Picture a hypothetical job. An MEP subcontractor signs a subcontract with a BIM execution plan (BEP) attached as an exhibit. In week six the team finds what the plan says. Mechanical, plumbing and fire protection models are due at one level of detail from the first drop. A full federated model is due every week. The file format says only “open standard”, and the coordinate origin is “to be issued”. Nobody agreed any of it with the subcontractor, because the plan was written for the owner.
This guide is for MEP subcontractors on a US BIM job, and for the project managers who bid and sign for them. It gives the subcontractor’s version of the plan. You get what to agree before modeling starts, a fill-in template, and the red flags to look for in an owner or general contractor BEP before you sign. The BIM services hub covers modeling and coordination support if your team is short of capacity.
Quick answer. A BIM execution plan (BEP) records how a project team will produce, exchange and check model information. Most templates serve the owner. An MEP subcontractor needs a shorter, per-party version, agreed before modeling starts. It fixes which elements you author and to what level of development, when you issue them, the file format and coordinates, how clashes close, and what you hand over. Penn State, NBIMS-US V4 and ISO 19650-2 all support that structure.
We checked every source in this guide on 31 October 2026. The subcontract and project specifications control the details of any real job. Where a point is our practitioner judgement rather than a source, the text says so.
Why do most BEP templates fail the subcontractor?
They answer the owner’s question, which is “what will we receive?” The subcontractor asks something else: “what am I committing to model, by when, and what does it cost?” A template built for the first question leaves the second open until after award.
The National Institute of Building Sciences publishes the National BIM Standard-United States Version 4 (NBIMS-US V4). It treats the BEP as a document that grows through three stages. The Project BIM Execution Planning (BEP) Standard names them:
| Stage | Written by | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| RFP BEP | Owner | Minimum requirements, issued with the request for proposal |
| Proposal BEP | Each proposer | How that party will meet the scope, with responses to the RFP BEP |
| Project BEP | The selected team, with the owner | A comprehensive plan that matures “as new team members are added” |
Two sentences in that standard matter most to a subcontractor. The first is: “The proposing organization must identify any exceptions or exclusions from the initial RFP BEP.” That puts your objections in writing at proposal stage. Raising them in week six costs more. The second is: “The project BEP will not replace or supersede other contractual requirements unless specifically noted.” So the subcontract decides what binds you, unless it says the BEP controls. Ask your counsel which way your order-of-precedence clause runs.
The Penn State BIM Project Execution Planning Guide, Version 3.0, makes the same point from the contract side. It says modeling initiatives required of subcontractors “must be clearly defined within the contracts including the scope, schedule for delivery of the model, and file/data formats.” The public copy we read is marked “Under Development” by its authors, so treat it as a draft. Its planning procedure and template categories are stable enough to build on.
The point of this page is simple. A BEP is often read as one document with one author. For the subcontractor it is a set of per-party entries: your elements, your LOD, your dates, your file rules. Write those entries yourself, and bring them to the table as your Proposal BEP.
What do BEP, EIR, OIR, MIDP and TIDP mean for an MEP subcontractor?
ISO 19650-2 uses its own vocabulary, and many US owners and general contractors now borrow it. NBIMS-US V4 maps its terms to ISO 19650. It defines the Appointed Party as the entity contracted to provide information, “also known as” contractor, consultant or subcontractor. The UK BIM Framework publishes free guidance on the standard, which we used here. We read Guidance Part 2, Edition 6 and Guidance Part E, Edition 2, both dated February 2021.
| Term | Plain meaning | Who writes it | What it means for you |
|---|---|---|---|
| OIR (organizational information requirements) | What the owner’s organization needs to know from its assets and projects | Owner (appointing party) | Rarely shown to subcontractors. It feeds the project and asset requirements below it |
| EIR (exchange information requirements) | The specific information the owner needs from one appointment, with level of information need, acceptance criteria and dates | Owner, issued with the tender | This is what you are asked to deliver. Read it before pricing. Part 2 says each EIR is derived from the project information requirements (which include the OIR) and the asset information requirements |
| Pre-appointment BEP | The tender-stage proposal for how the team will manage information (ISO 19650-2 clause 5.3.2) | Prospective lead appointed party, with the task teams | Your tools, capacity and exceptions belong in it. Clause 5.3.3 has each task team assess its own capability and capacity |
| Delivery team’s BEP, often called the post-appointment BEP | The same plan, confirmed after award (clause 5.4.1) | Lead appointed party, confirmed with each appointed party | The version you are bound to. Part E says it is subject to change management “as more appointed parties join the delivery team” |
| TIDP (task information delivery plan) | How one task team will deliver each information container, and when | Each task team | Your delivery schedule. Part 2 says its purpose is to clarify what the task team will and will not deliver |
| MIDP (master information delivery plan) | All the TIDPs collated | Lead appointed party, with appointed parties | Checks your dates against every other trade. Part 2 says it should be updated when new parties join |
One point from Part E helps in practice. If an owner issues no EIR at all, the guidance advises the prospective lead to write a BEP that anticipates one, and to raise the gap with the appointing party. You can do the same at trade level. Write down what you assume you must deliver, then ask the general contractor to confirm it.
ISO 19650 is an international standard. Whether a US contract adopts it is a contract matter, so do not assume it applies because a BEP uses its words.
What sections should a subcontractor BEP contain?
Penn State’s guide sets out a five-step procedure. The steps are to define goals, select model uses, design the process with process maps, define information exchanges, and plan the infrastructure. Its Appendix G template lists sections A to O. They run from plan overview, project information and contacts through goals, roles, process design and information exchanges. Then come facility data, collaboration, quality control, technology, model structure, deliverables, delivery strategy and contract, and attachments. NBIMS-US V4 groups much the same content into 12 categories.
A subcontractor does not need all of it as a separate document. The table maps the sections that decide your work to their sources. Use it to see where each entry sits in a larger plan.
| Subcontractor BEP section | Penn State guide and template | NBIMS-US V4 category | ISO 19650-2 equivalent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contacts and roles | Key project contacts, organizational roles and staffing | BIM contacts, BIM roles and responsibilities | Delivery team’s detailed responsibility matrix |
| BIM uses you perform | Project goals and BIM uses | BIM uses | Information delivery strategy |
| Elements, LOD and author | Information exchanges | Information exchanges (Model Element Table) | Level of information need in the EIR |
| Coordination schedule and clash cadence | Collaboration procedures | Team collaboration | Information production methods and procedures |
| Quality checks | Quality control | Quality management | Information model quality requirements |
| Software and hardware | Technological infrastructure needs | Technological infrastructure needs | Schedule of software, hardware and IT |
| Naming, coordinates and files | Model structure | Model federation and standards | Federation strategy; container identification |
| Deliverables and dates | Project deliverables, model delivery schedule | Information exchanges | TIDP and MIDP |
| Contract and change | Delivery strategy and contract | Project reference information (BIM contracting procedure); BEP metadata (version log, approval status) | Appointment documents; BEP change management |
| Risks and exceptions | Not a separate section | Information management risk register | Delivery team’s risk register |
That last row is where a subcontractor adds the most value. Penn State leaves risk inside other sections. NBIMS and ISO give it its own register. Put your exceptions there.
What should be agreed on model ownership and LOD by phase?
Agree it element by element, with a named author for each. Do not agree it as one label for the whole model. The BIMForum Level of Development (LOD) Specification, Part I, Version 2025, is the usual reference, and it states two limits that the BEP has to fill. It says it “does not prescribe the necessary levels of development for specific phases.” It also “does not prescribe who the author of a particular component at a given LOD should be.” The project team decides both, so both belong in the plan. The LOD 300 vs LOD 400 guide covers the Model Element Table and procurement wording in detail.
Three points from the specification shape the entries.
- Levels are cumulative. An element at LOD 350 meets every earlier level as well.
- LOD 300 is not necessarily clash-free. The specification says LOD 300 elements “are not necessarily clash-free.” They are modeled at accurate size to support estimates of the space needed. A deliverable described as clash-free at LOD 300 asks for something the level does not define.
- LOD 350 serves coordination, and LOD 400 reaches shop-drawing level. For MEP systems, the 2025 entries add actual supports, seismic control, penetrations, and access and code clearances at LOD 350. The specification describes LOD 400 as developed “to the level of shop drawings” and notes that most models contain few if any LOD 400 elements.
The specification also borrows the Model Element Author (MEA) idea from AIA E203-2013. The MEA is “responsible for managing and coordinating the development of a specific Model Element to the LOD required for an identified Project milestone,” regardless of who provides the content. Its Model Element Table has columns for LOD, MEA and notes at each milestone. The 2022 AIA digital practice documents include LOD 350, according to the specification’s own history.
Here is an illustrative fill-in for four MEP element groups. The entries are a starting proposal, not a rule, and the LOD values are assumptions for a hypothetical building job.
| Element group (BIMForum 2025 entry) | Design development issue | Coordination issue | Fabrication release | Model Element Author |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supply air (D3060.10) | 300 | 350 | 400 only if the specification calls for shop drawings | Mechanical subcontractor |
| Facility hydronic distribution (D3050.10) | 300 | 350 | 400 only if the specification calls for shop drawings | Mechanical or pipefitting subcontractor |
| Water-based fire suppression (D4010.10) | 300 | 350 | 400 only if the specification calls for shop drawings | Fire protection subcontractor |
| Branch wiring system, including raceways and cable trays (D5030.10) | 300 | 350 | 400 only if the specification calls for shop drawings | Electrical subcontractor |
Add rows for what the table does not cover. Equipment from manufacturers, sleeves and openings, housekeeping pads and supports all need a named author. The industrial MEP coordination guide shows why: a pad modeled by nobody is a clash found on site. If a rooftop PV layout shares the federated model, the plan must say who owns it and when it is issued. The solar BIM coordination guide explains this for roof zones. The glossary entry on MEP models in solar projects gives the short version.
A model at these levels is not a submittal. Shop drawings follow a separate approval path, covered in the MEP shop drawings guide.
How should the coordination schedule and clash cadence be set?
Set it from the project schedule and the submittal dates, then write it into the plan as a table. Penn State’s guide gives the method. For every collaborative activity, identify the activity, the project phase, the frequency, the participants and the location. NBIMS-US V4 uses the same fields in its team collaboration table, with a responsible party who convenes the activity.
The UK BIM Toolkit template shows how the clash step can be split. In its example, each task team is responsible for coordinating its own design and flags issues on the shared environment. The lead party then runs the agreed tests and tolerances before the coordination meeting. Each resolution is documented and sent to the team afterwards. That split matters to a subcontractor, because it says who runs the test and who answers for the result. The toolkit text is the Pre-appointment and Delivery Team’s BEP guidance from the Centre for Digital Built Britain.
The table below is an illustrative weekly cycle. It assumes one coordination meeting a week on day M and three working days to prepare. These numbers are assumptions for a hypothetical job, not a benchmark. Replace them with dates your project can hold.
| Step | Who | Timing (illustrative) | Evidence to keep |
|---|---|---|---|
| Publish models to the shared state | Each model author | M minus 3 | Model at a named revision, with its quality check record |
| Assemble the federation and run the agreed tests | Coordinator named in the BEP | M minus 2 | Saved test, tolerances, model versions |
| Triage results and assign owners | Coordinator with trade leads | M minus 1 | Issue log with owner and priority |
| Coordination meeting | All trades | M | Decisions recorded, not only discussed |
| Resolve in the source models | Owner of each issue | Before the next publish | Revised model |
| Retest | Coordinator | Next cycle | Closed or reopened status |
In our judgement, two things stop this table from failing. First, the publish day must sit ahead of the meeting by enough time to run the tests. Second, the cadence should tighten near fabrication release and relax in quiet weeks, and the BEP should say so. The BIM clash detection workflow covers the test matrix, tolerances and accepted exceptions, so this guide does not repeat them.
Penn State also lists four quality checks to plan for before any exchange: a visual check, an interference check, a standards check and an element validation. Name who runs each one on your models.
What naming, file and exchange rules belong in the BEP?
Everything that decides whether another party can open and trust your file. Penn State’s model structure section lists a file naming structure, how models are separated, and the measurement and coordinate system. It adds the BIM and CAD standards and “the version of IFC.” NBIMS-US V4 turns these into fields. The table below pairs each rule with the reason it matters to a subcontractor.
| Rule | What to write down | Why it matters to you |
|---|---|---|
| IFC schema version and view | The schema version and the model view. State whether exchange is read-only for coordination or editable | The Library of Congress format record for IFC describes the IFC4 Reference View as supporting workflows “that do not require modification of geometry” and the Design Transfer View as extending it for editable models. IFC2x3 had the Coordination View. A file exported to the wrong view can open but fail the receiver’s needs (practitioner judgement) |
| Native format and software version | Each author’s application and version, and who may change it | NBIMS-US V4 has a “Software Update Process” field. Penn State says teams should agree a process for upgrades so a party does not make a model “no longer interoperable” |
| Shared coordinates | Reference coordinate system, project origin, horizontal and vertical datum, grid offset from true north, units, and the reference grid and survey file | NBIMS-US V4 lists these in its model federation section. Penn State asks for the coordinate system and origin point. Mismatched origins show up as models that do not line up in the federation |
| Model breakdown | How models split: by building, floor, zone or discipline | Sets file size and who owns each part. NBIMS-US V4 also has a “Maximum Model Size” field |
| File and element naming | Convention for files, models, levels and elements, with a version | NBIMS-US V4 asks for the convention type and its version. A naming rule you never saw cannot be followed |
| Information sharing platform | Which platform holds the shared state, and who manages it | NBIMS-US V4 says sharing between participants should be read-only in the shared state, citing ISO 19650 Part 1 |
| Content and reference information | Which families, objects and reference data every party uses | Penn State asks for consistent content standards. The manufacturer family checklist shows what weak vendor content costs |
| Compatibility test | One test export and import for each pair of applications, dated | NBIMS-US V4 has a software compatibility testing table. ISO 19650-2 clause 5.5.3, as the UK guidance explains it, tests the information production methods before any information is generated within a task team |
The compatibility test is the cheapest item here. A short test export, opened in the receiver’s tool, will show a version mismatch before the first real drop.
What should the BEP say about the clash process?
It should say who runs tests, which rules apply, how issues move between states, and who moves when two trades conflict. Keep the entry short and point to the project’s clash document for the detail.
- Test owner. One named coordinator runs the federation and the agreed tests.
- Rules and tolerances. Each test pair and each tolerance has a source and is agreed by all modelers.
- Issue states. Open, assigned, resolved, retested, closed, with an owner at each state.
- Who moves. The routing priority and the tie-break rule are written down. In our judgement, a common practice is that the later-released trade moves, unless a code or manufacturer rule fixes the other trade. It is not a code rule.
- Accepted exceptions. Any clash left open on purpose is logged with a reason and an approver.
- Retest evidence. A closed issue shows a dated retest against named model versions.
The test matrix, tolerances and exception rules are in the clash workflow guide linked above. Heaven Designs describes its clash detection and coordination service as federated model assembly, clash tests and issue reports. It adds meeting support, resolution updates and a sign-off package, with report-only or full-resolution engagement.
What deliverables belong in a subcontractor BEP?
List each one with a milestone, a format, a receiver, a permitted use and an approval. Penn State’s model delivery schedule gives the fields: exchange name, sender, receiver, frequency, start and due dates, file type and software. NBIMS-US V4 adds fields that protect you. “Permitted Use” names the future BIM uses that can rely on the information. “Required Approvals” and “Required by Contract” complete the row.
A working deliverable list for an MEP subcontractor might include:
- Discipline models at each agreed milestone, in native and exchange formats.
- The issue log and the coordination records for the milestone.
- The quality check record for each published model.
- Sheets or schedules extracted from the models, if the contract requires them.
- A record of which elements were modeled at which LOD at close of each milestone.
Mark each row as required by the contract or not. A deliverable the BEP asks for but the subcontract omits is an open scope question. Raise it in the Proposal BEP. The BEP is also not a substitute for code review, engineering judgement, field verification or the authority having jurisdiction approvals your trade needs.
The subcontractor BIM execution plan template
Fill in this table before the first model drop. Bring it to the kickoff or send it with your proposal. Each row names a decision. The last column shows where the decision sits in the sources, so a reviewer can trace it. Leave a cell blank only if you are asking the owner or general contractor to fill it.
| No. | Item | What to agree | Your entry | Source basis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Parties and contacts | Appointing party, lead party, your BIM lead and backup | Penn State contacts; NBIMS BIM contacts | |
| 2 | Governing documents | Which BEP version, EIR or owner requirements, and where the subcontract sits in the order of precedence | NBIMS Section 4; ISO 19650-2 5.4 | |
| 3 | BIM uses you perform | Coordination, authoring, layout, fabrication or record model, with the milestone for each | Penn State model uses; NBIMS BIM uses | |
| 4 | Elements and Model Element Author | Each element group, its author, and who models openings, pads and supports | BIMForum 2025 MEA | |
| 5 | LOD by milestone | LOD per element group at each issue date | BIMForum 2025 | |
| 6 | Issue dates | Date, receiver and format for each model drop | Penn State delivery schedule; ISO TIDP | |
| 7 | Coordination meetings | Frequency, day, attendees, location or platform | Penn State collaboration; NBIMS team collaboration | |
| 8 | Clash tests | Test pairs, tolerances, test owner, who moves | UK BIM Toolkit; BIM clash workflow | |
| 9 | Issue states and closure | States, owners, retest evidence, accepted exceptions | UK BIM Toolkit | |
| 10 | Quality checks | Visual, interference, standards and element validation: who and when | Penn State quality control | |
| 11 | Software and versions | Application and version per author; update process and freeze date | NBIMS technology; Penn State | |
| 12 | IFC version and view | Schema, view, and read-only or editable use | Penn State model structure | |
| 13 | Shared coordinates and units | Coordinate system, origin, datums, north offset, units, reference grid and survey | NBIMS model federation | |
| 14 | Naming and breakdown | File, model, level and element naming; how models split | NBIMS naming convention | |
| 15 | Platform and access | Shared platform, read-only rule, who manages it | NBIMS information sharing platform | |
| 16 | Permitted use | What each exchange may be relied on for | NBIMS permitted use | |
| 17 | Deliverables and acceptance | List, format, receiver, approval, acceptance test | Penn State deliverables | |
| 18 | Exceptions and assumptions | Everything in the RFP BEP you take exception to, and the assumptions behind your price | NBIMS Section 4 | |
| 19 | Change control | How the BEP is revised, who is notified, and how a change is priced | NBIMS BEP version log; ISO 19650-2 BEP change management |
Row 18 deserves a plain sentence in the proposal. A form of words that works: “Modeling is priced at the LOD and milestones in row 5. Issue frequency follows row 6, and exchange follows rows 11 to 13. Changes to the BEP after award are handled under row 19.” The wording is ours, not a standard clause. Adapt it with your counsel.
What are the red flags in an owner or general contractor BEP before you sign?
Most red flags are gaps, not traps. A plan with gaps is a plan nobody has tested against your trade. Each flag below ties to a source where one exists, and the rest are marked as judgement.
| Red flag | Why it matters | Basis | What to ask for |
|---|---|---|---|
| One LOD for all MEP elements at every milestone | LOD is defined per element, and the specification leaves phase and author to the project | BIMForum 2025 | A table by element and milestone with a named author |
| No author named for openings, sleeves, pads or supports | Unowned elements become late clashes and scope disputes | BIMForum 2025 MEA | A named author for each, including at the structure interface |
| ”Clash-free” or “zero clashes” as acceptance | LOD 300 elements are not necessarily clash-free | BIMForum 2025 | Acceptance by test, tolerance and logged exceptions |
| No permitted use for the models you issue | Others may rely on your model for uses you did not price. Reliance is a contract question for your counsel | NBIMS-US V4 exchange fields; Penn State on model reliability | A permitted-use line for each exchange |
| BEP amended at any time with no price adjustment | The plan is a living document and is meant to change as parties join, but change has a cost | ISO 19650 Part E; judgement on pricing | A revision log, notice and a change path |
| Software version fixed or changed with no process | A forced upgrade mid-project costs hours and can break links | NBIMS software update process; Penn State | A version freeze date and an agreed upgrade process |
| Exchange rows with no receiver, due date or format | An exchange nobody receives cannot be accepted or rejected | NBIMS exchange fields | Complete rows before you sign |
| No task delivery plan for your scope | Your dates are not checked against other trades | ISO 19650-2 TIDP and MIDP | Your dates entered in the master schedule |
| Coordinates, units or naming “to be issued” | You cannot model to a rule you have not seen | Penn State model structure; ISO 19650-2 5.5.3 | The values before your first drop, and a hold on your start until then |
| Owner asset data required but not scoped | Attribute work can exceed modeling work | Penn State facility data requirements | Which elements, which attributes, and who fills them |
If three or more rows apply, treat the plan as unfinished. Return your completed template and a short exceptions list rather than signing the exhibit as written.
How does the BEP change your cost and schedule?
Each BEP entry maps to hours or to risk. Raising LOD from 300 to 350 adds actual supports, seismic control, penetrations and clearances to the model, which is modeling time. A weekly exchange adds publish, quality check and meeting time every week. A version change adds rework. Owner data fields add attribute work. Retest rounds add coordination time. None of these shows up in a generic scope line, which is why the Proposal BEP should price them.
For a bid, do three things.
- Price each element group at its stated LOD and milestone, not at “full BIM”.
- State the issue frequency and meeting attendance you priced.
- List what the plan asks for that you did not price, and treat it as an exception under NBIMS-US V4’s proposal stage rule.
If your own team lacks the capacity for modeling or coordination, you can buy it in. The MEP BIM modeling page describes discipline models per agreed LOD, federated coordination, model QA, progress models and revision cycles. It lists “BEP alignment” as the first step, to confirm LOD, naming and the deliverable list. Heaven Designs’ service pages state that most design coordination work sits at LOD 200 to 350. They also say the team can work to your naming rules and template. Scope, schedule and turnaround are agreed at scoping. A purchased modeler works to your BEP, but the contract duties stay yours. The MEP design outsourcing guide covers how to hand work over without losing control of responsibility. The wider MEP design services hub covers design work that comes before modeling.
FAQ
Who writes the BEP, and can a subcontractor change it?
Under ISO 19650-2, the lead appointed party updates the delivery team’s BEP and confirms it with each appointed party. You are a party to that confirmation. Under NBIMS-US V4, each proposer submits a Proposal BEP that must list exceptions to the RFP BEP. In both, the subcontractor can propose changes. Whether the proposal is accepted depends on the contract.
Does ISO 19650 apply on a US project?
Only if the contract adopts it. NBIMS-US V4 maps its owner and delivery-team roles to ISO 19650-2 terms. It says its approach complies with the ISO process for individual BEP submission, and extends it to common US practice. A US BEP may therefore use ISO words without being an ISO 19650 project.
What is the difference between a BEP and an EIR?
The EIR states what the owner requires. The BEP states how the team will deliver it. The UK BIM Toolkit guidance says the BEP “should reflect/respond to” the EIR. It adds that sections with no matching requirement should be left out.
Which LOD should an MEP subcontractor agree to?
Whichever the element needs at each milestone, and no higher. BIMForum 2025 does not set a level for any phase. LOD 350 supports construction-level coordination. LOD 400 is shop-drawing level. Write the level per element group, with an author, as in the table above.
How long should a subcontractor BEP be?
Short. Part E of the UK guidance calls the BEP “a succinct resource” supplemented by other documents such as the responsibility matrix and the delivery plans. The 19-row template above is deliberately short and leaves the detail to those documents.
Agree the plan before the first model drop
Do four things this week. Fill in the template from the RFP BEP and your subcontract. Mark each blank as a question for the general contractor. List your exceptions and assumptions. Test one export and import with the receiving party before the first real issue. For modeling or coordination support to a stated BEP, start with the BIM services page. To discuss scope on your job, contact Heaven Designs. We reply within 1 business day.