Legal aspects of Building Information Modelling (BIM) in the Netherlands: procurement of a work with a BIM component – Part 2
|Construction Law International homepage » January 2019|
Credit: Panchenko Vladimir
Dutch Institute for Construction Law, The Hague
Part 1 of this article was published in the June 2018 edition of Construction Law International. It addressed what Building Information Modelling (BIM) is and how it works, the changes BIM instigates in the collaboration of all parties involved in the building process and the legal implications of these organisational changes.
It also briefly considered the legal framework for public procurement in the Netherlands, identifying the requirements of using BIM, and their formulation in a so-called Employer’s Information Requirement (EIR).
In Part 2, the author will address the possible use of selection criteria for the BIM component, the award criteria for BIM and in particular the use of a BIM Execution Plan (BEP), which describes how the demands of the EIR will be met.
The criteria for qualitative selection encompass the candidate’s personal situation, whereas the award criteria comprise the bid itself. The selection criteria determine whether the candidate is economically, financially and technically able to fulfil the requirements of the assignment and to show the absence of grounds for exclusion.1 Therefore a selection is made by considering both the grounds for exclusion and the suitability requirements.
If the bidder does not fulfil these requirements, it must be excluded from the tender procedure. Suitability requirements outline the standards or quality the contracting party demands from the bidder (including its technical capabilities and its economic and financial standing).
This section provides an overview of several possible criteria for selecting a supplier of the BIM component. A potentially relevant aspect worth considering in the procurement of work containing a BIM component is past performance,2 which will be analysed below.
Other selection criteria can be found in the suitability requirements. The suitability of a bidder can be demonstrated through reference works, by indicating whether the bidder meets the personnel or technical requirements and by (past) performance indicators. These aspects are discussed under ‘Suitability requirements’.
In accordance with applicable European legislation, the Public Procurement Act states several mandatory and optional grounds for exclusion.3 In 2016, as part of the implementation of Directive 2014/24/EU,4 past performance was introduced as a ground of exclusion in Article 2.87 sub 1(g) Aw.5
Past performance is an optional ground for exclusion if the so-called economic operator, the potential bidder, has shown significant or persistent deficiencies in the execution of any substantive requirements under a prior contract of similar nature with the same contracting authority. The ground for exclusion can be implemented when all requirements of the article are met.6 These requirements are met if a court determines the breach of a contract or non-performance. An earlier extrajudicial dissolution also provides grounds for exclusion.7 Furthermore, the notion of proportionality is relevant, that is, a prior minor deficiency will not justify an exclusion8 and the shortcoming must have been in the bidder’s control. According to Article 2.87 sub 2(d) Aw, only deficiencies dating a maximum of three years prior to the relevant date may be considered.
It is likely that this ground for exclusion will not be invoked frequently; similarly, the Proportionality Guide states that it should be used sparingly.9 Therefore, as this ground for exclusion is optional it can only be invoked if it is applicable to the bidder in order to comply with the principle of equality.10
Although it is not yet the case in the Netherlands, past performance regarding a BIM component of the work can also be used as a ground for exclusion during procurement. During the contracting period, contractors may demonstrate significant or persistent deficiencies in the performance of their BIM obligations; several shortcomings or forms of non-performance are possible, in particular, late or incomplete, intermediate or final deliveries of BIM data or BIM models. To comply with the demands of Article 2.87 sub 1(g) Aw, these shortcomings must include significant or persistent deficiencies in the execution of any substantive requirement that led to the early termination of the prior contract, damages or other comparable sanctions. In the case of a minor deficiency in past performance, the bidder’s exclusion could be considered disproportionate.11 To determine whether or not exclusion is appropriate, the nature, substance and severity of the deficiency in the prior performance, especially related to the BIM component of the current procurement and the prior non-performance,12 must be considered. In the event that the use of BIM increases and the necessity for correct and complete delivery of BIM models and BIM data becomes more important, contracting authorities will demand (contractually and in practice) fulfilment of the BIM component, so past performance regarding BIM will be used as grounds for exclusion and as a successful tool in selecting a suitable BIM partner.
According to Article 2.90 Aw,13 a contracting authority can demand suitability requirements from its bidders. In European procurement cases, these suitability requirements can involve the economic and financial standing of the bidder, its level of technical competence or professional aptitude.14 Article 2.90 sub 2 Aw contains a limitative enumeration of suitability requirements, so that contracting authorities can only demand suitability requirements on the three subjects listed therein. As with the entire procurement process, the suitability requirements15 are controlled by the principles of the Procurement Act.16 The requirements must be proportionate, objective and unambiguous.17 Of the three suitability requirements mentioned in Article 2.90 sub 2(b) Aw, the one addressing the level of technical competence is of particular importance to the procurement of a project with a BIM component. These requirements encompass the personnel or technical resources and the experience the bidder has access to, as specified in Article 2.92a Aw. This level of competence can be measured in several ways, for example, the required experience can be measured or demonstrated by means of reference works, as mentioned in Article 2.92a sub 2 Aw, by giving insight into the level of education or experience of the bidder’s personnel, or the availability of certification or other standards and by using performance indicators.18
Submission of reference works proves that the bidder has sufficient experience to complete the assignment. The required reference(s) must concern essential aspects or the core competence needed for the work.19 In order to comply with the principle of proportionality, the demanded competence must be essential for the project or the contracting authority. If BIM is essential for the asset management of the contracting authority, demanding reference work regarding the BIM component could be proportionate. This depends on circumstances such as the level of experience and type of BIM experience demanded by the work. Regulation 3.5G of the Proportionality Guide deems one reference work per core competence (eg, a certain type of BIM experience) to be proportionate. The estimated value of the reference must be between zero per cent and 60 per cent of the assignment, according to the Proportionality Guide.20 It is obvious that these percentages should apply to the value of the BIM component and not to the value of the entire project (again complying with the principle of proportionality).
Besides reference work, there are other means for the bidders to demonstrate their level of competence. Awarding authorities can also demand educational or professional qualifications from the bidder or its management personnel,21 samples or product certification,22 descriptions of technical equipment and systems of quality assurance or quality control.23 In general, it must be noted that these demands must relate to the subject of the procurement24 and must not create an artificial restriction of competition.25
BIM certification or educational qualifications can also play a role in the suitability requirements. They can cover technical skills or qualifications, but more likely pertain to the role and qualifications of a BIM manager or BIM coordinator.26 In this case, the emphasis will be on management experience and other similar qualifications to ensure the bidder has the capacity to coordinate the complicated BIM process and the work of those involved. Requiring experience with certain software programs or technical open standards is only permissible providing it does not favour certain brands, manufacturers or producers.27 Because the Dutch Government demands the use of open standards or the use of their own free-of-charge systems, these types of infringements of procurement law are unlikely to occur.
The use of (past) performance indicators (also called ‘performance measurement’ or ‘past performance information’) is a method that aims objectively to obtain insight into the quality of the work, the work process and the collaboration between contractor and constructor.28 The Dutch National Road and Waterways Authority (Rijkswaterstaat) is one of the awarding authorities measuring performance by using performance indicators during contracting periods and using its results in the procurement phase.29 It uses questionnaires to gain insight into how both contractor and constructor live up to their contractual obligations. A transparent, clear and standardised measuring process is applied to guarantee that a correct and similar working method is applied.30 After the assessment, the contractor is graded (eg, between one and ten) for the various competencies or subjects with specific emphasis on attitude and behaviour expressed during the evaluation period.31 The questionnaire addresses the following competencies:
• working methodology;
• expertise or skill and quality;
• quality management.32
In addition, Rijkswaterstaat assesses the documentation of the work performed, for instance, the recording of alterations in the area33 and the delivery of a case file. This part of the performance indicators is especially important for Rijkswaterstaat because it is vital for it to have access to the most asset information. It is on this aspect of the performance indicators that BIM qualities and the bidder’s experience can be monitored, because BIM data and BIM models are digital counterparts of the traditional (paper) asset documentation.
The use of performance indicators in European procurement cases is, in principle, non-compatible with the principles of procurement law because new entrants to the market are unable to deliver previously obtained performance indicator results. Even the assignment of a fictional or neutral performance grade would not be objective. However, in cases of limited tendering performance, indicators can still be used in the procurement phase, although naturally they would have to be established objectively.34
At this stage, Rijkswaterstaat or other contracting authorities do not use performance indicators regarding the BIM component and BIM qualities of a supplier or contractor. However, it is very likely that with the increasing use and importance of BIM and the increasing need for correct and complete BIM data, this will change in the near future.
After assessing the demands and requirements set out in the tender documents,35 the contracting authority must award the tender based on the most economically advantageous tender.36 The award criteria are clearly stated at the announcement of the tender37 and further specified in one of the (sub) award criteria presented in Article 2.114 sub 2 Aw. The most economically advantageous tender is assessed based on the best price−quality ratio or either price or cost-effectiveness. If a best price−quality ratio is used as sub-award criterion, Article 2.115 sub 2 Aw further specifies this criterion. The sub-award criterion expressed in this article is a more detailed implementation of Article 67 of Directive 2014/24/EU.
The rating or evaluation system is formed by the specifications and the award criteria.38 The contracting authority has a broad range of discretionary power to formulate the criteria and is only limited by the principles of procurement law.39
In this section the use of an Execution Plan as part of the procurement process, specifically the award criteria, is discussed. An Execution Plan is an excellent tool to measure in advance how a bidder will assess the BIM process. To put it simply, an Execution Plan as part of the award process is essential when selecting a compatible partner for complex BIM works and where BIM data is essential for the systems of asset management used by the procurer. At present, BIM is not (yet) an essential part of the systems or asset management’s tools used by governmental bodies. Therefore, Execution Plans are not used as part of the award phase yet. However, it is expected that with the increasing use of BIM and the growing importance of BIM as a tool for asset management, BIM will become an essential part of a project and therefore the use of BEP as part of the award phase will grow simultaneously.
This paper first analyses the situation in the United Kingdom regarding the use of a BEP and subsequently examines the Dutch model Execution Plan and its possible use in the award phase. The assessment of an Execution Plan as a part of the award criteria is discussed in the third section, before some conclusions are drawn regarding BIM and its role in the award phase.
In the UK, building with BIM level 2 is mandatory for all public works.40 As a result, the EIR is an essential part of the procurement process of a project involving a BIM component. The UK model EIR contains the BIM requirements and has a section on the purpose of the BIM model. However, it not only functions as a format for the digital demands of the tender specifications, it is also the basis for a BEP as part of the award phase in procurement.41 Ideally, an Execution Plan describes the procedures, timetables and steps necessary to meet the demands in the EIR. Although we are presented with evidence that not all parties use the models set out in the EIR model, the Execution Plan and the timetables they establish,42 the connection between EIR and the Execution Plan is more detailed than in the Netherlands.43
In the UK system, the Construction Industry Council (CIC) distinguishes between a pre-contractual and a post-contractual BEP. The pre-contractual BEP contains the major milestones for information delivery, whereas the post-contractual BEP is more detailed and consists of a Master Information and Delivery Plan (MIDP), which has several smaller Task Information Delivery Plans, which fill in the milestones and data drops.44 The MIDP is developed by and adjusted in collaboration with all the stakeholders.
Both the pre and post-contractual BEP are governed by a so-called Publicly Available Standard (PAS), which manages a large part of the BIM process and is developed in accordance with the CIC BIM protocol, called PAS 1192-2:2013.45 This standard contains specifications for information management for BIM processes46 and maps out the BIM roles and responsibilities necessary for working on BIM level 2.47 It contains definitions, scheduling information, coordination, clash detections, cooperation processes and the tasks of the BIM information manager.
In the Netherlands, a national BEP is developed by the BIM Loket.48 Its content and layout are based on the UK BEP described in the previous paragraph. However, the Dutch Execution Plan is primarily designed to be used as a tool or template to record the working agreements between the BIM partners, preferably in an early stage of the process.49 Nevertheless, it is also possible to use it as a working plan as part of the award criteria, so it is designed with this in mind. Although this application is still quite rare, it can provide insight into the methods used and the roles and responsibilities of different BIM actors, which can be convenient in the award phase.50
The Dutch model Execution Plan is divided into chapters of which Chapters 3, 4, 5 and 6 regarding the BIM process are especially useful for the award criteria. Chapter 3 refers to the purpose of a BIM (3.1), its applications (3.2) and then analyses it (3.3). In particular, clarification of the purpose and application of the BIM model can provide a better understanding of the functionalities, content and quality of the BIM model or data. Chapter 3 can be used to clarify which demands of the contracting authority have been met (ideally all of them) and which ‘wishes’ will be fulfilled. ‘Wishes’ are extra requirements set out by the contracting authority that enable the bidder to earn extra points in the bidding process. Paragraph 3.2 sets out several functions or applications that allow the contracting authority to obtain information about the (future) BIM model. In paragraph 3.3 the bidder can set out which data analysis it will carry out to achieve certain goals or to obtain information from the model about the functionalities of the actual building. For example, it is possible to analyse the design of the building to ascertain whether it complies with the programme of requirements or demands regarding the energy efficiency of the project. Chapters 4 and 5 are designed to provide information about the schedule, workflow and process schedules of the design and construction process. In line with the schedules in Chapter 4, Chapter 5 contains schedules and workflow overviews regarding the transfer of data of the BIM model.
The Dutch model Execution Plan is very basic compared to the English version; however, bidders can give a more elaborate description of their work process to refine it further.
Chapter 7 of the model Execution Plan deals with very technical modelling arrangements, such as naming of the files, building levels, the so-called zero point and so on. If a contracting authority has set any technical requirements comparable to those in Chapter 7, it will usually be handled in its EIR. Ideally, those requirements are simply copied into Chapter 7, according to the demands in the EIR. Considering these requirements in the award phase (by means of the Execution Plan) is not useful because they are necessary to complying with the demands. A bid that doesn’t meet the requirements will be put aside as invalid.
Another area that could be addressed in an Execution Plan is the use of certified processes regarding process management or quality assessment. These give an indication of the capability of the organisation or its personnel to work in a complicated BIM process and their ability to manage this process. The quality of the process can also be determined through the use of certified personnel or by demonstrating the education level and experience of the personnel.
In projects where the BIM aspect is relevant to the contracting authority, the award criterion for the most ‘economically advantageous’ tender must be used. Furthermore, in terms of sub-award criteria, the best price−quality ratio51 or cost-effectiveness concerning lifecycle costs52 are the most obvious to use. When the price−quality ratio is a sub-award criterion, further assessment of the bid is needed by using more detailed (sub) sub-criteria, stated in Article 2.115 subs 1 and 2 Aw. The most evident criteria for BIM mentioned in this article are: the quality of the bid and its technical merit;53 the functional characteristics;54 the suitability of the BIM model, its users and its organisation;55 and the quality assurance embedded in the BIM process, for example, by explaining the processes or by clarifying the personnel’s capability or experience.56
The methods of assessing the bid and more specifically the methods of assessing the Execution Plan and its contents, must be in accordance with procurement law. Moreover, the assessment methodology must obey the principles of equality and transparency. Whether there is an infringement of these principles depends on the application of the assessment methodology.57
The sub-award criteria can be represented with weighting factors by using a matrix. The assessment methodology and weighting system must be designed as objectively as possible.58 However, generally it can be said that the use of a system that entails a methodology that is not entirely objectively measurable cannot be regarded as non-compliant with the principles of equality and transparency.59 In other words, whether or not a methodology is sufficient to work both as a tool for awarding and selecting the best bid and complying with procurement law depends on the circumstances.
Conclusions regarding the Execution Plan as a part of the award phase
While selection criteria are intended for the selection of a contractor capable of doing the job at hand, the award criteria are intended to distinguish the submitted bids with regard to essential features of the project. In the construction industry, because BIM is in its developing stages, it is not (yet) an essential part of a project. At this stage, bidders and their bids are not often selected or awarded on the basis of distinguishing themselves in BIM, simply because it is not yet an essential part of the assignment.60 With the increasing use and importance of BIM this will probably change in the future. If BIM becomes essential for the asset management of, in particular, governmental bodies, the significance of BIM in the procurement phase, and especially as part of the award phase, will grow.61
In the majority of cases in the Netherlands, BIM is still primarily used as a design tool or as a tool to support the construction process. The use of BIM as a tool for maintenance and asset management is widely acknowledged, but the procurement of BIM for maintenance or asset management is still not widely developed. Public procurement of projects with a BIM component by governmental bodies in a more structured way is at an early stage. Rijkswaterstaat has a tested strategy and has developed an entire system to use BIM for its asset management. To date it has used its EIR in 27 projects so BIM was therefore part of the procurement process. Only two of these projects were delivered in 2017; the others will follow over the next few years. The Gelderland province has used BIM in its procurement strategy in one project (Traverse Dieren) and is now expanding the number of projects that include a BIM component. The Rijksvastgoedbedrijf has five to ten larger DBFM projects, which have been delivered using its EIR or BIM standard, but it does not use its own central database or a library and is on the brink of reviewing its BIM policies to make them more consistent with its asset management systems.
Overall, it can be concluded that the requirements presented in several of the EIRs used in the Netherlands are mostly technical. They focus on output and technical specifications and not on process management. This is understandable because the procurement of projects with a BIM component is done by large governmental bodies focusing on BIM as a tool for asset management and maintenance. They do not need BIM for collaboration, but need BIM data for their asset management.
Rijkswaterstaat and the Gelderland province, are the only governmental bodies that have to date developed an EIR with requirements suited for and aimed at their own systems.
The EIR is currently only used in the procurement process to establish demands for the BIM component of the project. Criteria for selection, suitability requirements or award criteria are not used in relation to BIM. Although not yet in use in the Netherlands, selection criteria are an excellent tool for choosing a bidder who is not only able to construct the building, but also able to deliver the required BIM data or model. Suitability requirements could be particularly useful for the submission of reference work regarding BIM (as long as BIM is one of the core competencies of the project). Furthermore, the use of technical criteria or certification of personnel, especially focused on the level of education or experience with the management of complex BIM processes, could be useful in the future. But most importantly, BIM as part of the performance indicators system and consequently as part of the selection criteria seems very promising. It encourages contractors to perform in accordance with the procurers’ wishes during the contracting phase and is a means for bidders to distinguish themselves during the procurement phase of a new contract. Moreover, it is a reliable tool for selection and an indicator for future performance for contracting authorities.
Although the Dutch Execution Plan model is suitable for use in the award phase and as part of the award criteria, it is also not yet used in procurements. The Netherlands does not distinguish between pre- and post-BEPs and is therefore not as detailed as the UK version. However, that does not appear to be the reason it is not yet used as part of the award criteria. At present the BEP does not seem very useful because selection and awarding take place during essential parts of a construction project. With the increasing use and growing importance of BIM this will probably change in the future. If BIM becomes essential for asset management, especially of governmental bodies, the significance of BIM in the procurement phase will grow to become a tool to distinguish the best BIM bid from the others. In this stage of its development, it might be best to use BIM requirements in the EIR. To meet the requirements of the tender (and later the project) and to remain a valid bid in the procurement process the BIM requirements must be met. As a result, awarding authorities will receive bids that comply with their demands.
It is expected that soon the use of BIM demands in public procurement will change significantly. The first challenging steps have been taken by important governmental bodies and agencies (which are large contractors in infrastructure projects) so others will undoubtedly follow.
* Evelien Bruggeman is conducting a three-year research project on the influence of new construction methods on (construction) contract law. One of the aspects of this project is research into the legal aspects of the use of BIM in the Netherlands. Her research focuses on the contractual aspects, as well as the implications for public procurement. This article is an adapted text of a lecture given at the Annual Conference of the European Society for Construction Law in November 2017 in Fribourg, Switzerland.
1 Maurice JJM Essers and Claire AM Lombert, Aanbestedingsrecht voor overheden, 2017, 229.
2 As described in Art 2.87 sub 1(g) Aw. This article implements Art 57 sub 4(g) of Directive 2014/24/EU: ‘where the economic operator has shown significant or persistent deficiencies in the performance of a substantive requirement under a prior public contract, a prior contract with a contracting entity or a prior concession contract which led to early termination of that prior contract, damages or other comparable sanctions.’
3 Art 2.86 Aw up to and including art 2.88 Aw, implementation of Art 57 of Directive 2014/24/EU.
4 Article 57(3)(g) of Directive 2014/24/EU.
5 In the Dutch Procurement Act the ground for exclusion of Art 57(4)(g) of Directive 2014/24/EU is (using the exact same words) implemented in Art 2.87 sub 1(g) Aw. Translated, Art 2.87 sub 1(g) Aw: ‘1. The contracting authority may exclude a bidder or candidate from participation in a procurement procedure if one of the following conditions is fulfilled:… g. the bidder or candidate has shown significant or persistent deficiencies in the performance of any substantive requirement under a prior contract or contracts of a similar nature with the same contracting authority which has led to early termination, compensation or similar penalties.’
6 An earlier version of the Directive used a different formulation. The proposal dated 20 December 2011, COM(2011) 896 final continued under sub d of Art 55 Aw (which used the same wording as the final Art 57(4)(g) of Directive 2014/24/EU) as follows: ‘In order to apply the ground for exclusion referred to in point (d) of the first subparagraph, contracting authorities shall provide a method for the assessment of contractual performance that is based on objective and measurable criteria and applied in a systematic, consistent and transparent way. Any performance assessment shall be communicated to the contractor in question, which shall be given the opportunity to object to the findings and to obtain judicial protection.’ The formulation of this part of the proposal describes a system comparable to the Dutch use of performance indicators. Those performance indicators in the Netherlands are (often) not used as a ground for exclusion, but as part of the suitability requirements. This subject will be discussed in ‘Suitability requirements’.
7 This can be deduced from the words used in Art 2.87 sub 1(g) Aw, which, translated, but similar to the wording in the Directive (Art 57(4)(g) of Directive 2014/24/EU) states that the past performance must have led to early termination of that prior contract, damages or other comparable sanctions. See n 1 above, p 236 states that this ground for exclusion applies ‘in any case’ to judicial termination. On this subject see Sue Arrowsmith, The Law of Public and Utilities Procurement (Sweet & Maxwell 2014), no 12-105, p 1269.
8 Past performance is a facultative ground for exclusion. A facultative ground for exclusion has to be proportionate in relation to the subject of the procurement. See Art 2.88 sub (b) Aw and reg 3.5A of the Proportionality Guide.
9 Proportionality Guide, p 38.
10 See n 1 above, p 59.
11 Art 2.88 sub b Aw and reg 3.5A of the Proportionality Guide.
12 In order to comply with the principle of proportionality the bidder and its past performance must be judged individually and specifically: CJEU, 13 December 2012, Case C-465/11 (Forposta). EU law does not oppose a proportionality test regarding the existence of a ground for exclusion, but in order to comply with EU law the use of this proportionality test as part of the grounds for exclusion must be stated beforehand in the tender documentation, CJEU, 14 December 2016, Case C-171/15 (Valys).
13 The implementation of Art 58(1) of Directive 2014/24/EU.
14 Art 2.90 sub 2 Aw. On technical ability see Sue Arrowsmith, The Law of Public and Utilities Procurement (Sweet & Maxwell 2014), p 1,205.
15 Art 2.90 sub 4 Aw.
16 In the same way: Art 2.90 sub 5 Aw and Art 58(3) of Directive 2014/24/EU.
17 See n 1 above, pp 243−245.
18 Very elaborate on the ways in which technical or professional ability can be measured; Sue Arrowsmith, The Law of Public and Utilities Procurement (Sweet & Maxwell 2014), pp 1,183−1,234.
19 Regulation 3.5F of the Proportionality Guide 2016.
20 Regulation 3.5G of the Proportionality Guide 2016.
21 Art 2.93 sub 1(g) Aw.
22 Art 2.93 sub 1(l) Aw.
23 Art 2.93 sub 1(f) Aw.
24 ECJ EG 29 April 2004, Case C-496/99 ECLi:EU:C:2004:236 (Succhi di frutta) and Art 1.10 Aw.
25 See n1 above, p 58 on Art 2.76 sub 3 Aw.
26 Art 2.93 Aw contains multiple methods with which a bidder can demonstrate its level of technical competence.
27 See n 1 above, p 225.
28 MAB Chao-Duivis, ‘Het beoordelen van aannemers op basis van past performance: een eerste verkenning’, BR 2006/216, par 1 and 2. At the moment hard data on the subject is not available: Jeroen van de Rijt, Michael Hompes and Sicco Santema, ‘The Dutch Construction industry: An Overview and Its Use of Performance Information’ (2010) 2(1) Journal for the Advancement of Performance Information Value 33.
30 Rijkswaterstaat, ‘Handreiking Prestatiemeten Rijkswaterstaat’, version 1.2, 1 January 2013.
31 See n 29 above.
32 See www.pianoo.nl and www.rijkswaterstaat.nl accessed 22 October 2018.
33 So-called ‘areaalveranderingen’ in Dutch.
34 Rijkswaterstaat only uses this method for the restricted tenders procedures but not in combination with a competitive dialogue. See n29 above.
35 Art 2.113 Aw.
36 Art 2.114 lid 1 en lid 2 Aw, which is an implementation of Art 67(1) and (2) of the Directive.
37 Art 67(1) and (2) of the Directive on Contract Award Criteria.
38 See n1 above.
39 As an example: Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant, location Breda 27 May 2014, ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2014:3579.
40 For more on the UK Government’s BIM Programme see ‘Handbook for the introduction of Building Information Modelling by the European Public Sector’, EU BIM Task Group, 2017, pp 37−38, 47−48.
41 David Mosey, Chris Howard and Darya Bahram, Enabling BIM through Procurement and Contracts, a research report by the Centre of Construction Law & Dispute Resolution, King’s College London, 2016, pp 24−25.
42 Ibid, p 20.
43 An example is given in ‘Handbook for the introduction of Building information Modelling by the European Public Sector’, EU BIM Task Group, 2017, p 65.
44 David Mosey, Chris Howard and Darya Bahram, Enabling Building Information Modelling through Procurement and Contracts, paper presented to the Society of Construction Law at a meeting in London on 1 December 2015, pp 8−9 and see n41 above, p 19.
45 Pre-contract BIM Execution Plan, note 49, s5.
46 The PAS document is developed in accordance with BS 1192:2007, an existing guideline for ‘collaborative production of architectural, engineering and construction information’ and it has great similarities with PAS 1192-3 about use and maintenance of the Asset Information Model.
47 PAS 1192-2:2013, p 1.
48 There also is a National BIM Protocol and a National BIM Execution Plan (BIM Uitvoeringsplan).
49 Both the British and the Dutch distinguish between the status of a BIM Protocol and a BIM Execution Plan. The Protocol is identified as a contractual document, whereas the Execution Plan is not and only serves as a document containing working arrangements. Such a distinction is, however, hard to follow, whereas both documents are part of the legal relationship of the BIM partners. Similar: David Mosey, Chris Howard and Darya Bahram, Enabling Building Information Modelling through Procurement and Contracts, paper presented to the Society of Construction Law meeting in London on 1 December 2015, p 12.
50 An example of a case in which an Execution Plan, the use of a BIM Protocol and the implementation of BIM in the design and building process was part of the procurement and the award criteria can be found in Court of Gelderland 20 January 2014, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2014:2898.
51 Art 2.114 sub 1(a) Aw.
52 Art 2.114 sub 1(b) Aw.
53 Art 2.115 sub 2(a) Aw.
54 Art 2.115 sub 2(b) Aw.
55 Art 2.115 sub 2(d) Aw.
56 Art 2.115 sub 2(g) Aw. Also Sue Arrowsmith, The Law of Public and Utilities Procurement (Sweet & Maxwell 2014), 749−755.
57 Dutch Supreme Court, 9 May 2014, ECLI:NL:HR:2014:1078.
58 T Chen, ‘Beoordeling van kwaliteit: wat is een zo objectief mogelijk systeem?’, Tijdschrift voor Aanbestedingsrecht, 2015 (6)/93.
59 ‘Over de beoordeling van de kwaliteit van een aanbieding en de complexiteit daarvan’: see n58 above, also: T Chen and F van Nouhuys, ‘Gunningsmethodieken, ideeën voor nieuwe aanbestedingswetgeving’, Tijdschrift voor Aanbestedingsrecht 2008, pp 319–327.
60 An exception can be found in Court of Gelderland 20 January 2014, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2014:2898.
61 An example of a case in which the delivery of an As-built BIM model suitable for maintenance and asset-management was considered as an alternative bid can be found in Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant 14 April 2016, ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2016:2285.
Evelien Bruggeman is a senior research fellow for the Dutch Institute for Construction Law (Instituut voor Bouwrecht) in The Hague. She can be contacted at email@example.com.