Green Tanner Industrial Construction

Manuel Davalos

Construction Information Integrator

Data center construction demands speed, precision and the ability to anticipate problems before they reach the field.

Design, procurement, construction, BIM/VDC, survey and field operations often move forward simultaneously. In that environment, one of the biggest challenges I have encountered is not simply building correctly, but making sure the right information reaches the right people at the right time and can be turned into a construction decision.

BIM has transformed how we visualize and coordinate complex projects. Today, federated models, cloud-based collaboration, clash detection and digital layout tools can move information from a model directly into the field. Yet, I believe our industry is still going through an important transition. Having a BIM model does not necessarily mean we are operating under a fully integrated BIM process.

Put simply, the model is not the methodology.

Before Coordinating Geometry, We Need to Coordinate Information

BIM is often associated with 3D coordination and clash detection. Those capabilities are essential in data centers, where electrical, mechanical, civil and telecommunications systems compete for increasingly complex spaces. But a clash-free model is not necessarily ready for construction.

Before asking whether two systems fit, we need to ask whether we are coordinating the right information.

The model may tell us where the equipment is located. The submittal may define its actual dimensions, connections, penetrations and installation requirements. The design establishes the intent and criteria that must be met. The specifications establish the technical requirements for construction. Survey translates that digital information into physical coordinates in the field. Construction ultimately turns that information into a real installation.

The challenge is keeping all of those sources aligned.

On fast-moving projects, a submittal may change while the model still reflects an earlier revision. Even an updated, clash-free model may not fully reflect the project specifications.

I find it useful to think about this through several layers of validation:

Correct Information → Clash-Free → Spec-Compliant → Construction-Ready → Field-Verified

Each layer answers a different question: Are we using the right information? Does it fit? Does it comply? Can we actually build it? Was it installed as intended?

When an Information Gap Becomes a Construction Problem

Across multiple projects, I have seen incomplete, unclear, outdated or late information result in significant losses. The problem often does not begin in the field. It begins much earlier, when gaps develop between design documents, specifications, submittals, models and the information ultimately used for construction.

An information gap can appear relatively minor while it exists only in a digital environment. But incorrect conduit spacing, insufficient bend radius, wrong elevation, outdated equipment dimension or overlooked installation requirement can eventually become concrete, conduit or equipment physically installed in the field.

At that point, an information gap becomes a construction problem, and ultimately a schedule and cost problem.

When we identify the issue matters just as much as the issue itself. Finding a discrepancy between a specification, submittal and model during coordination may require only a digital correction. Finding it after layout may require points to be regenerated and remarked. Finding it after installation can mean demolition, rework, additional material, lost productivity and schedule disruption.

The real cost of bad information is not in the model. It appears when that information becomes construction.

The Field Is Also a Source of Information

Information should not move in only one direction. The field does not just consume information. It creates it.

Survey may identify existing conditions that differ from the model. Layout may expose an incompatibility. Construction teams may determine that a technically valid solution is not practical to install. As-builts then document what was actually built.

That information needs to flow back into the digital environment so that what was designed, what was approved, what was modeled and what was built remain aligned.

Design, BIM/VDC, construction management, survey and field operations should therefore operate as a continuous information loop and not simply as a sequence of file handoffs.

From Constructability to Business Decisions

Once we can trust the information, its value extends far beyond geometric coordination.

The question is no longer just “Does it fit?” It becomes: When can we build it? What do we need? When should material be released? How much labor will be required? What needs to happen first?

Connecting reliable project information with scheduling, procurement, and field planning allows teams to better anticipate quantities, sequencing, lead times and manpower requirements. That visibility also has a financial impact. Better insight into materials, labor and expected progress can help teams understand when costs will occur and when installed work can translate into production and billing.

The model alone cannot provide all of those answers. It must connect with estimating, scheduling, procurement, productivity and cost controls. That is where I see one of the greatest opportunities ahead—using integrated information to understand not only what we are going to build, but what it will take to build it, when we will need it and how those decisions will affect the project and the business.

The next evolution of BIM may not be about creating increasingly detailed models. It may be about connecting design, submittals, specifications, models, construction, survey, schedule, procurement and cost through a more reliable information process.

The model is not the methodology. The methodology is the process that makes the information reliable enough to build from.

Ultimately, BIM success should not be measured only by model detail or the number of clashes detected. It should also be measured by something far more meaningful.

The quality of the decisions that information allows us to make before problems reach the field.