Construction projects today are drowning in data, models, and information exchanges — but without clear rules for acceptance, much of that information becomes a source of rework, RFIs, and disputes. In fact, according to Dodge Data & Analytics, over 30% of project rework stems from inconsistent information management. Owners end up paying twice: once for the initial work and again for corrections.
The problem isn’t that teams lack BIM Execution Plans (BEPs). Nearly every major project has one. The problem is that most BEPs:
- Read like wish lists instead of contract-ready playbooks.
- Lack enforceable acceptance tests, making “done” a matter of opinion.
- Fail to align with evolving global standards like ISO 19650, NBIMS-US v4, and buildingSMART’s IDS v1.0.
That gap between good intentions and enforceable processes is exactly where rework, claims, and disputes thrive.
This article closes that gap by presenting eight enforceable BEP clauses, each backed by sample contract language, that transform your BEP into a tool for:
- Reducing BIM rework with measurable acceptance criteria.
- Eliminating disputes through traceable issue management.
- Delivering FM-ready data at turnover with COBie and commissioning links.
An enforceable BEP isn’t just paperwork. It’s a risk management tool that saves owners money, keeps contractors accountable, and ensures design intent flows seamlessly into operations.
Clause 1: Define Model Uses & Acceptance Criteria
What it does:
Every BEP lists BIM “uses”, like coordination, 4D scheduling, cost estimating, and facility management. But unless those uses are tied to explicit acceptance tests, deliverables remain subjective. What looks “complete” to one party might still be incomplete to another.
Why it matters:
- Establishes a shared definition of “done.”
- Prevents owners from accepting half-finished deliverables.
- Cuts down on RFIs and rework by turning vague uses into enforceable criteria.
- Builds on Penn State’s BEP framework for defining model uses, but adds the measurable acceptance conditions that ISO 19650 emphasizes.
Sample enforceable wording:
“The Parties agree that the BIM deliverable for each milestone shall be accepted when the Model Use(s) listed in Annex A (e.g., Coordination, 4D) pass the acceptance tests in Annex B (e.g., no unresolved hard clashes >0 mm; systems zoning tagged per IDS). Failure to meet a test constitutes non-acceptance and triggers corrective action at no additional cost.”
This clause transforms model uses from aspirational goals into enforceable milestones. Owners can hold suppliers accountable without ambiguity, and contractors gain clarity on what will be accepted at each stage.
Learn more about how we apply acceptance testing in Scan-to-BIM services and 4D BIM scheduling.
Clause 2: Set Information Requirements with IDS (ISO 19650 LOIN)
What it does:
Most BEPs still describe information requirements in broad strokes ,“models must include asset data” or “attributes must be accurate.” That vagueness is where disputes creep in. By expressing Exchange Information Requirements (EIRs) as Information Delivery Specifications (IDS), you make every property, classification, and unit machine-checkable.
Why it matters:
- No more arguments over “missing data.”
- Compliance can be automated using IDS validators.
- Aligns with ISO 19650 Level of Information Need (LOIN), which defines both geometry and data requirements.
- Guarantees deliverables are usable not just for design, but also for Digital Twins and FM handover.
Sample enforceable wording:
“Exchange Information Requirements (EIR) shall be expressed as Information Delivery Specifications (IDS). Prior to each milestone, the supplier shall deliver a model that conforms to the project IDS (properties, units, allowed values). The Employer will conduct automated IDS checks; non-conformances must be rectified before submission is deemed complete.”
Owners get consistent, validated BIM data. Contractors know exactly which fields, formats, and values must be delivered. FM teams receive data that works on Day 1 of operations.
Clause 3 : Assign Roles & Delivery Plans (TIDP → MIDP)
What it does:
One of the biggest sources of BIM-related disputes isn’t the technology, it’s unclear responsibility. Teams often ask: Who delivers this model? Who approves it? By when? Without clarity, tasks fall through the cracks or get duplicated.
This clause uses ISO 19650’s Task Information Delivery Plan (TIDP) and Master Information Delivery Plan (MIDP) to bring structure and accountability. The TIDP outlines who delivers what, by when, and for which approval gate. The MIDP then compiles all TIDPs into a project-wide schedule. Add a RACI matrix (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed) to make sure no task is ownerless.
Why it matters:
- Ends scope gaps and finger-pointing.
- Ensures every deliverable is assigned, tracked, and approved.
- Creates a clear escalation path when deliverables are late or non-compliant.
- Aligns with the UK BIM Framework and ensures U.S. projects stay in sync with ISO 19650’s delivery structure.
Sample enforceable wording:
“Each task team shall maintain a TIDP showing required information containers, approver, and dependencies. The Lead Appointed Party shall compile a MIDP aggregating all TIDPs with milestone dates. The RACI matrix in Annex C governs approvals; unapproved containers are not to be used in downstream work.”
Owners get traceable accountability. Contractors and consultants know exactly who is on the hook for each deliverable. Approval delays and miscommunications are eliminated.
See how Tejjy provides BIM Services consulting to build RACI-driven governance frameworks that prevent disputes.
Clause 4: Enforce CDE Governance & Versioning
What it does:
One of the biggest disputes in BIM projects comes from the dreaded “model of the day” problem, multiple versions floating in inboxes, with no clarity on which one is contractually valid. A Common Data Environment (CDE) solves this by defining states, approval codes, and version control.
Why it matters:
- Prevents confusion over “latest version.”
- Creates a single source of truth for design, coordination, and construction.
- Protects owners from contractors relying on outdated or unapproved files.
- Aligns with ISO 19650 CDE workflows recognized globally.
Sample enforceable wording:
“The CDE shall implement Work-In-Progress, Shared, Published, and Archived states. Only Published containers with approval code A may drive construction. Every container must carry revision, originator, discipline, and ISO 19650-compliant naming. Email attachments are non-contractual unless filed in the CDE with metadata.”
Owners and contractors get audit-proof versioning. No model can be used in construction unless it’s published and approved.
Clause 5: Measure Coordination with Clash KPIs
What it does:
Clash detection is one of BIM’s most valuable uses, but too often, BEPs simply state “models will be coordinated” without defining how coordination success is measured. This clause introduces Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for clash management: density thresholds, clearance requirements, and response times.
Why it matters:
- Ensures coordination is quantifiable, not subjective.
- Keeps clash resolution on schedule with response SLAs.
- Prevents design issues from slipping into construction, where they become costly RFIs and change orders.
Sample enforceable wording:
“Prior to IFC issue, each discipline shall run rule-based checks. Acceptance requires: (a) no hard clashes; (b) soft clashes cleared per rule set; (c) code clearances met for egress/MEP. Clash reports and viewpoints are filed to the CDE within 48 hours; overdue items auto-escalate to the BEP Steering Group.”
Owners get evidence-based coordination. Contractors have clear thresholds and timelines, reducing rework and disputes.
See how our MEP BIM modeling and Clash Detection services support clash-free delivery.
Clause 6: Bind Change Orders & RFIs to Model Objects
What it does:
In most projects, RFIs and change orders live in isolation- buried in emails, PDF logs, or spreadsheets. The result? Claims are hard to verify, and changes get disconnected from the actual model. This clause forces every RFI and change to be tied to a specific BIM object GUID and tracked in the Common Data Environment (CDE).
Why it matters:
- Ensures traceability of every change.
- Stops disputes where contractors claim “scope creep” without evidence.
- Links cost and schedule impacts directly to affected geometry and 4D snapshots.
- Provides a defensible audit trail for owners and GCs.
Sample enforceable wording:
“Every RFI and change order affecting the model shall reference impacted element GUIDs and an issue ID in the CDE. The change shall be tracked through status states (Open/For Review/Approved/Implemented). Cost/schedule impacts shall cite the related model view and 4D snapshot.”
Owners gain ironclad documentation that prevents inflated claims. Contractors benefit from clear visibility and a structured change protocol.
Clause 7: Gate Submissions with QA/QC & Automated Checks
What it does:
Too often, incomplete or non-compliant models slip through milestones because reviews are manual, inconsistent, or rushed. This clause sets a gatekeeping protocol: no model advances to the next project stage unless it passes both automated rule-based checks and manual QA/QC reviews.
Why it matters:
- Creates binary pass/fail acceptance, no gray areas.
- Reduces BIM rework by catching errors early.
- Uses IDS validation (Clause 2) and rule sets (naming, classification, geometry sanity checks) to enforce quality.
- Aligns with ISO 19650’s emphasis on approvals at every milestone.
Sample enforceable wording:
“The Supplier shall run IDS validation and the approved BIM rule set (naming, classifications, geometry sanity) before submission. The Employer will independently re-check. Failed checks = failed submission; corrections are at Supplier’s cost per contract.”
Owners protect themselves from paying for defective deliverables. Contractors gain clarity: only models that pass objective checks move forward.
Clause 8: Turn Over COBie & Commissioning Data
What it does:
The handover phase is often where information gaps hurt the most. Facility managers need structured, usable data, not just PDFs and binders. This clause mandates that turnover includes COBie deliverables (components, types, spaces, systems, spare parts) and that commissioning test reports are linked directly to BIM objects.
Why it matters:
- Delivers FM-ready data on day one.
- Meets U.S. GSA and NIBS requirements for information-driven asset management.
- Prevents disputes at closeout by making retainage contingent on validated handover data.
- Reduces the cost of re-creating missing data later in facility operations.
Sample enforceable wording:
“Turnover requires COBie (component, type, space, system, attribute, spare parts) plus commissioning reports linked to corresponding BIM objects. Non-linked reports are non-conforming. The Employer may withhold retainage until COBie and links pass validation.”
Owners and FM teams get structured, interoperable data they can actually use. Contractors are incentivized to deliver complete, validated turnover packages.
What Owners & Contractors Need to Know
- AIA digital practice documents have been retired.
The AIA’s 2013 documents (E203, G201, G202) were officially retired on July 31, 2024. Today, binding digital protocols are placed directly into the BEP and Information Protocol, referencing ISO 19650 deliverables and IDS for enforceable data requirements.
- NBIMS-US v4 is the U.S. benchmark.
The National BIM Standard – United States (NBIMS-US v4) represents the latest U.S. consensus on BIM standards. It complements ISO 19650 and aligns with Penn State’s BEP methodology, giving your BEP both local credibility and international alignment.
- TIDP and MIDP belong in the BEP annexes.
To be enforceable, Task Information Delivery Plans (TIDPs) and the Master Information Delivery Plan (MIDP) should be embedded as annexes within the BEP. Together, they provide clear accountability, transparency, and traceability of every information deliverable.
Conclusion: Turning BEPs Into a Shield Against Rework and Claims
The evidence is clear: a BEP without enforceable clauses is little more than a wish list. It leaves room for interpretation, fuels RFIs, and opens the door to costly claims. In contrast, a BEP with enforceable clauses becomes a shield- protecting owners and contractors from rework, disputes, and fragmented turnover.
By embedding acceptance tests, IDS-driven information requirements, clear RACI assignments, CDE governance, clash KPIs, traceable RFIs, QA/QC gates, and FM-ready COBie data, you move from vague intent to contract-ready precision. This shift ensures that every milestone is measurable, every change is traceable, and every deliverable is tied to value.
The difference between project success and costly overruns isn’t whether you have a BEP- it’s whether your BEP is enforceable.
