| # | Activity | Responsible | Inputs | Outputs | Key Question |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Assessment and Need | Appointing Party | Asset information needs, business case | OIR, AIR, PIR drafts; project need statement | What do we ACTUALLY need to know about this asset, and why? |
| 2 | Invitation to Tender | Appointing Party | PIR, EIR (draft) | Tender pack with EIR + pre-appointment BEP requirements | What information do we want bidders to commit to delivering? |
| 3 | Tender Response | Prospective Lead Appointed Party | Tender pack, EIR | Pre-appointment BEP, capability statement, mobilisation plan | Can we actually deliver this EIR? With what tools, in what timeframe? |
| 4 | Appointment | Both parties | Tender response, contract negotiations | Signed appointment, post-appointment BEP, MIDP first draft | What does the contract actually obligate us to deliver? |
| 5 | Mobilisation | Lead Appointed Party | Post-appointment BEP, software list, BIM library | Tested CDE, federation rules, naming convention enforced, kickoff confirmed | Have we proven we CAN actually produce information to spec, BEFORE we start doing it? |
| 6 | Collaborative Production of Information | All Appointed Parties | TIDPs, EIR, model templates | Information containers in CDE (WIP → Shared → Published) | Are containers being produced, shared, and accepted on schedule? |
| 7 | Information Model Delivery | Lead Appointed Party | Information containers from all parties | Verified, authorised information model handed to appointing party | Has every milestone deliverable been verified against acceptance criteria and authorised? |
| 8 | Project Close-Out | All parties | Final published models, lessons-learned register | Archived CDE, AIM handover (to ISO 19650-3 ops phase), close-out report | Has everything been preserved, and what did we learn? |
| # | Activity | Responsible | Inputs | Outputs | Key Question |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| — | Activities 5–7 RUN ITERATIVELY | — | — | Multiple cycles tied to project gateways | Each milestone (Concept, Tech Design, Construction, etc.) re-runs activities 5–7 with the next round of EIR |
| # | Activity | Responsible | Inputs | Outputs | Key Question |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PRE | Pre-Appointment BEP | Prospective Lead Appointed Party | Tender EIR | Short demonstration of capability (5-10 pages) | Sections: project info, proposed approach to EIR, key personnel, tools, capability evidence |
| POST | Post-Appointment BEP | Lead Appointed Party (binding) | Awarded contract, all appointed parties confirmed | Signed contract document (30-50 pages typical) | Sections: detailed responsibilities, MIDP, CDE platform, naming, classification, federation strategy, clash protocol, model authoring standards, software versions, security, archival, close-out |
| # | Activity | Responsible | Inputs | Outputs | Key Question |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FED | Federation Strategy | Lead Appointed Party | All discipline models | Federated model in coordination tool | Who federates, how often, in which tool? (Navisworks / Solibri / BIM Track / Revizto) |
| CLASH | Clash Detection Protocol | Coordination Lead | Federated model | Clash report by category, severity, owner | Hard clash vs soft clash; clearance rules; who fixes; re-test cycle |
| MILESTONES | Coordination Milestones | All Appointed Parties | Project programme | Stage-gate clash sign-offs | Typical: Concept → Tech Design → Construction Issue → As-Built |
1 related items across IS codes, knowledge articles, design rules, maps and tools