Value Engineering in Ontario Construction: Structural VE, CCDC 2 Contracts & Cost Reduction That Works

What Value Engineering Is (and Is Not)

Value engineering, developed from Lawrence Miles' work in industrial manufacturing, applies a function-focused analysis to construction: for each building system and component, ask what function it performs and whether that function can be achieved at lower cost with equivalent or better performance. Applied to structural engineering in Ontario:

• True VE: Substituting a two-way post-tensioned slab for a conventional flat plate at the same floor-to-floor height while maintaining equivalent structural performance, code compliance, and constructability
• Not VE (scope or quality reduction): Reducing slab thickness below what the structural engineer designed, accepting lower compressive strength concrete, omitting reinforcement specified for durability, or reducing the number of piles specified by the geotechnical engineer

The distinction matters professionally: a structural engineer who accepts a "VE" proposal that is actually a quality reduction takes on liability for the change. True VE proposals require the structural engineer to re-design for the new system and confirm OBC compliance.

VE Under CCDC 2 in Ontario

CCDC 2 (Stipulated Price Contract) is a common construction contract form for Ontario building projects. The standard terms do not inherently include a universal VE savings-sharing mechanism, so project teams typically address VE through supplementary conditions. Common provisions include:

• VE proposal period: Contractor may submit VE proposals within a defined period after award or during a designated preconstruction stage
• Contractor bears redesign cost: The contractor is responsible for the cost of any engineering redesign required to implement the VE change
• Engineer's review timeline: The structural engineer of record is given a defined review period to evaluate structural VE proposals
• Owner's right to reject: Owner may reject any VE proposal for any reason, including scheduling impact, architectural impact, or professional engineering concerns
• Savings treatment: Net verifiable savings, redesign costs, and any schedule impact are handled through the project-specific contract language

The VE Workshop Process

On complex Ontario projects, formal VE workshops follow a defined methodology:

1. Information collection: Gather the structural drawings, specifications, cost estimate, environmental reports, and schedule to understand the project baseline
2. Function analysis: Break the structural system into its functional components — what does each element do, and what is its current cost per unit of function?
3. Creative phase: Generate candidate alternatives for each function — no criticism, high quantity of ideas
4. Evaluation phase: Screen ideas for feasibility — structural compliance, schedule impact, architectural integration, constructability, long-term performance
5. Development phase: Develop the promising alternatives in sufficient detail to quantify savings and identify necessary engineering work
6. Presentation: Present accepted VE proposals to the owner and design team with estimated savings, risk assessment, and implementation path

Common Structural VE Items in Ontario

Based on Ontario market conditions and the structural systems common in Ontario construction:

How the Structural Engineer Evaluates VE

The structural engineer of record evaluates VE proposals against multiple criteria before accepting or rejecting:

• Code compliance: Does the proposed system meet the currently adopted OBC, NBCC, and CSA design requirements that apply to the project?
• Gravity and lateral performance: Are deflections, vibrations, and strength adequate under the new system?
• Detailing and constructability: Can the alternate system be detailed and built to achieve its design performance, or are there critical constructability issues?
• Interface impacts: How does the change affect ceiling heights (mechanical clearances), floor-to-floor height (total building height, zoning compliance), column layout (parking efficiency, unit planning), curtain wall attachment, or phasing?
• Long-term performance and durability: Will the alternate provide equivalent service life? Thin post-tensioned slabs may have higher long-term corrosion risk than thicker conventional slabs in certain environments.

VE Risks and How to Mitigate Them

The primary risks associated with contractor-initiated structural VE in Ontario:

• Schedule risk: Major structural system changes require redesign time — if the VE proposal comes after the building permit is issued, the schedule impact of a permit revision may eliminate any cost savings
• Design liability shift: When the structural engineer of record re-designs for a VE change, they assume professional responsibility for the revised design. Ensure the SER's engagement terms address VE change redesign scope and additional fees
• Coordination gaps: A structural VE change that affects slab thickness or floor-to-floor height must be coordinated with mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and architectural design — coordination failure can create costly conflicts revealed only during construction

Value Engineering in Preconstruction

The highest-value VE opportunity is structural system selection during early design (schematic design or design development) — before construction documents are complete and before the building permit is filed. At this stage, alternate structural systems can be fully costed and optimized without permit revision costs or contractor schedule pressure. Ontario owners planning complex or large-scale construction projects should engage the structural engineer to evaluate alternative structural systems at the conceptual design stage, including parametric cost comparisons of slab systems and foundation types in the Ontario market before committing to a structural system.