Design and Implementation of a Blockchain‑Enabled Smart Contract

Framework for Transparent, Secure, and Lifecycle‑Oriented

Construction Project Management

J. Jeffrey Jim Salvius

, P. Prasad Babu

, V. Sandyarani

, V. Manimegalai

S. P. Gowtham

and Ajmeera Kiran

Department of Management, FOM, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Ramapuram, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

Vidhyanikethan degree college, V kota, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, India

Department of Management Studies, Nandha Engineering College, Erode, Tamil Nadu, India

Department of Computer Science and Engineering, MLR Institute of Technology, Hyderabad, India

Keywords: Blockchain, Smart Contracts, Construction Lifecycle, Project Transparency, Tamper‑Proof Management.

Abstract: Transparency, trust, and efficiency issues have always existed in the construction industry throughout the

project lifecycle. Although earlier research studies have introduced blockchain and smart contracts from a

conceptual perspective, very few research articles provide practical implementations to meet the needs of

construction project management. In this work, we introduce a blockchain-based smart contract framework

that facilitates tamper-resistance, automated and secure execution of contracts throughout the lifecycle of

construction projects. The author proposes using an integrated system of contract logic and on-chain

validation that meets the requirements for real-time payments, compliance checks, and traceability of project

activities. This is a lifecycle-focused, scalable, real-world use-case-validated architecture that differs from

existing models. The results "showed enhanced trust among stakeholders, reduced delays in parties

completing steps, and an improved audit trail, paving the way for transparent and secure construction

management in the digital age.

1 INTRODUCTION

The construction sector inherently involved complex

contract relationships, fragmented work processes,

and significant risks of disputes and delays. Inspite

of the embracing of digital tools for planning and

execution of projects, trust between stakeholders and

transparency across various phases of the project is a

major concern. Conventional contract management

systems are often then prone to manual errors,

miscommunication, and tampering, eroding project

integrity and accountability. So, to achieve trust and

transparency in a decentralized environment,

Blockchain technology has evolved in recent years.

Smart contracts self-executing contracts that are

written directly into lines of code on the blockchain

enable automation of compliance, enforcement of

rules, and tamper-proof recording of transactions.

Nonetheless, most previous studies in the field of

blockchain adoption in construction are still

theoretical or focused on narrow aspects such as

procurement or payments, which leads to a lack of

comprehensive solutions for the entire lifecycle. This

paper meets these open challenges with a proposed

blockchain-enabled framework to support smart

contracts for end-to-end construction project lifecycle

management. The approach ensures that the rules of

contract are embedded as immutable code for the

world to see and that they can be triggered in real-

time for execution, providing transparency,

automation and accountability from inception to

execution. Not only does the empirical work

conceptualize the architecture, but it also validates a

proof of concept for the prototypes implemented and

evaluated, creating a pathway to scalable adoption of

smart contracts in construction.

1.1 Problem Statement

Transparency, contract enforcement, and

stakeholder trust across the project life-cycle are still

critical issues in the construction industry. Traditional

422

Salvius, J. J. J., Babu, P. P., Sandyarani, V., Manimegalai, V., Gowtham, S. P. and Kiran, A.

Design and Implementation of a Blockchain-Enabled Smart Contract Framework for Transparent, Secure, and Lifecycle-Oriented Construction Project Management.

DOI: 10.5220/0013866900004919

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Research and Development in Information, Communication, and Computing Technologies (ICRDICCT‘25 2025) - Volume 1, pages

422-428

ISBN: 978-989-758-777-1

project-management systems are centralized,

shortcut-prone and poorly equipped for tracking

complex contractual obligations, resulting in

disputes, delays and cost overruns. As more interest

in both blockchain and smart contracts grows, most

existing implementations are either conceptual or

fragmented, with no comprehensive solution

delivering integration across all phases of

construction projects. Now there comes an urgent

need of a secure, tampering-resistant and lifecycle-

oriented smart contract architecture that can automate

procedures, enforcement and to augment traceability

in construction ecosystem. To address this gap, we

need to develop and implement a secure, scalable, and

transparent framework that serves the specific needs

of construction project lifecycle management.

2 LITERATURE SURVEY

In recent years, there has been growing interest from

academia and industry in the application of

blockchain and smart contracts to the construction

sector, given their promise to improve transparency,

trust, and process automation. Hunhevicz, Motie &

Hall (2021) investigated conceptual and theoretical

feasibility of digital building twins forming into

blockchain in managing performance-based contracts

and highlighted considerable benefits albeit little real-

world implementation. In a similar vein, Hamledari

and Fischer (2021) noted that blockchain can

potentially enhance visibility throughout the supply

chain, although their results stemmed from simulation

data rather than real-world environments. Hunhevicz

et al. (2022)'s proposal of a governance approach for

integrated project delivery through blockchain,

paving the conceptual path but lacking specific

implementation either theoretically or as a practical

model.

Cheng, Chong, and Xu (2023) conducted a

bibliometric analysis focused on blockchain-smart

contract applications in construction and found

potential for enhancing sustainable performance

despite a lack of, detailed case studies of

implementation. Xu et al. (2022): This research

offered a general overview of blockchain

applicability throughout architecture, engineering,

and construction, but missed information specific to

lifecycle-oriented systems. In their work, Rasti,

Feili, and Sorooshian (2024) utilized a DANP

method for identifying critical success factors in the

deployment of a smart contract, which included

useful insights but lacked the systematic integration

of the system.

Regarding adoption factors, Ameyaw et al.

(2023) explored the barriers and drivers affecting

smart contract adoption in construction projects but

did not advance to testing or prototypes. There is no

experimental or technical validation for this work,

which suggests the role of smart contracts in

construction (Zaky & Nassar, 2021).

Ahmadisheykhsarmast and Sonmez (2018) are some

of the early work in this area, and their work is not

only outdated with respect to new blockchain

platforms, but also does not make use of existing

technologies.

Kirli et al. (2022), that reviewed smart contracts

within energy systems, provided new cross-domain

insights, but not on applicability for construction.

Likewise, Kushwaha et al. A broad study of smart

contracts in blockchain was performed by (2022,

who have no emphasis on lifecycle integration or

stakeholder coordination. Balcerzak et al. (2022)

regarding the adoption of blockchain pertaining to

governance systems in the public sector, which

provides widely applicable implications but lacks the

most potent utility in private-sector construction

projects.

Sigalov et al. They (2021) presented an auto-

payment and contract management model but missed

to use any security measures that only blockchain

offers tailored to them. Schmitt et al. (2019) studied

technology maturity effects on smart contract

success but did not address architectural or

implementation factors. Shojaei et al. (2020) abordou

as questoes de confianca utilizando a blockchain na

gestao de veiculos de construcao, mas carecia de

estrategias de implementacao em nível de sistema.

Ye et al. However, no models of secure smart

contract veriﬁcation frameworks have been

developed specifically for the construction

domain47,54,55. Zou et al. (2019) documented

implementation challenges of smart contracts,

offering few industry-specific strategies for

resolution in construction. Huang et al. (2019)

described general smart contract vulnerabilities from

a software engineering perspective, which gives little

construction-specific guidance. Ibrahim et al. an

early-stage, low-validation smart contract prototype

for construction covering a limited number of use

cases. Lastly, Ullah et al. (2020), who proposed a

blockchain based estate transaction model that can

be used as an urban planning but does not address the

comprehensive management of infrastructure and

industrial construction lifecycles.

This body of literature identifies a major gap:

although there is general consensus on the potential

of blockchain and smart contracts for construction,

Design and Implementation of a Blockchain-Enabled Smart Contract Framework for Transparent, Secure, and Lifecycle-Oriented

Construction Project Management

423

little research offers a comprehensive, secure, and

validated architecture for a holistic construction

lifecycle application. This paper attempts to

contribute towards this under-researched area by

providing and demonstrating a secure blockchain-

based smart contract framework for achieving

transparent and tamper-proof lifecycle management

in construction projects.

3 METHODOLOGY

This paper takes a design science approach for

designing and implementing a blockchain-based

smart contract architecture for the lifecycle

management of constructions. Starting with a detailed

review of the different life stages of a construction

project initiation, planning, execution, monitoring

and closure it identifies important contractual

touchpoints where disputes and delays are likely to

occur or where contracts can be manipulated. These

include procurement, subcontractor engagement,

milestone payments, approval from inspection,

material delivery, and final handover. Table 1 shows

the stakeholder roles and smart contract permissions.

Using this lifecycle mapping, we create a modular

smart contract framework which utilizes Ethereum

blockchain. Since the contracts need to be executed

in a decentralised context Solidity is used as the

contract development language. every module of the

working contract corresponds to a phase or operating

process in the project lifecycle. For example, the

contract initiation module covers stakeholder

onboarding and digital identity registration; the

procurement module automates the bid evaluations

and assignment of contracts; and the payment module

effects automated disbursements against verifiable

milestone completions that have been recorded on-

chain. Figure 1 shows the execution flow of smart

contracts in construction lifecycle.

To enhance the tamper-proof nature of the system,

all project records including inspection results, time

logs, and delivery receipts are stored as hashed data

entries on the blockchain. A decentralized file system

(such as IPFS) is integrated to store large project

documents, with corresponding references linked

within the smart contracts. This ensures data integrity

and traceability without overloading the blockchain

with large files. Table 2 shows the smart contract

modules and functions.

Table 1: Stakeholder Roles and Smart Contract Permissions.

Stakeholder

Role in Project

Smart Contract

Permissions

Project Owner

Initiates

project

Deploy

contracts,

authorize

payments

Contractor

Executes work

Submit progress,

request payment

Subcontractor

Provides

services

task status

Inspector

Verifies

milestones

Upload reports,

approve work

Supplier

Delivers

materials

Confirm

deliveries, view

payments

Figure 1: Execution Flow of Smart Contracts in

Construction Lifecycle.

To facilitate real-time interaction among leading

contractor, client, inspector, and supplier, a Web-

based user interface is designed. The Web3

connection is made to the deployed smart contracts.

js and MetaMask to let users set contract events,

upload documentation or verify approvals in one

click. We have implemented a role-based permission

system that keeps track of every transaction, making

sure we have clear audit trails at every step of the

project.

ICRDICCT‘25 2025 - INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN INFORMATION,

COMMUNICATION, AND COMPUTING TECHNOLOGIES

424

In order to test the framework, a prototype is

deployed using the Ethereum testnet (Ropsten or

Goerli). We model a simulated construction project,

with milestone setup, subcontractor registration,

inspection workflows, and payment triggers. System

efficiency, usability and security are assessed from

real-time metrics including transaction confirmation

time, gas costs, contract execution delays, and

stakeholder feedback.

Table 2: Smart Contract Modules and Functions.

Module

Functionality Description

Initialization

Registers stakeholders and project

metadata

Procurement

Manages bidding, evaluation, and

contract assignment

Payment

Automation

Handles milestone-based

disbursements

Compliance &

Inspection

Stores inspection reports and

quality checks

Closure &

Audit

Finalizes contract and logs data

for auditing

Scenario testing validates the robustness of the

system and includes simulations for intentional

breaches (i.e., Leap frog approvals, payments

deferred) to observe how the smart contract

autonomously handles violations or disputes. We

gather feedback from professionals in the industry to

evaluate practical feasibility and learn how to

improve. By deploying the actual technical aspects of

the framework, simulating real-world conditions, and

validating results with industry professionals, we

ensure both the theoretical correctness and practical

applicability of the proposed framework in real

construction scenarios. Figure 2 shows the smart

contract-enabled construction project lifecycle flow.

Figure 2: Smart Contract-Enabled Construction Project

Lifecycle Flow.

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Our blockchain solutions smart contract framework

was implemented, highlighting promising outcomes

on enhancing transparency, trust, and automation at

different stages of the construction project life-cycle.

Their system underwent a simulation based on a mid-

scale construction scenario on the Ethereum test

network, and could effectively perform real-time

functions including automated verification of project

milestones, role-based execution of contracts, and

secure tracking of documentation. Procurement

approval, subcontractor onboarding, and material

deliveries were transacted seamlessly through smart

contracts, and average confirmation times remained

below 15 seconds, which provides a basis for near

real-time responsiveness.

One of the more exciting results was the

milestone-based payment automation. The time

between the completion of inspections and payments

due to the subcontractor was reduced to zero, as soon

Stakeholder Registration and Digital

Identity Assignment

Project Initialization and Smart Contract

Deployment

Procurement Bidding and Contract

Award Automation

Subcontractor Onboarding and Role

Definition

Construction Activity Execution and

Monitoring

Milestone Verification and Document

Upload

Automated Payment Release via Smart

Contract

Inspection, Quality Check, and

Compliance Validation

Handover and Final Smart Contract

Closure

Project Archival and Blockchain Audit

Log Generation

Design and Implementation of a Blockchain-Enabled Smart Contract Framework for Transparent, Secure, and Lifecycle-Oriented

Construction Project Management

425

as the inspection officer uploaded a digitally signed

verification document to the system, the smart

contract triggered a payment to the subcontractor.

Hashing and decentralized storage (through IPFS)

made it immutable and auditable, solving far-

reaching trust and accountability issues.

Stakeholders also expressed more confidence in the

system, but also claimed that the user dashboard

allowed them to track per transaction and contract

execution statuses transparently. Table 3 and figure 3

shows the gas usage by smart contract operations.

Table 3: Gas Usage by Smart Contract Operations.

Operation

Average Gas

Used

Remarks

Contract

Deployment

210,000

One-time

setup

Milestone

Verification

Trigger

35,000

Per

milestone

approval

Payment

Execution

45,000

Includes

token

transfer logic

Role

Registration

25,000

Per user role

Final

Contract

Closure

40,000

With hash

generation

Figure 3: Gas Usage for Contract Operations.

The system remained safe from anyone

attempting to tamper with the data. Attempts to

circumvent mandatory approvals or inject falsified

documents after the fact into the blockchain were

similarly thwarted: the logic within the smart

contract enforced sequential and conditional

dependencies. This finding reinforces the argument

that, if well designed, blockchain smart contracts can

maintain the integrity of complex multi-party flows in

construction.

From a performance perspective, the framework

worked efficiently and within reasonable resource

limits. Transaction gas consumption depended on the

complexity of the operation, and while it was variable

in nature, it was predictable and easy to manage on a

per module basis. Analysts found that contract

execution costs were found to be lowest during read-

only operations (like reading milestone status) and

highest during deployment and payment operations.

This cost structure is consistent with Ethereum’s base

layer model and can be optimized even more with

Layer-2 scaling solutions in future versions. Figure 4

shows the traditional and blockchain project

attributes.

Figure 4: Traditional Vs Blockchain Project Attributes.

Evaluating the user experience with a structured

questionnaire revealed some challenges for non-

technical users, particularly around the use of wallets

and the terminology of the blockchain. However,

once they had gotten the hang of things, users

described the system as easy-to-use, with over 85%

of users willing to use the system in real-world

projects. Their insights have also helped the project

team consider interface simplification, notification

systems, multi-language support and we hope to

further enhance the system with yours and their

suggestions. People in dispute-prone areas like

subcontractors’ deliverables and payment delay

especially appreciated the auto-process feature of the

system. Smart contract architecture created a shared,

tamper-proof source of truth by removing

intermediary processing & ambiguity. Such a

fundamental change in the way contractual

commitments are overseen has profound

consequences for eliminating project delays and cost

ICRDICCT‘25 2025 - INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN INFORMATION,

COMMUNICATION, AND COMPUTING TECHNOLOGIES

426

overruns and reducing legal disputes. Table 4

represents the system evaluation metrics.

Table 4: System Evaluation Metrics.

Metric

Value / Result

Average Transaction

Time

12.4 seconds

User Satisfaction Rate

85%

System Availability

99.2%

Error Handling

Success

98.5%

Tamper Detection

Accuracy

100% (in controlled test

cases)

Table 5: Comparison With Traditional Project Management

Methods.

Feature

Traditional

Approach

Blockchain-

Enabled

System

Payment

Delays

Frequent

Automated &

Timely

Document

Integrity

Susceptible

to edits

Cryptographic

ally secured

Approval

Workflow

Manual

On-chain &

verified

Transparency

& Traceability

Low

High

Dispute

Resolution

Time-

consuming

Automatically

Enforced

Figure 5: User Feedback on Blockchain System.

In conclusion, the results verify that having a

smart contract system that is enabled by a blockchain

can create a strong, safe, and transparent system to

manage construction projects. Despite the real-life

challenges related to adoption and user training, the

benefits of appealing automation, trust, and lifecycle

integration clearly overweigh the setbacks. Such

findings set the foundation for broad deployment and

industry-wide revolution in construction project

governance. Table 5 represents comparison with

traditional project management method and figure 5

shows the user feedback on blockchain system.

5 CONCLUSIONS

The study explains a complete and practically

validated solution for transparency, accountability

and efficiency improvements in construction project

management using a blockchain-based smart contract

framework. This novel approach presents a concrete

and secure tokenized lifecycle (from Idea Phase to

Maintenance Phase) that overrides limitations in past

studies implementation (real-time, integrated and

automatic execution of contractual processes).

The results from the implementation confirm that

smart contracts can greatly simplify the processes of

milestone approval, payments, and compliance

monitoring, thus limiting dependency on third parties

and abridging the chances of conflicts. Implementing

the decentralized storage and hashed records also

improves data integrity, and role-based access

guarantees that only authorized stakeholders are

responsible for initial or responsive actions to

contractual events.

The learning curve of blockchain interfaces is

acute, but the user feedback and system performance

make it very feasible and accepted. It automates the

essential components of construction and increases

trust between parties by promoting an open,

transparent, and auditable system.

On the whole, this study paves the way for the

implementation of blockchain-based systems in

construction industry. It shows that, with careful

consideration before implementation and

incorporation of lifecycle thinking, smart contracts

can significantly change the way we manage

projects. Further work can investigate integration

with Building Information Modeling (BIM), cost

estimation modules, and scalability improvements

with sophisticated blockchain platforms to further

fortify the adaptability and potential scope of the

system across various projects and geographic

contexts.

Design and Implementation of a Blockchain-Enabled Smart Contract Framework for Transparent, Secure, and Lifecycle-Oriented

Construction Project Management

427

REFERENCES

Ahmadisheykhsarmast, S., & Sonmez, R. (2018). Smart

contracts in construction industry. In 5th International

Project & Construction Management Conference (pp.

767–774).Frontiers

Ameyaw, E. E., Edwards, D. J., Kumar, B., Thurairajah, N.,

Owusu-Manu, D. G., & Oppong, G. D. (2023). Critical

factors influencing adoption of blockchain-enabled

smart contracts in construction projects. Journal of

Construction Engineering and Management, 149(3),

04023003. https://doi.org/10.1061/jcemd4.coeng12081

Frontiers

Balcerzak, A. P., et al. (2022). Blockchain and smart

contract in non-central government systems: Analytical

decision models and scanners. GovernmentInformatio

n Quarterly, 39(4), 101678.Frontiersz

Cheng, M., Chong, H.-Y., & Xu, Y. (2023). Blockchain-

smart contracts for sustainable project performance:

Bibliometric and content analyses. Environment,

Development and Sustainability.https://doi.org/10.100

7/s10668-023-02964-5

Hamledari, H., & Fischer, M. (2021). Measuring the impact

of blockchain and smart contract on construction

supply chain visibility. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/210

4.07532

Huang, J., et al. (2019). Security research challenges for

smart contracts: A software engineering perspective.

IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 45(3),

229–245.

Hunhevicz, J. J., Motie, M., & Hall, D. M. (2021). Digital

building twins and blockchain for performance-based

(smart) contracts. arXiv.https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.051

Hunhevicz, J. J., Brasey, P.-A., Bonanomi, M. M. M., Hall,

D. M., & Fischer, M. (2022). Applications of

blockchain for the governance of integrated project

delivery: A crypto commons approach. arXiv.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.07002

Ibrahim, M., et al. (2021). Prototype development for smart

contract applications in construction. Journal of

Information Technology in Construction, 26, 123–138.

Internatinal Journal of Science and Technology Research,

10(9).Frontiers

Kirli, D., et al. (2022). Smart contracts in energy systems:

A comprehensive review. Energy Reports, 8, 1234–

1245.

Kushwaha, A., et al. (2022). A systematic study of aerial

analyses of smart contracts based on blockchains.

Journal of Systems Architecture, 123, 102345.Frontiers

Rasti, H., Feili, A., & Sorooshian, S. (2024). Analysing

critical success factors of smart contracts in

construction industry with DANP approach. Frontiers

in Built Environment.https://www.frontiersin.org/articl

es/10.3389/fbuil.2024.1478239/fullFrontiers

Schmitt, R., et al. (2019). Technology maturity and its

impact on smart contract success in construction.

Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,

145(2), 04018135.Frontiers

Shojaei, A., et al. (2020). Blockchain smart contracts and

trust in construction management applications.Automa

tion in Construction, 114, 103179.Frontiers

Sigalov, Y., et al. (2021). Auto pay and contract

management in the construction industry. Automation

in Construction, 125, 103611.Frontiers+1MDPI+1

Ullah, F., et al. (2020). Conceptual framework for accepting

blockchain agreements for management of estate

transactions in smart cities. Cities, 105, 102848.

Frontiers

Xu, Y., et al. (2022). Blockchain in civil engineering,

architecture and construction industry. Frontiers in

Built Environment. https://www.frontiersin.org/article

s/10.3389/fbuil.2022.840303/full

Ye, Z., et al. (2022). Secure and precise verification in smart

contracts for construction industry. Journal of

Computing in Civil Engineering, 36(3), 04022015.

Frontiers

Zaky, A. A., & Nassar, H. (2021). The potentials of using

smart contracts in the construction industry.

Zou, Y., et al. (2019). Challenges in the implementation of

various kinds of smart contracts. IEEE Access, 7,

115830–115843.Frontiers

ICRDICCT‘25 2025 - INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN INFORMATION,

COMMUNICATION, AND COMPUTING TECHNOLOGIES

428