Liability sharing Revit model

[jessica.146534]

I tried searching the forums for info on this and came up short, so I apologize in advance if this has been brought up before (which I'm sure it has).

I have a client who is asking for my Revit model. He is working with a lighting designer to do an exterior lighting study and basically knows the model exists and told the lighting guy that he can have it. Problem is, I don't think they technically "paid for" the model - they paid for the contract docs, which are the 2D prints that were generated from the model, not the model itself. If anyone else in my office was working on the project, it would've been done in 2D ACAD but since I was the project manager, I used Revit since that's my preference. I don't think that the client has any claim to the model, especially since the only reason it exists is because I like to work in Revit. So basically, I want tell him no.

The problem is, my boss wants me to send it. He's not technically savvy at all and I know he doesn't understand how much information is contained in the model. Is there a way to put a giant watermark in the Revit file or any other way to make it so they can't just steal everything?

Does anyone have any advice or links to other threads related to this? I'm concerned about the potential liability of sharing this information, especially since the client is a bit of a slimeball. I'd love to get some information to give to my boss to shed some light on why sending them the model is a terrible idea. Or conversely, something that would prove me wrong that says it isn't such a big deal (however I doubt this exists).

Thanks in advance.

[Revitaoist]

Export to CAD

[jessica.146534]

I tried that already. They have specifically requested 3D ACAD or Revit. I'm not as familiar with 3D ACAD but I'm guessing it's about the same as the Revit model.

[MikeJarosz]

You have inadvertently stumbled into hot water. I have been to several conferences regarding file sharing liability, including one given by the National AIA attorney who specializes in architectural liability. This is a very unsettled area for architects. I have not met anyone who believes this issue has been settled. The problem is that the decision to send or not send and to explain why, is usually not addressed by principals of the firm who understand the consequences of a lawsuit. The job is often delegated to a junior, who sends it, as he was told to do.

Question for you: what happens when the lighting designer's junior designer takes the model to school and cannibalizes it for a school project. Or someone else gets it and uses your roof details on a real project, and the roof leaks on somebody's priceless art collection. How do you stop redistribution of the file after the lighting is done?

There have been discussions about this on AUGI. But most architects I fear, only learn their lesson after they have been sued. Not by the client, but the client's insurance company, who has unlimited resources to chase the hapless architect to h**l and back!!

[Scott D Davis]

How do you stop redistribution of the file after the lighting is done?

put it in a contract before you agree to send them the model. Make the penalty in the contract for any use of the model beyond the scope of the contract very high. Also, only send them the model. Do not send them the Revit file with all the CD's and details in it. Start a new file using a blank template, link and bind the original model, and save. That way they get "the model." No sheets, no details. remove any and all families from the model that you don't want them to have and purge the model of these families before sending.

[jessica.146534]

Thanks Scott, great tips. I was already planning to "dumb down" the model but was wondering how to go about that.

Mike,
I've read several of your posts on this issue and that is one of the reasons I wanted to ask my question. I saw your comment in another thread about the art collection and how the art insurance company was the one who sued the architect, not the owner or contractor. The one thing I think I have going for me is that there is very little actual detailing in the model. Because I'm one of very few people in the office who know how to use Revit, a large percentage of the details were drawn in ACAD. The model, at this point, was used mostly for presentations (it's an historic building that had been badly butchered over the years and we were trying to show how we could restore it back to its original state) so the exterior walls and all the historic elements have been modeled, but not much else. I'm hoping by using Scott's method of linking, binding, and purging will get rid of anything actually useful and leave them just the pretty picture. Fingers crossed.

Thanks again guys!

[MikeJarosz]

Jessica, thanks for researching my other musings on this topic. I take this issue very seriously. Let me tell you why......

As an experienced, registered architect, I was called upon by a law firm to be an expert witness for the defense of a well known architect who was being sued by their client. The client was a large, high profile institution with a full time legal department equipped to litigate 24/7 and then some. There is no architect anywhere who can stand up to a legal assault of that magnitude. At stake were $$$millions of change orders from the contractor. I spent one whole year, full time, analyzing thousands of documents produced by the contractor under court order - documents the contractor wished had been destroyed and only became available through extended litigation and discovery. I think I read the specs more times than the architect himself did. It doesn't get more serious than this. I was well aware that I may have been witness to the end of someone's career. In the end, the insurance companies for all parties settled.

What I learned is that as long as disputes stay within the inner circle of the project family - architect, client, engineer, contractor, - there is some chance of a tolerable resolution, maybe just a phone call away. But when insurance companies and their lawyers join the fray, you are in trouble. If you don't have insurance, it could be the end of your career. And, I learned right here in AUGI-land that many architects do not carry insurance. Unfortunately, they are the type of firms, working under informal contracts, who would hand someone a file without thinking.

I hope you are now sending the lighting designer a new file after every revision, or you just might wind up with a spotlight on that flagpole that was removed in revision 2.0!

[david_peterson]

I'm currently working on a project with about 20 consultants, 1 client, and 3 CM's.
We made each party sign a contract negating us from any and all liability with regards to content and accuracy of any and all objects contained in any file transferred. The contract (I should really say agreement) also had a clause restricting any other party from passing on the model to any party without an agreement. Part of the reason was how our file transfers where being done. At first it was just being passed around to consultants actively working on the project. Then the client wanted it, then the CMs all wanted it.
Currently we have 60+ revit models being passed around. Oh and we decided do to the speed at which the project needed to be completed, that we were all going to "post" models nightly. So there was no chance of us hiring a full time person just to dumb down a model. At this point in time in the project we're actually transferring (sending, receiving and automatically updating) all revit model twice a day. I did work on a project where we did this every 15 min, but there were less files involved.
My Advice, is to get your self a solid CYA contract for model transfers. Many times I find there is no good way to do transfer files with out something that takes the liability off of you and puts the blame with someone else.
Our lawyer was in a few years ago and we asked about archiving. Things like e-mails, drawings, cb's, and what not. His first thought was after the client writes the last check, burn everything you legally can. His point was if there's no document trail, it's really hard to prove much of anything. There's an interesting case going on right now in Milwaukee County dealing with structural failure of a connection that resulted in a death. A precast panel, which was improperly installed fell off a parking ramp and landed on 3 people on their way to summer fest if I remember right. And everyone is pointing the finger at everyone else. I know there was a lot of documentation. Now it's just a matter of finding all of it in order to place final blame.

[jsnyder.68308]

I don't think you are improving your position by not sharing the model. By not sharing, you are implying that you do not trust the client. Whether you do or not is perhaps a different question.
As stated a above, what you need is a disclaimer form that states the limitations of what the model can be used for (only for this project, etc) as well as it not being intended for any particular use. In other words, they get it as-is with no right to rely on it for anything. Also, I would not recommend trying to charge money for it. Once money changes hands, you may be entering into an implied contractual relationship that you did not intend. If you send the model with the proper disclaimer, their acceptance of the model also acknowledges their acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer.
You can strip out sheets, families and views that you feel aren't relevant to the stated reason of the transfer, but I think that sharing the model will help to foster and maintain good will on the project - if that is your intent.

[MikeJarosz]

I think that sharing the model will help to foster and maintain good will on the project - if that is your intent.

Trouble is, the intent is not always good. There are contractors who have on their staff "inspectors" whose sole job is to search the drawings and specs for architectural errors to exploit once construction gets under way. I have seen specs with a clause about reporting errors found in the documents by bidders, but I have never seen it actually happen. Most contractors, especially the big guys, are playing hardball.

The expert witness lawsuit I mentioned above did have some drawing errors and the contractor did take advantage of them, but they were within reason. As the attorney pointed out, the law does not expect perfection from an architect, and an experienced institutional client, after building four or five towers, learns to budget a percentage for change orders.

Regarding disclaimers, they have to be served according to specific legal rules or they are unenforceable. A drafting view with a page full of text, seen only by the Revit intern when the file opens is not an enforceable contract. A contract must be served on a principal of the firm who has the authority to engage the firm in a binding agreement. James Vandezande in one of his lectures had a collection of some of these file-opening disclaimers. I love the one that claims you have entered a valid contract and are bound by its terms by clicking away from the opening screen. Essentially, these disclaimers are saying that the architect is not responsible for anything inside this file.

Is THAT the message you want your clients and consultants to receive?

[jsnyder.68308]

Is THAT the message you want your clients and consultants to receive?

I think it should always be a team's intent to foster good will on a project. If I have learned anything working on projects it is that you always catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. From my point of view, THAT is a better alternative to not sharing the model. The gist of this entire question gets to the heart of why we seem to spend so much of our time worrying about liability and lawyers instead of designing and constructing better buildings for clients.

Our office disclaimer is of the type you describe above - basically, we send a third party a link to the model. The disclaimer pops up on the screen before they see the model and they have to agree to the terms before proceeding. If they don't agree, then they don't get to use the model. If someone doesn't agree to the terms in the disclaimer, some alarm bells have probably been going off on the project already.
Unless we are contractually obligated to provide a Revit model (and that opens up another can of worms entirely), they can take the model on our terms or not at all.

[Mike L Sealander]

Another way to look at this: If you think the guy is a slimeball, play hardball. At the very least do as Scott is saying. Professional services is in part about managing risk. If you perceive a risk, trust your instinct and build a protective wall. If you don't perceive a risk, play nice.
I'm also wondering what this lighting designer is going to do with a Revit model. Can they read it? Do they actually do lighting design in Revit? I doubt it. And if they are a lighting designer, they are probably not interested in your flashing details anyway.
To sum up, I would judge this situation on its particular merits.

[damon.sidel]

put it in a contract before you agree to send them the model. Make the penalty in the contract for any use of the model beyond the scope of the contract very high. Also, only send them the model. Do not send them the Revit file with all the CD's and details in it. Start a new file using a blank template, link and bind the original model, and save. That way they get "the model." No sheets, no details. remove any and all families from the model that you don't want them to have and purge the model of these families before sending.

I think Scott said basically what I'm proposing, so I second his suggestion and summarize:

1. Give them a digital release form/contract that they have to sign.
2. Give them a "geometry-only" model. Instead of Revit, I'd vote for 3D ACAD.


They have specifically requested 3D ACAD or Revit. I'm not as familiar with 3D ACAD but I'm guessing it's about the same as the Revit model.

I'd like to call this out: they've specifically said 3D ACAD is acceptable. You are talking about stripping out a lot of information from Revit and sending them a "dumbed down" version. IMHO, this may be a problem. A dumbed-down version of a Revit model still has a lot of information: wall types, parameters defining other information about windows and doors, etc. Even if you intend to take out details, you are actually leaving PARTIAL information that may actually be LESS correct. If you export to 3D ACAD, you are giving them only geometry. There will be MUCH less information in that model and I think the perception of what information a 3D ACAD model versus a Revit model contains is much different. 3D ACAD doesn't have the perception of containing extra information beyond the geometry and is not inherently a BIM-oriented software. If they have already said they will accept 3D ACAD, I'd go that route.

[Revitaoist]

.... If you export to 3D ACAD, you are giving them only geometry. There will be MUCH less information in that model and I think the perception of what information a 3D ACAD model versus a Revit model contains is much different. 3D ACAD doesn't have the perception of containing extra information beyond the geometry and is not inherently a BIM-oriented software. If they have already said they will accept 3D ACAD, I'd go that route.

Second that: {3D} view > export to DWG. Give them a building model with no information

[jessica.146534]

Thanks everyone for their input on this! It looks like I've started an interesting dialog. In this instance, I don't trust the client at all (as Mike S. mentioned, he's a slimeball) and I would love to tell him to shove it but my boss thinks that everyone is honest and specifically told me to send it.

I'm going to use the 3D ACAD advice since the lighting designer has specifically asked for it, and not the RVT file. I wasn't sure what kind of info gets transferred from Revit to ACAD but it sounds like not much - therefore a safer route. I also modified our digital release form for this instance so hopefully we're covered.

Thanks again!