Assaad, R; El-Adaway, I H; El Hakea, A H; Parker, M J; Henderson, T I; Salvo, C R and Ahmed, M O (2020) Contractual perspective for BIM utilization in US construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 146(12): 04020128, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Although building information modeling (BIM) is experiencing substantial development and use in the construction industry, its legal and business structures lag far behind. While many research efforts have been devoted to promoting the implementation of BIM in the construction industry, very few of them have actually attempted to explore its contractual environment. In fact, previous studies reported the lack of, and need for, a holistic understanding of BIM contractual requirements. To fill this gap, this paper assists the various project parties in better understanding BIM contractual integration and utilization in the construction industry at different key levels: contractual incorporation of BIM addenda/exhibits, priority of contract documents, roles and obligations, copyright ownership and intellectual property rights, standard of care, discrepancies in or between models, compensation and information establishment, BIM management and collaboration, use of models, and indemnity. Within the context of documents developed by the American Institute of Architects and ConsensusDocs, the authors used a three-step research methodology that comprised (1) reviewing and analyzing essential clauses, protocols, and addenda; (2) highlighting law cases that are related to BIM contracting in practice; and (3) comparing the different BIM implementation procedures and processes. To this end, the paper presents 20 contractual recommendations to help project parties better manage BIM-based projects from a contractual point of view. To verify/validate the usefulness and benefits of the performed analysis, the authors shared the paper's recommendations with leading experts in BIM and digital/virtual construction. Some of the specific research recommendations offered in this paper include: preparation of a list of project participants that have incorporated BIM contractual documents into their agreements to provide reasonable evidence that BIM provisions have been included in the main and affiliated contracts, and the prohibition on disclosing any received BIM data to any third party except as required by law or a court order to avoid issues with copyright ownership and intellectual property rights. This research adds to the body of knowledge by providing an enhanced understanding of various BIM contractual aspects on construction projects.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | building information modelling, research methodology, ownership, architect, compensation, implementation, construction industry, agreements, project party, indemnity, construction project, collaboration, integration, intellectual property, contract document, evidence, documents, body of knowledge |
| Subjects: | sociology, organizational analysis, information systems, liability law, industry analysis, economics, management, professional development, production management, contractual condition, contract formation, knowledge management, contractual arrangements, research design and methodology, evaluation and assessment methods, profession, dispute resolution, intellectual property |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Digital Applications, Contract Administration, Organizational Design, Research Practice, Project Management, Information Management, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here