Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Reimagining AEC is Dr Sepehr Abrishami's independent podcast on how the built environment handles information. Each episode takes one subject from digital construction, from the ISO 19650 series and the common data environment to the golden thread, soft landings and the arrival of artificial intelligence in design and surveying practice, and tells it as a single argument built on the published standards, guidance and evidence. Sepehr is a researcher and former architect who leads the Centre for AI in Construction and teaches building information modelling at master's level. The episodes are written for postgraduate students and practitioners who want the reasoning behind the rules, not a summary of them.
Information reaches a client from firms it has never signed a contract with. A former architect who moved into research, I am Dr Sepehr Abrishami, and architectural practice is organised through chains of appointments like that. This episode of Reimagining AEC is about the document that takes a client's requirements down such a chain, the information protocol, which every appointment managing or producing information through building information modelling, or BIM, needs.
Take a steelwork sub-contractor on a construction project. A client appoints a main contractor, and the main contractor appoints the steelwork firm, which leaves the firm two tiers below the client. The client signs nothing with it. Yet the client depends on that firm to produce and share information as ISO 19650, the international series of standards for managing information using BIM, sets out. Whatever the client wants from the steelwork firm has to travel through a contract the client is not party to. And if the chain breaks at any link, the guidance places the risk on the main contractor in the middle. I have not made this chain up. It is the example used in the UK guidance on information protocols, published by the UK BIM Framework in its third edition in November 2021, and I follow it throughout.
That gives the episode its question, which is what has to be written into each contract for the client's information requirements to reach that sub-contractor. Answering it should leave you able to explain what an information protocol is and why the standards demand one. It should also equip you to describe the two UK templates, apply them at any tier, and judge where a protocol can fail. I take it in five parts: why a protocol is required, the front page that gives it force, the clauses behind that page, the acts that make it binding, and the considerations that carry it across tiers and into a building in use. One caution belongs at the start. Neither the templates nor anything I say here amounts to legal advice, and the guidance says the same of itself.
The first part begins with a definition. The guidance treats an information protocol as one of the resources that support information management using BIM. Its purpose is to set out the rights and obligations of the two parties to an appointment that requires information to be managed or produced. An appointment here means the agreed instruction under which one party provides information to another, in practice a contract or a sub-contract. The appointing party produces the protocol. In ISO 19650-2, published in 2018, which covers the delivery phase, the appointing party is the client. In ISO 19650-3, published in 2020, which covers the operational phase, it is the asset owner, operator or facility manager. The first calls the document the project's information protocol and the second the asset information protocol, with the same purpose. ISO 19650-5 of 2020, on a security-minded approach to information management, never mentions a protocol. Its clause nine point two does require security provisions in all appointment documentation, so the templates carry them. The templates themselves are UK examples drafted for English law, a starting point rather than a prescription.
The two standards then fix four duties, which follow the life of a single protocol. First, the appointing party establishes it, under clause five point one point eight of ISO 19650-2 and clause five point one point thirteen of ISO 19650-3. That is project-level work, done once, alongside the information standard and the information production methods and procedures, the project's rules for how information is structured and produced. Second, the client includes the protocol in the invitation to tender, under clause five point two point four. In the operational phase it goes into a request to provide a service, under clause five point two point five of ISO 19650-3. Either way, tenderers know their obligations before appointment. Clause five point four point six, numbered the same in both standards, then puts the protocol into the appointment of the lead appointed party, the organisation the client appoints directly to lead a delivery team, here the main contractor. Clause five point four point seven puts it into the appointment of each appointed party beneath that lead, here the steelwork sub-contractor. Notice who carries the duty. For the first three it is the appointing party. For the fourth it is the lead appointed party. On our project, the main contractor, and not the client, must put the protocol into the steelwork sub-contract.
The guidance goes further than the standards. ISO 19650 refers only to the tender package for the lead appointed party. The guidance says a protocol is needed in every tender package, the steelwork package included, so that every firm invited to tender knows its obligations. The series does not specifically consider further tiers either, yet they too need a protocol where they manage or produce information within their scope. The rule underneath is simple. Every third party that is a separate legal entity, and that manages or produces information, needs a protocol in its appointment. So the first piece of the answer is a protocol at every tier, with the duty to place it in the steelwork sub-contract resting on the main contractor.
The second part opens the templates, starting with their history. Both develop the Construction Industry Council's BIM Protocol, known as the CIC BIM Protocol, second edition, of 2018, to reflect ISO 19650. The Council publishes the templates with the UK BIM Framework. The delivery template first appeared in May 2020 and the operational template in November 2021, and both reached their current editions in July 2023, edition six for delivery and edition two for operation. Both sit on the resources page of the IMI Framework, short for Information Management Initiative, which is the name that nima, formerly the UK BIM Alliance, gave the UK BIM Framework in May 2025.
Each template has a front page and thirteen clauses. The clauses run from interpretation, through duties and processes, to rights and finally liability, with the definitions last. Two of the processes matter later. One is the common data environment, or CDE, the agreed source through which information is collected, managed and shared. The other is the level of information need, meaning how much information each purpose requires. The templates also name the two parties with neutral words. The Appointor is whoever appoints, and the Appointee is whoever is appointed. Under clause one point two, any obligation on the Appointee to deliver information management according to the UK BIM Framework or the ISO 19650 series means complying with this protocol. A loose promise to follow a standard becomes a precise promise to follow one document. Clause one point six limits every obligation to the Required Standard, the level of skill and care that the appointment already applies.
Now the front page, called the Information Particulars. It identifies the parties, the Works and every document the protocol relies on, from the appointor's requirements and standards to the appointee's plans. Two of those documents recur throughout. The exchange information requirements, or EIR, state what information the appointor needs, and the BIM execution plan, or BEP, is where a delivery team sets out how it will manage information. The delivery template has seventeen entries, and one that does not apply is marked Not Applicable rather than deleted.
Set the two appointments in our chain against each other. The master information delivery plan, or MIDP, the plan for when information will be delivered across the whole delivery team, is listed in the main contract and marked Not Applicable in the steelwork sub-contract. The task information delivery plan, or TIDP, covering what one task team, the group carrying out one specific task, will deliver and when, runs the other way. The mobilisation plan, for readying the team's resources, is listed in the main contract and may be Not Applicable in the sub-contract. The guidance says it will not be relevant between a lead appointed party and an appointed party. Who fills in each entry follows where the detail comes from. Details that originate with the appointor, such as the information standard, go in at project level. Details from the appointee, such as its BEP or TIDP, go in during appointment. The guidance is plain that the legal effect of the whole protocol depends on this page being completed. The front page is where a general template becomes a particular contract, and it reads differently at each tier of our chain.
The third part turns to the clauses behind that page, beginning with who does what. The client's duties set up and protect the shared environment. Under clause three point one it keeps the particulars under review and runs the security triage from clause four of ISO 19650-5, and later clauses make it establish the common data environment and preserve its archive. Clause four point fifteen, added in edition six, makes it confirm acceptance of the information model under clause five point seven point four of ISO 19650-2. The template adds that acceptance is not confirmation of compliance with the contract. Many client duties apply save to the extent that they fall within the appointee's scope, so an appointment can pass them on. The appointee's duties concern its own capability. It tests the methods and procedures, keeps its task teams capable and resourced, and maintains its TIDPs. Under clause four point nine, the parties must carry the protocol, in substantially the same terms, into every contract and sub-contract they enter into for the Works that involves information. That is the clause that reaches our steelwork sub-contract. As lead appointed party, the main contractor also keeps the risk register and aggregates the TIDPs into the MIDP.
Rights and risk come next, and most of those clauses turn on one defined term, the Permitted Purpose. Clause thirteen defines it as any purpose related to the Works that is consistent with the level of information need, the status code, the information state and the purpose for which the material was prepared. The status code records what information may be used for, and the information state whether it is work in progress, shared, published or archived. Under clause eight, rights in material stay with the appointee, who grants the appointor a non-exclusive, royalty-free and irrevocable licence for the Permitted Purpose. The licence does not allow amendment without consent, or reuse of designs for an extension. These clauses apply only where the appointment has no intellectual property provisions of its own. Where it has some, clause eight point two varies them instead. So if the steelwork sub-contract carried no such terms, the steelwork firm would keep the rights in its material and license the main contractor to use it. Under clause five, neither party warrants that its software suits anyone else's, and neither is liable for corruption after information is issued through the common data environment, unless the issuer broke the protocol. Clause ten removes liability for use beyond the Permitted Purpose, and clause eleven gives notice and then termination rights for security breaches. I state these as the template drafts them. How they operate in a dispute is a matter for legal advice.
The operational template completes the third part, and the guidance insists that each template is used at its own phase only. The clause headings, the neutral terms, the front page and the licence, liability and security provisions all carry over. What changes is the subject of the protocol and the owner's role. The Works become the Relevant Assets, with asset information requirements, or AIR, the information needed about the assets, and a Trigger Event Schedule, which returns at the end. Clause six point two gives the Appointor, normally the asset owner or operator, its operational tasks, from maintaining its organisational information requirements, or OIR, the information it needs for its own objectives, to keeping the asset information model, or AIM. The template defines the AIM as a federated information model, assembled from the contributions of different parties, and accepted information models are incorporated into it and reconciled with its contents. Both templates link the two phases, which the guidance calls a golden thread of information management. That is a general use of the phrase, distinct from the statutory golden thread for higher-risk buildings, which has an episode of its own. Taken together, the clauses divide the work, license the information and limit the risk, in either phase.
The fourth part is the point at which any of this binds anyone, because a completed template binds nobody until it is incorporated. The guidance sets out five activities, and their rhythm matters more than any single one. The first two happen once for the project. The client obtains the current template, then populates the particulars with details that originate with it, such as the information standard, the methods and procedures and the exchange information requirements. The other three repeat for every tender and every appointment. The protocol goes into each tender package. While the appointment is being confirmed, the particulars gain the appointee's details. Finally, an incorporation clause goes into the contract, and the completed protocol is appended, for example as a schedule. On our project the client runs those last three for the main contract, and the main contractor runs them again, this time as Appointor, for the steelwork sub-contract.
The guidance suggests wording for that incorporation clause. Its terms bind both parties to the obligations in the protocol, which is appended at a named appendix, and give each the protocol's rights and limits on liability. They then amend the appointment as the protocol sets out, subject to clause one point six and its Required Standard of skill and care, and state whether the appointment or the protocol prevails in a conflict. The guidance recommends giving the protocol priority, so that it has its intended effect and stays consistent across the many appointments on one project. If an appointment is silent on conflicts, clause one point five of the template puts the protocol first. The guidance also warns that the clause affects the rest of the appointment. The scope of services or works may need to change to match the information management approach, and legal advice should be taken for each appointment.
Not every project runs on a chain of two-party contracts. Edition two of the guidance, issued in May 2021, added a section on alliancing and multi-party appointments. The template is drafted to be appointment-agnostic, so it works with standard forms and bespoke appointments, and with alliancing, partnering and other multi-party contracts. Where one appointment has more than one Appointee or Appointor, the guidance suggests a new clause one point eight, which amends the definitions in clauses thirteen point one and thirteen point four. Unless the particulars or the appointment say otherwise, the Appointee's obligations then apply to every lead appointed party and appointed party in the appointment, and the Appointor's to every party appointing them. Operation raises a different question of fit. Once parties are in the operational phase, a separate protocol conforming to ISO 19650-3 governs their relationships. The guidance asks for care over how it fits a long-term service agreement, individual purchase orders and contracts for significant maintenance work. The binding act is therefore the same everywhere, a clause that names the protocol and settles its priority, fitted to whatever form the contract takes.
The fifth and last part gathers the considerations that carry one text across tiers and phases, and brings the steelwork sub-contractor back. Recall that the Appointor is whoever appoints under a contract and the Appointee whoever is appointed. In the main contract, the client is both Appointor and Appointing Party, so the terms for both apply to it, and the main contractor is both Appointee and Lead Appointed Party. In the steelwork sub-contract, the main contractor is the Appointor and the steelwork firm the Appointee. Here the terms for the Appointing Party and the Lead Appointed Party apply to neither, even though the main contractor is the project's lead appointed party. Clause one point three of the template makes them inapplicable. The rule generalises. A client is Appointor and Appointing Party, and a consultant or contractor it appoints is Appointee and Lead Appointed Party. Between consultants and contractors, only Appointor and Appointee apply. That is how one text serves a contract, a sub-contract and a sub-sub-contract.
The trigger event clauses link the two phases. ISO 19650-1, published in 2018, defines a trigger event as a planned or unplanned event that changes an asset or its status during its life cycle, which results in information exchange, such as planned maintenance, refurbishment or rectification after a fire. Under clause three point two of the operational template, the client records the events it can foresee in the Trigger Event Schedule. Under clause three point three, when an event occurs, it decides whether to apply ISO 19650-2 to the response, weighing the scale and complexity of the asset, the response and the delivery team. Clause three point four applies when the answer is yes and another organisation will be the appointing party. The guidance's example is a block of flats after a fire. The owner asks its building management company to appoint a contractor under ISO 19650-2. The management company becomes the appointing party for that project, while the owner remains the appointing party under ISO 19650-3. The owner must agree the two parties' responsibilities, pass on its information requirements and keep the standards and methods consistent. The guidance said matching provisions were being added to the delivery template. Edition four of the delivery template, issued alongside the first operational template, added them as its own clause three point two, a different provision from the operational clause of that number.
The guidance closes with points to note, which answer the opening question from the negative side and rest on two principles. The first is that a protocol must exist, be complete and be incorporated. Without one, there is no clear obligation on either party to comply with ISO 19650-2 or ISO 19650-3, even if exchange information requirements exist. With incomplete particulars, obligations, rights and processes become unclear. Without incorporation, the protocol has no contractual effect. The second principle is that a protocol depends on what surrounds it. It is only as effective as the documents it lists, so it cannot make up for an insubstantial information standard. Some listed documents, such as the BIM execution plan, are live and will change. The parties should decide with their professional advisers how to list them, so that the latest version always applies, and consider how changes interact with time, fees and the change control mechanism. The same principle reaches the whole chain. If any appointment in it lacks a properly completed protocol, the lead appointed party risks being unable to meet its own obligations, and so being in breach of its contract. That is the consequence the opening pointed to. A gap in the steelwork sub-contract, or beneath it, leaves the main contractor answering to the client for information it had no contract to secure.
That brings me back to the opening question, how the client's information requirements reach a steelwork sub-contractor it has no contract with. The answer is an information protocol in every appointment down the chain, each with its front page completed and each made binding by its own incorporation clause. The client writes the first, the main contractor carries it on, and the requirements arrive at the steelwork firm as rights and obligations in its own sub-contract.
For whoever drafts the next appointment, the practical lessons start with the front page. The template has force only when the Information Particulars are completed for that appointment, with irrelevant entries marked Not Applicable and an agreed way of referencing live documents such as the BIM execution plan. An incorporation clause, ideally giving the protocol priority, is what makes it contractual. The neutral terms, clause one point eight and the trigger event clauses extend the same text across tiers, alliances and the operational phase, wherever an appointment carries it. And clause numbers are provisional. Revised drafts of ISO 19650-1 and ISO 19650-2 went to UK public comment between March and May 2026, and a draft of ISO 19650-3 between May and July. Under those drafts a single ISO 19650-2 covers both phases, and ISO 19650-3 becomes guidance on implementing it, as nima reported that May. Expect the templates to change, use the latest one from the IMI Framework, and take legal advice for any real appointment, as the guidance insists.
For reading, start with the guidance on information protocols, edition three, and the two current templates, all free from the IMI Framework, with ISO 19650-2 and ISO 19650-3 for the clauses. The episodes on tendering and appointments and on information management in the operational phase take the neighbouring ground further.
I am Dr Sepehr Abrishami. A protocol is easy to treat as paperwork at the back of a contract, and I hope this episode of Reimagining AEC makes that harder to do in the appointments you hold, issue or research.