Singapore BCA CORENET Submission
Singapore BCA CORENET submission preparation runs a Revit-side compliance check against the active BCA rule library for envelope, fire egress, accessibility, GFA / GPR, parking, and CORENET X IFC-based requirements. VitruAI’s Code Compliance Agent evaluates the working Revit model, writes a citable report alongside the IFC export, and is available now as a Labs engagement under MSA + Appendix.
- Run the active BCA rule set against the working Revit model with every flag cited back to the specific BCA clause.
- Validate the IFC export against CORENET X submission requirements before upload, reducing first-pass rejection risk.
- Produce an audit-ready trail formatted for QP / PE sign-off and archived alongside the CORENET submission package.
From CORENET-rejection cycles to in-Revit checks before submission.
Workflow today
-
01
Designer drafts the model — Week 1–6
Architects build the Revit model to office standards while BCA rule knowledge sits with the senior QP. Most teams focus on internal coordination and basic GFA checks, leaving detailed envelope, fire, accessibility, and parking rules to a late-stage review. CORENET X’s IFC-centric submission adds a second track where someone must configure export views and test IFC output against BCA examples.
Week 1–6 -
02
Pre-submission review — Week 6–8
Around Week 6, the senior QP runs a manual audit of the architectural set against the BCA rule list, often using spreadsheets and marked-up PDFs. Fire egress widths, corridor clearances, accessible routes, and parking counts are checked by sampling, not every element. The IFC export is generated from Revit and uploaded to CORENET or CORENET X’s staging environment, where automated checks frequently fail on naming, classification, or missing attributes.
Week 6–8 -
03
CORENET submission — Week 8–9
By Week 8, the team uploads drawings, schedules, and IFC to CORENET. The platform runs its own automated checks on BCA rules and IFC structure, then returns rejection codes or clarification requests. The QP or PE decodes these messages, maps them back to specific rooms, stairs, or parking elements in Revit, and issues instructions to the design team. Each cycle introduces more manual tracking and risk of missing a flagged item.
Week 8–9 -
04
Resubmit — Week 9–13
Revisions are made in Revit, sheets are reissued, and a fresh IFC export is generated for resubmission. Two rejection cycles are common before clearance, especially on complex mixed-use or high-rise projects. Each cycle consumes days of QP time and ties up the BIM lead. Firms that also work on Dubai Villa Code compliance or other regulated markets recognise the pattern: late checks, fragmented notes, and no single citable record of what was fixed when.
Week 9–13
Workflow with VitruAI
-
01
Run the agent against the working Revit model
On Day 1, the BIM Manager or QP triggers the Code Compliance Agent on the live Revit model used for Singapore BCA CORENET submission. The agent walks every visible element, room, and stair, applying the active BCA library calibrated for that firm’s projects. Envelope controls, fire egress widths, accessibility clearances, GFA / GPR calculations, and parking ratios are checked in a single pass, with each issue tied to a specific Revit element ID.
Day 1 · single-digit minutes per typical model -
02
Review flags in Revit and validate IFC export
Across Day 1–3, the design team and QP work directly in Revit to clear issues. Each flag carries the BCA clause reference, a severity tag, and a suggested remediation, so junior staff can fix many items without fresh instructions. In parallel, the same run validates the IFC export configuration against CORENET X expectations, flagging missing classifications, misnamed parameters, or view-scope gaps before any upload. The BCA rule coverage is aligned with the Singapore BCA regulation library and calibrated per deployment.
Day 1–3 -
03
QP signs the citable report
By Day 3–5, the agent is re-run to confirm all critical issues are resolved, generating a timestamped report that lists each rule checked, each violation, and the final status. The QP or PE reviews this report alongside the cleaned Revit model and IFC file, then signs off using their normal practice templates. The report forms a clear audit trail that can be referenced in internal QA, BCA clarifications, or later disputes.
Day 3–5 -
04
Upload to CORENET with higher first-pass confidence
In Week 1 of the submission window, the team packages the Revit-derived drawings, schedules, and validated IFC for CORENET or CORENET X upload. Because the BCA rule set already ran Revit-side, the expectation is fewer rejection cycles and faster clearance. Once this workflow moves from Labs to a Live release, the same pattern that proved out on our launch customer’s Dubai villa work carries over: every-rule-every-time checks embedded in the authoring tool via the Revit integration.
Week 1
Singapore BCA CORENET submission — common questions
-
Does this replace CORENET’s own automated checks?
No. CORENET and CORENET X still run their own automated checks at submission, and BCA’s decision remains authoritative. This workflow adds a Revit-side pre-submission check so you catch most issues before upload, similar to how firms use Dubai Villa Code compliance workflows upstream of authority review. The goal is fewer rejection cycles and less QP time spent decoding CORENET error messages.
-
Does it work with CORENET X’s IFC-based submission?
Yes. The Labs engagement configures the agent to read your Revit model and validate the IFC export against CORENET X’s expected schema and attribute set. It flags gaps such as missing classifications, incorrect storey assignments, or absent accessibility parameters alongside standard BCA rule violations. Each Beta or Labs deployment ships a per-project accuracy report calibrated to the customer’s pipeline.
-
Does the agent replace the QP / PE sign-off?
No. Singapore building plan submissions still require Qualified Person or Professional Engineer sign-off under BCA rules. The agent prepares a reviewed model and a citable rule-check report that the QP or PE can rely on as structured evidence. It shifts their effort from hunting for non-compliance in Revit to confirming that flagged issues are resolved and the submission set matches their professional judgement.
-
What’s the Labs engagement timeline?
Labs engagements for Singapore BCA CORENET submission typically run 6–10 weeks from kickoff to a working agent on your first project. The BCA rule library is co-built with your QP team so the coverage and interpretations match your practice standards. That process draws on patterns proven in earlier work, including the Dubai villa deployment and the Singapore BCA rule mapping, but the final calibration is per deployment.
-
When does this ship as a productised Live release?
Singapore BCA CORENET preparation sits on the roadmap, available now as a Labs engagement under MSA + Appendix. The timeline for a fully productised Live release depends on adding at least one more design partner beyond our launch customer (a Dubai villa-compliance practice). Firms that join the waitlist help shape the rule coverage, CORENET X IFC profiles, and how this sits alongside the Revit integration and Code Compliance Agent.