The table below contains questions and answers related to the Functional Specification.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
|1.||(We are) intending to lead a bid for the project. We wondered if non-conforming bids will be accepted. We would like to propose an alternative scope and business model and wondered if this would preclude us from the competition?||All Phase 1 applications will be assessed against the full scope of the functional specification as explained in the Guidance Notes. The competition is seeking applications that employ innovative proposals to comply with the requirements of the functional specification. We advise that any alternative proposals should only accompany an application that meets the requirements of the functional specification.|
|2.||The tool is to be free-to-use and maintained for at least 5 years. Is it intended that it is to be free-to-use forever, or just for those five years?||After five years the business model will be subject to re-structuring with the contracting authority.|
|3.||If the candidate chosen to develop the tool decides after the 5 years are up that the tool will no longer be maintained, do you require that the source code be made freely available (perhaps under suitable licence for non-commercial exploitation), or do you anticipate the tool will simply be withdrawn at that point?||An on-going legacy support arrangement (including availability of the source code) will be developed and agreed based upon the commercial proposals delivered at Phase 1.|
|4.||Is there any requirement that the tool be platform independent? If not, then will a tool which is platform independent be considered to have an advantage?||The tool is to be platform independent and is to support commonly used proprietary systems.|
|5||Would an application from a consortium intending to produce an open-source solution be considered acceptable, or is this competition intended to target traditional, closed source providers as a boost to that sector?||There is a requirement for open standards, open source and open data.|
|6||Please confirm the title for the submissions.“A digital tool for building information modelling” is used frequently.However the Competition Title on the Application Form is “Building Information Modelling (BIM): UK in the lead.” We would like to get the title right.||In Section 1 of the Application Form each applicant should provide their own title for their proposed project.|
|7||In Document 10 Functional Specification on page 18 of 36 in the opening paragraph A on the last line it says:“It shall be Web based and freely available, both in UK and in international markets.”Does “freely available” mean “widely and/or readily accessible” OR does it mean “without charge”.||It means both of these, in other words widely and/or readily accessible and without charge.|
|8||If it is the second or other meaning please confirm that this means “without charge to international markets”. We ask because this clause has significance in preparing the bid.||It means without charge in the UK and without charge in international markets but note that one of the key objectives of the work is to give “users and the UK competitive advantage” as in clause E-1.7. If as part of your bid you wish to demonstrate that an alternative approach would serve that objective better then the proposal will be considered.|
|9||In Document 10 Functional Specification on page 24 of 36 in clause B2-7 it states:“Provide a set of standard data property sets (attributes and geometry) for the most common elements and products as defined in the classification system (approximately 3000 assuming Uniclass EE is your selected validation level.)”Please confirm if this is a deliverable for Phase 1 or in Phase 2 and to what extent||At Phase 1 the bidder is expected to address the concept and definition of what they plan to deliver, for example, how property data sets will be identified and provided, the chosen level of granularity of detail and how the property data sets will be established and delivered with examples. There is a need to verify and confirm the working assumption that Uniclass 2 Table EE reflects the required level of granularity of detail.At Phase 2 the selected contractor is expected to; design, build and commission, handover (internally) and close-out, and operate the complete tool with a plan for end of life.|
|10||Please clarify what a “set” and “set of sets” mean in this context.||Having addressed clause B2-6 the bidder will have decided upon the appropriate level of detail to define and test the delivered data. To do this the bidder will probably use their classification system to reference the required level of detail.This will probably produce a “set’ or list of elements and products for which “data property sets (attributes and geometry)” will be produced.Note that the terms “elements” and “products” are drawn from Uniclass 2 and are only used as an indication of a level of detail as described above. The competition is seeking to create the “empty” data property sets” and not the populated data. For examples refer to the BIM Task Group website, Resources, Product Specifiers and Suppliers, COBie type templates. Link http://www.bimtaskgroup.org/product-specifiers-and-suppliers/ For examples of the development of a data property set at each work stage refer to BIM Task Group website, Task Group Labs, Data Hierarchy – Overview, Data Hierarchy – Demand Matrix. Link http://www.bimtaskgroup.org/data-hierarchy-demand-matrix/|
|11||Please clarify why this has been included in B. Digital Plan of Work section of the Functional Specification.||Because one of the requirements of the digital Plan of Work is to define the information required (the property data set) at each project work stage and the levels of granularity of detail reflected in a classification system provide a way of referencing the level of detail to be provided.|
|12||Would you agree that such a number of “standard data property sets” will require considerable investment to produce (and maintain), and may have significant commercial value and so should not be without charge. Or are you expecting the sets to be free of charge to all parties.We ask because the interpretation of this clause has significance in preparing the bid.||The investment required to produce and maintain the bidders selected “data property sets” might be expected to depend upon the innovation brought to the process of producing them.It is a requirement of the competition that the digital Plan of Work including the “property data sets” is made available free of charge to all parties.Note that the bidder may choose to deliver other chargeable services in order to recover the investment required to deliver the digital tool for building information modelling.|
|13||Please clarify the approach to the assessment criteria.Document 001 Invitation to Tender v2 at the bottom of the second page states that:“Applications will be assessed on how well they respond to the Functional Specification within the Application form.” We note that there are over 160 items in the specification. Are they all to be assessed equally? We ask because we wish to understand the assessment criteria and how they may be applied.||Applicants should consider the full functional Specification when applying for this competition. However, it is appreciated that Phase 1 is a feasibility study – and an opportunity to strengthen your proposal before applying for Phase 2. An approach might be to be clear about the areas of your vision that need further development during Phase 1, so that your Phase 2 application can be enhanced.|
|14||Please clarify the list of assessment criteria.Document 001 Invitation to Tender v2 at the bottom of the second page and on to the third page “includes” ten criteria.Please confirm if this is the whole list of criteria or if others are to be “included”. Also please confirm if these criteria are to be applied and scored equally; or if there are priorities. Also please confirm if the ten (or more) criteria are to be applied to EACH of the FIVE sections of the Functional Specification or in some other combinations or simply overall. We ask because we would like our responses to address the criteria in appropriate places.||There is an expectation that all the requirements of the Functional Specification will be delivered by the Phase 1 and Phase 2 projects. Applicants should complete the application form in accordance with the Guidance Notes. Each question within the application form carries equal weight. Applicants need to cover these ten criteria within the answers to their questions.|
|15||Please clarify the financial expectations.Please clarify the “100% fully funded”, “market rates” and “all costs should include VAT, noting Phase 1 projects are a Maximum of £50,000 inclusive of VAT”, etc..Does this mean that applicants are discouraged or could be rejected if in addition to an agreed contracted sum (of under £50k) the applicants were to offer pro bono services, contributions in kind, donations from third parties, discounted rates, etc.? Does the “maximum” refer to the total, not-to-exceed project cost or the contribution from TSB? For Phase 1 (max £50k) and for Phase 2 (max £1m)?||Applicants may offer ‘added value’ including pro bono services etc, provided the Phase 1 costs do not exceed £50,000 including VAT. Note that on the other extreme, the rates charged may not exceed market rates.|
|16||With regards to the Digital Presentation Tool, is the requirement to build a 3D modelling tool or integrate with an existing tool? If it is the latter, are you able to recommend which 3D modelling tool(s) the DPT is required to support and can you offer any further guidelines for integration with this tool(s)?||Whilst every part of the Functional Specification is relevant, the Digital Presentation Tool is fundamentally required to “present” the Digital Plan of Work and the Classification System which the successful bidder will develop as part of Phases 1 and 2 of this project. It will also point to other documentation that has already been produced and is being used in the delivery of Level 2 BIM projects (Clause A) for example the CIC BIM Protocol and the BSI PAS 1192 Part 2 . The Digital Presentation Tool is also required to include downloadable information validation tools for checking COBie files against the project Employers Information Requirements (Clause A2-32).For the Digital Plan of Work, clauses B2-4 and B2-5 require the minimum defined level of information development (geometry and data) at each stage to enable the plain language questions of the employer and the supply chain to be answered for the digital plan of work stages 0 to 7. The geometry, which might be exemplar 3D models, 2D drawings and diagrams is to presented in a platform neutral manner not dependent upon any proprietary software product.|
|17||Please kindly clarify The functional Specification(SBRi_TSB_189_010||Whilst every part of the Functional Specification is relevant, the Digital Presentation Tool is fundamentally required to “present” the Digital Plan of Work and the Classification System which the successful bidder will develop as part of Phases 1 and 2 of this project. It will also point to other documentation that has already been produced and is being used in the delivery of Level 2 BIM projects (Clause A) for example the CIC BIM Protocol and the BSI PAS 1192 Part 2 . The Digital Presentation Tool is also required to include downloadable information validation tools for checking COBie files against the project Employers Information Requirements (Clause A2-32).For the Digital Plan of Work, clauses B2-4 and B2-5 require the minimum defined level of information development (geometry and data) at each stage to enable the plain language questions of the employer and the supply chain to be answered for the digital plan of work stages 0 to 7. The geometry, which might be exemplar 3D models, 2D drawings and diagrams is to presented in a platform neutral manner not dependent upon any proprietary software product.|
|18||Please explain Clause A2-23. A method for arbitrating and agreeing disputes for new data entities will be published.||This requires that the successful Phase 2 bidder will need to consider and publish how they will deal with competing arguments from users in support of new data entities that are suggested during the operational lifetime of the tool.|
|19||Please explain Clause B1-5. The dPoW will provide project data requirements, which can be formatted so as to form the Employer’s Information Requirements (EIR).||This requires that the tool provides the facility to adopt an appropriate level of data definition that can be used to inform the Employers Information Requirements as required by the CIC BIM Protocol Feb 2013 which is available as a free download from the CIC Bookshop. In particular it refers to the level of detail to be used in the Model Production and Delivery Table referred to in clause 6 of the BIM Protocol.|
|20||Please explain C1-11b A system that enables the elimination of waste through the reduction in:a.Processing: by eliminating inconsistent use of classification systems between the project supply team and the client’s receiving systems; b. Inventory: by the avoidance of duplicate information in competing systems; c.Loss of knowledge: due to inadequate preparation, or lack of re-use of BIM library objects or methods of working.||The Classification System should be sufficient to prevent a “thing” being recorded by different names in different systems. As an example just using the word “boiler’ in a classification system could result in an inventory list in an asset register that includes gas fired boilers, oil fired boilers, electrode boilers, bio-mass boilers, small boilers for generating hot water for drinks, small boilers for generating hot water for hand washing and so on. This creates an extended inventory. Additionally a software tool searching for an inventory of specific “things” (eg gas fired boilers for heating) must be enabled by the classification system to find those products only.|
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
|1.||I have a question regarding the meetings with the individual teams on 19th June. Will these be private meetings between the (up to four) members of each individual team, the TSB officials and the BIM Task Group, and what, if any, official records will be made?|| The meetings will be private meetings between members of each competing team, Rick Holland, Nigel Fraser, Graeme Tappenden, Rob Manning and Mark Bew. The proposed times have been issued to the competing teams. We are suggesting that you limit your team numbers to four.
Should you wish to accept the offer, this is an opportunity to present your developing proposals to the client team in order to obtain opinion and clarification prior to completing your feasibility study and preparing your End Report.
It is not intended to prepare a formal record for publication. Individuals will no doubt take private notes. The content of the discussions and private notes will be treated in confidence.
|2.||Re. E1.9 & E2.5. What counts as clear documented governance and acceptable governance proposals?||The winning contractor must put in place an appropriate governance structure to ensure successful commercialism. The governance structure is a consideration for the Stage 1 feasibility study. Stage 2 bidders are expected to propose their preferred solution.|
|3.||Will there be a hand-back at the end of the five years?||It is our hope that the contractor operates a profitable and sustainable commercialisation model. We want a contractor with a long-term commercial interest in maintaining the tool, which might continue for many years more than five. We do not intend to ‘take back’ the tool. That said, we reserve the right to re-structure the business model for the open source tool after five years.|
|4.||Can some of the Phase 2 contract fund be transferred to support the subsequent operational phase.||No, the Phase 2 contract will run for six months and only costs incurred within that period will be claimable.|
|5||Can we use alternative methods of providing you the content of the Phase 1 End Report?||The Phase 1 End Report is a mandatory minimum requirement and we welcome suggestions for additional methods of conveying the feasibility study findings.|
|6||Do our hard copies of the Phase 1 End Report have to arrive in BIS on 11 July?||Postal on 11 July is fine. The number of hard copies required is amended down to two.|
|7||It is noted in the brief that a six-month phase-2 project was desirable by the client. However, if when submitting our phase-2 application we determined that a different timescale (for example 9-12 months) with staged deliverables throughout this period was required to deliver against the brief, can you please confirm that the available funding could be spread over this period?||The contracted part of the phase two project is up to 6 months, so the money has to be spent during that time frame and cannot be staged over a different timescales. Bidders can request a maximum of six months for the phase two project contract. Any bid that requests longer than six months will be considered to be ‘out of scope’|
Question from BIM Task Group
What are the TSB SBRI rules with regard to successful Phase 1 applicants making a Phase 2 application?
Each Phase 1 participant may now submit a Phase 2 application (max of one each). Phase 2 applicants may also feature as sub-contractors in other applications.
A successful Phase 1 applicant not wishing to submit an application for Phase 2 may feature as a sub-contractor in other Phase 2 applications.
|1||Our concerns relate specifically to clause A1-7 of the original Functional Specification for the project. For reference this states:
A1-7 The DTP will be configured to use the by default classifications system procured as part of this competition whilst also being able to accommodate compliant user specific classifications systems through a documented process.
We note that in certain instances the draft version of the tool, as currently promoted by the NBS, only utilises their own classification system and not the default classification system. This would appear to be contradictory to the requirements of A1-7 as well as numerous other clauses within the Functional Specification.
Whilst we realise the current information released is only draft, we would be grateful if it could be confirmed that the Uniclass II classification system (as proposed by NBS) will be used as the default system throughout the tool.
|The new Uniclass (or whatever name is chosen) will be the default classification.|
|2||On a more general point, in current presentations there has been no mention of the requirement for an API. While perhaps understandable at this stage we however note that there was no detailed brief for this, for example should it be a REST or SOAP based API or what are the required functionality. It would be useful to others within the industry if details of this could be made available before the finalisation of the tool. It is perfectly easy to provide an API that is of no practical use to others and it would be good to protect against this.||It is intended to provide import and export functionality, a RESTful API and also HTML code snippets for those wanting to access the information programmatically.
There is an unwritten expectation that in taking the prototype to market, RIBA Enterprises will engage with software vendors to explain the developing tools and enable uptake. RIBA Enterprises are presenting for a second time to the BIM Technology Alliance (chaired by Bill Healy) in April 2015 and have made an offer of a web-ex in March 2015. (please liaise with the BIM Technology Alliance or RIBA Enterprises?).
|3||In relation to the API we note that A2-36 states that this shall be made available and free to use in perpetuity. This would appear in conflict with the requirement only to provide the tool free of charge for a five year period. (We are surprised that this was not raised in the tender questions). Could you please confirm that clause A2-36 stands and how this is protected as we are unclear how this can be guaranteed unless the whole system (software, database and data) is placed in the public domain (made open source). Obviously from our point of view if we are to spend any time and effort in trying to integrate with the tool this is essential.||We refer to questions and answers recorded during the bidding phase;|
|4||The tool is to be free-to-use and maintained for at least 5 years. Is it intended that it is to be free-to-use forever, or just for those five years?||After five years the business model will be subject to re-structuring with the contracting authority.|
|5||If the candidate chosen to develop the tool decides after the 5 years are up that the tool will no longer be maintained, do you require that the source code be made freely available (perhaps under suitable licence for non-commercial exploitation), or do you anticipate the tool will simply be withdrawn at that point?||An on-going legacy support arrangement (including availability of the source code) will be developed and agreed based upon the commercial proposals delivered at Phase 1.
Note: The on-going legacy support referred to is an arrangement to be established between RIBA Enterprises and the contracting authority (Innovate UK).
|6||Lastly, we note that the tool is branded as an NBS product and that the tool is designed to give the impression that you must use their NBS Create software with it (as demonstrated by only including their NBS create classification system and not the default system). In the Functional Specification statements include the requirement that the tool:
…will be practical to use for small projects to large programmes.
…[provides] a system that is taken up across the supply chain giving users and the UK competitive advantage.
As the NBS Create software has limited uptake; all NBS packages are only used by about 30-40% of architectural practices (and only 10% of small practices) and NBS products are UK centric we are unsure that the heavy branding and attempt to tie uses into NBS products will help achieve the desired outcomes. We are aware that within the context of this project this is probably a mute point, it may however be an area that future projects can address more successfully.
|There isn’t a direct question but questions can be inferred in the text from the questioner and the answers below are provided accordingly.
The primary classification will be the new Uniclass (or whatever name is chosen).
The dPoW tool helps to create the information required at each work stage by “an Employer” for example an end-user client, a principal contractor, a specialist contractor etc – it helps to identify who is to deliver what and when. The downstream project team member/s may then use any products/libraries they wish to provide the information. This is a fundamental principle.
Users will be free to use any specification system (or CAD system) to provide the information (including geometry) required by the dPoW tool.
|7||Why is it called the ‘NBS’ BIM Toolkit?
I get that NBS led the development, but they have by no means developed this by themselves.
My understanding of the funding competition was that the Government was stumping up the cash for someone to build an open tool for the industry — so why not just the ‘BIM Toolkit’ ?
Calling it the ‘BIM Toolkit’ and at a push, having a little ‘by NBS’ would be much more appropriate.
As it currently stands, we’re all chipping in for the RIBA Enterprise/NBS marketing machine.
|The funding competition was to enable businesses to bid for a contract to research and develop to prototype stage a tool in line with the requirements of the Functional Specification. These requirements included that the tool should be free-to-use for the industry, and that it should be operated and maintained by way of a commercial model that does not require further funding from the state.
BIM Toolkit was a name adopted by RIBA Enterprises, but this has not been finally agreed upon. RIBA Enterprises is currently undertaking an industry consultation exercise, which includes what to call the product on its full release.
|8||Why not use the www.bimtoolkit.com domain?
A direct follow up to question 1. RIBA Enterprises own the www.bimtoolkit.com domain (I’ve checked) and have done so since June last year, so why not use it?
Only reason I can see not to is that NBS get more brand recognition for hosting on their domain.
Perhaps they plan to move over eventually, but the main launch which is the biggest press opportunity, has been carried out under the NBS banner.
Again, I don’t think it’s right that the funding is used in this way.
|RIBA Enterprises own this domain and they are using it.
As the tool’s name could change this domain could become obsolete
|9||Why have we got non-essential features, which weren’t part of the brief, when some of the mandatory functionality & features are incomplete? And how is this reflected in the funding?
I contacted NBS a couple of times about the release of the API (which will allow other software developers to use the new classification system and object definitions and perhaps other data in their own applications) and was told that it was not a priority for the launch.
Yet, the API was a part of the initial specification. It is a mandatory requirement of this process.
I understand that this is just the first release in what will hopefully be an iterative process, and that compromises have to be made.
But given that there are still large gaps in the content available and some of the core functionality detailed in the brief is incomplete, it should be questioned how unspecified features, such as the ‘Generate Spec’ button, which creates a file that conveniently requires the user to use NBS Create, have been deemed a priority?
|RIBA Enterprises won a research contract, which is different to a conventional software development contract. The nature of research is that new challenges and opportunities will be identified through the process. It is therefore appropriate for additional features to be included where these are important to the sustainable operation of the tool.
The API and associated documentation will be part of the full launch. RIBA Enterprises’ industry consultation exercise includes the functionality of the API.
It is not mandatory to use the Generate Spec feature. The inclusion of this helps to ensure the tool remains free-to-use.
|10||Why are there ads and links to other RIBA Enterprise services and resources in the toolkit?
A continuation of the theme in Q3 really. This is the first release of the product — the public beta.
Yet someone has deemed it necessary and appropriate to dedicate resources to littering the tool with ads for products on RIBA Product Selector, National BIM Library and NBS Plus.
I read this as NBS having more interest in how the toolkit works for them than the end user and the wider industry.
Ads kill the user experience and the design has become cluttered already (more on this coming).
I get that the toolkit has to be sustainable beyond the funding period, but there are other, less intrusive ways to monetise.
This approach is lazy and brings up the next, very serious, question about the use of funding and fair competition.
|Advertising helps ensure the tool remains free-to-use.
Any suggestions you wish to make as to how this could be less obtrusive can be fed to RIBA Enterprises through the beta product feedback process.
|11||Will other content platforms be included?
Assuming that the inclusion of ads to product information on other platforms persists — will this be open to everyone? Platform agnostic?
The situation as it currently stands is this: RIBA Enterprises are going to say to product manufacturers that the ONLY way to get into the BIM Toolkit is to use their services (NBS Plus, National BIM Library, RIBA Product Selector).
So if a manufacturer has created their own content, or used Bimstore or BIMobject or whoever, they could be perceived to be at a disadvantage to those who have used the National BIM Library.
|Advertisement enquiries within the tool should be put to RIBA Enterprises.
Templates for the creation of LOD and LOI content are provided as part of the toolset. They are based on documented open standards and are freely available to anyone. This is a demand-side toolset to define employer requirements.
Content information about spaces, systems, products etc may be sourced from anywhere including manufacturers, designers and all product library providers. If a manufacturer choses to create content elsewhere, which he/she is completely entitled to, it would be up to them to ensure such systems were compliant or to provide conversion routines.
NBS provides authoring services and it is up to suppliers to make such tool selections based on individual preference and need.
|12||When will we get proper documentation for the API?
Picking up on the API feature again. So far there is very little information about the API (I’ve found a single article with a brief overview) and no documentation, as would be expected.
The article mentions being able to access the following:
For example, the new classification system is apparently a big step forward because it can be searched smartly using synonyms attached to each classification.
Are these included in the API?
|The API and associated documentation will be part of the full launch and fulfil the requirements of the Functional Specification. RIBA Enterprises are currently consulting with users and the Technology Alliance as to how API features are presented to best encourage adoption. This is a key feature of the specification as it will encourage further reuse of data and value realisation.
The API that will go live in the next few weeks will give web service access to the classification codes and associated LOI details.
API access to project-specific data is still under consideration. This is currently available via export functionality and RIBA Enterprises is working on improving this and providing more options. Access to this data via web service is to be discussed with the wider-industry, the authors of the upcoming security standard and other software vendors before establishing the best way forward.
|13||Why has the design changed so radically from the private beta?
I was pleasantly surprised with how good the design was during the private beta. It was clean, very simple and very functional — but with the release of the public beta it has gone backwards.
And I don’t mean how pretty it looks — that’s subjective.
Purely from a user experience point of view, the new design has become cluttered and much less intuitive. The big background images look nice, but take away from the clarity of the process.
Transitioning from being ‘in a project’ and not is a bit clunky and the dashboards have become very cluttered with buttons and panels and menus.
And then there are the ads!!
I can’t imagine anyone who was using the private beta was feeding back that the design / layout / navigation etc. was a big issue.
Seems like design for designs sake.
|RIBA Enterprises invites suggestions on how to improve the user experience. These should be submitted via the ‘comments’ icon on the beta version.|
|14||Where has the £1m been spent and/or where will it be spent? Is there really £1m, or the potential for £1m, worth of development in this tool?
From a technical point of view, there’s nothing that challenging going on. It is at it’s core a project management tool (of which there are many) tailored specifically for a BIM workflow.
It seems that the toolkit is built using various free, open source frameworks where possible, for example:
Perhaps it is the creation of content and the classification system that is costly?
Although again, the toolkit seems to reuse existing content from other platforms, such as NBS Plus and apparently the new classification system is mainly the work of one person.
|The project was won through open competition in which RIBA Enterprises’ bid scored the highest on a combined commercial and technical basis. The research contract enabled RIBA Enterprises to leverage significant additional funding from their partners. The total sum of costs incurred by the project team has been well in excess of £1m.
As is suggested in the question, the creation of content and the classification system has been costly. The most significant areas where costs were incurred are: the digital plan of work system; LOD and LOI content for over 5,700 objects; and the creation of Uniclass 2015.
If you have specific questions on these then we would be happy to consider them, although we recommend you first wait until you have had the opportunity to see the complete product with all of its content.
All LOD content has been researched and authored through the funding period. The LOI content for performance and detailed specification for buildings and landscape has been sourced from the maintained NBS Create base content. The wider infrastructure content has been researched and authored throughout the funding period.
Many NBS technical authors, project partners and the wider industry have contributed to the classification work which has been a significant exercise and advancement for the industry.
|1||What are the plans to make it clear to industry that the BIM Toolkit is not mandatory to achieve BIM Level 2?
There is a clear assumption to be made that, given the Government has mandated BIM Level 2 and have now funded a tool to help achieve this, the BIM Toolkit, by association, is also mandated.
|The questioner is correct that Government has mandated Level 2 BIM and there is a requirement in Level 2 BIM to have a clear definition of information required at each work-stage.
RIBA Enterprises’ tool supports this requirement. It is not mandatory to use the tool and Government does not prevent others from developing or using alternative tools.
|2||Who are the experts on the Innovate UK panel who helped decide who won this competition and are responding to questions? And was there anyone with any actual digital business expertise?||All assessors were selected for their expertise in BIM, the requirements of the Functional Specification, and digital innovation in construction and other industries in the UK and internationally.
Innovate UK does not divulge the names of competition assessors, who remain confidential across all competitions we run. This mitigates the risk that bidders could approach our assessors to seek unfair advantage.
The same assessors may be active on other competitions now and in the future, so their anonymity should remain intact.
The questions submitted to the TSBbim email address are received and answered collectively by senior members of the BIM Task Group and Innovate UK.
|3||There are quite a few mentions of the ‘full release’ in previous answers – when will this be?||RIBA Enterprises’ research contract with Innovate UK has completed.
RIBA Enterprises will announce their plan for the full launch.
|4||Is it correct that beyond the funding period, Innovate UK is no longer involved and the Toolkit belongs solely to RIBA Enterprises and they can, in theory, do as they wish with it, with no recourse from Innovate UK?||The tool has always belonged to RIBA Enterprises and they retain the intellectual property rights.
Beyond the funding period, we have the same route to recourse as we do on all SBRI research contracts. Principally, if the tool is not commercially exploited, we are entitled to request the Intellectual Property Rights to be assigned to Innovate UK.