Quick Links - Also see the menu above and more choices on the right side of the blog (too much, but all good stuff)

\/ ...and now BIMbuilder.com Blog Posts... \/

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

(bim)x: BIM Claims from BIMForum Session.

Here's great repost for the contractors from the famous Queen of IPD, Laura Handler who gets to go to all of the BIMForum conventions. Take a look at the last one if you're an architect. 


More and more contractors are taking 2D CAD drawings and converting them into Revit models for preconstruction clash detection. As more and more architects lay off employees due to lack of work, who's getting laid off, the expensive construction savvy project managers or the lower paid CAD operators. As the firms lose more and more people, there's more work, overload, chances of error and a reduced layer of managers checking the drawings. There's even more incentive for contractors to have to do 3D modeling of architectural and systems in order to ensure that the conflicts get resolved. Why do you think that BIM for contractors has taken off so quickly? What's worse, the only thing that can solve this for the architects is to move to Revit and hire BIM modelers who know construction. That's a double whammy because it's going to require an investment in technology and personnel. What are you going to do to raise your fees in order to pay for all of this while the contractors are doing BIM conversions on their own dime. Huge problem. 

Now, from Laura's blog post: 
http://bimx.blogspot.com/2010/01/bim-claims.html

One of the most interesting presentations at the BIMForum was Gregg Bundschuh's (of Ames & Gough) presentation on "BIM Claims and Insurance Cover: A Survey of Recent Developments". According to Gregg's presentation, there have been about 30 claims arisen from BIM utilization to date. The claims group into about 6 categories and generally relate to delay and cost overrun claims:
  • 2D -> 3D Conversion Where the contractor performs a 2D conversion and makes an assumption about design intent in the conversion process
  • Versioning When firms "mix and match" versions of the same software, inconsistencies result between models of different versions.
  • Default Settings When firms use the default settings of software, errors can occur.
  • Model Reliance No surprise here; this issue is the most prevalent and occurs when someone over-relies on a model.
  • Interoperability Three claims have come about when conflicts occur between design and fabrication models; although, those were mostly in structural steel.
  • Standard of Care The most interesting claim by far comes from an arbitration that was resolved about 2 months ago, in the midwest. The design professionals only created 2D documents (per their contract requirements). After the contractor did a 2D conversion, they published clashes to the architect, who "ignored them". The architect's argument was that they weren't paid to go above the standard of care. However, the arbitrator said that the architect should have resolved the issues, once advised. It was determined that the architect did not meet standard of care and the contractor was awarded several million dollars. (By the way, I don't claim to have gotten all details correct here..just the jist of things.)
The implications for changing the definition of Standard of Care is quite interesting. As Gregg said, "when the Standard of Care changes, it is more of a rear-view thing, but when it does change, where on the road do you want to be?"
 
Posted by Laura Handler Source: (bim)x: BIM Claims

0 comments:

  © Blogger template ProBlogger Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP  

[Valid Atom 1.0]