← All scenarios
Interim report — not yet client-ready

This report is circulated as an interim copy. It is complete enough to read, but the following are still outstanding:

  • 4 required elements have evidence that is not yet approved.

Published version 2 · Frozen at issue.

Supporting resources are curated separately and may be updated.

Download editable diagram
Roles Profiles Flows

Consulting Design Engineer

Building services design and its information deliverables for the design team

Consulting Design Engineer: clarifying incomplete information requirements on a public building

Review copyDRAFT – working copy; not for client issue.
Full Scenario Record (opens in a new tab)

The scenario

A Consulting Design Engineer in a small, single-discipline building services engineering consultancy, acting as an Appointed Party for all stages of a €14 million extension and refurbishment of a post-primary school for an Education and Training Board. The Architect is appointed as Lead Appointed Party (LAP) and Information Manager, acting on behalf of the Appointed Parties (APs) in the Design Team. The project is within the scope of the CWMF BIM mandate.

The challenge comes from the shortfall in the Level of Information Need specified in the Exchange Information Requirements (EIR) for the Design Team LAP and AP appointments. The Appointing Party's information requirements lack asset-specific detail and consistency, particularly around the core BIM requirements of the CWMF BIM mandate. EIRs issued at Design Stage are generally template-based, with contradictory and sporadic project information requirements: for example, specifying COBie as a deliverable without providing a maintainable asset list or any detail on how asset information should be structured, validated or delivered. Uniclass requirements give no direction on which coding tables or classification strategy to adopt. The EIR refers to both NBS and AIA conventions, and uses PAS 1192 terminology alongside ISO 19650 terminology. Project-specific file naming, container and code requirements are not defined from the project start, which creates confusion, duplication and delays when issuing information. The result is inconsistent asset data across the project team.

The Design Stage LAP has attempted to produce a Design Stage BIM Execution Plan (BEP), but lacks the resources and the direction from the Appointing Party to develop a comprehensive, coordinated information management strategy. Design team BIM documentation is therefore delayed, inconsistent and short on useful detail. Significant project time goes on interpreting requirements, seeking clarifications and aligning differing stakeholder expectations rather than on delivering the contractual requirements, and decisions are at risk of being challenged at Construction and Handover, when the Appointing Party's asset information requirements become clearer.

The engineer needs to engage with the client where information requirements are incomplete, ambiguous or inconsistent with ISO 19650 principles: raising clarification requests, agreeing discussion points and developing the missing requirements collaboratively, so that unnecessary delays and additional costs are avoided for both the Appointing Party and the engineer. Useful guidance includes the ACEI MEP and Structural Advice Notes and the ACEI Position Paper on the CWMF BIM Requirements.

What success looks like

Incomplete or inconsistent information requirements are clarified early with the client and the Lead Appointed Party, so asset information is produced consistently.

How you will know

  • Gaps and inconsistencies in the EIR are raised as clarification requests early in Design Stage.
  • Classification, COBie and Level of Information Need are agreed with the client and the Lead Appointed Party.
  • File naming and container requirements are agreed before information is first issued.
  • The engineer's contribution to the BEP reflects the agreed requirements.
  • Asset information is produced consistently, avoiding rework at Construction and Handover.

By 01/07/2027.

In one sentence

A Consulting Design Engineer, when appointed to the design team of a €14 million post-primary school extension and refurbishment whose information requirements are incomplete and contradictory, must clarify the Appointing Party's information requirements (EIR).

Activity flow diagram

Diagram
Scenario Infographic (opens in a new tab)

Choose Vertical to follow the flow from top to bottom on a narrow screen.

Consulting DesignEngineerLead appointedparty (architect)Appointing party(client)Formal clarificationthrough the architectA joint workshopwith the clientProceed on documentedassumptionsStart1. Review the client'sEIR for gaps andinconsistencies✕How will the gaps in the EIR beresolved?1.1. Raiseclarification requeststhrough the architect1.2. Agree the missingrequirements at ajoint workshop1.3. Proceed ondocumentedassumptions, flaggedas risksSource: CWMF – Public Sector BIM Adoption Timeline2. Clarify governanceunder the CWMF mandate3. Agree buildingservices Level ofInformation Need4. Contribute buildingservices to the BEPand TIDP5. Verify buildingservices modelcontainers6. Confirmdesign-stage assetdata acceptanceEndHand-off 1, Issue: EIR and project information standard, from Lead appointed party (architect) to Consulting Design Engineer, at stage 1Hand-off 2, Submit: Clarification requests on the EIR, from Consulting Design Engineer to Lead appointed party (architect), at stage 2Hand-off 3, Inform: Clarified requirements and Level of Information Need, from Appointing party (client) to Consulting Design Engineer, at stage 3Hand-off 4, Submit: Building services BEP input and TIDP, from Consulting Design Engineer to Lead appointed party (architect), at stage 4Hand-off 5, Submit: Building services model containers for checking, from Consulting Design Engineer to Lead appointed party (architect), at stage 5Hand-off 6, Reject: Containers that fail checks: amend and resubmit, from Lead appointed party (architect) to Consulting Design Engineer, at stage 6, returning to stage 5Hand-off 7, Accept: Design-stage asset data accepted, from Lead appointed party (architect) to Consulting Design Engineer, at stage 6

Scroll sideways to follow the flow. With the diagram focused, use the Left and Right arrow keys.

Start / EndStageDecisionConditional path
Parties
  • Consulting Design Engineer
  • Lead appointed party (architect)
  • Appointing party (client)
Hand-offs
  • Issue
  • Submit
  • Accept
  • Reject
  • Inform
  • Returns work to amend and resubmit
A badge's number is its row in the stage's hand-off table.
Activity Flow Diagram AFD.gen.rbs-dr-irl-d-4c22fwng.V1.0. A draft provided as a template to change and customise as needed.

Explore the flow by stage

6 stages · 1 decision with 3 options

Choose a stage to see what each party does in it, the hand-offs between them and any decision that follows. A decision's options are listed under it. The hand-off numbers match the numbered arrows on the diagram.

Stage 1: Review the client's EIR for gaps and inconsistencies

Consulting Design Engineer

On appointment to the €14 million school extension and refurbishment, the Consulting Design Engineer reviews the template-based Exchange Information Requirements (EIR), identifying gaps in Uniclass coding, conflicting PAS 1192 and ISO 19650 terminology, and unlisted COBie maintainable assets.

Responsible: Consulting Design Engineer

Who does what at this stage

  • Consulting Design Engineer

    The role

    Carries out stage 1

    Review the client's EIR for gaps and inconsistencies

    Then decides: How will the gaps in the EIR be resolved?

    • Receives 1: EIR and project information standard from Lead appointed party (architect) (issue)

  • Lead appointed party (architect)

    ISO 19650 party

    • Sends 1: EIR and project information standard to Consulting Design Engineer (issue)

No part in this stage: Appointing party (client).

Hand-offs at this stage

  1. 1EIR and project information standard

    From
    Lead appointed party (architect)
    To
    Consulting Design Engineer
    Hand-off
    Issue
Decision: How will the gaps in the EIR be resolved?

After stage 1: Review the client's EIR for gaps and inconsistencies. One option applies. Marks show how well each option meets a criterion. They are not scores, and they are not added up or ranked.

  1. Option 1.1

    Formal clarification through the architect

    • Option 1.1: Raise clarification requests through the architect

    Rejoins at stage 2: Clarify governance under the CWMF mandate.

    Contractual alignment
    StrongFollows traditional appointment lines by routing formal requests via the architect.
    Speed of resolution
    WeakIterative written clarification through an intermediary can cause significant delays.
    Collaborative clarity
    DependsDepends on whether the client and architect fully understand the technical BIM queries.
    Design team risk exposure
    StrongMaintains a formal contractual audit trail protecting against liability.

    Consequences

    • Formal RFIs are issued via the architect, ensuring compliance with appointment channels.
    • Resolution of terminology, Uniclass, and COBie gaps may take longer due to indirect communication.

  2. Option 1.2

    A joint workshop with the client

    • Option 1.2: Agree the missing requirements at a joint workshop

    Rejoins at stage 2: Clarify governance under the CWMF mandate.

    Contractual alignment
    DependsRequires agreement from the architect and appointing party to convene directly.
    Speed of resolution
    StrongDirect discussion enables instant resolution of terminology and asset list queries.
    Collaborative clarity
    StrongFosters direct mutual understanding of maintainable assets and EIR expectations.
    Design team risk exposure
    StrongAgreed workshop outcomes can be formally captured and confirmed in the appointment.

    Consequences

    • Client, architect, and engineer directly align on Uniclass schemas and COBie asset scopes.
    • Decisions must be formally recorded and incorporated into the revised appointment documentation.

  3. Option 1.3

    Proceed on documented assumptions

    • Option 1.3: Proceed on documented assumptions, flagged as risks

    Rejoins at stage 2: Clarify governance under the CWMF mandate.

    Contractual alignment
    WeakProceeding without client acceptance breaches formal EIR alignment principles.
    Speed of resolution
    StrongDesign work proceeds immediately without waiting for client clarification.
    Collaborative clarity
    WeakLacks direct stakeholder consensus on client expectations and asset data.
    Design team risk exposure
    WeakExposes the engineer to rework and liability if assumptions contradict client intent.

    Consequences

    • Design progression continues immediately under logged assumptions.
    • Rework or reclassification may be required if the appointing party rejects the assumed standards.

Checklist

0 of 7 ticked

Need this flow in your own tooling? Take an editable copy. It is a one way extract, so edits will not sync back to this report.

Download editable diagram

Key actions

Open an Action Statement in the Record using its link icon. Each opens in a new tab.

Overall action

Clarify the (EIR) of the and the

  1. Review the 's for internal contradictions and gaps

  2. Clarify for deliverables at each

  3. Assess the suitability of and existing asset data

  4. Coordinate building services delivery dates in the with the 's (MIDP)

  5. Define the scope of production delivery

  6. Develop methodologies of information delivery

1 headline and 16 detailed Action Statements are recorded. 6 key detailed actions are shown here, with accepted actions first. Read all Action Statements in the Full Scenario Record (opens in a new tab)

What this role works with

Information Uses recorded for this scenario. Review their suitability for the intended organisation and project.

Uses, Artefacts, and Tools8 items
  1. 1Existing asset information and shared resources
  2. 2BIM Execution Plan (BEP)
  3. 3Project's Information Production Methods and Procedures
  4. 4Exchange Information Requirements (EIR)
  5. 5Master Information Delivery Plan (MIDP)
  6. 6Information delivery acceptance criteria
  7. 7Project's Information Standard
  8. 8Cross-disciplinary coordinated model

How the scenario unfolds

6 stages · 1 decision with 3 options

Open a stage to see its activities and decisions. Guidance links open the matching section of the Record in a new tab.

Does the mandate apply?

Ireland – CWMF / Public Works. Applies

Design team (lead appointed / appointed parties) on a public works project: the CWMF milestone in force at the 22/10/2026 commencement (over €5m, effective 01/07/2026) covers this project.

Source: CWMF – Public Sector BIM Adoption Timeline. https://cwmf.gov.ie/en/resources/bim/public-sector-bim-adoption-timeline/

Build Digital materials

The material selection and source metadata recorded for this issue. Proposed uses explain how each material supports the workflow; source availability may change.

Supporting materials

MaterialProject Information Standard – File NamingBuild Digital

This project information standard provides spreadsheet templates and guidance for naming project information in accordance with the Irish National Annex to ISO 19650-2. The support includes the core file-naming workbook, a hyperlink checker, a presentation and a demonstration.

Standard · XLSX

Provide standard spreadsheet templates and rules for information container naming in line with the Irish National Annex to ISO 19650-2.

Directly resolves the scenario requirement where project-specific file naming, container, and code requirements were missing, ensuring building services containers are compliant before issue.

Clarify governance under the CWMF mandateVerify building services model containersInformation Container Verification and Schema Compliance

Included resources

MaterialInformation Management Plan – Delivery TeamBuild Digital

This delivery-team information management plan provides tenderers with a structured set of templates for responding to a project tender in line with ISO 19650. It covers the delivery team’s information-management function, delivery strategy objectives, federation approach, responsibilities, acceptance criteria, capability, mobilisation and risk planning.

Plan · XLSX

Offer structured templates for delivery-team information management planning, TIDP formulation, and acceptance criteria.

Supports the engineer in establishing an MEP task information delivery plan and formalizing acceptance criteria and delivery strategies when the client EIR is sparse.

Agree building services Level of Information NeedContribute building services to the BEP and TIDPConfirm design-stage asset data acceptanceBuilding Services Information Exchange and Level of Information Need SpecificationMEP Task Information Delivery Planning and BEP Integration

Included resources

MaterialProcess Workflows CWMF to ISO 19650-2Build Digital

This support presents the CWMF-to-ISO 19650-2 process workflows, including the Stage (i) feasibility study and preliminary report workflow. It is published as a single PDF support for information-management activities across appointing and appointed parties.

Workflow · PDF

Clarify the alignment between CWMF procurement stages and ISO 19650-2 delivery workflows.

Gives the engineer procedural authority to align the governance clarification steps under the CWMF mandate and the milestone exchanges with Irish public sector process standards.

Review the client's EIR for gaps and inconsistenciesClarify governance under the CWMF mandateclarify-through-lapjoint-workshopPublic Sector EIR Audit and Clarification Management

Included resources

MaterialImplementation of Uniclass in Irish Projects (CWMF)Build Digital

Guidance for applying Uniclass within Irish BIM mandate and project-delivery requirements.

Guide · PDF

Provide specific guidance for adopting and implementing Uniclass classification within Irish public projects under the CWMF BIM mandate.

Resolves the scenario problem where Uniclass was required by the EIR without specifying appropriate tables or application strategies for building services.

Review the client's EIR for gaps and inconsistenciesAgree building services Level of Information NeedVerify building services model containersPublic Sector EIR Audit and Clarification ManagementBuilding Services Information Exchange and Level of Information Need Specification
MaterialInformation Management / BIM Implementation GuideBuild Digital

Technical guidance for implementing exchange information requirements and BIM execution plans.

Guide · PDF

Supply technical implementation guidance for formulating exchange information requirements and responding via BIM execution plans.

Assists the engineer and LAP in structuring additions and amendments to the BEP and project information production methods.

Clarify governance under the CWMF mandateAgree building services Level of Information NeedContribute building services to the BEP and TIDPjoint-workshopPublic Sector EIR Audit and Clarification ManagementMEP Task Information Delivery Planning and BEP Integration
MaterialIndustry Foundation Classes (IFC) Concepts and Principles GuideBuild Digital

Landing page for the nine-lesson first-party guide to IFC concepts and principles.

Guide · HTML

Guide open data exchange and IFC principles across building services disciplines.

Ensures the consulting engineer can verify open standard data containers and IFC schema exports in accordance with defined project exchange criteria.

Agree building services Level of Information NeedVerify building services model containersInformation Container Verification and Schema Compliance

About this Role-based Scenario (Persona)

This report introduces a role, its situation and a practical workflow. Use it to consider how the guidance applies to your responsibilities. The Full Scenario Record provides practical stage guidance, Learning Units, supporting materials and the review record.

Read practical guidance in the Full Scenario Record (opens in a new tab)
Organisation:
Consultancy · Private sector
Appointment:
Appointed party
Project value:
OJEU (€5.5m–€15m)
Jurisdiction:
Ireland – CWMF
Prepared by:
Build Digital
RbS Code:
SP-DBBTZLV5
Issue date:
28/10/2026

Prepared by Build Digital using the Roles, Profiles, and Flows (RPF) app. RPF is developed by ChangeAgents AEC and is available as part of the BIM Excellence Initiative (BIMei).

Generated by the BIMei Scenario Builder. rpf.bimexcellence.org. Client preset.

Disclaimer: this Scenario Report is a decision support tool; it does not by itself establish a legal or contractual requirement. For more information please refer to BIMei Terms of Use.