According to Gregg's presentation, there have been about 30 claims arisen from BIM utilization to date. The claims group into about 6 categories and generally relate to delay and cost overrun claims:
- 2D -> 3D Conversion Where the contractor performs a 2D conversion and makes an assumption about design intent in the conversion process
- Versioning When firms "mix and match" versions of the same software, inconsistencies result between models of different versions.
- Default Settings When firms use the default settings of software, errors can occur.
- Model Reliance No surprise here; this issue is the most prevalent and occurs when someone over-relies on a model.
- Interoperability Three claims have come about when conflicts occur between design and fabrication models; although, those were mostly in structural steel.
- Standard of Care The most interesting claim by far comes from an arbitration that was resolved about 2 months ago, in the midwest. The design professionals only created 2D documents (per their contract requirements). After the contractor did a 2D conversion, they published clashes to the architect, who "ignored them". The architect's argument was that they weren't paid to go above the standard of care. However, the arbitrator said that the architect should have resolved the issues, once advised. It was determined that the architect did not meet standard of care and the contractor was awarded several million dollars. (By the way, I don't claim to have gotten all details correct here..just the jist of things.)