Start the model over. Link theirs in, and use it as a guide only. Don't even snap to it.

I know it sounds like taking over a model from someone else should save you time and money, but it never works out that way.

Im having that same problem here the inherited model is over complicated, (3 or 4 filters that could be replaced with 1 to do the same). I delete all pipe, duct & containment but keep electrical stuff, grilles & equipment as thats usually ok. but im still having days of work deleting templates filters views replacing what I can with our standards its a real pain

It really is a problem. The model we have is as built. So I need to be able to add new connections into the existing services, remove a few redundant runs and produce using our standards. Having to redraw it all seems to be a significant waste of time.

Especially so when BIM is allowing everyone to share the information and work collaboratively but the software tools are limiting users and creating rework.

So, why not... and how can this be improved. Seriously. Not being able to do more than trace over the model is a major failure in the flow of BIM information in the design process, or fundamentally limits the steady development of the design to organisations that do all phases of the design and construction themselves.

Why do we even bother to make consultant models, with all the work that it takes to coordinate between disciplines, check for clashes, come up with solutions to the difficult locations etc. if all that effort gets binned and done again when a contractor recieves the model.

Could you at least copy the straight sections of pipe/duct/cabletray and connect up in your own way? This would at least ensure 90% of the coordination/sizing work that has been done gets re-used.

Personally I would be all for making consultant models that are purely 'Specification models', with nothing but space reservation defining MEP zoning combined with in depth functional requirement data for power, lighting, heating, cooling, air flows etc. Define clearly what has to be made, ensure there is space to make it, and then let the next party in the chain get on with working it out in detail (Since they are going to do that anyway).

But.. this is not what clients and contractors ask for and models that produce 'empty' floor plan drawings, but a massive amount of data, are not appreciated...

From what you are saying about views and filters, I would suggest finding a way to completely import their model into your own standard template.
Using Bind Link may work, the functionality of it has been steadily improved in recent revit versions (Systems no longer get undefined).
Then switch out their System Types for your own and make your own views.
You might lose stuff that is only 'drawn' in views and annotations, but "If its not a model element it doesnt exist" is generaly my approach to that.

I only delete stuff because of the quality of consultant models is so low, if they was at a good standard then ive have no problem keeping the elements and just switching out systems & templates

I do a lot of this. Since it's a System Family, it's pretty easy to manipulate the settings once in your model.

-TZ

I dont agree with that at all. I think its a commonly mis-stated problem. We say "We want to reuse this model to save time." What they mean to say is "We want to do this job in the fastest way possible, and we are ASSUMING reusing model data is the fastest."

Who said anything about Designers versus Contractors? The OP stated he inherited a model from another consultant, and needs to migrate it to their standards. They didnt say anything about being a contractor and taking over a model from the design team. BUT, since you asked the question, ill bite:

Right now (in the US, at least) models from the design team ARE NOT contract documents. Period. End of Story. Full stop. Meaning if the Design team rounded dimensions, faked, cheated, nudged, whatever, and YOU USE that model, YOU are liable for what goes wrong in the field. My largest project right now is over THAT VERY ISSUE. And before you say "that doesnt happen," i have found things in the DESIGN TEAMS MODELS that re off by several FEET. A room with faked dimensions that are 5 feet larger than shown in the documents, Dimensional Control (gridlines) off by almost 5 inches, and on and on.

If you dont have a LEGAL RIGHT to assume the model is a contract document, and you dont do the due diligence of checking it yourself while you build your model, dont be surprise when litigation bites you in the ass.
The need to rebuild a model after its inherited doesnt eradicate the efforts put in, in making sure things are coordinated. Its a check, and part of a teams responsibilities. Making the argument that "because someone may reproduce the same geometry later, i shouldnt bother doing it" is like saying "Since someone else is bringing dessert to the party, i wont bother cooking dinner."

Aaron, I agree with your comments 100%. I constantly get questioned by my customers "why not use the curtain wall in the Architect's model, it's already there? We need our documents in a hurry". Because 99 times out of 100 (and I'm still looking for the "1") the Architect's curtain walls are inaccurately created. Sometimes it's rounding issues, sometimes it's just plain inaccuracy, stuff in the wrong place, and sometimes it's just lack of knowledge about what's really required to make curtain wall work. I use Architectural or Structural models as s, the pretty picture behind the content that I create. I NEVER use any part of an outside model for anything that is included in my scope of work, NEVER. Even though I have contractual waivers about responsibility in this area, it to me is not a matter of legalities, it's a matter of doing what's right for my customer, their customer, the project, etc.