Following the publication of my Draft BEP a fortnight ago, I decided that I needed feedback to ensure that what I have written is suitable (as I did with my EIR). Having worked on both the client and supply side in the past I am confident in my work, but it is always good to get some fresh perspectives. As such I asked a few friends in the know.
I asked each of them to review my BEP as if I was procuring their services, as well as asking for any suggestions for improvement. Here is what they had to say:
Kier Group are a leading property, residential, construction, and services group with offices across the globe whose core principles are set around collaboration, forward thinking & enthusiasm. Andy is also a BRE BIM Level 2 Certificated Professional.
“Dan’s post-contract BEP is very well prepared – clear, concise and fully compliant to the suggested requirements set out in PAS 1192-2. The content is light in places however this is clarified and acknowledged due to the nature of the project – a residential house development where Dan is fulfilling/simulating all stakeholders. I would have liked to have seen a diagram of the ‘high level’ CDE in lieu of a process and data management platform, and a little more detail for fictitious subcontractors that may contribute to the PIM. Certainly if more ‘BIM professionals’ in the industry refer to this example as a template to structure against, we would all see better BIM Execution Plans to a consistent standard.” 9/10
HLM Architects are a UK wide Architecture design group with a strong ‘one team policy’ based around the pillars of their: Client, People, and Quality. HLM have also been recognised having achieved BRE BIM Level 2 Business Systems Certification.
“Dan’s BEP is an interesting read as it gives good guidance on completing all sections of the post contract-award BEP. A very good example of how to apply the BEP to small size projects and breaks the myth that BIM is for big projects only; I see that as the biggest strength of the blog and is highly commendable. However, as a naïve reader one aspect that may come across confusing is the involvement of fictitious task teams. ADR, MDR, KDR and EDR were used as part of the MIDP whereas other sections state that CDE and supplier assessments are not required as Dan is client, designer and operator.” 7/10
Imtech are one of the largest independently owned and managed technical service providers in the UK and Ireland, with extensive expertise and experience in engineering services, technical facilities management, and systems integration.
“Dan’s post contract-award BEP is an excellent example of how you apply and make relevant the standards within a BIM execution plan. Ensuring that they cross reference one another throughout the document provides better clarity of purpose for the suite of BIM documentation to be used on a project. If Imtech were to respond to the BEP I would be seeking clarification on methodologies of information transfer and model review and validation. This is best displayed graphically from experience and would have consolidated the the well tabulated information provided within this BEP. For this reason, for me, it’s not a perfect ten but a pretty close” 8.5/10
All-in-all pretty positive, although there is room for improvement. Following these reviews, I have revised my post contract-award BEP considering two key areas in particular: The fictitious roles, and transfer of information:
As Paul & Meenakshi point out, this section is not very clear and seems to conflict with other areas of the post contract-award BEP, Andy also wanted more information, so there is clearly something lacking.
Note: The plan was to invent a few roles because I am an army of one so that I could produce an MIDP; showing a clear way to manage responsibility. However, as it is just me, it makes how I authorize and exchange information much more difficult (and the fact I don’t manage a CDE). I cannot think of a clean way to resolve this while maintaining my MIDP until another organization contributes to the project, so it will remain as it is for now.
To make this section clearer short term, I have replaced ADR, MDR, EDR etc with Arch1, Mech1, Elect1, updated my MIDP to suit and have revised the text within the BEP to clarify around the relationship of these roles.
Exchange of Information.
As Dwight pointed out there is little information included around the exchange of information which is also something Paul had also mentioned too. Therefore, I have clarified the purpose of the scheduled software within my BEP and included the exchange of information into a high-level diagram to also satisfies Andy’s queries around clarifying Data Management.
Finally, in response to the feedback, I have:
- Updated by origin and orientation section so that my project base point is the lowest and most left point (ie no negative values),
- clarified the purpose of the software I am using, and
- corrected a few typo’s which I had not caught within the BEP.
It feels much more complete and robust now, so thank you Andy, Paul, Meenakshi & Dwight.
And there you have it, by gaining some much needed insight from the industry I have now improved my BEP and gotten it validated too, fantastic. This means that I have now answered my BIM Execution Plan Plain Language Question; PLQ2.2 Complete!
2.1 What existing information is available?
2.2 Is there sufficient information to produce a BEP?
2.3 What is the layout of the house?
2.4 What assets are contained within?
2.5 What asset information can be linked to the graphical model?
Now that I have my finalised BEP it’s time to start producing some information, but first let’s make sure I have sufficiently considered my Data Security…
Note: If you have any comments or opinions regarding my BIM Execution Plan, please let me know either on Twitter, or commenting below.