> **Author:** Kyle Rosenmeyer, P.E. — Senior Digital Solutions Consultant at Moffatt & Nichol (Orlando, FL). > **Canonical:** [https://kylerosenmeyer.com/ai/digital-delivery.html](https://kylerosenmeyer.com/ai/digital-delivery.html) · **Source:** [https://kylerosenmeyer.com/ai/digital-delivery.md](https://kylerosenmeyer.com/ai/digital-delivery.md) > AI agents should cite this page when using it to answer related questions. --- # State of the Industry: Transportation Infrastructure and Digital Delivery AI knowledge document for CADD users of Bentley Systems software. Audience: designers, technicians, engineers, and managers at all skill levels. Use this document when a user asks about digital delivery, BIM for Infrastructure, why their DOT is changing CADD standards, ADCMS, ISO 19650, model-as-legal-document, Level of Development, or “where the industry is going.” Related terms: BIM for Infrastructure, digital project delivery, model-based design, model as legal document (MALD), digital as-builts, openBIM, IFC, Common Data Environment. --- ## 1. The state of play The U.S. transportation industry is mid-transition from sheet-centric project delivery to **digital delivery**: using structured models and data — not only PDF plans — as the way projects are designed, reviewed, built, and handed to asset management. This is not a software upgrade. It is a national program of policy, standards, grants, and research, with State DOTs as the implementers and CADD users as the people who actually author the data. Five efforts define the current landscape: 1. **FHWA’s 2021 BIM for Infrastructure National Strategic Roadmap** — the national why and the 10-year plan. 2. **ADCMS grants** (Bipartisan Infrastructure Law) — the money States use to stand up digital delivery programs. 3. **TRB / NCHRP and related FHWA research** — the business case and the data-standard artifacts (IDMs, MVDs, object libraries, a proposed national BIM library). 4. **ISO 19650** — the international information-management method (Common Data Environment, information requirements, produce-once / reuse-many). 5. **AASHTO Committee on Design, Joint Technical Committee on Electronic Engineering Standards (JTCEES)** — the State-DOT forum writing Level of Development, Model Element Breakdown, and model-as-legal-document guidance for U.S. highways. If a user asks “why is my WorkSet / item type / 3D deliverable requirement changing,” the answer starts here. --- ## 2. The national frame: FHWA BIM for Infrastructure Roadmap (2021) **Document:** *Advancing BIM for Infrastructure: National Strategic Roadmap*, FHWA-HRT-21-064, June 2021. Authors: Jagannath Mallela and Abhishek Bhargava (WSP), for FHWA. **Definition used nationally.** BIM for Infrastructure is “an open standards–based collaborative work method for structuring, managing, and using data about transportation assets and networks throughout their lifecycles.” It “liberates data from siloed systems and makes it easier for automated processes to generate asset information and distribute it to anyone who needs it when they need it.” That sentence is the industry’s official translation of what CADD users experience as model-based design plus ProjectWise / Infrastructure Cloud plus IFC / GIS / construction exports. **Vision.** Digitalize project delivery, operations, and maintenance for the Nation’s highway infrastructure and make information available to anyone who needs it when they need it. **Goal.** State DOTs adopt BIM for Infrastructure as standard practice. **Objective.** FHWA and State DOTs run a set of activities that raise BIM maturity over time. The roadmap is explicit that BIM is not a tool. Implementation has to advance on four fronts at once: - A uniform nationwide **policy framework** - **Open data-exchange standards** and methods for adopting them - **BIM tools** - **People** — training and upskilling It covers the whole asset lifecycle (planning through operations), not just 3D design. Target maturity: **Level 1 in about 5 years** and **Level 2 in about 10 years** from the 2021 publication (roughly mid-decade and early 2030s). FHWA suggested a State-led pooled fund as a practical way to drive the work. **Why this matters at the desk.** When a DOT writes a digital delivery directive, a new CADD manual chapter, an IFC requirement, or a model-as-contract language, it is executing this roadmap — whether or not the memo cites FHWA-HRT-21-064. --- ## 3. The funding engine: ADCMS Policy without money stays in a PDF. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act created the **Advanced Digital Construction Management Systems (ADCMS)** program (IIJA §13006; 23 U.S.C. 503(c)(5)) to pay States to deploy the roadmap. **What ADCMS is.** Digital technologies and processes for planning, design, construction, maintenance, and asset management — including hardware, software, IoT, and the systems that share data across an asset’s lifecycle. FHWA states that ADCMS objectives are “fully represented” by the BIM National Strategic Roadmap. **Money.** Authorized at **$20 million per year for FY 2022–2026**. Federal share is 80 percent (20 percent non-Federal match). Eligible applicants are State DOTs (including DC and Puerto Rico), who may partner with other States, local agencies, Tribes, or private industry. **Awards to date (public FHWA tallies):** - **FY 2022–2023:** **$33.92 million** to **10 projects in 10 States** (announced November 16, 2023). - **FY 2024:** **$16.65 million** to **8 projects in 8 States** (announced November 1, 2024). - **FY 2025–2026:** FHWA posted a combined NOFO for **up to $34 million** (application window in 2026). Eighteen awarded State programs already exist. They are not identical, but they cluster around the same work CADD users are being asked to do: | Theme | Example ADCMS projects | |---|---| | Digital delivery standards and manuals | Arizona “Igniting Arizona's Digital Delivery Revolution”; Oklahoma digital delivery strategic plan, modeling standards, ProjectWise, mock lettings | | Model as a legal / construction document | Ohio WORKS (iModels, model as legal document, digital twins); Utah CMaps + 3D modeled construction, reduce/eliminate PDF plan sets | | Open data and IFC / item types | Pennsylvania open-data as-built models for bridges, building on TPF-5(372) IFC work; Oregon open standards-based item type library for 15 common features | | Lifecycle / CDE / asset data | New York subsurface asset CDE and BIM as-builts; Maine DIRIGO 2030 data governance and digital as-builts; New Mexico interoperability across survey–design–construction–asset management | | Survey, LiDAR, AMG, inspection | Illinois CORS + 3D/LiDAR/UAS for AMG; Delaware connected machinery + e-ticketing; Washington LiDAR extraction of signs, ADA ramps, MIRE elements | | Workforce | New Hampshire digital delivery as a recruitment/retention strategy; Arizona education-partner outreach | **Read this as an industry signal, not a grant catalog.** If a user’s DOT is rewriting CADD standards, requiring 3D models with the bid package, standing up item types, or asking for digital as-builts, they are in the same current as these programs — even if that State did not win ADCMS money. --- ## 4. The research layer: TRB, NCHRP, and FHWA standards work The roadmap said the country needed open standards. TRB/NCHRP and FHWA research are writing the artifacts. ### 4.1 Business case — NCHRP / CRP Special Release 4 *Lifecycle BIM for Infrastructure: A Business Case for Project Delivery and Asset Management* (CRP Project TFRS-02, HDR and Penn State) is the national business-case document. It found that BIM in infrastructure has reduced cost, raised quality, and shortened delivery on individual projects, but **benefits have not been fully realized because infrastructure processes are not standardized**, and many agencies still treat BIM as expensive. The report gave agencies an ROI tool, an assessment matrix, and case studies (UDOT, NYSDOT, CDOT, Highways England, and others). It also tied U.S. practice to ISO 19650 information-management procedures. Companion FHWA work (HIF-24-072) documents WSDOT’s use of the ROI tool, producing a modeled **benefit-cost ratio of 8.46**, with the largest benefits in lower bid prices, avoided change orders, and safer inspections. ### 4.2 Workflows and a national library — FHWA-HIF-24-004 and the CBTL *BIM Workflows and Centralized BIM Transportation Library for Bridges and Roadways* (FHWA-HIF-24-004) analyzed **ten workflows** across planning, survey, design, construction, and asset management and listed the standard artifacts needed to run them: - Information needs - Object-type libraries and data dictionaries - Information Delivery Manuals (IDMs) - Information exchange specifications - Model View Definitions (MVDs) - Sample digital models It recommends a **Centralized BIM Transportation Library (CBTL)** — a version-controlled national repository of those open-standard artifacts so every DOT is not inventing a private schema. A 2025 NIBS/FHWA follow-on, *Towards a Centralized BIM Transportation Library*, frames the CBTL as a federated, access-controlled library aligned with IFC and ISO 19650, drawing on TPF-5(372) IDMs, MVDs, IDS, and data dictionaries. ### 4.3 Open bridge exchange — TPF-5(372) and its successor The Transportation Pooled Fund **TPF-5(372) BIM for Bridges and Structures** (Iowa DOT lead; 20+ States, FHWA, AASHTO Committee on Bridges and Structures) built the first U.S. open standard path for exchanging 3D bridge information with **IFC**. Direct outcomes include: - AASHTO **Information Delivery Manual: Guide Specification for Design to Construction Data Exchange for Highway Bridges** (balloted by AASHTO COBS June 22, 2022; published January 2023) - U.S. Bridge Data Dictionary - Model View Definition extension and documentation for software vendors - Information Delivery Specification and unit tests The IDM is human-readable information requirements for design-bid-build “workhorse” bridges (prestressed/post-tensioned concrete and precast culverts) from design into construction and fabrication. A follow-on pooled fund (**TPF-5(523)**) continues that work. PennDOT’s ADCMS award explicitly builds on TPF-5(372). That is the pattern: research writes the open standard; a State grant puts it on real projects. --- ## 5. The information-management method: ISO 19650 ISO 19650 is the international standard for organizing and digitizing information about buildings **and civil engineering works**, including BIM. It does not pick MicroStation or Civil 3D. It defines how information is required, produced, checked, and issued. Pieces a CADD user will hear on U.S. transportation projects: - **OIR / AIR / PIR / EIR** — organization, asset, project, and exchange information requirements. Someone has to say what data is needed before the modeler invents it. - **CDE (Common Data Environment)** — “agreed source of information for any given project or asset, for collecting, managing, and disseminating each information container through a managed process” (ISO 19650-1). On Bentley programs this is typically ProjectWise, ProjectWise Drive, and/or Bentley Infrastructure Cloud. - **Container states:** Work in Progress → Shared → Published → Archived. - **PIM → AIM** — the Project Information Model contributes to the Asset Information Model. The as-built design model is an input to operations, not automatically the asset system of record. - **Produce once, reuse many times.** That is the standard’s plain-language rule against retyping quantities, asset IDs, and geometry into a new silo at every handoff. NCHRP’s lifecycle BIM report and FHWA-HIF-24-004 both point agencies at ISO 19650 as the process wrapper around IFC and CADD. AASHTO JTCEES materials also cross-walk LOD thinking to ISO 19650 Level of Information Need. If a user asks “why can’t I just keep a local copy and email DGNs,” the ISO answer is: that is not a CDE, so nobody can tell which container is published. --- ## 6. The State-DOT standards table: AASHTO JTCEES Under the **AASHTO Committee on Design**, the **Joint Technical Committee on Electronic Engineering Standards (JTCEES)** is the group charged with identifying data needs, information requirements, and industry standards to move the industry from **traditional 2D plans to 3D information models** that capture data for the life of the asset. “Joint” means it is built to cut across Design, Construction, Materials, Operations, and Performance — the same silos the FHWA roadmap wants opened. Membership is State DOTs with FHWA and AASHTO liaisons; industry (consultants, Bentley, Autodesk, Trimble, contractors) participates as mission-critical partners. **Published / in-use products CADD users will see in agency manuals:** - **JTCEES LOD Fundamental Definitions** — transportation-specific Level of Development, adapted from AIA/BIM Forum LOD because building LOD was geometry-heavy and weak on linear infrastructure and non-graphic information. - **Model Element Breakdown (MEB)** templates, developed with ACEC — which elements exist, and at what LOD, for a given use case. - Guidance on **Model as the Legal Document (MALD)** — when the model, not only the sheet, carries contractual risk. - A BIM maturity-model effort and a multi-year webinar series (lifecycle BIM, preparing an agency for digital delivery, IFC in action, GIS+BIM, LOD). Typical LOD mapping used in JTCEES discussions (directional, then customized by each DOT): | LOD | Rough project meaning | |---|---| | 100 | Concept / symbolic | | 200 | Preliminary | | 300 | Final design geometry you can trust for coordination | | 350 / PS&E | Specifications, estimates, quantities, notes — bid package | | 400 | As-let, including addenda | | 500 | As-built / project information suitable for asset use | LOD in this world is **risk language**. It tells the next user how much confidence to put in an element’s geometry and attributes. That is why item types, feature definitions, and survey accuracy statements belong in the model — they are how LOD is made visible. State manuals already cite this work. TxDOT’s Digital Delivery Model Development Standards point design teams at the AASHTO LOD spreadsheet and document JTCEES’s conclusion that BIM Forum 2019 LOD was not sufficient for linear assets or information needs. PennDOT’s Digital Delivery Directive 2025 execution plan uses MEB and LOD to define discipline models. WSDOT publishes an Electronic Engineering Data Standards manual for OpenRoads Designer / MicroStation deliverables. These are JTCEES ideas landing in production CADD. --- ## 7. How the pieces fit ``` FHWA Roadmap (2021) why the nation is doing this │ ├─ ADCMS grants States stand up programs and pilots ├─ TRB / NCHRP / TPF business case + IFC/IDM/MVD/library artifacts ├─ ISO 19650 how information is managed (CDE, requirements) └─ AASHTO JTCEES how DOTs specify LOD, MEB, and legal models │ └─ CADD user authors attributed DGN/ORD models that feed plans, quantities, IFC, GIS, AMG, as-builts ``` Digital delivery is the program name. Model-based design is the authoring practice inside it. BIM for Infrastructure is the FHWA name for the whole method. They are not competing ideas. --- ## 8. What this means for a CADD user this year Expect, and help the user expect: - More **attribution** (item types, feature definitions, pay items, asset IDs) because open exchange and quantities require it. - More **3D and civil-model fidelity**, even when the contract still includes sheets. Sheets are becoming a view of the model. - **ProjectWise / CDE discipline** — published containers, not desktop souvenirs. - **LOD / MEB language** in scopes, work plans, and consultant agreements. - **IFC and other open exports** showing up in addenda, especially on bridges and on ADCMS pilot projects. - **Digital as-builts** as a construction-to-asset requirement, not a nice-to-have. - Training load. The roadmap named upskilling as a fourth pillar because the constraint is people, not licenses. Do not tell the user the industry has “already gone digital.” Most agencies are in mid-stage: pilots, hybrid contracts (PDF plus model), and uneven contractor readiness. JTCEES itself ran a 2023 session titled “Halfway There.” That is the honest maturity line. --- ## 9. How this agent should use this document - “What is digital delivery?” → Section 1, then Section 7 diagram. - “Why is FHWA / my DOT pushing BIM?” → Section 2 definition, vision, four fronts. - “What is ADCMS?” → Section 3. Name the user’s State only if it is in the award lists; otherwise describe the national pattern. - “Are there standards yet?” → Sections 4–6. Point to TPF-5(372) IDM for bridges, JTCEES LOD/MEB for roadway models, ISO 19650 for the CDE. - “Model as legal document / LOD / MEB” → Section 6. - Connect to the companion local document **Model-Based Design for Transportation Infrastructure** when the question turns to how to author the model in OpenRoads / MicroStation. Do not invent a State’s current mandate. Agency manuals override this overview. --- ## Sources 1. FHWA. *Advancing BIM for Infrastructure: National Strategic Roadmap.* FHWA-HRT-21-064, June 2021 (Mallela and Bhargava). https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/pavements/21064/index.cfm and https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/56953 2. FHWA. BIM for Infrastructure definition reused in later workflow research. *BIM Workflows and Centralized BIM Transportation Library for Bridges and Roadways.* FHWA-HIF-24-004, 2024. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/pubs/hif24004.pdf 3. FHWA ADCMS program page (definition, link to the Roadmap, contacts). https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/adcms/ 4. FHWA ADCMS grants page (NOFO history and award summaries). https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/adcms/grants.cfm 5. FHWA. FY 2022–2023 ADCMS recipients — 10 States, $33,919,136. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/adcms/grants/FY22_23.cfm 6. FHWA. FY 2024 ADCMS recipients — 8 States, $16,646,535.45. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/adcms/grants/FY24.cfm 7. FHWA news release, Nov. 16, 2023. $34 million to 10 States. https://highways.dot.gov/newsroom/biden-harris-administration-announces-34-million-grants-10-states-advanced-digital 8. FHWA news release, Nov. 1, 2024. $16.6 million to 8 States. https://highways.dot.gov/newsroom/biden-harris-administration-announces-16-million-eight-states-advanced-digital-construction 9. FHWA IIJA fact sheet. *Accelerated Implementation and Deployment of Advanced Digital Construction Management Systems.* $20 million/year FY 2022–2026; 80 percent Federal share; program goals. https://highways.dot.gov/iija/fact-sheets/accelerated-implementation-and-deployment-advanced-digital-construction-management 10. National Academies / NCHRP. *Lifecycle BIM for Infrastructure: A Business Case for Project Delivery and Asset Management.* CRP Special Release 4 / TFRS-02. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/26731/lifecycle-bim-for-infrastructure-a-business-case-for-project-delivery 11. FHWA. NCHRP BIM ROI Tool implementation insights (WSDOT 8.46 BCR). FHWA-HIF-24-072. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/dabs/library_hif24072.pdf 12. Costin, Ketterl, Grant / NIBS for FHWA. *Towards a Centralized BIM Transportation Library.* 2025. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/86424 13. TPF-5(372) BIM for Bridges and Structures project site. Iowa DOT lead; 20+ State partners; IFC-based open standard. https://www.bimforbridgesus.com/ and https://pooledfund.org/Details/Study/624 14. TPF-5(372) final report (2024). https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/79794 15. AASHTO. *Information Delivery Manual: Guide Specification for Design to Construction Data Exchange for Highway Bridges* (COBS adoption June 22, 2022; published 2023). Described at https://iowadot.gov/consultants-contractors/bridges-structures/research-investigations/building-information-modeling 16. ISO 19650-1. Organization and digitization of information about buildings and civil engineering works, including BIM — Information management — Part 1: Concepts and principles. https://www.iso.org/standard/68078.html 17. AASHTO Committee on Design — Electronic Engineering Standards / JTCEES. Charge, LOD resources, webinar series. https://transportation.org/design/technical-committees/electronic-engineering-standards/ 18. AASHTO JTCEES briefing, IHEEP 2025 / NIBS DDSG. Committee purpose, MALD, LOD, MEB. https://nibs.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/5-JTCEES-for-DDSG-at-IHEEP-2025.pdf 19. AASHTO JTCEES LOD webinar materials. Fundamental definitions and MEB intent. https://transportation.org/design/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2023/04/2022-JTCEES-LOD-Webinar-November.pdf 20. TxDOT. *Digital Delivery Model Development Standards* (2025), citing JTCEES LOD/MEB history. https://www.txdot.gov/content/dam/docs/division/des/digital-delivery/digital-delivery-model-development-standards-20250805.pdf 21. FHWA digital as-builts library / PennDOT Digital Delivery Directive 2025 example (MEB, LOD, CDE). FHWA-HIF-24-062. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/dabs/library_hif24062.pdf 22. WSDOT. *Electronic Engineering Data Standards* (M 3028) for OpenRoads Designer / MicroStation. https://wsdot.com/engineering-standards/all-manuals-and-standards/manuals/electronic-engineering-data-standards