious with Revit, since Autodesk's development of the tools for engineers has also trailed. But most of the larger firms around here have been using it for at least five years now. By the time I had five years of Revit experience, I was well capable of modeling something accurately.