Context

A recent coordination review revealed recurring modeling and submission deficiencies. These were not isolated technical mistakes; they were symptoms of missing structural controls.

The feedback consistently pointed toward three themes:

• Absence of formal Quality Control (QC)
• Misalignment between the model and IFC / approved drawings
• Inconsistent submission discipline

The issue was not modeling capability. It was procedural discipline.

1. Quality Control Is Not Optional

Repeated remarks such as “no QC process implemented” highlight a systemic gap rather than an individual oversight.

Every model submission should pass through a structured internal review process that includes:

• Checklist-based validation
• Cross-verification against IFC and latest approved documents
• Identification of duplicate or misplaced elements
• Confirmation of correct component typology (e.g., single vs. double-gang sockets)
• Level accuracy checks (e.g., floor drains placed at correct elevation)

Without QC, a model is not a deliverable. It is a work-in-progress.

The distinction must be explicit.

2. IFC Alignment Must Precede Submission

Observed discrepancies such as:

• Ceiling height conflicts (2.4m vs. 2.7m)
• Walls extending beyond roof limits
• Missing door openings in wall linings

suggest that validation against IFC and coordinated documents occurred after submission, and not before.

Internal reviews must be deliberate and spatially structured. Area-by-area, room-by-room verification reduces silent drift between intent and model.

Clash detection should not be treated solely as an inter-disciplinary coordination tool. It is equally valuable as a self-check mechanism before issuing a model externally.

3. Deviations Require Formal Record

Design changes, whether minor or significant, the data must be traceable.

Examples such as:

• Increased ceiling heights
• Removal of floor drains in specific zones

should be supported by formal documentation (RFI, approved instruction, or equivalent record).

Model updates driven by verbal understanding introduce ambiguity. Clear document precedence and traceability prevent divergence between design intent and modeled reality.

4. Coordination Is a Shared Obligation

Recurring component placement inconsistencies - socket elevations, emergency access controls, wall build-up allowances, often reflect blurred responsibility boundaries.

When discrepancies arise, it is the obligation of all relevant parties to:

• Validate applicable typical details
• Confirm dimensional rules and standards
• Resolve interface conditions promptly

Coordination is not passive reception. It is mutual verification.

5. Submission Discipline Reflects Professionalism

Pre-submission hygiene is often dismissed as administrative. It is not.

Basic controls such as:

• File purge and audit
• BEP / ISO 19650-compliant naming conventions
• Revision alignment between file name and title block
• Verified PDF output checks
• Correct ACC upload protocol and defined issue purpose

signal professional discipline.

Administrative precision reduces technical friction before coordination even begins.

Underlying Principle

Most coordination failures are not geometric in origin.

They are procedural.

Quality in BIM coordination is achieved not through modeling complexity, but through disciplined validation, documented deviation control, and structured submission processes.

A model is only as reliable as the system that governs its release.