Відео

Presumably, ISO-19650 is also 'misleading' and 'incorrect' because it does not use the phrase "each lead appointed party", but repeatedly states "the lead appointed party". We'll agree to disagree.

@@bim4u-getbimbenefitswithou924 the ISO is very clear on this point, both in terms and graphically, also in the supporting documents such as the Information Management Protocol. An example would be in section 5.1 of Guidance Part 1 where the term 'each prospective Lead Appointed Party' is used and if you recall the the graphic showing the parties in Guidance Part A where they have the relationship map. You have A in the centre of the graphic representing the Appointing Party and then a number of B's each representing Lead Appointed Parties distributed around A.

@@stewartcraigie5047 The fact remains that the ISO-19650-2 repeatedly uses the phrase: “the lead appointed party”. 19650-2 isn’t misleading or incorrect because “each” is not mentioned in that document, but, instead, elsewhere. The same goes for this video. Of course, I look forward to you sharing your own BIM expertise via UA-cam video or other media. But I won’t hold my breath.

@@bim4u-getbimbenefitswithou924 I do despair when I see an individual who claims expertise but is unwilling to consider a point fairly raised and accurate.

@@stewartcraigie5047 Of course, you could have forthrightly declared ISO-19650-2 to be similarly misleading for not mentioning ‘each LAP’. Instead, when your argument fails, you simply persist in baseless assertion. Considering your purported expertise, I despair too. But persist in assertion, if you must.

Hi, I sent a link to you via LinkedIn

Good question, What's key is the existence of contractual relationships that ensure that task teams are legally accountable to the lead appointed party (for fulfilling information requirements) *and* that ensure that the lead appointed party is legally accountable to to the lead appointing party for the same. Without this contractual hierarchy, it's difficult to see how the PM or other consultants could be legally accountable for delivery of information.

@@sheppied1604 okay, thank you that make sense I think, so am I correct in understanding that as, as long as a contractual relationship/obligations are in place setting out how the various task teams will fulfill their information requirements a project manager or any another other consultant for that matter can undertake the role of the "appointed party".

​@@alisharif2628 Yes. But, to be clear, the issue of contractual obligation turns on whether the project manager or other consultant is operating as principal or agent. If, *as principal*, their contract with the Lead Appointing Party makes them legally liable to 'perform' design/construction/asset information delivery (perhaps via a management contract), then they can be the Lead Appointed Party. The liability remains even after they appoint task teams. If, *as agent*, the contract is to review/monitor the provision of these deliverables without being held legally liable for non-performance, then they cannot be the Lead Appointed Party.

Cheers!