Service · Layout & DfMA
Design for manufacture. Build for the field.
Modularisation, prefab strategy and whitespace layout — calibrated to the contractor pool that will actually deliver your build and to the logistics envelope your site can actually accept. European, Middle Eastern and global hyperscale builds.
- EU & ME deployments
- 10-500 MW campus
- OCP / hyperscaler-aligned
- DLC & immersion-ready
- Vendor-neutral on prefab
- 0%
Average hyperscale build: 40–60% prefabricated. Top decile: 80–85%. McKinsey, 2025.
- 0 wk
When DfMA decisions land in Concept, not Detail Design.
- 0
Compared on UBI™, schedule, capex and contractor-pool fit.
- 0×
Industry benchmark for late-stage modularisation reversal.
The problem
Prefab pays back only when the layout is designed for it.
Modularisation now makes up 40–60% of a hyperscale build's parts — and 80–85% at the industry leaders. The schedule recovery isn't optional; it's been priced into the business case. But the fee doesn't capture itself: the layout has to be designed to accept prefab from Concept, not after Detail Design has locked it out.
Same layout decision. Same site. Different design phase.
- 1×Concept· Sketch revision
Whitespace re-draw costs hours. UBI™ operates here.
- 8×Detail Design· Re-route + re-tender
MEP coordinated, pool engaged. Switching prefab means re-routing skids.
- 25×Construction· Rip-and-rebuild
Crew mobilised, slabs poured. Reversing is a board-level event.
UBI™ operates at the cheap side of the curve — every Top-3 layout finding lives at 1× for a few weeks before the same decision costs 8×.
schedule reduction reported on hyperscale builds that apply modularisation consistently from Concept. McKinsey, 2025.
The escalation is exponential, not linear. Layout choices that look soft at Concept harden into pricing risk in Detail Design and into outage risk in Construction.
Deliverables
A modularisation strategy your contractor can actually deliver.
Every UBI™ engagement ships five artefacts. Each ties to a specific milestone and arrives on a published week.
DfMA strategy memo
What gets prefabbed, where, by whom — and what stays site-built. The single document that sets the modularisation envelope and locks the layout decisions all subsequent design rests on.
- 02
Layout option set
Three candidate layouts at concept resolution. Plant rooms, whitespace, MEP corridors, structural grid, access routes — annotated row-by-row with constructability notes.
A3 plates · 3 setsWk 4 - 03
UBI™ scorecard
Six-dimension score per layout with weights and rationale per cell. Sensitivity sweep on supplier dropout, lead-time slip and contractor change. The number that survives investment committee.
PDF + live sheetWk 5 - 04
Modularisation roadmap
Gantt aligned to your programme: which contractors do which prefab, when factory windows open, when site lay-down peaks, where critical-path conflicts hide.
PDF + .mppWk 6 - 05
Logistics constraint map
Port-to-site convoy paths, crane envelope, single-lift max, lay-down sequencing, weather-window risk. Every module pre-flighted before fabrication contracts get signed.
PDF + GIS overlaysWk 6
Method · UBI™
Three layouts. One UBI™ score each. One recommendation.
UBI™ — the Upterix Buildability Index — scores each candidate layout across six engineering dimensions, weighted identically across every engagement, so the comparison is defensible and the recommendation is reproducible.
We model two or three layouts at concept resolution, score them on UBI™, run a sensitivity sweep against supplier dropout and contractor change, and hand back a ranked recommendation with the rationale your investment committee can read.
Hyperscale modular delivery and AI-cluster sequencing under regional skilled-trade shortages — 80–90% of US contractors and 86% of German employers currently report skilled-trade gaps.
Five weighted factors calibrated against the Navigant RFI baseline and 80+ tender-pool re-scorings.
CII-aligned narrative report for owners using CII frameworks.
- CII Constructability narrative review
- Lean Construction principle conformance map
- DfMA opportunity register
Inside the methodology
A buildability score that survives engineering review and contractor cross-examination.
“A layout that no contractor in your pool can deliver is not a layout — it's a redraw waiting to happen.”
We model the layouts against your programme, your contractor pool and your site — not against a reference case from a different geography or a different delivery system. Every variable that breaks layouts in execution is loaded in at Concept.
UBI™ doesn't reward the most aggressive prefab strategy. It rewards the layout that captures the most prefab yield your specific delivery system can actually realise — without breaking schedule, contractor fit, or supplier diversity.
What comes out is one number per layout, one ranked recommendation, and a sensitivity sweep showing where each score moves if a supplier drops out, a contractor changes, or a lead time slips. The recommendation is the answer; the sensitivity sweep is the insurance.
Where UBI™ takes you
The modularisation spectrum.
Not every layout can become all-module — and not every project should. UBI™ scores where your design sits today and where it can realistically reach, against the contractor pool you'll actually bid.
- Baseline
- UBI™ push zone
- Industry leaders
Layout options compared
Three layouts. Side by side. Audit-defensible.
Every Standard engagement scores three layouts side by side — the same six dimensions, the same weights, the same sensitivity sweep. The output isn't an opinion; it's a document your investment committee can read.
Option A
Option B
RecommendedOption C
- 01UBI™ scoreOption A · UBI™ score64Option B · UBI™ score81Option C · UBI™ score58
- 02ScheduleOption A · Schedule22 wkOption B · Schedule18 wkOption C · Schedule15 wk
- 03Capex Δ vs. baselineOption A · Capex Δ vs. baselineBaselineOption B · Capex Δ vs. baseline+4 %Option C · Capex Δ vs. baseline−3 %
- 04Vendor concentrationOption A · Vendor concentrationLowOption B · Vendor concentrationModerateOption C · Vendor concentrationHigh
- 05Contractor-pool fitOption A · Contractor-pool fitStrongOption B · Contractor-pool fitStrongOption C · Contractor-pool fitWeak
- 06Best forOption A · Best forRisk-averse owners; weak-prefab contractor pools.Option B · Best forMost hyperscale builds with proven prefab GCs.Option C · Best forSpeed-only, with a vetted volumetric supplier already locked.
Inside UBI™
Six dimensions. One score per layout.
Buildability
Weight 20 %Crew-skill mix vs. detail count. Sequence buildability against the contractor pool you'll actually bid.
Modular yield
Weight 20 %Share of MEP and structural elements migrating to factory. Higher yield → harder to reverse late.
Logistics feasibility
Weight 15 %Port crane limits, road convoy widths, site lay-down area, single-lift envelope vs. module size.
Contractor-pool fit
Weight 20 %Each pool member's proven prefab capability — skidded MEP, power pods, volumetric — graded against this layout's demands.
Schedule compression
Weight 15 %Weeks recoverable vs. stick-built baseline, with critical-path realism — not idealised parallelism.
Cost resilience
Weight 10 %Sensitivity of layout to supplier dropout, lead-time slip and material-price swing.
How the engagement runs
Eight weeks. Seven milestones. One UBI™.
- Wk 1Wk 1
Brief + site walk-through
Programme, anchor-tenant constraints, contractor pool, site logistics envelope.
- Wk 2Wk 2
Pool capability mapping
Each shortlisted contractor's proven prefab capability graded against this build's demands.
- Wk 3Wk 3
Layout modelling
Three candidate layouts drafted at concept resolution. MEP, electrical, whitespace, plant rooms, access routes.
- Wk 4Wk 4
Costing + sequencing
Each layout costed and sequenced. Constructability annotated row by row.
- Wk 5Wk 5
UBI™ scoring
Six-dimension scoring on each layout. Sensitivity sweep on supplier dropout, lead-time slip, contractor change.
- Wk 6Wk 6
Logistics stress-test
Module-by-module logistics: port-to-site convoy, single-lift envelope, lay-down sequencing, weather windows.
- Wk 7–8Wk 7–8
Recommendation + briefing
Ranked recommendation with rationale; investment-committee briefing; sensitivity readout.
Commercial terms
Three tiers. Fixed-fee or outcome-priced.
- 01Strategy· 4 weeks$60Kfixed-fee
- Single discipline lens (e.g. cooling-led)
- 1 layout option scored
- UBI™ summary memo · 8 pages
- 02Standard· 6 weeks$120Kfixed-fee
- All disciplines
- 3 layout options scored
- UBI™ scorecard + contractor-pool capability mapping
- Modularisation roadmap (Gantt)
- 03Comprehensive· 8 weeks$180Kfixed-fee
- All disciplines + logistics stress-test
- 3 layout options + sensitivity sweep
- Full UBI™ scorecard + capability heatmap
- Modularisation roadmap + supplier shortlist
+ Includes- Logistics map
- Insurance-backed assurance
All tiers — outcome-priced option available (5–15 % of demonstrated rework avoided, capped). Insurance-backed assurance on Comprehensive.
Why us, here
We design for your contractors, not for ours.
“A modularisation strategy that no contractor in your pool can deliver is not a strategy — it's a redraw waiting to happen.”
The contractor pool you'll actually bid is the pool that will actually build it. No two pools share the same prefab maturity, the same supplier base, or the same field discipline — and most reference-case strategies were engineered for someone else's pool, in someone else's geography. We calibrate the layout to the contractors in front of you, not the ones in a vendor's brochure. The score that comes back is the score those contractors can defensibly deliver, against the climate they'll deliver it in.
Climate is not a footnote. Thermal envelopes, water-cooled versus air-cooled trade-offs, direct-liquid-cooling readiness, transit stress on volumetric modules, ambient extremes at the install window — these shape which prefab strategy realistically reaches site. We design the constraints in at Concept rather than around them in Construction, because the alternative is a layout that scores well on paper and fails on the loading dock.
And we don't sell prefab. We don't take rebates from Vertiv, Eaton, Schneider or STULZ. We don't earn referral fees, and we publish the UBI™ methodology — dimension weights included — so the recommendation can be challenged on method, not on motive. The modular partner we recommend is the one whose capability fits your layout. If your preferred vendor fits, we'll say so. If they don't, we'll tell you that — and tell you which supplier on your shortlist does.
If this fits your build.
- Built for
- Owners and EPCs at Concept or Schematic Design — where the layout is still soft.
- Typical scope
- 10–500 MW campus, EU / ME / global.
- Engagement
- 4–8 weeks · 3-tier fixed-fee or outcome-priced on schedule recovery.
- Ships
- 5 PDF artefacts + UBI™ scorecard + sensitivity sweep.
Frequently asked
Practical questions, honest answers.
The questions owners and EPCs actually ask before booking. If yours isn't here, ask it on the call.
Ideally at Concept — when the layout is still a sketch and every modularisation strategy is reversible. We've worked successfully from Schematic too, but you start losing options fast: by mid-Detail-Design the rework multiplier is already past 8×. If you're past tender, we'll tell you honestly what's still recoverable before quoting.
Yours. UBI™ is vendor-neutral by charter — we don't take rebates, kickbacks or referral fees from prefab suppliers, and we publish the methodology so you can verify it. If your preferred vendor's capability fits the layout, we'll recommend them. If it doesn't, we'll tell you that — and tell you which supplier on your shortlist does.
Partially. We can run a UBI™ scoring pass on the issued design, surface where modularisation strategy was left on the table, and propose pre-construction interventions that don't require a re-tender. Full layout re-options aren't realistic post-tender — by then the contractor pricing is locked against a specific sequence. Honest expectation: 30–40% of post-tender findings can still be captured; the rest are insurance for the next build.
Orthogonal. Uptime Tier scores reliability of the as-designed facility. LEED scores environmental performance. UBI™ scores buildability — how realistically your contractor pool can deliver this layout under your programme. A Tier IV design with a low UBI™ score is a Tier IV design with high construction risk. We score them separately because they fail differently.
Then volumetric isn't your layout — and UBI™ will say so. The score weights contractor-pool fit at 20% specifically to catch this. We'll recommend a skidded-MEP-and-pod hybrid that captures most of the schedule recovery without forcing your pool into capability they don't have. The point of UBI™ is to design for the contractors you have, not the ones in a reference case.
Honest answer: it depends. Modularisation almost always shifts capex from on-site labour to factory throughput; total fixed capex can come out roughly flat, slightly up (+2–5%) or down (−3–6%) depending on layout, vendor and geography. The reliable wins are schedule and predictability — at ~$1.4M/wk in carry cost on an 80 MW build, the recovered weeks usually dominate any capex delta. Our Comprehensive tier costs each layout on total cost of delivery, not just hard capex, so you see the real picture.
Test the layout before you lock it in.
Start with a Rapid Audit. We'll score your current layout against UBI™ and tell you what's worth changing.