Reader comments are still coming online about “A Cautionary Tale of Virtual Design and Construction: Insurance settlement related to a building information model shows that BIM without communication can be costly” by Nadine M. Post. The piece, published in the May 23 print ENR issue (p. 10) and on ENR.com, describes a dispute that was settled privately involving the design and construction team for a life-sciences building. The job ran into trouble when the contractor could not fit the MEP systems—designed using BIM—into the ceiling plenum. The source about the claim, an XL Insurance vice president, would not name the project or the parties in the dispute. Here is an edited sampling of the anonymous responses:
• It sounded as though the contractor didn’t participate in the BIM process. If the model was fully coordinated and was supplied to the contractor for reference, the contractor could have used 4D sequencing tools to examine the various work flows and discover this issue in the virtual realm. If the virtual model fits and “works,” then it’s the contractor’s responsibility to reproduce this.
• It’s a shame that even though the design team did enough due diligence to figure out that a certain order of construction was required, they never told the contractor about it.
• The article is poor reporting not befitting ENR. It does not present any facts—only the opinion of the insurance agent. The dispute seems to have been settled out of court, so the terms of settlement will not be public and will not be case law that sets any precedent.
• Now, one of our industry’s largest professional liability insurance carriers is going to be running scared from BIM. The next step will be seminars and exculpatory language to put into contracts and specifications. BIM has the potential to change dramatically in a positive manner the way we all do business. We need to embrace the benefits of BIM and charge headfirst into the 21st [century]. For an industry with one of the lowest productivity rates in the U.S., to do otherwise is a disservice.
• The number and sincerity of the comments posted on ENR.com does indeed make the point that ENR is providing a service to the industry by raising this issue. Brava, Ms. Post.
• Those who do not understand or agree with BIM are using this article as an “I told you so,” and those that [favor] BIM and its capabilities are defending the tool/process and pointing out the errors of the humans involved.
• Lack of communication! That says it all. An hour with a tape measure and a set of prints prior to MEP installation would have avoided that nightmare!
• One person’s opinion is enough to support the source of the problem? That the design team never discussed the installation sequence with the contractor is a failure in the design process occasioned by the procurement strategy.
• Just talking to the insurance guy is not reporting the story. Post should have said she wasn’t going to write anything about it if Randy Lewis wasn’t going to name the project.
• Thank you, ENR, for the caution. Simply having a BIM that shows that everything fits may not be enough. It is up to designers and contractors to use this information to inform how they want to proceed on their own projects.
