Case 5: Specified BIM This architectural design partnership convinced a school district to pay them an additional $1 million in design fees to utilize building information modeling for all architecture and engineering documentation on this $100 million public high school bid project. The architect provided the school district with several academic papers indicating BIM would improve design coordination and reduce the quantity of change orders. Many of the school districts prior construction projects had finished in claims and lawsuits due to change orders, so they were willing to try this new approach to design. The architect included a clause in the special conditions of the contract requiring bidding GCs to include $50,000 in their bid for BIM support during the construction process. The successful low-bidding GC indicated it had included this $50,000, but because it was a lump sum bid project, the GCs estimate and cost accounting records were closed-book. It turns out that the project had many scope additions and design discrepancy errors. The GC and its subcontractors submitted $3 million and $7 million, respectively, for these changes. The GC and the subcontractors clearly used BIM efficiently when preparing RFIs and change order proposals as supporting documentation. The GC and its MEP and civil subcontractors forwarded their last COP to the architect for $100,000 to submit as-built drawings electronically. They had planned to redline a set of prints the old-fashioned way, arguing BIM during construction was not BIM during close-out. For an additional $25,000, they would complete their O&Ms electronically as well, otherwise the school district would receive five three-ring binders of paper. The architect and owner have rejected these two COPS and are holding all retention, which amounted to $5 million, until electronic close-out documents are provided from the construction team. Needless to say, the school district was very displeased with all of the parties. During the course of construction, the architect had reduced the proposed values of the scope COPs by $1 million and had rejected $3 million worth of the discrepancy change requests arguing that if the GC had used BIM as intended, and managed the project properly, these costs would not have occurred. The GC filed a $4 million claim for the COPs, plus the $5 million retention due, plus attorney fees and interest. The school district also filed a simultaneous claim against the architects errors and omissions (E&O) insurance. It turns out the architect did not require its sub-consultants and engineers to carry E&O as they were required to by the project owner. Take a position, school district, architect, or the GC, and argue your case. Why are you correct? Which party errored? Do subcontractors or design sub-consultants have any culpability? Can the architect prove their assertion that if BIM is used properly by contractors, the quantity and cost of COPs will be reduced? How will this be resolved? Rolling the clock back two years, what should each of the parties have done to have prevented this?