Using the BIModel directly for set-out:

Do you have reservations when it comes to handing your Building Information Model (BIModel) across to the contractor for them to set-out / layout components of the building (i.e. Penn Stage BIM Execution Planning reference to: 3D Control / Digital Layout)? Let’s have a look at what you may need to consider when you negotiate with the builder.


Reluctant to release models: There are many reasons designers are slow to hand over their model to aid the contractor. These may include:


  1. Loss of control in the set-out process
  2. Uncertainty on how quality control is guaranteed
  3. The contractor may use parts of the model for set-out, in ways it was not intended
  4. Concern it is opening the designer to unnecessary extra risk
  5. Lack of knowledge in the new technology – (we have not done it before)
  6. Concern in divulging intellectual property


These are all valid concerns and thus, need addressing.

Benefits to the contractor: What are some of the benefits to the Contractor / sub-contractor in using digital laser set-out?



  1. Minimise set-out (layout) time (Can be up to 34% less working hours)
  2. Minimise time delays (identification of unknowns before going into the field)
  3. Greater accuracy (± 7mm, compared with traditional means of ± 25mm)
  4. Minimise set-out mistakes (greater Quality Control processes)
  5. Significant reduction in on-site rework (resultant of above point 3 and 4)
  6. Cost savings (resultant of above point 1 and 5)
  7. Provision of future works and ability to efficiently generate accurate as-constructed models
  8. Increased safety (e.g.: minimise work at heights by installing ferrules to slab formwork before casting. Rework is typically high risk work, as it involves taking down equipment, and carrying out tasks in a: non-ideal order and environment. I have come across figures mentioned of; 40% of reported incidents on construction sites, occur during re-work operations)


The full benefit of comprehensive clash detection at construction stage may not eventuate if an accurate layout method is not employed.

Traditional paper set-out drawings: It appears as we further embrace computer technologies, many of the skills in documentation seem to be disappearing. The competence of producing dimensioned set-out drawings is one of these. In reading Architectural drawings today, it is easy to see how the builder is often confused. RFI’s (requests for information) over set-out queries are on the rise. These forms of drawing often contain comments such as “Do not measure/scale off drawings”. Unfortunately, it’s a poor cop-out if the drawing contains multiple deficiencies, or confusing/badly noted string dimensions. They are often not picked up, for example; until the carpenters are erecting the form-work with an immediate concrete pore ahead. Delays do occur due to bad documentation.
The task of quality checking paper set-out is not an easy one. The use of 3D models to generate the documentation does help, but is still does not resolve the documenter’s skill deficiency.



Above:  part sample layout plan clearly identifying string dimensions

Construction Rework Figures: Available statistics on typical construction projects:
Reference; A Rework Reduction Model for Construction by Peter E D Love, Zahir Irani and David Edwards November 2004

In Australia, approximately 12% of a building constructions project cost is attributed to re-work. 6.4% in direct costs and 5.6% in indirect costs.

Breaking down the 12% of cost incurred:
      30% design errors
      46% construction execution
         • Setting out errors
         • Inadequate supervision
         • Staff turnover
         • Low skill error
      24% other reasons
         • Poor or incompatible materials
         • Damage from other trades
         • Weather damage

These figures will vary from project to project. It is influenced by job size and complexity. Large projects are typically more efficient while complex projects have a greater risk of errors.

Benefits to the Designer: The contractor is definitely the big winner when using a digital set-out directly from the model. So what does the designer gain from this new technology?



  • A more accurate representation of design intent is achieved. Set-out errors often lead to poor architectural outcomes
  • A reduction in last minute “request for information” (RFI) queries
  • Deviations on site may be identified/reported earlier, and thus a better outcome is possible
  • Complex designs are constructible. In complex designs, traditional paper set-out drawings may not adequately communicate the relevant information to the contractor
  • If engaged appropriately risk is reduced – QC increased (See process below. Traditional paper set-out drawings are notorious for; lacking quality control, easy to miss-read and deficiencies) 
  • If engaged appropriately allows more efficient communication between the contractor and designer (See process below).
  • Reduced time in documentation production. Every point on the drawing does not need detailed dimensions.
  • If engaged appropriately quality control resourcing time is reduced (checking of drawings to make sure they adequately communicate the relevant information)
  • Method promotes a reduction of cost over-runs; thus client perceives a greater service provided by the design team. Happy clients, leads to return business


BIM management plans and processes: The use of digital model set-out (layout) is not mentioned in any part of NATSPEC BIM guide. In-fact, from the BIM Management Plans (including execution plans) publically available, there is little mention of using CAD or BIM for building element set-outs. However I can’t see that lasting for long.
I have seen minimum quality control processes being engaged in this topic. I believe this may be due to lack of awareness of what is involved (the technology process and its capabilities), and risk incurred/avoided by the relevant parties.

With any new technology, it is just a matter of using it correctly and not letting the new tool get in the way of quality control. Below, I have developed a draft process to allow a structured, trackable and controlled data exchange. A derivative of this should help in alleviating the above concerns. It may seem over detailed; however it is faster and more reliable than traditional paper set-out means.

Model use for consultant set-out approval process:
Below is a draft process workflow. (The author does not take any responsibility of the below).




Contractor Steps:


C1. Requests set-out information for specific area from consultant:

The required area and components to be digitally set-out are identified, and a formal request is issued to the consultant. (Similar to traditional workflow processes)


C2. Review drawings:

Received drawings (PDF format) are evaluated to decide if they are fit for construction. Mark-ups and comments added as required. Quick process turnaround required. (Similar to traditional workflow processes)


C3. Is drawing fit for construction? (Gate)

Do drawings pass review process?  Approve:  Sign off and proceed to C4. Reject: Query issued back to A1.
Approved drawings are used on site for communication, general discussion, identification of type information, specific component notes, and for checking purposes. (Similar to traditional workflow processes)


C4. Request Model;

3D model of approved components requested from the consultant.


C5. Identifies set-out points in model;

Create 3D DXF set-out point file. Issue for checking;
“With-in the point creator authoring software”, the required set-out points are identified and tagged (semi-automated process). Points will include a prefix to identify component type and a sequential number (e.g. S05). Each point ID will be unique per floor level. Set-out points are exported as a 3D DXF (Drawing Exchange Format). These set-out points now become a set-out construction model, with the points given an LOD350 level of development (ref: BIMForum LOD Specification). The 3D DXF file is released to the consultant for checking (This DXF file is now seen as a shop drawing and typical processes ensue).


C6. Export points to field survey set-out tool;


Following approval from the Consultant, the set-out points are loaded into the digital field survey set-out equipment.


C7. Set-out on site. Log report generated;

Points are set-out on site. A detailed log is kept of each set-out point including, time and date of layout, the set-up name, the operators name, tolerance information after the set-out for each point. The log is issued to parties involved (on the same day of the set-out). This is an official record for quality assurance and can be referred to in the event of a dispute.


C8. Any deviations issued to Consultant (As-Built models);

Any set-out outside a predefined tolerance are highlighted, and this information is released back to the relevant parties (via DXF file) to record “Field Verified” (As-Built) drawings/model.


Consultant Steps:


A1. Update and verify “requested set-out area” in model. Add model data attributes;

Following the request of a specific area needing set-out, the consultant thoroughly checks all data in components to make sure they are up to date and correct. The following component attributes are added:
Date of verification/checking – ISO date format
Checked by: - Full Name


A2. Issue PDF drawings of requested area including some check dimensions. Issue for "construction approval"

PDF Drawing sheet of relevant area is released to the Contractor for “Construction Approval”. Drawings to include, all relevant notations, symbologies, types, code identification, penetrations, set-downs, centre lines of partitions and strategic check dimensions off grid, of “some” key items. Items outside the scope of set-out are identified. A reference to the location of this data is called up. (e.g. in a slab set-out the Architect may only be responsible to set-out the top of the slab. The set-out of the underside is a resultant of the slab thickness called up on the structural drawings.) (It is similar to traditional workflows with the exception of dimensions not included)
NOTE: When using digital set-outs they are absolute coordinates. Thus the set-out to rule based items cannot be part of digital set-outs. Rules such as; “equal spacing”, or Minimum/Maximum distance off an existing item will not be part of the digital set-out scope.


A3. Export only relevant part of model including 3D levels & grids. Issues for "Set-out point identification":

Following approval, components attributed with relevant; “Date of Verification” and “Check by” is exported along with a 3D Levels and Grids to create a new: “Part Model”. This model is released to the contractor with the status of "Set-out point identification"
(By exporting only the relevant area minimum intellectual property is lost.)


A4. Consultant overlays 3D DXF file into BIM & reviews:

Consultant receives a 3D DXF point file from the contractor. This is linked to the current model and over-layed. A visual/measured check is carried out to make sure design intent is met and set-out points are within the scope of the consultant’s responsibility. Quick process turnaround needed.


A5. Do set-out points meet design intent? (Gate);

Points are rejected or approved. Rejected points with queries go to C5. Approved points are sent to C6. This step is seen in a similar light to how electronic shop drawing approval occurs with appropriate disclaimers included.

A6. Deviations updated in model;

If an as-built model is a contractual deliverable: A 3D DXF file (locating deviations) is released to the consultant who links and overlays it into their model. Relevant model geometry updated.
The above process is a potential starting point, and if it works well, could be compacted to combine step A2 and A3. The success of the process relies heavily on a quick turnaround on the checking steps.
NOTE: The use of the term “Consultant” in this article may include any design team member or sub-contractor.




The technology: The technology used in identifying the set-out points in the model is quite clever. It can be as simple as selecting a model object or type component, and it will automatically add the points to the corners, centre lines or grid intersections. Curved strings can have points identified at set intervals. Points are given sequential numbers including prefixes. In some cases data attributes can also be added. This automation greatly assists in minimising human error.

Above – Image of layout points in Autodesk Revit. These sample points were created in less than one minute.

Following the creation of set-out points, a report or DXF 3D CAD file can be easily generated. These can be used for checking and sign-off.




                               Above: Sample deviation report


                                Above: 3D DXF file

On site a surveyor will have positioned key survey control markers. These are highly visible points, typically applied to concrete or block-work structures, including; cores, columns, sheer walls and adjacent buildings.  The point creator operator can specify two of these control points in the point creator tool. The coordinates in the model, are thus transformed into the surveyors site geo-spatial coordinate system.
Following layout point completion, a log report may be downloaded to the application and a deviation report generated. Points outside the accepted tolerances may then be exported to a new DXF file and issued to the design consultants to update their model.

Applications: Recommended types of components to use this method of set-out are:


  • Wall/partition set-outs
  • Concrete plinths / piles
  • Hydraulic service collars
  • Penetrations
  • Hangers for ductwork, pipework, cable trays etc.
  • Threaded ferrule placement

Responsibility: Only elements within the responsibility of the relevant party are extracted from their model. The example above identifies a typical concrete slab layout. In Australia; the Architect is responsible to locate the: floor slab edge, set downs and major penetrations. The structural engineer takes the responsibility for the beam size and depth, and slab thickness. Concrete beam locations are a resultant of the grid lines and sab-edges. Thus data may need to come from two different parties in order to gain the entire set-out information. This is one reason why the checking and sign off part of the above procedure is needed.

Complex design: In moving forward, we are starting to see more and more circumstances where complex geometry designs are passed over to builders to construct. Traditional 2D paper drawings do not always adequately convey the relevant information for the builder to truly understand how to construct it. The use of digital set-out can be one method to set-out and maintain quality control. Thus as a designer, if you are creating these complex forms, shying away from this technology, will likely end up with poor quality outcomes.

Close: Digital set-out is going to become more popular as time goes on. Equipment will become cheaper and contractors will become more aware of it. If engaged properly the new technology can be a win, win for all involved. However, like anything, if not used appropriately there will be losers. The above identifies the significance of a documented process.
It is appropriate timing, as one of my fellow Melbourne BIM Bloggers (Practical BIM) has recently (April 2013) blogged on an issue he has come across on this subject. The similar posts are just coincidence. I've been researching this article for the past few weeks. If anything, it highlights the topic requires thorough discussion in the industry.

On any of my posts, I welcome comments and feedback. If anything, I know people are reading them, but more importantly; debate and counter discussion always improve methodologies.

References:
The above methods are in relation to Trimble Point Creator, being used along with the Trimble MEP solution. Efficiency figures are derived from here.

Other relevant reverences:

Penn Stage BIM Execution Planning reference to: 3D Control & Planning (Digital Layout) here:
Construction Business Owner: Making BIM Bigger - January 2014 - Cathi Hayes. here:
Plumbing Connection: Set out to be Accurate - here:

Ten Objectives of Model Origin and Setup

Updated 29/10/2016

BIMFix Blog is pleased to announce the release of a "BIMFix Framework for Shared Model Establishment" which can be downloaded for free from here. This framework document shows how the below can be implemented on a project.

Premise:
When it comes to the model origin, coordinates and project setup; Three Dimensional (3D) virtual models (BIModels) have to meet many goals. This includes:
  1.  Limited survey data available at early project design stage
  2. World Geodetic System
  3. Limitations of computer computation algorithms and units
  4. Different project team member needs
  5. Different BIM deliverable needs
  6. Scalable within projects sizes
  7. Building relocation management
  8. Allocation of responsibility and risk mitigation
  9. Allowance for human error, and follow-up resolution
  10. Work within international standards


Do your project model processes and workflows take all these into account? If they don't; you are potentially limiting the use of the model, or adding risk for the party needing to relocate or modify the model to meet the omitted goal?

Over the past two decades, 3D models are commonly circulated between project teams to enhance coordination, communication and meet deliverables. When dealing with 2D (CAD files & Paper), very few drafters were concerned with CAD file origins accommodating other parties workflows. Other parties drawings had the sole purpose of providing backgrounds or visual coordination underlay references.

(Australia is given as an example in this article, however, the same principles are applicable globally)

Today, however; there are many potential uses of models:

  • Components from one discipline can be hosted directly on another disciplines element,
  • Identical components across discipline models may have spatial monitoring engaged,
  • Consultants may be obtaining geodetic coordinates from the Architect’s model,
  • Components may be tagged and annotated across discipline models,
  • Components of the model can be directly used for element set-out (e.g. Trimble robotic total station),
  • Models are becoming the center of team communication, with file formats such as BCF (BIM Collaboration Format). This may need to work between relevant applications involved.
  • There is greater use of models across multiple deliverables and they are expected to seamlessly integrate between disciplines and applications,


An inappropriate origin set-up can have a direct impact on project teams. Let’s elaborate on the above list and understand the challenges and goals:


1. Limited survey data available at early project design stages
It is rare to have a comprehensive site survey at project kick-off, or even concept / sketch design stage. Ideally, a CAD survey is available from the Land Surveyor, about 8 weeks before the end of Sketch Design.

On the first few days of building modeling conception, relative levels and spatial coordinates are not a high priority on most projects. There are, of course, exceptions. Designers need to evolve the design principles with limited site information. Model users may not understand the potential consequences of a bad project set-up, and thus, a simple, user-friendly approach (plan) is likely to succeed.


2. World Geodetic System
Geocentric Datum
Australia’s official geodetic datum is Geocentric Datum of Australia,1994 (GDA94). 
This coordinate system fits into the global coordinate system. It came into use in 1994 and is compatible with the Global Positioning System (GPS). It includes Grid coordinates (Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM), using the GRS80 ellipsoid); called Map Grid of Australia (MGA94). Note: This replaces the former grid system Australian Map Grid (AMG).
UTM was first developed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers.



          Above image: Map Grid of Australia 1994
Each country, and in the US; States, have their own UTM or similar Map Grid, In the UK it's called the Ordnance Survey National Grid, in the US it's the State Plane Coordinate System.

MGA94 fits within the global “Longitude” grid (vertical) and is 6⁰ of separation. It starts at the International Date Line and works anti-clockwise around the earth. Each grid sector is allocated a Zone number. Australia is between Zone 49 (West W.A) and Zone 56 (East N.S.W. / QLD.). It uses the Cartesian coordinate system in a positive X,Y (Easting’s and Northing’s) to locate a point/position. A helpful converter from UTM Coordinates to Geographic (latitude, longitude) coordinate system: AWSM website.

When in the Northern Hemisphere the Northing origin is measured from the Equator line. For the Southern Hemisphere in order to maintain positive values, the origin is measured 10,000KM south (down) of the Equator line (very close to the South-Pole). The measurement takes the North/South curvature of the earth into account. All coordinates are in meters.
Location examples (approximate):

Melbourne    MGA Zone 55    E 320,000 (Easting)      N 5,800,000 (Northing)
Sydney         MGA Zone 56    E 330,000 (Easting)      N 6,250,000 (Northing)


                   Above image: MGA Zone origins - 500,000m West of the Central Meridian.

Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) 
UTM represents ellipsoidal positions (latitude & longitude) as Grid coordinates (Easting and Northing) on a cylindrical surface, resulting in a number of zones. Uniform scale factor, false origins, and zone size and numbering have been adopted for the Universal Transverse Mercator Projection.


Image above – concept of Universal Mercator and Universal Transverse Mercator system – I.e. the attempt to flatten an Oblate Spheroid (the Earth) onto a flat surface. 


Typically, World Maps use the Universal Mercator, however, MGA maps use the Transverse Mercator system enabling less distortion in a North / South direction. There is an East / West distortion and it can be between a Scale Factor of 0.9996 (Point A) and 
1.00071 (Point C) as shown in the below sectional diagram.
Above diagram: Extract from The Map Grid of Australia 1994A Simplified Computational Manual,  showing the Scale Factor will vary with the distance of the survey from the Central Meridian allowing for the East-West curvature of the Earth. 

The Australian Government provides a free to use Calculator, which computes the scale factor (Point Scale) East-West deviation. Thus an MGA survey with an Eastings of 510,200 (Close to the Central Meridian), as per the above calculator, will have a Point Scale of 0.99960128. Thus 100 meters measured East-West in the CAD drawing will be in fact 100/0.99960128 = 100.040 meters on site. About +40mm out.

Some local areas are a sub-section of MGA. Perth projects often work to Perth Coastal Grid (PCG). These smaller local grids allow for greater accuracy as they reduce some of the unfolding deviations which occur within the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM).
The bottom paragraph of this link provides guidance when working on large linear projects to minimize distortion.


Elevation (Altitude)
The “Z” coordinates (Elevation), Australian Height Datum (AHD) is used. This is the mean sea level (Geoid) for 1966-1968 and was assigned a value of 0.000m with the surveying of 30 stations around Australia. All surveys refer to AHD, and again the units are in meters.
Please also note the height above mean sea level will also affect the output scale factor.



Above diagram: Shows, as the Elevation increases the Ground Distance increases vs. the Grid Distance. 

Building Set-out (Layout)
When annotating the set-out of a standalone commercial building, it is common to give Easting and Northing for the primary building set-out Grid (See Figure A.1 image below). and an AHD relative level for each floor level.

Civil Engineers, Land Surveyors, Transport Engineers all work to this official coordinate system, and it is an imperative any building information exchange integrate with them.


3. Limitations of computer computation algorithms and units
The above mentioned Geodetic coordinates can become very large (6,000KM = 6,000,000,000mm). Most software applications (including CAD applications and MS Excel) have limitations and these include the number of calculated figures they can effectively work with, due to Floating Point precision engaged via the IEEE 754 Standard. To achieve the required level of accuracy,  software usually like 8 decimal places before and after the decimal point (i.e. a total of 15 to 16 figures) in relation to the desired output units. When figures go above the limitations, rounding errors occur.  And thus if the geometry is modeled outside the software coordinate limitations, it starts to produce numerical, such as radial arcs and tangential lines won't trim correctly, and graphical or rendering errors; such as lines may appear to jump on selection, hatches won't display/print correctly or renders are missing lights or objects.

Also, consider some US CAD Building applications (e.g. Autodesk Revit) are hard-coded in decimal feet, and changing the units does not change how the coordinate units are stored. 

With all of the above, this is one reason land surveyors work in meters. The software is too unpredictable if they worked in millimeters. 
Thus, Building Design and Construction teams who want to work in millimeters must use a known (Easting and Northing identified) "Local" datum point.

References to the Above problem:

Autodesk AutoCAD:
Autodesk Revit:
Bentley:
Graphisoft ArchiCAD:
Microsoft Excel:
Vectorworks:


Trimble Sketchup:


4. Different project team member needs
Most building projects can be split up into two camps; those dealing with the site or civil, and those dealing with the building itself. 

All site related geodetic references (MGA & AHD) are in meters.  As these disciplines are engaging large dimensional figures, it makes a lot of sense to work in meters. However, within the Building and Fabrication disciplines, component set-outs and measurements are in millimeters.

Site Disciplines: 
(units meters)
Building Disciplines: 
(units millimeters)
Land Surveyors
Architects and Interior Designers
Civil Engineers
Structural Engineers
Transport Engineers
Building Services Engineers
Landscape Architects
Building Surveyor / BCA Consultants

Façade Engineers

Acoustics Engineers

Other building specialist consultants

Building Component fabrication modelers
NOTE: Landscape Architects may prefer to work in millimeters and thus must work off the local site origin.

As disciplines use different units (meters / millimeters) and thus different origin points, an integrated workflow allowing for a coordinate data exchange needs to be established between all parties.


5. Different BIM deliverable needs
When looking at the available BIM goals, many project team members will require a different approach to model coordinates and origins. Some examples;
  • Master Planning: When master planning a campus it can include GIS data, multiple buildings, staging strategies and integrate Geodetic Coordinate systems.
  • Clash Detection: 98% of Clash detection on building projects takes place within the building itself (this will be different on infrastructure projects). On a commercial Building construction project, the site clash detection is often minimal. Building relocations during design stages should not temporally hold up the Clash Detection process. Clash Detection may also include fabrication model authoring applications which may not support Geodetic Coordinate systems.
    Communication of Clash detection via (BCF) may require two-way communication. BCF files generally require identical model (hard coded) origins between the applications in use.
  • Sustainability Evaluation: When defining the rating scheme used to check the model, (e.g. Green Star or LEED), the building orientation to true north, longitude, and latitude position, are transferred into the analysis application often via the model.
  • Positive and Small Coordinates: Some analysis applications require the geometry to be close to the origin and for all geometry to be positive figures. This is to minimize and simplify the computations. It will result in the Model origin being in the bottom right of the model. 
Thus, it is necessary for the approach to work with multiple units and coordinate systems.



 6. Scalable within projects sizes
Whatever approach and process are used, it needs to be scalable. That is, to work with:
  • a single green/brown field site building,
  • a multi-building campus environment, all buildings unique
  • a multi-building campus environment, multiple instances of building units
  • a multiple discipline sub-model environment, forming a single federated building model
  • a project containing existing conditions, staging, and/or building extensions


7. Building relocation management
From building design kick off, up until foundation concrete pouring, a building design relocation is likely to occur. This relocation can occur due to new data the design has to integrate. Building movements can occur in any of the X,Y,Z and rotation coordinates. So even if the building takes up 100% of the site, it may still move in the “Z” direction.

If not planned for and managed appropriately; building relocations can have substantial adverse effects on project teams. Potentially adding weeks of documentation re-work for parties affected.

During my time as a BIM consultant, it is rare to come across a design practice who has thoroughly investigated and documented processes on how building relocations are logged and executed. Failure to address this may open up liability to parties involved.

8. Allocation of responsibility and risk mitigation
When it comes to “most” building projects (Infrastructure projects are an exception), the Architect is responsible for documenting where the building is located and set-out (layout) on the site. The Architect will determine this off a site survey provided during the early design stage by the Land Surveyor.

As the design evolves, and the design location of the building updates, it is up to the Architect to take responsibility for relocation change and adequately communicate it to all relevant parties. All necessary processes are to be established to eliminate other design consultants or contractors, being requested to manually move their models or enter coordinates figures to align with an Architectural model. This is an unnecessary risk. 
If no processes and checking systems are in place, and parties get it wrong and costs are incurred, is the Architect going to reimburse them?


9. Allowance for human error, and follow-up resolution
No matter how clever a process is, human error is often the weakest link. Thus, the overall workflow should take on board the following:
  • A protection system in place, to avoid users accidently moving linked models
  • An audit at each deliverable stage to pick up coordinate/origin errors
  • A backup coordinates reference system, to help in resolving any errors
  • If all fails a reset option, which will have minimum effect on other parties


10. Work within international standards
There are not many specific standards in regard to site set-up, so when there is one, it’s worth adhering to it where possible. BS 1192:2007+A2:2016 - Collaborative production of architectural, engineering and construction information – Code of practice has a specific section on site coordinate establishment. Its relative section is Annex A (normative); Project space statement. This section identifies the establishment of a site map grid (engaging Easting’s and Northing’s map grids). It suggests a location for a project site local origin (site grid origin), and the identification of at least two building grid intersection coordinates and rotation. 
Above:  Figure A.1 Geodetic referencing from BS 1192:2007+A2:2016.

This approach is very robust, and it also can be used to facilitate item “9” above. BS 1192:2007 is a requirement of UK BIM Level 1 & 2.




Close
I can confirm, it is possible to establish a site set-up process to include all the above goals. Any Architectural firm sharing BIModels, need to take the initiative to develop and document (flowchart) the final process. 

This workflow is then circulated to all relevant parties.
If you are a design consultant, insist you are provided with such a document by the Architect. Ensure you thoroughly test it and check it does not adversely affect your workflows. The consultants are the party must likely to be directly impacted in the event a building relocation is inadequately planned.
There is no one item mentioned here which is difficult. An all-encompassing plan does take a while to develop and test. Yet it is one sure workflow all lead consultants need to have.

Call for Review
For any readers, reviewing the above and taking issue with any of the premises, I request you please provide Brian Renehan (the author) with the relevant constructive feedback (via below comment or email - see contact info). Identify the background and reason for your counter argument. The above premises “should” be universal for all building construction projects. If it led to universal software specific workflow outcomes, it would greatly benefit the industry.