Executive summary
A permitting platform holds statutory records, jurisdictional configuration and, increasingly, encoded interpretations of adopted requirements. If any of those cannot leave the platform in a usable form, the municipality has transferred more than a software decision.
This article sets out requirements that preserve control: open exchange formats, complete data export, transparent rule content, the right to evaluate, and exit provisions that are tested rather than promised.
What is actually at risk
Three assets matter. The permit record, which is a statutory record with retention obligations. The configuration — checklists, local requirements, rule sets — which represents municipal knowledge. And the evidence model that connects findings to sources and rule versions, which is what makes past decisions defensible.
Open standards reduce dependence on the authoring or review platform. buildingSMART publishes IFC and the wider openBIM standards, along with guidance addressed specifically to regulators [1][2][3], and NRC-published work considers openBIM implementation in a Canadian context [4].
Procurement requirements that preserve control
| Requirement | Ask for | Verify by |
|---|---|---|
| Open submission formats | Support for PDF, native CAD and IFC-based model submission | Test submission of a representative package |
| Complete data export | All applications, findings, evidence links, rule versions and reviewer actions in a documented schema | Perform an actual export during evaluation |
| Rule transparency | Human-readable rule statements, their code references, editions and test cases | Review three rules end to end |
| Configuration ownership | Written confirmation that jurisdictional configuration is the municipality’s and is exportable | Export the configuration |
| Evaluation rights | Right to run shadow evaluation on historical files and publish internal results | Include in the contract, not the proposal |
| Coverage disclosure | A statement of which provisions are and are not evaluated | Compare against the permit type in scope |
| Security and privacy | Assessment artefacts, residency terms, subprocessor list, incident commitments | Independent review by municipal IT and privacy |
| Exit | Defined exit assistance, data format, timeline and cost | Cost it in the business case |
An evaluation sequence
The shadow run is the stage most often skipped and the only one that produces jurisdiction-specific evidence. It compares system findings against known outcomes on files the department already understands.
Implications for authorities having jurisdiction
Put openness requirements in the mandatory section rather than the scored section. A scored requirement can be traded away by a strong price; a mandatory one cannot.
Involve privacy, records and security functions during evaluation rather than at contract signature. Residency, retention and access questions are cheaper to settle before award.
Implications for vendors and industry
Vendors should expect coverage disclosure to become standard. Stating which provisions are evaluated, which require professional review and which are out of scope is a competitive advantage with informed buyers, not a weakness.
Industry bodies can help by encouraging consistent submission requirements across municipalities, which reduces the customisation that drives cost and dependence.
Risks, limitations and safeguards
- Export promises that are never tested are not evidence; test during evaluation.
- Proprietary rule encodings without human-readable statements make interpretation unauditable.
- Open format support can be nominal; verify with a real package, not a demonstration file.
- Long contract terms with no evaluation rights remove the municipality’s ability to respond to poor performance.
- Exit costs excluded from the business case understate total cost of ownership.
PermitAssure perspective
PermitAssure supports open submission formats including IFC-based models, exportable jurisdictional configuration, human-readable rule statements with code references and effective dates, and full export of applications, findings, evidence links and reviewer actions. Coverage is stated per configuration rather than implied, and shadow evaluation on historical files is the recommended way to test any claim made here.
Five key takeaways
- The assets at risk are the permit record, the configuration and the evidence model.
- Openness and export requirements belong in the mandatory section of a procurement.
- Test one export and one rule walkthrough during evaluation.
- A shadow run on historical files is the only jurisdiction-specific evidence available before award.
- Coverage disclosure and exit terms belong in the contract, not the proposal.
References
- Industry Foundation Classes (IFC). buildingSMART International. www.buildingsmart.org. Accessed 3 August 2026.
- openBIM. buildingSMART International. www.buildingsmart.org. Accessed 3 August 2026.
- Guidance for Regulators on the Use of openBIM. buildingSMART International. www.buildingsmart.org. Accessed 3 August 2026.
- openBIM Implementations for a Canadian Roadmap. NRC Publications Archive. nrc-publications.canada.ca. Accessed 3 August 2026.
- Directive on Automated Decision-Making. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. www.tbs-sct.canada.ca. Accessed 3 August 2026.
Cited statements follow the sources above. Frameworks, diagrams and interpretation in this article are PermitAssure's own.
Related resources
Next step
Move openness, export and evaluation rights into the mandatory requirements of your next procurement, then test them during evaluation.
Discuss procurement requirementsPermitAssure provides digital review, workflow and decision-support capabilities. This resource is educational and does not constitute regulatory, legal, architectural or engineering advice. Final interpretations, approvals and regulatory decisions remain the responsibility of the applicable Authority Having Jurisdiction and its authorized professionals.