Updates and revisions to PAS 1192-2 in consultation until 31 August

Two key documents at the heart of BIM Level 2, PAS 1192-2 and BS1192:2007, are being revised by BSI with the proposals available for comment until the end of August.

The PAS 1192-2 Specification for information management for the capital/delivery phase of construction projects using building information modelling is available here – and the BS1192:2007 Collaborative production of architectural, engineering and construction information – Code of practice is available here.

PAS 1192-2 was originally released in 2013, while BS1192 was last updated in 2008. Both documents are being revised to update out-of-date wording and reduce conflicts between the two standards. 

Casey Rutland, a BIM specialist and associate director at Arup, told BIM+: “It’s mostly clarifications, and to ensure that the suite of documents don’t contradict one another.

“There are no major changes that I have picked up. It is very sensible to update the documents to make them clearer and more readable.

“However, I would suggest that if a BS is open to interpretation, then maybe it’s not as succinct as it should be, and on the basis of the many online conversations that are going on about the documents, it would seem that there’s still work to do!”

One new insertion that has been added to the draft version of PAS 1192-2 has led to a debate over its meaning on Twitter.

In the updated document a new final sentence has been added to this paragraph: “The PIM is developed firstly as a design intent model, showing the architectural and engineering intentions of the design suppliers. Then, when ownership has been transferred to the construction suppliers, the PIM is developed into a virtual construction model containing all the objects to be manufactured, installed or constructed. The contractors model will be by replacement rather than a modification of the design model to avoid an legal problems of responsibility.”

Although some have suggested that this addition means the contractor will have to incur the costs and inconvenience of creating a new model from scratch, Rutland argued that taken in the context of the whole document the wording describes a reasonable transfer of responsibility to the contractor. “To me it’s simply a mechanism to clearly separate legal responsibility,” he said.

To make sure that the documents are made as clear as possible, Rutland urged as many people as possible to read the drafts and comment, giving them a “damn good proof read”.

John Eynon FCIOB, director at Open Water Consulting, said: “There are some changes in the small print that are interesting. People should look at the documents as they are fundamental to the BIM process, as is the consultation.” 

Sarah Rock, associate in the construction and projects department at law firm RPC, also agreed, saying: “It is crucial that all with working knowledge and experience of BIM contribute to these drafts to shape our future industry standards so that they are true representations of how the industry should be collaborating on, working with and delivering BIM to the highest level.”

Read the draft version of the updated PAS 1192-2

There are some changes in the small print that are interesting. People should look at the documents as they are fundamental to the BIM process, as is the consultation.– John Eynon FCIOB, Open Water Consulting

Story for BIM+? Get in touch via email: [email protected]


  1. The contractor will pass this additional cost onto the client. However, It shouldn’t be much of an additional cost if the contractor works with the Project Information Model rather than saying its junk and binning it. Its upto the design teams to prove to the contractor that the Project Information Model is of sufficient quality and aligns with the project requirements.

  2. Agreed Alex. But I wonder whether this has deeper implications? It might be me, but a standard provides normative process, i.e. industry accepted general practice. This change simply reinforces the divide between “design” and “construction” rather than making the link. Richard Saxon CBE makes good points in his article in Building. Maybe the contractor can buy the designers model. If they’re notated perhaps it travels with them. I wonder whether this allows designers to avoid responsibility for their design at this point and say effectively “over to you mate, you’re the builder, sort it out” which is effectively what is happening now. To me this only goes one way. If designers continue to do this then they will be increasingly marginalised in the process. She who carries the risk and controls the information owns the process – i.e. the contractor. Bring on IPD I say!

  3. I do not think that it is the matter of the “sufficient quality”, but rather of the intended use.
    The architects are appointed for the specific stage to deliver specific information, if this is “design intent” information this should be considered as such and the architect will be reliable upon the design intent (not construction accuracy).
    If this is a construction information then the reliability and risk stays with whoever was appointed to take the construction risk on board (i.e. novated architect? contractor?).
    The quality management of the “design intent” model is another story and can be ensured by specifying LOI/LOD, specifying the model guidance and accuracy and the “clash free” data.
    Also, passing through the stages, most of the components need to be replaced anyway, the “old model” will become obsolete, therefore a “new” model will be generated but I still think that it does not exclude the use of the “previous” model as a reference and some of the elements can be copy-pasted to the new model and upgraded if needed). While doing so the information ownership is clearly passed from one model to another and from one party to another and the previous stage model is for reference only. A recorded “freezed” copy will be stored on the CDE anyway.
    Ultimately the less buildable the “information model” is, the more RFIs the architect will get and more “unpaid” time he will need to commit to complete the project, but also the business reputation will be undermined.

  4. So, can someone clarify for me, what now happens to that wonderful smooth BIM curve of re-using information throughout the *entire* procurement process compared to the inefficient traditional sawtooth of creating data at each work stage: ?

Comments are closed.

Latest articles in News