Management Model Using Standardized Contracts and BIM Tools for the Optimization of PPP Projects in Peru

Abstract

Public–private partnerships (PPPs) are contractual schemes that have relative success in Latin America due to their configuration, where the spirit of the contract lies in an appropriate distribution of risks. This is both the most important and fundamental aspect of this contractual scheme but also the most complex, as it is the main cause of contract modifications (addenda) in countries across the region. In this context, different concessionary contractual frameworks for PPPs on the national road network of Peru were evaluated, revealing common failure indicators that lead to contract modifications within the first six years of the concession. This study offers the development of a management model that includes the good practices of contractual management of NEC4 Option F and the application of BIM information management processes, optimizing the management of infrastructure through emerging technologies of information management supported by agile contractual schemes.

1. Introduction

Public–private partnerships (PPPs) in Latin America and the Caribbean have consistently evolved over the past 10 years as this mode of execution has become more common in countries across the region. This evolution has led these countries to develop regulations, institutions, and conditions that enable them to create successful partnerships between the public and private sectors [1].

However, the infrastructure deficit in Peru is a chronic concern. Peru has one of the weakest infrastructures in Latin America [2], particularly when compared to regional peers and countries in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Consequently, Peru ranks 85th out of 137 countries in the infrastructure quality indicator of the Global Competitiveness Index [3]. This infrastructure deficit translates into a series of disadvantages that negatively impact the country’s competitiveness. These disadvantages include low efficiency in public services, high transportation costs, high energy costs, limited telecommunications service offerings, low levels of information access, limited accessibility to education, poor quality of life, and low security [3]. In response, the government has taken measures to address the infrastructure deficit, such as the enactment of the National Competitiveness and Productivity Policy in December 2018, aimed at implementing high-impact reforms [4]. This policy includes the creation of a National Infrastructure Plan to assess the quality, deficit, and existing infrastructure gap, as well as the establishment of the Multiyear Investment Programming Directorate within the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF) as part of its public investment strategy. In 2023, the MEF also published the National BIM Guide, aiming to standardize concepts related to the application of BIM information management processes in investment development [5].

Despite these efforts, infrastructure management in Peru has been one of the main challenges for the country’s economy. In recent years, 90% of the projects analyzed by the Comptroller General of the Republic were paralyzed, and these projects typically followed a contractual scheme of direct administration or contracting [6]. In response to this situation, the government is seeking to implement an institutional reform [4] that will allow the use of international standard contracts under the State Procurement Law. Additionally, the National Infrastructure Plan proposes large-scale projects under the PPP scheme, given the high risks associated with the previously mentioned schemes.

The analysis conducted in this study leads to the development of several sections that describe and justify the proposed management model. After examining the current situation and historical background, Section 2 of this document provides a comprehensive literature review aimed at identifying the synergy between international standard contracts and emerging construction management technologies and how these could enhance existing frameworks, particularly PPP contracts. In Section 3, a management model is proposed to optimize the contractual management of infrastructure, suggesting organizational parameters that can streamline the management process among the involved parties. This includes the use of NEC4 contracts and the guidelines of ISO 19650 [7] for BIM implementation. Finally, Section 4 presents the validation of the proposed management model by experts through the Delphi methodology [8], where specialists analyze and offer improvement proposals for the management model outlined in this research.

2. Literature Review

2.1. The Importance of Standardized Contracts

In a collaborative approach, contract management is extremely important. This means the proper administration of the rights and obligations assumed by the parties while keeping the overall project objectives in focus [9]. It is also important to remember that construction contracts involve a high degree of uncertainty; these are not just commercial agreements but rather the execution of a new element that does not yet exist at the time the parties sign the contract. Although a scope may be defined in this agreement, its realization is a new process that must be managed considering the inherent uncertainty and complexity [10].

Contracts play a crucial role in any construction project, as they essentially regulate processes and ensure that all parties understand what is expected of them, providing a clear legal framework for interaction. It is now recognized that collaborative processes should ideally be embedded in a binding contract for the parties involved [11].

There are several reasons why non-British countries have not adopted New Engineering Contracts (NECs) in the construction sector. These reasons may include cultural disparities, legal and regulatory frameworks, lack of awareness and familiarity, and resistance to change. Cultural disparities arise because different countries have their own established contractual frameworks. Adopting NECs requires a significant shift in mindset, which may not align with existing practices [12].

To ensure the success of standardized contracts, the study recommends that collaboration members establish detailed guidelines for all contracting agreements. Additionally, it is advised that the members harmonize or establish a common contractual document that includes standard terms and conditions [13].

In Peru, there are three crucial precedents that apply the tools proposed by the NEC. Understanding the different scenarios created by the inconsistent execution of these infrastructure projects is necessary [14]. On one hand, there is the successful execution of the Special Project for the 2019 Pan American Games (PEJP), which was recognized for its efficient optimization of time, cost, and objective achievement, thanks to the use of NEC3 tools [15]. On the other hand, there is the delayed and questioned execution of the Reconstruction with Changes Program portfolio, whose consulting services were conducted under NEC3 terms. Finally, there is the relatively new execution of the Special Public Investment Project “Bicentennial Schools”, involving seventy-five (75) projects awarded under NEC4 standards, from which optimistic results are still anticipated [15].

Conventional contracts have led to limited offers for employees and companies, featuring a model that is less innovative and carries high risk, resulting in variations in technical, financial, and administrative aspects [16]. In contrast, standardized schemes have enabled digitalization by incorporating enhanced technologies that bring transparency to the contracting process [16]. Supported by these changes, there has been an increase in productivity, efficiency, and benefits. This, in turn, has motivated both large and small companies to take advantage of this opportunity to reduce risks and improve outcomes.

Among the standardized contractual models reviewed, the one that includes the elements developed in this article is the ECC of the NEC. While this contractual model imposes a severe penalty (such as the possible loss of a right) for failing to comply with the early warning obligation, it does so within the framework of other clauses that establish a collaborative environment, with duties and incentives for both parties. This makes it reasonable for the contractor who failed to follow the early warning procedure to lose certain rights, such as the right to claim costs that could have been avoided if the procedure had been properly followed [17].

Table 1 summarizes the relevant literature consulted, highlighting the global use of information management tools, best practices and experiences with standardized contracts, and the recurrent use of methodologies by the authors.

Table 1. Relevant bibliography consulted.

Author	Year	Method	Relevance
Kaleem et al. [18]	2019	Literature review	This study examines the current status of BIM adoption, its benefits, and the most common obstacles in the construction sector.
Jack C.P. et al. [19]	2015	Literature review	Reviews and analyzes efforts made by the public sector to adopt BIM in various countries worldwide, covering 14 countries/regions grouped into four regions.
Regjo [10]	2020	Literature review	Discusses adopting collaborative schemes as a special contracting modality, or enriching other contracting modalities with a collaborative approach, referencing FIDIC 2017, NEC4, and FAC 1 contracts.
Robert Devlin and Graciela Moguillansky [20]	2009	Literature review	Investigates how successful non-regional countries have significantly boosted their growth and closed the income gap with wealthier nations, identifying key characteristics that influenced this process.
Changalima [12]	2023	Literature review	Explores challenges facing collaborative contracting practices.
Sergio A. Hinojosa et al. [21]	2020	Case study	Identifies parameters on the impact of socioeconomic and financial cost–benefit analysis at the time of awarding PPP projects in Latin America.
Jorge Collao et al. [22]	2021	Literature review	Discusses the application of virtual reality (VR) tools, primarily in architectural projects, with increasing use in civil engineering.
Taylor, Fergus [15]	2015	Literature review	Suggests that NECs are suitable for all types of construction projects, especially complex ones requiring specific planning phases
Redes viales en Perú y la Región-BID [23]	2019	Case study	Analyzes road concession models in the region, comparing cost overruns, delays, accident rates, traffic flow, maintenance, and renegotiations, with a focus on Chile, Colombia, and Peru.
Ahmed [24]	2018	Literature review	BIM can improve construction performance, but its implementation in the construction sector has been slow. This study identifies several factors contributing to this problem, including (1) social and habitual resistance to change, (2) traditional contracting methods, (3) high training costs and a steep learning curve, (4) the high cost of acquiring software, and (5) the lack of awareness about BIM.
Reda Abdelshafy Abougamil et al. [11]	2023	Literature review	Despite obstacles to BIM implementation in Saudi Arabia, the government introduced the Saudi Building Codes (SBCs) in 2020 to facilitate the adoption of BIM and promote green buildings.
Oscar Yabar-Ardiles et al. [13]	2023	Case study	Studies the potential for optimizing public projects through standardized contracts like NECs and proposes a phased implementation within the Peruvian regulatory framework.
Diego Cisneros Herrera et al., 2024 [25]	2024	Case study	Identifies critical success factors in Peruvian concessions and proposes an evaluation methodology for future contracts.
Lee, G. and Borrmann, A. [26]	2020	Literature review	Discusses the challenges of quantifying the impact of errors “avoided” through BIM-based design coordination.
Alexander Campos Medina and Nickoll Bedoya Aranda [9]	2020	Literature review	Proposes implementing a contract management protocol with minimal regulatory changes to serve as a guide and training tool for public officials in Peru.
Valdés [27]	2020	Literature review	Advocates for incorporating collaborative contract practices in Latin America, particularly alliance contracts, to mitigate traditional confrontational dynamics by collectively sharing risks and responsibilities.
Ahmed Manyari, Camilo Ramírez [24]	2020	Literature review	Emphasizes the positive impact of implementing an early warning system in infrastructure projects to promote efficient management and support a shift from confrontational to collaborative paradigms.
Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo, el rol de las asociaciones público privadas [20]	2021	Case study	Proposes implementing infrastructure plans, prioritizing strategic plans, conducting cost–benefit analyses, and developing sustainable infrastructure to improve investment decisions.
Shiyao Kuang et al. [28]	2023	Literature review	Establishing BIM policies based on the experiences and lessons learned from other countries should be followed by considering governance methods to design the distribution of BIM standards for better tool usage.
Contraloría General de la República del Perù [6]	2022	Case study	Report on works halted in Peru in the year 2022.
Vítor Esteves et al. [29]	2020	Literature review	Integration of smart contracts and BIM as support for infrastructure management.
Ministerio de Economía y Finanzas del Perú-Guía Nacional BIM [5]	2023	Case study	Guide for the implementation of BIM in the Peruvian public sector following the guidelines of ISO 19650.
Ministerio de Economía y Finanzas del Perú [30]	2019	Case study	Guide for the creation of a standard contract applied to the regulatory framework of PPPs in Peru.

The literature emphasizes the importance of implementing new models of contract management, such as the standard NECs [13]. However, a knowledge gap has been identified regarding their implementation in conjunction with BIM tools for better management, particularly in a system like Peru’s. Therefore, this study aims to close this gap by proposing an innovative model for optimizing PPP projects in the country.

2.2. Risk Analysis in Construction Contracts

2.2.1. Risks in Traditional Contractual Models

In the more conservative approaches to contract management, the traditional models include design–build (DB) and design–bid–build (DBB). Additionally, some authors categorize other types of contracts, such as engineering, procurement, and construction management (EPCM) contracts, under traditional models. These are derivatives or modifications of the DB contract. It is worth mentioning that the EPCM contractual model could be considered within a collaborative framework or at an intermediate point [17].

According to some authors, the main problems with conventional contracting can be summarized as follows:

(a)

Risk allocation and blame assignment.

(b)

Fixed prices that discourage additional work by participants.

(c)

Asymmetric information between parties.

(d)

Difficulty in managing changes.

(e)

Lack of genuine cooperation.

In the ideal scenario, this implies a transfer of risk from the client or owner to the contractor, where any difference between the actual cost and the budgeted cost, as long as no changes affect the project scope, is irrelevant and, therefore, does not lead to a price increase [24].

2.2.2. Risks in Standardized Contractual Models

Within what is considered standardized in contract management we find the most representative models such as “alliancing” or “integrated project delivery” (IPD) [31].

From the literature reviewed, of all the standardized contracts under analysis, alliancing or IPD is the most agile contracting model, which seeks to align the interests of all the parties involved, who will share the project risks, mainly through the participation in the final profits and losses, encouraging their participation in the decision making and management of the project [31].

Regarding risk sharing, traditional construction contracts are structured on a classic exchange relationship, in which one party is obliged to deliver the work and the other to pay the price. In this logic, the profit margin of one of the contracting parties will generally be at the expense of the other, generating the classic tension of a sales contract [27].

The alliance contract is structured on a regime of absolute transparency between the project participants in terms of the handling of all information relating to the project and especially with regard to the financial aspects. The raison d’être of this principle is to end or at least reduce the double asymmetry of information inherent in traditional construction contracts and thereby eliminate factors that contribute to mutual distrust, an unquestionable source of conflict between the parties [31].

Notwithstanding the fact that the alliance model tends to reduce the level of tension between the parties to the contract by aligning interests, it is pointed out that there are certain situations in which the parties find themselves in opposing positions, such as, for example, when defining the target cost and term, where the interest may have the highest possible target cost and term, provided that this does not invalidate the continuity of the project. Therefore, it is essential to introduce other factors or elements, beyond the price and term, that can foster a collaborative environment among the parties involved [31].

Federation Internationale des Ingenieurs-Conseils, in French, or International Federation of Consulting Engineers, in English, better known by its acronym FIDIC, is an international non-governmental organization based in Geneva with 106 years of history, which has contractual models in the field of construction that enjoy wide acceptance and recognized prestige in the international context [32]. Thus, the analysis of the way in which it establishes the distribution or allocation of risks is of special relevance.

Its contractual models are characterized by providing internationally known and accepted solutions to carry out the execution of different stages of the construction project, providing a balanced and harmonious scheme between the guiding and configuring principles of Common Law and Continental Law [33].

One of the keys to the success and recognized international prestige of the FIDIC contractual models is related to the establishment of an adequate risk distribution structure, based on the guiding principle that the risk should be assumed by the party to the construction contract that is in the best position to manage it [33]. Adequate risk management is in the interest of both parties: The principal will be able to award the contract at a lower price and will only have to assume additional costs in the event of extraordinary risks, while the constructor will not be obliged to specify risks that are difficult to quantify [34].

Regarding the distribution of risks in NECs, this model arises from the recommendations made by the Institution of Civil Engineers of the United Kingdom, with the aim of changing the traditional forms of contracting in construction and related areas, which focused on the rights and obligations of the parties, creating a model that would promote proper project management [35]. NECs were conceived with the construction of infrastructure projects in mind, but they are also applicable to other contractual objects, such as, for example, the contracting of goods and services related to the construction industry [36].

As for the most recent model, the NEC4 was constituted from the lessons learned from user and industry practice and has been specially designed to support innovation through digital advances and foster collaboration around the world [37]. Highlights include greater flexibility in each contractual model, a design for international use, better value, and greater certainty [38].

The NEC4 introduces two new contractual models: The NEC4 Design, Build and Operate Contract (DBO) and the NEC4 Alliance Contract (ALC) [38].

In short, without going into the details of the clauses specific to each NEC, the literature points out that these models have generated an important innovation in terms of risk management, especially those that arise during the development of the project, which are the most difficult for the parties to address and face.

2.3. Public–Private Partnerships (PPPs) in Peru and Latin America

Public–private partnerships (PPPs) in Peru are established as one of the modalities for private investment participation. These partnerships typically involve appropriately distributing project risks and allocating resources, often from the private sector, for the construction, operation, and maintenance of infrastructure to guarantee service levels throughout the concession period [30,39].

Best practices suggest that the first step is to conduct a socioeconomic analysis to compare the costs and benefits generated by the project from a social perspective [40]. This requires methodologies that include determining social prices and using one or more appropriate social discount rates [41]. It is recommended that these methodologies come from the country’s public investment regulatory authorities and be applied to all projects. Only those projects that contribute to societal well-being should be developed [42].

Project evaluation from a societal perspective (economy-wide) considers all costs and is generally conducted incrementally, comparing the market equilibrium in a scenario with the project to the baseline scenario without the project (including an optimized baseline scenario) [20]. Economically, a project is a flow of benefits and costs occurring over different periods. The objective of a socioeconomic project evaluation is, therefore, to estimate the benefit and cost flows associated with the project to determine its viability [43].

The current financial crisis has posed a new challenge for Latin America and the Caribbean within a proactive strategy of productive transformation and strengthening international integration in the medium and long term [23]. The region must improve its positioning in the global market to take advantage of growth momentum when the global economy regains its dynamism, avoiding the contradictions observed in the adjustments of the 1980s [21].

Regarding road concessions, in several Latin American countries, concessions have been awarded by combining one or more variables related to toll values, contract duration, a payment to the government, or a subsidy requested to obtain the concession, among other factors [44]. The resulting contracts are characterized by having a specific term, a defined tariff structure, and some adjustment method [45].

2.4. Building Information Modeling and the BIM Plan Peru

Building information modeling (BIM) is one of the most promising developments in the architecture, engineering, and construction industry. It is defined as the representation of the physical and functional characteristics of an infrastructure, with a collaborative approach between the various stakeholders in the different phases of a project’s life cycle [26].

Since its introduction to the industry in the 1970s, BIM has been developed over more than three decades and is now a key technology in the construction industry for collecting, storing, sharing, and managing infrastructure information at different stages of infrastructure management, such as formulation, construction, operation, and maintenance [19].

BIM is transforming the way the construction sector operates. The public sector has the potential to play a leading role in promoting and facilitating the adoption of BIM within the industry [46]. In recent years, BIM implementations have significantly increased as more government agencies and organizations in various countries around the world have adopted BIM [29].

Recent research highlights the need to achieve the best cost–benefit ratio on a large scale, while also helping each project meet its objectives [22]. Successful integration of BIM in a single project can be achieved by ensuring that all stakeholders follow the same guidelines, leading to a regulated system [28].

To promote the adoption of the BIM methodology across the country, the Ministry of Housing, Construction, and Sanitation (MVCS) of Peru developed this strategy with the assistance of the Peruvian Association of Construction Engineers (APIC) and other industry stakeholders [5].

The Peru BIM Plan establishes the following: There are several objectives and actions to drive the implementation of the BIM methodology in the country. Among them are:

• Establishing a certification system for professionals and companies that use the BIM methodology to ensure quality and efficiency in its application.
• Establishing a digital platform for the interconnection of various actors in the construction sector, enabling greater collaboration and efficiency in project management.

It is important to note that BIM is a significant technological tool offering numerous advantages to the parties involved in a given project. However, according to the literature review, various obstacles affect the BIM adoption rate, which varies according to specific factors present in different countries [28].

Public Investment, BIM, and Barriers

Implementing BIM in the public sector is complex, with a perceived resistance to change, a very natural societal factor. Uncertainty about change causes people to try to remain unchanged, just like the stakeholders in a construction project. One of the most important factors identified is the traditional contracting method. Stakeholders have been familiar with and adapted to the traditional method for a long time and are “experts” and efficient with this method. Therefore, replacing this method is not easy for stakeholders and is not universally accepted [28].

In Peru, the Fourth Final Complementary Provision was introduced in 2018 to gradually adopt collaborative digital information modeling methodologies. This was an effort to increase transparency, quality, and efficiency in public investments. BIM, or building information modeling, is the acronym for this initiative [5].

“Policy Measure 1.2: BIM Plan” of the cited Priority Objective is established in the National Competitiveness and Productivity Plan 2019–2030, aiming to gradually integrate BIM into the public sector.

2.5. Current Situation of PPP Contracts in Road Infrastructure in Peru

Situational Analysis of the Peruvian National Road Network

The current state of various road networks in Peru reveals disparities in service levels, particularly regarding pavement conditions. A significant portion of the national road network is managed through public–private partnerships (PPPs) [18]. Challenges related to road quality and maintenance are highlighted, impacting not only economic considerations but also safety aspects, as indicated by studies on accident rates in Peru [47].

An important point to consider in this study is that the concessions analyzed are part of an initial pool of contracts where the regulatory agency, PROINVERSION, was beginning to implement this type of bidding process in the country [48].

After reviewing the contracts for each of the concession projects analyzed, we observed a common trend in negotiations during the first six years. Of the 55 total addenda signed, 40% were made in the early years of contract execution.

Common indicators found include those related to construction execution and financing. These results were consolidated in the attached table.

From the initial analysis, it can be established that technical and financial aspects consistently recur during negotiations. This suggests an apparently inadequate risk distribution, leading to modifications in clauses and changes in the project execution schedule.

On the other hand, we focused on rigid aspects that trigger renegotiations in the contract, and a table was consolidated to support the hypothesis presented in this research. Figure 1 shows a consolidation of the most common causes of contract modification in the Peruvian national road network.

Figure 1. Causes for contractual renegotiation in the Peruvian national road infrastructure under PPP modality [23].

3. Methods and Management Model

It is necessary to analyze the current situation of concession projects in Peru, specifically public–private partnership (PPP) contracts, to identify the tools currently available for contract management in these ongoing concession projects. Following this analysis, elements for improvement were proposed through a management model that integrates BIM tools and standardized contracts to optimize the processes currently in use [25].

This way, a system was developed to optimize processes and improve the existing contract management framework, utilizing information management tools such as BIM and the flexibility of standardized contracts. This system is in line with the guidelines and projections of the National Infrastructure Plan for Competitiveness [4] and the National BIM Guide [5], which are currently part of the Peruvian government’s strategic plan to enhance infrastructure management.

To this end, the research examined ten of the sixteen road concession contracts currently supervised by the Supervisory Agency for Investment in Public Use Transport Infrastructure (OSITRAN). The selection criteria include the number of addenda, the investment level, and the concession period, covering 63% of the PPP contracts currently in force. The process map will be developed based on ISO 19650 [7], the National BIM Guide, and the process management manual of the Ministry of Transport and Communications.

For the validation of the study, eight experts related to contract management, NEC management, and BIM tools were selected, following the recommendations of the Delphi methodology. This methodology suggests collecting data through document analysis, observing individual behaviors, or conducting interviews with involved parties using a specific protocol or instrument to gather data [8].

The analysis of the literature review and the diagnosis of the case studies, in this instance, the national road network under concession, made it possible to identify a synergy between information management tools and standardized contracts. This synergy was used to propose a management model that can optimize infrastructure under the PPP modality in the Peruvian context. Figure 2 summarizes the research design in a diagram.

Figure 2. Research design process map.

3.1. Management Model Using Standardized Contracts and BIM Tools

The proposed approaches in the model could be applied to any technical assistance contract related to the construction, management, and maintenance of the planned infrastructure, depending on the specific requirements of each project.

The preparation phase of the structured information model is included within the scope to carry out the necessary analysis procedures to specifically describe and graphically represent the proposed solution using the improvement mechanisms provided in the contract.

A public–private collaboration project has a complex contractual structure with numerous variables. The current model focused on the infrastructure maintenance phase and falls within the framework of the Public–Private Partnership Law.

Since the presented model is based on the premise that the State must optimize the implementation of infrastructure within the public system across all areas, managing the various phases of infrastructure (design, construction, conservation/maintenance/operation) independently from a contractual perspective does not hinder the application of BIM and international standard contracts.

From a contractual standpoint, three distinct phases were identified: bidding, offer, and contract execution. For the purposes of this study, we focus on the contract execution phase, particularly from the perspective of infrastructure operation and maintenance.

The following list of tasks represents the information management method for this study. It is important to note that adjustments should be made based on the conditions of the institutional environment.

According to the guidelines given in NTP-ISO 19650-1:2021 [7] and NTP-ISO-2:2021 [7] and the Peruvian national BIM guide, the responsibilities of the actors as part of an integrated information management process are stipulated in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Contract management, BIM tools–NEC (ECC) adapted from the BIM Peru plan [5] and ISO 19650 2:2021 [7].

In this regard, the involved parties in the management process are as follows:

Execution team:

• A team consisting of the assigning party and the designated party in the development of the investment applying BIM.
• Working team:
• A team composed of the designated parties in the development of information management using BIM.
• Project team:
• Composed of all parties involved in the development of information management using BIM.

The grantor, through the body responsible for the executing unit’s competencies, commits to providing optimal infrastructure management according to the parameters for development during the execution phase within the application of the public–private partnership (PPP) law. Key factors such as the grantor, the regulator, and the concessionaire are established, with the latter being responsible for preparing the technical file and executing the works. Figure 4 shows the actors involved.

Figure 4. Teams involved in the BIM information management process adapted from the BIM Peru plan [5] and ISO 19650 2:202 [7].

3.2. Phase I: Evaluation of the NEC (ECC) Contract

Initial Contract Version (VIC)

After establishing the needs assessment by the designating party, the scope of BIM utilization must be defined, along with the initial contract version (VIC) for developing the exchange information requirements (EIRs).

For the initial version of the contract (VIC) the contractual model New Engineering Contract (NEC) Option F (Management Contract) engineering and construction contract will be used, the procedure sheets Table 2 and Table 3 are shown below as well as the process map in Figure 5.

Table 2. Procedure sheet—Contract evaluation.

PROCEDURE SHEET
NAME	Contract Evaluation.
RESPONSIBLE	General Directorate of Transport Programs and Projects.
OBJECTIVE	To establish guidelines for the configuration of the contract.
SCOPE	The process encompasses from the presentation of the contractual proposal to the signing of the contract.
LEGAL BASIS	Legislative Decree No. 1362 “Regulating the Promotion of Private Investment through Public-Private Partnerships and Asset Projects”. Supreme Decree No. 240-2018-EF “Approves the Regulation of Legislative Decree No. 1362, Decree regulating the Promotion of Private Investment through Public-Private Partnerships and Asset Projects”. PPP contracts signed by the MTC.
DEFINITIONS ABBREVIATIONS ACRONYMS	DGPPT—General Directorate of Transport Programs and Projects (Dirección General de Programas y Proyectos de Transportes) DINPTRA—Directorate of Private Investment in Transport (Dirección de Inversión Privada en Transportes) NEC—New Engineering Contract BIM—Building Information Modeling VIC—Initial Version of the Contract (Versión Inicial del Contrato) MIDP—Master Information Delivery Plan BEP—BIM Execution Plan CDE—Common Data Environment MEF—Ministry of Economy and Finance

Table 3. Procedures—Contract Evaluation.

Activity 1: Receipt of the Draft Contract

The draft contract is received, which, for this research, will use the NEC4-Option F contract and BIM tools, according to the recommendations stipulated in the National BIM Guide and the National Infrastructure Plan for Competitiveness 2019–2030. In this section, the initial version of the contract (VIC) is received, in which BIM tools are established for its refinement, such as the responsibility matrix, the Task Information Delivery Plan (TIDP), the Master Information Delivery Plan (MIDP), all as part of the update of the BIM Execution Plan (BEP) integrated into the Common Data Environment (CDE) that will be managed among the involved parties (grantor, regulator, and concessionaire). If the regulator’s opinion is not required, proceed to Activity 3.

Activity 2: Regulator’s Report on the Contract

The regulatory body issues a report on the parameters established for the contract’s refinement. In this case study, it is important to ensure that all parties understand the guidelines stipulated by NEC for the configuration of clauses, the allocation of responsibilities among the parties, and the clear definition of early warnings.

Activity 3: Contract Evaluation

The report issued by the regulatory body on the contract configuration will be considered. If there is approval from the regulatory body, proceed to Activity 6.

Activity 4: Issue Observations on the Concession

If the regulatory body does not give its approval, the corresponding observations are made, and a report is issued to the concessionaire for their awareness.

Activity 5: Receipt of Draft Contract with Corrected Observations

The contract is received with the observations corrected by the concessionaire. Proceed to Activity 3.

Activity 6: Request MEF’s Opinion on the Contract

The opinion of the Ministry of Economy and Finance is requested regarding the current configuration of the contract, which includes two stipulations different from the conventional ones: the NEC4 Option F contract and, for information management, the BIM parameters according to the National BIM Guide of Peru. Proceed to Activity 7.

Activity 7: Send Request for MEF’s Opinion on the Contract

The report is sent requesting the opinion of the Ministry of Economy and Finance on the current configuration of the contract, which includes two stipulations different from the conventional ones: The NEC4 Option F contract and, for information management, the BIM parameters according to the National BIM Guide of Peru. Proceed to Activity 8.

Activity 8: Reformulate Contractual Proposal

If the MEF provides observations, proceed to reformulate the contractual proposal with the approval of the regulator. If the reformulation does not proceed with the regulator’s approval, proceed to Activity 10.

Activity 9: Regulator’s Opinion

The regulatory body issues an opinion on the configuration of the final version of the contract and makes the corresponding observations to the concessionaire. Proceed to Activity 10.

Activity 10: Send Regulator’s Opinion to the Concessionaire

The regulator’s formal opinion is sent to the concessionaire through the appropriate communication channels. Proceed to Activity 11.

Activity 11: Receive Final Version of the Contract from the Concessionaire

The concessionaire addresses the observations stipulated in the report sent by the regulatory body. Go to Point A.

Activity 12: Receive MEF’s Opinion on the Contract

The favorable opinion of the MEF regarding the contract configuration is received. Proceed to Activity 13.

Activity 13: Drafting of the Final Version of the Contract (FVC)

After the intervention of the involved parties, the final version of the contract is established, with the considerations stipulated by NEC for its configuration, as well as the information management tools provided by BIM. Proceed to Activity 14.

Activity 14: Signing of the FVC

The contract is signed with the intervention of the interested parties.

Figure 5. Phase I management model, process map—contract evaluation.

3.3. Phase II: Evaluation and Approval of the Technical File

BIM Execution Plan (BEP)

The BIM Execution Plan (BEP) will be validated in consultation with the involved parties, ensuring that the plan reflects the use of information technologies (ITs) and the coordination of work between the execution teams. The validation process may also involve the designating party working cooperatively to add or correct certain methodologies and/or procedures in information management., the procedure sheets Table 4 and Table 5 are shown below as well as the process map in Figure 6 and Figure 7.

Table 4. Procedure sheet—Evaluation and approval of the technical file.

PROCEDURE SHEET
NAME	Contract evaluation.
RESPONSIBLE	General Directorate of Transport Programs and Projects.
OBJECTIVE	To evaluate and approve the technical file for the execution of the project within the deadlines and conditions stipulated in the contract framework.
SCOPE	Covers the receipt of studies that certify compliance with the provisions established in the contract, up to the approval of the technical studies.
LEGAL BASIS	Legislative Decree No. 1362 “Regulating the Promotion of Private Investment through Public-Private Partnerships and Asset Projects”. Supreme Decree No. 240-2018-EF “Approves the Regulation of Legislative Decree No. 1362, Decree regulating the Promotion of Private Investment through Public-Private Partnerships and Asset Projects”. PPP contracts signed by the MTC.
DEFINITIONS ABBREVIATIONS ACRONYMS	DGPPT—General Directorate of Transport Programs and Projects (Dirección General de Programas y Proyectos de Transportes). DINPTRA—Directorate of Private Investment in Transport (Dirección de inversión privada en transportes). UEI—Investment Executing Unit (Unidad Ejecutora de Inversiones). DGISTR—Directorate of Infrastructure and Transport Services Management (Dirección de Gestión en Infraestructura y Servicios de Transportes). APP—Public–Private Partnership (Asociación Publico Privada). BIM—Building Information Modeling. BEP—BIM Execution Plan. EIR—Exchange Information Requirements. TIDP—Task Information Delivery Plan. IT—Information Technology.

Table 5. Procedures—Evaluation and approval of the technical file.

Activity 1: Receipt of Request for Approval of the Technical File

The document corresponding to the request for approval of the technical file is received. If the investment executing unit belongs to the ministry of transport and is DGPPT, proceed to Activity 2. Otherwise, proceed to Activity 10.

Activity 2: Evaluation of the Contractual Framework

Refer to and evaluate the contractual framework. If DINPTRA reviews the technical file, proceed to Activity 4. Otherwise, proceed to Activity 6.

Activity 3: Receipt for Review of the Technical File

The respective documents are received, and specialists responsible for contract management are assigned to review the technical file. Proceed to Activity 4.

Activity 4: Review of the Technical File

The high-level risk allocation and distribution matrix, the rapid alert procedure (including information on the assignment of responsibilities), and the contingency plan linked to the employer’s information requirements (EIRs) will be examined. If no observations exist, proceed to Activity 10. Otherwise, proceed to Activity 9.

Activity 5: Regulator’s Report

The BIM Execution Plan (BEP) will be reviewed in coordination with the involved parties, ensuring that the plan indicates the use of information technologies (ITs) and coordination among execution teams. The designating party may collaborate to add or correct methodologies and/or procedures in information management. Working teams must establish the Task Information Delivery Plan (TIDP), detailing the information delivery (documents, tables, charts, etc.). Proceed to Point B.

Activity 6: Review by the Directorate of Infrastructure and Transport Services Management

If DINPTRA does not review, the file is passed to DGISTR for review. Proceed to Activity 7.

Activity 7: Receipt of Technical File for Review

Receipt of the technical file for evaluation and review. Proceed to Activity 8.

Activity 8: Review of the Technical File

The BIM Execution Plan (BEP) will be reviewed in collaboration with the involved parties to ensure it describes the use of IT and coordination among execution teams. The review may also involve collaboration by the designating party to add or modify methodologies and/or procedures in information management. The Task Information Delivery Plan (TIDP) must be established by the working teams, detailing the delivery of information (documents, tables, charts, etc.). The early warning procedure, the high-level risk allocation and distribution matrix, as well as task allocation and the contingency plan, must be linked to the EIR. If no observations exist, proceed to Activity 10. Otherwise, proceed to Activity 9.

Activity 9: Issue Observations to the Concession

DGPPT receives the report with observations made by DGISTR. Proceed to Point C.

Activity 10: Technical–Legal Report

DINPTRA prepares the technical legal report in relation to the review of the technical file. Proceed to Activity 11.

Activity 11: Approve Technical File

DGPPT approves the technical file with the considerations reviewed in Activity 11. Proceed to Activity 12.

Activity 12: Inform the Regulator and Concessionaire

If DINPTRA reviews the technical file, the regulatory body’s opinion is required for the validation of the technical approval report, if necessary. If there are any observations, proceed to Point C.

Activity 13: Request Technical Body Review of the Technical File

DINPTRA/DGPPT refers the file to the regulator for an opinion. Proceed to Activity 14.

Activity 14: Receive Regulator’s Opinion and Forward It to the Technical Body

DINPTRA/DGPPT issues the final report to the regulatory body. Proceed to Activity 15.

Activity 15: Review of the Technical File and Report Issuance

UEI reviews the technical file. Proceed to Activity 16.

Activity 16: Receipt of the Technical Report

DINPTRA/DGPPT receives the technical report from UEI. If there are any observations, proceed to Point C. If there are no observations, proceed to Activity 17.

Activity 17: Receipt of the Final Version of the Technical File

DINPTRA/DGPPT receives the final version of the technical file. Proceed to Activity 18.

Activity 18: Final Regulator’s Opinion to the Technical Body

DINPTRA/DGPPT requests the opinion of the technical body UEI on the final version of the file. Proceed to Activity 19.

Activity 19: Opinion on the Final Version of the Technical File

DINPTRA/DGPPT requests the opinion of the technical body UEI on the final version of the file. Proceed to Activity 20.

Activity 20: Review of the Final Version of the Technical File

Technical body UEI evaluates the regulator’s opinion and issues the technical report. Proceed to Activity 23.

Activity 21: Reception Acknowledgment from Concessionaire for Technical File Submission

DINPTRA/DGPPT, technical file approved. Proceed to Activity 21. Otherwise, proceed to Activity 22.

Activity 22: Notification of Technical File Approval

DINPTRA/DGPPT issues the respective notification to the interested parties, corresponding to the follow-up and monitoring of the work execution. If there are any modifications in the approved technical file, proceed to Point A. Otherwise, the process ends.

Activity 23: Communicate Technical File Approval to the Concessionaire

The communication from the technical body UEI is received and communicated to the concessionaire. If there are any modifications in the approved technical file, proceed to Point A. Otherwise, the process ends.

Figure 6. Phase II management model, Process map—Evaluation and approval of the technical file (01).

Figure 7. Phase II management model, Process map—Evaluation and approval of the technical file (02).

3.4. Phase III: Contract Modification

Change Management

This phase involves considering or evaluating the need for contract modifications and/or addenda, assessing the competitive conditions among the actors, and reconfiguring the allocation of risks, responsibilities, early warnings, compensable events, and the BIM Execution Plan, the procedure sheets Table 6 and Table 7 are shown below as well as the process map in Figure 8.

Table 6. Procedure sheet—Contract modification.

PROCEDURE SHEET
NAME	Contract Evaluation.
RESPONSIBLE	General Directorate of Transport Programs and Projects.
OBJECTIVE	To establish guidelines for the configuration of the contract.
SCOPE	The process covers from the presentation of the contractual proposal to the signing of the contract.
LEGAL BASIS	Legislative Decree No. 1362 “Regulating the Promotion of Private Investment through Public-Private Partnerships and Asset Projects”. Supreme Decree No. 240-2018-EF “Approving the Regulation of Legislative Decree No. 1362, Decree regulating the Promotion of Private Investment through Public-Private Partnerships and Asset Projects”. PPP contracts signed by the MTC.
DEFINITIONS ABBREVIATIONS ACRONYMS	DGPPT—General Directorate of Transport Programs and Projects (Dirección General de Programas y Proyectos de Transportes). DINPTRA—Directorate of Private Investment in Transport (Dirección de Inversión Privada en Transportes). OGAJ—General Office of Legal Advisory (Oficina General de Asesoría Jurídica). NEC—New Engineering Contract.

Table 7. Procedures—Contractual modification.

Activity 1: Identification of Needs

Identify the need for any contractual modification, presenting the technical and economic justification. If initiated by the grantor, proceed to Activity 2; otherwise, proceed to Activity 4.

Activity 2: Evaluation of Contract Addendum Proposals

The report should assess the competitive circumstances, assign risks and roles, update the shared data environment, and include a financial balance and a BIM implementation strategy. Proceed to Activity 3.

Activity 3: Contract Evaluation

The report issued by the regulatory body regarding the contract configuration will be considered. If there is approval from the regulatory body, proceed to Activity 6.

Activity 4: Receipt of the Contract Modification Request

Receive the proposal from the concessionaire. Proceed to Activity 5.

Activity 5: Publication of the Addendum Proposal

The proposed modification will be published on the institutional portal, and the involved parties will be invited for a joint evaluation. Proceed to Activity 6.

Activity 6: Joint Evaluation

Notification to the grantor, public entities, and the concessionaire participating in the joint evaluation. Proceed to Activity 7.

Activity 7: Joint Evaluation Meetings

Execute the schedule of joint evaluation meetings and sign an attendance list. Proceed to Activity 8.

Activity 8: Completion of Joint Evaluation Closure

The closure of the joint evaluation will be communicated, and a notification report will be prepared for the interested parties, marking the end of the process.

Figure 8. Phase III management model, Process map—modification.

3.5. Phase IV: Dispute Resolution Management

Dispute Resolution

The Dispute Avoidance Board (DAB) will be formed to generate consensus in the event of disputes arising during contract execution, ensuring that the project’s progress or execution is not adversely affected, the procedure sheets Table 8 and Table 9 are shown below as well as the process map in Figure 9 and Figure 10.

Table 8. Procedure sheet—Dispute resolution management.

PROCEDURE SHEET
NAME	Contract Evaluation.
RESPONSIBLE	General Directorate of Transport Programs and Projects.
OBJECTIVE	To prevent the interruption of services, resolve disagreements that arise within the framework of contract execution and contract management.
SCOPE	To facilitate direct negotiations in the event of a dispute until the signing of the direct negotiation closure agreement, as well as manage notifications regarding the initiation of the arbitration process.
LEGAL BASIS	Legislative Decree No. 1362 “Regulating the Promotion of Private Investment through Public-Private Partnerships and Asset Projects”. Supreme Decree No. 240-2018-EF “Approving the Regulation of Legislative Decree No. 1362, Decree Regulating the Promotion of Private Investment through Public-Private Partnerships and Asset Projects”. PPP contracts signed by the MTC.
DEFINITIONS ABBREVIATIONS ACRONYMS	DGPPT—General Directorate of Transport Programs and Projects (Dirección General de Programas y Proyectos de Transportes). DINPTRA—Directorate of Private Investment in Transport (Dirección de Inversión Privada en Transportes). PP—Public Prosecutor’s Office (Procuraduría Publica). NEC—New Engineering Contract.

Table 9. Procedures—Dispute resolution management.

Activity 1: Request for Initiation of Direct Negotiation

The request for the initiation of direct negotiation in the event of a dispute is received, and a schedule of meetings is proposed. Proceed to Activity 3.

Activity 2: Establish Meeting Schedule with the Concessionaire

The meeting schedule for the initiation of direct negotiation is prepared. Proceed to Activity 3.

Activity 3: Execution of Strategic Meetings for Dispute Resolution

Meetings are held according to the established schedule for resolving the dispute. If more than one meeting is required, return to Activity 2. If no more meetings are required and no agreement is reached, proceed to Activity 6. If an agreement is reached, proceed to Activity 10.

Activity 4: Direct Negotiation Closure Agreement

The direct negotiation closure agreement is signed, and the document is delivered to the Legal Office of the Ministry of Transport and Communications.

Activity 5: Send Document to the Public Prosecutor’s Office

If the grantor initiates arbitration, proceed to Activity 6. If the concessionaire initiates arbitration, proceed to Activity 7.

Activity 6: Send File to the Public Prosecutor’s Office for Initiation of Arbitration

The file requesting the initiation of arbitration is sent to the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Ministry of Transport and Communications.

Activity 7: Supporting Reports

The technical, financial, and legal reports are prepared.

Activity 8: Send Reports to the Public Prosecutor’s Office

The corresponding report is issued to the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Ministry of Transport and Communications.

Activity 9: Schedule of Hearings by the Public Prosecutor’s Office

Attend the hearings scheduled by the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Ministry of Transport and Communications.

Activity 10: Report on Mechanism and Resolution Agreements

Evaluate and prepare a report with concrete agreements for dispute resolution, determining the resolution mechanism through direct negotiation.

Activity 11: Agreement Document

Sign the agreement document.

Activity 12: Execution of Agreements

The agreements signed between the grantor and the concessionaire are executed.

Activity 13: Direct Negotiation Closure Agreement and Notification to the Regulator

After signing the direct negotiation agreement, the regulator must be informed of the end of the direct negotiation.

Activity 14: Establish Dispute Board—Designation Document

Propose the members of the dispute board and prepare the designation document for the members.

Activity 15: Designation of Dispute Board Members

The designation document for the members of the dispute board is signed.

Activity 16: Decision of the Dispute Board

If the formation of the dispute board is accepted, proceed to Activity 17. If not, return to Activity 4.

Activity 17: Execute Dispute Resolution

Execute the dispute resolution.

Activity 18: End of Direct Negotiation, Notify the Regulator

Notify the regulator of the end of the direct negotiation.

Figure 9. Phase IV management model, Process map—dispute resolution management (01).

Figure 10. Phase IV management model, Process map—dispute resolution management (02).

3.6. Phase V: Monitoring and Follow-Up of Work Execution

3.6.1. Master Information Delivery Plan (MIDP)

The designated organization must create the Master Information Delivery Plan (MIDP), which essentially compiles the TIDP described in the previous process. This MIDP allows the designated organization to verify the delivery plans of the different work teams while ensuring the project’s cost and time benchmarks.

3.6.2. Information Production

The development of information that meets the requirements outlined in the TIDP will be the responsibility of all working teams, with the TIDP serving as the main guide for producing all information efficiently and collaboratively.

3.6.3. Quality Control

These methods and procedures serve as a means of external control or project supervision. They ensure that the information produced aligns with the project’s requirements. Additionally, they review and approve the information exchange according to the established review and approval process.

The project’s information standards will set the minimum criteria to be considered in the information containers, each with a unique identity (ID) for classification. This entire process is supported by checks that can be conducted through the workflow displayed in the CDE.

The procedure sheets Table 10 and Table 11 are shown below as well as the process map in Figure 11.

Table 10. Procedure sheet—Follow-up and monitoring of work execution.

PROCEDURE SHEET
NAME	Contract Evaluation.
RESPONSIBLE	General Directorate of Transport Programs and Projects.
OBJECTIVE	Periodic monitoring to ensure the correct execution of the work.
SCOPE	From the receipt of the execution program to the completion of the work.
LEGAL BASIS	Legislative Decree No. 1362 “Regulating the Promotion of Private Investment through Public-Private Partnerships and Asset Projects”. Supreme Decree No. 240-2018-EF “Approving the Regulation of Legislative Decree No. 1362, Decree Regulating the Promotion of Private Investment through Public-Private Partnerships and Asset Projects”. PPP contracts signed by the MTC.
DEFINITIONS ABBREVIATIONS ACRONYMS	DGPPT—General Directorate of Transport Programs and Projects (Dirección General de Programas y Proyectos de Transportes). DINPTRA—Directorate of Private Investment in Transport (Dirección de Inversión Privada en Transportes). DGISTR—Directorate of Infrastructure and Transport Services Management (Dirección de Inversión Privada en transportes). DGAM—General Directorate of Environmental Affairs (Dirección General de Asuntos Ambientales). PEO—Work Execution Program (Programa de Ejecución de Obra). MTC—Ministry of Transport and Communications. NEC—New Engineering Contract Grantor—Ministry of Transport and Communications. APP—Public–Private Partnership (Asociación Publico Privada).

Table 11. Procedure—Follow-up and monitoring of work execution.

Activity 1: Receipt of the Work Execution Schedule

Receive the work execution schedule from the concessionaire. If the MTC approves the schedule, proceed to Activity 3; otherwise, proceed to Activity 4.

Activity 2: Receipt of the Schedule Approved by the Regulator

The regulator receives the approved schedule. If a progress report on the work execution is received from the regulator, proceed to Activity 7. If no progress report is received from the regulator, and no inspection is required, proceed to Activity 6; otherwise, proceed to Activity 7.

Activity 3: Evaluation of the Schedule

If there are observations in the work execution schedule, proceed to Activity 4; otherwise, proceed to Activity 5.

Activity 4: Send Observations

Send the respective observations on the schedule to the concessionaire.

Activity 5: Approve Schedule

Approval of the work execution schedule. Proceed to Activity 7.

Activity 6: Send Approved Schedule to the Concessionaire

Receive the work commencement report. Proceed to Activity 7.

Activity 7: Commencement of Works

Coordinate the inspection of the work.

Activity 8: Work Commencement Record

Conduct the work inspection. If opinions from other departments are required, proceed to Activity 9; if no opinions from other departments are required, proceed to Activity 4. If no relevant information is found as a result of the inspection, the process ends.

Activity 9: Conduct Inspection

Obtain opinions from relevant departments, such as DGAC, DGAM, DGISTR, etc.

Activity 10: Inspection Report

Receive the report with opinions on the information found as a result of the work inspection.

Activity 11: Directors’ Opinion

Evaluate the information found during the inspection.

Activity 12: Receipt of Opinion on the Information Found

Issue an opinion on the information found.

Activity 13: Evaluation of the Opinion Request

Issue an opinion on the information found.

Activity 14: Issue Opinion on the Information Found

Include the opinions of the participating departments.

Activity 15: Receive Opinion on the Information Found

Communicate with the interested parties, concessionaire, and regulator.

Activity 16: Report on the Information Found

The report includes the opinions of the participating departments.

Activity 17: Send Documents to the Concessionaire

Send the supporting report to the concessionaire.

Figure 11. Phase V management model, Process map—monitoring and follow-up of work execution.

4. Model Validation Results

4.1. Scope

The primary goal of the Delphi method is to achieve a highly reliable group opinion by systematically and interactively consulting a panel of experts individually about their views on the study topics [49]. Through questionnaires and interviews, experts can respond anonymously and independently in successive rounds to achieve maximum consensus [50]. Researchers can contact the experts personally, via email, or online [51]. The Delphi method has been successfully applied in construction project management [8].

According to established guidelines, Delphi validation studies typically include between 8 and 16 specialists [8]. Based on these assumptions, this research method was applied to 10 contract management experts to validate the proposal made in this study.

The time required to disseminate the questionnaire among the experts and collect data from each iteration was a maximum of one week.

4.2. Selection of Experts

The following criteria were used for the selection of experts, Table 12:

Table 12. Selection of experts.

Attributes	Minimum Characteristics
Education	Completed professional study and/or master’s degree in the area.
Experience	Four years in the public and/or private management sector.

The selected experts hold the following positions:

• Civil engineer—project management technical specialist.
• Lawyer specializing in arbitration.
• Civil engineer—contract management technical specialist.

The participants acted as contract managers from both technical and legal perspectives within a concession contract framework.

4.3. Survey or Questionnaire

The measurement tool, in this case a survey or questionnaire, was digital and was configured as follows:

First part: A virtual meeting was used to bring together experts in the research topic.

Second part: A questionnaire regarding the suggested management model was provided, focusing on whether the proposed management model is accepted or not. Using an adapted Likert scale Table 13, responses ranged from “totally disagree”, representing the most unfavorable scenario, to “totally agree”, representing the most favorable. The rating scale is as follows:

Table 13. Likert scale.

Totally Disagree	Disagree	Neither Agree Nor Disagree	Agree	Totally Agree
1	2	3	4	5
0%	25%	50%	75%	100%

At the end of the survey, respondents had the option to suggest changes and/or make observations on the evaluated model.

The survey included three primary questions:

• Do you agree with the model? Please quantify.
• Can you improve the model? Please detail.
• Could you propose an alternative? Please detail.

4.4. Delivery of the Document or Management Model to Specialists

The selected professionals, Table 14, were contacted via email and received a summarized version of the management model along with the questionnaire in Google Forms format. The presentation outlined all the specific steps that the respondents should follow when completing the survey for the suggested research, along with the expected response time.

Table 14. Specialist data, summary.

	Position	Experience
Specialist 1	Head of road maintenance	9 years
Specialist 2	Technical specialist	4 years
Specialist 3	Lawyer—Arbitration matters	7 years
Specialist 4	BIM Coordinator	6 years
Specialist 5	Lawyer—Arbitration matters	14 years
Specialist 6	Project coordinator and administrator	12 years
Specialist 7	Road project manager	10 years
Specialist 8	Contract management in public investment projects	16 years

4.5. Results

The first section processed data that supports the structure of the management model, Figure 12, Figure 13, Figure 14, Figure 15 and Figure 16.

Figure 12. Expert Validation (Phase I: NEC Evaluation).

Figure 13. Expert validation (Phase II: Evaluation and approval of the technical file).

Figure 14. Expert validation (Phase III: Contractual modification).

Figure 15. Expert validation (Phase IV: Dispute resolution management).

Figure 16. Expert validation (Phase V: Monitoring and follow-up of works execution).

The second section documents data showing a level of acceptability similar to or higher than that of the first segment.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

From this study we conclude that the current contractual configuration added to the existing bureaucracy in the organizational maps of public institutions generate rigid and conflicting elements. One of these points, according to the data processing, is the release of land and interference, since this parameter is key and is a critical point that the Peruvian State does not clearly define, at least in the contracts analyzed in this study, generating stagnation in the programmed investment and prolonging the objectives of the contracts, allowing the emergence of addenda, since the grantor offers deadlines that become uncertain, giving rise to controversies that later lead to arbitration. The present model, based on the literature, proposes the use of BIM information management tools, since this tool allows the transparency of various processes throughout the infrastructure life cycle [52], which is why the process maps shown include suggestions from NTP-ISO 19650-1:2021 [7] and NTP-ISO 19650-2:2021 [7], which allows an alignment with regard to the standardization of processes in the public sector and in turn we align ourselves to the BIM Peru plan proposed by the Peruvian State in which it is proposed to integrate BIM in all areas of the public sector by 2030.

Also, within the wide range of existing international standard contracts, for the model shown we chose the NEC4 Option F contracts, because we found a synergy between the NEC and BIM, specifically in clause X10 (information modeling). It is worth mentioning that before considering the use of this type of contract, as part of the literature review [53], we consulted the Peruvian Law of Public–Private Partnerships, which in its latest update allows the use of standardized contracts and, in turn, the Peruvian State already has successful experience in the use of this type of contract in the 2019 Pan American Games held in the city of Lima.

For the validation of the model, the Delphi methodology was used, in which specialists related to contract management, professionals involved in the technical operational part of PPP projects, civil engineers by profession, as well as professionals in charge of the legal part, such as lawyers with expertise in arbitration issues, were summoned [49,50,51]. These professionals evaluated the management model through surveys in which the recommendations of the experts were taken into account with the objective of improving the model in iterative processes. The panel of experts evaluated and approved the management model with a percentage of more than 70% of the total number of respondents, assuring under their opinion that the proposal is accurate and viable for the optimization of PPP contracts in the Peruvian case study.

As a recommendation for future research it is proposed to include financing factors, as the present research stipulated that this parameter is a critical point at the time of project formulation either by state or private initiative [54]. Considering this parameter we could evaluate how BIM from its 5D and 7D dimensions could help to improve certain indicators generated by project finance in a PPP project [55], as well as the inclusion of other types of standardized contracts such as those of FIDIC, IPD, collaborative contracts such as PPC 2000, and sustainable contracts that would have an interesting synergy with the landscape information model (LIM) [56], with the objective of generating alternatives for improvement in the formulation, execution, and operation and maintenance of PPP projects in Peru and Latin America.