Structuring a BIM Service Scoping, Tendering, Executing, and Wrapping-Up (STEW) Guide for Public Owners

Abstract

Building Information Modeling (BIM) has been one of the most dominant trends in the construction industry worldwide. In Korea, since 2012, public construction projects worth more than USD 40 million have been subject to the application of BIM. However, many public owners have hesitated to adopt BIM for their projects; they generally view BIM as being very complex to manage and difficult to understand. In 2021, the Korean governmental entity in charge of developing the public policies to furnish quality infrastructure requested a variety of individual public owners to prepare BIM guidelines fit to the infrastructures they manage. While there are diverse BIM guides available for them to refer to in preparing the BIM guidelines, these involve certain deficiencies in meeting the public owners’ preferences, such as being tailored for the public procurement process. The main objectives of this study were to investigate the desirable nature of an owner-oriented BIM guide, suggest the structure of the guide, and identify the major advisory contents to be included in the guide. To achieve these research objectives, a number of domestic and international BIM guides were analyzed, and workshops were operated twice with 12 BIM experts from the Korean construction industry. As a result of the study, a four-stage guide structure was developed consisting of the BIM service Scoping, Tendering, Executing, and Wrapping-up (STEW) guides.

1. Introduction

1.1. Research Background and Objective

Building Information Modeling (BIM) is a digital representation of physical and functional characteristics of a facility usable to plan, design, construct, and operate the facility [1]. As facilities projects have become larger and more complicated than before, the amount of information to be produced and managed has also increased. As a result, there has been an escalating interest in BIM as a method for managing information and supporting collaboration among project participants.

In Korea, since 2012, the application of BIM to public construction projects worth more than USD 40 million has been mandated [2]. Additionally, the Architectural Service Industry Promotion Act (ASIPA) and the National Competency Standards (NCS) were enacted in 2014, aiming at enhancing architectural design quality in the public sector and standardizing the technology levels of various industries (including BIM), respectively [3,4]. Given the ASIPA and the NCS, the role of public owners (POs hereafter) has been emphasized significantly in the field of project management involving BIM service management.

Construction works consist of both private and public sector business, depending on project ownership. In case of Korea, ~70% of total construction volume nationwide belongs to the public sector [5]. To achieve high-quality BIM service, the PO should play a pivotal role from the planning stage of a project onwards as a BIM coordinator. In accordance with the ASIPA, if the PO plans to build a facility whose design fee exceeds USD 200,000, they should first obtain official approval for the preliminary feasibility of the facility, including BIM service procurement. However, in spite of having to follow this new policy, there have been few BIM experts in PO organizations. Many POs have consequently been cautious in procuring BIM service [6]. There are rarely regular BIM education programs for POs, and since the workforces in the organizations are regularly rotated to different job positions—usually every two years—they are typically not able to educate themselves and accumulate enough experience to be competitive BIM coordinators [7].

POs, in general, have a different perspective on BIM compared to private vendors or designers. While private entities are interested in developing BIM products, POs are concerned with a structured and justifiable buying process for BIM service from the private entities; they like to know how to develop the proper specifications to purchase the BIM service, what principles should be included in the specifications, how to manage rather than produce the intermediate BIM products during the BIM execution process, and how to verify the quality of the BIM service even if the service is produced in accordance with the specifications.

In the past 10 years, several BIM guides have been developed, and diverse international ones have been referred to for POs to procure BIM service in Korea. Many POs, however, consider that the guides suffer from certain deficiencies in meeting their requirements, such as being easy to follow and tailored to meet the public procurement process, i.e., scope definition, supplier invitation, supplier choice, implementation, and closing and payment [7]. The POs indicate that it is necessary to develop a more PO-oriented BIM guide that can meet the requirements of the new BIM policies—i.e., the ASIPA and the NCS—so that it can be used as a comprehensive reference for the POs to develop proper guidelines for their BIM service contracts.

At the beginning of 2021, the Korean Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport (MOLIT)—the central governmental entity responsible for developing public guidelines and policies to provide quality infrastructure—established the hierarchical structure of BIM guidelines shown in Figure 1, and developed the Construction Industry Fundamental BIM Guideline (CIFBG) (i.e., Level 1-1 in Figure 1) as that sort of reference [8]. While the CIFBG defines step-by-step BIM application processes, BIM model development standards, and BIM interoperation principles, a more detailed implemental guideline (Level 1-2 in Figure 1) is currently being developed (Level 1-2 in Figure 1) as a supplementary guide. Based on the two guidelines, the POs at various public entities are to be solicited to prepare their own BIM guidelines (i.e., Level 2-1 and 2-2 in Figure 1), enabling the workforces in their organizations to effectively manage BIM services.

The main objective of this study was to suggest the BIM service Scoping, Tendering, Executing, and Wrapping-up (STEW, hereafter) guide structure on which the POs can tailor their own BIM guidelines applicable to a variety of project types. The STEW structure was developed to reflect public BIM service procurement processes and the essential contents in the processes step-by-step, so that they are easy to understand and follow.

1.2. Research Rationale

In 2014, as stated above, the MOLIT enacted the ASIPA to enhance the design quality of public building projects, as well as to improve the professional manpower through redefining the existing architectural design tender process [3]. Based on the ASIPA, the POs—regardless of whether they are in central governments or local, provincial ones—if they are to build the facility whose design fee exceeds USD 200,000, are required to procure design works through a competitive designer selection process using a poster or oral presentation as design concepts, rather than simple bidding on a design fee.

Figure 2 shows the BIM procurement process at each of the BIM development phases, in conjunction with the entities involved in the process. According to the ASIPA, before proceeding with the project procurement process, the POs should submit a formal document regarding their preliminary project feasibility analysis to the Public Architectural Support Center (PASC) led by the MOLIT (i.e., (1) in Figure 2). The document necessarily includes project scope, budget plans, design quality management plans including BIM scope and requirements, sustainability enhancement plans, project delivery methods to be applied—such as Design–Build (DB), Technical Proposal (TP), Design–Bid–Build (DBB), Construction Management (CM)—and so on [3]. The PASC then reviews the document in terms of the appropriateness and comprehensiveness of the items, and returns the review result to the POs. The POs necessarily reflect the review result in their final project procurement package for selecting both a contractor and a designer.

The POs then invite designers and contractors to a competitive bid. The BIM invitation package essentially comprises a Request for Qualification (RFQ), a Request for Proposal (RFP), BIM scope and requirements, BIM Execution Plan (BEP) development guidelines, and other reinforced documents by the PASC (i.e., (2) in Figure 2). The contents of the BIM invitation are, in general, a part of the whole bid invitation package for a project, and differ on the basis of the POs’ BIM uses, as well as the project delivery method applied. Contractors and designers interested in the invitation package organize a project team including a BIM team, and prepare a BEP according to the POs’ request (i.e., (3) in Figure 2). Once selecting the most appropriate contractor and designer, the POs are likely to revise the BEP submitted by the selected entity to meet their BIM intentions. The BEP clearly defines the BIM’s deliverables, and these should be carried out and submitted to the POs (i.e., (4) in Figure 2) on the designated BIM schedules in the contract.

The process described above includes step-by-step activities with diverse contents to address the POs’ BIM intentions. The POs are expected to be competitive enough to prepare the activities well, to manage intermediate BIM outcomes produced during the procurement process, and to verify the final BIM deliverables as a whole. If the POs can understand the structured relationships within their BIM scope, the distinctions of each project delivery method, and the contractual processes and languages that are essential to meet the BIM scope, they should feel more comfortable in tailoring their own BIM guidelines that can be well fitted to their projects. The main objective of this study is to develop the STEW guide that supports the POs in understanding these.

In addition, referring to the NCS enacted by the Korean Ministry of Employment and Labor (MEL) in 2014—which aims to standardize the knowledge bases and technology levels of various industries nationwide, and to systematically improve the manpower in each industry according to this standardization—BIM has been one of the designated disciplines in the architectural industry. There are four subcategories in this architectural discipline, i.e., BIM preparation, BIM management, BIM production, and BIM usage [9]. The POs need to meet the NCS policy in doing their business, and are expected to reflect the four BIM categories when planning their BIM services.

1.3. Research Methodology

The methodology of this study consists of three activities: reviewing the existing body of knowledge on diverse BIM guides, identifying POs’ opinions on the guides, and suggesting the structure and contents of the STEW guide. Developing a guide inevitably reflects the commonalities among diverse approaches carried out by many professionals, so it is very descriptive rather than analytical. This study is very exploratory in that there has not been such a study before. To address the descriptive and exploratory research characteristics, the authors formulated step-by-step research procedures, as shown in Figure 3.

As the first step of this research, the authors investigated available domestic and international BIM guides, and analyzed the contents of each guide. Workshops with a Focus Group Interview (FGI) format were conducted twice to meet the research objectives. The authors used a workshop rather than a questionnaire survey to accommodate the POs’ opinions on the existing guides, because the former can elicit more specific and comprehensive critiques from the POs. Eight public agencies from central and local public institutions were invited as the POs to provide their opinions and review the existing guides. Additionally, four experts with profound BIM design experience contributed to the workshops as advisors.

FGIs are interviews conducted with a group of participants to bring together a variety of information [10]. This is a research technique widely used within the health and social care arena for exploring what individuals believe or feel. FGIs include the use of in-depth group interviews where the participants are chosen as purposive samples of a specific population with similar sociological characteristics. FGIs generate large amounts of data and authentic responses based on the synergy of group discussion and interaction in a relatively short time span, and their findings are used to precede further qualitative procedures. In the process of an FGI, a moderator asks a question to the participants, then takes a step back and allows natural dialogs to arise based on the question. The moderator needs to maintain an environment where the participants feel comfortable and willingly exchange views and ideas about the question [11].

In the first workshop, the authors performed the role of the moderator in the FGI, and presented the analysis results of the existing guides to the 12 workshop subjects, who defined the desirable BIM guide that could satisfy the research objectives. The subjects then reviewed the analysis results of the existing guides delivered by the authors to figure out whether the guides could meet the desired BIM guide contents. The review results answered yes or no as to the need for a new guide. In the second workshop, based on the results of the first workshop, the subjects were solicited to identify the STEW guide as the structure and advisory contents of the PO-oriented new guide to be developed.

To enhance the comprehensiveness and practicality of the research, the authors presented their findings to domestic research seminars. The seminars were held four times on a quarterly basis to report and discuss research findings from the Architecture and Urban Development Research Program (AUDRP) funded by the MOLIT for several years; this study was part of that research program. Through the discussion and critique in the seminars, necessary improvements for the STEW guide were identified.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Previous Studies on the Development of Public BIM Guides

Table 1. Previous studies on BIM guides and instructions.

Authors	Major Contents
[12]	Investigates the previous BIM guides in Korea and abroad for developing open BIM guidelines in Korea
[13]	Identifies preliminary study on the level of information and standardization in the BIM design process in Finland and Denmark
[14]	Sets the direction of BIM quality criteria through analyzing the existing quality management approaches among domestic and foreign BIM guides
[15]	Identifies the role of BIM guidelines through case studies in foreign countries and deriving the direction of BIM guidelines’ development
[16]	Investigates BIM procurement instructions in foreign countries for the development of BIM guide criteria applicable to the overall areas in the construction industry
[17]	Analyzes BIM guidelines in Korea and foreign countries for the application of BIM to the project planning stage and deriving the elements to be included in BIM guidelines
[18]	Analyzes the items necessary for green BIM guidelines in conjunction with the Level of Development (LOD), and suggests the measurements in each LOD stage

represents the previous studies carried out in Korea regarding BIM guides and instructions. Most of the studies focused on the guides, guidelines, and manuals to support the BIM work for BIM designers at the design stage, and there has been scarcely any study of the development of PO-oriented BIM guides. Furthermore, while a few governmental institutions in Korea have promoted BIM guides and manuals, they have rarely provided comprehensive and step-by-step BIM procedures for the POs. The MOLIT, as the central governmental authority in manipulating the national construction business policy, initiated an “Architectural BIM Application Guide [5]”; it consisted of three sections, i.e., BIM operation principles, BIM technologies guide, and BIM management guide. The MOLIT, however, announced that the guide was not appropriate to use for a specific project as a direct BIM implementation guideline, since it had been prepared to provide the public and private entities with the basic and generic BIM framework on which comprehensive BIM plans could be devised by the entities later on, depending on their business objectives and environments.

Korea Land & Housing Corporation (KLHC)—a unique public firm for furnishing apartment housing—developed a BIM guide for its own usage, called “The KLHC BIM Usage Guide [19]”. Although this guide is more comprehensive than the one from the MOLIT, covering BIM application principles in the conceptual and detailed design stages as well as the construction stage, it is not ideal for generic usage, since it is tailored for residential apartments.

The Public Procurement Service (PPS)—a public entity for providing contract service for public institutions—developed “The Primary BIM Guideline for Construction Projects [2]”. This consists of four parts—that is, PPS BIM management principles, the BIM application principles in the concept design phase, the detailed design phase, and the construction phase. While this guide is one of the most sophisticated in Korea, and is referred to widely by public and private entities, since it was developed mainly for designers it does little to address the sequential and necessary tasks that the POs need to perform in procuring BIM services [7]. These tasks specifically mean the POs’ activities following the sequential public business procedures, such as defining service scope, choosing service suppliers, contracting the service, managing the service, and compensating for the service.

2.2. Review of Global BIM Guides

Table 2. International BIM guides reviewed.

Country	Guide Name	Major Contents
USA	[20]	Focuses on the organizational level of BIM planning for facility owners, and defines procedures to develop strategy, organizational execution, and procurement level plans; also presents the process of owners’ BIM project procurement planning.
	[21]	Outlines for the project owners how to develop and implement requirements for the application of BIM, and explains how to include these requirements in contracts to plan, design, construct, and operate buildings.
Singapore	[22]	Serves to start the development of a BIM execution plan for a project, specifying the roles and responsibilities of project members, and containing details with regards to the BIM deliverables.
Germany	[23]	Describes the German BIM roadmap (BIM-Stufenplan) and summarizes the 10 guidelines developed from the pilot projects by the BIM4INFRA2020 consortium, comprising the fundamental aspects of BIM execution for the projects.
UK	[24]	Aims to assist FM professionals and clients by providing an EIR that can be edited and amended by the facility manager to meet the individual requirements of a project using the BIM process; defines OIR, AIR, EIR, and AIM specifically.
	[25]	Delivers an international standard for managing information over the whole life of a built asset using BIM; contains the concepts and principles for the business processes across the built environment sector, closely aligned with the current UK 1192 standards.
Australia	[26]	Represents the central reference in a suite of documents that define requirements for BIM projects in general; defines things such as uses for BIM in projects, BIM management plan content, roles and responsibilities, collaboration procedures, modelling requirements, documentation standards, and digital deliverables.
Canada	[27]	Provides BIM users with a framework for developing and adopting company-centric practices to streamline their use of digital information; includes a range of topics, from high-level non-technical explanations regarding BIM and processes to BIM implementation companywide to minimize impact, as well as BIM at a project level, and how it differs from traditional approaches.
New Zealand	[28]	Addresses the items related to plans at the design stage in BIM execution and the performance (process, LOD, delivery, software, etc.), purpose, and definition of BIM applications, among others.
Hong Kong	[29]	Covers four sections, including the project execution plan, modeling methodology, level of development, and component presentation style; also defines the scope of work for a BIM process, the responsibilities of the project participants, and the deliverables from the BIM process for the owner.
Italy	[30]	Describes a guide to digitize the information of Italian real estate properties, prescribing coding principles, the required contents and levels of data models, and the templates for enhancing the interoperability of diverse software.

shows the foreign BIM guides frequently referred to when major public and private organizations in the BIM-advanced countries have developed BIM guidelines for their projects. Most of these guides, just like the domestic ones above, have mainly dwelled on the BIM designers’ perspective. However, the guide developed by Pennsylvania State University, USA, addresses the performance of the PO(s) at the BIM design procurement stage [20]. The National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), USA, also specifically prepared a BIM guide for the PO(s) [21], which outlines how they should develop requirements for the application of BIM, and explains how to include these requirements in contracts to plan, design, construct, and operate buildings. The NIBS guide also provides recommendations for processes, standards, and deliverables for BIM operation that could be shared by the PO and other project participants to meet specific BIM needs for individual project conditions.

The Italian State Property Agency (that is, the Agenzia Del Demanio) developed a BIM guide to digitize the information on Italian real estate properties [30]. This agency is the public entity that manages the Italian state’s real estate assets, and administers a portfolio of around 42,000 assets worth EUR 61 billion. From 2016, the agency has adopted the BIM methodology to create three-dimensional digital files of each property managed, in order to optimize property maintenance operations and verify service performance for the purpose of public savings through cutting down management costs. The BIM guide mainly includes the principles for systematically coding documents, the required contents and levels of data models, and the templates for enhancing the interoperability of diverse software, all of which are tailored to focus on business purposes.

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) developed ISO 19650 in 2018, based on the principles and context of a British BIM standard as the international framework for managing information over the life cycle of a facility [25]. This is a set of rules including four documents: ISO 19650-1 explains the principles and concepts; ISO 19650-2 depicts the specifics of the information management process; ISO 19650-3 represents the facility’s operational phase; and ISO 19650-5 details the security of information [26]. These standards are valid regardless of which country a business is based in. Every nation can specify their own amendments or additions to the standards through their national standard bodies. In many countries, such as the United Kingdom, Australia, the UAE, China, and Korea—public contracts have already been subject to ISO 19650, and it has gradually become the common framework for the delivery of high-quality digital facilities worldwide [31]. In Korea, Korea Airports Corporation (KAC), which monopolizes the provision of airport infrastructures for Korea, received the first ISO 19650 certification as a PO in 2020 [32]. Considering the fact that KAC is a very influential PO in Korea, it is expected that many POs will be concerned with the ISO 19650 certification, so a new PO-oriented BIM guide should address the principles, concepts, and information management processes designated in ISO 19650 to support the POs.

How a facility is operated and maintained after a contractor turns over a key is just as significant as the design and construction processes. The POs require BIM suppliers to create more than just BIM design and construction services; they care about the operation and maintenance of their facilities on a continual basis. From the perspective of a facility’s life cycle cost, it is widely recognized that the cost during the operational phase greatly exceeds the cost of the design and construction phases, constituting 60–80% of the total life cycle cost of a facility [33]. These numbers are certainly a rational proof for why the use of BIM in the facility operation phase is critical to the success of overall facility management.

Since BIM workflows concentrate on the early project design phases, the identification of BIM uses and deliverables for the operation phase shifts to the phases, i.e., beginning with the end in mind. The facility BIM data are compiled through the design and construction process as they become available. The use of BIM in conjunction with facility management tools such as COBie provides an opportunity for streamlining the digital information exchange process, along with the creation of more accurate and up-to-date information [34]. While there are very few BIM guides that support the POs in comprehending the necessary tasks in the operational phase, as stated above, ISO 19650-3 distinctively specifies information management during the operational phase, introducing trigger events and multiple pathways in acquiring facilities’ operational information [35,36]. This guide should be studied in detail and reflected in developing a PO-oriented BIM guide.

3. The First Workshop: Reviewing Existing BIM Guides

To meet our research objectives, as stated earlier, 12 workshop subjects were invited: (1) 8 as the POs from public institutions—i.e., 2 from KLHC, 3 from local governments’ managing administration buildings, and 3 from local governments handling educational facilities—where they had been responsible for BIM project management; (2) 2 from international BIM design firms that had been involved in domestic and foreign public BIM projects to build free-form buildings for several years; and (3) another 2 from the public research institutions, i.e., the Korea Institute of Construction Technology (KICT) and the Korean Educational Development Institute (KEDI). This study refers to the workshop participants from the public entities as the PO subjects and the other four participants as the advising subjects hereafter.

The two subjects from the BIM design firms had worked for the Dongdaemun Design Park (DDP) project with the POs in the Seoul Metropolitan Municipality (SMM)—the capital of Korea. The DDP is a free-form building designed by Zaha Hadid, and has become a signature building of the SMM [37]. The building was completed in 2014 after a 6-year construction period, and cost USD 400 million to build a total floor area of 85,320m² (two basement floors and four superstructures). The surface of the DDP was designed to be covered with 45,313 panels, of which 48% (21,753 panels) were double-curved 4 mm thick aluminum panels with folded edges. The subjects had been involved in the project as BIM design consultants responsible for communicating with the original project designers from the Zaha Hadid office, the POs in the SMM, and the project management company regarding the design feasibility and constructability of the free-form facades. Since they had worked with the POs in the SMM for several years, they were expected to comprehend what the POs were primarily concerned with, and why they were uncomfortable with the application of BIM.

The other two subjects from the KICT and KEDI have cultivated BIM policies and guidelines for the MOLIT and the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Korea, respectively. These two entities are government-funded research institutes, and the majority of their research work is very relevant to governmental necessities. The researchers in the institutes inevitably work with POs in a variety of the public organizations that enable the social infrastructure and diverse educational facilities to function so as to recognize the essentials regarding the POs’ attitudes toward BIM services.

3.1. Defining a Desirable Guide

The authors presented the following questions to the PO subjects: (1) What projects were subject to procuring BIM services? (2) Why were BIM services applied? (3) What project delivery methods were used in conjunction with BIM services? (4) What guides, guidelines, or manuals were referred to when procuring BIM services? (5) Why were those references adopted? (6) What structure of guides would be desirable or recommendable for public entities? The PO subjects freely delivered their experiences, feelings, and thoughts on the questions, and the following are summaries of their responses.

As stated earlier, projects costing more than USD 40 million have been required to use BIM since 2012 by government policy [2]. In the case of the KLHC, more than 100 projects have been procured every year to provide new housing facilities for the public [19]. Each of the projects involved sometimes multi-thousand-, mostly 700–800-unit apartments, and cost much more than USD 40 million. The POs in the KLHC have therefore normally procured BIM services in parallel with design services for these projects, in accordance with their companywide BIM guide—that is, the KLHC BIM Usage Guide.

Unlike the KLHC case, the POs in charge of constructing the residential, administrative, and school facilities in local municipalities—who comprise the majority of the POs in Korea—have tended to pay little attention to BIM applications, since the cost of their projects is normally lower than USD 40 million, except for particular projects such as main city hall buildings in the municipalities. Considering the unit construction cost of a building in Korea—i.e., USD 1650/m² on average [37]—it is very clear that USD 40 million represents enough value to construct a 20,000 m² or larger building.

The typical motives for the POs deciding to procure BIM services for a project include the following: BIM application being required by public policies; the project being so big that high-quality designers and contractors were necessary for the project; the efficiency gained through BIM appearing to be essential and great for the specific project, such as renewable energy facilities and plant facilities; and the project having the complicated applications, such as free-form buildings, that would be tough to construct without BIM application.

In addition to identifying the motives behind procuring BIM, the significance of selecting competent designers and contractors was discussed in the workshop as well. Although lots of architects and engineers have recently used BIM tools such as Revit, ArchiCAD, or Bentley as usual in Korea, their BIM products show very different levels of development from designer to designer, and are mostly below average, because the intent their BIM is merely to demonstrate the capacity for producing digital models to win competitive designer selection contests according to the ASIPA [3], rather than to epitomize the literal definition of BIM, i.e., “the process of collaboratively developing and managing an integrated digital model containing a built asset’s geometry and life cycle information” [28].

Likewise, contractors who have advertised and insisted on using BIM in the construction phase are not very reliable. Various studies have found that construction BIM is quite inferior to design BIM in Korea; very few contractors have been involved in BIM implementation, and most remain at the level of using 2D drawings as well as manual quantity take-offs [38,39]. For the POs to purchase a high-quality BIM service, the subjects asserted that it was very important to specify POs’ BIM uses clearly, and to prepare a comprehensive bid package through which competent BIM designers and contractors could be picked out.

The subjects emphasized that when the POs contemplated procuring BIM services, they first made sure to specify which type of project delivery method was applied to their project. Figuring out this issue, the POs inevitably define BIM uses and reflect on whether their organization has the competitive manpower necessary to prepare the comprehensive bid package, as well as to manage BIM implementation procedures throughout the design and construction processes of the project. The BIM uses above indicate how the POs will use BIM during a project’s life cycle, such as model authoring, energy simulation, design simulation, clash detection, model-based estimation, etc.

It was noted in the workshop that, due to different legal and situational restrictions from project to project, the POs necessarily procured projects using different project delivery methods. Although Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) is known as the most suitable fit for BIM services, it has not yet been applied to public projects in Korea, due to ambiguity of responsibility limits among project participants [7]. For public projects, the DBB and CM methods have been widely adopted together in Korea [40]. Under the DBB method, a design service of an individual project is contracted separately from a construction service. On the other hand, BIM services are contractually combined with the design service as a part of it, and are rarely procured separately [41]. In consequence, BIM scopes are quite different from project to project, depending on the decisions of a project master architect, unless they are clearly requested by the PO.

The POs make a contract with a CM firm for a CM service under the DBB mechanism, in most cases in parallel with contracting a design service, which oversees the planning, design, and construction of a project from beginning to end, including BIM service. The role of CM is very significant, especially to secure BIM implementation in the construction phase, since design BIM is not smoothly integrated with construction BIM under the DBB scheme, although construction BIM should be responsible for improving design BIM’s deliverables.

Whereas there are no specific restrictions for the PO to select a designer with the DBB procedure, the Construction Capacity Evaluation Policy (CCEP) imposes a certain restriction on the PO in choosing a contractor. The MOLIT, Korea, has operated the CCEP since 1996 [42]. The objectives of the CCEP are to group general contractors into eight levels according to their contract amount in the last year, technical capacity, and financial status, and to predetermine the range of an individual project’s size for the contractors at each level to make a contract.

Table 3. The levels of construction capacity evaluation policy in Korea [42].

Level	Construction Capacity Evaluation (M: million)	Numbers	The Predetermined Range of Project Sizes to Contract (Before Bidding Price)
			Civil Works	Architectural Works
1	More than USD 500 M	58 (0.46%)	More than USD 142 M	More than $100 M
2	USD 500 M–USD 100 M	137 (1.08%)	USD 142 M–USD 79 M	$100 M–$79 M
3	USD 100 M–USD 50 M	176 (1.4%)	USD 79 M–USD 46 M
4	USD 50 M–USD 27.5 M	302 (2.4%)	USD 46 M–USD 33 M
5	USD 27.5 M–USD 16.7 M	500 (4%)	USD 33 M–USD 18 M
6	USD 16.7 M–USD 10 M	823 (6.5%)	USD 18 M–USD 11 M
7	USD 10 M–USD 6.7 M	640 (5.05%)	USD 11 M–USD 6.7 M
Others	Less than USD 6.7 M	10,015 (79.2%)	Less than USD 6.7 M
Total		12,651 (100%)

represents the eight levels, the number of contractors, and the predetermined range of the individual civil and architectural project size for contracts at each level in 2021.

Although the CCEP is said to intend not only to protect the POs and secure project quality from the incompetent contractors at the lower levels, but also to protect the lower-level contractors’ market share, the policy in reality forces a certain limitation on the PO to freely select an upper-level contractor. For example, for the individual projects smaller than USD 40 million, the PO must always work with the contractors at Level 4, 5, 6, 7, or others, depending on project sizes. In the workshop, it was considered that the PO could intentionally prepare certain limitations in a bid to choose a contractor at the upper levels. However, the PO subjects pointed out that if such a scenario actually took place, it was almost certain that the PO would suffer from severe civil complaints about the justification of the limitations.

For BIM to achieve its greatest benefit, it is essential for project participants to be openly working together and sharing information throughout the project life cycle. DB project delivery is known as the method that best leads collaboration between design and construction services, and has been adopted in complex or big projects [43]. Good examples include the DDP discussed earlier and the KHLC headquarters building. The KHLC project was completed in 2012, including 2 basement floors and 20 superstructures, with a total area of 132,742 m². This project is known as the first project in Korea where very comprehensive BIM uses were executed in the design and construction phases [44].

When the POs procured a BIM service contract, the most widely used guide to describe BIM service requirement and delivery procedures was the Primary BIM Guideline for Construction Projects by the PPS [2]. This guide presents BIM application principles in the concept design phase, the detailed design phase, and the construction phase. The PPS guide, however, was criticized for having certain deficiencies preventing it from being used as a one-stop reference; it does not provide guidance, for example, on how to meet the ASIPA requirements, to develop the RFQ and the RFP in conjunction with various project delivery methods, or to specify diverse deliverables in each project implementation phase. While international guides have been frequently referred to for BIM research and for developing high-level governmental BIM policies, those have rarely been adopted for the POs to prepare their BIM guidelines.

A desirable and recommendable guide is one whose structure follows the public procurement process in conjunction with diverse project delivery methods, and whose contents deliver very comprehensive step-by-step BIM instructions, so as to provide a one-stop reference for the POs to develop the appropriate guidelines for BIM service contracts. Most of the domestic and international BIM guides are generic with respect to users, so specific readers such as the POs need to investigate a number of other documents in order to find out what they need. The ‘one-stop’ status signifies that the reference contains almost everything about BIM service procurement and, consequently, the PO does not need to rummage through a variety of domestic and international guides exhaustively in order to find out what they want. Furthermore, once the one-stop reference is prepared, it should be used as an educational manual to teach the manpower in the POs’ organizations.

3.2. Reviewing Existing BIM Guides

The authors reviewed four domestic and seven international BIM guides in order to figure out how closely they would fit to the desired BIM guide.

Table 4. Review results of the BIM guides.

Items Included in the Guides Reviewed	Four Cases in Korea				Seven Cases in BIM-Advanced Countries
	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K
Generals
Generals and Specifications		■	■				■
Summary of Terms and Abbreviations	■	■	■				■
BIM Definition and Planning
BIM Execution Objectives	■	■	■	■	■	■
BIM Execution Entity and Role		■	■		■	■
BIM Development Procedure Plan			■	■			■
BIM Management Procedure Plan			■	■			■
Cooperative Work Plan					■				■
BIM Data Quality Management Plan	■		■		■		■	■	■
BIM Hands-on Plan			■	■
BIM Model Functions and Usage	■						■
BIM Execution Team Selection					■
Expenses in BIM Execution			■							■
BIM Modeling
BIM Design Process Definition	■		■	■	■	■		■
BIM Data Management Plan										■	■
BIM Data Classification System		■	■								■
BIM Data Distribution Plan			■	■	■	■	■	■	■	■	■
BIM Data Format Definition		■	■		■	■				■
BIM Usage Software Definition		■	■		■	■			■
BIM Modeling Plan at Each Process							■	■	■
Templates Development				■	■
BIM Usage at Design Stage
BIM Model Usage Areas		■		■			■	■	■	■	■
Final Output and Deliverables	■	■	■	■	■				■
Criteria of Report, Output, and Deliverables Submission		■		■					■
BIM Usage at Construction Stage
Objective and Major Work	■
Bidding Process Definition	■
BIM Usage in Construction Initiation, Completion, and Approval Stages	■	■					■		■	■
Output and Deliverables Definition	■								■	■

Explanatory notes—A: Guideline for BIM Applied Design [45]; B: BIM Application Guide for Architecture [5]; C: The Basic Guidance Document of Facility Project BIM Applied Version 2.0 [2]; D: Design Competition Guidelines (Application of BIM Design) [46]; E: BIM Planning Guide for Facility Owners [20]; F: BIM Project Execution Planning Guide [1]; G: National BIM Guide for Owners [21]; H: BIM Requirement [47]; I: BIM Guide Series [48]; J: The VA BIM Guide [49]; K: BIM Guide: CAD Manual [50].

shows the review results from the 11 guides. Five categories to classify the contents of the guides were established as follows: Generals, BIM Definition, BIM Modeling, BIM Usage at Design Stage, and BIM Usage at Construction Stage. The classification was made for convenience to group a great amount of descriptions in the guides. The BIM contents were further grouped into 27 subcategories and named as shown in Table 4. The dark rectangular boxes represent whether each guide included the named contents or not.

The 4 advising subjects in the workshops were requested to estimate whether the 27 items could systematically guide the POs to understand the tasks they were supposed to perform in procuring a BIM service. Additionally, they were solicited to determine whether there was be a guide among the 11 that could be used as the one-stop reference. The subjects pointed out that while a few of the guides were relatively more comprehensive than the others, barely any of them could be usable as the one-stop reference.

Among the guides, it was found that the one from PSU [20] delivered three categories that the POs needed to focus on when planning BIM service procurement: BIM Team Selection, Contract Procurement, and Project Execution. Additionally, four documents in the categories were emphasized as being necessary to prepare, including the RFQ, the RFP, BIM Contract Requirements, and Standard BEP Template. It was understandable that the principles and criteria of BIM Team Selection were necessarily addressed in the RFQ and RFP development. Likewise, the category of Contract Procurement embraced BIM Contract Requirements, and the category of Project Execution contained the Standard BEP Template.

The advising subjects said that a new guide should necessarily include the three categories and the four documents, since these cover the fundamental tasks required when the POs procure the BIM services. It was also concluded that as a matter of course, a few of the categories and documents would be either modified or invented to meet research purposes; however, the items still provided insight about what the POs should concentrate on in order to be successful in procuring BIM services.

4. The Second Workshop: Structure and Contents of the STEW Guide

The first workshop concluded that a new, more comprehensive BIM guide was needed. The second workshop was conducted to configure the STEW guide as the structure and contents of a new, PO-oriented guide. The subjects were first asked to advance an opinion concerning the function of the STEW guide. They all had the same view as to the STEW guide, pointing out that the guide would be a supplementary one that provided a direction on which comprehensive and easy-to-follow BIM guidelines for diverse project types could be developed. Moreover, they added that as a supplement, the STEW guide needed to be very neat in order to address key points of BIM service procurement procedures, and not to be a BIM encyclopedia.

4.1. The Structure of the STEW Guide

In order to identify the format of the STEW guide, referring to Figure 2, the following sequential steps were implemented: (1) figure out the activities that the POs or BIM suppliers must perform in procuring BIM services in parallel with meeting the ASIPA and NCS requirements; (2) group the activities into the sequential process in procuring BIM services, such as scoping, contracting, monitoring, and compensating, or the three categories in the PSU guide [20]; (3) distinguish the activities the POs should facilitate in each of the groups categorized in step (2); (4) among the activities from step (3), recognize the activities that have not been adequately addressed in the existing guides. The subjects suggested that the sequential process identified in step (2) could represent the format of the STEW guide. The following steps represent in detail the identified activities in step (1):

• The POs briefly define the desired scope of BIM services in conjunction with the project delivery methods to be used in the preliminary project feasibility report;
• The POs submit the report to the PASC and get approval;
• The POs write out their BIM service requirements in detail, based on the brief BIM service scope already defined—the so-called “Owner Information Requirements (OIR)” in the international BIM industry [24];
• The POs issue the RFQ and the RFP with the OIR to prospective BIM suppliers;
• The suppliers prepare a pre-contract BEP in accordance with the OIR;
• The POs choose a winning supplier who satisfies the RFQ, the RFP, and the OIR, and prepare contract documents;
• The supplier revises a detailed post-contract BEP according to the OIR, and submits it to the POs;
• The POs review the BEP submitted and approve it or notify the supplier in case of any changes required, until achieving a satisfactory BEP;
• The supplier proceeds with BIM services according to the BEP, and the POs perform model quality checks as the BIM services progress;
• The supplier delivers the final BIM deliverables to the POs. The POs evaluate and approve them as the final products of the BIM services. Compensation is delivered according to the contract.

After defining the activities, the subjects divided them into four stages as follows: a BIM service scoping stage (BSS)—Activities 1, 2, and 3; a BIM service tendering stage (BTS)—Activities 4, 5, and 6; a BIM service executing stage (BES)—Activities 7, 8, and 9; and a BIM service warping-up stage (BWS)—Activity 10. Figure 4 shows the sequential configuration of the stages. This result shows a different framework from the three categories described in the PSU guide [20], providing a sequential view of the process of procuring BIM services. Activity 9 is divided into Activity 9-1 and 9-2 to represent the repeated delivery and quality check of numerous BIM deliverables according to a BIM execution schedule.

The two categories of BIM team selection and contract procurement in the PSU guide [20] obviously belong to the BTS, and the category of project execution is covered by the BES. While configuring this structure, the subjects discussed in detail whether distinguishing the BWS from the BES was practical, because the BWS could be viewed as a part of the BES, i.e., the ending part of the BES. Most of the guides in Table 4 do not specifically describe compensation details for BIM services.

Configuring the issue, the subjects concluded that the POs should prepare for inspection by public auditors regarding what the POs had done as public servants. In the case of a BIM service contract, the auditors will concentrate not only on the suitability of the budget spent for BIM services, but also on the quality of the services designated in the contract. The inspection usually takes place within a few years’ interval after the contract has ended. Once mistakes are found in products through auditing, it is the POs who must be held responsible for the fallacies.

In this sense, it is very important for the POs to wrap-up their BIM contracts well with quality BIM products—i.e., deliverables—as designated in the contract. Therefore, emphasizing necessary activities at the end of the BES is essential, so it is wise to distinguish the BWS from the BES, identify the things that the POs need to keep in mind in the BWS, and present a guide for the POs to properly manage them.

The workshop subjects then addressed the advisory guides for each of the four stages, which could be essentials to be successful in procuring BIM services. Given the names of the four stages, the workshop members named the four guides as follows: a BIM service Scoping Guide (BSG), a BIM service Tendering Guide (BTG), a BIM service Executing Guide (BEG), and a BIM service Wrapping Guide (BWG). Combining the four guides into one acronym based on the names, the STEW guide was formed, and it was expected to provide the POs with the necessary insight to understand BIM service procurement procedures as a whole.

Section 4.2, Section 4.3, Section 4.4 and Section 4.5 present the summary of the contents of each guide that the workshop subjects considered as the essentials to be included. The contents of each stage were not intended to cover all of the relevant items from the existing guides, but merely to provide the necessary instructions to address the activities that had not been adequately detailed in the existing guides.

4.2. The Contents of the BIM Service Scoping Guide (BSG)

At the beginning of a public project, the POs define their vision and requirements for a facility. These are recognized as the Owner’s Project Requirements (OPRs), defined as the “Owner’s written document of the functional requirements of the facility and the expectations of how it will be used and operated. These include project and design goals, budgets, limitations, schedules” [20]. The requirements are then shifted into the design specification of the facility. A designer is then able to define methods and limits in planning the facility to meet the OPRs.

Defining BIM service scope is a part of the OPRs. This activity has been stated as the OIR in the NIBS [21] or Employer’s Information Requirements (EIRs) [24]. While the names are different, both of the above address almost the same contents: “The information that will be required by the owners/employers from both their own internal team and from external suppliers for the development of the project and for the operation of the completed built asset”. The two references highlight that the OIRs/EIRs should clearly convey the information requirements for BIM suppliers, depict the expected BIM deliverables in terms of documents, model files, and structured information, and define how and when information should be exchanged between project stakeholders in the project life cycle.

In defining the scope of the BIM, the POs need to understand that the nature of the OIRs/EIRs hinges on not only the complexity of the project, but also the experience and requirements of the POs. An experienced PO can develop very comprehensive OIRs/EIRs, while others can only establish high-level requirements and some straightforward rules, leaving suppliers to suggest how those requirements will be met. To allow BIM to be used successfully on a project, therefore, the POs need to define minimum BIM requirements based on their experience and knowledge, thereby staying within a manageable boundary in the contract with BIM suppliers.

As stated earlier, the POs should submit an official project feasibility document to the PASC when constructing a facility with a design fee exceeding USD 200,000. According to the “Guide for Preparing the Pre-Review Request on the Planning of Public Architectural Projects”, the POs are asked to turn in the project outline, including site conditions, project areas and stories, construction purpose, project duration, architectural design strategies, budget, design management methods—including the project delivery methods, i.e., DBB, DB, and TP, but not IPD—and design management organizational hierarchy [35]. Before writing down the project outline, the POs are expected to have already defined the OPRs as well as the OIRs.

Since the ASIPA’s main concern is enhancing the design quality of public buildings, the PASC tends to emphasize project feasibility from the architectural design perspective, with little addressing construction. The POs need to focus on design strategies and management methods in conjunction with diverse project delivery methods. Preparing the BIM service scope is quite different from project to project, in accordance with the delivery methods. Although BIM can be used with all kinds of delivery methods, the benefits of BIM application will become greater when coupled with the distinctive characteristics of each project delivery method [20]. Depending on the delivery methods, the levels of collaboration and financial risks/rewards among project stakeholders can be quite different.

4.3. The Contents of the BIM Service Tendering Guide (BTG)

After getting the document review results from the PASC, the POs will be ready to select the proper supplier for a BIM project. The BTG is intended to guide the POs to issue the RFQ and the RFP with the OIRs to prospective BIM suppliers, choose a winning supplier who is expected to satisfy the OIRs via the project delivery method designated, and prepare contract documents. In the market place, while many public and private entities have talked about the BIM RFQ and RFP, there are very few samples of the RFQ and the RFP that the POs can conveniently adopt for their projects.

The RFQ and the RFP should contain adequate BIM language for the POs to select a competent BIM supplier possessing the necessary skills. The RFQ is the first tool that the POs are supposed to have for determining the BIM experience of prospective suppliers. When analyzing the submitted RFQ, it is often helpful to use a scoring matrix [20]. Using a matrix enables the PO to organize the proposals into a quantifiable score that can be rapidly and easily ranked. Additionally, it is important to demand proof of qualifications, because many suppliers in the marketplace will exaggerate their expertise so as to win a contract. To filter out overstated qualifications, the POs can require the prospective suppliers to describe how they devise BIM uses, processes, information exchanges, and collaboration procedures, and to provide examples of BIM projects where they have previously implemented BIM applications.

The RFP should be incorporated with the OIRs/EIRs and prepared in such a manner that a fair and certain contractual relationship is established by accurately specifying the BIM design scopes, design execution procedures, deliverables evaluation methods, and payment options. The RFP can provide the POs with a price and description of the proposed BIM uses to be performed by the suppliers. Just like the RFQ scoring matrix, the BIM proposal scoring matrix gives the POs the ability to grade the proposals on the basis of the BIM services of greatest importance, and to detect deficiencies in proposals before any contract is awarded [20]. To score the proposals precisely, the POs should provide a detailed description of the BIM services they expect to procure.

The RFP needs to clearly demonstrate POs’ intentions for a contract. There are several contract options developable from POs’ perspective in conjunction with project delivery methods and BIM contract scope. For example, if the POs make a contract with the BIM supplier separately from the main architect who is responsible for the overall project design contract, it will be beneficial for the BTG to include diverse sample RFPs corresponding to the scenarios of the diverse contract formations, based on which the POs can develop their own RFP to fit their BIM requirements.

In developing the RFP, the POs need to clearly address the step-by-step procedures of pre-contract and post-contract activities. At the tender stage, before a contract is agreed, prospective suppliers will develop the BEP, of which requirements have been specified in the RFP and OIRs/EIRs, with the aim of demonstrating their proposed approach, capability, and competency to meet the OIRs/EIRs. Once a contract has been awarded, the winning supplier should comprehensively further set out how the information requested in the OIRs/EIRs will be provided. The post-contract BEP document will therefore require far more effort from the supplier [51].

4.4. The Contents of the BIM Service Executing Guide (BEG)

The BEG was set up to briefly guide the POs about two questions: how to develop a PO-centered BEP that is necessarily included in the OIRs/EIRs, and how to monitor a supplier’s BEP throughout a BIM service contract. The BEP outlines the overall vision along with BIM implementation details for both the POs and suppliers to follow throughout a BIM contract. In this sense, the BEP should define the scope of BIM execution on the project, identify the process flow for BIM tasks, define the information exchanges between BIM stakeholders, specify the quality of deliverables from BIM implementation, and describe the required project and company infrastructure necessary for supporting the implementation [1].

The BEP should be developed in the early stages of a project. In parallel with POs defining BIM scope, they need to develop their own BEP. In general, a four-step approach is followed by project owners when developing a BEP: identify the appropriate BIM goals and uses, design BIM execution processes and information exchange, define BIM deliverables, and identify the supporting infrastructure to successfully implement the BEP [21]. While this approach looks simple, it provides an adequate skeleton for developing a BEP.

The BEP developed by the POs will be included in the OIRs/EIRs as a part of the RFP in a BIM tender process [20]. The OIRs/EIRs in general specify high-level BIM requirements for a project, while leaving project-specific requirements such as processes, individual responsibilities, and collaboration procedures to the supplier-proposed BEP. At the tender stage, prospective BIM suppliers will exploit their BEP for the proposed approach to satisfy the OIRs/EIRs. Once the contract has been awarded, the winning supplier then submits an advanced BEP to confirm the supply chain’s capacities [34]. Since the BIM contract necessarily involves a BEP, it is beneficial for the POs to have the BEP templates that not only inform the potential BIM suppliers of the BIM expectations of the POs, but also lessen the time and effort required to fulfil the BEP requirements of each project [21].

At the end of tender stage, as the project-specific BEP is established in collaboration between the PO and the supplier, the BEP will be included in the contract document so that communication procedures and collaboration processes among the architectural, electrical, mechanical, and civil BIM suppliers can be clear, thereby manifesting understanding of individual responsibility for BIM modeling, levels of development, and deliverables. The PO should require the supplier to review and coordinate the BEP with the entire BIM project team prior to submitting to them for final approval. The BEP needs to be considered as a living document that progresses throughout the project [1,20,21].

Utilizing lists of exactly what information or deliverables are required by who at certain stages is very beneficial for both the POs and suppliers in communicating and collaborating with one another. Around the inception of most BIM projects, the POs are unlikely know enough to generate a full list of BIM modeling information and deliverables when they choose a supplier. This implies that the lists are likely to be developed over time with input from the right personnel at the right time.

4.5. The Contents of the BIM Service Wrapping-Up Guide (BWG)

The BWG was established to guide the POs regarding BIM deliverables. As the suppliers implement BIM services according to the BEP, the BIM deliverables as planned are delivered to the POs gradually. The POs should perform quality verification of the outputs at the stages specified in the BEP, offer guidelines to ensure the desired quality at each stage, and provide timely payment for the suppliers on the basis of the verification results. The POs should make sure that the BEP clearly defines the deliverables that are to be transmitted to them at each stage of a BIM service contract. The deliverables should be compensated for the payment to be processed at each stage. Requiring a deliverable is not adequate. The POs should specify the level of development, the quality desired, and the format desired. The BWG needs to include the guidelines on which the POs can understand and prepare these tasks.

There are many types of deliverables from BIM services, such as design intent models, construction models, as-built models, record models, operations and maintenance data, etc. [51]. Record models represent BIM models regarding the facility elements, surrounding conditions, and assets of a facility. The record models contain information relating to the architectural, structural, and MEP systems. The POs need to clearly understand that the deliverables to be transmitted to them must be different in accordance with the project delivery method implemented. In the case of a DB or a TP mechanism, in addition to the design intent model, a construction model, as-built model, and record model will be included. Therefore, the POs have to comprehend the differences between the deliverables, and differentiate them in conjunction with project scope and delivery methods.

As stated above, using lists of the deliverables furnishes the POs or their representatives with the means to check whether they have received the deliverables. If the BWG provides various sample tables of the deliverables at each stage of a BIM contract, the POs can more conveniently develop their own scheme with confidence. Providing the deliverables in compliance with the stages described in the BEP, a supplier should submit a written report confirming that consistency checks have been completed. The BWG needs to provide instructions on checking for consistency of BIM modeling results, including clash checking at each stage, comparison checking for the modified BIM model after clash checking, etc.

Furthermore, the BWG needs to ensure that the deliverables and their deadlines are better aligned with project milestones, e.g., schematic design, detailed design, construction documents, bid/procure, contract, notice to proceed, construction, substantial completion, commissioning, final inspection, occupancy/operations and maintenance, and warranty review [1,20,21,51]. In general, the payment for certain services in public entities is likely to be implemented at the milestone schedules.

5. Discussion

To enhance the practicality of the STEW guide, the authors presented it twice in the seminars that had been operated to share research findings from the AUDRP, funded by the MOLIT. In the seminars, the authors explained the need for a new BIM guide, the STEW guide development methodology, and the STEW guide’s development results. The participants in the seminars consisted of diverse experts including private BIM companies, contractors, subcontractors, central and local governments, and policymakers.

While there were diverse issues discussed, the following summarize the main discussions in the seminars:

• Several personnel argued about the differences between guidelines and guides. The final consensus of the argument was that while guides were likely to be instructions, state-of-the-art trends and procedures, and advice based on principles, social or human behavior and thought, experience, and history, to solve specific issues or identify approaches or directions to anything of interest, guidelines were boundaries or rules that needed to be followed in doing something. Based on the consensus, it could be said that a guide for BIM service procurement was an archive usable to develop guidelines for procuring a specific BIM project;
• The majority of the participants from public institutions criticized the fact that the STEW guide did not address how to define the minimum BIM requirements in conjunction with diverse project delivery methods, despite this being a significant issue in the very early stages of a BIM service project. They pointed out that the templates providing the formats of combining the project delivery methods with minimum BIM requirements at each project implementation stage would be very helpful and useful for the POs—especially BIM-unsophisticated POs—to define their BIM scope in a project;
• Many participants mentioned that the STEW guide would be useful as a teaching guide to educate both private personnel who were not greatly familiar with the public project procurement process and public agencies who did not understand much about the BIM service;
• Most of the participants agreed that no matter what types of guides were developed, they could not be better than standardization. As a matter of course, BIM service in the private business sector is not subject to standardization. However, in the public business sector, a certain level of standardization of BIM service contents—such as the deliverables at each project milestone and the BEP template—is desirable so as to confirm the quality of BIM products and maintain market progress.

6. Conclusions

In Korea, from 2012, the application of BIM to public construction projects worth more than USD 40 million has been mandated. Other national policy changes—i.e., ASIPA and NCS—have led BIM to be a “must” in the construction industry. In parallel with these trends, the role of POs has been significantly stressed. POs have been expected to be a central BIM player from the planning stage of the construction projects onwards.

When procuring BIM service, the POs refer to diverse domestic or international BIM guides. Many POs, however, have insisted that the existing guides involve deficiencies in meeting their needs for procuring BIM services; they have emphasized that it is necessary to develop a more PO-oriented BIM guide that considers the public business procedures, addresses the ways to meet the requirements of the policy changes, and is usable as a one-stop reference to develop appropriate guidelines for the POs’ specific BIM service contracts.

The main objectives of this study were to investigate the ideal nature of an owner-oriented BIM guide, suggest the BIM service Scoping, Tendering, Executing, and Wrapping-up (STEW) process as the structure of the guide, and identify the major contents to be included in the guide. To meet the research objectives, the authors implemented three activities: reviewing the existing body of knowledge on diverse BIM guides, identifying POs’ opinions on the guides, and developing the STEW guide. More than 20 domestic and international BIM guides were analyzed in order to identify the contents that were valuable and suitable to the research objectives.

Workshops with an FGI format were conducted twice to identify the STEW structure. Twelve workshop subjects were invited from public institutions, international BIM design firms, and public research institutions: eight from central and local public institutions, two from international BIM design firms, and two from the government-funded research institutes—KICT and KEDI. Since the two subjects from the BIM design firms had worked for the DDP project with the POs in the SMM, they were expected to comprehend what the POs were primarily concerned with in BIM applications. The two subjects from the KICT and KEDI had developed national BIM policies and guidelines with high-level POs, so they were assumed to recognize the essentials regarding the POs’ attitudes toward BIM services.

In the first workshop, the subjects defined a desirable BIM guide that could satisfy POs’ needs. This was defined as a guide whose structure follows the public procurement process in conjunction with various project delivery methods, and whose contents deliver very comprehensive step-by-step BIM instructions, so that it is usable as a one-stop reference to develop suitable guidelines for BIM service contracts. The ‘one-stop’ status indicates that the reference deals so comprehensively with BIM service procurement that the POs need not browse a variety of guides exhaustively in order to find out what they want. The authors reviewed 4 domestic and 7 international BIM guides to figure out how well they would fit the desirable BIM guide, and asked the subjects to determine whether there was a guide among the 11 that could be used as the one-stop reference; the respondents concluded that although a few of the guides were relatively more comprehensive than the others, none could be usable as the one-stop reference.

The second workshop was conducted to organize the STEW guide as the structure of the desirable BIM guide. In so doing, the subjects identified 10 activities that the POs necessarily performed in procuring BIM services while meeting the requirements of governmental policies. The 10 activities were then divided into 4 sequential stages, which included a BIM service Scoping Stage (BSS), a BIM service Tendering Stage (BTS), a BIM service Executing Stage (BES), and a BIM service Wrapping-up Stage (BWS). The workshop subjects then considered the advisory guides for each of the four stages, which could be essential to be successful in BIM service procurement. Given the names of the four stages, the four advisory guides were called the BIM service Scoping Guide (BSG), BIM service Tendering Guide (BTG), BIM service Executing Guide (BEG), and BIM service Wrapping-up Guide (BWG). Combining the names together, the STEW guide was formed, and it was presumed that it would provide the POs with the necessary insight to enhance comprehension regarding BIM service procurement procedures.

The authors introduced the STEW guide twice in the AUDRP seminars to heighten its generality. Given the critiques in the seminars, improvement needs for the STEW guide were identified and reflected in wrapping up the STEW guide. Several experts in the seminars debated the differences between guidelines and guides. While guides were said to offer instructions and advice on how to solve specific issues or identify approaches to the matter of interest, guidelines were thought to be the rules that were necessarily followed in doing something;

A number of seminar participants asserted that the STEW guide could be a good educational booklet to guide both private personnel who were not deeply familiar with public projects and public workforces who did not understand much about the BIM service. Most of the participants described that a certain level of standardization of the BIM service contents—such as the deliverables at project milestones and the BEP template—was advantageous to confirm the quality of the BIM products. Many participants found that the STEW guide was not likely to address how to define the BIM requirements in conjunction with diverse project delivery methods; they mentioned that the templates delivering the formats of combining the project delivery methods with BIM requirements at each BIM implementation stage would be very helpful for the POs to define their BIM scope in a project.