Automation in Construction 31 (2013) 204214

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Automation in Construction
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/autcon

Building Information Modeling (BIM) partnering framework for public

construction projects
Atul Porwal a, Kasun N. Hewage b,
a
Candidate, Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia|Okanagan; EME 3209-3333 University Way, Kelowna, BC, Canada V1V 1V7
b
Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia|Okanagan; EME 4227-3333 University Way, Kelowna, BC, Canada V1V 1V7

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Organizational and people centered issues pose the greatest challenge for Building Information Modeling
Accepted 8 December 2012 (BIM) implementation. Studies showed that BIM implementation is still a challenge for the North American
Available online 5 January 2013 construction industry. The Canadian construction industry, in contrast, is well behind that of the U.S. in its
BIM adoption rate. Maturity and adoption of BIM depends mainly on the client or the owner in construction
Keywords:
projects. Public sector clients often think that the market is not ready for BIM and are afraid to increase pro-
Public procurement
Building Information Modeling (BIM)
ject costs by limiting competition. Moreover, if the contractor is not integrated in the project in the design
BIM adoption phase, BIM has limited power. This paper proposes a BIM partnering based public procurement framework
BIM partnering to ensure best value in construction projects. The case study presented in the paper proved the feasibility of
proposed BIM based procurement in publicly-funded construction projects. The suggested contractual ar-
rangement for the project resulted in improved productivity, better coordination, and reduced error, and
rework.
2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The construction industry still exhibits a low maturity in BIM use,
since no signicant changes in the traditional business model accom-
pany the introduction of new tools [1]. However, to maximize the
benets of this technology, a variety of organizational, procedural,
and technical issues are needed to be addressed. In the survey
conducted by the McGraw Hill on BIM adoption [1], not enough de-
mand for BIM from clients was identied as a main factor. Strong
leadership of public clients in the US might partly explain the signi-
cant gap in BIM adoption that exists between the US and the Canadian
industries. In contrast to 30% moderate BIM users in the Canadian
construction industry [2], US have crossed the adoption gap with a
degree of adoption of nearly 50% in 2009, viewing the adoption of
BIM as an excellent return on investment [1].
Rogers [3] described the technology adoption process as a normal
curve that divides into ve groups: innovators, early adopters, early
majority, late majority, and the laggards. Moore and Dainty [4]
added to this theory, the notion of adoption-gap, which is a gap
that needs to be crossed for successful adoption of a new technology.
The best way for a technology to be accepted is when the client/
owner imposes it in the contract, since it is not negotiable. Despite
the need for a clientbased BIM approach, the Canadian government
still does not play a big role in its implementation [5]. Accenture's
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 250 807 8176; fax: +1 250 807 9850.
E-mail address: kasun.hewage@ubc.ca (K.N. Hewage).
(2001) survey of 22 wealthy countries shows that the public sector
lags behind the private sector in its use of the new technologies [6].
In public sector, another central issue is moving from a low-bid
process to any of the other alternative project delivery methods. As
the public sector client is accountable to the public, an open compet-
itive bidding process, that is awarded based only on price, is highly
preferable. However, selecting a contractor based solely on price
greatly diminishes the signicance of importance of criteria, such as
time and quality, which does not guarantee a maximum value [7].
Low bid price as the sole award criterion encourages unqualied con-
tractors to submit bids [8] along with bidders that submit a very low
bid with the intent of recovering their losses through change orders
and claims, also known as predatory bidding [9]. Therefore, low bid
is not necessarily the best value for the owners. The means of
obtaining the best value under this system is to award a contract
to the responsive and compliant bidder, that is willing to fulll the
terms of the contract, for the lowest dollar value with innovative
ideas.
Institute for BIM in Canada suggested that one way to facilitate
BIM adoption may be to make BIM a mandatory requirement for pub-
lic projects [2]. Moreover, it was recommended to develop supple-
ments to existing contract and procurement documents [5]. Public
sector is more focused on administrative decision making, where
using BIM is not their rst priority, but only one of many responsibilities
[5]. Thus, it becomes important to review and evaluate the current per-
formance of the procurement process, to ensure that public sector ob-
tains a greater value for the money in their construction projects. No
such methodology, framework, or analysis in public procurement with

0926-5805/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2012.12.004
 A. Porwal, K.N. Hewage / Automation in Construction 31 (2013) 204214
BIM is available in the published literature. BIM's usage will certainly in-
crease in the future, especially with its' eventual adoption by the public
sector; with appropriate project delivery methods that seek to make the
most efcient use of a collaborative BIM model.
1.1. Aim of the research
BIM adoption in public construction projects would require a
change in the existing work practices to achieve better results with
higher quality buildings that perform at reduced costs [10]. Further,
higher the level of integration of team members in the early design
stages, greater the opportunities to get maximized benet out of
BIM [11,12]. For public organizations, especially in democratic coun-
tries like Canada, there are political sensitivities, deadlines, quality re-
quirements, and strict budgets. This research was aimed to focus on
the following questions to position BIM adoption in the public sector:
How BIM process can be smoothly introduced to the existing public
procurement system?
Is it possible to achieve maximized benets out of BIM, through a
coordinated modeling process, during the project design phase?
How the contractor could be involved early in the modeling process
along with the design team?
Can interoperability issues be handled with Industry Foundation
Class (IFC)?
What are the available BIM guidelines in other countries to handle
legal, intellectual property, and copyright issues?
1.2. Objective of the paper
This paper aims to propose a structured public project procure-
ment methodology to the Canadian construction industry, with an
aim of encouraging widespread BIM adoption. However with minor
modications in xing the target value and construction award pro-
cess, the proposed methodology can be applied to any other country
or jurisdiction.
In this paper, a collaborative BIM-Partnering project procurement
framework is proposed. The proposed framework is a structured ap-
proach for public sector BIM users. The proposed methodology facili-
tates the understanding of BIM tools' capabilities and addresses likely
legal and procedural conicts among project stakeholders. A case
study is presented in the paper to explain the Early BIM Partnering
collaborative process. The case study tested the proposed BIM frame-
work in a publically funded construction project, which used traditional
design-bid-build delivery method with lowest bid procurement.
2. Current status of BIM in the construction industry
As an emerging research eld, BIM has limited existing studies, the
literature review therefore goes beyond academic publications to also
include white papers and technical reports of BIM related applications
(i.e. [2,5,14,15,18,21]), guidelines and reports generated by government
and other regulatory bodies (i.e. [7,16,17,22]), and articles in well re-
spectable online newsletters (i.e. [aecbytes, buildingSMART]) that re-
ects on the latest development of BIM. These studies explored the
current status of BIM adoption, usage, costs, and benets of using BIM.
2.1. BIM adoption
Adoption of a new technology in any industry poses challenges.
McGraw Hill Report (2009) on BIM adoption (in the United States)
shows that almost 39% of the construction industry is now using
BIM in major projects with separate design and construction procure-
ment processes.
The Institute for BIM in Canada (IBC) [2] undertook a survey fo-
cused on BIM, with the purpose of better understanding the issues
205
related to the use and BIM adoption, in the Canadian construction in-
dustry. It highlighted the gaps in existing practices and identied that
procurement is still organized around functions and projects, not
around processes. Further, it mentioned about the lack of recognition
by the public clients on the added value of BIM technology.
In November 2011, National Building Specications (NBS) in UK
[13] followed up their 2010 BIM research with a further survey to
track people's attitudes towards use of BIM. The survey revealed
that around 90% users adopting BIM process require a signicant ad-
justment to the current practices in the industry. A few of larger ar-
chitectural organizations have been asked to use BIM in bidding for
public projects [13]. It is realized that while the cost is often seen as
the barrier to entry, especially for small organizations, the process/
practice change appeared as the real challenge.
A survey conducted by buildingSMART (2010) Australia, the School
of Natural and Built Environment (University of South Australia),
provided a useful illustration of the current status of adoption, usage,
costs, and benets of BIM in Australia [14]. Nevertheless, BIM technolo-
gy requires a shift in not only the technology used, but also in the
approach which design and construction teams work [15]. According
to Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for construction innovations in
Australia [16], there are many technological barriers for BIM implemen-
tation, which can be related to the needed organizational changes and
changes to the business processes.
Even though BIM is expected to deliver many benets, and the
costs are not materially higher than traditional or alternative man-
agement approaches, there are many factors that impede widespread
adoption. The Canadian construction industry identied bottlenecks
in the adoption process [2] and arrived at the conclusion that interest
in BIM is high, however full scale BIM projects are rare.
2.2. BIM maturity levels
As BIM continues to develop, clearly, not all businesses will adopt
systems and technologies at the same rate. BIM adopters will need to
go through a managed process of change which encompasses their in-
ternal organizational interfaces with external supply-base and clients.
A maturity model shown in Fig. 1 was developed by the UK Depart-
ment of Business Innovations and Skills (BIS). BIS dened the levels
from 0 through 3 [17]. A majority of the market is still working with
Level 1 processes, and the best in class are experiencing signicant
benets in Level 2.
Model Progression Specications (MPS) for BIM (E202-2008) has
been adopted by the American Institute of Architects (AIA) to address
a) phase outcomes, milestones, and deliverables, and b) idea of
assigning tasks on a best person basis [18]. The core of the MPS is
the Level of Detail (LOD) denitions (Table 1) which describes the
steps of the BIM element logical progress. The levels of details range
from the lowest level (100) of conceptual approximation to the
highest level of representational precision (500).
Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Maturity Data
Life cycle
Management
iBIM
BIM
2D-3D
CAD Processes
Drawings, Models, Objects, Integrated,
Lines, Arcs, etc. collaboration Interoperable data
Fig. 1. BIM maturity levels U.K.
Adapted from BIS.
206 A. Porwal, K.N. Hewage / Automation in Construction 31 (2013) 204214
2.3. Model denitions
BIM addendum [19] issued by ConsensusDOCS 301 is intended to
be an extremely exible document that can be used with traditional
project delivery methods such as D/B/B. The BIM Addendum can be
used with three-dimensional computer models coexisting with tradi-
tional two-dimensional drawings. From the design and construction
standpoint, the BIM Addendum makes a distinction between two
principal types of Models: 1) Design Model and 2) Construction
Model. All of the Design Models are intended to be coordinated to-
gether to form a Full Design Model. Construction Model consists of
data imported from the Design Model, and is dened as equivalent
to shop drawings. The BIM Addendum dened the Federated Model
as: a Model consisting of linked but distinct component Models,
drawings derived from the Models, texts, and other data sources
that do not lose their identity or integrity by being linked, so that a
change to one component Model in a Federated Model does not cre-
ate a change in another component Model. A conceptual diagram
prepared by the authors to explain different models in BIM adden-
dum is shown in Fig. 2.
2.4. Interoperability issues
One of the most dominant factors inuencing BIM adoption in
public sector organizations is that these organizations are reluctant,
or even incapable of forcing BIM use based on proprietary software
or standards. To keep the information open and non-proprietary,
there is a need for standards and protocols with a common language,
where the software packages are able to communicate with each
other. There are currently various protocols exist to address interop-
erability issues. The IFC and the Standard for the Exchange of Product
model data (STEP-ISO) are the rst introduced such protocols. At
present, IFC is the most supported protocol among the major BIM
software vendors. Since the emergence of International Alliance of
Interoperability (IAI) in 1995, the rst generations of IFCs have
appeared with IFC 1.0 in 1997. Then successive implements of IFCs
2 editions were released in May 2003, and more recently ifcXML
for internet based exchange methods were released [20]. IFC stan-
dardization is considerably more open than past CAD efforts and
has proved more anticipatory than previous CAD standards for the
use in already existing technological solutions. The IFC 2 3 platform
has been in use for over ve years; all the major software vendors
have solidied their 2 3 interfaces, making it the most robust BIM
model exchange platform available today[21]. In the year 2006, IAI
consortium was rebranded to buildingSMART with a new vision to
emphasize interoperability means for users and businesses.
Public sector property owners around the world have been the
most inuential supporters of IFC-based interoperability in connec-
tion to issuing requirements and guidelines for the increased use of
BIM technology [20]. In the year 2008, AEC/FM sector government cli-
ent organizations in US, Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Netherlands
issued a common signed statement of intention to support BIM with
IFC standards. One of the rst substantial ofcial commitments to
Table 1
Model progression specications (AIA).a
Level of detail 100
Model content Conceptual
Design & coordination Non-geometric data or line work,
(function/form/behavior) areas, volumes, zones etc.
a
A portion of table adapted from American Institute of Architects, AIA-E202 element model table.
IFC came from the Finland when the Senate Properties, the public
property owner in Finland, decided to require models meeting the
IFC standard in its projects as of 1 October 2007 [22,23].
2.5. New emerging roles
New roles and relationships within the project teams are emerging.
BIM approach requires changes in distribution of roles and responsibil-
ities. Some traditional roles such as draftsmen may become obsolete,
replaced by modelers. New roles, such as BIM managers have emerged
to support greater coordination in developing and maintaining an inte-
grated BIM model.
3. Public procurement methods
The literature review indicated that there are no signicantly new
project delivery methods with BIM integration. Almost all the deliv-
ery methods are mere modications or slight variations of existing
or past methods. The most widely used delivery method with BIM is
the traditional method of DBB [19]; i.e. DesignBidBuild. Present
practices for the road sector are DesignBuild (DB) and DesignBuild
FinanceOperate (DBFO) delivery methods. These methods are some-
times referred as Public Private Partnerships (PPP) [24].
3.1. Integrated project delivery (IPD)
The coupling of BIM with IPD enables a level of collaboration that
not only improves efciency and reduces errors, but also enables ex-
ploration of alternative approaches. Among other applications, IPD
has materialized as a delivery method that could most effectively fa-
cilitate the use of BIM for construction projects [25]. However, at
present, public sector is not ready with respect to the product, pro-
cess, and people to position BIM adoption to the level of IPD [26].
There are some constraints and difculties of applying IPD. Con-
struction industry rms are accustomed to traditional way of leader-
ship, responsibility and opportunity, and change is generally slow.
Absence of standard BIM contract documents and issues in the use
of BIM as a collaborative framework are two major obstacles for full
adoption. Achieving a value-based procurement approach is a chal-
lenge, particularly for the public sector clients who are limited to
evaluate the competitive bids solely based on the low-bid award sys-
tem. Public institutions and agencies lack the alternatives to restruc-
ture their procurement processes to enable the IPD model. Even
though new contracts supporting IPD exists, they have not been test-
ed over time, and are not fully proven or even understood in the pub-
lic procurement environment [27].
4. Change drivers for BIM
Government, as a client, can drive signicant improvements in
cost, value, and carbon performance through the use of BIM as an
open and sharable asset information model [13].
200 300 400 500
Approximate geometry Precise geometry Fabrication As-built
Generic elements shown in Specic elements Shop drawing/fabrication As-built
three dimensions Conrmed 3D
purchase actual
Object geometry
maximum size manufacture
purpose dimension install
capacities specied
connections
 A. Porwal, K.N. Hewage / Automation in Construction 31 (2013) 204214
HVAC
Design Model
I
N Architectural
Architectural
T Construction Model
E Design Model
FULL DESIGN G &
MODEL R Structural
A Design Model
TI
O
N MEP
MEP
Design Model
LINK
Federated
Model
Fig. 2. Diagrammatic representation of model denitions.
Public sector clients around the world such as General Services
Administration and the U.S. Coast Guards [24] started requiring
BIM in their supply chains and property services. US construction in-
dustry is making a signicant progress in moving toward full BIM im-
plementation [1]. The GSA in US is committed to a strategic and
incremental adoption of 3D, 4D, and BIM technologies and has
worked with the industry since 2003 to bridge the adoption gap [5].
The AEC industry is facing sweeping changes in long established
procurement processes, with the UK Government's plan, to use BIM
in all of its future projects by 2016 [17]. UK government decided not
to include any contractor in future government contracts without
BIM. Early contractor involvement in the procurement system is one
of the key strategies proposed by the UK government in its mandate
for fully collaborative 3D BIM as a minimum [13].
The Australian Institute of Architects and the CRC for Construction
Innovation have collaborated on the development of a conceptual
framework for BIM implementation, which provided both a pathway
to higher levels of BIM and reference for the key elements of BIM evo-
lutionary process [28]. They suggested a range of actions for the in-
dustry and government:
1. Development of a national strategy for BIM implementation that
sets out national priorities and stimulates involvement of govern-
ment and private clients.
2. Actions to develop and implement new contractual frameworks
for BIM that address risk, responsibilities, intellectual property,
legal liability, and insurance requirements [29].
Senate Properties, a government owned enterprise in Finland, re-
sponsible for managing and letting the property assets of the Finnish
state has developed a guide called Common BIM Requirement 2007
[22,23] to initiate compulsory architectural modeling for all govern-
ment sector construction and renovation projects. This decision was
based on the feedbacks from number BIM pilot projects.
5. Legal and contractual issues with BIM
The use of BIM in a project raises important contractual issues re-
lating to project responsibilities and risks, contractual indemnities,
copyright, and use of documents that are not addressed by the stan-
dard industrial contract forms. This, potentially, is a major concern
against speedy adoption of BIM. To address specic concerns raised
by BIM, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) released its Build-
ing Information Modeling Protocol Exhibit which intended to be
attached to ownerarchitect and ownercontractor agreements.
207
HVAC
data Construction Model
data
Shop drawings
Structural Construction
data Construction Model details
data
Construction Model
An alternative family of construction industry contracts is the
ConsensusDocs, that covers a wide range of digital communica-
tions, ranging from drawings to emails to payments, and specially
focuses on BIM models.
5.1. Risk allocation
One of the key concern of public clients, contractors, and others
have on using BIM is the fear that the legal framework is too unsettled
[1]. ConsensusDOCS (2010) issued a document [19] on BIM named
ConsensusDOCS 301 BIM Addendum by addressing the specic
rights and obligations, with a goal of enabling stakeholders to easily
and effectively introduce BIM process into construction projects.
The very nature of BIM introduces additional risks that must be al-
located among the project participants. One of the risks unique to a
BIM based project is that the project participants may assume contri-
butions of another project participant as accurate. To account such
risks, BIM Addendum specied that each party is responsible for any
contribution made by them [19]. In addition, each party agreed to
waive claims against the other parties, over the Governing Contract,
for consequential damages arising out of, or relating to the use of, or
access to, a BIM Model. The BIM Addendum also addressed another
risk unique to BIM, i.e. the threat of a software malfunction. It speci-
ed the owner to bear most of the risks associated with a software
malfunction.
5.2. Intellectual property rights
Compared to two-dimensional drawings and specications, BIM
Models contain a tremendous amount of electronic information that
can be transmitted quickly, efciently, and can be easily extracted
and reused in whole or in part. In particular, the nal BIM Model
may have a signicant value for owners. It can be used to enhance fa-
cilities management in the entire project lifecycle. BIM Addendum
specied that the owner's entitlement to use the Full Design Model,
after completion of the project, is governed by the contract between
the owner and the design professional [19]. Further, each party grants
other party a limited, nonexclusive license, to reproduce, distribute,
display, or otherwise use that party's contributions for the needs of
the project.
Although specic modications are likely to be required for a spe-
cic project, it appears that either the AIA's E202 BIM Protocol Exhib-
it [18] or ConsensusDocs 301 BIM addendum [19] forms could
208 A. Porwal, K.N. Hewage / Automation in Construction 31 (2013) 204214
provide an appropriate starting point for an exhibit to be attached to
the ownerarchitect agreement.
6. Suggested approach for public procurement with BIM
A comprehensive literature review indicated that there is no sig-
nicantly new project delivery methods evolved with BIM integration
[3032]. Almost all the existing delivery methods are mere modica-
tions or slight variations of past established methods. The traditional
method of procurement has been criticized for separating the design
and construction process, which obstruct communication and coordi-
nation between design and construction teams. Under the traditional
procurement method, design documentation is supposed to be com-
pleted before being posted for tender, so as to ascertain cost for the
project [33]. DesignBuild and Early Contractor Involvement (ECI)
are the notable extensions of designbidbuild in the most recent
major improvement projects [7].
In the proposed Early BIM Partnering (EBP) approach, commit-
ment to BIM is made very early in the project planning phase (refer
Fig. 3). A fully integrated team is not necessary for effective project
delivery to overcome existing organizational and behavioral barriers
[34]. A coordinated BIM-Partnering framework for the design pro-
curement is proposed with the following interrelated objectives:
1. To provide a structured approach for potential and willing public
sector BIM users to understand current BIM capabilities and assess
their BIM implementation readiness.
2. To create awareness about BIM applications and their usability in
different project activities and phases.
3. To enable public owners to review their existing processes for
implementing and utilizing BIM based design collaborations and
identify the likely legal and procedural conicts that would have
arisen among their project stakeholders.
4. To provide a computational framework [26] that can be developed
and implemented as an interactive computational BIM-Partnering
design management tool to assist BIM manager and similar roles.
The data related to the initial framework development was col-
lected from a public sector (educational) construction project.
Project of any size have either an internal or external contract
manager, who is technically and managerially competent, and to
whom all parties report. The reporting parties in the proposed BIM
partnering framework are:
1. Owner's design consultant (also referred to as the Partnering
Architect or the BIM Architect)
2. Contractor and the Contractor's BIM Architect/Engineer as a
member of the Contractor's organization, who contractually is
one among many subcontractors.
Each of these reporting parties (including the Program Manager)
is contractually bound to the Owner, with the Owner's program
Stakeholder Phase
Owners PM RPF / Contract Documents / Award
Owners BIM Schematic Partnering
Consultant Design Contract
Model Documents
Contractor ,
BIM Architect, Lowest
Subcontractors Price
Partnering
Award
Fig. 3. Early BIM partnering delivery method.
manager acting as its representative. The Contractor holds the other
subcontracts.
Fig. 4, explains the iterative process of constructing Full Design
Model to maintain the target value of the project which is initially
obtained in Substantive cost estimate [35], either through a tradi-
tional cost estimation based on 2-dimensional drawings or through
model based cost estimation. Substantive Estimate (Class B esti-
mate) is in elemental cost analysis format and is of high quality and
reliability based on detailed work plans and drawings for construc-
tion and installations. Substantive Estimates are developed during
the design phase and used to seek effective project approval.
Following sections describe the ve main management processes
proposed to administer public funded capital projects, with BIM ap-
plications (Fig. 4).
6.1. Planning phase
As shown in Fig. 4, prepared documents in this phase will be the
same in every respect as in the traditional DesignBidBuild method.
The scope of the project and expectations of quality are established by
the owner and design consultants [30]. A Feasibility Study may be
conducted to determine the preferred development options, prepare
preliminary sketches, outline specications and, work out Indicative
cost estimates. An Indicative Estimate is in unit cost analysis format
(such as cost per square meter) and provides rough cost projection. It
is used for budget planning purposes in the early stages of concept
development of a project [35]. Corresponding budget and schedule
will also be then established to obtain nancial approvals from the
competent authorities.
6.2. Modeling phase
When the project is approved with required funding, the owner
will select and engage a BIM consultant and corresponding design
team to develop Schematic Design Model, and prepare contract doc-
uments. BIM consultant may be an architect rm as in DBB method
and shall be sole responsible of all long term errors detected in the co-
ordinated BIM model in future and the corresponding damages. These
documents form the basis for the agreement between the Owner and
the Partnering Contractor, who is selected as the lowest bidder to
participate in the design coordination of BIM process. The owner's
BIM consultant and engineers then prepare architectural Design
Model to the LOD-200, with 3-dimensional representation of the
components, but not necessarily for other discipline-specic informa-
tion linked to it. The Design Model will contain sufcient details to
produce site development plans, preliminary oor plans, all major el-
evations of the building(s), outline cross sections of any non-typical
spaces or structural aspects, and major materials along with architec-
tural renderings [18]. Model may exclude the items which can be ade-
quately covered by relevant codes and/or performance specications.
At this stage, designer has the option to develop detailed project design
BIM - Partnering
Contract Administration
Concurrent Full Review
Technical
Model Design Construction
Inspections
Evaluation Model Documents
Construction
CONSTRUCTION
Documents
Construction
Award
 A. Porwal, K.N. Hewage / Automation in Construction 31 (2013) 204214 209

Planning Phase
Owner PM
Statement of
Requirements Early Partnering
Phase Constructability
Define Establish the Need
Building
Energy Analysis
Engineering
Feasibility Survey Clash Detection

Early Design
Prepare Sustainability
Establish interim
Indicative Analysis
Budget / Schedule Model
estimate Analysis
Cost Analysis
Modeling Phase
Retain BIM Design Model
Consultant Coordination
Substantive
Estimate
Architectural Error
Reference Correction
Contract Drawings Model

FULL DESIGN Construction

Front End MODEL Award
Documents Preparation of
Contract Documents
Specification
Construction
Phase
Partnering
Award Phase Partnering
Request for Contractor
Specialized Proposal
Expertise
Technical Staff Lowest
Prequalification
Resources Bidder
Past Project
Performance

Fig. 4. Early BIM partnering project delivery approach.

using even 2D CAD applications along with the BIM model. All 2D draw- the partnering contractor's BIM professionals and sub-contractors to
ings, BIM Model, and specications together, with other legal docu- participate in the Early Partnering Phase.
ments, make up the Early BIM-Partnering contract documents, which
also serve as the Request for Proposal (RFP) [31]. 6.4. Early BIM partnering phase

In the Early Partnering Phase of the proposed public project pro-

6.3. Partnering award phase
Prior to the BIM partnering sessions, a partnering contractor is se-
lected through competitive bids from a pool of prequalied contractors
[30,36]. A guaranteed maximum price for construction is established at
the selection. The pre-qualication procedure shall be through ad-
vertisement placed on local and national newspapers and national
electronic bulletin board(s) [37]. Contractor shall commit to hire a
qualied BIM design rm, for the whole construction period, along
with the team of qualied sub-contractors.
This contract price is fully enforceable, with no opportunity for fu-
ture adjustment in price or schedule unless there is a subsequent
change in the scope or design that is requested by the owner. Once
satisfactory prices are obtained, the notice to proceed is given for
curement method, owner's project manager, owner's BIM consultant,
contractor's BIM designer/engineer, and sub-contractors work to-
gether to establish a Full Design Model for the Construction Phase.
Partnering team will develop more detailed Model based on the Ref-
erence Model created in the Modeling Phase (Section 6.2) [19]. Spe-
ciality sub-contractors should develop disciplines specic models
independently. It should be merged with the Architectural Model to
develop the integrated BIM model. The building information of each
discipline-specic model should be sharable, with other discipline-
specic models, for project collaboration. Design review(s) of differ-
ent discipline-specic models provide data-verication and error-
elimination feedbacks to ensure the accuracy of the BIM model.
Model is then analyzed to assist project evaluation, reduce cons-
truction conicts, reduce construction waste, and enhance project
210 A. Porwal, K.N. Hewage / Automation in Construction 31 (2013) 204214
collaboration. Detailed design coordination is an intensive process
due to many reciprocal dependencies among the designers and spe-
cialty contractors. The detailing work for each trade is dependent on
information from the designers and other trade contractors. To create
collaborative work environment, detailers need to work side-by-side
(with designers and trade contractors) to coordinate their designs.
6.5. Construction award
During the Design Model Coordination process, partnering team
completes all detailed engineering designs and specications in con-
sultation with the owner's project manager. Any remaining details
of the architectural and site development designs will be completed
in accordance with all applicable codes. The BIM output as a Full
Design Model at this point will be Frozen to create construction doc-
uments for the contract award. The construction documents and shop
drawings prepared at this stage supplements, but not replace the con-
tract documents and the BIM Model prepared during the Modeling
Phase. It prevails over the Construction Documents in case of any
disputes.
Construction contract price is predicted based on initially pre-
pared Schematic Design Model and the specications free of errors
and omissions, which may not always be the case. After the comple-
tion of Full Design Model owner has the right to terminate the con-
tract by paying a previously stipulated sum to the contractor and not
enter into the next level of construction contract. The liability to pay
stipulated amount by the owner will protect the contractor from will-
ful approach of the owner to acquire the model and perform con-
struction with another contractor. After the acquisition of the BIM
model, Owner will have the full ownership rights to the BIM model
created in the BIM partnering phase. Owner's BIM consultant will be
liable for any design errors and consequent damages in this situation.
The Owner then administers the construction contract with the
contractor. The owner's project manager monitors the work in prog-
ress during construction phase and authorizes monthly progress pay-
ments and nal payments to the contractor.
7. BIM based partnering: a case study
This section describes a case study which explored the practicality
of the proposed Early BIM Partnering collaborative process in a pub-
lically funded construction project. The case study was performed by
working in parallel with the project team. The project was originally
planned to use traditional design-bid-build with low bid procurement.
A coordinated Full Design Model was created during the design
phase by A/E/C design teams. The exact details and characteristics of
the project will not be discussed in this paper due to condentiality
reasons.
7.1. The author's role in the project
The author assisted the project team as the BIM manager. During
the tender documentation process, author rst communicated with
the project team through online conferencing and then worked full
time in the Early BIM-Partnering phase from June 2011 to December
2011. The hands-on activities played by the author are summarized
below:
Assisted consultant's design team in creating and maintaining the
Architectural BIM model.
Created 2D drawings from BIM model and checked the outputs with
originally created contract drawings.
Prepared cost estimates from the BIM model and checked its accuracy
with the manually worked out substantive estimate.
Helped the consultant in preparing contract documents including
front-end documents, detailed specications, and drawings.
Developed custom 2D and 3D models to support the General
Contractor's other project management functions.
Worked with project team members to establish the specic design
guidelines and model detailing levels to aid the electronic 3D design
coordination process.
Integrated the 3D models to conduct design coordination meet-
ings by working with different 3D models and maintained a digital
archive.
Identied physical conicts and analyzed space conicts between
design models using Navisworks clash detection program for all
possible dual combinations and tracked for resolutions.
7.2. Project overview
The case study focused on an Ofce and Shopping Space project.
Planning phase of the project started in October 2010 with a feasibil-
ity survey on a 5600 m 2 area, and scheduled to reach project comple-
tion by the end of April 2012. The new building is a ve storey
reinforced concrete structure totalling around 14,000 m 2 oor areas.
The building complex houses customer galleries, shops, and ofce
spaces on the rst oor. It has car parks in the lower ground oor
and upper ground oor level. Planning and design for the building
complex were subject to the Provincial Building Code, which sets
out denitive and detailed procedures to arrive estimates and opera-
tional issues. These guidelines prescribe accommodation require-
ments, communications and security levels, and details of interior
layouts, room sizes, area adjacencies, visibility, sightlines, circulation,
and other spaces.
7.3. Project organization
The public owner had a team of administrative, architectural,
mechanical, and electrical design staff to provide design and con-
struction services for the new project. The department undertook 3
similar building projects in the previous years. In addition to manage-
ment and coordination of design and construction services, the engi-
neering group was also responsible for payments and to ensure
records keeping. General Manager in the hierarchy was the Owner's
authorized representative as the Project Manager. He was responsible
of overall contract administration. Engineering Manager was a regis-
tered professional Site Engineer who mainly coordinated the Early
Partnering Phase from the Owner's side and had no previous experi-
ence in BIM solutions. Architectural rm for the project was selected
in a Qualication-based Selection through a publically advertised
Request for Proposals (RFP).
7.4. The BIM initiative
A decision was made by the senior management of the public cli-
ent to collaborate with the authors to pilot test the proposed BIM
partnering framework in the building project to test all the possible
parts of the proposed BIM framework. The Architectural design rm
had basic experience of using BIM and used it mainly to generate
3D visualizations. The design team included twelve staff members
a recent graduate, a CAD expert, a structural engineer, a highly expe-
rienced design detailer, and the principal consultant, who had some
training in BIM Revit. One of the BIM modeler had a sound CAD
drafting knowledge.
7.5. Early partnering contract award
Selection of the General Contractor for the project was performed
through a prequalication advertisement process by utilizing a stan-
dard Submission of Qualication (SOQ). All qualied contractors,
without limiting the number of bidders, were permitted to bid on
the project. Evaluation criteria typically included the ability to deliver
 A. Porwal, K.N. Hewage / Automation in Construction 31 (2013) 204214
the construction project such as specialized expertise, technical staff
resources, and relevant work experience subjected to reference
checks. A weighted score of each contractor was calculated and con-
tractors with a minimum score of 30 out of 50 were qualied to bid.
The contract was awarded to the qualied lowest bidder. The subcon-
tractors agreed to partner the design process using BIM tools under
DesignAssist method, and agreed to complete coordination using
3D tools, to obtain the nal construction drawings.
An integrated 3D model (Revit Architecture) was made available
to the tenderers to assist in better visualization of the project and
for pricing purposes. It was not a formal contract document, although
this is a goal for future in the proposed framework.
7.6. Design until tender documentation
The principal consultant initially received a design brief from the
client, with spatial requirements, to produce the 2D architectural
model for tender documentation. The Architect was responsible for
architectural and structural scope of the work. As lack of trust on
completeness and accuracy of 3D models had remained a major con-
cern for the public client, it was decided that the Architect would
issue documents using AutoCAD without the BIM approach and
then the design team would coordinate the documentation into BIM
model.
7.7. Coordination tools used
The main objective of the case study was to analyze the possible
adoption of BIM in a Public Sector construction project, with an objec-
tive to produce error-free design and documentation through ECI. At
present, the construction industry mostly uses AutoCAD platform
with .dwg le format for creating design/drawings. Thus it was de-
cided to use Autodesk BIM products for easy exchange of data, and
transition from CAD environment to BIM process. This also addressed
the interoperability issues to some extent through IFC le format export
facility, and accommodated the specic needs of multi-disciplines in the
design team. The decision was taken to use following compatible
modeling tools from Autodesk:
Architecture Revit Architecture
Structural Revit Structure
Mech/Elect/Plum Revit MEP
Costing Quantity Takeoff
Clash Detection Navisworks
Performance Analysis Ecotect Analysis
7.8. The BIM modeling process
One of the major problems that the design consultant had was to
dene its levels of details. It was decided to produce models between
Level 200 to Level 300 to keep the le size smaller and modeling
work faster. Strategies used to balance the le size of the model with-
out compromising the required level of details were:
1. Only typical oors were detailed
2. It relied on 2D line work for detailing anything over 1:40 scale
drawing
3. Different Level of details were used for different purposes (Archi-
tectural detailing, for example was done up to LOD 300).
Thus, the project had a main model, used for documentation and
collaboration with project team and other models for high-end ren-
dering. When it came to documentation in smaller scales, parts of
the main model were extracted and details were generated using
2D AutoCAD.
The BIM model was primarily intended to generate accurate and inte-
grated 2D documentation, and allow clash detection and collaboration
211
with the structural modeler. The initial Architectural Model generated
by the principal consultant, during contract documentation, was subse-
quently used throughout the BIM partnering process, to generate the dis-
cipline specic models. The modeler had only to adjust, not re-create, the
model to allow accurate output of plans, details, and structural drawings.
Structural engineer used the architectural model as a base for creating
and analyzing the structural model. The structural engineer shared his
model with the MEP engineer, so that the engineer could create a MEP
model on the same design. The architect then linked both the structural
and MEP models back into the original architectural model.
Following steps were taken to keep the BIM model collaboration-
driven, favor 2D documentation and speed-up the automatic quanti-
ties generation:
Wall exterior lining was not drafted and referred through textual
notes.
Objects were modeled generically without dening their composi-
tion or material used.
Sculptural detail like roof facias and balusters were not modeled.
To achieve the highest level of interoperability between packages
out-side the Autodesk products, it was suggested to use Industry
Foundation Class (IFC) on the project. Multidisciplinary collaboration
using the BIM model mainly happened between the architect and the
structural engineer, because of the extra time required to generate
and transfer IFC les and data degradation in the process. This collab-
oration was further tested and augmented by comparing the 2D
drawings generated through Full Design Model, with the contract
2D-drawings initially created by the Architect.
7.9. The coordination sequence
The challenges of latency in decision making and information ac-
cess were addressed by co-locating the design team at the client's
premises. The overall goal was to create a collaborative work environ-
ment and resolve reciprocal dependencies. The Owner's consultant issued
basic architectural model to design consultant and sub-contractors. After
linking the basic model, a collaboration mechanism was set up by the
structural engineer. The Copy/Monitor tool in Revit was used by the
structural engineer to identify the changes made by the Architect to his
model and vice-versa. When any updated le from a project team mem-
ber was received, Revit automatically updated the link to that le.
All the discipline specic models were brought in to Navisworks
by the principal consultant, and clashes were identied using the
Clash Detective function in Navisworks. The process was repeated
till all major clashes were resolved. The mechanical and plumbing de-
signs were rst documented in 2D CAD and then modeled in 3D,
using 2D as an underlay. The primary function of Navisworks was to
provide 3D model interoperability to the design team. The project
team collaboratively determined the small size design brake-ups to
analyze constructability, and perform clash detection through itera-
tive process.
7.10. Building performance analysis
Architectural BIM model was used to perform energy and day
lighting analysis of alternate early design concepts. This was to assess
the impact of various congurations on daylight levels and energy
use. The model was provided with the information needed, such as
surface geometry and respective UV values, reectance, and transmit-
tance values of the materials. Model was exported to IFC 2 2 le for-
mat from Revit Architecture and several virtual facility options were
reviewed by the design team.
7.10.1. Daylight simulation
Daylight simulation stressed that windows in extreme climate
should be strategically placed for maximum daylight availability,
212 A. Porwal, K.N. Hewage / Automation in Construction 31 (2013) 204214
maximum solar gains during the winter, and minimum solar gains
during the summer. Fig. 5 illustrates an initial evaluation of a sche-
matic design concept using the Ecotect lighting simulation and ren-
dering system with IFC 2 2 le generated from the architectural BIM
model. This image provided valuable information during the early
stages of design for selecting elevations and orientations that can pro-
vide maximum daylight gains on different surfaces of the building.
7.10.2. Energy modeling
Ecotect was used to compare benets of day lighting and energy
use strategies. This study was found helpful in addressing the interop-
erability issue through IFC data exchange efciency. This analysis
helped to demonstrate that any use of daylight would result in net
energy loss in the building, as the solar gain through windows was in-
sufcient to make up for the energy loss through windows. The ener-
gy modeling used in the design was less than optimal, as late changes
were made to the building elevations and indecisions about the mate-
rials during the design phase.
7.10.3. Space conict detection
Interference conditions of structural beams with HVAC ducts were
identied by using the Interference Check tool of Revit. Model anal-
ysis assisted in project evaluation and potentially reduced construc-
tion conicts, construction waste, and lead to the enhancement of
project collaboration. Navisworks allowed teams to automatically ana-
lyze the 3D models of different disciplines for conicts between systems
and model visualization. Initially, the Architect suggested oor-to-oor
height as 3.00 m. However, during the model coordination, it was found
insufcient space to accommodate HVAC system without a conict.
Thus, the oor to oor height was increased from 3.00 m to 3.60 m dur-
ing the BIM-Partnering process.
7.11. Efciency and applicability of the BIM partnering process
The indices that were tracked to measure the efciency of the BIM
partnering were:
Hours spent by the design team to prepare BIM models and coordi-
nation
Ability of the staff to handle new technology implementations.
Requirements of new hardware and software in the process
Accuracy of 2D deliverables out of the BIM model.
Fig. 5. Monthly average solar irradiance on the different surfaces using IFC data.
The results of the observations are as described in detail in the sec-
tion below:
The cost planners indicated that they require much more details in
the Schematic Design Stage, if they are to fully benet from the BIM
model. Cost planners could not rely heavily on the model. There is a
risk of some building objects may not completely be modeled and
then not counted.
It was noted that BIM-Partnering minimized the role traditionally
played by the structural engineer on such projects, and brought
the steel detailers closer to being part of the project's design team.
The 2D deliverables, exported from Full Design Model, were of
equivalent quality to that of the traditional CAD working drawings.
BIM-Partnering provided a forum for coordination to bring different
players of fragmented design and construction industry together to
address project-wide collaboration.
BIM-Partnering helped the project team to manage client involve-
ment by creating a coordination platform. It was aligned with the
government procedures and rules.
Owner, owner's designer, and the general contractor could contrib-
ute to the need of hardware and software requirements. One high
capacity computer as server with four moderate conguration
computers was found sufcient as most of the design team mem-
bers were equipped with their own desktops and laptops.
Table 2 compares the traditional DesignBidBuild (DBB) ap-
proach with the proposed BIM partnering project delivery method.
The main emphasis of the public sector owner in the project was
on the bidding principles of openness, accountability, and fairness.
The author interviewed key project stakeholders to assess the appli-
cability and satisfaction of the proposed BIM based partnering pro-
cess. Interviews in two sessions of 30 min each were conducted
with Contract administration staff and multiple team members that
directly involved in the project planning phase and tendering process.
The interview feedback suggested that proposed BIM-Partnering pro-
curement framework is appropriate for the public sector since the se-
lection process is as open, fair, objective, cost-effective, and free of
political inuence, as the traditional competitive bid method. It pro-
vides equal opportunity to every qualied rm to compete for work
with innovation and exibility.
A signicant improvement in the cost, value, and carbon perfor-
mance can be achieved on public construction projects by model
analyses through the proposed BIM-partnering process, with early
contractor involvement, in the design phase. No additional design
 A. Porwal, K.N. Hewage / Automation in Construction 31 (2013) 204214 213

Table 2 project specic contractual issues. Cloud computing is a signicant

BIM partnering v/s traditional procurement. advancement in the delivery of information technology and services
Traditional DBB BIM-Partnering and can be broadly dened as delivering hosted IT services over the
Internet [38]. BIM processes created upon cloud technology frame-
1) Hiring of design consultant:
Selection method Direct selection Qualication based selection work and integrated with proposed procurement framework, will
Qualication based allow construction managers to pre-plan sustainable construction
selection by coordination and collaboration throughout the project lifecycle.
Design approach 2D CAD 2D3D, BIM
Factors affecting BIM adoption in the areas of technical tool func-
2) Preparation of tender documents: tional requirements and strategic issues have been evidenced in the
Drawings 2D designs 2D designs case study. However, the implementation of the BIM-Partnering
BIM framework proved to be a necessary step in evaluating organization's
Cost estimation Substantive (class B) Substantive (class B) using capabilities of BIM adoption, both current and potential. The evalua-
using 2D drawings 2D design/BIM
tion revealed:
Level of designs 2D detailed design Tender: 2D detailed design &
BIM (level 200)
Construction: BIM The need of guidance on where to start, what tools available, and
(level 300+) how to work through legal, procurement and cultural challenges
with the added technologies.
3) Contractor selection:
Capabilities of project participants in BIM usage.
Method Open tender/pre-qualied Pre-qualied
Lowest bidder Lowest bidder
Potential to move to the required BIM implementation level if not
Evaluation criteria Qualied A/E BIM capable currently with such capacities.
A/E/sub-contractors Training and support implications of key stakeholders
Contract award One step construction Step 1 partnering award Lack of availability of required tools in a given project.
award Step 2 construction award
Likely conicts and risks due to change in work practices by the
4) Contractor's adoption of BIM.
involvement During construction During design and create
BIM (level 300+) The key contributions of this study to the body-of-knowledge of BIM
During construction implementation are through the development of public construction
procurement framework which corroborates smooth introduction of
BIM to the existing public procurement system. It bridged the adoption
risks are assumed by the general contractor or subcontractor. The pro- gap by addressing risks, responsibilities, intellectual property, legal lia-
posed method establishes a proper balance between the complete control bility, and technical requirements through already existing global infor-
of the Owner to choose a most favored contractor and the complete lack mation. The proposed BIM partnering framework will provide initial
of control of the owner in the lowest bidding cost approach. ground work for developing national guidelines for wide scale BIM im-
plementation in construction projects.
8. Conclusions
Acknowledgment
This paper proposed a construction project procurement framework
Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
for public sector construction projects. The paper describes an approach
that facilitates BIM adoption through a BIM-partnering framework and is gratefully acknowledged for the nancial support to conduct this
research project.
the development of a collaborative BIM model for construction process.
Specically, paper describes different approaches that will help project
References
teams to overcome technical, procedural, and organizational challenges.
BIM adoption would require a change in the existing work prac- [1] BIM SmartMarket Report, McGraw-Hill Construction Research and Analytics, 34
tice. A different approach to collaborative BIM development is needed Crosby Drive, Suite 201, Bedford, MA 01730, 2009.
[2] Institute for BIM in Canada, Executive summary, BIM Survey, 20112012, 2012.
in public procurement settings where owner is bound to work with
[3] E.M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 4th edition The Free Press, New York, 1995.
procedural and legal frameworks. Organizations should nd ways to [4] R.M. Moore, A.R.J. Dainty, Intra-team boundaries as inhibitors of performance
best incorporate the existing dened process and protocols in differ- improvement in UK design and build projects: a call for change, Construction
ent phases of their projects. In addition, they should assign responsi- Management and Economics 19 (2001) 559562.
[5] Improving Efciency and Productivity in the Construction Sector Through the use of
bilities of design reviews and validations appropriately. BIM model Information Technology, French Centre for automation of Organizations, cefrio,
ownership challenges are well addressed by the American Institute Quebec, Canada, 2011. (http://www.cefrio.qc.ca/leadmin/documents/ (Accessed
of Architects [18] and additional legal measures and agreements can Feb 10 2012)).
[6] R. Mansell, Constructing the knowledge base for knowledge-driven development,
ensure data security and partnering-team condence to suit varied Journal of Knowledge Management 6 (4) (2002) 317329.
industry needs. New dedicated roles such as BIM manager emerged [7] U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, http://
in the project teams. The BIM-Partnering procurement framework international.fhwa.dot.gov/construction_mgmt/chapter_two_c.cfm, (Accessed
February 10 2012).
could sufciently address legal, procurement, and cultural challenges. [8] Z. Herbsman, R. Ellis, Multi-parameter bidding system innovation in contract
Though interoperability issues could be addressed using IFC data administration, ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 118
exchange method reasonably well, more detailed model parameters (1) (1992) 142150.
[9] L.G. Crowley, D.E. Hancher, Risk assessment of competitive procurement, Journal
could not be transferred. IFC data exchange method is still in the of Construction Engineering and Management 121 (2) (1995) 230237.
development stages and yet to achieve complete interoperability [10] T. Cerovsek, A review and outlook for a Building Information Model (BIM): a
through object denitions for varied BIM platforms. It is possible multistandpoint framework for technological development, Advanced Engineering
Informatics 25 (2) (2011) 224244, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2010.06.003.
that data transfer becomes easier over time following improvements
[11] Peter E.D. Love, David J. Edwards, Sangwon Han, Yang M. Goh, Design error
in software data exchange and architect's uency with BIM. reduction: toward the effective utilization of building information modeling, in:
Even though the case study provided a structured approach to po- Research in Engineering Design, 22, Springer-Verlag London Limited, 2011,
tential and willing BIM users to understand the implementation of pp. 173187.
[12] Integrated Project Teams and Building Information Modelling in the Australian
the proposed BIM-partnering framework, further works are desired Construction Industry, Australian Construction Industry Forum, Australia, March
in the areas such as national BIM guidelines, legal framework and 2009, www.acif.com.au [Accessed January 15 2012].
214 A. Porwal, K.N. Hewage / Automation in Construction 31 (2013) 204214
[13] National BIM Report, Building Information Modelling, The National BIM Library,
NBS, 2012. (http://www.thenbs.com/corporate/about.asp [Accessed February 03
2012]).
[14] Productivity in the Building Networks: Assessing the Impacts of Building Infor-
mation Models, Allen Consulting Group Pty Ltd, Sydney, 2010. (Accessed March
02 2011).
[15] Building information modeling (BIM) best practice project report, An investiga-
tion of Best Practices through case studies at regional, national and international
levels, November 30, 2011. (Available at http://www.civil.ubc.ca/people/faculty/
staub-french/BIMBestPractices2011.pdf. [Accessed February 2, 2012]).
[16] CRC for Construction Innovation, Construction Industry Business Environment:
BIM Implications for Government, Commonwealth of Australia, Brisbane, 2008.
[17] British Standards Institute, B/555 roadmap (2012 update), 2012. (http://www.
bsigroup.com/en/sectorsandservices/Forms/BIM-reports/Conrmation-page-BIM-
reports/[Accessed March 10 2012]).
[18] Integrated project delivery: a guide, the American Institute of Architects (AIA),
http://www.aia.org/contractdocs/AIAS077630, (Accessed Jan 10 2012).
[19] H. Lowe Richard, M. Muncey Jason, ConsensusDOCS 301 BIM addendum, con-
tracts forms and drafting/building information modeling, ConsensusDOCS,
materials are displayed or reproduced with the express written of ConsensusDOCS
under license no 0405, 2010. (www.consensusdocs.org/news/articles/bim, [Accessed
January 10 2012]).
[20] M. Laakso, A. Kiviniemi, The IFC standard a review of history, development, and
standardization, Journal of Information Technology in Construction - ITcon 17
(2012) 134161.
[21] Next evolution of BIM: open collaborative design across the board, AECbytes view-
point #53, http://www.aecbytes.com/viewpoint/2010/issue_53.html, (Accesssed
September 2012).
[22] COBIM requirements, 2012. (http://www.en.buildingsmart.kotisivukone.com/3,
[Accessed September 2012]).
[23] Senate properties' BIM requirements, http://www.senaatti./document.asp?
siteID=2&docID=5172007, (Accessed on Sept 2012).
[24] Investing in BIM competence, BuildingSMART UK: a guide to collaborative work-
ing for project owners and building professional, UK, http://www.buildingsmart.
org.uk/case-studies2010, (Accessed March 32011).
[25] A.I.A. California Council, Integrated project delivery: a working denition. Available
at http://www.ipd-ca.net/images/integrated%20Project%20Delivery%20denation.
pdfJul. 2, 2009, (Accessed on 24 sept, 2012).
[26] B. Succar, Building information modelling framework: a research and delivery
foundation for industry stakeholders, Automation in Construction 18 (3) (2009)
357375, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2008.10.003.
[27] Ted Sive, Researcher and Co-editor: Mall Hays, White Paper, Integrated Project Deliv-
ery: Reality and Promise, A Strategist's Guide to Understand and Marketing IPD,
Available at http://www.slideshare.net/publiccontracting/integrated-project-delivery-
white-paper, [Last accessed on 13 October 2012], 2009.
[28] CRC for Construction Innovation, Business Drivers for BIM, Commonwealth of
Australia, Brisbane, 2007.
[29] Digital Modelling and The Built Environment, Department of Innovation, Indus-
try, Science and research, Australian Government, 2010.
[30] Procedures and guidelines recommended for use on publicly funded construction pro-
jects. Available at http://www.pccbc.com/docs/PCCBC_Booklet.pdf, (Last accessed Sept
2012).
[31] Project Delivery Method Handbook, Department of Education & Early Development,
Education Support Services/Facilities, State of Alaska, November 2004. (Edition,
Available at http://www.eed.state.ak.us/facilities/publications/project_delivery_
handbook.pdf, [Last accessed on Sept 2012]).
[32] The latest delivery methods in Canada, http://www.goodmans.ca/docs/The_Latest_
Delivery_Methods_in_Canada_-_Don_Pierce.pdf.
[33] Standard documents and guidelines for a stipulated price bid for use on publicly
funded building projects in the province of British Columbia. , Available at http://
www.pccbc.com/documents-2/, (Last accessed on Sept 2012).
[34] B.K. Baiden, A.D.F. Price, A.R.J. Dainty, The extent of team integration within con-
struction projects, International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 1323.
[35] Cost estimate denitions, Public Works and Govt. Services Canada (PWGSC),
http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/biens-property/sngp-npms/bi-rp/conn-know/couts-
cost/def, (Accessed January 15 2012).
[36] Recommended guidelines for pre-qualications of general contractors and trade con-
tractors. Available at http://www.pccbc.com/docs/PCC_Prequalication_Guideline_
Sept06.pdf, (Last accessed on Sept 2012).
[37] A. Fayek, I. Ghoshal, S. Abourizk, A survey of the bidding practices of Canadian
civil engineering construction contractors, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
26 (1999) 1325.
[38] Peter Mell, Timothy Grance, The NIST Denition of Cloud Computing, Special Pub-
lication 800-145, National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce, 2011. (http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-145/
SP800-145.pdf [Accessed on 23 September 2012]).