BIM Litigation Warning
The building information model (BIM) used in insurance settlements highlights that using BIM without proper communication can lead to costly consequences.
Sent to Nadine M. in Pittsburgh
May 19, 2011
This lawsuit centers on the construction of a university life science building and marks the first known case involving claims related to architects’ use of BIM. The insurance company involved notes that these claims and settlements should serve as a cautionary example for others using BIM.
“The creator of BIM asserts that its use reduces risks and, when used correctly,” said Randy Lewis, Vice President of Loss Prevention and Customer Education at Denver XL Insurance Office, who provides professional liability insurance for licensed design professionals. “But if BIM is not used properly, it can cause serious problems.”
In this life science building project, the architects and their lead mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) engineers employed BIM technology to integrate the MEP systems within the ceiling space. However, the design team failed to inform the contractor of the need to coordinate closely with the BIM model, which depended on a very specific installation sequence. By the time the contractor had completed about 70% of the installation, they encountered a space filled with materials that matched the model but not the real conditions, as Lewis explained.
Subsequently, the contractor sued the owner, who then sued the architect and MEP engineer. This led to a highly expensive claim negotiation, complicated by the difficulty any jury would have in understanding the technical details. Consequently, XL Insurance chose not to pursue litigation for compensation.
Lewis declined to disclose specific project details, stating only that the building remains operational while the matter is resolved. He emphasized that the financial impact was significant, with costs reaching into the millions of dollars, shared among the architects, environmental engineers, and contractors involved.
The root cause was poor communication—the design team never discussed the installation sequencing with the contractors, and the contractors lacked the experience to grasp the importance of assembling components in a precise order. The insurance company advises that while designers should not dictate methods, safety, or sequencing, the traditional design-build contract alone is insufficient. As Lewis put it, “It’s not enough for me to design it; it’s important that the contractor is involved to figure it out on site.”
Unfortunately, this project lacked the essential open communication and collaboration that BIM encourages. To improve BIM communication and understanding, the BIM Forum of the Legal Forum Committee for General Contractors recently launched a project to develop a manual for electronic graphic standards. The aim is to clarify the American Institute of Architects (AIA) document e202-2008.
This document can be incorporated into AIA contracts to define deliverables and the expected Levels of Development (LOD) for BIM. It authorizes BIM usage and assigns specific development responsibilities for each LOD element at various project stages. While E202 provides a strong foundation, it remains a blank matrix without detailed records, said Ronald F. Delaria, Chief Compliance Officer at Astoria, a construction engineering firm in Pittsburgh. Delaria noted that everyone holds different opinions and outcomes regarding BIM LOD, and he is involved in the ongoing development efforts.
The North American Steel Structures Conference, hosted by the American Steel Institute from May 11-13 in Pittsburgh, aims to define model detail levels that allow model builders to produce universally accepted deliverables. “We recognize the challenge ahead, but it’s a problem that must be solved,” said Delaria. The goal is to produce a comprehensive manual by mid-next year by integrating efforts from this organization, the Architectural Practice Committee, the Building Intelligence Alliance, and the US International Study Center within the Technical Committee.
Astoria has internally defined E202 LOD by establishing five corresponding graphic detail levels: Level 100 Visualization, Level 200 Integration, Level 300 Coordination, Level 400 Construction, and Level 500 Maintenance.
Steel manufacturers and their advocates, early adopters of electronic data interchange, are still working to convince all stakeholders in the building supply chain about the value of BIM to owners. Manufacturers require structural engineers to approve detailed steel structure models and hope engineers develop BIM models detailed enough to drive manufacturing equipment directly. However, a recent survey by a publishing house manufacturer found that only 1% of projects effectively pass the model to manufacturers. “This indicates significant room for improvement,” said Chris Moore, Director of Industrial Planning at the publishing house.
Nearly 80% of 430 respondents surveyed—including about half of the members of the US International Study Center—reported using 3D modeling tools for detailed design and data transfer to computer numerical control (CNC) machinery. However, only 37% actually use some form of data exchange to link BIM design with detailed manufacturing models. “There is a great opportunity to improve productivity as more designers allow manufacturers access to larger, more detailed models. Review is moving from 2D drawings to 3D models, and manufacturers are opening up dimensions for precise models across industries and trades,” Moore added.
To facilitate model exchange between engineers and manufacturers, engineers should serve as the central point for steel wire and shaft steel member models, according to Rob Schoen, founder of a structural modeling company. Moore explained that steel structures should be continuous and properly spliced at correct elevations, with beams aligning to work points. Engineers indicated that although this might require extra effort, it can be adapted without major issues.
Technology has contributed to the slow adoption of 3D modeling processes. To address this, Herrick invested in a dedicated application interface for Tekla structural 3D modeling and detailing software. For example, sales personnel often send 2D drawings for approval after extracting them from 3D models. If changes are needed, the model must be updated and the drawings recreated or adjusted accordingly.
“Typically, model creators spend 60% of their time modeling and connecting structures, and 40% extracting drawings. Previous 2D drawing extraction methods only generated drawings once before changes,” said Stockton Wayne Morrison, Segmented Assembly Manager at Herrick, California. Herrick has approved models for three projects, and engineers using the system must hold a Tekla engineering license. From Herrick’s models, changes, corrections, and 2D drawing generation are fully traceable. Morrison noted that this system has reduced turnaround time by at least 25%.
Must log in before commenting!
Sign Up