BIM and the quantity

surveying profession:
How changes in the cost
estimating process will
affect the profession

Simon Charalambous

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the

requirements for the award of Degree of Bachelor of Science
in Quantity Surveying

Supervisor: Mr. Energy Maradza

Prof. Jennifer Whyte

School of Construction Management and

Engineering University of Reading

February 2014

I
Declaration of Originality
“I certify that this is my own work and it has not previously been submitted for any
assessed qualification. I certify the use of material from other sources has been
properly and fully acknowledged in the text. I understand that the normal
consequences of cheating in any element of examination, if proven and the absence of
mitigating circumstances, is that the Examiners’ Meeting be directed to fail the
candidate in the examination as a whole”

Signature:

Date: 27/02/2014

II
Abstract:

BIM and the quantity surveying profession: How changes in the cost estimating
process will affect the profession.

By

Simon Charalambous

February 2014

Building Information Modelling (BIM) is an innovative technology that attempts to

improve the construction industry by changing the current method of working. The
key focus of BIM is to get all various professions involved in the Architecture,
Engineering, and Construction (AEC) industry to collaborate with each other. As one of
the aforementioned professions, quantity surveying has to acknowledge and
implement it into the profession in order for the whole construction industry to
produce a collaborative environment. How is BIM going to influence the profession? In
response to this, a hypothetical case study was conducted for both a manual and
automatic process of cost estimating. A number of variables (process, time taken,
accuracy, item description and knowledge required) were compared and analysed,
thus identifying the type of changes the quantity surveying profession will face.

The case study established that although automated cost estimate tools provide
ample measurements for the quantity take-off process, they are still not capable of
replacing the cost estimate process. However, by using these tools the quantity
surveyors are able to skip a number of laborious tasks the process is faced with. The
case study also demonstrated that in order for the profession to truly benefit, it is
recommended that they have knowledge and experience of using correlated BIM
applications. BIM will open new doors for the quantity surveying profession. For
further study, it is recommended that research be based on the use of BIM
throughout the whole construction period of a actual project. Lastly, it is
recommended that a number of cost estimating BIM tools are used, in order for a
greater understanding.
III
Table of Contents

Declaration of Originality....................................................................................................II
Abstract..............................................................................................................................III
Table of Contents..............................................................................................................IV
List of Figures....................................................................................................................VII
List of Tables....................................................................................................................VIII
Acronyms...........................................................................................................................IX
Acknowledgment................................................................................................................X
Chapter 1: Introduction......................................................................................................1
1.1 Introduction to the quantity surveyor’s profession.................................................2
1.2 Introduction to BIM..................................................................................................3
1.2.1 BIM software applications.................................................................................4
1.2.2 Taking-off implemented with BIM....................................................................5
1.3 Aim of purpose.........................................................................................................6
1.4 Objectives of the study.............................................................................................7
1.5 Scope of research.....................................................................................................7
1.6 Benefits of the study................................................................................................8
1.7 Guide to the study....................................................................................................8
Chapter 2: Literature Review...........................................................................................10
2.1 The UK construction industry.................................................................................11
2.1.1 Professional institutions..................................................................................13
2.1.2 Education.........................................................................................................14
2.2 The quantity surveying profession.........................................................................15
2.2.1 Taking-off process............................................................................................17
2.2.2 Bill of quantities process.................................................................................19
2.2.3 Standard rules of measurement of building works........................................20
2.3 BIM and estimating tools.......................................................................................20
2.3.1 BIM and mandatory regulations......................................................................22
2.4 BIM & quantity surveyors......................................................................................26
2.4.1 BIM & quantity take-offs.................................................................................26

IV
 2.4.2 Improvement of cost estimates......................................................................29
2.4.3 Barriers of using BIM tools for cost estimating...............................................29
2.5 Summary..........................................................................................................30
Chapter 3: Methodology..................................................................................................32
3.1 Research approach...........................................................................................32
3.2 Rationale of case study....................................................................................34
3.3 Selected tools and procedure..........................................................................36
3.4 Assumptions.....................................................................................................39
3.5 Limitations and scope......................................................................................39
3.6 Summary of chapter........................................................................................40
Chapter 4: Findings (Case Study Results).........................................................................41
4.1 Using Revit 2014.....................................................................................................41
4.2 Automatic take-off using Autodesk QTO...............................................................44
4.2.1 Overview of Autodesk QTO.............................................................................44
4.2.2 Automatic taking-off process..........................................................................47
4.2.3 Bill of quantities process.................................................................................58
4.3 Checking Model......................................................................................................60
4.3.1 Solibris Model Checker..............................................................................60
4.3.2 Model check using Revit 2014.........................................................................62
4.4 Manual take-off......................................................................................................63
4.4.1 Taking-off process............................................................................................63
4.4.1.2 Bill of quantities process..............................................................................64
4.5 Summary.................................................................................................................65
Chapter 5: Discussion.......................................................................................................66
5.1 Process....................................................................................................................66
5.2 Time taken..............................................................................................................68
5.3 Reliability of the Automated Cost Estimate...........................................................69
5.4 Description of items...............................................................................................70
5.5 Knowledge Required..............................................................................................71
5.6 Summary.................................................................................................................72
Chapter 6: Conclusion and Recommendations................................................................73
6.1 Key findings in relation to the thesis objectives....................................................74
V
 6.2 Limitation and criticism of the study.....................................................................76
6.3 Recommendations..................................................................................................77
References........................................................................................................................78
Appendices.......................................................................................................................83
Appendix A: Drawings..................................................................................................84
Appendix B: Solibris Model Check Report of Residential Home.................................92
Appendix C: Manual Take-off.......................................................................................97
Appendix D: Bill of Quantities....................................................................................103
Appendix E: Workbook of all taken-off items using Autodesk QTO.........................108
Appendix F: Bill of quantities report using Autodesk QTO........................................109
Appendix G: Diary (summer placement experience).................................................112
Appendix H: Elevator Shaft - Section View................................................................122
Appendix I: Elevator Shaft – Plan View......................................................................123
Appendix J: Elevator Shaft – Taking-off, p.1..............................................................124
Appendix K: Elevator Shaft – Taking-off, p.2.............................................................125
Appendix L: Elevator Shaft – Pricing Calculation, p.3................................................126
Appendix M: Parameter Wall Section........................................................................127
Appendix N: Parameter Wall- Taking-off, p.1............................................................128
Appendix O: Parameter Wall- Taking-off, p.2............................................................129
Appendix P: Parameter Wall Reinforcement Weight (summer placement experience)
....................................................................................................................................130
Appendix Q: Floorings and Skirting Plan View (summer placement experience).....131
Appendix R: Floorings and Skirting Calculation (summer placement experience).. .132
Appendix S: Bill of Quantities (summer placement experience)...............................133

VI
List of Figures

FIGURE 1-1 VARIOUS BIM DEFINITIONS...............................................................................................................................................4

FIGURE 1-2 INTEROPERABILITY USING IFC FILE TYPE...........................................................................................................................5
FIGURE 2-1 TIMELINE OF TECHNOLOGICAL PROGRESSION IN THE UK CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY................................................11
FIGURE 2-2 BREAKDOWN OF THE UK’S CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY OUTPUT..................................................................................12
FIGURE 2.3 COMPARISON BETWEEN 1960 AND 2012 IN REGARDS TO THE QUANTITY SURVEYORS ACTIVITIES........................16
FIGURE 2-4 QUANTITY TAKE-OFFS REGARDING VARIOUS STAGES OF THE PROJECT........................................................................17
FIGURE 2-5 SAMPLE OF A QUERY SHEET............................................................................................................................................18
FIGURE 2-6 THE USE OF QUANTITY TAKE-OFF IN REGARDS TO VARIOUS PARTIES...........................................................................19
FIGURE 2-7 5D MODEL APPLICATION AND THE CONTINUES INTERCHANGE OF INFORMATION.....................................................21
FIGURE 2-8 BIM MATURITY MODEL.................................................................................................................................................22
FIGURE 2-9 A BREAKDOWN OF THE IFC MODEL...............................................................................................................................25
FIGURE 2-10 THEORETICAL ILLUSTRATION OF A BIM QUANTITY TAKE-OFF AND ESTIMATING METHOD.....................................28
FIGURE 3-1 METHODOLOGY RESEARCH TECHNIQUES........................................................................................................................33
FIGURE 3-2 AIM, OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY OF RESEARCH..................................................................................................34
FIGURE 3-3 RESEARCH STRATEGY PROCESS.......................................................................................................................................36
FIGURE 4-1FILE EXPORTING IN REVIT.................................................................................................................................................42
FIGURE 4-2 DWF FILE SETTINGS........................................................................................................................................................42
FIGURE 4-3 REVIT’S GUI: AN ILLUSTRATION OF REVITS 2014 GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE (GUI).................................43
FIGURE 4-4 AUTODESK QTO - CREATING A PROJECT.......................................................................................................................44
FIGURE 4-5 QTO - ITEM CATALOGUE................................................................................................................................................45
FIGURE 4-5 QTO - DOCUMENT ORGANISATION...............................................................................................................................46
FIGURE 4-6 QTO - TOOL PALETTE.....................................................................................................................................................47
FIGURE 4-7 QTO - GUI.....................................................................................................................................48
FIGURE 4-8 QTO - TAKE-OFF ITEM PROPERTIES...............................................................................................................................50
FIGURE 4-9 QTO - AUTOMATIC TAKE-OFF FROM 2D DRAWING....................................................................................................51
FIGURE 4-10 QTO – SINGLE CLICK AUTO TAKE-OFF FROM 2D DRAWING.....................................................................................51
FIGURE 4-11 QTO - SEARCH TAKE-OFF FOR 3D MODEL...........................................................................................52
FIGURE 4-12 QTO - ALL THE EXCAVATION, FILLING AND DISPOSAL TAKING-OFFS........................................................................53
FIGURE 4-13 QTO - USING SEARCH TAKE-OFF TOOL........................................................................................................................54
FIGURE 4-14 QTO - ASSEMBLY.........................................................................................................................................................55
FIGURE 4.15 QTO – TAKING-OFF FUNCTIONS1......................................................................................................56
FIGURE 4-16 QTO – TAKING-OFF FUNCTIONS2......................................................................................................57
FIGURE 4.17 QTO – PREPARING THE BILL OF QUANTITIES REPORT1..........................................................................58
FIGURE 4.18 QTO – PREPARING THE BILL OF QUANTITIES REPORT2..........................................................................58
FIGURE 4.19 QTO – PREPARING THE BILL OF QUANTITIES REPORT3..........................................................................59
FIGURE 4-20 QTO – SUMMARY REPORT..........................................................................................................................................59
FIGURE 4-21 SOLIBRIS MODEL CHECKER - FILE IMPORT.................................................................................................................61
FIGURE 4-22 SOLIBRIS MODEL CHECKER – WARNING WINDOW...................................................................................................62
FIGURE 4-23 SOLIBRIS MODEL CHECKER – QUANTITY TAKE-OFF CHECK RESULTS........................................................................62
FIGURE 4-24 BILL OF QUANTITIES PRODUCED BY THE MANUAL PROCESS.......................................................................................64
FIGURE 5-1: PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO TOTALS.......................................................................................................70

VII
List of Tables

TABLE 1 QTO - TOOL DESCRIPTION...................................................................................................................................................47

TABLE 2 QTO – GUI DESCRIPTIONS..................................................................................................................................................50
TABLE 3 QTO - MANUALLY AMENDED CALCULATIONS....................................................................................................................53

VIII
Acronyms

AEC: Architecture Engineering Construction

BAF: BIM Academic Forum
BCIS: Building Cost Information Services
BIM: Building Information Modelling
BSI: British Standards Institution
CAD: Computer Aided Design
CESMM: Civil Engineering Standard Method of Measurement
CIC: The Construction Industry Council
CIOB: Chartered Institute of Building
CMAA: Construction Management Association of America
COBie: Construction Operation Building Information Exchange
DWF: Design Web Format
ERP: Enterprise Resource
Planning GDP: Gross Domestic
Product GUI: Graphical User
Interface
IAI: International Alliance of Interpolarity
ICE: Institution of Chartered Engineers
IFC: Industry Foundation Class
IFD: International Framework for Dictionaries
NBS: National Building Society
NRM: New Rules of Measurement
pBIM: Proprietary Building Information Modelling
PCQ: Process of Construction Quantities
PPQ: Product Procurement Quantities
QTO: Quantity Take-off
RIBA: Royal Institute of British Architect
RICS: Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors
SMM: Standard Method of Measurement

IX
Acknowledgment

Firstly, I would like to thank Mr. Energy Maradza for his invaluable effort in guiding
and supervising my work throughout the dissertation; his advices and guidance helped
make the dissertation what it is.

I also would like to thank Prof. Jennifer Whyte for her guidance throughout how to go
about the dissertation and how to set it all out.

Finally, I would like to thank my family and especially my parents for their continuous
support and encouragement throughout my degree.

X
Chapter 1: Introduction

“A great building must begin with the immeasurable, must go through

measurable means when it is being designed and in the end must be
immeasurable” -Luis Kahn (Demchak, 2008,
p.1)

The quantity surveyor is unequivocally part of the most complex and

information-intensive industries throughout the world. The main reason behind this is
its diverse nature. In order for a building to become immeasurable, it must go through
measurable means, during the design stage. The quantity surveyor plays a vital role in
this process. Vast amounts of information must circulate amongst an array of different
firms and professions involved in the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC)
industry (Crotty, 2012). In order for the AEC professions to complete their scope of
work, it is essential to produce thousands of documents, both digital and hardcopy,
during a project’s lifecycle. Occasionally, this process of information exchange has
proven unproductive and prone to error (Wikforss & Lofgren, 2007). Computer Aided
Designs (CAD) may have been introduced into the industry, but has the industry’s
mindset changed? Until recently, the UK construction industry has been described as
conservative and hesitant to invest in innovation (Woudhuysen, 2004; Charlton, 2012).
Due to the industry’s importance towards the nation’s economy, it is a focus of
frequent official and semi-official investigations (Crotty, 2012). Murray and Langford
(2003) summarise reports published over roughly 60 years. The summary indicates
that industry underperformed due to poor communication between designers and
constructors, a conservative way of thinking, uncoordinated and incomplete designs
and a lack of information management between the different professions.

The implementation of Building Information Modelling (BIM) into the UK

construction industry is referred to as a problem solver towards the main problems
(communication, quality, cost and time) causing the industry to underperform (Crotty,
2012; Eastman, Teicholz, Sacks, Liston, 2011). However, this will have a profound

1
impact on the culture of the construction industry. This impact will create changes

2
throughout all AEC industry professions, resulting in a domino effect. These are
changing times for all professions involved in the industry, but this is not new to the
quantity surveyor (Ashworth, 2013). According to Cartlidge (2011), the profession was
born in 1834 during the splitting up of architects from surveyors, which led to the
forming of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA). Ever since the birth of the
quantity surveying profession, it has continually been evolving in both their services
and processes (Ashworth et al, 2013; Davis Langdon and Everest, 1991). It is certain
that there will be a change to the traditional method of taking-off quantities in order
to prepare a bill of quantities (Cartlidge, 2011). What is not certain is what these
changes may be and how they will affect the profession.

1.1 Introduction to the quantity surveyor’s profession

The quantity surveying profession has constantly been developing in order to

survive within the construction industry and now form the second largest sector in the
body of the Royal Institution of Charted Surveyors (Seeley, 1999). However, the
development of the profession’s role in the construction industry is built on the sound
foundation laid down by the professions predecessors, whilst taking advantage of any
new technology available in the industry (Ashworth, Hogg, Catherine, 2013). In the
1990s of the key challenges was that in order to survive, it was necessary to enter new
markets and to develop and offer new services (Davis Langdon and Everest, 1991).
Due to some of the recent targets set by the UK Government (HM Government, 2012;
Cabinet office, 2011), implantation of BIM and sustainability, for 2016, the quantity
surveying profession is faced with protecting ‘value for money’ in context to a project’s
lifecycle (Cartlidge, 2011). In an attempt to achieve this, the quantity surveying
profession is challenged to effectively implement processes and tools, such as cost
estimation applications.

3
1.2 Introduction to BIM

BIM can be considered one of the most promising developments in the UK

construction industry (Eastman et al, 2011). Moreover, it has also been said that it is
an influential promoter towards change (Woudhuysen, 2004). The main difference
that distinguishes CAD (Computer Aided Design) from BIM is its parametric
technology. In comparison to CAD, BIM’s objects contain parameters and associated
rules such as the geometric specifications, location, materials, spatial relationship,
code requirement, price, and any other attributes that can be correlated to the object
(Jiang, 2011).

What is BIM and how will it revolutionise the UK construction industry? There
are a number of definitions already available, attempting to explain BIM. However, the
definition of BIM has numerous meanings, which depend on what aspect the actual
word is being utilized for. The actual acronym of BIM can be used to represent three
separate functions, each with its own definition (illustrated in fig. 1.1). When
compiling all the different uses and meanings of BIM, Her Majesty’s (HM) Government
(2012) encapsulated it as “a collaborative way of working, underpinned by the digital
technologies, which unlock more efficient methods of designing, creating and
maintaining our assets” (p.3). The key word from this definition is ‘collaboration’,
without the AEC industry communication and change the current state of mind, the
industry will never truly change.

The process of BIM can be correlated to the metaphor of the blind men and
the ‘elephant’ written by John Godfrey Saxe. An ancient Indian folk that illustrates six
blind men touching a mysterious creature called the ‘elephant’. However, since the six
men are blind and cannot perceive the whole image, they are only capable of
experiencing one part of the animal. Each of the six blind men were feeling a part of
the animal, trying to describe it by feeling one small bit failing to grasp the whole
image. Nonetheless, due to the men’s’ ignorance of the other parts they are not
capable of collaborating to decipher the creature (Blind Men and Elephant, 2014).
Imagine the blind men are the various professions working together to construct a
project (being the ‘elephant’, the mysterious creature). If each profession works in
ignorance, and devotes little effort to the other professions then they will never be
4
capable of an

5
 immeasurable building. The strategy and initiative of the UK Government to implement
BIM is described in chapter 2 (sections 2.3.1 & 2.3.2).

Building Information
Modelling: This is the actual process of generating and managing building
data concerning its design, construction and operation during its life cycle.
This process allows all different professions to have access to the same
information, at the same time (Jellings, 2013).

Model: The model is the resulting digital representation of the data

collected during the modelling process. This is a virtual computer illustration
that holds sanctioned data regarding the object, for instance the design,
quantity, cost, time etc (Jellings, 2013).

Management: This definition implicates the organisation and ascendancy

over the process by utilising the information attached to the digital
illustration, allowing the sharing of this information over the whole lifecycle
of the project (Jellings, 2013).

Figure 1-1 Various BIM definitions: The definition of each three different acronym, which represent

1.2.1 BIM software applications

There are a number of applications applicable, for each different stakeholder.

It is common for each profession to use software that is most appropriate for their
required functions (designing, cost estimating, scheduling model, checking, etc). Figure
1.2 shows how various software solutions are used by the different professions and
are translated to an Industry Foundation Class (IFC) file that both the software can
recognise (covered in section 2.3.1.1.). Adopting and working with different BIM
software, is only a small step towards getting the most out of BIM. Ian Chapman
(2013), director of both The National BIM Library (at NBS) and of buildingSMART
(UK & I), summarises that in order for the UK construction industry to benefit from all
the opportunities BIM has to offer, it is essential that all stakeholders strive towards a
well-organised, comprehensive and coherent relationship (Chapman, 2013).

6
 However, the literature suggest that interoperability is one of the main
challenges when implementing BIM into the industry, since there is no single software
provider offering tools for all areas of construction, Architecture, Engineering,
Surveying, Constructing, Maintaining, etc (Hamil, 2012; Crotty, 2012; Sackey et al,
2013; Rashdi, 2013; Shnitger, 2012). The use of IFC is a solution for this problem and is
part of phase three of the BIM maturity levels (shown in fig 2.7, in section 2.3.1).This
is not the first time the UK construction industry faces challenges with interoperability.
Day (2012), points out in an article, that it seems as if the UK construction industry is
re-enacting the early 90s, where interoperability regarding 2D drawing, was an issue.
Figure 1.2 demonstrates how the different BIM applications, available to the different
AEC professions, are able to communicate and share data with each other (see section
2.3.1.1).

Architecture Structural
• Autodesk Revit Architecture • Tekla Structures
• Nemetschek Vectorworks Architecture • Bentley Structural Modeler

IFC File Type

Cost Estimating Facility Management

• Vico Office Suite • EcoDomus
• Autodesk QTO • Onuma System

Figure 1-2 Interoperability using IFC file type: Shows some of the main BIM applications used by the different
professions, and how they can be interoperable, with the use of IFC standards.

1.2.2 Taking-off implemented with BIM

There is a move towards integrating traditional methods of quantifying and

costing building projects with cutting edge technologies such as BIM. Such efforts
could see the use of IT packages, such as cost estimating software designed to
automatically take-off quantities and prepare bill of quantities with just a click of a
button in day to day design and construction activities (Cartlidge, 2011). As mentioned
above, the Government’s strategy to implement Level 2 BIM by 2016 (British Standard

7
Institute,

8
2013), will greatly affect not only the profession but also the way the quantity
surveying profession offers its services (Ashworth et al, 2013). Cost estimating
applications have been used on a number of projects, such as the Crossrail project
that started in 2008, the Manskun Rasti project which finished in 2012, the Hillwood
Commercial project initiated in 2006 (The CAD User Guide to BIM, 2012a; The CAD
User Guide to BIM, 2012b; Eastman et al, 2011). The observations of these case
studies, regarding the cost estimating applications, will be covered in detail in section
2.4. The main question concerning the quantity surveying profession is what are these
changes and how will they affect the processes used by the profession in delivering
services in day-to-day practice.

1.3 Aim of purpose

The research aims to identify how the use of BIM is affecting the quantity
surveying profession. It examines how the role of the profession develops in order to
keep some of its fundamental competencies (quantification and costing), and
simultaneously get the most out of adopting BIM into the profession. BIM is one of
the most influential developments in the construction industry today. It is an
innovative attempt to change the industry’s process of delivering and maintenance of
construction projects. BIM is seen as influential towards the AEC industry as a whole.
Notwithstanding its potential effect to the quantity surveying profession, implications
on key functions such as taking-off, cost estimating and production of bill of quantities
have not been investigated in detail, hence this study.

9
1.4 Objectives of the study

The objectives of this research are as follows:

1) To create a model foundation using Revit, an architectural BIM application, in

order to ensure that the same model is used for both manual and automatic
process of taking-off and creation of bill of quantities.
2) To assess the traditional method of taking-off and producing bill of quantities

for pre-contract cost estimates, by manually taking-off the foundation model

created in objective one.
3) To examine the method of taking-off and producing bill of quantities for pre-
contract cost estimates, by using a cost estimating tool (Autodesk Quantity
Takeoff) to take-off the same model used for objective two.
4) To compare the two methods in order to evaluate the differences between the
two, thus identifying the changes made towards the method of practice, and
consequently how these will influence the quantity surveying profession.

1.5 Scope of research

The scope of this study incorporates a general synopsis for both the concept of
BIM and the quantity surveying profession, together with how the two concepts
incorporate with one another. A literature review was conducted in contemplation of
generating an understanding of how the quantity surveying profession has developed
over the years and how cost estimating applications are affecting this development. A
case study was conducted by creating a 3D model including foundations, using an
architectural BIM application (Revit 2014). This model was used for both the manual
taking-off process and automatic taking-off procedure using cost estimating BIM
applications (Autodesk QTO). The results produced by both methods were later
compared and reviewed.

10
1.6 Benefits of the study

A lot of literature is available explaining how BIM will help improve the cost,
quality and the programmed duration of a project. BIM is widely debated and there
are suggestions by some in the industry that it will change the way AEC industry
works. However, this study will examine what type of changes this will introduce to
the process of taking-off quantities and producing bill of quantities. Subsequently how
these will affect the quantity surveying profession. This research differs in the type of
items taken-off and looks at the process necessary to produce a cost estimate. Apart
from this, the study takes a different approach in the sense that the quantity surveyor
will be required to interpret and use the model from other BIM applications, which
correlate to cost estimating tools used by the quantity surveyors.

1.7 Guide to the study

The dissertation is structured in a sequence that will allow for a steady

approach towards the aims and objectives. The dissertation is structured as follows:

Chapter 1 (Introduction): This chapter incorporates a general synopsis for both the
concept of BIM and the quantity surveying profession. In addition, it introduces the
diverse BIM applications used in the AEC industry, and continues by referring to how
cost estimating applications are associated with the quantity surveying methods of
practice.

Chapter 2 (Literature Review): This chapter reviews the diverse literature available for
the analogous subject. This was conducted in contemplation of generating an
understanding towards the background of the UK construction industry with relevance
to BIM and the quantity surveying profession. In addition, apart from examining how
the profession has developed over the years, it also investigates how the strategy of
implementation in the industry and BIM standards will help BIM use. Finally, the
chapter helps analyze characteristics such as changes, advantages, disadvantages, in
regards to BIM being integrated with the quantity surveying method of taking-off and
production of bill of quantities.
11
Chapter 3 (Methodology): A chapter, which illustrates the procedures, used to
investigate aims and objectives of the research. It goes on to describe the procedures
(tools, steps taken, assumptions, limitations and scope) to create the 3D model of a
residential house which is used in this research to illustrate issues surrounding BIM
use by the quantity surveying profession.

Chapter 4 (Findings): This chapter demonstrates an assessment of the data collected

from the case study and the use of different BIM tools (Autodesk Revit, Solibris Model
checker and Autodesk QTO). The data is evaluated between the manual and automatic
process in terms of time taken, quality of work, differences in bill of quantities, and
steps taken for the method of process. Moreover, it goes on to demonstrate the
changes provoked by using the automatic BIM process compared to the traditional
taking-off process, and what these mean for the profession.

Chapter 5 (Discussion): In order to help demonstrate the changes inflicted to the

process and profession, the findings from the case study are discussed and assessed
analogous to the literature review. This will illustrate the expected changes (such as
process, time taken, accuracy, item description and knowledge required) in respect to
implementing a cost estimating BIM application into the quantity surveyor’s method of
process.

Chapter 6 (Conclusion and Recommendations): This chapter concludes the study. The
key findings are correlated to the objectives presented in chapter one. Finally,
recommendations, for future studies, are presented including limitations and
instabilities of the study.

12
Chapter 2: Literature Review

This chapter consists of information based on previous research studies

regarding the technological aspect and implementation of Building Information
Modelling (BIM) in the UK construction industry. In contemplation of creating a
theoretical basis for the study, an analysis on theories relating to BIM correlating to
the taking-off and cost estimate process was conducted. These theories presented the
diverse knowledge and views of how taking-off and cost estimations are being
accompanied by BIM and how these are changing the quantity surveyors profession
over time in the UK construction industry. This chapter is structured into four sections.

The first section of the literature review presents a broad view of the UK
construction industry, referring to how it has changed following the introduction of
BIM. It then describes the influence BIM has on the different professional bodies
which regulate the professional quantity surveyors (such as the Royal Institute of
Chartered Surveyors –RICS-), and how education is evolving to incorporate new issues
arising from the implementation of BIM in design and construction activities. This
section of the literature review proceeds with an overview of the quantity surveyors
profession as well as a brief history. A review of the taking-off process, showing some
of the changes over the years, is provided, and how this is useful in delivering
construction projects. In the third section of the literature review, BIM software use in
cost estimating functions is examined. Further to this, a review is done on how both
mandatory regulations and standards are helping push BIM forward and what this
means to the quantity surveyor profession. This chapter will conclude with the
literature review showing how technology trends are developing, the role assumed by
quantity surveyors, risks and responsibilities of information management, and how the
profession is adapting to such changes. Together the three sections of this literature
review set out the context for this study, in view of previous work in this area. The
final section examines the gap this study attempts to fill particularly in context of a
rapidly changing environment in which quantity surveyors are employing BIM in their
daily practice.

13
 2.1 The UK construction industry

Woudhuysen (2004) supports the idea that the construction industry barely
deserves the term “industry”. He continues on to explain how the construction
industry is backwards, due to the fragmented industrial sector, poor management,
and number of regulations weighing down the industry. In 2003, even the Housing
minister, at that time, Keith Hill stated in the Financial Times Newspaper (9th of
October 2003, p.2):

“When the rest of industry zealously minimises processes to cut

down costs and minimise the risk of mistakes, it is curious that
housebuilders remain...welded to the technology of the past.”

Nevertheless, BIM is not the first innovation that has influenced the
construction industry. Throughout its history, technological innovations have been
implemented, affecting the construction industry. Preceding BIM all technological
advancements have been trying to improve the process that is already out there,
instead of trying to change it (Jellings, 2013). Sackey et al (2013) summarises (see
figure 2.1) literature from both Bevan (2012) and Succar (2010) how technology has
progressively been implemented into the UK construction industry over the past 30
years. The timeline also indicates how the authors postulate the future of
technological advances in the industry.

Figure 2-1 Timeline of technological progression in the UK construction industry: The Construction Technology
Timeline Over 30 Years (Sackey et al, 2013). 11
 The UK’s construction industry contributes 7% of the UK’s Gross Domestic
Product (GDP), an approximate value of £110bn per annum. This value is broken down
into three main sub-sectors, as illustrated in figure 2.2. Furthermore, figure 2.2
exhibits that the public sector contributed £41bn, £27bn less than the private sector’s
contribution, demonstrating that the industry’s biggest customer is the central
Government (Cabinet Office, 2011). This is an indication to the amount of projects that
can be related to the public sector and will have to comply with the mandate strategy
covered in detail in section 2.3.1. According to BBC News (2014) and, based on
economic data, the construction output was a strong performer for the greater part of
2013, increasing an overall by 2.2%.

Private Sector:
£29bn
Commercail/Social
Sector:
£49bn
Public Sector:
£20bn

Private Sector:
UK's Consturction £28bn
Industry Output: Residential Sector:
£110bn £42bn
Public Sector:
£14bn

Private Sector:
Infastructure £11bn
Sector:
£18bn
Public Sector:
£7bn

Figure 2-2 Breakdown of the UK’s construction industry output: Breakdown of the UK’s Construction Industry
value of 2011 into three main sub-sectors, subsequently dividing into private and public sector. Information
adopted from Government Construction Strategy Plan (Cabinet Office, 2011)

12
 Northumbria University (2012) has analysed information gathered from reports
and surveys, such as CMAA Owners survey, 2009; CMAA Industry Report, 2007;
Economist Magazine 2002. They conclude that prior to BIM, 30% of projects did not
meet primary schedule or budget and there was a regular expectation that at least
10% of orders would increase or change in some significant way. Due to this, and
other factors mentioned in chapter 1 (introduction), the Government Construction
strategy in 2011 intended to challenge the industry's way of practice and business
models. It attempts to replace the adversarial culture with collaborative ones, such as
BIM (CabinetOffice, 2011). In 2012, the Cabinet Office (2012) published a report
updating the Government Construction Strategy Plan. The report demonstrated that
cost reductions, over the period of 2011-2012, amounted to £72m (in-year projects)
and
£279m (whole project life) (Cabinet Office, 2012).

2.1.1 Professional institutions

The UK construction industry is comprised of a number of professional bodies,

such as RIBA, RICS, CIOB, ICE, etc. Each professional body acts in the interest of its
members. Essentially, it provides expert advice and safeguards their professional
interests ensuring that the building environment is pleasing, safe, sound and
sustainable (Crotty, 2012). However, these multiple professional institutions add
towards the industry’s fragmentation, which subsequently have been characterized as
a barrier to ready BIM implementation (BSI, 2011; Crotty, 2012). To help cope with
these barriers, it is important that these professional institutions provide educational
and training support for their members, thus encouraging BIM implementation
(Ashworth et al, 2013). Recently, it has been observed that the professional
institutions are taking initiatives by launching their own BIM certificates, this examined
in detail in section 2.1.2.

13
2.1.2 Education

Generally, one of the most important factors in implementing a new

technology in any industry is education. Eastman et al (2011) suggests that during
2011, the common bottleneck for most companies was the shortage of appropriately
trained professional personnel both in BIM and in construction. The writers carry on
by discussing that the transformation of implementing BIM will require both time and
education. However, the education addressed, in this section, by the writers is
concerned with the training received in practise rather than that at higher education
institutions. In 2011, a BIM strategy report (BSI, 2011) recommended that as part of
the higher education programmes, learning outcomes and transferable skills
corresponding to collaborative working and BIM should be incorporated within the
professional bodies’ requirements. Initiatives such as the BIM Academic Forum UK help
develop and promote the education and training aspects of BIM. The BAF comprises of
over 55 members from 30 teaching centres across the UK (The Higher Education
Academy, 2013).

How do attempts by professional bodies to improve education and training

correlate with collaborative working in BIM enabled environments? Over the past few
years, there has been some sort of indication that RICS is not doing enough in respect
to BIM guidance and training (Northumbria University, 2012). Recently professional
institutes (RIBA, RICS and CIOB) are playing a great role developing skills by instituting
conferences, workshops and electronic recourses (Ashworth et al, 2013). Apart from
this, the RICS has recently (18th of October 2013) launched their first BIM Manager
Certificate, where it requires the applicant to have a five-year experience in the AEC
industry, to be a member of a recognised professional body and to have 12 months of
practical BIM experience (RICS, 2013). The RICS advocates that one of the learning
outcomes of the programme is the experience in using different technologies and
tools related to BIM (RICS, 2013).

14
2.2 The quantity surveying profession

It is uncertain when exactly the quantity surveying profession was born. It is

argued that the profession can be traced back to the Great Fire of 1666, during the
rebuilding of London (Kirkham, 2007), or that the profession was born in 1834, during
the time when the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) became an independent
body (Cartiledge, 2011). However, Seeley (1999) illustrates that the first quantity
surveying firm can be traced back to 1785 in Reading. Today charted quantity
surveyors are members of the RICS. Quantity surveyors constitute the second largest
group within the RICS (Seeley, 1999). Cartlidge (2011) analyzes the 1971 report
produced by RICS, “The Future Role of the Quantity Surveyor”, and discusses that
during the 1970’s the quantity surveyors primary service was to produce a bill of
quantities, and that their distinct competency was measurement. The procedure of
preparing the bill of quantities can be broken down into two main processes, ‘taking-
off’ and ‘working up’ (examined in section 2.2.2) (Seeley, 1999). Nevertheless, apart
from the primary service (producing bill of quantities), the traditional quantity
surveyors activities included those illustrated in figure 2.3.

Twenty years later, Davis Langdon and Everest (1991) published a report
discussing the future role of the chartered quantity surveyor. The report indicated that
what clients mostly valued was the quantity surveyors’ pragmatism and realism (sense
of logic). This sense of logic is derived from the process of analysing drawn
information necessary for quantification purposes. However, this deep understanding
of projects will be impacted by a decline in the quantification of building work (Davis
Langdon and Everest, 1991). It is clear that targets set for 2016 (covered in section
2.3.1) will have a prominent influence, on the quantity surveyors profession. This
impact will not only focus on the services offered by the professional, but also the
methods and procedures required for these services (Ashworth et al, 2013).

15
 Quantity Surveyors Activities (circa 1960) Quantity Surveyors Activities (circa 2012)

• Single rates approximate estimates • Investment appraisal

• Cost planning • Advice on cost limits and budgets
• Procurement advice • Whole life costing
• Measurement and quantification • Value management
• Document preparation, especially bills • Risk analysis
of quantities • Insolvency services
• Cost control during construction • Cost engineering services
• Interim valuations and payments • Subcontract administration
• Financial statements • Environment services measurement
• Final account preparation and agreement and costing
• Settlement of contractual claims • Technical auditing
• Planning and supervision
• Valuation for insurance purposes
• Project management
• Facilities management
• Administering maintenance programmes
• Advice on contractual disputes
• Planning supervisor
• Employers’ agent
• Programme management
• Cost modelling
• Sustainability Advisor

Figure 2.3 Comparison between 1960 and 2012 in regards to the quantity surveyors activities:
Traditional quantity surveying activities (circa 1960) and their activities during more recent times (circa
2012). Adopted from Ashworth et al (2013).

Throughout its history, the profession has always been characterised as diverse
and developing (see figure 2.3), constantly evolving and undergoing changes in order
to cope with changes in the industry and to address client demands (Kirkham, 2007;
Ashworth et al, 2013; Davis Langdon & Everest, 1991; Seeley, 1999; Cartlidge, 2011).
As identified by Ashworth et al (2013), the main drivers that will influence the
profession’s future development are client focus, advancement and integration of
communication technologies, implementation of BIM and the sustainability agenda. As
illustrated by figure 2-3, the quantity surveyors profession has developed and
expanded into a significant number of new services.

16
 2.2.1 Taking-off process

“Count what is countable, measure what is measurable. What is

not measurable, make measurable”.

–Galileo (Saunders & Muse, 2013, p.44)

This quote can be correlated with one of the profession’s fundamental

competencies, quantification and costing. It is the quantity surveyors duty to count
and measure the quantities in order to come up with a cost. Quantity take-off is
utilized throughout all stages of the construction process (as illustrated in figure 2.4).
Quantity take-off task depends on other tasks of a project’s lifecycle (see figure2.6).
The measurement process relies on the coordination of drawings (traditionally
provided by drawings) (Olatunji, Sher & Gu, 2010). The traditional method of taking-
off quantities has evolved throughout the profession’s history. Ashworth et al (2013)
describes how at first the quantity surveyor would assemble the drawings as
hardcopies, followed by CAD drawings and most recently by the use of automated 3D
quantity take-off software, such as Autodesk QTO or VICO.

Prior Construction During Construction

Early Stage Tendering Stage
Stage Stage

Provides the Used for estimating Quantity take-off is

foundation for the project's used to forecast Used for the
preliminary time and cost for and plan economic control
cost estimates the construction constrution of the project.
of the project. activities. activities.

Figure 2-4 Quantity take-offs regarding various stages of the project: Quantity take-off throughout different stages of
construction. Information adapted from Monteiro & Martins (2013).

Monteiro & Martins (2013), characterize the orthodox method of quantity

take- off. This orthodox method requires the professional to measure the different
drawings (floor plans, elements, sections, elevations, etc). To measure from drawings,
the quantity surveyor goes through a number of steps. Ashworth et al (2013)
demonstrates
17
these steps, beginning with the instant the quantity surveyor receives the drawings
from the architect (illustrated in figure 2.6). Since, it is customary that drawings are
not all prepared at the same time; a timetable is prepared containing the contract bills
and dates of when the rest of the drawings and information are to be expected
(Ashworth et al, 2013). Subsequently, once the taker-off receives the drawings it is
necessary that they be stamped with name recipient and date received. A register of
the drawings, containing details of their reference number, scale and concise
particulars (title) should be completed.

Moreover, schedules, usually supplied by the architect are used as a quick

reference by the taker-off. The schedules are helpful in measuring, since they bring
the different parts together, thus conveying a bigger picture (Ashworth et al, 2013). It
is very important that a taking-off schedule is created according to NRM, used for
grouping the measurements and to help identify any missing information (Seeley,
1999). Generally, before beginning the taking-off process the lead quantity surveyor
allocates the elements to be measured to the team, depending on their experience
(Ashworth et al, 2013). Once taking-off commences a query sheet is prepared
(illustrated in figure 2.5), containing all the queries directed at the architect or
engineer. The query sheets aim to request additional information or technical
questions, regarding the drawings. The query sheet is sent electronically to the
architect/engineer. In order to ensure that all query sheets are stored, the process is
managed and kept in a database (Ashworth et al, 2013).

Figure 2-5 Sample of a query sheet: Adopted from Ashworth et al, 2013.

18
 Figure 2-6 The use of quantity take-off in regards to various parties: Diagram illustrating the relation of
quantity take-off with the other tasks in the project life-cycle. Adopted from Monteiro & Martins (2013).

2.2.2 Bill of quantities process

Seeley (1999) defines the bill of quantities as a document comprised of a list of

items of work to be completed under the contract, with quantities assigned to each
item. This document is drawn up in accordance with the Standard Method of
Measurement of Building Works (currently NRM) (Seeley, 1999). As mentioned in
section 2.2.2, in order to create the bill of quantities, the quantity surveyor will get the
quantities prepared at the ‘working up’ stage and he then organises them in standard
categories as set out in the New Rules of Measurement (NRM), which is publishes by
the RICS (RICS, 2012).

Seeley (1999) divides the process of preparing bill of quantities into two main
stages: ‘Taking-off’ and ‘Working up’. However, Tweeds (1995) analyses the process
further and breaks it into four stages. He describes that the first stage is the taking-off
procedure where they quantity surveyor measures from the drawings (mentioned in
the previous paragraph) and enters them on a special ruled dimension paper
(illustrated in chapter 3). The second step the squaring stage; this is when measured
values on the dimension paper are calculated resulting to totalling the lengths, areas
and volumes of the dimensions. This leads to the abstracting stage where all the totals
are collected from the dimension paper and are transferred to an abstract, in order to

19
produce a final total for each particular description. The final stage is the ‘billing’,
which is the procedure where the taker-off reproduces the items from the abstract
and conveys them in a draft form onto bill paper.

2.2.3 Standard rules of measurement of building works

A fundamental aspect of the quantity take-off process, are the standard codes
and methods of measurement. This is a document utilized from both the client’s side
and the contracting side (Cartlidge, 2011). Previously known as the Standard Rules of
Measurement of Building Works (SMM7), it has recently been updated to The New
Rules of Measurement (NRM), with the purpose of (Cartlidge, 2011):

 Providing a communication link between the project/design/employer, through

creating an understandable standard set of measurement rules that involves all
parties.
 Giving guidelines on how to detail and deal with cost allowances not
represented in measurable building work.
 Presenting a more universal approach, compared to SMM7, which was more
UK centric.

2.3 BIM and estimating tools

A 5D BIM application is intelligently designed to correlate 3D model

components with time and cost-related information. This is suggested to assist in
visualising how construction activities progress in relation to cost and time (AEC
MAGAZINE, 2012). The fundamental concept of a 5D model application is that the
quantities, including both descriptions and parameters, of the elements are
automatically obtained from the 3D BIM model (Vladimir et al, 2010). In order to
achieve this, there is a continuous cycle of information between the five stages (as
shown in fig 2.7).

20
 New integrations between cost estimating applications such as ‘Vico Office 4.2’
and ‘Tekla Structures’, provides for a better accuracy of cost estimating, due to the
applications location-based quantity take-offs (AEC MAGAZINE, 2013). As a result of
the application’s ‘model organiser’, cost estimating tools, now have the capacity to
label model content and register them as element types (e.g. walls, beams, columns,
etc) (AEC MAGAZINE, 2013). Furthermore, these elements have the ability to contain
parameters for a specific quantity calculation, resulting in the more accurate quantity
take-off and hence a more precise cost estimation. Another type of cost estimating
tool is called the DProfiler, used in the ‘Hillwood Commercial Project’, located in
America (Eastman et al, 2011). The tool’s qualities lay in its association with cost
information, which are integrated with a cost construction database (Eastman et al,
2011).

Level 1:
Stages &
Interrelatins

Level 5: Level 2:
Effectiveness
Criteria of Stages Initial data
Obtained (procedures)

Level 4:
Obtained
Level 3:
Results
Actions &
(including
Processes
advantages
Taking Place
& benefits)

Figure 2-7 5D model application and the continues interchange of information: Illustrates the five stages that
constitute a 5D concept model. At stage five the model’s criteria is evaluated, in order to make the best solution.
Information

21
2.3.1 BIM and mandatory regulations

The Government Construction Strategy (2011) emphasises the importance of

meeting the 2016 target of implementing Building Information Modelling into the
construction industry (Ashworth et al, 2013). BIM started to become mainstream
when the government announced that all government-funded projects would have to
be delivered in BIM by 2016 (Charlton, 2012). The Government Construction Strategy
(2011) requires as a minimum by 2016, a fully collaborative 3D BIM, with all project
and asset information and documentation being electronic (e.g. use of COBie).
Following this report the British Standards Institute (BSI) published the ‘Building
Information Modelling (BIM) Working Party Strategy Paper’, which demonstrated the
BIM maturity level diagram (shown in fig 2.8), ensuring clear articulation of the
competence expected for each level.

Figure 2-8 BIM Maturity Model: (Source: BSI, 2011)

22
 The Building Information Modelling (BIM) Working Party Strategy Paper (BSI,
2011, p.16-17) defines the levels as:

“Level 0. Unmanaged CAD, probably 2D, with paper (or

electronic paper) as the most likely data exchange mechanism.

Level 1. Managed CAD in 2 or 3D format using BS1192:2007

with a collaboration tool providing a common data environment,
possibly some standard data structures and formats. Commercial
data managed by standalone finance and cost management
packages with no integration.

Level 2. Managed 3D environment held in separate discipline

“BIM” tools with attached data. Commercial data managed by an
ERP. Integration on the basis of proprietary interfaces or bespoke
middleware could be regarded as “pBIM” (proprietary BIM). The
approach may utilise 4D programme data and 5D cost elements
as well as feed operational systems.

Level 3. Fully open process and data integration enabled by

“web services” compliant with the emerging IFC / IFD standards,
managed by a collaborative model server. Could be regarded as
iBIM or integrated BIM potentially employing concurrent
engineering processes.”

As level 2 clearly indicates, it is required for the approach to utilise 5D cost

elements, signifying that the mandate strategy also includes the quantity surveying
profession, and requires it to get involved with the integration of BIM. In correlation
to the BIM mandate strategy the Construction, Operations and Building Information
Exchange (COBie) standard is one of the key requirements contained in the UK BIM
task group report (2011). However, BIM consultant professionals David Light and Nigel
Davies characterise COBie as a short-term solution for a long-term problem, since it is
the only solution available at present (Day, 2012).

23
2.3.1.1 BIM standards (IFC formats)

As addressed in section 1.2, the main intent of BIM is to get all stakeholders
who are involved in the project, to share information. Apart from this, section 1.2.1
interprets that there are a number of assorted applications, accessible to the different
professions involved in the project. In order for this to be attainable, it is essential to
have a common language between these different applications (as seen in figure 1.2).
The buildingSMART program, previously known as the International Alliance for
Interoperability (IAI), has produced a series of Industry Foundation Classes (IFCs), with
the latest version being IFC2.4 produced in 2010 (Crotty, 2011).

Jellings (2013) of the buildingSMART group correlates the different BIM

applications with different countries in the European Union. He explains that each
country (AEC profession) uses its own language (BIM application) to get work done. In
order for them to share and communicate between each other, it is necessary to use a
common standard to facilitate interoperability. Today the IFC standard is used for this
purpose. In essence, the IFC is “an international public standard schema for
representing building information” (Eastman et al. 2011. p.588). On the other hand,
Crotty (2012), founder of 3 systems, compares the IFC standard, with the Universal
Product Code (UPC), which is the standard used along with the Electronic Point of
Sales (EPOS) system technology. He goes on to say that, BIM can be expected to have
an impact on the UK construction industry.

Furthermore, Khemlani (2004) talks more in depth about the overall

architecture of the IFC model, and the different layers that comprise it. As seen in
figure 2.9, a lot of information needed for cost estimating and taking-off is located in
the resource layer. This layer contains categories that comprise of information with a
more generic background, rather than specific to a single building. These categories
are used to help define categories from other layers (Khemlani, 2004).

24
Figure 2-9 A breakdown of the IFC model: A simple representation of the

2.3.1.2 BIM process and technology trends

Eastman et al (2011), discusses that the trends observed, will be a factor for
BIM’s potential route and impact upon the industry. Due to its revolutionary shift away
from drawing production, new and different skills will be required. Taking for instance
the workbench environment, which involves the integration from different BIM tools
(cost estimating, sustainability, fabrication, etc), sequentially requires new types of
specialised roles (Eastman et al, 2011). As mentioned in section 2.1.2, in order to get
BIM effectively implemented into the industry, education and training is one of the
key tools. As mentioned in section 2.1.2, in order to get BIM effectively implemented
into the industry, education and training is one of the key tools. Another trend is that
BIM has introduced entirely new capabilities such as automatically checking the 3D
model against building codes prior to construction, saving both money and time
during the construction stage (Eastman et al, 2011). In addition to this, BIM has
encouraged the use of mobile technologies (i.e. laptops, pads, smart phones, etc) on
site (Ashworth, 2013).

25
2.4 BIM & quantity surveyors

Findings from a survey of 156 members of the Quantity Surveying and

Construction Professional Group (QSs) from the Building Cost Information Service
(BCIS) suggest that:

 10% of Quantity Surveyors are using BIM regularly.

 4% of Quantity Surveyors invest regularly in BIM training.
 A further 10% of Quantity Surveyors are actively accessing BIM
tools. (BCIS, 2011)

The lack of activity by the quantity surveyor to implement BIM into the
profession is due to the barriers mentioned in section 2.4.1.2 (BCIS, 2011). It is a
popular notion that BIM will erode the quantity surveying services; but in reality the
benefits (see section 2.4.1.1) it offers, to the profession’s services, grants them the
ability to be more proactive throughout the design phase, when providing design and
value analysis (Ashworth et al 2013). Eastman et al (2011) explains how even though
building models provide ample measurements for quantity take-offs, they are not
capable yet to replace estimating. Due to this, the writer suggests that the quantity
surveyors should use BIM tools to facilitate the laborious tasks of taking-off, allowing
them with more time to focus on other tasks, such as visualizing, analyzing and
assessing the project design (Eastman et al, 2011).

2.4.1 BIM & quantity take-offs

The quantity take-off (QTO) process prior to automatic BIM QTO software,
involved a three-step procedure (Khemlani, 2006):

1. Select the individual element from the CAD drawing.

2. Use a software to automatically determine its dimensions
for the taking-off.
3. Enter the determined quantities in the QTO list.

26
 One of BIMs attributes is to allow the users (AEC professionals) to focus on the
information and decision making of the project, instead of the wasting time on
documentation tools and the actual laborious process (Vladimir et al, 2010; Al-Mashta
& Alkass, 2010; Eastman et al, 2011; Ashworth et al, 2013). However when
considering the building information model, the quantity surveyor must bear in mind
the types of quantities he requires from the model. There are two types of quantities
to consider when taking-off (Al-Mashta & Alkass, 2010):

1. The Product/Procurement Quantities (PPQ), which are the physical material

quantities determined, by the design of the project (for example length, area,
volume, etc).
2. The Process of Construction Quantities (PCQ), this type is a more detailed
breakdown compared to PPQ. The quantities depend on the construction
process/methods, specific conditions of the job (for example scaffolding, areas
of formwork, labour hours, etc)

2.4.1.1 Ways of implementing BIM with quantity take-off

Eastman et al (2011) describes the number of ways in which a quantity

surveyor can use BIM, in order to achieve an automatic take-off. One of these
methods is by using the BIM tools software to export quantity data from the BIM
components into a database or spreadsheet. A commonly used spreadsheet software
by the quantity surveying profession is Microsoft© Excel (Kirkham, 2007; Eastman et al,
2011; Seeley, 1999). However, Eastman et al (2011) explains that the use of Excel
requires significant preparation and adoption of a standard modelling process.

In order to avoid the use of Excel, the quantity surveyor may use the following
two methods; directly linking the BIM components to the estimating software or by
using a quantity take-off tool (Eastman et al, 2011). The first alternative allows BIM
applications now provide a direct linkage with estimating packages, with the use of a
plug-in. These estimating packages are directly linked with databases, which contain
assemblies and recipes. With the incorporation of rules, the quantity surveyor is able
to calculate quantities from the component properties or from data that was manually
entered (Eastman et al, 2011).
27
 Lastly, the quantity surveyor may use a quantity take-off tool for their needs.
This method is more adaptable with the OPEN BIM process, where every profession is
able to use their own software, using a common format to transfer from application to
application (see section 2.3.1.1) (Jellings, 2013). This specifically design estimating tool
allows quantity surveyors to use it without having to learn any of the other BIM
applications (as illustrated in figure 2.10). Moreover, similar to directly linking
estimating software with BIM components, the items are directly linked to assemblies
and the quantity surveyor must use both automatic features and manual tools to fully
appreciate what this type of method has to offer (Eastman et al, 2011).

Figure 2-10 Theoretical illustration of a BIM quantity take-off and estimating method: Adopted from Eastman et al (2011).

28
2.4.2 Improvement of cost estimates

Quantity take-off is one of the most useful tasks that can be automated
through BIM (Monteiro & Martins, 2013). Moreover, the majority of literature
discusses how implementing BIM with cost estimating can result in estimates that are
more accurate, faster and better detailed (Monteiro & Martins, 2013; Vladimir et al,
2010; Al-Mashta & Alkass, 2010; Eastman et al, 2011; Ashworth et al, 2013). Taking
the ‘Hillwood Commerital Project’ for instance by using the DProfiler (described in
section 2.3), the company was able to reduce the time required, to produce an
estimate, by 92% (Eastman el al, 2011). Another project where BIM was used to
reduce time and provide a more accurate cost estimate can be seen in the ‘Manskun
Rasti’ project. The quantity surveyor involved with the project explained that it was
much easier to use a BIM-based solution software than by doing it by hand, leaving
less room for human error. Due to fewer errors, there is less preparation required for
errors using margins, resulting to reducing waste and saving money (The CAD User
Guide to BIM, 2012a).

2.4.3 Barriers of using BIM tools for cost estimating

There are a number of barriers affecting the profession from taking-up BIM.
The report conducted by the Building Cost Information Service (BCIS) (2011) indicated
that the chief barriers for quantity surveyors not implementing BIM is due to the lack
of client demand, lack of training, lack of application interfaces and lack of standards.
Another important impediment of implementing BIM with the cost estimating process
is the procedure of filtering BIM data in order to comply with the New Rules of
Measurement (NRM) (Olatunji et al, 2010). The issue emerges when BIM is adopted in
a country where there are multiple standard methods of measurement in use. For
example in the UK, measurement of building works is administered by NRM, where as
civil engineering works is under Civil Engineering Standard Method of Measurement
(CESMM4) (Olatunji et al, 2010).

However, most of the barriers mentioned where an issue during mid 2011,

29
when BIM became mainstream in the UK (Charlton, 2012). Since 2011, there have
been

30
a number of initiatives (see section 2.1.3 & 2.3.1.1), by universities, professional
institutions, companies, software developers, etc, that attempt to eliminate some
these barriers.

2.5 Summary

This chapter has reviewed the literature on BIM and how it is being
incorporated into the UK construction industry’s processes. It highlights how the
implementation of BIM is influencing the quantity surveying profession. The chapter
analyses publications on how BIM is affecting traditional methods of taking-off
quantities and the production of Bill of quantities, which are fundamental functions of
the profession. This chapter has also shown that in 2011 the construction industry
contributed 7% of the UK’s GDP. The industry is characterised as fragmented in some
studies, with poor management and numerous regulations being singled out as key
challenges facing the industry. The use of new technologies such as BIM is some
studies is considered an important step of improving service delivery in the quantity
surveying profession (Monteiro & Martins, 2013; Vladimir et al, 2010; Al-Mashta &
Alkass, 2010; Eastman et al, 2011; Ashworth et al, 2013).

The reasons behind why the government challenged the industry’s way of
practice and business model are examined; some of them being due to 30% of
projects not meeting primary schedule and a 10% increase or significant change of
orders. Literature reviews suggest that the professional and educational bodies are
assisting the Government Construction strategy by taking initiatives such as BIM
certificates and BIM Academic Forums. Subsequently, the chapter illustrated that this
was not the quantity surveying profession’s first time facing an influential change,
characterised as a diverse profession. A review of the different stages of quantity
surveyor’s traditional method of quantification and costing is conducted. This chapter
describes how the traditional quantification and costing process, was once performed
with the use of drawings in the form of hardcopies, followed by CAD drawings and
most recently by automated 3D quantity take-off software, such as VICO and Autodesk
QTO. The section finishes with indicating a recent change to the profession aside from
31
BIM, which was

32
the alteration of standard rules of measurement from SMM7 to NRM. The final
section, examines what goes on behind the software of a cost estimating tool and an
IFC file. Moreover, it identifies how quantity surveyors are currently using and training
for BIM tools, establishing the advantages and barriers of their use. This is
demonstrated on the Crossrail project, which begun in 2008, where BIM was used for
the project. Training, regarding BIM was provided by the Acadamy, launched by
Corssrail and Bentley, in order to provide hands on training on the latest technology
including BIM (The CAD User Guide to BIM, 2012b)

In conclusion, the contents of this chapter confirm that there will be an impact
towards the quantity surveyors profession as a result from these changes. However,
there is a gap in the literature regarding the changes inflicted towards the process of
one of the profession’s fundamental competency, quantification and costing. The
chapter also indicated that the implementation of BIM will be the cause of the birth of
new types of specialised roles, without any indication of what this might mean in
relations to the quantity surveyor’s profession. Another gap illustrated in the literature
was the issue of how the quantity surveyor will attain a deep understanding of
projects without going through the laborious task of quantifying and costing it.

The next chapter explains the method in which the problem was approached
and the tools used in conducting the investigation.

33
Chapter 3: Methodology

In this chapter, the research design and methodology strategy are discussed in
detail. This study employs a hypothetical case study method to explore the changes
inflicted to the quantity surveyor’s method of producing cost estimates (including
taking-off process). The research includes a case study of a 3D model of a residential
house, which is used to illustrate issues surrounding BIM use by the quantity surveying
profession. The foundation element of the 3D model is used for both the manual and
automatic process of taking-off and production of the bill of quantities. The results
from examining both methods helped the researcher with identifying the type of
changes that will influence the profession.

In this chapter, the adopted research strategy and method of analysis

associated with the study are presented. The chapter is presented in sections as
follows: statement of research aim, research approach, rationale of case study,
selected tools and procedures, assumptions and limitations and scope.

3.1 Research approach

Naoum (2006) defines a research strategy as the method in which the research
objectives can be questioned. In this case, the objectives of the study are presented
into four sections (see figure 3.2). The first objective is to create a model foundation
using Revit, an architectural BIM application. The second and third objectives aim to
assess the manual and automatic method regarding taking-off and cost estimating, by
taking-off the foundation of the residential home manually and then using a cost
estimating tool. The final objective is to compare the two methods in order to help
identify the changes made to the method of taking-off and cost estimating, thus
influencing the profession. In order to satisfy these objectives, the research includes a
mixture of approaches but mainly takes a direction towards the fieldwork approach
with some elements from the experiment case approach and the qualitative research.
As indicated by figure 3.1, the fieldwork research can be linked with three practical
approaches. Between these approaches, the most appropriate choice for answering
34
the ‘what’ and ‘how’ questions related to the study, is the case study approach. Given
(2008), explains that the case study approach focuses on one or a few details of a
phenomenon (problem). These details are studied in depth and are not limited to just
one observation. The writer also compares the case study approach with the
experiments approach and reveals that the main difference is that in the experiment
approach, the researcher creates the cases and controls the influencing factors (see
figure 3.3).

Figure 3-1 Methodology research techniques: Diagram adopted from Naoum (2006)

However, the case study used to satisfy the aims and objectives of the study
was more of a hypothetical case study produced by the researcher. A 3D model of a
residential home was used as the hypothetical case study. However, the research was
conducted only in regards to the substructure (foundation) of this residential home.
This method also contained elements of an experimental approach, since the
researcher was able to control and influence the factors (e.g. depth of topsoil,
thickness of cavity, etc). The hypothetical case study was used for both the manual
and automatic processes of taking-off and production of bill of quantities. The
information gathered from the comparison of the two processes assisted in identifying
and analyzing the differences, which subsequently help satisfy the aims and objectives.

35
The

36
method strategy is clearly indicated in figure 3.3, where the objectives (see chapter
3.2), can be correlated with each step of the process diagram.

Aim of Objectives Methodology

purpose
Create a model
How will affect the foundation using
Revit. Hypothetical Case
quantity sorveying
Study
profession
Manual process
cost estimation of
objective 1.

Automatic process
of cost estimation
of objective 1.

Compare the two

methods of
process (manual
with automatic).
Figure 3-2 Aim, objectives and methodology of research

3.2 Rationale of case study

The use of a hypothetical case study to conduct an experiment on the manual

and automatic process, allowed for an unbiased approach towards satisfying the aims
and objectives of the study. This approach allowed for both the manual and automatic
process of taking-off and production of bill of quantities to be analysed objectively,
instead of subjectively. Thus, allowing the researcher to observe the changes between
the two processes through direct comparison of the procedures required to take-off
quantities and cost estimate the foundation. As illustrated in figure 3.3 the 3D model
of the residential house remained constant while the variables were gathered for
comparison. Since the residential home remained constant, it ensured that the
differences were not due to the corruption of data but because of the processes used.
37
Another process that contributed to making the approach unbiased was that a third
party verified both the manual and automatic quantity take-off and cost estimation
process. In addition to this before the IFC model (exported from Revit) was used by
either the manual or the automatic process the model was checked by Solibris Model
Checker.

A similar research was conducted by Rashdi (2013), which examined BIM in

terms of cost estimation and assessed its reliability. Rashdi (2013) used the
comparison of two types of cost estimating tools and the traditional method to
analyze the benefits and challenges of using BIM. However, after conducting his
research, he recommended that a smaller sample model was used and that calculation
of more design elements. This would lead to a more accurate manual take-off and a
more precise amount of time saved. This study departs from Rashdi’s (2013) approach
by making use of a self designed, smaller 3D residential model and in addition a take-
off is done from more elements than in Rashdi (2013). This allows the researcher to
have a more detailed understanding of not only the measurement and costing of
construction work in the quantity surveying profession, but also the process by which
3D models are created. The choice in building element (foundation) contains a
number of basic materials (e.g. concrete, masonry, excavations, etc), common to most
projects. In antithesis with other elements such as windows and doors, these basic
elements contained in the foundation are of a universal standard. Moreover, Rashidi’s
(2013) research did not take into consideration the various BIM tools a quantity
surveyor may come across during a project’s duration. Rashidi (2013) considered that
the quantity surveyor would only use the cost estimating tool. However, this research
strategy sets out a more realistic approach towards how a project would be approach
by a quantity surveyor, using BIM.

38
Figure 3-3 Research strategy process: A diagram showing the research strategy process.

3.3 Selected tools and procedure

A number of software and tools were used to help conduct the research
approach. These software tools are as follow:

Software
 Autodesk Revit architecture 2014: A BIM process software, mainly used by
architects and engineers to design and structure a building. In addition, Revit
allows for a virtual viewing of the building’s design and the capturing of its data.
 Autodesk QTO 2013: A BIM cost estimating software, mainly used by quantity
surveyors to automatically cost estimate a project.
 Solibr Model Checker: A BIM software used to check models with a set of rules,
part of the software.
 Microsoft Excel: This is an electronic spreadsheet program, used to store,
organise and manipulate date.
 Microsoft Word: This is an electronic word processor.

39
Tools
 Drawings of the 3D model: A floor plan and detailed section was provided by
the 3D model.
 New Rules of Measurement: Used as a guide to produce the cost estimate.
 Dimension paper: A ruled paper necessary to take-off quantities.
 Spon’s Architects’ and Builders’ Price Book 2012.
 Online video tutorials used to assist in the use of the software.
 Software manuals used to assist in the use of software.

The procedures for each of these selected tools assisted with conducting the
research approach. Moreover, the various tools all contributed towards the
fulfilment of the study’s aims and objectives. The procedures for each process are
as follow:

1. Autodesk Revit architecture 2014

 The software was used to design a 3D model of a residential house.
 Once the design was finished, it allowed the researcher to virtually
visualise the building’s data and capture its data.
 The software was used to modify elemental components such as the
thickness of brickwork, width of cavity, etc.
 The software was used to produce the required drawing (floor plan and
detailed section of foundation) necessary for the manual taking-off and
production of bill of quantities processes.
 The software allowed for the design to be saved as an IFC format, later
used with Solibris Model Checker.
 The software allowed for the 3D model and sheets to be exported as a
DWF format, later used with Autodesk QTO.

2. Autodesk Quantity Takeoff (QTO) 2013

 The 3D model produced in Revit was imported into Autodesk 2013.
 Reviewed the 3D model, by the software.
 The software was used for an automatic take-off of the building.

40
  Manual tools offered by QTO were also used for the taking-off process.
 Information was manually inputted into the software, for the omitted
elements.
 A price rate was inputted manually into the software, to help
determine the cost estimate for the foundation.

3. Solibris Model Checker

 This software was briefly used in order to check the model that would
later be exported as a DWF and imported into Autodesk QTO.
 Software was used to create a report in regards to the quantity take-off
data.

4. Manual take-off
 The drawings of floor plans and detailed sections were printed out
from Revit.
 A take-off list of the items which were to be included in the
calculations of the foundation was prepared analogous to the New
Rules of Measurement (RICS, 2012).
 The dimension paper was used for both the taking-off process and for
the squaring stage.
 After the taking-off was completed and written down on dimension
paper, Microsoft Excel was used to tabulate the taking-off in a
electronic form.
 The quantities were then squared and the values were abstracted from
the dimensions paper and assisted in the billing stage.
 Microsoft Word was used to produce the bill of quantities in an
electronic form.
 The descriptions and price rates gathered from Spon’s (Davis Langdon,
2011) helped compose the bill of quantities.

41
 3.4 Assumptions

In order for the research to be accurate and practical, some of the factors
corresponding to the foundation’s taking-off and cost estimation (both manual and
automatic processes) were assumed. The assumptions are as follows:

 It was assumed that there was a number of vegetation on site that needed
removing/clearing.
 The water table of the soil was assumed low.
 It was assumed that there was no loss when retaining excavation.
 It was assumed that no obstructions were located underground.
 It is assumed that all excavations and filling up was prepared by the use of a
machine.
 The disposal of the soil was assumed to be loaded by hand and at an average
distance of 25m.

3.5 Limitations and scope

The results of a research often depend on its confinements, and thus should be
carefully considered and designed before they are set. The scope of the case
study is defined by the following limitations:

i. The manual and automatic process of taking-off and cost estimating was limited
to just the foundation of the residential home.
ii. Both manual and automatic process of taking-off and cost estimating where
considered to be based on the late design phase of the project.
iii. Due to time restrictions, the automatic process of taking-off and cost estimating
was carried out with the use of just one cost estimating tool (Autodesk QTO).
iv. The researcher that conducted the taking-off and cost estimating procedure also
designed the 3D model of the residential home. The researcher knew the
elements and material used prior to the taking-off process.

42
 v. The taking-off and cost estimating process were executed in accordance to
NRM2. However, the researcher already knew the items’ details prior to this
stage.
vi. Due to the study being a hypothetical one, there was no actual site to go visit. In
reality, this would require the quantity surveyor to visit the site to gather all the
necessary information before commencing the taking-off and cost estimation
process.
vii. Autodesk QTO was not solely used as an automatic cost estimating software, since
many of the quantities were taken-off with the use of manual tools provided by
the software.
viii. Autodesk QTO was not connected with a cost database, resulting to an average
price rate to be adapted from Spon’s Price Book (2012).
ix. The resulting cost estimate is only focused on the quantities, and does not
considered any of the labour work or risks incorporated with the project.

The limitations defining the scope of the case study were generally due to the
time, technological and personal restrictions. Nonetheless, the limitations assisted in
confining the scope of the case study, in order to effectively satisfy the study’s aims
and objectives.

3.6 Summary of chapter

This chapter explained the research design and methodology strategy used in
the study, providing a rationale for the choices. It then describes the choice in the
hypothetical case study, offering the selected tools and procedures. Finally, the
chapter also described the delimitations that define the scope of the case study.

43
Chapter 4: Findings (Case Study Results)

This chapter presents the research findings drawn from the manual and
automatic taking-off process conducted on the hypothetical case study, illustrated in
chapter three. The findings for each process are compared with each other to help
demonstrate the changes the quantity surveyors profession will come across on a daily
basis, in regards to the implementation of a cost estimating BIM software (Autodesk
QTO). The changes covered in this chapter are in regards to the process, time taken,
accuracy, item description and knowledge required. The chapter is presented in
respect to the five different variables mentioned above. However, the variables
presented in the following chapter influence one another.

4.1 Using Revit 2014

This section demonstrates the changes a quantity surveyor will face in the
variation from the manual process to the automatic process of taking-off and cost
estimating. Revit 2014 was used to create the residential home model and all the
necessary drawings, shown in appendix A. The models and drawings were used for the
automatic taking-off, whereas the traditional take-off required just the 2D drawings.

Firstly, in order to be able to use the model created in Revit 2014, it was
necessary to export the model as a file that would be recognised by Autodesk QTO
2013. Even though, the standard file type used for interoperability between BIM
applications is IFC, Autodesk QTO does not support IFC. As a result, this indicated that
the quantity surveyor will need to have knowledge in the different tools available, and
what each require. It was necessary to export the file into a DWF/DWFx in order for
QTO to recognise, illustrated in figure 4-1. However, it was very important that the
user ensured that the ‘Export Object Data’ button was selected as illustrated in figure
4.2. Without this selection the exported file, would not include any information
attached to the objects, which is one of the main distinguishes between 3D CAD
models and BIM models. This indicated that it is still plausible for the quantity
surveyor
44
to need to communicate with the architect as he would with a drawing, if for instance
the architect did not include all the information. Figure 4.1 indicates the procedure of
selecting the view/sheet to export as a DWF file. Whereas figure 4.2 shows the tab of
what the DWF file should include when converted.

Figure 4-1File exporting in Revit: The steps necessary to convert file into DWF or to standard IFC format.

This box is what distinguishes whether the ts of

objec the drawing will be exported with the
attached information or not. It is very importantbox is
that the ticked when exporting.

Figure 4-2 DWF file settings: The DWF export settings tab contains the ‘Export Object Data’ setting.
This important setting will distinguish whether information is attached to the drawing.
45
 One of the changes introduced to the profession is that in contrary to the
manual taking-off process, when using an automated cost estimating tool, the
quantity surveyor can expect to receive all the drawings at the same time. This is
possible due to BIM elements containing both descriptions and parameters, allowing
for all of the information to be intertwined through location parameters, object type
and other information attached to the element. Figure 4.3 illustrates that while the
residential home was being modelled the elevations and plan views were
automatically updated. Thus when the model is complete all the information and
drawings are automatically ready to send to the quantity surveyor. Moreover, in order
to create a section, the only required step was to draw a line as indicated in figure 4.3,
for the area required for the section. This saves time, since the quantity surveyor will
not have incomplete information since all the drawings are received at the same time.
Apart, from that having all the information available at the same time and organised
as illustrated in figure 4.5, the quantity surveyor is able to work both more effectively
and more efficiently.

The properties palette assists the user with modifying and altering any
information associated with the selected item (object, sheet, view etc.).
The Project browser allows the user to switch through the different views,
sheets , plans, elevations, etc. A change made in any part of the model will
automatically be changed throughout the model.

The line indicates the area of the building,

which would be represented in the section.

The section was used to produce a callout of the

foundation, which was used for the cost estimating process.

46
Figure 4-3 Revit’s GUI: An illustration of Revits 2014 Graphical User

47
 4.2 Automatic take-off using Autodesk QTO

This section includes an overview of how Autodesk QTO 2013 was used in
order to take-off and create a cost estimate for the residential home model. It goes on
to explain the process of taking-off and cost estimating using Autodesk QTO 2013.

4.2.1 Overview of Autodesk QTO

Once the DWF files were exported from Revit (2014), they were then imported
into Autodesk QTO (2013) (seen in figure 4.4). This straightforward process that
required the user to enter the name of the project, specify the settings, select the
catalogue (see figure 4.4). This indicates that the quantity surveyor will have to get to
learn the software, in regards to how it operates and what it needs in order to be used
as efficiently as possible. In comparison to the traditional method of taking-off, the
process does not implicate excess requirements of learning how this software
operates. The user will have to keep in mind that the software will be updated on
yearly bases, which will require the user to keep training and learning the software,
unlike the traditional process.

Figure 4-4 Autodesk QTO - Creating a

project: Demonstrates the step-by-step
process of creating a new project.

48
 The diary filled in during the researchers summer placement in the quantity
surveying industry (shown in appendix G), demonstrates that an important factor
before any taking-off is to create a list of all the elements/items that must be taken-off
in accordance to NRM2. As referred to by both Seeley (1999) and Khemlani (2006) in
regards to both traditional methods and methods prior to BIM (CAD) a taking-off
schedule/list is recommended. Instead of using a taking-off list the automated
software tool provides catalogues during the project process (see figure 4.4). Autodesk
QTO breaks down the model into elements based on the selection of catalogue, as
demonstrated in figure 4.5. Figure 4.5 illustrates the items available from selecting CSI-
16, the number indicating the number of items included in the catalogue. These
catalogues are predetermined as CSI-16, CSI-48 and Uniformat.

However, the real benefit comes when creating your own template, which can
then be used as a template for other projects. The procedure of using a predefined
template for example each projects substructure or superstructure can help reduce a
substantial amount time. Moreover, in comparison to the tradition method of
measurement it can also be used for allocating the items in a way that would benefit
the quantity surveyors working on the project (i.e. substructure or superstructure)
allowing more time and recourses for the profession to focus on protecting ‘value for
money’. Even though this can benefit the quantity surveyor, it can also result to
human error. In this case, due to know detailed taking-off list, it resulted to the
quantity surveyor forgetting to include the forming of the cavity, which resulted to
wrong cost estimation.

Figure 4-5 QTO - Item catalogue: Catalogue CSI-16.

49
 After completing the project setup procedure and imported all the required
documents, Autodesk QTO allows the imported documents to be allocated and
organised into files defined by the user. The user is able to organise the documents as
they see fit; by view, type, floor plans, sections, etc. This allows easy access to the
files, reducing the time needed for looking for the drawings, as is sometimes the case
with hardcopy drawings. The difference between the manual take-off is not only that
the use of hardcopy drawings, but that all the documents are stored all together in the
same location. Once the documents were imported, they were deleted from the
computer to see how this would affect the files imported. After the experiment, figure
4.5 looked the same, indicating that the files were not affected.

Imported documents organised by sheet, view and

type, allowing for a quick access to the file unlike a
number of hardcopy drawings. Indicates the number of items taken-
off in that item, a feature impossible
to incorporate in the manual process.

Figure 4-5 QTO - Document organisation: Illustrates all the documents imported into Autodesk QTO, all

50
 4.2.2 Automatic taking-off process

Once the files are imported and organised in the cost estimating software (as
illustrated in figure 4.5). The use of these tools will depend on whether the quantity
surveyor is taking-off from a 3D model or a 2D CAD drawing. However, during a
traditional method taking-off the quantity surveyor did not have any concerns
regarding 3D modelling. This process change indicates that the quantity surveyor must
now know how to operate, alter and read the information embedded into the model.
The tools available for taking-off both 2D and 3D models are illustrated in figure 4.6.
As indicated by figures 4.9 – 4.12, a complete automatic take-off is not possible there
is still the need of manual taking-off, thus the manual taking-off tools available by the
cost estimating tool.

Figure 4-6 QTO - Tool palette: Illustrate the tools used for taking-off measurements in Autodesk QTO.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 (Automatic) Model Take-off tool: This is used to extract all the objects from a 3D model and adds it to
the take-off palette.

2 (Automatic) Search Take-off tool: This tool is used to search for and create a taking-off for all the
objects that matches the user’s criteria.

3 (Automatic) Single-Click Auto Takeoff tool: This tool is mostly used to measure geometry or object
found in a rich DWF sheet, with attached attributes.

4 (Manual) Single-Click Linear Take-off tool: This tool is used to measure linear geometry in a rich DWF
sheet. This tool also includes a polyline, rectangle and ellipse linear take-off tool.

5 (Manual) Area Take-off tool: This tool is used to measure the area from a polyline, rectangle or ellipse
area.

6 (Manual) Count take-off tool: This tool is used for counting take-off objects.

7 (Manual) Backout Takeoff tool: This tool is used to remove a take-off measurement from a polyline,
rectangular, elliptical geometries and counts.

Table 1 QTO - Tool description: Illustrate and explain the tools used for taking-off measurements in Autodesk
QTO. Adopted from Autodesk Quantity Takeoff, 2014.
51
Figure 4-7 QTO - GUI: Illustrates the GUI interface of Autodesk QTO 2013. Demonstrating how each section is linked together, illustrating that a change in one sheet will automatically
update
48
 Colour Code Description

These tabs (known as palettes) include the different windows necessary to take-off and cost
estimate the project, i.e. the project documents, take-off information, models, properties, etc.

The take-off window is where all of the project’s take-off data is stored and managed.
The items are organised according to the chosen catalogue (in this case CSI-16).

This window shows the model used to take-off. When using a 2D drawing, then this will
change to the drawing used for the taking-off.

The workbook palette displays all the taken-off items, and can be used as a bill of
quantities, indicating the quantities and unit price of each item. The software
automatically multiplies the two columns calculating the total price for each item.
Table 2 QTO – GUI descriptions: Explains figure 4.7, and indicating the purpose of each window. Adopted from
Autodesk Quantity Takeoff, 2014.

The data is managed in each window separately. However, all windows are
linked with each other, just like Revit, 2014 (illustrated in 4.3). While using the
software it was observed that a change in one window would automatically update
the rest of the windows. Looking at figure 4.7 the unite cost of the taking-off item was
entered in the items properties (see figure 4.8), and this automatically updated the
workbook palette.

Item’s general properties, where the user can include

dimensions depend on its type, and can change the
opacity of the colour used to annotate the item.

When the material cost is

modified in the item’s properties,
it is automatically updated in all
the other windows (i.e.
The user can add the item’s description.
This is where I included the NRM
description of each item.

Figure 4-8 QTO - Take-off Item Properties. 50

 While using the software (Revit 2014) to model the residential home, it was
necessary for all related data to be attached to the object instead of them being an
annotation representing reality. This is demonstrated in appendix A drawing 7, where
the cavity fill is only an annotation representing reality, without any information
attached to it. Thus, when this detail was imported into Autodesk QTO, the cavity fill
was just an annotation and could not be automatically taken-off. This required the
knowledge and experience of what the element is made of and how it would be
taken- off in a manual method.

Figure 4-9 QTO - Automatic take-off from 2D

drawing: On the left the user attempts to do
an automatic take-off of the wall’s cavity.
However, cavity space in the 2D drawing of
the section detail is not recognised by the
software as a separate element, resulting
to the taking-off of the whole wall. This led
the user to attempt to take-off using a
linear taking-off tool provided by the
software.

Figure 4-10 QTO - Single click auto take-off

from 2D drawing: On the right, a single-click
auto take-off tool to measure the linear
measurement of the wall. This resulted to a
reading of the cavity’s height, 0.754 m.
However, this process was not enough to
calculate the volume of concrete required to
fill the cavity. This led the user to attempt
another automatic method illustrated in
figure 4.11.

0.754 m

51
 Figure 4-11 QTO - Search take-off for 3D
model: On the left, the search take-off
tool was used to take-off the area of the
75mm cavity wall. The area was then
used along with the cavity’s width in
order to calculate the volume. Along
with the change in formula the quantity
unit was modified from m2 to m3.

The formula used to calculate the volume of the 75mm cavity

fill,
includes an automatic calculation of the walls area (length x
height) and a manual input of the cavity’s width (75mm).

When using QTO to take-off the topology elements, object information was not
included in the original model. As shown in appendix A drawing 1, this is simply a
representation of the top soil. The information contained in the model was in regards
to a sheet of topology, which was placed there for no more than a simple
representation. Without any detailed information attached to the soil, it was
necessary to use knowledge and experience gained from traditional take-off to
quantify the foundation and manually incorporated in the software (see figure 4.12). It
was not possible for an automatic take-off any of the excavated filling and disposal
measurements from the soil.

The measurements were obtained by using the manual take-off to calculate

the area on a 2D drawing, after the drawings were scaled (see figure 4.12). However,
due to this being a 2D drawing it was only possible to calculate a linear, area, and
count value. It was not possible to use only one of these tools without having the

52
knowledge

53
 and experience from both the taking-off and squaring stages. Table 3 explains how
each volume was derived, multiplying each area with the height. This process required
automated tools and experience/knowledge of how to take-off a foundation. The
problem with this is that the software does not recognise these as a volume, but as an
area, which can lead to confusion when read by another quantity surveyor.

A/A Description Quantity Formula

On the left, we can see the item take-off list and on the ight,
1 Excavation
r the areas of of reduced
each level
item matching its colour. 17.981 Area (71.92) x Height (0.25)
2 Excavation of top soil 10.759 Area (71.92) x Height (0.15)
3 Excavation of trench foundation 25.785 Length (35.26) x Thickness (0.750) x Height (0.225+0.750)
4 Disposal from reduced level 7.192 (Area x 0.25) - (Area x 0.15)
5 Adjusted disposal for cavity wall 6.303 Length (35.26) x Thickness (0.275) x (Height-0.250+0.150)
6 Hardcore filling 15.504 Volume (24.81) x Ratio of hardcore to conrete (0.250/0.40)

Figure 4-12 QTO - All the excavation, filling and disposal taking-
offs:

Table 3 QTO - Manually amended calculations: Manually inputted formulas in order to calculate the volumes.

54
 When using QTO the user is able to round all the calculations instantly. When
calculating the red rustic wall see figure which was 0.150mm high it was necessary to
manually multiply both the result by the height required (0.15) and by multiplying by
2. Without the use of a manual take-off and the lack of knowledge behind it, it would
not be possible to take-off the whole brick wall accurately. The (Automatic) Search
Take-off tool (illustrated and explained in figure 4.6 and table 1 respectively) was used
to calculate the linear length (centre line) of the wall. This process saved a lot of time,
since with the click of a button the linear length was calculated. It was also necessary
to change the units manually, since the linear type of measurement was calculated,
instead of the item’s area. This indicated that there is still room for human error even
when using the automated method of taking-off.

The user selects the item’s type (linear,

area, volume and count) before search
The user is able to search the item commences.
by
selecting the desired criteria of
similar items. In this case, similar
items were searched, relevant to the
item’s ‘Type Name’.

Once all the similar items are found, the software

automatically adds all of its parameters together.
In this case, since the item was specified as a
‘linear type’, the length of all the walls were
added resulting to a length of 35.26. The formula
was modified as show, to help the user get the
sought for results.

Figure 4-13 QTO - Using search take-off tool: Using the search take-off tool, and
process of modifying formula to get desired result.

55
4.2.2.1 Creating assemblies

During the automatic quantity take-off process it was very difficult to combine
the different measurements form different taking-offs, and where manually inputted
into the formula tab (see figure 4.12 and 4.13). This required a deep understanding,
experience, and knowledge of each drawing, in order for the various measurements to
be used appropriately. Taking for example the excavation of trench foundation shown
in table 3, the taking-off process included an automatic taking-off of the 0.225 x 0.750
mm foundation. However, the height of the trench had to be thought of and
incorporated into the formula. This indicated that even with the use of automatic
take- off tool there was room for human error.

Whilst using Autodesk QTO 2013 it was possible to create an assembly for the
items. An assembly is a take-off item that is a combination of component items.
Taking for example the floor bed, which in our case was 400mm thick, complied of
150mm of concrete and 250mm of hardcore. However, as indicated by figure 4.14 this
was not broken down automatically, but had to be manually inputted by the user. In
addition, in order to compile the assembly it was necessary that the individual
components were created and imported into the main component, floor bed (see
figure 4.14).
This is the main component, and
below we can see what it is comprised
of.

This indicates the type of quantity

the item is measured in.

These are the items that Concrete and Hardcore Bed or

composed of. They are both individual items on take-
the off palette imported into the assembly.

Figure 4-14 QTO - Assembly: Process of QTO did not breakdown the element into individual
components. In order for the correct volume to be
calculated the volume had to multiplied by the ratio of
hardcore to the floor bed and the concrete to floor
bed.
56
 After completing the assembly for the hardcore bed, it made no difference
towards the taking-off and bill of quantities. It was not possible to keep the main
component and delete the individual (concrete and hardcore) items. This meant that
the items were included in both the main component and as individuals.

4.2.2.2 Automated functions provided by Autodesk QTO

Autodesk QTO 2013 provides a number of functions that are not available
while doing a manual taking-off. These functions help make taking-off even more
efficient and effective. These functions include automatically colour coding the item,
being able to hide a group of items and the availability of locating an item on the 2D
drawing or 3D model.

As demonstrated in section 4.4, before commencing the manual taking-off

process it is necessary to produce a taking-off list, which includes all the items that are
necessary for taking-off. The software provides a hide/unhide function illustrated in
figure 4.15, which can be used to provide the same services a taking-off list would.
However, as demonstrated in appendix E the forming of cavity was not included in the
bill of quantities. This was due to human error, but was not the case during the
manual taking-off and cost estimating process (see appendixes C and D). The
hide/unhide function requires a practice before being used effectively as a taking-off
list indicating what has been taken-off and what is left for measurement.

This is the hide/unhide function. This indicates that all other items relevant
to this view are hidden. It also indicates
that the colour code is automatically shown
on the view.

Figure 4.15 QTO – Taking-off functions1: Illustrating the hide/unhide and colour
57
 The software automatically colour codes each taking-off item, which helps
emphasize the item on the model (see figure 4.12 and 4.15). However even when
duplicating the item, to reuse the measurements, the colour is also duplicated on the
drawing/view. This can tend to get over crowded as illustrated in figure 4.12, but due
to the hide/unhide function it is possible to choose what items to see. By using a
different colour for each item, the drawing became too compacted with different
colours. Although the user has the ability to change the translucence of the colour in
order to make it clearer and less compacted (see figure 4.8).

Moreover, the software also includes a function that can take you directly to
the item found in the drawings. While using the taking-off or workbook palette, the
user can comfortably locate the item on all the drawings and views it is located in. As
indicated by figure 4.16, by selecting the item the user was able to see all the
documents and by selecting the required drawing/view the user was taken to the
drawing highlighting the item (see figure 4.16).

This shows the highlighted item in the

selected drawing/view. In this case, the
selected item is the floor slab in the 3D view.

By selecting the item the

user is able to see all the
different drawings/views
the item is located in.

Figure 4-16 QTO – Taking-off functions2: Illustrates all the views the item is located in.

58
4.2.3 Bill of quantities process

When using QTO it was identified that as soon as I did the taking-off
measurements from the items, all the items were automatically updated in the
workbook section. Moreover, using a couple of steps I was able to create a report
showing the bill of quantities (see figure 4.17 – 4.19). Comparing this to the traditional
method, creating a bill of quantities would require considerable amount of time (see
section 4.4). It was noticed that during the use of QTO it was again necessary to be
able to describe the item taken-off according to NRM2. Without the necessary
quantification and costing competencies, the descriptions would not be correct. This is
indicated in figure 4.8, where the user was required to manually input the NRM
descriptions in the properties of the item. There are a number of places were the user
can input the description, without having to worry that they will not update. The user
can input the remarks in the take-off palette, the workbook palette, and the item’s
properties as indicated in figure 4.8. As indicated in sections 4.1 and 4.2.2 the
windows are automatically updated once a field is modified in any of the windows.

Figure 4.17 QTO – Preparing the bill of

quantities report1: The user selects the items
desired to be represented on the bill of
quantities report.

Figure 4.18 QTO – Preparing the bill of

quantities report2: The user selects the
desired columns, to be represented in the
bill of quantities report.

59
 Figure 4.19 QTO – Preparing the bill of
quantities report3: After selecting the
desired items and columns, the user
chooses the report’s layout and decides
whether it will include any header and
footer.

Once the user goes through the steps shown in figures 4.17-4.19, a report is
created showing all the specified items and columns. The bill of quantities is created in
a matter of seconds, giving the reports preview (previewed in figure 4.20). The report
indicates that the cost of the foundation is £ 15,181.40, showing the total price for
each element (i.e. general requirements, site construction, concrete, etc). This price is
broken down into detail in appendix F. The software then gives the user the option to
export the report in various file formats (such as pdf, xls, doc, etc) (see appendix F).

Allows the user to export the

report into various types.

Figure 4-20 QTO – Summary Report: Shows the report generated by the Autodesk QTO.

60
4.3 Checking Model

Due to the use of 3D BIM models, it is important that the model is checked
before the taking-off process begins. This process is made available through the use of
additional BIM applications (in this case Solibris Model Checker). This was not
necessary during the traditional taking-off process. The change in process is mainly
due to the conversion of 2D to 3D drawings, introducing the tendency for drawings to
be checked.

When using the model it is important for the quantity surveyor to make sure
that models to be used for taking-off are verified and checked, ensuring that all the
information is incorporated in the DWF file. However, this is the reason behind the IFC
standard, which is explained in sections (1.2.1 & 2.3.1.1), the main solution behind
interoperability of BIM applications. One way of checking the model was to open it in
Revit and verify the information attached to each object. Another option was to use a
model checker (Solibris), which provided a check based on quantification and costing
rules (see figure 4.21)

4.3.1 Solibris Model Checker

The model is imported into Solibris as an IFC file type (see figure 4.21). Once
opened, the quantity surveyor has the ability to check the model against roles such as
architectural checking, building code, energy analysis, quantity take-off, etc (refer to
figure 4.21). Without the need of extensive knowledge behind the other professions
and roles, the quantity surveyor has the ability to check the model against these.
During the manual take-off the quantity surveyor can only look at the 2D drawings and
not down all the questions directed to the other roles using a query sheet.

61
 One of the standards recognised by Solibris
Model Checker is the IFC standard. After
importing the model into Solibris, the
appropriate roles for the check are selected.

The choice in role depends on what the

model is used for. This case is based on
the taking-off of the residential model
and thus the choice of role was ‘Quantity
Take-off’

Figure 4-21 Solibris Model Checker - File import: Importing a model into Solibris Model Checker and
setting up the model check.

Once the role is selected, the software then compares the roles to the model;
identifying all the errors and categorising them by importance (see figure 4.23). Apart
from providing a preview of all the errors, the quantity surveyor is able to create a
report on this information (see appendix B). This can be used to replace the query
sheets used in the manual process. The quantity surveyor does not need to have a
vast knowledge and experience in regards to using Solibris. Even when used for the
first time the software suggests the best approach towards checking a model (see
figure 4.24), and provides a checklist for all the steps that must be covered to provide
for an effective model check. The errors found with the model were ignored since
they were regarding the superstructure.
62
 Figure 4-22 Solibris Model Checker – Warning window: A warning
indicating that it would be more effective if the user completed the rule
sets specified before continuing.

Figure 4-23 Solibris Model Checker – Quantity take-off check results:

The results from the model check.

4.3.2 Model check using Revit 2014

The quantity surveyor has the option to check the model by directly opening it
in the design software package (Revit Architecture 2014). Once opened the quantity
surveyor is able to go through the items required for the taking-off, and look at each
items properties and components. However, this would require the quantity surveyor
to have knowledge and experience in using a variety of BIM applications, which can be
costly for training, software licenses, and equipment.

63
4.4 Manual take-off

This section illustrates the findings from the manual procedures necessary to
take-off the items and then create a bill of quantities.

4.4.1 Taking-off process

The process commences when the quantity surveyor receives all of the
required drawings (refer to appendix A). The drawings were all analysed for a greater
understanding of the residential home. This was not necessary with the automatic
take-off, since the quantity surveyor could grasp the building’s design by using the 3D
model. The main drawings used for the taking-off the substructure were the floor plan
and the detailed section of the foundation (refer to appendix A). Before commencing
taking-off of items, a taking-off schedule was created in accordance to NRM2 (see
appendix C). The schedule contained the items necessary for the taking-off process.
The items were taken-off in the order according to the taking-off schedule. The
automatic taking-off process followed a similar order, but depended on the catalogue
selected. This indicates that the usage of automatic taking-off process may be
dissociating from NRM.

During the traditional taking-off process, it is a rule of thumb to write the

measurements on the dimension paper to two decimal places (refer to appendix C).
This was not the case during the use of Autodesk QTO, since the measurements, even
though they can rounded off, they are automatically rounded up to three decimals.
However, when using the software the more the decimal places the more accurate the
result was, without the need to waste time calculating them. It also took time when
doing the traditional taking-off method to change the value to the nearest two
decimal places.

Human errors were introduced during the traditional taking-off process, such
as the retained top soil’s incorrect quantity, which was due to wrong rounding up. As
indicated in figure 4.24 (refer to appendix D for detail), the value was quantified as 19
m3 instead of 20 m3. In comparison to the automatic taking-off process the quantity

64
surveyor does not have to calculate or thick about rounding up the quantities since
they are rounded up automatically. Moreover, another human error encountered
during the traditional taking-off method was located once the measurements were
completed. This was due the use of wrong dimension of the width of the building.
Instead of 7.006 m, the width of 6.785 m, which was a fundamental measurement
used for other measurements, such as the centre line of the trench, the facing of the
external skins and measurement of the Bed as seen in appendix A. This error was not
verified until the use of QTO where the drawings were all presented together, and
where measured on screen, while verifying the scale. These types of human errors are
still possible during the use of the cost estimating software, but are minimised
significantly.

Figure 4-24 Bill of quantities produced by the manual process: Sample of the bill of quantities indicating

After the completion of the taking-off process, the taking-off was computerised
by tabulating it using a spreadsheet. This process was an extra procedure used by
companies (refer to appendix G), in order to improve presentation, storage and
communication between different parties. This is automatically made available to the
quantity surveyor when using the automated cost estimating software.

4.4.1.2 Bill of quantities process

During the preparation of manually producing the bill of quantities, it was

necessary to square the measurements found on the dimension paper in the taking-
off process (refer to appendix D). This was followed by the abstracting stage where
the calculated measurements were transferred to the bill of quantities. During the
abstracting stage, each measurement was described as required by the NRM2. All the
above steps were avoided during the automatic process of creating the bill of

65
quantities. This resulted to less time wasted on producing the bill of quantities and
more time to reflect on ‘value for money’.

4.5 Summary

This chapter has illustrated the usage of both a manual and automatic method
of taking-off the foundation of the residential home, subsequently producing a cost
estimate of the foundation. The findings are analysed and discussed, along with the
literature review in the next chapter.

66
Chapter 5: Discussion

This chapter will discuss how the two methods of taking-off and production of
cost estimates, has changed and how it will affect the quantity surveyor’s profession as
a whole. This is achieved by analysing the literature review along with the findings
examined in the previous chapter. The sections of the chapter will examine the
changes established in regards to the variables (process, time taken, accuracy, item
description and knowledge required), and how these will affect the profession.

5.1 Process

Jellings (2013) describes IFC as a common language between the different BIM
applications. However, as deduced by the previous section this is not fully integrated
into the industry yet. The cost estimating software (Autodesk QTO) did not recognise
IFC files, instead another common file type that is used by both software, since they
both provided by the same company (Autodesk). On the other hand, when using
Solibris Model Checker, the IFC file format was used to open the file produced in Revit
2014. Even though the IFC format is not fully integrated with all applications, there is
still evidence of a coherent relationship between the various applications, thus
supporting Chapman’s (2013) notion of a comprehensive and coherent relationship
between the stakeholders.

The Cabinet Office (2011) intended to make efforts in replacing the adversarial
culture with collaborative ones. In the duration of using Autodesk QTO, it was evident
that the quantity surveyor would have to learn how to use software diverse from their
profession. This may mean that the quantity surveyor will need an additional
knowledge beyond their line of expertise, supporting the idea that there will be birth
of new services (Cartlidge, 2011; Ashworth et al, 2013). This also supports Davis
Langdon and Everest (1991) foresight of development of new services in order for the
profession’s survival.

67
 Cartlidge (2011) discusses that there will be a certain change to the traditional
method of taking-off and cost estimating, indicated through the findings section.
Olatunji et al (2010) and Monteiro & Martins (2013) demonstrate that manual process
of taking-off and measurements is relied on drawings (floor plans, elements, sections,
elevations, etc) which are evident in the findings section. This was not the case during
the automatic taking-off, where both a 3D model and drawings were used. One major
difference regarding the drawings is that the quantity surveyor will receive the
drawings at the same time, which is a customary with the traditional method.

This could be used to verify that the model used for the taking-off is correct.
How does this vary from what a quantity surveyor would get from the architect? Once
looked at the drawings if the quantity surveyor was not sure about some details on
the drawing they would create a query sheet (see section 2.2.1). The quantity surveyor
would send this to the architect and wait for a response, being a time consuming
process (Ashowrth et al, 2013). As seen by the hypothetical case study these process
has changed in a way that allows for instantaneous feedback for any queries regarding
the drawings.

Another change identified in regards to the quantity surveyors process of

taking-off is the taking-off schedule. As mentioned by Seeley (1999), a common step in
the manual process of taking-off that the quantity surveyor uses to identify, according
to NRM2, all the items that will be taken-off. Whilst using the automatic cost estimate
software, there was no indication of a taking-off list as that used in the manual
process. There was no automatic list prepared for the taking-off list apart from the
catalogue. This indicates that, even though there is no taking-off list, there are still
methods of integrating the catalogue into a taking-off list. Apart from this, the
catalogue demonstrated in the findings section follows an NRM2 breakdown of the
project.

Even though Seeley (1999) breaks down the taking-off and production of bill of
quantities into two sections, Tweeds (1995) breaks the process even further
identifying the process a quantity surveyor faces when taking-off and preparing a bill
of quantities. As illustrated in the findings the all four stages were necessary to
produce a cost estimate. This is not the case when doing an automatic cost estimate.

68
The first stage of

69
taking-off was partially automatic partially manual. However, the other three steps
were automatically derived once the information was inputted. A concept many
authors have (Vladimir et al, 2010; Al-Mashta & Alkass, 2010; Eastman et al, 2011;
Ashworth et al, 2013) this kind of change in the process, eliminating three steps of the
laborious task of taking-off, will allow the quantity surveyor to focus on other tasks
such as visualising (Autodesk Revit), analysing (Solibris Model Checker) and assessing
(Autodesk QTO). These kinds of changes can be a prospect for the profession to
expand into more diverse services.

5.2 Time taken

As demonstrated in appendix G, during my summer placement a lot of time

was wasted in inputting the data onto spreadsheets. This supports the authors’ view of
documentations tools being a laborious and wasting a lot of time (Vladimir et al, 2010;
Al-Mashta & Alkass, 2010; Eastman et al, 2011; Ashworth et al, 2013). As identified in
the findings sections, while using Autodesk QTO there is no need to document any
information since it is already processed on the computer. Apart from this, all the
palettes and windows throughout most software are interlinked with each other,
meaning that a change in an object will automatically update the object throughout
the whole project.

One of the key changes (covered in section 5.1) that will influence the quantity
surveyor’s process of taking-off is the elimination of three of the steps towards taking-
off and producing a bill of quantities. The findings section identified that the quantity
surveyor will not need to waste any time on preparing the cost estimates since it is
automatically calculated and prepared, with a few steps. Thus, the quantity surveyor
can use the extra time

As seen in appendix Q and H, it is common for quantity surveyors to colour

code while manually taking-off. This can also be considered laborious took a
considerable amount of time, which could be spent on more fundamental information
and decisions regarding the project. Using Autodesk QTO it was possible to use
functions discussed in the findings (hide/unhide take-off item and find item) which

70
assist the quantity surveyor with laborious tasks, allowing them to spend time on more
important services.

5.3 Reliability of the Automated Cost Estimate

It is clear that during the use of the automatic cost estimating software is a
process taken to cut down costs, by minimising mistakes. In Keith Hill’s perspective,
this indicates that the construction industry is no longer welded to the technology of
the past. As explained by AEC MAGAZINE (2013) and illustrated in the findings section,
cost estimates are more precise due to parameters attached to the elements and the
ability to label model content and categorised them into different items (walls, roofs,
windows, floor slabs, etc).

During the duration of the ‘Manskun Rasti’ project the quantity surveyor,
explained how there was less room for human error. However, during the experiment
of the hypothetical case study, human error was present in both processes. Although,
it is correct to say that the use of automatic cost estimating tool decreases the room,
but it does not eliminate it. As illustrated in the findings section, an error was
introduced during the use of the automatic method of taking-off, but this was not a
numerical error, but the emission of an item, cause by the absence of a taking-off
schedule.

The manual bill of quantities resulted to a total price of £15,417.03 (refer to

appendix D) in comparison to a total price of £ 15,181.40 (refer to appendix F). Figure
5.1 indicates that there is a percentage difference of 1.528 % between the two costs.
The difference indicates that there is a variation in the measurements, in regards to
the two methods of taking-off. The differences are due to the variations in
measurements since the rates costs used were the same for both cases. This goes to
show that there is a change in the value, but it is not certain which method was the
most accurate, since human error was present in both processes. Moreover, during
the use of Autodesk QTO it was not sure whether the tool took into account the
centre line of the object. This indicates that the quantity surveyor will have to
check this, even
71
though the measurements are automatically taken-off, something they would not
normally do for a manual taking-off.

15,417.03 − 15,181.40
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 15,417.03

235.63
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 =
15,417.03

% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 1.528
Figure 5-1: Percentage difference between two

5.4 Description of items

Standard codes and methods of measurement are a traditional method of

taking-off process. Without the proper training and knowledge regarding the
quantification and costing competency, then how well would the user be able to break
down the taking-off process? During the automatic cost estimate process it was
detected this may have a negative effect on the quantity surveying profession as
declared by Davis Langdon and Everest (1991), in regards to the quantity surveyor’s
pragmatism and realism.

Olatunji et al (2010) mentions how the process of filtering BIM data in order to
comply with NRM is regarded as a barrier towards its implementation. During the
hypothetical case study’s experiment it was observed that NRM was not relevant
during automatic taking-off, meaning that the person using the software must have
both knowledge and experience of traditional taking-off in order to correlate NRM
with the automatic taking-off process.

This can save much more time since it was noticed that when taking-off a lot of
time was also wasted in the description of the item. Someone that did not have

72
previous experience with NRM would not be able to describe as it is required by NRM
and the order in which it was suppose to be taken-off.

5.5 Knowledge Required

Eastman et at (2011) and BCIS (2011) mentioned that a key bottleneck was the
shortage of trained professionals. The amount of electronic recourses made available
for each BIM application is vast. The user had not experience with BIM applications
before this research. As regards to RICS, there was limited to no recourses or tutorials
available as to how to use cost estimate software, supporting Northumbria
University’s view that RICS is not doing enough.

As demonstrated in the findings chapter, it was not possible for an automatic

take-off without the use of any quantification and costing competencies. This supports
Eastman’s et al (2011) view that building models are not capable of replacing cost
estimating. Even though the majority of the quantifications of building works are
drawn from the BIM model instead of drawings, it does not guaranty Davis Langdon
and Everest’s (1991) opinion that there will be a decline of quantification,
subsequently leading to a decrease of the quantity surveyor’s pragmatism and realism.
As mentioned in AEC MAGAZINE (2012) and indicated by the use of Autodesk QTO, in
the findings in leads to better visualisation of the project, leading to a better
understanding as regards to the time and cost. Examining the 3D model instead of all
the 2D drawings helps the researcher grasp the project’s design with a greater
understanding.

In the contrary, by truly understanding the information attached to the BIM

model the quantity surveyor will be able to protect the client’s demand of ‘value for
money’. As indicated by a number of authors (Kirkham, 2007; Ashworth et al, 2013;
Davis Langdon & Everest, 1991; Seeley, 1999; Cartlidge, 2011) the profession will
continue to evolve and develop to address client demands.

73
5.6 Summary

This chapter illustrates how the study took a different approach towards the
automatic quantification process. It is lucid that quantification and costing items are
not yet ready to produce a take-off with one click. The chapter has also compared the
literature review along with the findings observed from conducting the manual and
automatic taking-off. The chapter analyses how the difference between the two
processes will have an impact on the quantity surveyors profession.

74
Chapter 6: Conclusion and Recommendations

The study attempts to take a different approach in comparison to other

studies, in the sense that it does not solely focus on the time taken and the accuracy
of the cost estimates. Taking for example a similar study, conducted by Moosa (2013),
where the researcher compares similar variables (looked at in this study) but failed to
consider the whole procedure of the taking-off process. The study also differs in
regards to the items taken off. It does not take-off items such as doors and windows,
which can automatically be picked up by an automated cost estimating software, such
as Autodesk QTO. It focuses more on items that require knowledge and experience of
taking-off such as the substructure of the building, including items that cannot be
automatically counted such as the excavation disposals and fillings.

In order for there to be a collaborative relationship between all AEC parties,

every single profession involved must start sharing all their knowledge and
information, even the quantity surveyors. The quantity surveyors cannot get stuck in
methods of the past, if they wish to keep up with the rest of the AEC professions. As
illustrated throughout this dissertation, quantifying and costing is one of the main
competencies of what a quantity surveyor has to offer, as mention by a number of
authors (Ashworth et al, 2013; Cartlidge 2011). However, this competency is merely a
step towards what the client is really after, ‘value for money’, a notion Cartlidge (2011)
illustrates in section 1.1. As elaborated in the discussion section, apart from adapting
to new services, the quantity surveyor will be faced with new opportunities to expand
their services. Picture the whole construction industry as a cricket game, the quantity
surveyors would be those counting the scoreboard. It is time for the profession to stop
counting and grab a position on the pitch.

In order to illustrate how the changes inflicted by the change from a manual
process to an automatic process of taking–off and cost estimate, research was carried
out on key authors in this field. Moreover, a hypothetical case study was conducted to
see the type of changes brought up by automatic process, in comparison to the
manual process. These changes were analysed to obtain results into how these will
influence the quantity surveying profession.

75
6.1 Key findings in relation to the thesis objectives

 To create a model foundation using Revit, an architectural BIM application, in

order to ensure that the same model is used for both manual and automatic
process of taking-off and creation of bill of quantities

The experience of using a 3D models BIM application tool (Revit 2014), demonstrated
that the architect using this tool will have to consider the information that is attached
to each item. Since these parameters are what the quantity surveyor’s cost estimates
depend upon. This is what it means to collaborate, to thick of how your information
will affect the various professions in the AEC industry. Moreover, this also
demonstrated that the quantity surveyor profession should have both knowledge and
experience in regards to tools other than the BIM cost estimating tools. In order to
use them they will also need equipment, training and licenses that may be costly to a
small company. The information and tutorials available for quantity surveyors, for
each BIM application is vast and can provide a large portion of the required training.
Nevertheless, this may benefit the quantity surveyor in being able to provide more
services for the contractor/client.

 To assess the traditional method of taking-off and producing bill of quantities for
pre-contract cost estimates, by manually taking-off the foundation model
created in objective one

The manual process of taking-off and producing a bill of quantities proved to be a

laborious task with room for a lot human error. A lot of time was spent on producing a
take-off (taking-off, squaring, abstracting), tabulating all the information on the
computer, then creating a bill of quantities and explaining all the data. The majority of
these laborious tasks can be avoided, as illustrated below. However, the knowledge
gained by this process is an important competency that is the reason behind the
quantity surveyors sense of logic. This was due to the take-off and bill of quantities
process being conducted in accordance to NRM. This attempts to achieve a standard

76
where all the quantity surveyors are able to follow the same steps, thus providing a
more effective understanding of the cost estimating process.

 To examine the method of taking-off and producing bill of quantities again for
pre-contract cost estimates, by using a cost estimating tool (Autodesk Quantity
Takeoff) to take-off the same model used for objective two

The automatic process of taking-off and producing a bill of quantities proved to be

much simpler than the manual process. This was due to the elimination of many steps
of the process, such as waiting for all the drawings, creating a taking-off schedule,
creating a query sheet, squaring stage, abstracting stage and billing stage. All these
steps of the process where provided automatically by the software, which help save a
lot of time and provide a more accurate cost estimate. As regards to the quantity
surveyor, the time saved can be used in regards to what clients care about more, ‘value
for money’. However, it was unfeasible to take-off the foundation without having
knowledge and experience either from NRM or from the manual taking-off. NRM was
not present during the process, which means that it is a limitation whilst using a cost
estimating tool. Even though this can have a negative effect on the quantity surveyor’s
sense of logic, the comprehension and understanding 3D models can help conciliate
this effect.

 To compare the two methods in order to evaluate the differences between the
two, thus identifying the changes made towards the method of practice, and
consequently how these will influence the quantity surveying profession:

As regards to the quantity surveyor this means no more worrying about creating the
bill of quantities, or going through all the measurements to readjust them, or squaring
all the taking-offs. These eliminated steps, will help decrease the time needed for the
process, and increase the accuracy of the cost estimate. Subsequently, this will allow
more time for the quantity surveyor to spend on satisfying ‘value for money’ for the
client. Automatic cost estimates are not yet available to provide a fully automated
take-off, and are limited to standards such as NRM. However, the quantity surveying

77
profession must appreciate that it is not just black and white, meaning It is not use
BIM or don’t use BIM. The profession will greatly benefit when they use BIM along
with the knowledge and expertise to provide the most efficient and effective quality at
the ideal price. It will not be possible to achieve this by having one without the other.
When the quantity surveying profession accepts and embraces BIM, it will see a
number of doors open up for the profession.

6.2 Limitation and criticism of the study

A number of limitations affected the process of manual and automatic process

of cost estimating. These are as follow:

 A project would include both PPQ and PCQ items; however, the taking-off
process of the hypothetical case study only included PPQ items, which can
have an effect when taking-off automatically.
 The BIM tools may have not been used as efficient and effective as
possible. Since all BIM tools used were self-taught, by looking at tutorials
and online manuals of each software.
 The cost estimate BIM tool was used only once, meaning the user could not
take advantage of the modified templates of objects, items, catalogues etc.
 The same person produced both the design and cost estimate, thus
knowing what information to incorporate prior to the taking-off and cost
estimating process.
 Due to time constraints, not only was one cost estimating software used,
but the cost estimating process was only in regards to the substructure
element of the building

78
6.3 Recommendations

For a further study to be conducted in this area, the following are the
recommendations:

 To choose a real project, so that the researcher can take full advantage of
technology incorporated with BIM, and to see how the different AEC
professions collaborate with each other.
 To use BIM throughout the project’s whole life cycle, thus all of the benefits of
using BIM on a project could be analysed.
 To use a number of cost estimating BIM tools to provide a cost estimate for all
of the project’s elements. This will generate a better understanding of an
automatic cost estimate process.

79
References

1. AEC MAGAZINE. (2012) Trimble invests in 5D construction,

(November/ December), Vol.63, p.9.

2. AEC MAGAZINE. (2013) Trimble integration, 68(September/ October), p.25.

3. Al-Mashta, S & Alkass, S. (2010) Integrated Cost Budgeting & Estimating Model
for Building Projects. AACE International Annual Meeting: “TCM: Cost
Engineering on my Mind”. [PDF] Available at:
http://www.aaceimontreal.org/pdf/BIM.02%20%20Integrated%20Cost%20Estim
ating%20Model%20for%20Bldg%20projects.pdf. [Accessed: 28 December 2013].

4. Ashworth, A., Hogg, K., Catherine, H. (2013) Willis's Practice and Procedure
for the Quantity Surveyor. 13 Edition. Wiley-Blackwell.

5. Autodesk Quantity Takeoff. (2014) Autodesk Quantity Takeoff. [ONLINE]

Available
at:http://docs.autodesk.com/QTO/2013/ENU/QTO_Help_Files_2013/index.html.
[Accessed 16 February 2014].

6. BBC News. (2014) BBC News - UK industrial output and construction data
miss forecasts. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-
25681559. [Accessed 16 January 2014].

7. Blind Men and Elephant. (2014) Blind Men and Elephant. [ONLINE] Available
at: http://www.powertothrive.com/Blind_Men_and_Elephant.html. [Accessed 12
January 2014].

8. British Standard Institute (BIS). (2011) A report for the Government

Construction Client Group: Building Information Modelling (BIM) Working Party
Strategy Paper. [PDF] Available at: http://www.bimtaskgroup.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/03/BIS-BIM-strategy-Report.pdf [Accessed 16 January
2014].

80
9. British Standard Institute (BIS). (2013) PAS 1192-2:2013 Specification for
information management for the capital/delivery phase of construction
projects using building information modelling. BSi. [ONLINE] Available at:
<http://shop.bsigroup.com/Navigate-by/PAS/PAS-1192-22013/?utm_source=MS-
LAU-BUIL-pas1192-2-0V0BUY-
1303&utm_medium=et_mail&utm_content=2615721&utm_campaign=%%email
name%%&utm_term=PAS+1192-
2.Specification+for+information+management+for+the+capital%2fdelivery+phas
e+of+construction+projects+using+building+information+modelling> [Accessed
6
January 2014].

10. Building Cost Information Service (BCIS). (2011) RICS 2011 Building
Information Modelling Survey Report. , 44(0), pp.1–31.

11. CabinetOffice. (2011) Government Construction Strategy. [PDF] Available at:

<https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil
e/61152/Government-Construction-Strategy_0.pdf> [Accessed: 31 December
2013].

12. CabinetOffice. (2012) Government Construction Strategy: One Year On

Report and Action Plan Update. [PDF] Available at:
<https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil
e/61151/GCS-One-Year-On-Report-and-Action-Plan-Update-FINAL_0.pdf>
[Accessed 31 December 2013].

13. Cartlidge, D. (2011) New Aspects of Quantity Surveying Practice. 3rd Edition.
Spon Press.

14. Chapman, I. (2013) The right information. AEC MAGAZINE, (September/

October), Vol.68, p.16-17.

15. Charlton R. (2012) BIM software a catalyst for change. AEC

MAGAZINE, (November/ December), Vol. 63, p.18-19.

16. Crotty, R. (2012) The Impact of Building Information Modelling:

Transforming Construction. 1 Edition. Routledge.

17. Davis Langdon and Everest. (1991) QS-2000 the Future Role of the
Chartered Quantity Surveyor. Edition. Hyperion Books.

18. Davis Langdon. (2011) Spon's Architects' and Builders' Price Book 2012. 137th
ed. London: spon press.
81
19. Day,M. (2012) Engaging a BIM consultant. AEC MAGAZINE,
(November/ December), Vol. 63, p.14-17.

20. Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R., Liston, K. (2011) BIM Handbook: A Guide to
Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers
and Contractors. 2nd ed., London: Wiley.

21. Given, L.M. (2008) The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods.
1 Edition. SAGE Publications, Inc.

22. Monteiro, A. & Poças Martins, J. (2013) A survey on modeling guidelines for
quantity takeoff-oriented BIM-based design. Automation in Construction,
35, pp.238–253. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0926580513000721
[Accessed December 22, 2013].

23. Murray, M. and Langford, D. (2003) Construction Reports, 1944-98.

Oxford: Blackwell Science

24. Demchak, G. (2008) Introducing Revit Architecture 2009: BIM for Beginners.
1st Edition. Sybex.

25. Hamil, S. (2012) The importance of the ‘I’ in BIM. AEC MAGAZINE,
(November/ December), Vol. 63, p.10-12.

26. HM Government. (2012) Industrial strategy: government and industry in

partnership - Building Information Modeling.[PDF] Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file
/34710/12-1327-building-information-modelling.pdf [Accessed 2 January 2014].

27. Jellings, D. (2013) BIM A Distant Elephant? [LECTURE] Digital Technology Use
in Construction, University of Reading, School of Construction Management
and Engineering, 13 November 2013.

28. Jiang, X. (2011) Developments in Cost Estimating and Scheduling in

BIM technology. MSc, Northeastern University

29. Khemlani, L. (2004) Building the future, The IFC Building Model: A Look Under
the Hood. AECbytes, [ONLINE] available at
<http://www.aecbytes.com/feature/2004/IFCmodel.html>, [Accessed: 2 January
2014].

82
30. Khemlani, L. (2006) Building the future, Visual Estimating: Extending BIM
to Construction., AECbytes, [ONLINE] available at
<http://www.aecbytes.com/buildingthefuture/2006/VisualEstimating.html>,
[Accessed: 2 January 2014].

31. Kirkham, R. (2007) Ferry and Brandon's Cost Planning of Buildings. 8

Edition. Wiley-Blackwell.

32. Naoum. S.G. (2006) Dissertation Research and Writing for Construction
Students. 2 Edition. Routledge.

33. Northumbria University. (2012) Building Information Modelling in

Quantity Surveying Education. In pp. 25–26. Available at:
http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/10056/.

34. Olatunji, O.A., Sher, W. & Gu, N. (2010) BUILDING INFORMATION

MODELING AND QUANTITY SURVEYING PRACTICE. , 15(1), pp.67–70.

35. Rashdi, M.A.L. (2013) BIM and Cost Estimating. University of Reading.

36. RICS. (2012) NRM 2 - Detailed Measurement for Capital Building Works: NRM
2 (New Rules of Measurement). 1st Edition. RICS Books.

37. RICS. (2013) BIM Manager Certification . [ONLINE] Available

at: http://www.rics.org/uk/join/member-accreditations-list/bim-manager-
certification/. [Accessed 15 January 2014].

38. Sackey, E., Tuuli, M. & Dainty, A. (2013) BIM IMPLEMENTATION : F‘OM
CAPABILITY MATURITY MODELS TO IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY. ,
(2012), pp.196–207.

39. Saunders, M. and Muse, A. (2013) The RICS Perspective of BIM, CIC BIM Forum.

40. Seeley, I.H. (1999) Building Quantities Explained (Building & Surveying).
5th Edition. Palgrave Macmillan.

41. The Higher Education Academy. (2013) Embedding Building

Information Modeling (BIM) With taught curriculum. [ONLINE]
Available at:
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/STEM/Built-
environment/BIM_June2013.pdf. [Accessed 16 January 2014].
83
42. The CAD User Guide to BIM. (2012) MANSKUN Rasti: case study., n.a., p.6-9

43. The CAD User Guide to BIM. (2012) BIM Academy: Crossrail and Bentley
Systems launch UK’s first dedicated Building Information Modelling academy.,
n.a., p.10- 11

44. Tweeds. (1995) Taking Off Quantities: Civil Engineering. London: E & FN
Spon. Vico

45. Vladimir,P., et al. (2010) The use of a virtual building design and construction
model for developing an effective project concept in 5D environment.
Automation in Construction, 19(3), pp.357–367. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0926580509001940
[Accessed December 22, 2013].

46. Wikforss, Ö. & Löfgren, A. (2007) Rethinking communication in construction.

Journal of information technology in construction. Available at:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.135.2798&rep=rep1
&type=pdf [Accessed January 11, 2014].

47. Woudhuysen, J. (2004) Why is construction so backward?. 1 Edition.

Academy Press.

84
Appendices

85
Appendix A: Drawings

1. 3D view

2. Ground Floor Plan

3. Foundation & Level 1 Floor Plan

4. East & West Elevations

5. North & South Elevations

6. Section

7. Foundation Detail

86
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
Appendix B: Solibris Model Check Report of Residential
Home

Solibri Model Checker Report

Model Name Attempt 2 Version: 8.1
Checker sd005669
Organization
Time 07/02/14 16:44
Time: 2014-02-07 15:42:06 Application: Autodesk Revit 2014
Attempt 2 (ENU) IFC: IFC2X3

Normal
Rejected
Accepted

Major

Minor
Intersections Between Architectural Components Comment
Intersections - Same Kind of Components OK
Wall - Wall Intersections OK
Slab - Slab Intersections OK
Roof - Roof Intersections OK
Beam - Beam Intersections -
Column - Column Intersections -
Door - Door Intersections OK
Window - Window Intersections OK
Stair - Stair Intersections -
Suspended Ceiling - Suspended Ceiling Intersections -
Railing - Railing Intersections -
Ramp - Ramp Intersections -
Intersections - Different Kind of Components x
Door Intersections OK
Window Intersections OK
Column Intersections -
Beam Intersections -
Stair Intersections -
Railing Intersections -
Suspended Ceiling Intersections -
Wall Intersections x
Slab Intersections OK
Roof Intersections -
Intersections of Furniture and Other Objects -
Object Intersections -
Doors/Windows and Objects -
Objects and Other Components -
Normal
Rejected
Accepted

Major

Minor

Quantity Take-off Comment

92
 Deficiency Detection x
Required Components x
Unallocated Areas -
Components Below and Above x
Components Above Columns -
Components Below Columns -
Components Above Beams -
Components Below Beams -
Components Above Walls x
Components Below Walls OK
Required Components in Spaces x
Toilet Seats and Basins Must Be Defined x
Toilet Seats and Basins in Toilets
Closets Must Be Defined x
Closets in Kitchens
Refridgerators Must Be Defined x
Fridge in Kitchens
Construction Types Must Be from Agreed List -
Inconsistent Component Properties OK
Component Thickness Must Be Consistent OK
Component Profiles Must Be Consistent -
Door and Window Dimensions Must Be Consistent OK
Door and Window Top Elevation Must Be
OK
Consistent
Component Height Must Be Consistent OK
Component Elevation Must Be Consistent OK

93
94
95
96
Appendix C: Manual Take-off
Residential House Model
Taking off Foundation

By: S.C 18/12/2013

Taking off List

ITEM UNIT NRM2 Re

1. Site Preparation
- Trial Pits nr 5.1.2.1
- Removing Trees nr 5.2.1.1
- Site Clearance m
2 5.4.1

2. Reduced Level
- Excavation 3 5.6.1.1
m
- Disposal 3 5.9.2.1
m
- Retain Top Soil m
3 5.10.1.1

3. Trench
- Excavation 3 5.6.2.1
m
- Backfill m
3 5.11.2

4. Concrete Foundation
- Concrete 3 11.2.1.2
m
- Adjust Backfill 3 5.11.2
m
- Disposal m
3 5.9.2.1

5. Brick/Block Work
- External Skin m
2 14.1.1.1 & 14.1.2.1
- Forming Cavity 2 14.14.1.1
m
- Concrete Filling m
3 11.5.1.1
- D.P.C m 14.16.1.3
- Facing 2 14.1.1
m
- Adjust Backfill 3 5.11.2
m
- Disposal m
3 5.9.2.1

6. Bed
- Concrete 3 11.2.1.1
m
- Hardcore 3 5.12.2.1
m
- Damp Proof Membrane m
3 5.16.1.1
97
 Residential House
Model Fnd -
1

1. Site Clearance
Prliminary Sitework
Area to be cleared
2.00 2.00 Trial pits 1.5m max
depth; no services Length Width
found; soil clay. 11.175 6.785

11.18 Clear site of all scrubs

Removing Trees 6.79 75.91 and dispose off site.

3.00 3.00 Girth 500mm to

1,500mm; filled with
clay

98
 Residential House Model
Fnd - 2

2. Site Preporations Top-soil retained

Removal of top-soil 11.63 Retain top-soil on site

7.24 in temporary soil
Area to be reduced 0.15 12.63 heaps
Length Width Ddt
11.175 6.785 1.80 &
2.38
0.15 0.64
conc fdn spred 1.70 Disposal of exc mat off
1.35 site a.b.
750 0.15 0.34
- 297.5 11.65
2) 452.5
2/ 226.25
452.5

length width
11.175 6.785
0.453 0.453
11.628 7.238

depth 250

top-soil retained 150

11.63 Bulk excavation not

7.24 exceeding 2.00 m deep
0.25 21.05
&
Ddt
1.80 Disposal of excavated
2.38 material off site
0.25 1.07
1.70
1.35
0.25 0.57
19.41

99
 Residential House Model
Fnd - 3

3. Trench
Foundation excavation
Centre Line 34.82 not exc 2.00 m depth
girth 0.75
0.88 22.98
length width
11.175 6.785
&
11.175
6.785
2/ 17.96 Filling foundation trench
ext face 35.92 with material from
excavation not exc 500
less ext angles mm; final thicckness
6-2=4 consolidated in layers
4/275 1.1 average 100 mm deep
34.82

Depth
750
225
975

less red lev 100

875

100
 Residential House Model
Fnd - 4

4. Concrete Foundation
Brickwalls

34.82 Insitu concrete quality Skins 150

0.75 A < 300 mm thick poured 150
0.23 6.01 on or against earth. 300

Facing brick wall 112.5 mm

2 34.82 thick; faced and pointed
& 0.30 20.89 one side as skins of hollow
wall.

Ddt
Filling foundation trenches
with material from Cavity
excavations a.b.
50mm thick 75mm thick
& depth depth
150mm 750mm
Disposal of excavated 150mm
material off site a.b. 900mm

Form cavity 50mm thick;

34.82 with wall ties at 450mm
5. Blockwork Skins 0.15 5.22 centred horizontally abd
300mm centred vertically.

750 Hight of blockwork

Cavity 50mm thick;

concrete quality C filling to
34.82
hollow walls not exceeding
0.15 300 mm thick.
High strength concrete 0.05 0.26
34.82 blocks 100 mm thick as
2
0.75 52.23 skins of hollow walls.
Form cavity 75mm thick;
34.82
for blockwork hollow walls
0.75 26.12

Cavity 75mm thick;

34.82
concrete quality C filling to
0.75 hollow walls not exceeding
0.08 2.09
300 mm thick.

101
 Residential House Model
Fnd - 5

Brickwalls (cont'd) 6. Bed

DPC Area within walls

Bituminous felt damp length width

2 34.82 69.64 proof course 5mm thick 11.175 6.785
not exceeding 300mm
wide horizontal. less 2/275 0.550 0.550
10.625 6.235

Adjust backfill & disposal 10.63 Concrete quality A in

for cavity wall 6.24 horizontal work ≤ 300
0.15 9.95 mm thick in structures.

height of wall in trench Ddt

1.80
750 2.38
disposal - 250 0.15 0.64
500 1.70
backfill + 150 1.35
650 0.15 0.34
8.97

Ddt
Filling foundations with
34.82 material from excavation
0.28 a.b.
0.65 6.34 Imported hardcore filling
& 10.63 in bed over 50mm but
6.24 not exceeding 500mm
Disposal of excavated 0.25 16.58 thick; compacted in
material off site a.b. layers average 100mm
Ddt
1.80
2.38
0.25 1.07
1.70
1.35
0.25 0.57
14.94

10.63
6.24 66.33 Damp proof membrane
1000 guage polythene
Ddt lapped 150 at joints.
1.80
2.38 4.28 Tanking & damp
1.70 proofing; horizontal laid
1.35 2.30 on blinded hardcore.
59.75

102
Appendix D: Bill of Quantities

A/A ITEM QUANTIT UNIT RATE TOTAL

(NRM2 Ref.) Y £ £

FOUNDATION

EARTHWORKS

EXCAVATION, FILLING,
ETC

SITE CLEARANCE /
PREPERATION

1. Trial pits not exceeding 1.5 2 Nr 5,100 10,200.00

(5.1.2.1) m deep; no services found;
clay soil.

2 Girth 500 mm to 1.5 m; filled 3 Nr 208.01 624.03

(5.2.1.1) with clay soil.

3 Clear site of all scrubs and 76 M2 0.34 25.84

(5.4.1) prepare for building
operations

EXCAVATIONS

Reduced level excavations

(by machine)

4 Bulk excavation on average 19 M3 0.91 17.29

(5.6.1.1) 250 mm deep (not exceeding
2 m).

103
5 Top soil excavation for 12 M3 0.90 10.80
(5.10.1.1) preservation average depth
150 mm, in temporary spoil
heaps on average distance
of 25 m.

Trench excavations

7 Foundation excavation not 23 M3 6.36 152.49

(5.6.2.1) exceeding 2.00 m deep

FILLING & DISPOSAL

Filling from excavation (by

machine)

8 Filling to excavations; with 11 M3 3.13 34.43

(5.11.2) material from excavations
exceeding 500 mm deep;
average thickness not
exceeding 0.25m,

Imported filling

9 Filling in bed; obtained off 15 M3 26.29 394.35

(5.12.2.1) site hardcore; average
thickness not exceeding 0.25
m.

Disposal on site

10 Retained topsoil, 12 M3 3.08 36.96

(5.10.1.1) non-hazardous material
on-site in spoil heaps.

Disposal off site

11 Disposal of non-hazardous 19 M3 16.20 307.80

(5.9.2.1) material, load lorry by
machine, to tip not exceeding

104
 13 km.

IN-SITU CONCRETE
WORKS

IN-SITU CONCRETE

Insitu concrete (21 N/m2)

quality A.

12 Insitu concrete not exceeding 6 M3 77.01 462.06

(11.2.1.2) 300 mm thick poured on or
against earth,

13 Insitu concrete not exceeding 9 M3 77.01 693.09

(11.2.1.1) 300 mm thick poured over
damp proof membrane and
hardcore.

Weak mix Insitu concrete

quality C.

14 Insitu concrete not exceeding 2 M3 70.57 141.14

(11.5.1.1) 300 mm thick filling to hollow
walls cavity
75 mm thick.

15 Insitu concrete not exceeding 1 M3 70.57 70.57

(11.5.1.1) 300 mm thick filling to hollow
walls cavity
50 mm thick.

MASONRY

WALLS

Red rustic facing bricks; in

sulphate resistant cement
mortar (1:3); stretcher bond;
bucket handle jointing as
work proceeds.

105
16 Skin of hollow wall 112 mm 21 M2 48.56 1,019.76
(14.1.1.1) thick; built fair faced pointed
one side

Lightweight aerated high

strength concrete
blocks (7.00N/mm2);
Thermalite High Strength 7
blocks or other equal and
approved; in cement
mortar (1:3)

17 Hollow wall 100 mm thick as 52 M2 15.91 827.32

(14.1.2.1) skins of hollow walls.

CAVITY

Forming cavities in hollow

walls including stainless steel
twisted wire wall ties @ 5 per
m2.

18 75 mm thick; for blockwork 26 M2 1.70 44.20

(14.14.1.1) hollow walls.

19 50 mm thick; with wall ties at 5 M2 1.16 5.80

(14.14.1.1) 450 mm centred horizontally
and 300 mm centred
vertically.

WATERPROOFING

DAMP PROOF COURSE

Damp proof course:

BS 734; bitumen
reference C. 150 laps.

20 Bituminous felt damp proof 70 M 4.42 309.40

106
(14.16.1.3) course 5 mm thick not
exceeding 300 mm wide
horizontally.

Damp proof membrane;

3000 grade bituthene
sheeting; lapped joints.

21 Tanking & damp proofing; 60 M2 5.52 331.20

(5.16.1.1) horizontal; not exceeding
300 mm wide; laid on blinded
hardcore.

TOTAL COST £15,417.03

Cost Per M2 £196.91

107
Appendix E: Workbook of all taken-off items using
Autodesk QTO

108
Appendix F: Bill of quantities report using Autodesk QTO

Group (Items Only)

WBS Remarks Quantity 1 Material Cost Total Cost

Unit Cost Total Cost

01

£10,850.73

01.Site Clearance Clear site of all

78.540 m² 0.34 26.70 26.70
scrubs and
prepare for
building operations
01.Tree Removal Girth 500mm to
1.5m; filled with 3.000 ea 208.01 624.03 624.03
clay soil
01. Trial pits Trial pits not
2.000 ea 5,100.00 10,200.00 10,200.00
exceeding 1.5m
deep; no services
found; clay soil
02

£988.15

02. Filling & Disposal

798.11

02.Filling & Disposal.Disposal

348.16

02.Filling & Disposal.Disposal.Disposal off site

315.02

02.Filling &
7.192 m³ 16.20 116.52 116.52
Disposal.Disposal.Disposal
off site.Disposal off site_1
02.Filling &
5.950 m³ 16.20 96.40 96.40
Disposal.Disposal.Disposal
off site.Disposal off site_2
02.Filling &
6.303 m³ 16.20 102.11 102.11
Disposal.Disposal.Disposal
off site.Disposal off site_3
02.Filling &
Retained top soil, 10.759 m³ 3.08 33.14 33.14
Disposal.Disposal.Disposal
non-hazardous
on site material on-site in
spoil heaps.
02.Filling & Disposal.Filling

449.95

02.Filling & Disposal.Filling.Filling from excavation

42.35

02.Filling & Foundation 25.785 m³ 3.13 80.71 80.71

109
Disposal.Filling.Filling from Excavation not
excavation.Filling from exceeding 2.00 m
excavation_1 deep

02.Filling & -5.950 m³ 3.13 -18.62 -18.62

Disposal.Filling.Filling from
excavation.Filling from
excavation_2
02.Filling & -6.303 m³ 3.13 -19.73 -19.73
Disposal.Filling.Filling from
excavation.Filling from
excavation_3
02.Filling & Filling in bed; 15.504 m³ 26.29 407.59 407.59
Disposal.Filling.Imported obtained off site
filling hardcore; average
thickness not
exceeding 0.25m.
02.Excavation of reduced Bulk excavation on 17.981 m³ 0.91 16.36 16.36
level average 250mm
deep (not
exceeding 2m)
02.Excavation of top soil Top soil excavation 10.759 m³ 0.90 9.68 9.68
for preservation
average depth
150mm, in
temparary spoil
heaps on average
distance of 25m.
02.Excavation of trench Foundation 25.785 m³ 6.36 163.99 163.99
Excavation not
exceeding 2.00 m
deep
03

£1,333.25

03.A-Quality

1,174.61

03.A-Quality.A-Quality Insitu concrete not 9.302 m³ 77.01 716.37 716.37

Concrete_1 exceeding 300mm
thick poured over
damp proof
membrance and
hardcore
03.A-Quality.A-Quality Insitu concrete not 5.950 m³ 77.01 458.25 458.25
Concrete_2 exceeding 300mm
thick poured on or
against earth
03.C-Quality

158.64

03.C-Quality.Weak 75mm Insitu concrete not 1.983 m³ 70.57 139.97 139.97

concrete mix exceeding 300mm
thick filling to
hollow walls cavity
75mm thick.
03.C-Quality.Weak Insitu concrete not 0.264 m 70.57 18.66 18.66
concete mix excedding 300mm
thick filling to
hoolow walls cavity
50mm thick
04

£1,355.23

04.Blockwork Lightweight 52.893 m² 15.91 841.53 841.53

aerated high
strength concrete
blocks (7

110
 N/sqrmm);
Thermalite High
Strength 7 blocks
or other equal and
approved; in
cement mortar
(1:3)
04.Brickwall Red rustic facing 10.579 m² 48.56 513.70 513.70
bricks; in sulphate
resistant cement
mortar (1:3);
stretcher bond;
bucket handle
jointing as work
proceeds
07

£654.04

07.DPC Damp proof 70.524 m 4.42 311.72 311.72

course; BS734;
bitumen reference
C, 150 laps.
07.DPM Damp proof 62.015 m² 5.52 342.32 342.32
membrane; 3000
grade bituthene
sheeting lapped
joints
Total Cost £15,181.40

111
Appendix G: Diary (summer placement experience)

Diary
Date Description
Monday  Was introduced to the team and talked about the
17/06/13 firms objectives and goals.
(Week1)  Looked at pictures regarding foundations, and
details regarding the type of foundations mostly
used in Cyprus.
 Most foundations are constructed with the levelling
of the plane using a slab. A reinforced cage is later
placed on top of the slab and cement and concrete is
poured in.
 Was asked to look at Building Quantities Explained
by Ivor H. Seeley .

Tuesday  Was shown taking off paper and was explained

18/06/13 what each column should contain.
 Began reading Building Quantities Exaplined.
 Note for Dissertation: When doing a traditional taking
off we begin with noting down on the top of the 4th
column the project number (code), the date, the
initials of the quantity surveyor and the project name.
 Note for Dissertation: The second step concerning
commencing the traditional taking off is to write
down a list of every small part of the section that will
be measured.
 Note for Dissertation: Each part that is measured will
be ticked off, thus confirming the measurement of that
material. This is because in many cases a lot of small
parts of the section may be forgotten and therefore
result in wrong measurements.
Wednesday  Was asked to attempt example 1 from
19/06/13 Building Quantities Explained (Ivor H. Seeley ).
 Question: When I first attempt it I did not understand
why we were subtracting the wall from the
foundation, and what we were actually looking for?
 Answer: The reason for subtracting the wall was
because we also include the spread of the
foundation.
 This helped me understand that when we are
measuring a section, we must first understand
the different parts & materials that the section
being measured consists of.
Thursday  Continued working on example
20/06/13  Note for Dissertation: When looking at the drawings
containing the section that will be measured, we must
make sure that the scale we are supplied with (either
by
the contractor, civil engineer or architect) is of the

112
 correct scale. From personal experience when
attempting to read from A3 papers given by the
different professionals it was difficult to measure
straight from the original copy due to the bulk of the
papers. It was required to take a copy in order to help
with the measurements.
 Note for Dissertation: When attempting my first
measurement, I saw that I had forgotten one of the
measurements while reading off the drawings. I was
told that a good way to help with verifying that I had
measured a section was to colour it in showing all
the
sections I had measured on the drawing.
Friday  Continued working on example
21/06/13  Note for Dissertation: Question: In what order are the
procedures followed in order to arrive at the price
regarding what is being measured?
Answer: Firstly, in Cyprus as I
was told when preparing for a taking off it should be
done on the basis of Standard Method of Measurement
7 (SMM7). This is unlike England where they are
currently using NRM 1&2 (New Rules of Measurement).
When the taking off complies to SMM7 or NRM2 then
they can then be presented in the Bill of quantities. The
Bill of Quantities will include what was measured and
the unit of measurement which is stated in the SMM7
or NRM2. These are then put along with the rates of
each material in order to arrive at the price of the
materials, sections being measured.
 Note for Dissertation: While working at Workteam
management I observed that the measurements were
carried out by the traditional means of manual taking
off, measuring directly off the drawing plans and
displaying them on measuring paper. An additional way
was by using Excel, which is a semi-automatic way of
measuring due to the fact that you still have to
measure through the drawing plans or through CAD.
Once these have been measured they must then be
inputted into excel. This is where excel comes in handy,
when inputted into the cells formulas are used to
derive different calculations such as the volume, area,
perimeter, total surface area etc. The use of excel is
not considered to be the tradition way of
measurement, lacking in description for each part
being measured. However, it is thought to be a faster
procedure with the benefit of minimising calculation
errors. This can be thought of as an intermediate
between the traditional
method and an automated BIM method, such as
Vectorworks.

113
Monday  Today we started talking about the contracts used in
24/06/13 Cyprus and how they are used. Cyprus bases most of
(Week2) its contracts on the JCT 68 contract. However, I was
told that most contractors add a lot of variations to
their contracts.
 When I started getting a better, idea of taking off I

noticed that the use of previous years’ information and

modules came in hand. Firstly, both the Information &
Communication and the Auto CAD modules helped me
understand how to actually read the drawings and
understand them. Secondly, both construction science
and construction technology helped me appreciate how
each section of the building consists of and where each
member can be found. Finally, another module that was
important towards my understanding of the company
was contract law, helping me understand the terms and
some clause regarding the JCT.
 Note for Dissertation: When using the traditional
method it is important that the Quantity Surveyor
understands the logical order of measuring a section,
and this is by following the NRM2. When I started
with the measurement of an elevator shaft I began to
measure whatever my eye caught first on the
drawing, The correct order that I should have followed
was SMM7 (now NRM2). These logical orders are
predetermined in NRM2 (SMM7 is an older version),
which states step by step what to measure and in
what order and the units it will be measured in.
Taking for example SMM7 states that the top soil used
be
measured in m2 and not in m3.
Tuesday  I tried a different drawing in order to understand the
25/06/13 taking off at a better level. This time keeping in mind
all the notes made on my previous mistakes.
 Question: When using measuring paper, how do
you refer to previous calculations?
 Answer: You refer to back to other calculations
through the description
 The subject of double payment was introduced to me
for the first time due to an incident with a contractor.
A contractor, the firm worked with over a project,
double charged materials even though it was in the
contract that it was the contractors responsibility to
supply the adhesive needed for the cutting of the
edges. However, the contractor charged the client
extra for these costs. In order to find these the firm
had to go through all the
invoices and looked through all the materials charged.
Wednesday  Continued on measurements.
26/06/13  Note for Dissertation: When I was attempting a
measurements from a drawing I was informed by a
colleague than I should pay attention to the scale and

114
 the drawings that they are the same drawings and
not older or updated drawings.
 Note for Dissertation: Regarding traditional taking-off,
it is very important on which column you are writing
on, regarding the measuring paper. This is because we
are trying to produce a standard template that each
person
reading the measurements can comprehend.
Thursday  Continued measurements on an elevator shaft.
27/06/13

 Note for Dissertation: The same materials used for

different purposes should be measured separately. For
example, concrete is used in the foundation and in the
walls; however they must both be measured
separately.
Friday  Was taught how to measure reinforcement bars
28/06/13 found in the reinforced concrete.
 Note for Dissertation: (how to measure reinforcement
bars). To begin, reinforcement bars come as 12 m
rods, (in Cyprus this is custom dimensions). We then
have to find the length of where we are going to
insert into the reinforcement, needed in the
foundation. Thereafter, we look at the type of
reinforcement provided to us by the drawing for
example “Y12-15” this means a circumference of
12mm with a spacing of every 15 cm. In order to find
the number of rods in the concrete, we divide the
length by the spacing and then add 1 to the number.
Finally, we multiply the number by the length of the
foundation. That will indicate the total length that is
then converted to kg using the ration of Kg per M.
 An assumption taken for reinforcements in a
foundation is that wherever there is an edge we
automatically add 5 cm to the length. For other types
of reinforcements that consist of different pieces, we
find the length for each different rod and add them
together. We then divide the length of the whole
construction divided by
the spacing (+1) to find the number of reinforcements.
Monday  Today we started talking about how tendering works
01/07/13 in Cyprus. We talked about how the sum of retention
(Week3) is distributed.
 In most contracts, during the handing over period,
25% of the retention sum is given to the contractor
and the remaining 25% of the retention sum is handed
to the contractor after the handing over period, in
order to
ensure that the building is in a good condition.
Tuesday  Today I had to get involved with a renovation project.
02/07/13 The firm was given different prices (offers) concerning
the wooden windows. My job was to input all of these
values into excel in order to compare the prices and
the differences from one supplier to the other. First I
115
had to
create a table with all the details concerning each offer,
in order to see the differences found in each offers.

116
Figure: Excel table for comparison of windows.

Wednesday  I continued working on my assignment.

03/07/13  Once the above table was completed, the firm took
the list to the architect and they together discussed
which offer would be better for the project, Apart
from the price the material used and the efficiency of
the windows , for example if it was of low energy.
Once the firm and the architect decided on the type of
wood and glass that would be used, then a rough
estimate of the cost needed to be calculated in order
to give to the client.
 At first when I started the comparison I was expecting
to roughly have the same prices from supplier to
supplier. To my surprise, there were total prices that
were double compared to other prices. However, I
was told that this was normal and the reason behind
this was the material and efficiency of each type of
window supplied by the suppliers. Furthermore, my
job was not to look at the lowest price but to show
the differences
helping the firm and architect to choose for the client.
Thursday  Continued working on my assignment.
04/07/13  I started to write down the information and details
regarding each supplier, when the manager told me
that when comparing prices it is always better to have
all the same information regarding the suppliers next
to
each other so that they can easily be compared by
whomever is reading it.
Friday  Continued working on my assignment.
05/07/13  The manager and architect decided upon the material
and glass. It was my job to calculate a rough estimate
of the cost, regarding the windows. Firstly, I began
with the project’s drawings and started counting and
measuring each window from the different views. I
ended up with a count of 40 windows. However, I did
not know that there was a section in the drawings
where all the windows where described in detail
including the dimensions of each window. When using
these set of drawings the number of windows
117
 increased
to 70. This shows that through the different views,

some windows were concealed due to some of the

views provided by the drawings.
Monday  Was asked to expand on my previous assignment I
08/07/13 was handed the week before.
(Week 4)  I was asked to compare the old drawings with the new
drawings to cross reference which windows were
constructed with aluminium, in order to disregard
them from the cost estimate. Moreover, the windows
were not exactly the same as the offers, so it was
necessary to work out the price per m2. However, this
needed to be done according to which window
matched the as close to the description as possible.
When noting the windows’ dimensions in order to help
with the working out of each windows area. After
working out how much each window would cost, they
were all added in order to give a rough total sum. I did
not expect the price total to reach £200,000, but I was
reassured that this was a normal total since the
windows were made of
wood and not from aluminium.
Tuesday  Continued working on my updated assignment trying
09/07/13 to create the table.
Wednesday  Carried on with my assignment tabulating all the
10/07/13 details needed for the assignment. Creating the below
table

Figure: Tabulating window information.

Thursday  While in placement, I also got involved with tender

11/07/13 evaluations. It was my duty to fix an excel sheet
regarding offers from 8 different suppliers, and to
represent them in a way were the reader could easily
compare these different prices between each supplier.
In addition, I needed to get all the formulas and
formatting ready for when the offers where to arrive
to
the company.
Friday  Continued working on Thursdays (11/07/13)
12/07/13 assignment getting the tables and cells ready.
However, I did not have any information to enter into

118
 the spreadsheet since I was waiting for the offers to
arrive from the different suppliers.
Monday  The offers from the different suppliers arrived and it
15/07/13 was my duty to input all of them into the
(Week 5) spreadsheet. One of the main reasons for doing this
was to check
that all the offers were accurately calculated and that

they are arithmetically correct.

Tuesday  Continued working on the previous days
16/07/13 assignment regarding the offers from the suppliers
and finished checking the costs.
Wednesday  After checking and correcting the costs, it is important
17/07/13 to compare these values and see why and where the
major differences occurred. In order to do this I
calculated the average cost for each item. By doing so,
it was possible to compare each value with the
average noting down which totals where very
expensive and which were too low compared to the
other costs.
 At first I tried to implement condition formatting in
the spreadsheet, hoping it would be faster than
comparing the values manually with the average. I
derived a formula where the minimum value was 20%
below the average and the maximum would be 20%
above the average. These two values would be the
range of the
colour scale.

Figure: Colour Scale

As we can see from the above print screen the colour scale was from light green to orange. The
highest value closest to orange was £ 1,400 and the lowest value closest to the light green
scale was £ 999, 00.
Thursday  Even though the manager liked the idea I was working
18/07/13 on the previous day he advised me that it was not an
efficient way of doing it since it would take much
longer due to the amount of values. Not only this but,
it would be necessary to define the values and scale
for each average. After I finished inputting and
comparing the offers, they were discussed between
our firm and the
architect.
Friday  Moreover, after this was completed a report needed
19/07/13 to be created specifying each offer and why there
were variations between the total costs. In addition,
comments were made regarding the lowest price and
the second lowest price, mentioning the differences
between the two.
Monday  Today we were told that we would be taken to
22/07/13 three different sites during that week.

119
(Week 6)  The first site we were taken to was at a construction
site of a supermarket. This was a smaller
supermarket, which was knocked down in order for a
larger supermarket to be erected in its place. At first,
it was a one-story supermarket, and planning
permission was needed in order for the project to
begin. When we arrived at the site, our manager
handed my co-worker and me a measuring tape and
were asked to measure three different spaces. Each
space needed different measurements, such as the
parameter and the area.
This was done so that we could calculate the finishes

needed for each room. Each finish costs differently

and thus each space containing a different finishing
needed measurement.
 At first we thought it was simple to measure a room
but it prove to be harder than we anticipated. Firstly,
you have to create a layout of the room that you are
going to measure, so that when another professional
uses it they will be able to comprehend and use the
layout. Our manager advised us that in order to
measure an irregular area it would be more convenient
if we measured the area in shapes. This would consist
of cutting the irregular area into smaller measurable
shapes.
 One of the main reasons why a quantity surveyor
would do this is to verify whether the contractor’s
measurements are correct. If not then the quantity
surveyor has proof of the measurement made.

Tuesday  The measurements we took on the supermarket site

23/07/13 were used to help us calculate the area and parameter
for each space. These calculations are necessary to
help us cross reference with what the contractor and
sub- contractor had in their measurements. Moreover,
if the contractor or sub-contractor try to point out that
their measurements are the correct ones then we can
show them our readings made on site. That is why it is
important to have a logical order and an easy
representation of the measurements.
Wednesday  The Second project was an old building, built in the
24/07/13 1960s, and was going to be renovated for the second
time. The building first got renovated in the 1980s,
and had a second storey built above the original
building. Now the original needed renovation due to it
being inhabitable. Moreover, apart from this the
building was going to be separated into two different
houses.
 Our manager pointed out to us that the columns were
of older regulations, which meant that they were of
smaller dimensions. In order for the existing columns
to comply with the new anti-seismic regulations, the
120
 columns had to be reinforced and made with bigger
dimensions. They achieved this by attaching a
reinforced cage to the existing column and then applied
concrete to it.
Thursday  The third site we visited was a construction site of a
25/07/13 house. Our manager pointed out to us how the
support walls were holding the main wall. In addition
to this, we saw how the reinforcement cages were
filled with aggregate, which was then filled with in situ
concrete. Moreover, we were also made aware of the
cement that was placed in-between each
reinforcement cage, which helped hold them together.

121
Friday  Like any other work, secretarial work is vital not only
26/07/13 for the smooth running of the office but it also helps
with the office being presentable, creating a workable
environment and an organised and composed
atmosphere. It was my duty to put together separate
tendering documents, and compile them into one
document that would be presented to our clients.

Monday  Today I was asked to create tendering documents

29/07/13 the same way I did on Friday (26/07/13)
(Week 7)
 When I was done, I was asked to calculate the
floorings and skirting of an apartment complex. I had
to measure all the different materials that were going
to be used as flooring, for example wooden, kitchen
tiles, toilet tiles, outdoor tiles etc.
 Apart from this I needed to measure the lengths of
the different skirting, noting down the different
materials (as seen in appendix K).
Tuesday  Carried on with Mondays work, needed to finish
30/07/13 the roof and the reception.
 After I was done with the measurements, I needed
to tabulate all the results in excel.
 As we can see from the below excel spread sheet
the measurements were separated by floor and by
material.
OPOΦOΣ 1 & 2

A/A
Пεpιγpαφή Μοv. Μέtpησηç Διαµέpισµα 1 Διαµέpισµα 2 Διαµέpισµα 3 Σύvολο
1
Κεpαµικά Βεpάντας m2 m2 25.12 28.82 24.55 78.49
2
Τσεκκολαδοúpα Βεpάντας Κάθετη 9.75 8.15 12.05 -
3
Τσεκκολαδοúpα Βεpάντας Οpιȗόντια m 9.4 9.3 2.8 -
4 Κεpαµικά Καθιστικοú,Τpαπεȗαpίας,
m 55.23 28.03 42.83 138.85
Kουȗίνας & Διαδpόµου
5 Τσεκκολαδοúpα Καθιστικοú, m 2
37.36 19.85 26.55 135.21
Τpαπεȗαpίας, Kουȗίνας & Διαδpόµου
6 m
Κεpαµικά Μπάνιου & W.C 4.17 3.51 5.08 -
7
Κεpαµικά για των ΤοίXο Μπάνιου & m2 26.73 19.03 27.95 73.71
8
9
W.C Πάpκε Υπνοδωµάτιου m2 30.72 11.65 22.39 64.76
Τσεκκολαδοúpα Υπνοδωµάτιου m 37.3 6.5 18.2 62
Figure: Tabulating materials and their measurements.
Wednesday  Our firm was asked to provide the health and safety
31/07/13 report for a project that was going to take place up
in the mountains. It was for reinforcing the top layer
of the mountain in order to prevent any rocks or
gravels from falling onto the road.
 One of the responsibilities of taking on a health and
safety report is that it is necessary to visit the site to
see what is necessary to wrote in the health and safety
report.
 When visiting the site pictures were taken at
different angles.
 We discussed with the contractor the method he was
going to use to secure the mountain. He discussed that
he was going to be using a crane where two people
and the net would be lifted up. The net would be
122
hoo
ked
to
the
mou
ntai
n
and
let
loos
e all
the
way
to
the
grou
nd,

123
 where it would be pinned in place at the bottom of the
mountain.
Thursday  Today my co-worker was going to write up the
01/08/13 health and safety report.
 Before he began, we discussed some of the obvious
issues that needed to be included into the report. We
talked about the need to block the side of the road
close to the mountain, to include the radius of the
rotation of the crane to make sure it does not get into
the other side of the road. Moreover, the box of the
crane would fit the net and two operators
comfortably, all the builders have the appropriate
equipment and
that they would be tightly secured to the crane.
Friday  Talked about our experiences at the placement and
02/08/13 our plans for the summer and for our future.

124
Appendix H: Elevator Shaft - Section View

125
Appendix I: Elevator Shaft – Plan View

126
Appendix J: Elevator Shaft – Taking-off, p.1

127
Appendix K: Elevator Shaft – Taking-off, p.2

128
Appendix L: Elevator Shaft – Pricing Calculation, p.3

129
Appendix M: Parameter Wall Section

130
Appendix N: Parameter Wall- Taking-off, p.1

131
Appendix O: Parameter Wall- Taking-off, p.2

132
Appendix P: Parameter Wall Reinforcement Weight
(summer placement experience)

133
Appendix Q: Floorings and Skirting Plan View (summer
placement experience)

134
Appendix R: Floorings and Skirting Calculation (summer
placement experience)

135
Appendix S: Bill of Quantities (summer placement
experience)

136