So who owns the Revit model once the project is built?

[happystan5678]

I guess it depends upon who you ask, but the question I have is who owns the model once the project is built? Is the owner entitled to a 3-D model of their building, even though they're not the ones who pay for the training, the software and the hardware?

Is there ever an issue with ownership of the model?

[Scott Womack]

I guess it depends upon who you ask, but the question I have is who owns the model once the project is built? Is the owner entitled to a 3-D model of their building, even though they're not the ones who pay for the training, the software and the hardware?

Is there ever an issue with ownership of the model?

IT would depend upon the language in the contract. I've had one retail client who had language that they owned all drawings, models, and BIM information. 98% of the Owners don't know about, or care about the electronic 3D model/BIM infromation. You can always export the sheets to AutoCAD to give them that if it is in the contract.

[twiceroadsfool]

What Scott said.

My witty answer was about to be "whoever negotiated the better contract, LOL"

Most owners/clients dont care, true enough... But im finding more and more that they do. Not only are they starting to care, but theyre also starting to care what file format, and how the particulars of the model are built. At least, a couple of our retail clients are, becuase the model has uses for them after the fact...

I look at it as part of my service to them to educate them about their needs and wants, and work out an arrangement that is mutually beneficial.

[Lashers]

My view is that it is mine . . all MINE!

The client has a license to use the DRAWINGS (at whatever stage they pay me up to) to take forward their build project, paper or PDF- if for some reason they go a different direction. If they wish to have CAD data they will have to pay a premium - different for 2D outputs to 3D/BIM info.

I can understand that clients may like to have all this other information, but it must have a value for them to get it! In Facilities Management situations, having the BIM Model could save a client many thousands of £/$ in establishing a coordinated management system, so why should you give it away for free?

My 2p:shock:

[tedg]

I know of a client that will receive the BIM (model) as part of the contracted "deliverables" when it's finished. And I heard a rumor that they will own at least one of the seats of Revit that was purchased to help create it, but not totally sure about that.

BTW, I believe the client paid a premium for this "deliverable", it won't be just given away.

[Scott D Davis]

And in a new business model called Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) the team owns the model...Arc, Eng, Owner, Contractor, etc.

This all depends on the contract. If you think its going to be an issue, you need to address it in your contract documents.

[arqt49]

I guess you can call a IFC export file a bim model.
That way you keep the RVT file to yourself.

[jeffh]

I tell my students at the Boston Architectural College in my Revit calss that the modle is valuable. Don't give it away for free just because you created it to get the construction documents. Find a way to make people pay you for the model. How is that done? I am not sure, but get them to pay for it because it is an asset.

[Joef]

Since you don't really own the software that you used to make the model (just try and sell it!), a good case could be made that Autodesk owns the model.:)

[david.metcalf]

That is a good point, since maintaining the compatible file format requires updating the model each year. So in order to retain a usable asset , facility owners are required to keep a active and current Revit seat from Autodesk. Image some governments having to update 20+ facilities and families libraries (approx 40 million sf or more) every year. That is an exponential increase in management of this asset compared to changes in Autocad file formats every 3 or so years.

[cliff collins]

Make sure the AIA Contract covers ownership of intillectual property--an attorney should develop the language, and include the BIM model in that scope--So, the answer is th Architect owns the BIM model. I believe there are new AIA documents under development for this.

The ownership can, of course be modified--but proceed with caution under legal counsel!

Cheers....

[Jun Austria]

In our region, the contract states that the client will received a printed copy of basic Architectural Drawings and Bill of Quantity. No softcopy.

Since we are doing a lot of goverment jobs and the goverment public work division already adapted Revit as there BIM software, theres a possibilities of changes in the contract.
If the goverment says "This" or state it in the contract. All we can do is comply.

[brotherofelijah]

In our region, the contract states that the client will received a printed copy of basic Architectural Drawings and Bill of Quantity. No softcopy.

Since we are doing a lot of goverment jobs and the goverment public work division already adapted Revit as there BIM software, theres a possibilities of changes in the contract.
If the goverment says "This" or state it in the contract. All we can do is comply.

That's my issue. My client sees how quick it is to do a project in Revit and now he wants to cut my fee in half, then he wants the Revit Model at the end of the project, but like you all have said, that will have to be negotiated. He's not getting it for free.

Also, I've asked a construction attorney this question and he have a clue.

Stan

[tedg]

That's my issue. My client sees how quick it is to do a project in Revit and now he wants to cut my fee in half, then he wants the Revit Model at the end of the project, but like you all have said, that will have to be negotiated. He's not getting it for free.

Also, I've asked a construction attorney this question and he have a clue.

Stan
This reminds me of a joke I heard a long time ago....

Someone calls a plumber because of a noise in their pipes. He comes over and inspects the situation. Then he goes out and gets a hammer from his truck, goes in the basement and with a few whacks, fixes the problem.

He hands the customer the bill for $100.00

The customer asks, "why so much, you were only here 5 minutes and only used a hammer?"

The plumber says: "That's $1.00 for using the hammer and $99.00 for knowing where to hit."

Moral of the story: The customer is paying for your expertise and experience from the time you've put in learning to do your job well.

In your case: learning how to design buildings and how to use the program.

(thought it was a funny way to justify your fee to your client) :p

[ejc]

Screw them!

The model is protected in the same way the printed drawings are.

PDF's and AutoCad exports provide all of the "records" they could need.

If it is an issue of Facility Management, then the guidelines need to be spelled out clearly.

I have heard for a long time now that the AIA was adding some language to deal with the BIM information.

Remember, everything goes with the model.

ejc

[Mike Sealander]

The joke about the plumber is right on.
The efforts to get paid for whatever you can negotiate are right on also.
We're currently considering our models "open source" largely because none of our present clients have the expertise to use a Revit model, but if they did, they still don't have the expertise to do anything with the Revit model, and even if they did, they still wouldn't have the ability to design anything with the Revit model, and even if they did, we'd be so much faster.

[Chad Smith]

... or they give it to someone else who does, and you now lose out on any future business from that client for that project.

Giving the client DWG exports is one thing as it would be slower to do any future expansion work, but a complete BIM file is another. Unless they are paying for it, I certainly wouldn't let it leave the office.

[Jun Austria]

That's my issue. My client sees how quick it is to do a project in Revit and now he wants to cut my fee in half, then he wants the Revit Model at the end of the project, but like you all have said, that will have to be negotiated. He's not getting it for free.

Also, I've asked a construction attorney this question and he have a clue.

Stan

Just be cautious in your negotiation. Here, back in 1998 was a recession time. It was a bad time. Some desperate fellow start charging 50% less then an average market price.
Our country is small and this fee spread like wildfire. Affecting other practices in Architecture. Since then, its hard to bring the fee up again to its glory days.

[mthurnauer]

Junaustria is right. We have given away our services and have managed to be way under compensated for our services while continuing to take on more liability and more responsibility. Have you ever looked at a set of 70 year old con docs? An immensely complex building with tons of detail could get built with a set of 20-30 drawing sheets compared to 200. While getting paid less we are expected to do more. Contractors assume no responsibility to know their own trade; if it isn't detailed they will claim that the docs were unclear and hit you up for a change order. So, to the client that wants to cut your fee because you are quicker with Revit, absolutely not! we finally have a tool that can start to produce docs quicker and more accurate.

Regarding the sale of the model, as stated before, it is your property and if the client wants it, you should negotiate that into your fee and have an indemnification clause that you are not responsible for its contents and how it is used. The thing I am trying to figure out is that the revit model can be such a powerful tool to the contractors I want to work out how to get paid by them for access to the model. It can help with estimating, coordination, and cut their shop drawing prep time in half. This subject came up with one of out structural engineering firms we work with that said they are less profitable with revit. When I asked why, they said that another client and another architecture firm expect them to model every single piece of structure, much of which would be covered by typical details in the past. In my opinion, if you are modeling every deck penetration, beam penetration, slab edge, etc. you are making the contractor's shop drawings and he should buy it from you.

[Valkin]

As others have already implied this is a sticky issue. The language of the contract is what is going to determine ownership of the BIM model eventually. I know we don't want to just give our hard work away, but what is BIM about. It's about information and i hesitate to say it but the sharing of information about a building. It is a digital representation of a physical building. It is a tool for architects and engineers to propose how a building is to be built. It is also a tool for contractors to run quantity and to check for interference before a building is built, It is also a tool for the owners to manage their facility, BIM is about maintain the information of a building for the Lifecycle of a building not just the construction of the building. For reasons of facility management the model that an owner gets probably should not be the same as the one that the architect uses. The owner should actually have a model that has more information about the product that went into the finished building, there by it will take more time to produce a record model, and this extra time should be charged. Also there are better facility management tools out there besides Revit, so I believe that the model that is turned over to the owner eventually is an IFC model not a Revit file.

[Dimitri Harvalias]

Just to throw one more twist at it... giving away the Revit model doesn't just give the client, (and potentially the downstream 'other' architect) the project but all associated families, schedule templates, assembly types, settings etc. that are stored in the project. :shock:

This is a big part of contract language and agreements that needs to be carefully considered before the AEC community agrees to simply 'hand it over'.

I heartily agree with tedg's post. Until we can educate the client that they are not paying for drawings or, by extension, a BIM model, they are paying for a service and expertise. What we charge should neveer be based on how long it takes. It is strictly a value for service fee.

[Gadget Man]

As a matter of fact, only today one of our clients requested that we give him the whole Revit file for... his engineer to design a driveway... :shock:

Well, I think that Revit is not particularly well fit for this task and I said this to him.

Then, in the conversation, he let it slip that actually he's now associated with another (new on the market) design/drafting firm who uses... Revit.

So, the implication was obvious and we decided not to buy the bullet but at the same time not to offend him.

We made a copy of our project file, stripped it bare of all the unnecessary elements, left only the toposurface, pads and concrete slabs with the external walls and sent this to him. After all, if what he claimed was true, his engineer doesn't need anything else to design just the driveway...

In general, I agree with the others that our fee is for our expertise and NOT for the use of a particular tool over another. Geez, I would love to be a hammer manufacturer if I could have some ownership of every thing that this hammer was used to create...

The product of our expertise to the Client is as per particular contract specification - if it includes just a single copy of 2-D drawings so that's it. If it specifies 3-D model so it's included too. And everything in between...

Everything else is just a good will but it brings with it also huge responsibility. What happens if I include something not specified in an order (contract) and it causes some disaster in the future? I am responsible! If I didn't include it - there would be no problem...

[Jun Austria]

Just to add another twist. What if the client is persistent? And what if he knows somebody an MEP and Structural Engineers, a relative or a close friend who got access to the models. Theres must be a way to lockdown the file from leaving the firm.

US may have the law for protection. But in other countries? This is something that still bothers me.

[cliff collins]

We are currently looking into using Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) . The AIA has recently published new documents to begin to address some of the BIM aspects which are a very relevant concern, as posted here and in other threads/discussion forums.

Again, the contract must clearly and explicitly address all aspects of ownership of the BIM model, sharing/collaboration, etc--and identify all parties' rights and responsibilities.

Before we share or grant ownership of the BIM model, we must have a proper legal understanding, and a Contract which clearly defines all liability, compensation, scope
of work and other new parameters brought about by the paradigm shift which BIM and IPD
have introduced to the design/construction industry. Intellectual property laws should govern any release of deliverables--whether hard copy, or digital format. Special considerations must be taken regarding BIM model ownership rights.

We will be thoroughly investigating IPD and re-vamping our business model and delivery methods to realign with current and future trends. We must also educate our clients, consultants and contractors so that we are prepared to work in a collabarative way with
clearly identified roles and responsibilities--all of which are centered around a BIM philosophy of project delivery.

This thread has really opended up some great opportunities for learning about the frontier
of IPD/BIM methods.

If anyone is already using IPD/BIM methods, please chime in and share your experience.

Cheers......

[mlgatzke]

Wow! Great discussion! I'm glad to see that this is a strong topic and that everyone is in favor of holding to a strong professional line.

<soapbox mode on> As stated, with the model file in-hand, the client can go where ever they like from that moment on - and - take with them all of Intellectual Property, families, templates, etc. that is held in the file. And, with the lack of ethics in today's business culture, that owner would take that model to the lowest bidder when the next phase of work has to be done.

For too long architectural firms have been distancing themselves from their predecessors who understood the value of their services. Architects are, lately, prostituting themselves to the financial detriment of their chosen profession and the public perception of that profession. Architecture is not a commodity. Our intellectual property should not be negotiable. Now, I understand that there are those who will reply that "we must have clients and clients dictate fees". I say that mode of thinking is wrong. It is this mode of thinking that has brought down our fees, is making our success more difficult, and reduces the image of our profession. Designers should set themselves apart and justify their existence by the quality of their work, not by how low their fees are. ARCHITECTS ARE NOT WALMART! First, clients insist on lower fees and base this insistence on the fact that the project is created using a computer. Then they demand copies of the files that are created, yet, there is no consideration of the cost of the software and hardware. Nor is there consideration, as was stated above, of the training needed to operate this new software and hardware. Finally, our fees are based on the fact that Architecture is a SERVICE and not a product. We charge a fee for the service of designing and documenting that design to enable a builder to construct the project ONCE. The owner has no rights to any product created by the Architect unless otherwise negotiated. Now, if the owner/client would like to contract for a copy of the model, I am all in favor. However, the price for this model would be substantial due to the proprietary and quite valuable information held in that model.

As a reverse example, when people go out to a restaurant to eat a fine meal, you don't see famous chefs giving their recipes to their patrons. The chef prepares it, the patron eats it, but they don't get the recipe, much less a box containing all the ingredients to take with them when they leave.

Sorry for the rant. <soapbox mode off>

[Scott Womack]

Just to add another twist. What if the client is persistent? And what if he knows somebody an MEP and Structural Engineers, a relative or a close friend who got access to the models. Theres must be a way to lockdown the file from leaving the firm.

There are a couple of items that can be done to make it more difficult for someone outside of the firm to use the file. Addressing the Owner who knows an engineer... You can "bind in the linked structural/MEP into the architectural so that they are no longer separate...

IF you use a product similar to e-SPECS, (or take the manual leap) and create custom assembly codes, if placed in walls, etc. when someone who does not have the correct "UniformatClassifications.txt" file, if they try to edit the properties of that object, they'll either not be able to save, or get an error message that they have to change this before saving the family. Do this in enough of the families (Both system and otherwise) and it can cripple someone's ability to use the file.

Third, get protection in your contract, and if the Owner want's it, but won't pay more fro it, management needs to be willing to walk away from the project. IF a significant portion of our profession does not stick together, they'll end up giving away a portion of the old-school architectural profession, just as happened with the rise of Construction Managers (Architects, trying to distance, or lessen liability did less and less on-site work, creating a gap in services)

[m20roxxers]

I think this not only applies to one discipline but to all Revit disciplines that the product offers.

I have been involved with a company recently which is AutoCAD based and basically asked to produce a BIM model of the services area for a large highrise in order to secure the job.

Thinking this was an easy task they then brought Revit got training and finally got some decent consulatation in, only to discover they had blown nearly 40,000 plus just to acheive all this and then to discover that BIM is not CAD and the developer hadn't factored this into the contract and was not going to cover any costs. Also on top of this there were issues with the Architects position on where lighting and electrical should go compared to practicalities of these objects. Both involving collaborations that take the extra time of experienced and expensive employee's to sort out issues that never used to be issues.

This is a complete BIM model from all sides and I would advise caution no matter what discipline, what level of experience in Revit or any other 3D modelling software in terms of conditions of these agreements.
They may want the model, but if your not careful the contract may state full BIM detailing?? Well from this perspective it means everything has to be exact and details in 3D take too much time. Needless to say the contractor is out alot of money.

BIM models are not accurate, maybe the basics are, but I doubt many people consider what accurate means, do you have stud framing timber or metal, facades, flashing, beams, columns, framing, window and door specs in place in 3D.

We are treading on dangerous ice with clients who want this information and they should pay for it completely, and more importantly be aware of what information is modelled and what is not. More and more is this information age taking away experienced and useful construction industry experts in favour more the computer savvy youth. I have no problems with this but using Revit and running a site with plans from Revit are totally different and the more experience you have with both the better proffesional you no matter what area you have expertise in.

[tedg]

As others have already implied this is a sticky issue. The language of the contract is what is going to determine ownership of the BIM model eventually. I know we don't want to just give our hard work away, but what is BIM about. It's about information and i hesitate to say it but the sharing of information about a building. It is a digital representation of a physical building. It is a tool for architects and engineers to propose how a building is to be built. It is also a tool for contractors to run quantity and to check for interference before a building is built, It is also a tool for the owners to manage their facility, BIM is about maintain the information of a building for the Lifecycle of a building not just the construction of the building. For reasons of facility management the model that an owner gets probably should not be the same as the one that the architect uses. The owner should actually have a model that has more information about the product that went into the finished building, there by it will take more time to produce a record model, and this extra time should be charged. Also there are better facility management tools out there besides Revit, so I believe that the model that is turned over to the owner eventually is an IFC model not a Revit file.

I don't know allot about Revit, (but if it doesn't exist already) it would be nice if you could hand over the BIM model (for a fee) in such away it wasn't editable like a PDF versus a cadd drawing.

If someone wants the "model" for Facility Management purposes, they could have the 3d model in a format that couldn't be edited, even if brought back into Revit. That way you don't loose control of the "design" and the client can't have someone else modify it either.

Maybe this is a wish list item for Revit?

[m20roxxers]

They have it available (IFC) but the technology it converts to is not very reliable or useful at this stage.

[Scott Womack]

I don't know allot about Revit, (but if it doesn't exist already) it would be nice if you could hand over the BIM model (for a fee) in such away it wasn't editable like a PDF versus a cadd drawing.

Most institutional owners in the US already require an electronic set of DWG files. You cannot lock these files down so they cannot be used by others. I'm not sure that there is any additional liability with the Revit model being turned over to the owner (This is independent of the "getting paid for it issue") than you already have by providing CAD files. If anything, you might be marginally less since there are fewer Revit Users than there are AutoCAD users.


We cannot expect a piece of software to provide any additional protection that what our profession is willing to negotiate for via the Owner/Architect contracts.

[samov]

My firm NEVER gives out the revit model. What you are supposed to give out are Construction Drawings, even those we give out in PDFs or JPGs. DWG is still a liability... the fact you can't LOCK the file.

They want DWG's ... simple... create JPGs of every sheet and put them all in a DWG :)

I personally think giving out the revit model means aditional liability, NOT because of what it contains, BUT because someone can open a revit model and generate any number of new drawings that I, as the architect, did not approve.

It's like people building planes giving the construction drawings AND the model (imagine the full catia model) to the owner BEYOND what he needs to repair it... The owner contracted you to build a building not give him the means to generate new buildings on his own.