Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bim 3d Models topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board committee flags sealing, liability concerns as 3D models and BIM become construction deliverables
Summary
The engineering committee reviewed Federal Highway Administration guidance aiming for 3D models as contract deliverables by 2031, and raised unresolved questions about signing/sealing, ownership, and the inability to 'lock' 3D models in the same way PDFs are signed.
The Board of Architectural and Engineering Examiners' engineering committee discussed how the rise of 3D design models and building information modeling (BIM) could affect professional sealing, liability and document control.
Committee members reviewed a Federal Highway Administration roadmap that encourages state departments of transportation to adopt 3D models as construction deliverables, and noted FHWA's stated implementation goal of 2031. Committee member Jason Carter summarized published guidance but said it is intentionally high level and does not address how a registered professional will sign and seal a model.
Several participants observed that some agencies (for example, TDOT) currently require sealed PDFs as the contract document and use methods that lock or sign PDFs to show authorship. Committee members said comparable technical mechanisms for making a 3D model unalterable while preserving a professional's seal are not yet common in practice. "Is there a way to lock the 3D model? I don't think so," one committee member said.
The committee discussed contractor workflows in which a contractor receives a model and can alter it for construction or use it to drive grading machines; that practice raises questions about who retains responsibility for model changes and how to tie the sealed design to the as-built record. Members suggested agencies and the engineering association remain engaged with vendors and industry groups (for example, ACEC and TDOT) to monitor standards such as PDF sign-and-seal equivalents for model files. Several members recommended treating the issue as one to watch: track state agencies' pilots and revisit once standards or vendor solutions (for example, a non-editable 3D-PDF-like format) emerge.
Why it matters: FHWA and parts of the contracting community are moving toward model-based delivery, which can speed construction and reduce translation errors but poses legal and quality-control questions around sealing, version control and professional responsibility.
Next steps: committee to monitor FHWA/state DOT pilots, coordinate with professional associations and return to the issue when state agencies begin serious implementation.
