BIM Adoption in Construction Contracts:

Content Analysis Approach

Mohamed A. Ragab 1 and Mohamed Marzouk 2

Abstract: Building information modeling (BIM) is rapidly restructuring the construction industry, offering major enhancements in project
outcomes. Although the emerging demands for BIM adoption are developing to become an industry norm, there are still uncertainties con-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 11/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

cerning the ability of the existing legal paradigm to fully incubate and promote BIM. Existing conventional construction contracts do not cope
with the collaborative approach of BIM, causing potential contractual disputes to arise. These contractual disputes may become obstacles in
the sufficient implementation of BIM and achieving anticipated productivity gains. This research aims to identify the provisions in the
contract that should be addressed when BIM is utilized in the project. The research highlights the main contractual issues associated with
BIM and explains the current treatment of BIM in contractual documents from standard forms of contracts and BIM protocols. The directed
content analysis method is used to analyze three main standard forms of contracts that adopt BIM and have a different approach to drafting,
covering multiparty agreement, partnering agreement, and standard biparty agreement. A comparative study is held between the contracts
under investigation. The research presents and assesses the extent to which these standard forms of contracts deal with the contractual issues
identified and accordingly the research proposes a drafting structure and framework for provisions that should be included in a BIM-based
contract. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0002123. © 2021 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Building information modeling (BIM); Contractual issues; Standard forms of contracts; Content analysis.

Introduction to stage specific products, and finally introduced digital project

The flourishing adoption of building information modeling (BIM)
has significantly impacted multiple aspects in the construction in-
dustry. Olatunji (2014) described this impact as an evolutionary
enhancement that led to change in business models, philosophies,
and legal framework. It altered the business model from a closed
attitude to a collaborative practice (Olatunji 2011), from short-term
business relationships to long-term alliancing (Glick and Guggemos
2009). Moreover, BIM enhanced the industry to become open to
organizational learning and knowledge management (Alashwal
et al. 2011), and to adopt more static rather than adaptive business
structures (Buchanan et al. 2005). In addition, BIM led to skill
change, which improved the ability to handle digital processes
(Fussel et al. 2009), and the ability to collaborate, share data, and
promote integration (Olatunji and Sher 2014). Furthermore, the in-
troduction of BIM raised the standards of computing and analytical
skills needed (Eastman et al. 2011; Sher et al. 2009). BIM also lead
to product change, from static designs to virtual and simulation
models, the substitution of parametric models instead of geometric
designs (Gujarathi and Ma 2010). BIM altered from segregated
products to integrated products, from an unidentified time span
1
Master’s Student, Integrated Engineering Design Management Pro-
gram, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo Univ., Giza 12613, Egypt; Projects
Engineer, RIGID Engineering Consultants, 27 Maboseen residence, Giza
12616, Egypt (corresponding author). Email: m.ragab@rigid-consultants.
com
2
Professor of Construction Engineering and Management, Dept. of
Structural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo Univ., Giza
12613, Egypt. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8594-8452. Email:
mmarzouk@cu.edu.eg
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 25, 2020; approved on
March 26, 2021; published online on June 12, 2021. Discussion period
open until November 12, 2021; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364.
representation instead of paper design files (Succar et al. 2012).
Meeting up and facilitating such change led by BIM is facing
obstacles especially in legal terms. The implementation of BIM
is relatively new to the construction sector, leading to scarcity
of previous case laws and claims reported in BIM projects; thus,
no sufficient historical data are available to act as a guideline to
amend laws and contract forms (Arensman and Ozbek 2012).
Furthermore, there is a lag between the upcoming technology, laws,
and regulations. Arayici et al. (2011) indicated that multidiscipli-
nary collaboration is the primary denominator of BIM that enables
the enhancement of its outcomes. Similarly, Olatunji (2014) stated
that according to several previous studies, the two main character-
istics that distinguish BIM from conventional practices are col-
laboration and integration of data, processes, and systems. This
collaborative nature of BIM is not fully adopted by the standard
form of contracts and laws, which assume definite and distinct roles
and responsibilities (Ashcraft 2008). The traditional legal structure
is based on a single point of responsibility, whereas BIM is more of
a collaborative process where risks and liabilities are shared be-
tween multiple project stakeholders; therefore, there are contractual
issues that arise while implementing BIM in projects using the
current conventional legal framework.
The current existing contracts and legal instruments did not keep
pace with the BIM technology and the absence of customized legal
tools to approach BIM. This could act as an obstacle to effectively
promote BIM and harvest its full potential benefits (Alwash et al.
2017). If no contractual changes are initiated, legal uncertainties
would remain a potential threat. The question is not whether or
not the current contractual system needs amendments to fully adopt
BIM but rather how to make such amendments (Alwash et al.
2017). Furthermore, there is a shortage in methodology in the ap-
proach of assessing the suitability of a contract to adopt BIM by
means of whether BIM is mentioned in the contract or not rather
than assessing the contract’s approach for the key aspects that affect
BIM (Mosey et al. 2016). Previous studies were conducted to

© ASCE 04021094-1 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(8): 04021094

 identify contract provisions required in BIM contracts (Chong et al.
2017; Arshad et al. 2019). However, detailed perspectives on how
to draft and accommodate such key contractual provisions in the
contract body are not further discussed.
It can be concluded that there is an urge for a sufficient inves-
tigation into the approach of the latest editions of standard forms of
contracts toward dealing with the contractual issues accompanying
BIM implementation, an investigation that extends beyond merely
studying the mention of BIM or not in the contract body, but rather
illustrates how such provisions needed for BIM implementation
could be drafted and embedded within the contract form. The re-
search focuses on highlighting the segregation between the current
contractual forms and BIM and explains the main contractual issues
that developed due to this segregation. Furthermore, the research
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 11/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
investigates how such contractual issues could be amended in the
contract form with the objective of developing a detailed and com-
plementary contractual framework that overcomes the contractual
barriers arising from BIM implementation. A directed content
analysis approach was adopted where three main standard form
of contracts with advanced efforts in the field of BIM adoption
were analyzed. The initial coding scheme in the content analysis
process was initiated through previous literature by identifying
the contractual issues obstructing sufficient BIM implementation.
The approach of each contract form in addressing such issues
was investigated. The three studied contracts are the Standard Form
of Contract for Project Partnering amended 2013 (PPC2000) (ACA
2013), Engineering and Construction Contract [new engineering
contract 4 (NEC4) ECC] (NEC4 2017), and Joint Contracts Tribu-
nal Constructing Excellence Contract (JCT CE) (JCT 2016).
BIM Treatment in Contractual Documents
Interest in BIM is increasing due to many considerations such as
coping with the market or legal impositions, such as in the UK,
which has required the implementation of BIM Level 2 as for public
sector projects since 2016. This triggered many standard forms of
contracts to introduce amendments to support BIM adoption, such
as the JCT, which published the Public Sector Supplement in 2011,
but did include clauses that deal with BIM requirements with enough
detail (Saxon 2013). Clauses related to BIM simply refer to the at-
tachment of BIM protocol as part of the contractual documents, and
the referred BIM protocol would be treated as one of the employer’s
requirements. New engineering contract 3 (NEC3) adopts a similar
approach, and relies on the presence of a BIM protocol that would
facilitate the implementation of BIM and all its associated issues
within a project without the need to amend the new engineering con-
tract (NEC) main contract form (Winfield 2015).
The preceding shows that instead of making amendments in the
main contract form, the JCT Public Sector Supplement and NEC3
approached BIM adoption through referring to the inclusion of
BIM protocol, and this protocol is anticipated to deal with all the
issues related to BIM; this approach could be considered a shifting
of risk. However, many concerns were raised concerning this ap-
proach, According to Winfield (2015), there are limitations in BIM
protocols and they cannot be considered fully inclusive when
dealing with legal issues. For example, the architectural, engineer-
ing and construction (AEC) UK BIM protocol (CIC 2013) clearly
states “Legal Stuff—Not included in this release” and accordingly
if the protocol and contract forms such as the JCT and NEC would
be used together, the contractual documents would not be comple-
mentary and contractual ambiguity would arise.
Glover (2017) discussed how International Federation of Con-
sulting Engineers (FIDIC) did not mention BIM in the Yellow
© ASCE 04021094-2
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(8): 04021094
Book published 2017, and argued that this does not mean that
FIDIC is not taking BIM into consideration, but rather that intro-
ducing standardized terms that adopt BIM is difficult due to
FIDIC’s nature as a global contract, which is drafted to fit various
jurisdiction systems and cultures. Furthermore, the approach most
likely adopted by FIDIC is to address BIM by issuing a guidance
note or perhaps a protocol for use with the FIDIC form and any
radical changes to the contract from is not anticipated. FIDIC in-
troduced collaborative principles in the new released suite; this can
be shown through the alteration from a dispute adjudication board
(DAB) to a dispute avoidance/adjudication board (DAAB) and the
adoption of an early warning system as according to Subclause 8.3.
The use of BIM enhances early warning systems because parties
more easily recognize design inconsistencies and give notice to re-
lated parties at an earlier stage.
Model Ownership
Model ownership is ranked as the most vital contractual issue
when it comes to BIM adoption (Miller et al. 2013). One of the
main incentives for owners to adopt BIM in their projects is to ac-
quire and use the final model for facility management purposes
(Arensman and Ozbek 2012). This could oppose the architect/
designer’s reluctance to hand over the model due to the concerns
of loss of intellectual property (IP) rights (Saxon 2013). Further-
more, what makes model ownership in BIM projects more complex
is the fact that the models are developed collaboratively between
different parties, and by default each party will claim ownership
of its contribution (Cerimagic et al. 2015). In addition, the value
of BIM is in the final model and the components within, and parties
should seek agreements of the intellectual property rights of each
model element to avoid disputes (Fan 2014). The existing guide-
lines are still subjective when it comes to ownership rights and there
is a knowledge gap between the current guidelines and ownership
issues (Alwash et al. 2017). Mosey et al. (2016) claimed that
concerns about loss of intellectual property rights are more of a
commercial issue than a legal one because the current legal struc-
ture provides the required protection for intellectual property and
there are existing clauses that clarify copyright protection over
graphic and nongraphic design.
The adopted approach of most BIM guidelines is to grant the
owner the entitlement to use the BIM model for facility manage-
ment purposes, but this is not to be considered the default because
model authors’ agreement to such entitlement and the purposes for
which the owner intends to use the model must be clear (Dougherty
2015). The American Institute of Architects (AIA) contract forms
deal with model ownership and IP in further detail (Alwash et al.
2017). Article 7 of AIA B101 (AIA 2017) states that model authors
own their product IP but are obligated to grant a nonexclusive
license to the project owner. The granted license is regulated ac-
cording to AIA E203-2013 (AIA 2013), which stipulates the
ownership of the granted license for use, amendments, and trans-
mission of data to other project members for purposes limited to the
project itself. Moreover, parties are liable to warrant copyrights of
the transferred data during information exchange.
Article 6 of ConsensusDocs (2008) approaches model owner-
ship and IP similarly because each contibutor grants the owner
and other parties in the project a nonexclusive liscense to use, copy,
and grant a subliscence of the model for purposes subjected to the
project itself. The Ohio BIM protocol (OhioDAS 2020) states that
ownership of all project data including digital models belongs to
the project owner and any party entitled to use the project data
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 as per regulations under the laws of the State of Ohio for electronic
data and contract documentation.
Mosey et al. (2016) claimed that some of the clauses of the Con-
struction Industry Council (CIC) BIM protocol that deal with
licensing and model ownership are contentious, such as Clause
6.4, which allows the revocation or suspension of copyright license
granted to the employer in the event of nonpayment of fees. Due to
the integrative nature of BIM projects, this particular provision
would have a significant effect that extends to all project parties,
not only parties in dispute. Furthermore, Winfield (2015) suggested
that this provision should be deleted and clients will not accept
such terms in practice because the model will be held as ransom
in case of a fee dispute, causing delay to the overall project.
The ConsensusDOCS 301 BIM addendum adopts a different ap-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 11/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
proach regarding the status of the granted model license in case
of nonpayment. According to ConsensusDOCS 301, a party not
entitled to initiate the right of suspension or revocation until a de-
cision of a court or arbitration. It also creates a waiver in favor of
other project team members not directly involved in the payment
dispute by excluding them and licenses issued by them from any
liability on account of the suspension or revocation of the IP/
copyright rights.
Risk Allocation
BIM caused significant change in the allocation of risk and liabil-
ities due to its collaborative nature, which differs from the traditional
procurement and contractual models that depend more on definite
and single obligations. Moreover, new types of risk emerged related
to dissipation of shared data, clash detecting, and integrity of data.
Single roles and responsibilities of a traditional legal framework
may not fit with BIM (Dastbaz et al. 2017). Mosey et al. (2016)
indicated that BIM provides designers working together with major
enhancements when it comes to risk management. One of the key
features of BIM is that it facilitates detecting any design deficiencies
that occur due to conflicts that arise from different design disciplines
(e.g., structural and mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP).
These deficiencies can be detected and resolved through clash de-
tection facilitated by BIM, but the process of detecting and resolving
such clashes can cause an extra burden of effort, usually with no
predefined fee. Furthermore, the liability of resolving clashes is left
in practice to bargaining power between parties with no clear role of
assigned responsibilities. In order to overcome such an issue, unam-
biguous procedures should be stated defining the steps to be taken in
respect to clashes that were detected and could not be resolved con-
sensually in design team meeting. Another feature that distinguishes
BIM is the management of the common data environment (CDE)
and the federated model and by default who will be assigned the
risks associated with such responsibility (Mosey et al. 2016).
BIM and Collaboration
The National Building Specification (NBS) National BIM Report
(NBS 2015) stated that 57% of the respondents to the NBS National
BIM Survey agreed that BIM is “all about real time collaboration”
and 31% considered loss of collaboration as one of the main ob-
stacles to implement BIM. The approach to promote collaboration
under contractual terms as optional or nonbinding will not succeed
and collaboration will be marginalized once a dispute arises, which
is very common in the construction industry (Winfield 2015). Fur-
thermore, an effective contract must encourage and obligate parties
to act collaboratively during the project. Traditional contracting re-
sults in neglecting the significance of the contract and lead to the
© ASCE 04021094-3
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(8): 04021094
contract being “left in the drawer” of the site office, while collabo-
rative contracting encourages parties to use the contract’s collabo-
rative procedures to guide them day by day through the project
(Hughes et al. 2015). Furthermore, it is common to see variation
in the treatment of subcontractors by the main contractor in the
same project. This leads to inconsistency in the overall collabora-
tive process of the project (Akintan and Morledge 2013). Clauses
clarifying a tiered or collaborative dispute resolution process by
structuring a dispute board or similar arrangement will facilitate
collaboration in the project. Adopting collaboration as the gov-
erning principle does not prevent parties from resolving to adjudi-
cation, but rather parties become more reluctant to resort to such
procedures. In addition, adopting collaborative contractual models
does not mean that parties’ liabilities are diluted when compared to
traditional models (Winfield 2015).
Information Loss Issues
According to the National BIM Report (NBS 2015), 26% of the
respondents developed a BIM model over the last year using more
than one type of software. Winfield and Rock (2018) clarified that
interoperability issues take place during information transmission
between different systems due to the insufficient integrity of data. It
is difficult to withhold the same consistency of integration for
shared information in a multidisciplinary platform (Olatunji 2014).
This is because multiple disciplinary users tend to select the infor-
mation of their point of interest, which they will use in their
own discipline, leading to distortion of information (Amor et al.
2007).
The ability to rely on the shared information between different
disciplines and parties is a vital issue to implement BIM efficiently
(Arensman and Ozbek 2012). Although, in a BIM project, parties
should anticipate receiving a model free of omissions and defects
and be able to rely on the model and the information included
within during their model development, parties are also keen to
limit their liability once the model has left their control. This leads
to the loss in efficiency of the BIM process as many parties
redevelop the model from two-dimensional drawings because they
do not rely on the transmitted model and responsibility of the model
data validity against omissions when transmission is ambiguous
(Larson and Golden 2007).
Furthermore, the issue of assigning the risks associated with
model integrity was addressed by BIM protocols in different
approaches (Fan et al. 2018). According to ConsensusDOCS Sub-
clause 3.1, the architect/engineer, contractor/construction manager,
or any other party may be designated as the information manager
(IM). ConsensusDOCS adopts a check-the-box approach and im-
poses on the IM numerous duties, including maintaining the model
and all appropriate records. ConsensusDOCS 301, Subclause 5.1 at-
tempts to address the issue of liability by specifically enumerating
the risk allocation between the parties, “Each party shall be respon-
sible for any Contribution that it makes to a Model or that arises from
that Party’s access to that Model. Such responsibility includes any
Contribution or access to a Model by a Project Participant
in privity with that Party and of a lower tier than that Party.” Fur-
thermore, concerning the right to rely on other documents, Consen-
susDOCS Subclause 5.1 states, “To the extent any or all Design
Models are included as Contract Documents, Project Participants
may rely upon the accuracy of information in those Design Models.”
The CIC BIM protocol adopts a different approach, as under
Clause 5 project team members are not liable for the integrity
of electronic data transmission or alteration after transmission,
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 unless the project team member failed to act in accordance with the
protocol.
According to Fan et al. (2018), further investigation is needed to
address the issue of liability of model contributors to optimize project
outcomes because both current approaches have limitations. It is
inequitable to burden project parties with the integrity of the model
and data within when such model and data are not within their con-
trol. On the other hand, if parties are not to accept any liability for the
integrity of their contribution in the model, this will affect the ability
of other project parties to rely on such contribution.
The development of agreed standards such as Construction
Operations Building Information Exchange (COBie) and Industry
Foundation Classes (IFCs) will contribute to overcoming interop-
erability errors, although there are still doubts within the construc-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 11/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
tion industry about development of neutral, open platforms for
graphical model exchange, such as Industry Foundation Classes
(Benghi and Greenwood 2018).
Mosey et al. (2016) discussed the exclusion of liability for BIM
software providers and empathized the significance of this issue
because software vendors typically limit their liability for any de-
ficiencies that occur. As an example, the Autodesk software user
will be governed by the standard Autodesk license and services
agreement (Autodesk 2015), which limits any warranty to no more
than 90 days and any remedy shall not exceed a refund for the
license fees. As a result, accepting such exclusions and limitations
of liability might cause clients to doubt the adoption of BIM, which
mostly relies on the sufficiency on the software used. The case of
M. A. Mortenson Co. v. Timberline Software Corp. (1999) clearly
emphasizes the limited liability of software vendors (Alwash et al.
2017). Contracts need to stipulate clearly the assigned responsibil-
ities in case of information loss due to defects in the integrity of
data or software errors because ambiguity in such clauses could
lead to disputes (Winfield 2015).
Professional Legal Duty
The standard of care suggests that architects are liable to perform
their services with adequate care, relative to other practicing
professionals in the same field (Macdonald 2012). Furthermore,
professionals should keep pace with all the emerging technology
and developments considered as a norm in their field while accom-
plishing their scope of work. Mosey et al. (2016) referred to the
case law of Wimpey Construction UK LTD v. D V Poole (1984),
which stated that consultants are responsible to perform their pro-
fession according to the state of the art at the time of providing
consultancy services. Because BIM is being adopted in the
construction sector with all its potential capabilities to optimize
productivity and reduce errors and conflicts in construction proj-
ects, this will lead project owners to increase the level of perfor-
mance they expect from architects (Pressman 2007). After the
adoption of BIM in the construction sector, there will be an issue
of identifying what is reasonable for the previously mentioned
duties of designers (Mosey et al. 2016). Furthermore, according
to Fan et al. (2018), the standard of care in BIM projects may
be altered because BIM leads to additional contractual liabilities
on project participants and further research is needed to approach
such issue.
Mosey et al. (2016) highlighted that the CIC BIM protocol
Clause 4, “Obligations of the Project Team Member,” is inconsis-
tent with most standard forms of contracts. The protocol adopts an
approach were project parties are liable for “reasonable endeavors”
when undergoing their duties, which is a lower, reduced duty of
care than the custom “reasonable skill and care.”
© ASCE 04021094-4
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(8): 04021094
Winfield (2015) argued that the level of standard of care ac-
knowledged in standard regulations will not undergo a severe
change, but clauses must be definite and clarified regarding the
standard of care for BIM deliverables and if there is a need for de-
signers, BIM managers, or both to provide indemnity for the data in
the model.
Research Methodology
This study adopted content analysis, which is a technique used to
analyze any type of communication such as text data, visual aids,
and illustrations with the aim of making valid inferences concern-
ing the subject of study (Hsieh and Shannon 2005). Content analy-
sis goes beyond merely counting words to examining language
intensely for the purpose of classifying amounts of text into an ef-
ficient number of categories that represent similar meanings (Weber
1990). Content analysis is a set of systematic procedures, which is
segregated from the personal preferences of the researcher allowing
more objective results when compared to other techniques such as
expert elicitation or interviews. As a research technique, content
analysis provides new insights and increases a researcher’s under-
standing of particular phenomena. In addition, content analysis can
easily be learned and replicated by other researchers, yielding re-
sults with high reliability (Krippendorff 2010). According to Elo
et al. (2014), content analysis allows direct examination and more
closeness to the data. Furthermore, it allows for both qualitative and
quantitative analysis. Previous publications used content analysis to
analyze contracts, such as Patterson and Trebes (2013) and Gibbs
et al. (2015).
The approach model adopted in the research was a directed con-
tent analysis approach. According to Hsieh and Shannon (2005),
directed content analysis is used to provide a more detailed under-
standing of an available theory or an existing relevant study. The
initial coding schemes are developed based on previous relevant
studies. The findings of the analysis either extend a further detailed
understanding of the initial hypothesis of the research or offer a
contradicting perspective of such hypothesis. The availability of
such research background enables the research to be precise and
narrow the study scope. Furthermore, it can facilitate in identifying
the coding scheme and aspects of interest to determine the catego-
rizing system. This approach is recognized as a deductive category
application (Flick et al. 2004). The legal issues in Table 1 were used
to initiate the coding scheme used in the directed content analysis
process to investigate the approach of each contract form in
addressing such issues.
Research Framework
To sufficiently meet the set objectives, this study is conducted in
five main steps, as shown in Fig. 1. These steps are (1) identification
of the initial coding scheme, (2) selection of the unit of analysis,
(3) developing sense of the whole, (4) analyzing the contract
forms, and (5) cluster analysis. The identification of the initial
coding scheme step involves a review of the literature to identify
the contractual aspects associated with BIM such as Cerimagic
et al. (2015), Winfield (2015), Mosey et al. (2016), Chong et al.
(2017), Alwash et al. (2017), Winfield and Rock (2018), Fan et al.
(2018), and Arshad et al. (2019). Moreover, these contractual
aspects are further divided into subcategories and the keywords as-
sociated with each subcategory are identified, as shown in Table 1.
Subsequently, selection of the unit of analysis is performed, and
three main standard form of contracts were selected based on three
criteria:
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Table 1. Contractual issues associated with BIM
Category Subcategory Keywords identified from literature
Model ownership Type of license Irrevocable, nonexclusive, royalty free license
Model usage Project operation, life cycle, facility management, information
Mutual intellectual property rights Model contribution, IP
Risk allocation Clash detection Clash detection, early warning, risk, meeting
Model hostage and security Common data environment
Collaboration Binding terms for collaboration Presence, priority, shall work together
Collaborative project delivery Trust, fairness, mutual cooperation, incentives, partners
Early-stage design Early contractor involvement, supply chain contribution
Information loss Interoperability Loss of data
Limited liability of software providers Third-party insurance, software vendors
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 11/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Professional legal duty Standard of care Duty of care, reasonable skill and care, reasonable endeavor

• The drafting body recognized and considered BIM when pub-
lishing its standard contract forms,
• Previous relevant studies that would be a benchmark and strong
basis to initiate further detailed analysis were available, and
• Most updated versions with newest amendments were
studied.
The previous selected contracts are PPC2000, NEC4 ECC, and
JCT CE. The previous contacts were described by Saxon (2013) as
the forefront of contracts developing a new era of construction
contracts.
The third step of the study is developing a sense of the whole
and is initiated by conducting an overview of each of the contracts
in order to develop a complementary understanding of the contract
clauses and to identify keywords used in the contract forms related
to the previously identified contractual subcategories. Finally, ana-
lyzing the contract forms takes place utilizing ATLAS.ti data analy-
sis software to analyze the contract forms. The analysis defines
contractual categories as code groups and subcategories as codes,
the identified keywords are used to filter the contract clauses, and
keywords are allocated to relevant contact clauses forming quota-
tions. Codes are assigned to relevant quotes; this is followed by
formulating a network diagram illustrating each code group. The
number of quotations associated with each code is shown in the
network diagram, for example, irrevocable license is associated
with two quotations (G ¼ 2), while the number of links (density)
a quote has with other codes is shown as D, for example, Subclause
4.10 of the JCT CE is linked with three codes (D ¼ 3). Finally,
cluster analysis is performed using results from ATLAS.ti to study
each code group and determine the different adopted approaches
associated with each contractual issue. Fig. 1 depicts the flowchart
of the proposed framework in this research.

Selected Studies Contracts

The first selected contract for study is the PPC2000 contract
amended 2013 published by the Association of Consultant Archi-
tects (Mosey 2003). PPC2000 is a contract that provides for
project partnering and integrates the entire project team under
a single multiparty contract, whereby the client, the main contrac-
tor, and all key supply chain members work together as a team
under the same terms and conditions, forming a partnering team.
The second contract form is the NEC4 ECC published in June
2017 (NEC4 2017) and with amendments January 2019. The
NEC4 ECC is used for the appointment of a contractor for engi-
neering and construction works. NEC4 ECC includes secondary
optional Clause Option X10: Information Modeling, which pro-
vides for BIM. JCT CE (CE 2016) published by the Joint Con-
tracts Tribunal, drafted to provide for project partnering. The
contract framework agreement is between the client (purchaser)
and the contractor (supplier) and can be used in both target cost
Fig. 1. Proposed research framework.
and lump sum methods.

© ASCE 04021094-5 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(8): 04021094

 Data Analytics Results
Table 2 demonstrates the word count in quotations assigned to co-
des and code groups in each of the studied contract forms. From the
displayed data, the ranking of the studied contractual aspects dis-
cussed within the contract clauses was as follows: collaboration
was the most widely discussed contractual aspect, followed by
model ownership, risk allocation, professional legal duty, and
finally information loss. As for information loss, NEC4 ECC could
be considered the only contract that discussed this aspect because
PPC2000 has only 21 words on it and JCT CE has a word count of
zero. Quotations were assigned to all of the identified codes except
limited liability of software providers.
Furthermore, Fig. 2 illustrates the number of quotations allo-
cated to each code in the studied contract forms; collaborative

Table 2. Word count for quotations in the studied contracts

Code group Code JCT CE NEC4 ECC PPC2000 Total
Model ownership Irrevocable license 154 0 120 274
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 11/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Provide for postconstruction purposes 154 114 170 438

Intellectual property rights 154 56 330 540
Risk allocation Early warning system 0 509 114 623
Common data environment 0 97 59 156
Collaboration Binding terms for collaboration 182 0 151 333
Collaborative project delivery 695 732 1,840 3,267
Early-stage design 0 979 792 1,771
Information loss aspects Assign interoperability liabilities 0 142 21 163
Limited liability of software providers 0 0 0 0
Professional legal duty Standard of care 108 142 89 339
Total 1,447 2,771 3,686 7,904

Fig. 2. Number of assigned quotations to codes in each of the contract forms.

© ASCE 04021094-6 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(8): 04021094

 project delivery was the contractual issue with the most assigned
quotes (32), with PPC2000 and JCT CE having an exceeding num-
ber of assigned quotes in such contractual issue compared to
NEC4 ECC.
Adopted Approaches
Model Ownership Aspects
The word cloud for the model ownership code group is illustrated in
Fig. 3, which displays the frequency of words on a sliding scale
from left to right (most frequent to least frequent). The most fre-
quent words used are as follows: rights (12), documents (11), shall
(11), client (10) and use (10).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 11/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Subclause 9.1 of the PPC2000 provided for intellectual property
rights between all parties signing the partnering agreement. In ad-
dition, any partnering member shall be liable to compensate for any
breach related to IP rights. Under Subclause 9.2 of PPC2000, the
originator of any contribution throughout the project is entitled for
intellectual property rights. Furthermore, each partnering team
member shall grant the client and other partnering team members
an irrevocable license to use the designs and relevant documents for
purposes of completion of the project, and only the client shall be
granted a similar license for operation of the project. In addition,
the client has the right to transfer such license to other parties for
the same purposes.
According to Subclause 9.2, partnering members shall ensure
that similar terms shall govern sublicense from any relevant supply
chain member (e.g., subcontractors) that contribute to the model
development. Subclause 9.3 stipulates the use of any design con-
tribution to the intended purposes for which they were prepared
unless agreed otherwise. According to Subclause 9.5, which is in-
serted in case BIM is used, any data, software, or other item related
to BIM is recognized as part of the design and is subject to all reg-
ulations concerning ownership and IP discussed in Clause 9 of
PPC2000.
Subclause 22.1 of NEC4 ECC provides for the entitlement of
the Client to use the contractor’s design for any purpose related
to “construction, use, alteration or demolition of the works.” Fur-
thermore, Option X10.6 of NEC4 grants the client the ownership of
the model and the contractor’s information contribution to the
model. The clause also provides that such ownership rights are
Fig. 3. Word cloud for model ownership code group.
© ASCE 04021094-7
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(8): 04021094
liable to all subcontractors because it states, “The Contractor ob-
tains from a Subcontractor equivalent rights for the Client over in-
formation prepared by the Subcontractor.”
According to Subclause 4.10 of JCT CE, the contractor shall
grant the client an irrevocable license to use designs and related
documents for all purposes related to the project, including post-
construction purposes, e.g., maintenance and repair. The subclause
also restricts the use of such license to the project and shall not
include any right to reproduce the information for any extension.
Furthermore, according to Subclause 4.10, contractors or any rel-
evant supply chain members shall retain all intellectual property
rights concerning their project contribution.
The formulated network diagram for model ownership aspects is
shown in Fig. 4. Intellectual property rights has the greatest number
of assigned quotes (G ¼ 6), and JCT CE Subclause 4.10 and PPC
2000 Subclause 9.2 have the highest density assigned to three
codes (D ¼ 3).
Risk Allocation Aspects
According to Fig. 5, which illustrates the word cloud for risk
allocation aspects, the most frequent words used are as follows:
early (26), warning (26), project (14), manager (10), and meeting
(10). Under Subclause 3.7 of PPC2000, all partnering members
shall adopt an early warning system, which provides that each
partnering team member shall be obligated to notify other team
members once they become aware of a potential risk that might
the affect the project. Such notification shall include proposals
on how to overcome such risk. Furthermore, the proposal shall
be referred to the core group for agreement on the course of action
to be taken. As discussed previously, the ability of a party to rely on
others’ contribution to the model is vital for a sufficient integrated
process. According to Subclause 2.4, each partnering team shall
bear consequences of their contribution to the partnering docu-
ments, which includes the BIM model. The PPC2000 contract
under Subclause 3.10 mentions that partnering team members shall
consider arrangements of the common data environment such as
shared database and networks, subject to Clause 25.5 concerning
confidentiality.
NEC4 ECC includes Clause 15, which provides for early warn-
ing. According to Subclause 15.1, both the contractor and project
manager shall initiate a warning once aware of any matter that
could lead to increase in price, delay schedule, or affect work per-
formance. The project manager shall record such matter in the early
warning register. Furthermore, according to Subclause 15.2, the
project manager or contractor is entitled to invite other relevant
parties to attend an early warning meeting if the other approves.
Following the call for an early warning meeting, Subclause 15.3
instructs that the attendees of such meeting cooperate in reviewing
proposals and “deciding on the actions which will be taken and
who, in accordance with the contract will take them.”
Furthermore, NEC4 ECC includes Option X10: Information
Modeling, which clearly states, “The Contractor and the Project
Manager give an early warning by notifying the other as soon
as either becomes aware of any matter which could adversely
affect the creation or use of the Information Model.” Also, in
Option X12: Multiparty Collaboration, early warning is mentioned
as “Each Partner gives an early warning to the other partners
when it becomes aware of any matter that could affect the achieve-
ment of another Partner’s objectives stated in the Schedule of
Partners.”
The formulated network diagram for risk allocation aspects is
shown in Fig. 6. Clash detection has the most assigned quotes
(G ¼ 7), and all of the quotes are assigned to only one code
(D ¼ 1).
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 11/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Model ownership network diagram.

Collaboration Aspects PPC2000 is a single multiparty agreement with collaboration

According to Fig. 7, which illustrates the word cloud for col- as a main aspect. Under Subclause 1.3, all parties are obligated
laboration aspects, the most frequent words used are as follows: to work together in the spirit of trust, fairness, and mutual co-
project (112), partnering (68), shall (58), team (48), core (39), operation. Moreover, Subclause 3.3 of PPC2000 establishes a core
and group (39). group that includes key project parties, the core group shall be

© ASCE 04021094-8 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(8): 04021094


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 11/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. Word cloud for risk allocation code group.
responsible to “review and stimulate the progress of the Project and
the implementation of the Partnering Contract.” The decision-
making strategy adopted by the core group is to reach mutual
agreement among group members, as according to Subclause
3.6 “Decisions of the Core Group shall be by Consensus of all Core
Group members present at that meeting.”
The establishment of the core group is one of the key techniques
through which PPC2000 attains collaborative features of the part-
nering contact, such as the core group’s consultation throughout the
design development process as stated in Clause 8. Under Subclause
7.5, there should be core group consultation before the client ex-
clusion of any individual disrupting or adversely affecting the
project. This operates as a brake on unilateral client action. In ad-
dition, Clause 13 of PPC2000 provides for agreed shared incentives
arrangements between the partnering team “to encourage Partner-
ing Team to maximize their efforts.”
Moreover, in order to ensure a consistent collaborative process
throughout the entire supply chain, parties that take part in the pro-
curement of the project after the formation of the original PPC2000
partnering agreement must sign a joining agreement with terms
consistent with those of the partnering agreement. As for early-
stage design, PPC2000 adopts two-stage bidding to provide for
early assignment of the partnering team at the earliest opportunity
during the preconstruction phase.
NEC4 ECC includes an optional Clause X12, which provides
for multiparty collaboration. The approach undertaken by NEC4
ECC to promote collaboration is to provide for an optional Clause
X12 that recognizes multiparty collaboration and states generic de-
tails concerning the collaborative arrangements of the multiparty
approach. In a similar approach to PPC2000, Option X12 in
NEC4 provides for core group formation, but aspects concerning
the liabilities and roles of the core group are mentioned in much
less detail compared to the PPC2000 contract. Option X12.1 states
that “The Core Group comprises the Partners selected to take de-
cisions on behalf of the Partners.”
According to Option X12.1, further details on how to tackle col-
laboration should be stated in the partnering information, which is
defined as “information which specifies how the partners collabo-
rate and is either in the documents which the Contract Data states it
is or in an instruction given in accordance with the contract.” NEC4
ECC includes Option X22, which provides for early contractor
involvement but restricts the entitlement to use this option only
in case the contract is a target contract with an activity schedule
or a cost-reimbursable contract.
© ASCE 04021094-9
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(8): 04021094
According to Subclause 2.1 of JCT CE, collaboration is the
main principle governing the relationship of parties under the
contract agreement. Under Subclause 2.3 of JCT CE, a project team
shall be formed, which includes the client, lead designer, lead
supplier, and all key suppliers that are recognized of value to
the overall delivery of the project. Furthermore, Subclause 2.4 iden-
tifies the generic roles of the project team members, from holding
regular meetings, to cooperating to discuss potential risks and gains
of the project, to reviewing project performance and comparing it to
key performance indicators (KPIs).
JCT highlights in Subclause 2.9 that in case of disputes,
courts, adjudicators, or any other forum shall consider the collabo-
rative governing principle of the contract and the parties’ compli-
ance with such principle when making an award. In addition,
according to Subclause 4.17 of JCT CE, contractors shall “use
reasonable endeavor” to create contractual relationships with all
their supply chain members using the JCT CE contract form or
use relevant contractual terms, but with no obligation to do so,
unlike PPC2000.
The formulated network diagram for collaboration aspects is
shown in Fig. 8. Collaborative project delivery has the most as-
signed quotes of all of the studied contractual issues (G ¼ 32),
and all of the quotes are assigned to only one code (D ¼ 1).
Information Loss Aspects
The most frequent words associated with information loss aspects
are as follows: information (11), project (7), contractor (3), fault
(3), and insurance (3); this is displayed in word cloud in Fig. 9.
PPC2000 assigns a BIM coordinator, which is the party to be
named in the project partnering agreement. The role of the BIM
coordinator according to PPC2000 is to regulate and manage the
use of the model and to make sure that the BIM protocol is imple-
mented throughout the project.
NEC4 ECC addresses the issue of data integrity with further
detail. Option X10: Information Modeling defines the key terms
associated with data exchange in BIM. According to Option
X10, project information is the contractor’s contribution to the in-
formation model, while “The Information Model is the electronic
integration of Project Information and similar information provided
by the Client and other Information Providers and is in the form
stated in the Information Model Requirements.” NEC4 assigns
the client the liability of any defect in the information provided
by information contributors other than the contractor. Moreover,
the client is liable to any defect in the information model (data
integrity).
The formulated network diagram for information loss aspects is
shown in Fig. 10. The code group contains only one contractual
issue assigned to two quotes.
Professional Legal Duty Aspects
As shown in Fig. 11, the most frequent words associated with pro-
fessional legal duty were as follows: information (11), care (9),
project (9), and skill (6). All of the contact forms state that the con-
tracting parties is liable of adequate reasonable skill and care nor-
mally used by professionals in similar projects. Thus, the approach
of all the contracts does not match with the adopted approach of
the CIC BIM protocol, which defines reasonable endeavor as the
accepted professional legal duty. Under Option X10.7 of NEC4,
the contractor’s contribution to the model is liable to be carried ac-
cording to adequate skill and care used by professionals in relevant
projects. As stated previously, the level of accepted skill and care
concerning BIM deliverables remains unspecified. Furthermore,
according to Option X10.7, contractors shall provide insurance
for claims made against any failure to perform their liabilities
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 11/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

© ASCE
04021094-10
Fig. 6. Risk allocation network diagram.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(8): 04021094

J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 11/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 7. Word cloud for collaboration code group.
concerning model contribution using the skill and care normally
used by professionals in similar projects.
Fig. 12 displays the formulated network diagram for profes-
sional legal duty aspects. Standard of care is assigned with five quo-
tations distributed among the three contracts.
Results and Discussion
All of the studied contracts entitle the owner the right to use de-
signs, information, models, and all related documents for postcon-
struction purposes such as facility management and refurbishment.
Furthermore, the granted entitlement includes any relevant supply
chain member (e.g., subcontractors) that contributes to the model
development. This is similar to the recommendations stated by
Chong et al. (2017) that contract provisions amended for BIM
should entitle the client to use and access the model if given ap-
proval from the model contributor. Both PPC2000 and JCT CE
grant an irrevocable license, which is limited for postconstruction
purposes related to the project subject of agreement, and each party
will retain intellectual property rights for its contribution. Such an
approach is similar to the adopted approach of most BIM protocols
such as ConsensusDOCS, AIA E203-2013, and the CIC BIM pro-
tocol except that the CIC BIM protocol grants a revocable license.
Moreover, PPC2000 creates mutual duties of care by providing for
a mutual warranty between all parties signing the partnering agree-
ment. On the other hand, NEC4 ECC adopts a different extended
approach where the client owns the model and the information
within.
As for clash detection, both PPC2000 and NEC4 ECC adopt the
same approach to overcome the obstacle by implementing an early
warning system, which obligates all project parties once they be-
come aware of the clash to notify and submit a proposal to avoid
such clash. Furthermore, parties are obligated to cooperate to over-
come the detected clash. NEC4 states details on how to activate
such a system, stipulating dates and procedures to perform once
a risk is recognized, PPC2000 did not state details concerning
© ASCE 04021094-11
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(8): 04021094
how to implement such a system. JCT CE did not adopt an early
warning system. The results show that both PPC2000 and NEC4
ECC adopt a similar approach while dealing with the model hos-
tage and security by adding a clause highlighting the need of the
contacting parties to take into consideration any needed agreements
concerned with setting up a common data environment. Moreover,
neither contract stipulates any assigned responsibilities for who is
responsible for what and rather notifies that details should be ac-
cording to complementary documents such as the project informa-
tion requirements (PIRs).
Collaboration is the most discussed contractual aspect with a
total word count of 5,371. Furthermore, collaboration aspects in-
cluded the largest number of quotes assigned to codes, which illus-
trates how the collaborative approach of the studied contract forms
is widely stated in several clauses. This emphasizes what is stated
by Hughes et al. (2015) that collaborative contracting should act as
a guide for parties throughout the project by defining clear collabo-
rative procedures stated in the contract clauses.
The features introduced in the contract forms addressed the
potential issues that hinder collaboration. The collaborative ap-
proaches undertaken by each contract form differed in aspects such
as level of detail, risk sharing, and allocation of authority and de-
cision making. Such aspects were addressed by PPC2000 with
more detail when compared to the other studied contracts. One
of the main features introduced by the contract forms to provide
for collaboration is through the formation of a core group that in-
cludes key project parties. Collaborative approaches adopted by
PPC2000 and JCT CE are binding and collaboration can be de-
scribed as the main theme of the contract forms. This overcomes
the concerns raised by Winfield (2015) that promoting collabora-
tion will not succeed if the contractual terms are not binding. How-
ever, NEC4 has some of the collaborative features introduced as
secondary optional clauses, such as formation of the core group
and early contractor involvement.
Neither PPC2000 and JCT CE stipulate assigned liabilities con-
cerning interoperability issues. However, NEC4 ECC assigns clear
liabilities for data integrity. According to NEC4, the client is liable
for any defect in the project parties’ model contribution other than
the contractor’s contribution. In addition, the client is liable for the
overall data integrity. Such an approach adopted by NEC4 burdens
the client with the various and probable risks of interoperability
associated with BIM. This adopted approach is similar to the
CIC BIM approach, because parties are not liable for the data in-
tegrity of their contribution. Such an approach that limits the liabil-
ity of data integrity for project contributors as stated by Larson and
Golden (2007), Arensman and Ozbek (2012), and Fan et al. (2018)
affects the ability to rely on the transferred data, leading to loss in
efficiency of the overall BIM process.
Furthermore, NEC4 considers the additional risks of informa-
tion loss associated with BIM, because it states that contractors
shall provide for additional insurance for claims made against
any failure to perform their model contribution liabilities using
skill and care used by relevant professionals. Such an approach
is considered a step toward amending contracts for BIM adoption.
The question raised by previous research such as Mosey et al.
(2016) and Fan et al. (2018) concerning identifying the accepted
level of professional duty remains ambiguous, taking into consid-
eration that BIM is a relatively newly introduced technology in the
construction field, and it would be challenging to determine what is
considered the technology’s state of the art. Table 3 demonstrates
the occurrence of the contractual issues in the studied contracts,
and the clauses discussing the issues associated with BIM are
shown in Table 4.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 11/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Sample of collaboration network diagram.

© ASCE 04021094-12 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(8): 04021094


Fig. 9. Word cloud for information loss code group.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 11/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 10. Information loss network diagram.
Fig. 11. Word cloud for professional legal duty code group.
Conclusions
There is an urge for the fine tuning of the current contractual
paradigm in order to harvest BIM’s potential benefits. Specific
contractual categories from model ownership, risk allocation, col-
laboration, information loss, and professional legal duty are barriers
that obstruct the sufficient implementation of BIM. The main ap-
proach of most standard forms of contracts relies on referring to the
insertion of an all-encompassing BIM protocol, with no crucial
amendments to the contract provisions itself. Previous studies were
conducted to identify the contractual issues hindering BIM adop-
tion and proposed generic contractual aspects to overcome such
issues. However, detailed perspectives on how to draft and accom-
modate such key contractual provisions in the contract body are not
further discussed. And accordingly, there is a shortage in investi-
gating the different approaches adopted to address each contractual
issue. A directed content analysis approach was adopted in this re-
search to study 11 main contractual issues identified from an ex-
tensive literature review in three standard form of contracts,
© ASCE 04021094-13
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(8): 04021094
PPC2000, NEC4 ECC, and JCT CE, with advanced efforts in
the field of BIM adoption. The clauses of the three contract forms
were analyzed to investigate how such contractual issues are ad-
dressed within the contract body. All of the identified contractual
issues were addressed in the contract forms except for limited
liability of software providers.
The research findings were consistent with the previous body of
knowledge, which considers model ownership the most vital con-
tractual aspect affecting BIM adoption. All of the aspects related to
model ownership were widely discussed in the contract clauses.
The research findings highlight that construction contracts drafted
to be used in a project where BIM is utilized must consider drafting
clear clauses that entitle the client the right to use the BIM model
for postconstruction purposes. Furthermore, the granted license for
the client’s model usage should be irrevocable. This recommended
approach differs from the CIC BIM protocol, which allows model
suspension in case of nonpayment. As for intellectual property
rights, there are two adopted approaches: the first is to provide
for an irrevocable license to use the model with clauses preserving
each party’s IP rights for its contribution, while the second is to
grant the client ownership of the model and information within.
The first approach could be considered adequate because it is sim-
ilar to most conventional copyright regulations; furthermore, in
practice, parties will be reluctant to hand over the IP rights of the
information model, especially in case of termination of the contract
during the project.
The research shows that it is recommended to add clauses to
initiate an early warning system where parties are obligated to co-
operate to detect and overcome deficiencies that might affect the
project. A clear contractual approach of issues associated with
the common data environment was not discussed; furthermore,
assigning liability for interoperability issues remains without con-
sensus. Clauses addressing collaboration should be widely intro-
duced in contract forms amended to adopt BIM. Moreover, such
collaborative aspects must be binding and provide clear unambigu-
ous collaborative procedures to the contracting parties, allowing for
a more integrated project delivery. Partnering contracts are of clear
advantage compared to traditional contracts regarding imposing
collaboration between the contacting parties, which is vital for a
sufficient BIM implementation.
It is recommended that parties provide for additional insurance
for claims made against any failure to perform their model contri-
bution liabilities according to the agreed BIM protocol, and the
party assigned the role of the BIM coordinator is responsible for
the overall data integrity. The issue of limited liability of software
providers was not addressed in any of the contract forms. This does
not indicate the insignificance of the issue on BIM implementation:
first, it is still an obstacle with no clear developed contractual pro-
cedures. Second, liability of software providers is a market issue,
which could not be resolved by simply amending provisions to
assign liability to software providers, because in practice BIM’s
software providers will have no liability to accept terms imposing
additional liabilities on them. As a suggestion, such issue could be
addressed by providing for third-party insurance.
It is envisaged that this research can help researchers and practi-
tioners interested in finding a suitable approach for developing an
all-encompassing contract body that promotes adoption of BIM.
Furthermore, in light of recommendations from the experts and lim-
itations of the research’s scope, it is recommended to extend the
research framework by studying contractual issues associated with
BIM other than the 11 addressed in this study, and by conducting
detailed research of BIM protocols such as ConsensusDOCS and
investigating the incorporation of different types of BIM protocols
with standard forms of contracts defining the legal status of BIM
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 11/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 12. Professional legal duty network diagram.

Table 3. Contractual issues discussed in the contract forms

Contractual issue JCT CE NEC4 ECC PPC2000
Irrevocable license X — X
Provide for postconstruction purposes X X X
Intellectual property rights X X X
Early warning system — X X
Common data environment — X X
Binding terms for collaboration X — X
Collaborative project delivery X X X
Early-stage design — X X
Assign interoperability liabilities — X X
Standard of care X X X
Total 6 8 10

© ASCE 04021094-14 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(8): 04021094

 Table 4. Clauses discussing the issues associated with BIM in the studied contracts
Contractual issue PPC2000 NEC4 ECC JCT CE
Early warning system Subclause 3.7 Clause 15 Not stated
Option 10.3
Option X12.3
Common data environment Subclause 3.10 Option X12.3 Not stated
Provide for postconstruction purposes Subclause 9.2 Subclause 22.1 Subclause 4.10
Subclause 9.3 Option X10.6
Provide for irrevocable license Subclause 9.2 Option X10.6 Subclause 4.10
Intellectual property rights Subclause 9.1 Option X10.6 Subclause 4.10
Subclause 9.2
Subclause 9.3
Subclause 9.4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 11/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Assign interoperability liabilities Appendix 10 Option X10.7 Not stated

Binding terms for collaboration Subclause 1.1 Not stated Subclause 2.1
Subclause 1.2 Subclause 2.1
Subclause 1.3
Collaborative project delivery Subclause 3.3 Option X12 Clause 2
Subclause 8.2 Subclause 4.17
Subclause 8.3
Clause 10
Subclause 18.1
Clause 23
Early-stage design Subclause 8.3 Option X22 Not stated
Subclause 10.1
Subclause 10.2
Sub clause 10.8
Standard of care Subclause 22.1 Option X10.7 Subclause 4.4
Subclause 4.5

protocols and the precedence of documents in a BIM project. Fur-
ther research should consider the impact of BIM on the accepted
professional legal duty (standard of care) and drafting standards to
adopt such an impact.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this
study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable
request.
References
ACA (Association of Consultant Architects). 2013. ACA standard form of
contract for project partnering. Bromley, England: ACA.
AIA (American Institute of Architects). 2013. Building information
modeling and digital data exhibit. AIA E203-2013. New York: AIA.
AIA (American Institute of Architects). 2017. Standard form of agreement
between owner and architect. AIA B101. New York: AIA.
Akintan, O. A., and R. Morledge. 2013. “Improving the collaboration
between main contractors and subcontractors within traditional con-
struction procurement.” J. Constr. Eng. 2013: 1–11. https://doi.org/10
.1155/2013/281236.
Alashwal, A. M., H. A. Rahman, and A. M. Beksin. 2011. “Knowledge
sharing in a fragmented construction industry: On the hindsight.”
Sci. Res. Essays 6 (7): 1530–1536.
Alwash, A., P. E. D. Love, and O. Olatunji. 2017. “Impact and remedy
of legal uncertainties in building information modeling.” J. Leg. Aff.
Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 9 (3): 04517005. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000219.
Amor, R., Y. Jiang, and X. Chen. 2007. “BIM in 2007—Are we there yet?”
In Proc., CIB W78 Conf. on Bringing ITC Knowledge to Work, 26–29.
Auckland, New Zealand: International Council for Building Research
Studies and Documentation.
Arayici, Y., P. Coates, L. Koskela, M. Kagioglou, C. Usher, and K.
O’Reilly. 2011. “Technology adoption in the BIM implementation
for lean architectural practice.” Autom. Constr. 20 (2): 189–195.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2010.09.016.
Arensman, D. B., and M. E. Ozbek. 2012. “Building information modeling
and potential legal issues.” Int. J. Constr. Educ. Res. 8 (2): 146–156.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15578771.2011.617808.
Arshad, M. F., M. J. Thaheem, A. R. Nasir, and M. S. A. Malik. 2019.
“Contractual risks of building information modeling: Toward a stand-
ardized legal framework for design-bid-build projects.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage. 145 (4): 04019010. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943
-7862.0001617.
Ashcraft, H. W. 2008. “Building information modeling: A framework for
collaboration.” Constr. Law 28 (1): 5.
Autodesk. 2015 “License and services agreement.” Accessed April 7, 2020.
https://www.autodesk.com/company/legal-notices-trademarks/software
-license-agreements-legacy#1.
Benghi, C., and D. Greenwood. 2018. “Constraints in authoring BIM
components: Results of longitudinal interoperability tests.” In Proc.,
Contemporary Strategies and Approaches in 3D Information Modeling,
27–51. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Buchanan, D., L. Fitzgerald, D. Ketley, R. Gollop, J. L. Jones,
S. S. Lamont, A. Neath, and E. Whitby. 2005. “No going back: A
review of the literature on sustaining organizational change.” Int. J.
Manage. Rev. 7 (3): 189–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370
.2005.00111.x.
Cerimagic, S., J. Smith, and J. J. Ochoa. 2015. “Communication
and relationship building in cross-cultural project management: An
Australia-UAE study.” In Proc., Construction, Building and Real Estate

© ASCE 04021094-15 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(8): 04021094

 Research Conf., COBRA AUBEA 2015. London: Royal Institution of
Chartered Surveyors.
Chong, H.-Y., S.-L. Fan, M. Sutrisna, S.-H. Hsieh, and C.-M. Tsai.
2017. “Preliminary contractual framework for BIM-enabled projects.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 143 (7): 04017025. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001278.
CIC (Construction Industry Council). 2013. Building information model
(BIM) protocol: Standard protocol for use in projects using building
information models. London: CIC.
ConsensusDOCS. 2008. ConsensusDOCS 301 building information
modeling addendum. Arlington, VA: ConsensusDOCS.
Dastbaz, M., C. Gorse, and A. Moncaster. 2017. Building information
modelling, building performance, design and smart construction.
New York: Springer.
Dougherty, J. M. 2015. Claims, disputes and litigation involving BIM.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 11/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
London: Routledge.
Eastman, C. M., C. Eastman, P. Teicholz, R. Sacks, and K. Liston. 2011.
BIM handbook: A guide to building information modeling for owners,
managers, designers, engineers and contractors. New York: Wiley.
Elo, S., M. Kääriäinen, O. Kanste, T. Pölkki, K. Utriainen, and H.
Kyngäs. 2014. “Qualitative content analysis: A focus on trustworthi-
ness.” SAGE Open 4 (1): 215824401452263. https://doi.org/10.1177
/2158244014522633.
Fan, S. L., C. Y. Lee, H. Y. Chong, and M. J. Skibniewski. 2018. “A critical
review of legal issues and solutions associated with building informa-
tion modeling.” Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 24 (5): 2098–2130. https://
doi.org/10.3846/tede.2018.5695.
Fan, S.-L. 2014. “Intellectual property rights in building information
modeling application in Taiwan.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 140 (3):
04013058. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000808.
Flick, U., E. V. Kardoff, I. Steinke. 2004. A companion to qualitative re-
search. London: Sage.
Fussel, T., S. Beazley, G. Aranda-Mena, A. Chevez, J. Crawford, B. Succar,
R. Drogemuller, S. Gard, and D. Nielsen. 2009. National guidelines for
digital modelling: Case studies. Brisbane, QLD: Cooperative Research
Centre (CRC) for Construction Innovation.
Gibbs, D. J., S. Emmitt, W. Lord, and K. Ruikar. 2015. “BIM and construc-
tion contracts—CPC 2013’s approach.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Manage.
Procure. Law 168 (6): 285–293. https://doi.org/10.1680/jmapl.14
.00045.
Glick, S., and A. Guggemos. 2009. “IPD and BIM: Benefits and opportu-
nities for regulatory agencies.” In Vol. 2 of Proc., 45th ASC National
Conf. Cheyenne, Wyoming: Associated Schools of Construction.
Glover, J. 2017. “A review of typical contracts and clauses FIDIC and BIM:
FIDIC and BIM.” Int. Q. 21 (Feb): 3–5.
Gujarathi, G. P., and Y. S. Ma. 2010. “Generative CAD and CAE
integration using common data model.” In Proc., 2010 IEEE Int. Conf.
on Automation Science and Engineering, 586–591. New York: IEEE.
Hsieh, H. F., and S. E. Shannon. 2005. “Three approaches to qualitative
content analysis.” Qual. Health Res. 15 (9): 1277–1288. https://doi
.org/10.1177/1049732305276687.
Hughes, W., R. Champion, and J. Murdoch. 2015. Construction contracts:
Law and management. London: Routledge.
JCT (Joint Contracts Tribunal). 2016. JCT constructing excellence con-
tract. Constructing Excellence in the Built Environment. London: JCT.
Krippendorff, K. 2010. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodol-
ogy. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
© ASCE 04021094-16
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(8): 04021094
Larson, D. A., and K. A. Golden. 2007. “Entering the brave, new world:
An introduction to contracting for building information modeling.”
William Mitchell Law Rev. 34 (1): 85–87.
Macdonald, J. A. 2012. “A framework for collaborative BIM education
across the AEC disciplines.” In Vol. 4 of Proc., 37th Annual Conf.
of Australasian University Building Educators Association (AUBEA).
Sydney, Australia: Australasian Universities Building Educators
Association.
Miller, G. L., A. Ryan, and S. Wilkinson. 2013. “Successfully implement-
ing building information modelling in New Zealand: Maintaining the
relevance of contract forms and procurement models.” In Proc., 38th
Australasian Universities Building Education Association (AUBEA)
Conf. Sydney, Australia: Australasian Universities Building Educators
Association.
Mosey, D. 2003. PPC 2000: The first standard form of contract for project
partnering. London: Society of Construction Law.
Mosey, D., C. Howard, and D. Bahram. 2016. Enabling BIM through
procurement and contracts. London: King’s College Centre of Con-
struction Law and Dispute Resolution.
NBS (National Building Specification). 2015. National BIM report 2015.
Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Royal Institute of British Architects.
NEC4 (New Engineering Contract 4). 2017. Engineering and construction
contract. London: Engineering and Construction Contract.
OhioDAS (Ohio Dept. of Administrative Services). 2020. State of Ohio
building information modelling (BIM) protocol. Columbus, OH:
OhioDAS.
Olatunji, O. 2011. “Modelling organizations’ structural adjustment to BIM
adoption: A pilot study on estimating organizations.” J. Inf. Technol.
Constr. 16 (1): 653–668.
Olatunji, O. A. 2014. “Views on building information modelling,
procurement and contract management.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Manage.
Procure. Law 167 (3): 117–126. https://doi.org/10.1680/mpal.13.00011.
Olatunji, O. A., and W. Sher. 2014. “Perspectives on modelling BIM-
enabled estimating practices.” Constr. Econ. Build. 14 (4): 32–53.
https://doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v14i4.4102.
Patterson, R. L., and B. Trebes. 2013. “NEC contracts for design–build–
operate contracts.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Manage. Procure. Law 166 (5):
260–268. https://doi.org/10.1680/mpal.12.00020.
Pressman, A. 2007. “Integrated practice in perspective: A new model for
the architectural profession.” Archit. Rec. 195 (5): 116.
Saxon, R. G. 2013. Growth through BIM. London: Construction Industry
Council.
Sher, W., S. Sherratt, A. Williams, and R. N. Gameson. 2009. “Heading
into new virtual environments: What skills do design team members
need?” J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 14 (1): 17–29.
Succar, B., W. Sher, and A. Williams. 2012. “Measuring BIM performance:
Five metrics.” Archit. Eng. Des. Manage. 8 (2): 120–142. https://doi.org
/10.1080/17452007.2012.659506.
Weber, R. P. 1990. Basic content analysis. Rep. No. 49. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE.
Winfield, M. 2015. “Building information modelling: The legal frontier:
Overcoming legal and contractual obstacles.” Accessed November
2, 2019. https://www.ace-cae.eu/fileadmin/New_Upload/3._Area_2
_Practice/BIM/Other_Docs/5_0_Legal_Frontier.pdf.
Winfield, M., and S. Rock. 2018. “The Winfield Rock report: Overcoming
the legal and contractual barriers of BIM.” Accessed October 22, 2019.
https://www.maber.co.uk/app/uploads/2018/03/The-Winfield-Rock
-Report.pdf.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.