Contract Language

[Dave Lewis]

I was wondering if anyone could share their contact language that requires sub consultants to use Revit. There has been a few projects where the client wants Revit and the sub's said yes. What actually happened is that they did the project in AutoCAD and at the end they attempted to make a Revit model.

What I would like to do is write in the Revit usage in the contract. Something that says that the entire project has to be done in Revit.

Any examples or thoughts?

[antman]

Check out AIA document E202. There are two versions - one for traditional Design/Bid/Build and one for Integrated Project Delivery. We haven't actually used it yet, but I think we are going to and the verbiage makes it pretty clear how the BIM process is expected to commence at all design phases. Also read this informative blog post about it:
http://aectechtalk.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/design-software-formats-and-the-aia-e202/#more-818

[Dave Lewis]

Thanks Anthony
I have not read the doc yet but would it allow an engineer to design in AutoCAD and then model it at the end?

[jsnyder.68308]

I think its basic intent is to outline the Level of Development (LOD) for the model. As such, it allows you to unambiguously specify who is responsible for what part of the model, what the model is intended to be used for, and also ties this information to a schedule. The WHEN part is probably what you would be interested in.
So to answer that question, yes it would allow an engineer to do that if everyone agreed to it. Doing a Revit model at the end of a project eliminates most of the advantages of a BIM process IMO, though.

[antman]

if everyone agreed to it

Yes, the wording of the contract makes it pretty clear that whatever is agreed to is carried out. I suppose they still *could* design in AutoCAD and translate to a Revit model, but they would have to do that at every update along the way, not just a "BIM" deliverable at the end of the project.