BIMINAM AS BUILT INFORMATION MEETING, 14-05-2026
The meeting focused on developing a clear and industry-wide definition of “As Built Information” for use across construction, BIM, facilities management, safety compliance, and operational building management. Participants agreed that current interpretations of “as built” vary significantly across the industry, creating confusion, inconsistent handovers, and operational risks.
Main Objective
Anthony Taylor opened the session by explaining that the group’s goal is to create a definition of “as built information” that:
- removes ambiguity,
- reduces “wriggle room” in interpretation,
- and supports consistent expectations across both industry and regulators.
The wider ambition is to eventually develop:
- guidance,
- standards,
- and potentially a formal British Standard for as-built information delivery.
Key Themes Discussed
1. What “As Built” Should Represent
A central theme throughout the meeting was that as-built information must accurately reflect:
- what was actually constructed,
- what physically exists at handover,
- and what operators need for long-term maintenance and safety.
Participants repeatedly stressed that:
- design intent alone is insufficient,
- construction changes frequently occur,
- and operational teams often receive incomplete or inaccurate information.
Adley Badmos described the issue as:
“When you look at as built in the simple sense… it’s basically saying as the building was built, as it is standing.”
2. Construction vs Operational Perspective
A major discussion emerged around the difference between:
- construction-focused information,
- and operationally useful information.
Brendan Geraghty emphasized that:
- construction is only a short phase in a building’s lifecycle,
- while operation and maintenance may continue for 60–100 years.
Participants argued that as-built information must support:
- facilities management,
- asset operation,
- maintenance,
- and long-term safety management, not just project completion.
Several attendees compared building information to:
- a car manual,
- where operators should clearly understand how assets function and where critical systems are located.
3. Validation, Assurance & Accountability Debate
One of the longest discussions focused on terminology.
The group debated whether as-built information should be:
- “assured,”
- “validated,”
- “verified,”
- or “ensured.”
Key Concerns Raised
- Architects expressed concern about accepting liability for validating construction work they did not physically install.
- FM and asset-management representatives argued that operators require confidence that the information is accurate.
- Some participants warned that words like “validated” could create significant legal and insurance implications.
Dan Rossiter explained the distinction between:
- verification → checking against requirements,
- validation → proving suitability for intended use.
The meeting did not reach final agreement on terminology, but there was broad consensus that:
- accountability,
- quality,
- and reliability
must form part of the future definition.
4. Client-Defined Information Requirements
Joan McCoy and others highlighted that:
- not all projects require the same level of detail,
- and clients must define both:
- the required level of information,
- and the required level of validation.
Examples discussed:
- hospitals may require highly detailed validated asset data,
- whereas residential homes may only require essential operational and safety information.
This led to discussions around:
- “minimum statutory information,”
- versus optional or enhanced operational asset information.
5. BIM, Digital Records & Asset Management
George Stevenson and others discussed how digital BIM systems could improve long-term asset information management.
Key challenges identified:
- incomplete handovers,
- missing asset locations,
- inconsistent formats,
- and BIM models not being updated after construction changes.
Participants agreed that future systems should support:
- live digital records,
- maintainable asset data,
- precise asset locations,
- and continuous updating throughout the building lifecycle.
6. Risk, Liability & Investor Perspective
The meeting repeatedly connected as-built information with:
- risk management,
- insurance,
- asset value,
- and investment confidence.
Brendan Geraghty argued that:
- poor information reduces asset value,
- affects investor confidence,
- and limits safe operation of buildings.
Matthew Cunliffe added that:
- as-built information fundamentally exists to manage operational risk and liability throughout the asset lifecycle.
Outcome & Next Steps
The group agreed that:
- the current industry definition of “as built” is insufficient,
- a universal and operationally meaningful definition is needed,
- and future work must balance:
- technical accuracy,
- legal accountability,
- operational usability,
- and proportionality across project types.
Anthony Taylor and George Stevenson will now:
- consolidate the feedback,
- prepare a revised “strawman” definition,
- and reconvene the group for further refinement in a follow-up session.