Optimizing Sustainability in Bridge Projects: A Framework Integrating Risk Analysis and BIM with LCSA According to ISO Standards

Abstract

Building bridges sustainably is essential for advancing infrastructure development and ensuring long-term environmental, social, and economic viability. This study presents a framework that integrates risk management strategies and Building Information Modeling (BIM) with Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) standards to enhance bridge project sustainability. Through a targeted survey, the study evaluates risks across bridge lifecycle phases, identifying the main processes that significantly impact sustainability. Using the Pareto Principle, the framework prioritizes these processes and associated risks, guiding the creation of targeted improvement guidelines aligned with ISO 9001:2015, BIM, and LCSA standards, which support high quality and efficiency. The results reveal that 38 of 55 identified risks account for 80% of the lifecycle impact, and they include the majority of those derived from international standards, underscoring their significance in sustainability efforts. Additionally, 36 of 47 main processes are subject to 80% of the impact from these vital risks, highlighting phases like Construction and Supervision as priority areas for intervention. By linking specific risks to each process within these phases, the study outlines essential guidelines and strategic measures, ensuring a focused approach to sustainable bridge development that aligns with international standards and maximizes lifecycle sustainability outcomes.

1. Introduction

Transportation networks are vital for societal welfare and economic growth, with bridges enabling the smooth movement of people and goods. The rise in bridge construction mirrors economic expansion and urbanization, highlighting their importance in modern infrastructure. Effective bridge management is crucial for achieving sustainable development goals, as emphasized by the Brundtland Commission [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15]. While bridges provide significant benefits, they also present environmental, economic, and societal challenges, including substantial CO₂ emissions throughout their lifecycle. The increasing need for bridge restoration and construction, coupled with growing infrastructure demands and aging structures, underscores the importance of mitigating the risks that impact sustainability [16,17,18,19,20]. Global data highlight the scale and challenges of bridge infrastructure. In China, the number of road bridges grew from 658,100 in 2010 to 1,033,200 in 2022, a 57% increase. The U.S. has 617,000 bridges, 42% of which are over 50 years old, with 46,154 classified as structurally deficient, impacting millions of commuters. In Canada, 40% of roads and bridges are in fair or poor condition and need replacement. Meanwhile, Germany has significantly increased its spending on bridge development and renovation [3,13,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. The large number of bridges places a maintenance burden on owners, industry, and governments, making economic factors more significant than environmental and social ones in bridge construction decisions. Recently, the World Bank allocated over 20% of its loans to transportation infrastructure. Understanding the greenhouse gas emissions from bridges is vital for future infrastructure planning. Additionally, the societal impact of these projects remains underexplored despite its importance to sustainability [9,11,21,26,27,28]. The continued use of conventional techniques in bridge projects, rather than modern technologies, exacerbates challenges. These projects are complex, involving advanced designs and difficult configurations that cannot be easily planned with 2D drawings alone. Fragmented information flow during a bridge’s lifespan raises repair costs and delays, impeding sustainable development. To achieve economic gains while protecting the environment and society, enterprises must adopt innovative approaches for comprehensive project management across the entire lifecycle [1,2,3,6,8,29,30].

To improve bridge sustainability by tackling these challenges, efficient methods like Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Lifecycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) are essential for effective management. These technologies aim to enhance planning, resource allocation, and integrate long-term sustainability in bridge projects. However, their implementation in bridge management has yet to meet expectations, based on the current state of their use [3,4]. BIM has been used in various aspects of bridge building to enhance design quality, foster collaboration, and improve feasibility through precise 3D models. It also improves coordination and efficiency throughout the bridge’s entire lifespan, from design to construction [4,8,31,32,33]. LCSA has been used in railway bridge construction to assess environmental impacts, particularly during the material production stage and across various environmental indicators. It highlights the importance of regular maintenance to reduce costs and ecological effects, underscoring LCSA’s role in managing materials and evaluating environmental impacts for sustainable infrastructure development [18,34,35,36,37,38,39].

After reviewing extensive studies on bridge projects, a multitude of risks impact each phase of these projects’ lifecycles. Given the complexity of bridge projects and their unique nature compared to traditional construction projects, traditional methods alone often fall short in effectively managing these risks, especially as the demand for achieving high levels of sustainability becomes increasingly essential. To address this, innovative approaches like Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) offer powerful solutions, as they provide critical insights and play essential roles in identifying, assessing, and mitigating a broad range of risks. However, the precise and accurate application of these approaches is crucial for their effectiveness, and alignment with ISO standards is one of the best ways to achieve this. These standards provide structured well-defined guidance that clarifies, simplifies, and organizes each process throughout the project lifecycle, ensuring that the integration of BIM and risk analysis with LCSA can be applied cohesively and effectively. Nevertheless, integrating these advanced tools and technologies to elevate sustainability levels in bridge projects is no simple task. It requires careful selection and prioritization of the most suitable methods and tools, beginning with the processes that have the highest impact on the bridge lifecycle. By strategically focusing on these critical areas and following a structured standards-based approach, bridge projects can maximize the benefits of modern technology, leading to enhanced resilience, efficiency, and sustainability.

Based on the previous information, this research aims to address the problem by formulating the following question:

How can the integration of Building Information Modeling (BIM) and risk management strategies with the Lifecycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) be utilized in bridge projects to enhance sustainability? Specifically, how can these tools aid in identifying, optimizing, and developing targeted guidelines and strategic measures for the most impactful processes, in alignment with ISO standards, throughout the bridge’s lifespan?

2. Literature Review

Through the research question posed, it is evident that several tools and techniques will be combined to enhance sustainability in bridge projects. The process will start with the analysis of risks across the bridge’s lifecycle, followed by Building Information Modeling (BIM), then linked with Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) in accordance with ISO standards. Furthermore, a guide will be developed in alignment with ISO 9001 specifications to outline the essential information that must be incorporated at each stage of the lifecycle, ensuring the achievement of sustainability across economic, social, and environmental dimensions.

Accordingly, a literature review must be conducted regarding these elements, focusing on the following aspects.

2.1. Risks in Bridge Projects

Risk is defined as an event with known uncertainty, measured by its probability and severity of impact. It has the potential to significantly affect project outcomes, including cost, time, scope, and quality, and can be perceived individually or collectively, with both negative and positive impacts on project goals [40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49]. Often overlooked, risk and uncertainty play a crucial role in the sustainability challenge, particularly in economic analyses of sustainable development [50]. Risk management is essential to decision-making and is integrated into the structure, operations, and activities of an organization at strategic, operational, program, and project levels. It involves systematically applying rules, procedures, and practices to communication, context definition, risk assessment, treatment, monitoring, review, and reporting. Researchers classify risks as internal, external, environmental, economic, social, financial, market, safety risks, etc., which vary by project size, type, and scope. Effective risk management is vital to mitigating these risks and achieving time, cost, quality, safety, and environmental sustainability goals. It enables project teams to make timely decisions by identifying, classifying, quantifying, managing, and controlling risks, balancing the effort to manage risks with the resulting benefits in a cost–benefit analysis to maximize project value [41,42,44,48,49,51,52].

The complexity of bridge projects exposes them to a wide range of interconnected risks that significantly impact project lifecycles. Numerous studies have highlighted these risks, categorizing them into different categories that influence project success. A systematic review of 26 studies identified key risks in bridge projects that can be mitigated or managed using Building Information Modeling (BIM), grouping them into environmental, economic, and social categories. Common challenges include information management, document automation, structural maintenance, and resource allocation throughout the bridge project. Environmental risks involve selecting climate-appropriate eco-friendly materials and managing carbon footprints. Economic risks encompass communication gaps, inaccuracies in cost and schedule planning, and inefficiencies in execution monitoring. Additional economic challenges include supply chain disruptions, productivity issues, and organizational problems. Social risks cover safety evaluations, community engagement, and team organization [4]. Furthermore, a meta-analysis of 21 studies on bridge projects in China found that safety risk factors often stem from interconnected sources, including environmental conditions, materials, technical aspects, management practices, and personnel. Environmental risks, such as extreme weather and natural disasters, can disrupt construction. Technical risks are related to design flaws and construction errors, while management risks stem from poor planning and inadequate oversight. Personnel risks impact project outcomes through safety and skill level issues, while bridge-specific risks require tailored management strategies to ensure safety and functionality [53]. Additionally, a study analyzing 23 papers identified risks categorized as internal (project-specific challenges like environmental and management practices) and external (broader factors like natural hazards and economic impacts). The analysis covered environmental, economic, and social impacts on communities, stakeholder satisfaction, and structural adequacy under varied conditions. Other highlighted risks include natural hazards, political threats, congestion, land acquisition issues, and internal management conflicts. This research underscores the need for comprehensive risk management strategies to address the diverse and interconnected risks in bridge projects [54]. By integrating comprehensive risk management strategies, project teams can make informed decisions that enhance safety, optimize resources, and ensure the successful delivery of bridge projects. Recognizing the critical role of these studies is essential to developing resilient and sustainable infrastructure that meets both current and future demands.

2.2. Application of Building Information Modeling (BIM) in Bridge Projects

Building Information Modeling (BIM), as defined by Autodesk, is the process of creating and managing information for a built asset using an intelligent model and a cloud platform, integrating multidisciplinary data throughout the asset’s lifecycle—from planning to operations. Pioneered by Chuck Eastman, BIM has evolved into a comprehensive methodology encompassing product representation, collaboration, and lifecycle management, widely adopted for its benefit to project stakeholders [1,55,56,57,58]. BIM has advanced significantly in global engineering construction, covering the entire project lifecycle, including quality control, cost management, scheduling, data handling, clash detection, and maintenance simulations through 3D data models. Integrating BIM into information frameworks reduces costs, enhances visualization, ensures data accuracy, and improves project integration. A Stanford University study found that BIM use can lead to a 40% reduction in change orders, a 10% decrease in contract costs, and a 7% reduction in project durations. However, widespread BIM adoption faces challenges in countries like the UK, Canada, the US, China, South Africa, Ghana, Australia, and India, including financial constraints, cost–benefit concerns, resistance to new practices, and legal issues. Additionally, BIM’s use in operations and maintenance is limited due to stakeholders’ lack of understanding and integration challenges with traditional contracting methods. Thus, a comprehensive study of BIM’s practical applications in construction is necessary to fully explore its benefits and challenges [5,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68]. BIM is an emerging technology in bridge construction that enhances design quality, collaboration, and feasibility through precise 3D models [5,29,69]. The ISO 19650 standard guides its implementation, aligning with UK 1192 standards and the UK BIM Framework to manage information efficiently throughout a building asset’s lifecycle [70,71,72]. Studies highlight BIM’s role in improving infrastructure, particularly in complex bridge projects requiring high accuracy. A key strategy for advancing bridge management with BIM is to use a specialized information schema that boosts coordination and efficiency across all stages of a bridge’s lifecycle, from design to construction [29]. A strategic plan for implementing BIM in bridge projects includes identifying BIM applications at various project stages, designing processes with process maps, defining BIM deliverables through information exchanges, and establishing connections to support implementation. A Bridge Information Modeling (BrIM) framework has also been developed, integrating features from Bridge Management Systems (BMS), such as databases, inspection modules, and condition assessment tools. This framework aims to build a comprehensive bridge component database, generate inspection spreadsheets, and enhance time and cost management by automating cost estimation and performance measurement during project execution [31,32,33]. Bridge projects have developed various BIM-based solutions to enhance design and construction efficiency, with a focus on design phases, construction sequences, and process monitoring. One conceptual framework integrates BIM with advanced imaging and computation technologies to enhance asset management. To optimize maintenance, a visual framework assesses the condition of concrete bridge elements, and structural assessments use BIM-IoT strategies. Furthermore, studies have highlighted the enhancement of bridge management systems by integrating Geographic Information Systems (GIS). In order to deepen understanding of BIM’s potential impact on the industry, further research is necessary to achieve more precise and reliable outcomes, as these efforts advance BIM applications in bridge construction and management [8,13,15,72,73,74]. The integration of BIM with the Internet of Things (IoT), Geographic Information Systems (GIS), and data analytics has expanded its role in bridge management systems. These technologies facilitate continuous data monitoring, informed decision-making, predictive maintenance, and improved operational efficiency in bridge management [37,75,76,77]. Researchers have extensively studied BIM applications to improve bridge construction, but more research is necessary to attain more accurate and dependable results. This effort aims to fully understand the technology’s capabilities and its potential to advance the industry.

2.3. Application of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) in Bridge Projects

The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) defines sustainability as a global goal comprising environmental, economic, and social dimensions. The growing emphasis on sustainability has led to the development of the Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA), a comprehensive approach that evaluates the full range of environmental, social, and economic impacts of products. Introduced over 15 years ago, LCSA integrates Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (E-LCA), Life Cycle Costing (LCC), and Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) based on standards like ISO 14044, ISO 14040, ISO 14047-ISO 14049, ISO 15663, and ISO 14072. Aligning with triple-bottom-line theory, LCSA supports sustainable decision-making across a product’s life cycle. Zhou first presented the term “LCSA” in 2007 and Kloepffer further developed it in 2008, marking a significant advancement in sustainability assessment [7,58,78,79,80,81,82,83]. The field of LCSA is continually evolving, with ongoing efforts to refine its framework and methods to more accurately measure sustainability. LCSA’s broad applicability spans industries such as construction, transportation, manufacturing, energy, and agriculture, aiming to promote a Circular Economy (CE), which emphasizes sharing, reusing, repairing, and recycling resources to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and extend material lifespans. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) assesses environmental impacts within specific system boundaries, while Life Cycle Costing (LCC) addresses economic aspects, ensuring accurate cost planning throughout a product’s lifecycle. The addition of the Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) broadens LCSA by evaluating the social impacts on stakeholders at various levels. While LCSA still requires further development to enhance its applicability, it plays a critical role in advancing a sustainable economy by integrating sustainability with economic and social considerations, aiding informed decision-making in design and construction projects [7,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90].

In bridge projects, LCSA has evolved from managing material life cycles to analyzing environmental impacts and maintenance challenges. Initially, LCSA focused on comparing the lifespans of standard and minimal-girder bridges through steel durability tests to enhance performance. Further developments included evaluating conventional versus alternative materials for bridge decks to extend their lifespan and reduce maintenance needs [34,60]. The scope of LCSA has expanded to evaluate the environmental impacts of railway bridge construction, highlighting the significant effects of material production. Comprehensive assessments have measured the environmental impacts of various bridge activities and components using diverse environmental indicators. Studies on completed bridges have shown that material manufacturing and operation stages are major contributors to environmental impacts. Exercise-based Life Cycle Assessment has provided insights into the environmental sustainability of bridges, especially in critical stages like raw material manufacturing and processing [18,36,37,38]. Regular bridge maintenance is critical for reducing costs and minimizing environmental impacts, compared to the higher investments and environmental consequences of irregular maintenance. In bridge projects, LCSA encompasses material management, environmental impact analysis, and maintenance considerations to promote sustainable infrastructure development [39]. Several studies have combined Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Costing (LCC) to better manage environmental impacts and costs in bridge maintenance. A genetic algorithm-based framework was developed to optimize bridge maintenance, focusing on maximizing safety, minimizing costs, and reducing environmental effects. Multiple bridge projects employed life-cycle cost analysis to assess the cost-effectiveness of various alternatives, such as reinforcement bars, while taking environmental and climate factors into account. A method was developed to assess the ecological impacts and costs of maintaining concrete bridge structures throughout their lifespan, particularly focusing on repair and maintenance activities. The integration of LCA in preventive maintenance and bridge management is essential, especially in steel-concrete composite bridge design, making environmental LCA a key tool in bridge project management [91,92,93,94]. Bridge project management commonly uses environmental Life Cycle Assessment, but there is still limited implementation of social life cycle evaluation. To fully integrate all aspects of life cycle sustainability assessment into bridge management practices, further research is necessary.

2.4. Quality Management System (ISO 9001:2015)

ISO 9001:2015 is a globally recognized management system that can be applied in all types of companies, regardless of size or sector, to ensure quality and improve performance through top management’s implementation. This standard defines the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining, and continually improving a quality management system (QMS), helping organizations demonstrate their commitment to quality, meet customer expectations, and comply with legal requirements. By putting in place effective processes and training staff, companies can consistently deliver flawless products or services [95]. The standard has evolved through several stages to reach its current form. The International Organization for Standardization issued the first quality assurance standard, ISO 9000, based on the British Standard BS 5750. The second edition, ISO 9000, appeared in 1994, followed by ISO 9001 in 2000, which replaced the 1994 version. The fourth edition, ISO 9001:2008, replaced previous versions in 2008 [95,96], and the latest version, ISO 9001:2015, was released in October 2015 and remains in use, with the final modification in 2024 addressing climate action change. So, companies must implement and comply with the ISO 9001:2015 standard, which is divided into 10 main clauses and 28 sub-clauses, as follows [96]:

-

Clause 1 describes the scope;

-

Clause 2 covers references;

-

Clause 3 deals with terms and definitions;

-

Clause 4 pertains to the context of the organization, which includes understanding the organization and its surroundings, comprehending the requirements and expectations of stakeholders, determining the scope of the quality management system, and evaluating the system and its processes;

-

Clause 5 discusses leadership, including leadership and commitment, quality policy, organizational roles, responsibilities, and authorities;

-

Clause 6 focuses on planning for the quality management system, including actions to address risks and opportunities, quality objectives, planning to achieve them, and planning for changes;

-

Clause 7 deals with support, including resources, competence, awareness, communication, and documented information;

-

Clause 8 focuses on operations, including operational planning and control, requirements for products and services, design and development, control of externally provided processes, products, and services, production and service provision, release of products and services, and control of nonconforming outputs, products, and services;

-

Clause 9 covers performance evaluation, including monitoring, measurement, analysis, evaluation, internal audit, and management review;

-

Clause 10 addresses improvement, including general improvement, nonconformity, corrective action, and continual improvement.

The required controls for each clause of the standard have been defined, but the specific methods are not prescribed, as they depend on the company’s management system and the unique nature of its business to establish and maintain documented procedures ensuring compliance with the requirements. Proper application of this standard provides companies with a comprehensive internal management system, ensuring numerous internal benefits, enhancing their competitive position, increasing market share, and offering other desired external advantages.

In conclusion, integrating risk management, Building Information Modeling (BIM), Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA), and ISO standards are essential for enhancing sustainability in bridge projects. Risk management identifies and mitigates potential impacts across the bridge lifecycle, supporting project teams in maintaining time, cost, and quality objectives while addressing environmental, economic, and social sustainability. BIM enables precise 3D modeling, data management, and collaboration across project stages, while its integration with LCSA ensures that environmental and social impacts are continuously assessed. LCSA offers a comprehensive view of sustainability by evaluating environmental, economic, and social impacts and promoting informed sustainable decision-making. Lastly, ISO 9001 offers a structured quality management framework that facilitates the consistent application of these tools, guaranteeing the organization, optimization, and alignment of all processes with sustainability goals throughout the bridge project lifecycle.

While ISO 9001:2015, BIM, and LCSA standards provide robust frameworks, their application to bridge projects in diverse regions presents unique challenges. Limited infrastructure, resource constraints, and varying regulatory requirements may hinder seamless adoption. For instance, the high cost and training requirements for BIM implementation pose significant barriers in less-developed contexts. Similarly, the availability of reliable environmental data affects the accuracy of LCSA analyses. To address these challenges, the proposed framework in this paper serves as a foundation that can be adapted to regional contexts, integrating local practices and data into its process.

3. Methodology

To address the previously mentioned research inquiries, the following methodology, shown in Figure 1, was employed:

Figure 1. Research methodology.

3.1. Identifying Significant Risks Associated with Bridge Projects

To achieve the objectives of this research and enhance the sustainability of bridge projects, it is essential to begin with a comprehensive analysis of the potential risks that may arise. This process involves identifying the most significant risks from the perspective of the stakeholders involved in these projects. Two key phases led to the identification of risks associated with bridge projects. First, a thorough review of existing research was conducted to gather and categorize relevant risks. This review provided the foundational data needed for classifying and assessing risks. The second phase focused on an in-depth examination of Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) international standards. Standards often encompass both tangible and intangible risks, assuming effective management of these risks once included within the framework. However, this approach ignores the need to accurately assess the implementation of the standards. Therefore, simply recognizing risks within standards is insufficient and does not guarantee their effectiveness or mitigation. Bridge projects apply broader standards related to construction, information management (BIM), and life cycle sustainability (LCSA), despite the absence of specific international standards for bridges. Standards like ISO 19650 and ISO 14040 offer broad guidelines tailored to the unique requirements of bridge design, construction, and sustainability. This analysis aimed to identify the sustainability requirements across environmental, economic, and social domains and to identify potential risks that could arise from the improper implementation of these standards.

The literature review [4,5,53,54,58,59,60,61,62,63,97,98,99,100,101] initially identified 41 potential risks to bridge projects. To deepen this analysis, international standards presented in Table 1 and Table 2 were examined. The results, shown in Table 3 and Table 4, show the sustainability requirements and risks that come from ISO 19650-1:2018 and ISO 19650-2:2018 (BIM standards). Table 5 and Table 6 show the results that come from ISO 14040:2006 and ISO 14044:2006 (LCSA standards). This method was systematically applied across all relevant standards. The result is a comprehensive list of 55 risks pertinent to bridge projects. These risks will undergo further evaluation through a mixed-method survey approach.

Table 1. BIM international standards.

Title	Purpose
ISO 19650-1:2018	Organization and digitization of information about buildings and civil engineering works, including building information modelling (BIM): Information management using building information modelling. Part 1: Concepts and principles
ISO 19650-2:2018	Organization and digitization of information about buildings and civil engineering works, including building information modelling (BIM): Information management using building information modelling. Part 2: Delivery phase of the assets
ISO 19650-3:2020	Organization and digitization of information about buildings and civil engineering works, including building information modelling (BIM): Information management using building information modelling. Part 3: Operational phase of the assets.
ISO 19650-4:2022	Organization and digitization of information about buildings and civil engineering works, including building information modelling (BIM): Information management using building information modelling. Part 4: Information exchange
ISO 19650-5:2022	Organization and digitization of information about buildings and civil engineering works, including building information modelling (BIM): Information management using building information modelling. Part 5: Security-minded approach to information management
ISO 23386:2020	Building information modelling and other digital processes used in construction—Methodology to describe, author and maintain properties in interconnected data dictionaries.
ISO 23387:2020	Building information modelling (BIM)—Data templates for construction objects used in the life cycle of built assets—Concepts and principles.

All standards referenced in this table are issued by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).

Table 2. LCSA international standards.

Title	Purpose
ISO 14040:2006	Environmental management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and framework
ISO 14040:2006/Amd 1:2020	Environmental management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and framework: Amendment 1
ISO 14044:2006	Environmental management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and guidelines
ISO 14044:2006/Amd 2:2020	Environmental management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and guidelines: Amendment 2
ISO 14067:2018	Greenhouse gases—Carbon footprint of products—Requirements and guidelines for quantification
ISO 14020:2022	Environmental statements and programmes for products—Principles and general requirements
ISO 14025:2006	Environmental labels and declarations—Type III environmental declarations—Principles and procedures
ISO 14026:2017	Environmental labels and declarations—Principles, requirements and guidelines for communication of footprint information
ISO 21930:2017	Sustainability in buildings and civil engineering works—Core rules for environmental product declarations of construction products and services

All standards referenced in this table are issued by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).

Table 3. Sustainability requirements and associated risks from ISO 19650-1:2018.

Standard	Clause/Section	Sustainability Requirements	Associated Risks
ISO 19650-1: 2018	1, 3.2.6, 3.3.15	Collaborative working environments, structured information management, integration of environmental considerations	- Information Management Issues - Data Integrity Issues - Contractor Management Problems
	3.2.10, 3.3.16	Risk management and reduction through clear information protocols	- Poor Communication and Stakeholder Engagement - Risk of Rework - Scheduling Conflicts
	3.3.12, 3.3.13	Quality and consistency of data, supporting asset traceability	- Data Integrity Issues - Information Management Challenges
	1	Adaptability and scalability of information management for sustainability in diverse project scales	- Inflexible Project Management - Inefficient Resource Utilization
	3.2.10, 3.2.12	Lifecycle perspective and end-of-life considerations	- Lifecycle Emission Assessment Issues - Maintenance Challenges - End-of-Life Impacts

Table 4. Sustainability requirements and associated risks from ISO 19650-2:2018.

Standard	Clause/Section	Sustainability Requirements	Associated Risks
ISO 19650-2:2018	0.1, 1, 3.1.3.2, 3.1.3.3	Efficient information exchange processes to reduce waste and minimize rework	- Information Management Issues - Data Management Challenges - Inefficient Resource Utilization
	0.5	Collaborative and transparent working environment	- Poor Communication and Stakeholder Engagement - Contractor Management Problems - Scheduling Conflicts
	0.1, 3.1.3.1	Standardized information management processes adaptable for complex and diverse project scales	- Inflexible Project Management - Project Scope Creep - Data Use in BIM Processes
	0.4	Value realization for organizations by focusing on sustainable asset management and resource optimization	- Budgeting for Future Maintenance - Maintenance Challenges - Financial Risks
	0.2	Inclusion of national standards and localized requirements for tailored sustainability and regulatory adherence	- Regulatory Compliance Delays - Environmental Compliance Risks - Cultural Considerations
	0.1, 0.4	Reduction in wasteful activities through digital information management to improve resource efficiency	- Inefficient Resource Utilization - Data Management Challenges - Data Integrity Issues

Table 5. Sustainability requirements and associated risks from ISO 14040:2006.

Standard	Clause/Section	Sustainability Requirements	Associated Risks
ISO 14040:2006	4, 5, 6	Life Cycle Inventory Analysis (LCI), quantifying inputs and outputs for lifecycle stages	- Data Management Challenges - Lifecycle Emission Assessment Issues - Material Quality and Supply Risks
	5, 6	Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA), evaluating environmental impacts of inputs and outputs	- Environmental Compliance Risks - Impact of Climate Change - Pollution and Waste Management Issues
	7	Interpretation of results to inform sustainable decision-making	- Inadequate Training for Staff - Poor Communication and Stakeholder Engagement - Resource Planning Issues
	4.2, 4.3	Transparency and documentation of assumptions and limitations	- Information Management Issues - Data Integrity Issues - Regulatory Compliance Delays
	4, 6, 7	Application of LCA across project phases, including design, construction, maintenance, and decommissioning	- Maintenance Challenges - Budgeting for Future Maintenance - End-of-Life Impacts
	4.2, 6.2	Use of relevant environmental indicators to guide sustainability decisions	- Environmental Monitoring Needs - Pollution and Waste Management Issues - Data Use in BIM Processes

Table 6. Sustainability requirements and associated risks from ISO 14044:2006.

Standard	Clause/Section	Sustainability Requirements	Associated Risks
ISO 14044:2006	4.1, 4.2	Goal and Scope Definition: Define functional unit, system boundaries, and assumptions	- Project Scope Creep - Data Integrity Issues - Poor Communication and Stakeholder Engagement
	4.3	Life Cycle Inventory Analysis: Data collection and quantification for accurate lifecycle assessment	- Data Management Challenges - Material Quality and Supply Risks - Resource Planning Issues
	4.4	Life Cycle Impact Assessment: Assessment of environmental impacts such as pollution, climate change, water use	- Environmental Compliance Risks - Pollution and Waste Management Issues - Impact of Climate Change
	4.5	Interpretation of Results: Generate actionable insights for sustainability improvements	- Inadequate Training for Staff - Information Management Issues - Lifecycle Emission Assessment Issues
	4.6	Data Quality and Reporting: Ensure data is precise, complete, consistent, and representative	- Data Integrity Issues - Data Management Challenges - Information Management Issues
	4.2, 4.3.4	Allocation and System Boundaries: Allocation methods and boundary definitions for lifecycle stages	- Project Scope Creep - Inefficient Resource Utilization - Data Use in BIM Processes
	4.7, 4.8	Critical Review and Transparency: Ensure external review and transparent documentation for credibility	- Reputational Risks - Regulatory Compliance Delays - Data Integrity Issues

3.2. Mixed-Method Survey Development

To thoroughly evaluate the risks identified in the previous analysis, a mixed-method survey was designed with three key components for assessment. The first section gathers respondent information, including their background and familiarity with core concepts relevant to this research, such as BIM, LCSA, and ISO international standards. The second section focuses on the 55 identified risks, each linked to phases of the bridge project lifecycle and evaluated through two distinct lenses. The first lens assesses each risk against the three sustainability pillars (environmental, economic, and social), using a scale of Low, Moderate, and High. The second lens is shown in Figure 2, it uses a risk matrix to figure out the severity and likelihood of each risk’s possible effect on the project as a whole, not just one part of it. For this assessment, respondents use a five-point Likert scale to indicate their view on probability (1—Very Unlikely, 2—Unlikely, 3—Possible, 4—Likely, 5—Very Likely) and severity (1—Negligible, 2—Minor, 3—Moderate, 4—Significant, 5—Severe) for each risk. The final section includes an open-ended question, inviting respondents to identify any additional risks not mentioned in the survey and to assess these using the same methods.

Figure 2. Example of a risk matrix.

A total of 75 surveys were distributed to professionals specializing in various types of bridge projects in different countries, such as Syria, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Hungary, Sweden, Germany, and the Netherlands. Of these, 41 complete surveys were returned and deemed suitable for analysis. These responses were used to evaluate the risks affecting the lifecycle of bridge projects.

To ensure the validity and reliability of the survey data, several measures were implemented. Strict inclusion criteria, targeting professionals with significant experience in bridge project management, risk assessment, and sustainability practices, guided the selection of respondents. The participant pool represented diverse geographic regions, with approximately 56.2% from Europe, 29.4% from the Gulf States, and 14.4% from the Middle East, ensuring a balance of perspectives across developed and less-developed contexts. These experts held roles such as bridge engineers, project managers, and sustainability analysts, with an average of 10 years of professional experience.

The survey was pilot-tested with a small group of experts to refine question clarity and eliminate potential biases. Measures such as randomizing question order and ensuring respondent anonymity were also employed to minimize response bias. Responses were reviewed for completeness and consistency, and ambiguous or incomplete entries were excluded from the analysis. This rigorous approach ensured the survey captured diverse insights while aligning the results with international standards.

3.3. The Results of the Survey

Table 7 illustrates the analysis of the survey respondents’ data, which involved calculating the average of each risk’s severity (S) and probability (P) and then determining the overall risk impact (RI). The total risk impact is calculated by multiplying the risk severity by the risk probability. Additionally, the average identifies the three sustainability pillars, environmental (EN), economic (EC), and social (SO), for later use in determining the necessary data to develop essential guidelines for the targeted processes. Also, in reviewing the data, distinct trends emerge based on geographical location, economic conditions, and technological infrastructure. Experts from Middle Eastern countries, such as UAE and Saudi Arabia, generally perceive environmental and resource-related risks as higher, likely due to regional climate challenges and resource-intensive construction processes. In contrast, countries like Syria exhibit heightened concerns about both economic and political stability, which may impact project continuity and increase overall project risk. European nations like Sweden, Germany, and the Netherlands, with strong economic and political stability, reflect lower risk ratings in these areas. These countries benefit from advanced technological infrastructures, allowing them to integrate cutting-edge tools and processes, such as BIM and lifecycle sustainability assessments, more effectively. Their emphasis is often on optimizing resource management and minimizing environmental impacts, as these countries are typically more technologically prepared and have established sustainability practices within their infrastructure projects.

Table 7. The result of the risk evaluation (risks in red from the international standards).

Risks	S	P	RI	Impact on Sustainability Pillars
				EN	EC	SO
R1—Community resistance and Negative public opinion: When local communities are against the project or have a negative view of it, this can reduce overall support for the project.	2.5	3.4	8.5	Low	Moderate	High
R2—Construction Disruptions: Construction activities causing noise, dust, or traffic disruptions impacting residents’ daily lives.	2.8	4.2	11.76	High	Moderate	High
R3—Poor Communication and Stakeholder Engagement: Ineffective communication can lead to misunderstandings and misaligned expectations.	4.1	3.9	15.99	Low	High	High
R4—Maintenance Challenges: Inadequate maintenance can result in structural issues impacting safety and longevity.	3.8	3.7	14.06	Moderate	High	Moderate
R5—Information Management Issues: Difficulties with fragmented data across project phases can lead to inefficiencies and errors (challenges in organizing, accessing, and efficiently utilizing project data to support decision-making.)	4.8	4.6	22.08	Low	High	Moderate
R6—Resource Planning Issues: Poor planning can result in resource underuse or overuse, affecting efficiency.	4.7	4.4	20.68	Moderate	High	Moderate
R7—Cost and Schedule Planning Issues: Imprecise cost and schedule planning can lead to delays and budget overruns	4.8	5	24	Low	High	Moderate
R8—Progress Tracking Difficulties: Delayed implementation Complex data requirements can hinder timely corrective actions.	4	3	12	Low	High	Moderate
R9—Design and Construction Errors: Errors requiring revisions can waste time, resources, and increase costs.	5	4.5	22.5	High	High	Moderate
R10—Productivity and Organization Issues: Poor team organization can negatively impact productivity.	3.8	3	11.4	Low	High	Moderate
R11—Outdated Technologies: Using outdated technologies may hinder project efficiency and quality.	3.6	3.1	11.16	High	High	Moderate
R12—Construction Quality Issues: Poor quality construction methods can compromise project outcomes.	4.3	4	17.2	High	High	Moderate
R13—Contractor Management Problems: Inadequate site management by contractors can lead to various issues (focuses on managerial inefficiencies, which can indirectly cause errors).	4.2	4	16.8	Moderate	High	Moderate
R14—Labor Disputes and Strikes: Labor conflicts can disrupt project timelines.	2.5	3.1	7.75	Low	High	High
R15—Inclusivity in Stakeholder Decision-Making: Lack of inclusivity can lead to conflicts and disengagement.	3.9	2	7.8	Low	Moderate	High
R16—Cybersecurity Risks: Cyberattacks or data breaches can compromise project data integrity.	2.9	2.9	8.41	Low	High	Moderate
R17—Equipment Quality and Maintenance Issues: Poor equipment quality can impact project performance.	3.8	3.7	14.06	Moderate	High	Moderate
R18—Data Use in BIM Processes: Inadequate Lifecycle Data Integration within BIM can lead to misaligned decisions	4	3.9	15.6	Moderate	High	Moderate
R19—Environmental Impact Assessments: Flawed assessments can miss significant environmental impacts.	4.1	4	16.4	High	Moderate	Moderate
R20—Financial Risks: Challenges in securing funding and fluctuations in costs can affect project viability.	5	5	25	Low	High	Moderate
R21—Regulatory Compliance Delays: The challenge of aligning BIM models with regulatory standards for environmental labels and compliance with international information management protocols	4.4	3	13.2	Low	High	Moderate
R22—Pollution and Waste Management Issues: Construction pollution and waste can harm the environment.	3.8	4	15.2	High	Moderate	Moderate
R23—Cultural Heritage Risks: Potential damage to cultural heritage sites during construction.	2.5	2.1	5.25	Moderate	Low	High
R24—Worker Safety and Health Risks: Inadequate safety measures and training can pose risks to workers and the public.	4	4.2	16.8	Low	High	High
R25—Natural Disaster Risks: Risks from natural disasters like earthquakes can impact project safety.	4.4	4.1	18.04	High	High	High
R26—Environmental Monitoring Needs: Insufficient data validation and quality assurance for environmental claims affect the lifecycle of the project.	3.6	3.2	11.52	High	Moderate	Low
R27—Weather and Geological Risks: Adverse weather and geological conditions can complicate project execution.	4.5	4.1	18.45	High	High	High
R28—Data Management Challenges: Lack of data integration and Interoperability Issues can hinder decision-making (emphasizes interoperability issues and lack of data integration, particularly in collaborative decision-making).	4.3	3.7	15.91	Low	High	Moderate
R29—Supply Chain Disruptions: Misinterpreting Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) Standards for Imported Materials can lead to delays and inefficiencies.	3.9	4.1	15.99	Moderate	High	Moderate
R30—Lifecycle Emission Assessment Issues: Incomplete Carbon Footprint Data Management can compromise sustainability.	3.8	3.1	11.78	High	Moderate	Low
R31—Material Quality and Supply Risks: Environmental product quality and transparency and supply shortages can affect construction.	4.2	4.1	17.22	High	High	Moderate
R32—Technological Integration Issues: Challenges in integrating new technologies can hinder project efficiency.	3.9	3.5	13.65	Moderate	High	Moderate
R33—Project Scope Creep: Uncontrolled changes or continuous growth in project scope can lead to resource strain.	3.7	3.5	12.95	Low	High	Moderate
R34—Reputational Risks: Negative media coverage or public perception can damage stakeholder relations.	3.1	4	12.4	Low	High	High
R35—Inadequate Training for Staff: Insufficient training can lead to safety and performance issues.	3.5	2.9	10.15	Low	High	High
R36—Inflexible Project Management: Complexity in ensuring continuity of digital models across the lifecycle	4	3.7	14.8	Low	High	Moderate
R37—Budgeting for Future Maintenance: Inadequate budgeting can affect long-term maintenance and sustainability.	3.9	4	15.6	Low	High	Moderate
R38—Inefficient Resource Utilization: Inefficient resource optimization can lead to increased waste (emphasizes the operational inefficiencies that result in increased waste or suboptimal use of resources).	3.8	4	15.2	Moderate	High	Moderate
R39—Risk of Current Technologies Becoming Outdated: Rapid technological advancements can render current technologies less effective.	3.7	3.5	12.95	Low	High	Moderate
R40—Impact of Climate Change: Climate change impacts can create new risks for bridge projects.	4.1	3.9	15.99	High	Moderate	Low
R41—Data Integrity Issues: Inconsistent data reporting formats can hinder effective decision-making (risks related to the accuracy, reliability, and consistency of data inputs and outputs used across project processes).	4.1	3.6	14.76	Low	High	Moderate
R42—Unforeseen Soil Conditions: Unexpected soil conditions can complicate construction.	3.9	3	11.7	High	High	Moderate
R43—Environmental Compliance Risks: Non-compliance with environmental regulations can lead to legal issues.	3.7	3.9	14.43	High	Moderate	Moderate
R44—Inadequate Emergency Response Planning: Lack of emergency planning can exacerbate risks during crises.	2.9	3	8.7	Low	High	High
R45—Financial Impacts from Design Changes: Unanticipated design changes can lead to financial strain.	4.5	4.6	20.7	Low	High	Moderate
R46—Limited Access to Advanced Construction Technologies: Barriers to accessing modern technologies can hinder efficiency.	3.7	3.9	14.43	Moderate	High	Moderate
R47—Erosion and Sedimentation Risks: Risks related to erosion and sedimentation during construction.	3.8	2.6	9.88	High	Moderate	Low
R48—Conflicts in Contract Documents: Ambiguities in contracts can lead to disputes and delays.	4.6	4.1	18.86	Low	High	Moderate
R49—Heat Effect: Increased temperatures in urban areas can affect bridge performance.	3.4	3.1	10.54	High	Moderate	Low
R50—Risks from Energy-Intensive Processes: High energy consumption during construction can increase costs and environmental impact.	3.5	4	14	High	Moderate	Low
R51—Regulatory Changes: Changes in laws or regulations during the project could introduce new risks.	3.7	3.4	12.58	Low	High	Moderate
R52—Political Factors: Shifts in political support or policy priorities may impact project funding or community support.	3.7	3.7	13.69	Low	High	High
R53—Technological Advances: New technologies emerging during the project could affect existing plans or introduce new risks.	3.6	3.2	11.52	Low	High	Moderate
R54—Stakeholder Dynamics: Changes in key stakeholders or their interests might create unforeseen challenges.	3.8	2.9	11.02	Low	Moderate	High
R55—Cultural Considerations: Failing to address cultural sensitivities in the area can increase community opposition.	3.1	3	9.3	Low	Low	High

To effectively address these risks, it is essential to focus on those with the greatest impact on the bridge lifecycle. By applying the Pareto principle, which typically suggests that 20% of causes are often responsible for 80% of the effects, to the survey results, Table 8 has been organized to include all necessary data for creating a Pareto chart. This chart enables the identification of the critical 20% of risks that contribute to 80% of the impact on sustainability throughout the bridge project lifecycle.

Table 8. The required data for the Pareto chart for risks.

Risk	Risk Impact (RI)	Cumulative Impact	Cumulative Percentage
R20—Financial Risks	25.00	25.00	3.20%
R7—Cost and Schedule Planning Issues	24.00	49.00	6.26%
R9—Design and Construction Errors	22.50	71.50	9.14%
R5—Information Management Issues	22.08	93.58	11.96%
R45—Financial Impacts from Design Changes	20.70	114.28	14.61%
R6—Resource Planning Issues	20.68	134.96	17.25%
R48—Conflicts in Contract Documents	18.86	153.82	19.66%
R27—Weather and Geological Risks	18.45	172.27	22.02%
R25—Natural Disaster Risks	18.04	190.31	24.33%
R31—Material Quality and Supply Risks	17.22	207.53	26.53%
R12—Construction Quality Issues	17.20	224.73	28.73%
R13—Contractor Management Problems	16.80	241.53	30.87%
R24—Worker Safety and Health Risks	16.80	258.33	33.02%
R19—Environmental Impact Assessments	16.40	274.73	35.12%
R3—Poor Communication and Stakeholder Engagement	15.99	290.72	37.16%
R29—Supply Chain Disruptions	15.99	306.71	39.21%
R40—Impact of Climate Change	15.99	322.70	41.25%
R28—Data Management Challenges	15.91	338.61	43.28%
R18—Data Use in BIM Processes	15.60	354.21	45.28%
R37—Budgeting for Future Maintenance	15.60	369.81	47.27%
R22—Pollution and Waste Management Issues	15.20	385.01	49.21%
R38—Inefficient Resource Utilization	15.20	400.21	51.16%
R36—Inflexible Project Management	14.80	415.01	53.05%
R41—Data Integrity Issues	14.76	429.77	54.94%
R43—Environmental Compliance Risks	14.43	444.20	56.78%
R46—Limited Access to Advanced Technologies	14.43	458.63	58.63%
R4—Maintenance Challenges	14.06	472.69	60.42%
R17—Equipment Quality and Maintenance Issues	14.06	486.75	62.22%
R50—Risks from Energy-Intensive Processes	14.00	500.75	64.01%
R52—Political Factors	13.69	514.44	65.76%
R32—Technological Integration Issues	13.65	528.09	67.50%
R21—Regulatory Compliance Delays	13.20	541.29	69.19%
R33—Project Scope Creep	12.95	554.24	70.85%
R39—Risk of Current Technologies Becoming Outdated	12.95	567.19	72.50%
R51—Regulatory Changes	12.58	579.77	74.11%
R34—Reputational Risks	12.40	592.17	75.70%
R8—Progress Tracking Difficulties	12.00	604.17	77.23%
R30—Lifecycle Emission Assessment Issues	11.78	615.95	78.73%
R2—Construction Disruptions	11.76	627.71	80.24%
R42—Unforeseen Soil Conditions	11.70	639.41	81.73%
R26—Environmental Monitoring Needs	11.52	650.93	83.21%
R53—Technological Advances	11.52	662.45	84.68%
R10—Productivity and Organization Issues	11.40	673.85	86.14%
R11—Outdated Technologies	11.16	685.01	87.56%
R54—Stakeholder Dynamics	11.02	696.03	88.97%
R49—Heat Effect	10.54	706.57	90.32%
R35—Inadequate Training for Staff	10.15	716.72	91.62%
R47—Erosion and Sedimentation Risks	9.88	726.60	92.88%
R55—Cultural Considerations	9.30	735.90	94.07%
R44—Inadequate Emergency Response Planning	8.70	744.60	95.18%
R1—Community Resistance and Negative Public Opinion	8.50	753.10	96.27%
R16—Cybersecurity Risks	8.41	761.51	97.34%
R15—Inclusivity in Stakeholder Decision-Making	7.80	769.31	98.34%
R14—Labor Disputes and Strikes	7.75	777.06	99.33%
R23—Cultural Heritage Risks	5.25	782.31	100.00%

The results from Table 8 and Figure 3 illustrate the application of the Pareto principle, showing that the most critical risks—those that collectively account for 80% of the impact on the bridge project lifecycle—are concentrated on the left side of the chart, specifically from R20 to R30, totaling 38 risks. Notably, most of the risks identified based on international standards fall within this range. This finding deviates from the typical Pareto distribution, where approximately 20% of causes account for 80% of effects. Instead, these risks affect a larger proportion of processes, reflecting the complex and interconnected nature of risks in bridge projects. While achieving a strict 80/20 distribution was not feasible due to the broader distribution of significant risks across processes, the Pareto Principle served as a valuable tool to prioritize and rank risks systematically. By ranking risks in descending order of importance, the proposed framework enables stakeholders to focus resources on higher-priority risks while retaining a comprehensive understanding of lower-tier risks that may influence specific phases or contexts.

Figure 3. Pareto chart for risks.

This broader interpretation of the Pareto Principle may reflect the unique complexities of bridge projects, where risks are often interconnected and require a more comprehensive evaluation. While this adaptation deviates from traditional applications, it ensures that no significant risks are overlooked while allowing for tailored prioritization based on specific project contexts. This adapted approach to the Pareto Principle ensures a flexible and actionable framework, allowing project teams to address the most critical risks first while maintaining adaptability for diverse project contexts. The next step involves linking these vital risks to the processes within each phase of the bridge lifecycle.

3.4. Linking the Risks to the Processes of a Bridge Project Lifecycle

This step involves segmenting the bridge lifecycle into eight primary phases—Planning and Design, Procurement and Contracting, Construction and Supervision, Testing and Commissioning, Operation, Maintenance, Rehabilitation, and Decommissioning. Each phase is further detailed into its main processes and subprocesses. This structure is informed by an extensive review of previous studies, guidance from the PMBOK Guide, 7th Edition, and insights from bridge professionals. Relevant risks are then mapped to each subprocess to provide a comprehensive view of how these risks impact each main process and, consequently, the broader project lifecycle. To ensure objectivity and consistency, the following systematic approach was implemented:

1-

Risk-Process Relevance Assessment: For each subprocess, the nature of the task was analyzed, and the critical aspects or objectives that each subprocess aims to achieve were identified (e.g., accuracy in financial analysis for cost–benefit analysis or environmental protection in Environmental Impact Assessment). Each risk from the vital list was then reviewed to determine how it might impact or threaten these specific objectives of the subprocesses. This ensured that risks were only assigned to subprocesses where their influence was logically relevant and significant;

2-

Risk Impact Analysis: Each risk’s potential to directly or indirectly influence the success of each subprocess was evaluated. Both direct risks (those impacting subprocess outcomes directly) and indirect risks (those affecting resources, scheduling, stakeholder engagement, or other supportive aspects) were considered. For instance, financial risks (R20) were inherently linked to processes like cost–benefit analysis and budgeting, as these risks directly affect financial stability and planning. Similarly, Environmental Compliance Risks (R43) and Pollution and Waste Management Issues (R22) were linked to Environmental Impact Assessments due to their direct relationship with assessing and mitigating environmental impacts;

3-

Cross-Referencing for Completeness: The scope of each risk was used to cross-check its relevance to multiple subprocesses where applicable. For example, Project Scope Creep (R33), while directly impacting budgeting, was also found to affect traffic and demand analysis and cost–benefit analysis due to potential misalignments between scope and demand or budget. This ensured comprehensive coverage of risks across all applicable subprocesses;

4-

Risk-Context Matching: Each risk was matched to its specific context within the project lifecycle phase to ensure relevance and clarity. For example, ’Supply Chain Disruptions’ (R29), while primarily associated with Procurement and Construction, was also linked to Maintenance because disruptions in the availability of replacement parts or materials could affect maintenance schedules and outcomes. Worker safety and health risks (R24) were linked to site selection due to the potential safety hazards of certain locations, while data management challenges (R28) were linked to traffic and demand analysis because of the data-intensive nature of these analyses. Similarly, Lifecycle Emission Assessment Issues (R30) were primarily linked to the Planning and Construction phases, where material selection and operational planning directly influence emissions. However, limited relevance was also noted for the Maintenance and Decommissioning phases to account for emissions generated during maintenance activities and end-of-life processes, such as demolition and material recycling. Some risks, such as Information Management Issues (R5) and Data Management Challenges (R28), may appear similar but were linked to different phases to reflect their distinct roles. For instance, (R5) pertains to challenges in organizing and accessing data during early project phases like Planning and Design, whereas R28 emphasizes interoperability and integration issues that arise during collaborative phases such as Operation and Maintenance. Also, Resource Planning Issues (R6) focus on inefficiencies in resource allocation during early phases like Procurement, while Inefficient Resource Utilization (R38) highlights suboptimal use of resources during later phases like Construction and Operation. This differentiation ensures that risks are mapped to their most relevant contexts, avoiding redundancy while providing actionable insights for targeted mitigation;

5-

Final Validation for Accuracy and Completeness: After risks were assigned, each linkage was reviewed and validated by industry professionals with expertise in bridge lifecycle management. This step ensured that the assignments were practical, consistent, and reflective of real-world conditions, with particular attention given to critical subprocesses such as geotechnical studies, which involve complex conditions and require consideration of various risk factors (e.g., climate, geology, and technology).

A systematic prioritization process was employed to ensure that risks with the highest potential impact, either directly or indirectly, were given precedence in the analysis. This prioritization aligns with the Pareto Principle, focusing resources on the vital risks that significantly influence project outcomes.

The assignment of risks to multiple phases reflects the interconnected nature of processes in bridge projects. The degree of impact of each risk varies across phases depending on its relevance and intensity in each context. For instance, while ’Natural Disaster Risks’ (R25) and ’Impact of Climate Change’ (R40) have significant direct impacts during the Construction phase due to potential disruptions or material vulnerabilities, they may have indirect or limited effects in the Maintenance or Decommissioning phases. Furthermore, risks like ’Supply Chain Disruptions’ (R29) are critical during Procurement and Construction but are less likely to impact the operation phase. This variability reflects the practical dynamics of risk influence and was considered in the analysis to ensure a nuanced understanding of their relevance to each phase. Such a context-dependent approach ensures that the framework remains adaptable to diverse scenarios and enables a more precise understanding of risk distribution across the bridge lifecycle.

While this methodology provides a structured and consistent approach to risk mapping, it should be recognized that evolving project contexts or unforeseen factors may influence the relative importance of certain risks, necessitating periodic re-evaluation.

Table 9 and Table 10 illustrate the application of this methodology to the Planning And Design as well as Procurement And Contracting phases of the bridge lifecycle.

Table 9. The analysis of the planning and design phase and its associated risks.

The Planning and Design Phase
Main Process	Sub Process	Associated Risks
Feasibility Studies	- Cost–benefit analysis	R20, R7, R45, R38, R52, R3, R8, R33, R29, R34
	- Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)	R19, R43, R40, R22, R52, R3, R25, R30, R41, R34
	- Traffic and demand analysis	R7, R3, R36, R32, R29, R8, R33, R28
	- Site selection studies	R27, R25, R31, R52, R40, R19, R22, R6, R24, R46
	- Budgeting and financial planning	R20, R6, R45, R37, R29, R7, R33, R8, R52, R34
	- Geotechnical studies	R27, R25, R31, R32, R9, R6, R40, R17, R36
Preliminary Design	- Initial design modeling	R9, R3, R45, R33, R36, R32
	- Structural design and analysis	R9, R31, R6, R20, R27, R25, R17, R40
	- BIM modeling and simulation	R5, R18, R28, R41, R32, R39
	- Material selection and specification	R31, R6, R29, R22, R38, R46, R20
	- Design optimization for sustainability (LCA, LCSA)	R30, R40, R22, R43, R19, R37, R38
	- Sustainability goal setting	R40, R19, R22, R43, R34, R52
	- Cost estimation	R20, R7, R45, R33, R8, R3, R52
	- Safety and compliance checks.	R24, R41, R43, R36, R52, R3, R25
	- Sustainability goal setting	R40, R19, R22, R43, R34, R52
Risk Identification and Analysis	- Hazard identification	R3, R5, R9, R25, R27, R40, R24, R31
	- Preliminary risk assessment	R20, R6, R7, R9, R28, R36, R32, R43
	- Risk prioritization	R20, R7, R33, R29, R30, R34, R52
	- Development of mitigation strategies	R6, R19, R22, R40, R41, R46, R43, R24
	- Climate Change Impact Assessment	R40, R19, R22, R43, R30, R27, R25, R52
Stakeholder Engagement	- Public consultations	R3, R24, R34, R52, R29, R19
	- Regulatory approvals (permitting and compliance)	R43, R21, R51, R52, R7, R40, R19
	- Community impact studies	R3, R34, R19, R22, R52, R25, R27, R40
	- Stakeholder communication.	R3, R5, R8, R33, R34, R52, R28
Sustainability Assessment	- Energy impact calculations	R50, R22, R40, R38, R37, R30
	- Carbon footprint evaluation	R40, R30, R22, R43, R19
	- Lifecycle cost analysis (LCA)	R20, R37, R30, R45, R7, R38, R31
	- Sustainability reporting	R43, R41, R28, R19, R34, R52

Table 10. The analysis of the Procurement and Contracting phase and its associated risks.

The Procurement and Contracting Phase
Main Process	Sub Process	Associated Risks
Tendering and Bidding	- Invitation to tender	R3, R52, R34, R48, R43, R29
	- Bid preparation and submission	R20, R7, R6, R45, R33, R28, R29
	- Bid evaluation and scoring	R5, R9, R33, R48, R52, R20, R41
Contract Drafting and Negotiation	- Contract scope development	R3, R48, R33, R52, R34, R29
	- Negotiation of terms (cost, timelines, penalties)	R20, R7, R6, R45, R9, R52, R41
	- Risk-sharing clauses	R20, R43, R45, R6, R9, R13, R29
Legal and Regulatory Compliance	- Developed procedures for compliance with laws and standards	R21, R43, R52, R51, R19, R40, R24, R41, R25, R22, R28
Supplier Selection and Qualification	- Supplier pre-qualification	R31, R3, R48, R13, R29, R24
	- Supplier performance assessment	R12, R13, R41, R9, R29, R33
	- Sustainability criteria evaluation	R40, R19, R22, R43, R28, R50
Budget Estimation	- Detailed cost estimation	R20, R7, R45, R6, R29, R33, R3
	- Contingency planning	R20, R37, R52, R29, R25, R40
	- Risk-adjusted budget allocation	R20, R7, R45, R6, R41, R43, R34
Risk Allocation in Contracts	- Assignment of risks to stakeholders (e.g., owner, contractor)	R3, R6, R20, R48, R52, R13, R29
	- Development of risk-sharing mechanisms (insurance)	R20, R43, R45, R6, R9, R41, R52

After the outlined methodology was applied across all phases of the bridge lifecycle, the total number of risks from the vital risks list associated with each subprocess was identified, allowing for the calculation of risks related to each main process, which made it possible to calculate the average impact of vital risks affecting each main process. Then, the Pareto Principle was subsequently applied to the bridge lifecycle phases through the average impact of the vital risks that affected each main process. This approach pinpointed the most impactful processes within each phase of the bridge project lifecycle, enabling targeted improvements in these areas. Table 11 presents the data needed to create the Pareto chart for the bridge lifecycle phases: Planning and Design (P&D), Procurement and Contracting (P&C), Construction and Supervision (C&S), Testing and Commissioning (T&C), Operation (O), Maintenance (M), Rehabilitation and Retrofit (R&R), and Decommissioning and End-of-Life (D&E).

Table 11. The required data for the Pareto chart for the bridge lifecycle phases.

Phase	Main Processes	Impact of Vital Risks (Average)	Cumulative Risk Impact	Cumulative Percentage
P&C	Risk Allocation in Contracts	18.13	18.13	2.31%
C&S	On-Site Risk Management	18.13	36.26	4.62%
P&C	Tendering and Bidding	18	54.26	6.92%
M	Budgeting for Future Maintenance Needs	17.86	72.12	9.19%
C&S	Procurement and Supply Chain Management	17.82	89.94	11.47%
P&C	Contract Drafting and Negotiation	17.77	107.71	13.73%
O	Asset Management and Lifecycle Cost Analysis	17.55	125.26	15.97%
C&S	Quality Control and Assurance	17.52	142.78	18.20%
O	Traffic and Load Management	17.45	160.23	20.43%
T&C	Handover to Operational Teams	17.29	177.52	22.63%
O	Risk Monitoring and Reassessment	17.29	194.81	24.84%
R&R	Stakeholder Communication and Approval	17.22	212.03	27.03%
P&C	Budget Estimation	17.16	229.19	29.22%
T&C	Structural and Material Testing	17.15	246.34	31.41%
R&R	Risk Reassessment	17.15	263.49	33.59%
M	Preventive Maintenance	17.03	280.52	35.76%
C&S	Construction Scheduling and Planning	17	297.52	37.93%
O	Performance Monitoring and Inspection	16.98	314.5	40.10%
M	Safety Upgrades and Retrofitting	16.94	331.44	42.265
C&S	Health, Safety, and Environment (HSE) Management	16.92	348.36	44.41%
C&S	Site Preparation and Groundwork	16.91	365.27	46.57%
M	Corrective Maintenance	16.83	382.1	48.72%
P&D	Risk Identification and Analysis	16.8	398.9	50.86%
M	Documentation of Maintenance Activities	16.8	415.7	53.00%
T&C	System Functionality Checks	16.63	432.33	55.12%
T&C	Documentation and Reporting	16.61	448.94	57.24%
C&S	Labor Management	16.58	465.52	59.35%
O	Emergency Response Planning	16.54	482.06	61.46%
D&E	Dismantling and Demolition Planning	16.5	498.56	63.56%
P&D	Feasibility Studies	16.47	515.03	65.66%
P&D	Preliminary Design	16.43	531.46	67.76%
C&S	Monitoring and Reporting	16.42	547.88	69.85%
P&D	Sustainability Assessment	16.39	564.27	71.94%
R&R	Structural Assessments	16.34	580.61	74.02%
P&C	Supplier Selection and Qualification	16.31	596.92	76.10%
D&E	Environmental Restoration	16.09	613.01	78.16%
D&E	Community Impact Management	16.05	629.06	80.20%
P&D	Stakeholder Engagement	15.89	644.95	82.23%
R&R	Integration of New Technologies	15.84	660.79	84.25%
R&R	Design and Planning for Retrofit	15.68	676.47	86.25%
O	Sustainability Reporting	15.64	692.11	88.24%
D&E	Compliance with Regulations	15.57	707.68	90.23%
D&E	Final Decommissioning Reports	15.55	723.23	92.21%
D&E	Material Recycling and Disposal	15.44	738.67	94.18%
M	Environmental Compliance	15.35	754.02	96.13%
P&C	Legal and Regulatory Compliance	15.18	769.2	98.07%
T&C	Safety and Performance Certifications	15.15	784.35	100.00%

The identified vital risks significantly influence 36 out of 47 main processes, as Table 11 and Figure 4 demonstrate. Applying the Pareto Principle enabled a strategic prioritization of processes, focusing efforts on those most impacted by risks to develop targeted mitigation plans. This prioritization emphasizes that the most effective way to manage critical risks in the bridge lifecycle is by prioritizing processes based on their cumulative risk impact. For instance, focusing on the process with the highest impact—risk allocation in contracts during the Procurement And Contracting phase—and utilizing precise risk management tools can establish a strong foundation that positively impacts other processes. Eleven vital risks (R3, R6, R9, R13, R20, R29, R41, R43, R45, R48, and R52) affect this process alone, underscoring the substantial impact that effective risk mitigation can have on the overall project.

Figure 4. Pareto chart for the average impact of the vital risks on the main processes.

Applying this systematic approach to other high-impact processes within the “vital zone” of the analysis chart offers a powerful opportunity to enhance sustainability throughout the bridge lifecycle. By effectively managing these prioritized processes and addressing associated risks, significant improvements can be achieved in environmental, economic, and social sustainability. This focused approach not only optimizes the use of resources but also ensures the development of robust, enduring bridge infrastructure that aligns with comprehensive sustainability objectives. Finally, Table 12 presents the percentage distribution of affected phases in the bridge project lifecycle impacted by the vital risks.

Table 12. The percentage of the affected phases by the vital risks in the bridge project lifecycle according to the Pareto Principle.

Phases	Number of Main Processes	Number of Affected Main Processes	Affected Main Processes as a Percentage
Planning and Design	5	4	80%
Procurement and contracting	6	5	83.33%
Construction and Supervision	8	8	100%
Testing and Commissioning	5	4	80%
Operation	6	5	83.33%
Maintenance	6	5	83.33%
Rehabilitation and retrofit	5	3	60%
Decommissioning and End-of-Life	6	2	33.33%
	Sum = 47	Sum = 36

Analyzing the results in Table 12 reveals the following insights:

1-

High-Risk Phases: The Construction and Supervision phase is notably high-risk, with 100% of its main processes affected by vital risks. This result indicates that every aspect of this phase requires close management due to the dynamic nature of on-site activities, resource demands, and regulatory compliance. Additionally, the procurement and contracting, operation, and maintenance phases each have 83.33% of their processes impacted by vital risks. The significant risk exposure during these phases shows the necessity for effective risk management measures;

2-

Phases Affected Moderately: Each of the Planning and Design as well as Testing and Commissioning phases exhibit 80% process impact, emphasizing the criticality of early risk mitigation during these foundational stages. The rehabilitation and retrofit phase affects 60% of processes, indicating a concentration of vital risks in specific areas, likely due to its narrower scope compared to other phases like construction and maintenance;

3-

Lower-Risk Phase: The decommissioning and end-of-life phase shows the lowest percentage of affected processes, with only 33.33% impacted. This lower percentage suggests that this phase, being terminal, involves fewer operational or construction-related risks.

Vital risks impact 36 out of 47 main processes across all phases, accounting for 76.6% of the total. This high proportion of affected processes indicates that vital risks substantially influence the entire bridge lifecycle, illustrating the need for a comprehensive approach to risk management. Prioritizing high-risk phases such as Construction and Supervision, procurement, operation, and maintenance would yield substantial improvements in risk mitigation. Additionally, focusing on the main processes within planning and design, testing, and commissioning can help manage risks early in the lifecycle, contributing to better outcomes across the project, and commissioning can help manage risks early in the lifecycle, leading to better outcomes across the project.

3.5. Developing the Essential Guidelines and Strategic Measures

Based on the previous results, the ideal starting point for developing essential guidelines and strategic measures is to focus on the high-impact processes within the Construction and Supervision phase. This phase is critical, with 100% of its main processes affected by vital risks. Key areas, such as on-site risk management, quality control and assurance, and health, safety, and environment (HSE) management, should be prioritized, as they directly impact project safety, quality, and regulatory compliance. Establishing guidelines in these areas will lay a strong foundation for risk management, creating positive effects that resonate throughout the entire project.

Each main process within this phase should develop essential guidelines and strategic measures to achieve targeted improvements and mitigate vital risks affecting its processes. These measures should specifically address the identified risks while aligning with the ISO 9001:2015 international standards. This alignment ensures high-quality performance, continuous improvement, and precise results. Additionally, the guidelines must integrate considerations for the sustainability pillars impacted by these risks, incorporating the necessary requirements to enhance process efficiency and outcomes. The survey results from Table 5 provide valuable insights for assessing the impact of these risks on the sustainability pillars. Applying the Pareto Principle to both risks and processes reveals the influence of 28 vital risks on the Construction and Supervision phase. These risks have a significant impact on both the main processes and subprocesses within this phase, as illustrated in Table 13.

Table 13. The most impactful risks in the Construction and Supervision phase.

Phase	The Most Impactful Risks	RI	Their Impact on Sustainability Pillars
			EN	EC	SO
Construction and Supervision	R20—Financial Risks	25.00	Low	High	Moderate
	R7—Cost and Schedule Planning Issues	24.00	Low	High	Moderate
	R9—Design and Construction Errors	22.50	High	High	Moderate
	R5—Information Management Issues	22.08	Low	High	Moderate
	R45—Financial Impacts from Design Changes	20.70	Low	High	Moderate
	R6—Resource Planning Issues	20.68	Moderate	High	Moderate
	R48—Conflicts in Contract Documents	18.86	Low	High	Moderate
	R27—Weather and Geological Risks	18.45	High	High	High
	R25—Natural Disaster Risks	18.04	High	High	High
	R31—Material Quality and Supply Risks	17.22	High	High	Moderate
	R12—Construction Quality Issues	17.20	High	High	Moderate
	R13—Contractor Management Problems	16.80	Moderate	High	Moderate
	R24—Worker Safety and Health Risks	16.80	Low	High	High
	R19—Environmental Impact Assessments	16.40	High	Moderate	Moderate
	R3—Poor Communication and Stakeholder Engagement	15.99	Low	High	High
	R29—Supply Chain Disruptions	15.99	Moderate	High	Moderate
	R40—Impact of Climate Change	15.99	High	Moderate	Low
	R28—Data Management Challenges	15.91	Low	High	Moderate
	R18—Data Use in BIM Processes	15.60	Moderate	High	Moderate
	R37—Budgeting for Future Maintenance	15.60	Low	High	Moderate
	R22—Pollution and Waste Management Issues	15.20	High	Moderate	Moderate
	R38—Inefficient Resource Utilization	15.20	Moderate	High	Moderate
	R36—Inflexible Project Management	14.80	Low	High	Moderate
	R41—Data Integrity Issues	14.76	Low	High	Moderate
	R43—Environmental Compliance Risks	14.43	High	Moderate	Moderate
	R46—Limited Access to Advanced Technologies	14.43	Moderate	High	Moderate
	R4—Maintenance Challenges	14.06	Moderate	High	Moderate
	R17—Equipment Quality and Maintenance Issues	14.06	Moderate	High	Moderate
	R50—Risks from Energy-Intensive Processes	14.00	High	Moderate	Low
	R52—Political Factors	13.69	Low	High	High
	R32—Technological Integration Issues	13.65	Moderate	High	Moderate
	R21—Regulatory Compliance Delays	13.20	Low	High	Moderate
	R33—Project Scope Creep	12.95	Low	High	Moderate
	R39—Risk of Current Technologies Becoming Outdated	12.95	Low	High	Moderate
	R51—Regulatory Changes	12.58	Low	High	High
	R34—Reputational Risks	12.40	Low	High	Moderate
	R8—Progress Tracking Difficulties	12.00	Low	High	Moderate
	R30—Lifecycle Emission Assessment Issues	11.78	High	Moderate	Low

The analysis of Table 13 indicates that many of the identified risks in the Construction and Supervision phase significantly impact the economic sustainability pillar, making it a primary focus for this phase. Risks such as R20—financial risks, R7—cost and schedule planning issues, and R45—financial impacts from design changes are characterized by their high economic impact, underscoring the importance of financial viability in maintaining project continuity and preventing budget overruns. However, economic considerations alone are not sufficient; environmental and social sustainability must also be prioritized to achieve a balanced and sustainable project outcome. Environmental sustainability in this phase is critical for mitigating potential ecological risks, ensuring compliance with environmental regulations, and promoting long-term project viability. Risks such as R19—Environmental Impact Assessments, R22—Pollution and Waste Management Issues, and R43—Environmental Compliance Risks highlight the need for integrating environmental considerations into construction practices. Effective monitoring systems and sustainable construction practices should be implemented to minimize ecological impacts and ensure adherence to environmental standards. Social sustainability also plays an essential role in the Construction and Supervision phase, focusing on worker safety, community engagement, and stakeholder communication. Worker safety and health risks (R24) must be addressed through robust health, safety, and environment (HSE) management systems to ensure the well-being of workers and prevent accidents. Similarly, risks such as R3—poor communication and stakeholder engagement—emphasize the importance of involving stakeholders and maintaining open communication to align construction activities with community values and safety needs. An integrated approach that considers all three pillars of sustainability—economic, environmental, and social—is essential in the Construction and Supervision phase. While economic viability is critical, it must be pursued alongside environmental protection and social responsibility. Improvement guidelines should be developed to enhance not only economic outcomes but also environmental and social aspects. This can be achieved by incorporating sustainability criteria into construction processes and ensuring that decisions made during this phase reflect their impact across all pillars. By adopting such a comprehensive approach, the Construction and Supervision phase can contribute to a more successful and sustainable project outcome.

The creation of essential guidelines for the Construction and Supervision phase, in alignment with ISO 9001:2015 and according to BIM and LCSA international standards, begins with the main process: On-Site Risk Management with average risk impact (18.13), which is affected by several vital risks, including R3, R5, R6, R7, R9, R13, R20, R24, R25, R27, R29, R36, R40, R41, R43, and R52. The first three clauses of ISO 9001:2015—Clause 1 (Scope), Clause 2 (Normative References), and Clause 3 (Terms and Definitions)—provide essential background, scope, and definitions to ensure clarity and consistency in applying the standard. While they do not contain specific requirements, they establish a framework for understanding the quality management system. The actionable guidelines begin with Clause 4, which defines the organization’s context and serves as the starting point for implementing effective quality management in the On-Site Risk Management process. Table 14 outlines the essential components of this guideline, systematically linked to the vital risks that must be addressed at each step. Following this structured approach, comprehensive guidelines have been developed for all of the main processes within the Construction and Supervision phases and then the other phases in the bridge lifecycle. When combined, these guidelines form an integrated framework to effectively enhance the sustainability of the entire bridge lifecycle.

Table 14. The key elements of the On-Site Risk Management guideline.

Clause	Section	Objective	On-Site Risk Management Focus with BIM and LCSA	Related Risks and Suggested Actions
Clause 4: Context of the Organization	Clause 4.1: Understanding the Organization and Its Context	Identify internal and external factors that affect quality and risk management on-site.	BIM: Use BIM to model site-specific conditions, weather scenarios, and constraints. LCSA: Evaluate the environmental and economic impacts of materials and processes under varying conditions.	R36 (Inflexible Project Management): BIM enables adaptable project modeling. R40 (Impact of Climate Change): BIM simulates climate impacts; LCSA tracks sustainability risks in different scenarios.
	Clause 4.2: Understanding the Needs and Expectations of Interested Parties	Identify stakeholders and understand their needs as they directly affect on-site activities.	BIM: Use BIM for real-time collaboration and progress updates. LCSA: Assess sustainability expectations and align project decisions with stakeholder values.	R3 (Poor Communication and Stakeholder Engagement): BIM centralizes communication and updates. R52 (Political Factors): Use LCSA to ensure alignment with political and environmental priorities.
	Clause 4.3: Determining the Scope of the Quality Management System (QMS)	Define the QMS scope to cover specific On-Site Risk Management needs.	BIM: Define scope for BIM usage on-site (e.g., tracking progress, identifying conflicts). LCSA: Include LCSA for assessing lifecycle sustainability impacts in processes.	R5 (Information Management Issues): BIM improves data accessibility. R29 (Supply Chain Disruptions): Use BIM for supply chain tracking and LCSA to evaluate alternative sustainable materials.
	Clause 4.4: Quality Management System and Its Processes	Establish and manage processes within the QMS to ensure alignment with on-site quality objectives.	BIM: Integrate BIM into process planning for real-time monitoring and risk mitigation. LCSA: Incorporate LCSA to assess the long-term sustainability of processes and materials.	R7 (Cost and Schedule Planning Issues): BIM provides accurate scheduling and cost forecasting. R20 (Financial Risks): LCSA assesses lifecycle costs while BIM optimizes on-site resource use.
Clause 5: Leadership	Clause 5.1: Leadership and Commitment	Leadership demonstrates commitment to quality, safety, and sustainability using BIM and LCSA.	BIM: Leaders promote BIM for risk visualization and conflict detection. LCSA: Commitment to LCSA metrics for evaluating energy use, emissions, and long-term impacts.	R24 (Worker Safety and Health Risks): Leadership supports safety initiatives and training. R40 (Impact of Climate Change): BIM evaluates weather scenarios; LCSA measures long-term environmental impacts.
	Clause 5.2: Quality Policy	Establish a quality policy that reflects commitments to BIM and LCSA for quality and sustainability.	BIM: Ensure policy includes BIM for collaboration, coordination, and quality improvement. LCSA: Commit to using LCSA for assessing material impacts and sustainability metrics.	R43 (Environmental Compliance Risks): BIM tracks environmental compliance; LCSA measures impacts. R5 (Information Management Issues): BIM centralizes data to address fragmented information flow.
	Clause 5.3: Organizational Roles, Responsibilities, and Authorities	Define roles for BIM and LCSA implementation to enhance risk management and sustainability.	BIM: Assign a BIM manager for model updates, error reduction, and quality control. LCSA: Designate roles for conducting lifecycle sustainability assessments.	R9 (Design and Construction Errors): BIM reduces errors through real-time model updates. R29 (Supply Chain Disruptions): BIM tracks material logistics; LCSA evaluates alternatives for sustainability in disruptions.
Clause 6: Planning for the Quality Management System (QMS)	Clause 6.1: Actions to Address Risks and Opportunities	Identify and address risks and opportunities to enhance QMS performance.	BIM: Use BIM to simulate on-site scenarios, identifying potential risks (e.g., safety hazards, material delays) and opportunities (e.g., process optimizations). LCSA: Evaluate opportunities to reduce environmental and lifecycle costs through sustainable material selection.	R27 (Weather and Geological Risks): Use BIM to simulate adverse weather impacts on construction timelines. R29 (Supply Chain Disruptions): Develop supply chain contingency plans with BIM logistics tracking and LCSA assessments of material alternatives.
	Clause 6.2: Quality Objectives and Planning to Achieve Them	Set measurable quality objectives aligned with organizational goals.	BIM: Establish on-site objectives such as zero rework and real-time progress tracking through BIM dashboards. LCSA: Include sustainability metrics (e.g., reduced emissions, optimized energy use) in quality objectives.	R7 (Cost and Schedule Planning Issues): Use BIM to create measurable milestones for tracking progress and costs. R20 (Financial Risks): Link financial objectives to LCSA metrics, ensuring long-term economic viability of processes.
	Clause 6.3: Planning of Changes	Ensure that changes to processes are managed systematically to avoid disruptions.	BIM: Use BIM for visualizing and managing changes in construction sequences, resource allocations, and design updates. LCSA: Assess the sustainability impacts of proposed changes to ensure alignment with long-term goals.	R9 (Design and Construction Errors): BIM provides real-time feedback on design changes to minimize errors. R40 (Impact of Climate Change): Use BIM and LCSA to evaluate the impact of climate-related changes on construction plans and materials.
Clause 7: Support	Clause 7.1: Resources	Ensure availability of resources needed for the QMS.	BIM: Provide hardware, software, and skilled personnel for BIM implementation to manage on-site risks effectively. LCSA: Allocate resources for lifecycle sustainability assessments and environmental monitoring on-site.	R5 (Information Management Issues): Ensure BIM tools and platforms are integrated for centralized data sharing. R27 (Weather and Geological Risks): Use BIM-based resources to simulate and mitigate weather-related challenges.
	Clause 7.2: Competence	Ensure personnel are competent to perform their roles effectively.	BIM: Train staff on BIM tools and techniques for managing risks like design errors and scheduling conflicts. LCSA: Provide training on using LCSA tools to assess material and process sustainability.	R9 (Design and Construction Errors): Train teams on using BIM for early error detection. R13 (Contractor Management Problems): Train contractors on both BIM usage and LCSA principles to improve on-site decision-making and reduce risks.
	Clause 7.3: Awareness	Ensure personnel are aware of their role in achieving QMS objectives.	BIM: Use BIM visualizations to increase awareness of site risks and quality objectives among team members. LCSA: Promote awareness of how lifecycle sustainability goals influence on-site activities and decisions.	R24 (Worker Safety and Health Risks): Increase awareness of safety risks and mitigation strategies through BIM models. R40 (Impact of Climate Change): Use LCSA to raise awareness about long-term environmental impacts of construction decisions.
	Clause 7.4: Communication	Establish and implement effective communication processes.	BIM: Use BIM platforms for real-time updates and collaboration among on-site teams and stakeholders. LCSA: Share sustainability data and reports generated by LCSA to keep stakeholders informed about progress and compliance.	R3 (Poor Communication and Stakeholder Engagement): BIM ensures consistent and centralized communication to reduce misunderstandings. R43 (Environmental Compliance Risks): Use LCSA reports to communicate compliance with environmental regulations.
	Clause 7.5: Documented Information	Create, update, and control information necessary for the QMS.	BIM: Use BIM to store and manage real-time data, ensuring information accuracy and accessibility. LCSA: Maintain lifecycle sustainability records for future assessments and regulatory compliance.	R41 (Data Integrity Issues): Ensure BIM models are updated and managed to maintain data accuracy. R52 (Political Factors): Document LCSA metrics to demonstrate sustainability efforts, aligning with policy or political priorities.
Clause 8: Operation	Clause 8.1: Operational Planning and Control	Plan and control processes to meet QMS requirements, including addressing risks and opportunities.	BIM: Use BIM for construction sequencing, conflict resolution, and real-time monitoring to control operations effectively. LCSA: Integrate sustainability assessments into planning to align operations with environmental and lifecycle goals.	R7 (Cost and Schedule Planning Issues): Use BIM to visualize construction timelines and identify bottlenecks. R20 (Financial Risks): LCSA evaluates lifecycle costs to ensure cost-effective operations.
	Clause 8.2: Requirements for Products and Services	Determine and meet customer and stakeholder requirements for the project.	BIM: Use BIM to visualize and validate designs against stakeholder expectations. LCSA: Align sustainability metrics (e.g., emissions, energy use) with stakeholder requirements for environmentally responsible practices.	R3 (Poor Communication and Stakeholder Engagement): Use BIM to enhance stakeholder understanding of project designs. R43 (Environmental Compliance Risks): Use LCSA to demonstrate compliance with environmental standards to stakeholders.
	Clause 8.3: Design and Development of Products and Services	Plan and manage design and development processes to ensure quality and mitigate risks.	BIM: Use 3D and 4D BIM models for design visualization and development. LCSA: Evaluate design alternatives based on lifecycle impacts and sustainability criteria.	R9 (Design and Construction Errors): BIM reduces design errors by visualizing and simulating designs. R40 (Impact of Climate Change): LCSA helps select design options that mitigate climate risks and promote sustainability.
	Clause 8.4: Control of Externally Provided Processes, Products, and Services	Ensure control over outsourced processes, products, and services.	BIM: Use BIM for tracking materials, monitoring supplier performance, and ensuring quality. LCSA: Assess the sustainability impacts of materials and suppliers to ensure alignment with project goals.	R29 (Supply Chain Disruptions): BIM tracks supply chain logistics, and LCSA evaluates sustainable material alternatives. R31 (Material Quality and Supply Risks): Use BIM and LCSA to ensure quality and sustainability in material procurement.
	Clause 8.5: Production and Service Provision	Implemented controlled production and service provision processes.	BIM: Use BIM to manage and monitor construction progress, resource allocation, and quality checks. LCSA: Incorporate lifecycle assessments into production processes to optimize sustainability outcomes.	R12 (Construction Quality Issues): Use BIM for on-site quality checks and inspections. R24 (Worker Safety and Health Risks): BIM visualizations improve safety planning; LCSA tracks resource efficiency to reduce environmental and safety risks.
	Clause 8.6: Release of Products and Services	Verify that products and services meet requirements before release or delivery.	BIM: Validate on-site progress and quality against project requirements using BIM models. LCSA: Ensure that lifecycle sustainability metrics meet predefined objectives before releasing deliverables.	R43 (Environmental Compliance Risks): Use LCSA to confirm that environmental standards are met. R41 (Data Integrity Issues): Use BIM to ensure accurate and updated information for final verifications.
	Clause 8.7: Control of Nonconforming Outputs	Identify and control nonconforming outputs to prevent unintended use or delivery.	BIM: Detect and rectify construction errors early using BIM models and visualizations. LCSA: Assess the sustainability impacts of nonconforming outputs and adjust to minimize waste and environmental harm.	R9 (Design and Construction Errors): Use BIM for error identification and correction. R22 (Pollution and Waste Management Issues): Use LCSA to manage the disposal or repurposing of nonconforming outputs responsibly.
Clause 9: Performance Evaluation	Clause 9.1: Monitoring, Measurement, Analysis, and Evaluation	Determine what needs to be monitored, how, and how frequently to ensure QMS objectives are met.	BIM: Use BIM to monitor on-site progress, identify deviations, and track key performance indicators (KPIs). LCSA: Measure sustainability impacts, including emissions, energy usage, and lifecycle costs.	R7 (Cost and Schedule Planning Issues): Use BIM to track project timelines and identify delays. R22 (Pollution and Waste Management Issues): Use LCSA metrics to evaluate and manage environmental performance.
	Clause 9.2: Internal Audit	Conduct internal audits to ensure the QMS is effectively implemented and maintained.	BIM: Use BIM data and models to validate the accuracy and consistency of processes during audits. LCSA: Integrate lifecycle sustainability criteria into audit checklists to assess compliance with environmental goals.	R12 (Construction Quality Issues): Audit construction quality using BIM-generated reports. R43 (Environmental Compliance Risks): Conduct audits to verify adherence to sustainability standards using LCSA evaluations.
	Clause 9.3: Management Review	Review the QMS at planned intervals to ensure it remains suitable, adequate, and effective.	BIM: Present BIM-based progress reports and visualizations to highlight achievements and challenges. LCSA: Provide LCSA results to demonstrate sustainability performance and long-term viability.	R20 (Financial Risks): Use LCSA to report on lifecycle cost management during reviews. R29 (Supply Chain Disruptions): Highlight supply chain performance and risks using BIM data during management reviews.
Clause 10: Improvement	Clause 10.1: General	Identify and implement opportunities for improvement to enhance the QMS.	BIM: Use BIM analytics to identify inefficiencies, errors, or delays on-site. LCSA: Highlight opportunities to reduce lifecycle costs and environmental impacts through data analysis and evaluation.	R7 (Cost and Schedule Planning Issues): Use BIM to identify inefficiencies in scheduling and resource use. R40 (Impact of Climate Change): Use LCSA to develop improvements that mitigate environmental impacts.
	Clause 10.2: Nonconformity and Corrective Action	Address nonconformities to prevent recurrence and ensure continuous improvement.	BIM: Detect and correct design or construction errors using BIM models to prevent cascading issues. LCSA: Assess and mitigate sustainability impacts of nonconforming outputs, such as waste or excess emissions.	R9 (Design and Construction Errors): Use BIM to trace and rectify errors quickly, minimizing rework. R22 (Pollution and Waste Management Issues): Use LCSA to address the environmental impact of nonconforming waste and implement corrective measures.
	Clause 10.3: Continual Improvement	Enhance the QMS to improve processes, products, and services over time.	BIM: Monitor long-term trends in performance and implement changes to optimize processes. LCSA: Regularly update sustainability assessments to reflect new data, technologies, or methods that improve lifecycle performance.	R20 (Financial Risks): Use LCSA to optimize lifecycle costs over time. R36 (Inflexible Project Management): Use BIM to identify areas of inflexibility and implement adaptive measures for future improvements.

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

The recognition of building sustainable bridges is essential for advancing infrastructure development and achieving long-term environmental, social, and economic viability. This study introduced a comprehensive and novel multidisciplinary framework that integrates risk management strategies with Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) under international standards, such as ISO 9001:2015. By synergizing these tools with global standards, the framework enhances process quality, consistency, and efficiency, establishing a robust pathway for sustainability improvements throughout the bridge lifecycle. This integration represents a significant contribution to the field, offering a structured approach to bridge project sustainability that aligns with global engineering best practices. The precision of BIM in nD modeling and data management, combined with LCSA’s holistic evaluation of environmental, economic, and social impacts, ensures that sustainability considerations are seamlessly embedded into every phase of the bridge lifecycle. The targeted survey conducted as part of this study identified 38 out of 55 risks that account for 80% of the impact on the bridge lifecycle, according to the Pareto Principle. These risks, which largely align with international standards, influence 36 out of 47 main processes. The findings underscore the importance of prioritizing high-impact processes, particularly during the Construction and Supervision phases, where the development of targeted guidelines aligned with ISO 9001:2015 and international BIM and LCSA standards providing a clear strategy for mitigating key risks.

This study offers actionable guidelines and recommendations with broad engineering validity, making it a valuable resource for bridge project stakeholders. It focuses on high-impact processes such as On-Site Risk Management, quality control, health, safety, and environment (HSE) management during construction and supervision. Developing practical tools and workflows that align with ISO 9001:2015 is conducted to ensure consistent quality and efficiency across diverse bridge types and environments and promote capacity-building initiatives to overcome barriers to adoption, such as training requirements and resource constraints, ensuring scalability and widespread implementation. Future research should focus on developing methodologies that equally address all three pillars of sustainability—economic, environmental, and social—ensuring a holistic approach to risk management in bridge projects. It should also focus on developing and testing context-specific adaptations of this framework. This includes pilot studies in regions with varying levels of infrastructure and resources to identify practical barriers and effective strategies for implementation. Such efforts will ensure the framework’s applicability and scalability across diverse scenarios.

The integration of emerging technologies, such as AI and smart infrastructure, holds significant potential for enhancing predictive risk management and real-time monitoring, offering innovative solutions to evolving challenges. Additionally, practical applications of this framework should be investigated through case studies to validate its effectiveness in real-world scenarios. By prioritizing high-impact processes, leveraging innovative tools, and addressing barriers to adoption, this multidisciplinary framework offers a groundbreaking approach to achieving sustainable, resilient, and efficient bridge projects while setting a benchmark for broader infrastructural engineering practices.