Deterministic artificial intelligence-assisted compliance checking for building permit applications

From: Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada

The National Research Council (NRC) is seeking automated solutions to evaluate compliance of both two-dimensional drawings (e.g. PDF or CAD) and Building Information Models (BIM) against digitalized construction codes using a deterministic, human-in-the-loop artificial intelligence (AI) agent(s).

Challenge sponsor:
National Research Council (NRC)

Funding mechanism:
Grant

Opening date:
July 7, 2026

Closing date:
August 4, 2026, 14:00 Eastern time

Log in to view your submissions

Propose a solution

Here are a few things you need to know before you get started on your application to this challenge:

  1. This challenge is open to receive proposals in Phase 2 (Prototype Development) of the Challenge Stream:
  2. We recently made changes to the Challenge Stream, we have outlined the new parameters
  3. Read through the official Grant Instructions and Procedures document
  4. Post-evaluation proposal selection will include the following priority: Firms with an in-depth knowledge of Canadian construction codes and experience in research and development of AI and digitalization solutions for the Canadian construction sector or Provincial/Territorial/Municipal regulators

Challenge
 

Problem statement

The NRC is seeking innovative, affordable digital construction solutions that boost construction sector productivity and housing supply, while helping Provincial/Territorial/Municipal Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) reduce costs and mitigate delays. Digitalization of construction processes, particularly for permitting and compliance checking, has led to reductions in building and housing development timelines and associated costs for AHJs and Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) companies in early adopter countries such as Finland, Estonia and Singapore.

Although many larger Canadian municipal, provincial and territorial AHJs are adopting digital permitting solutions and many larger AEC firms are using BIM software, technical barriers are preventing full digitization while cost and technical readiness barriers remain for smaller AHJs and Indigenous communities, as well as smaller companies (which comprise over 90% of the Canadian AEC sector), for full digitization of the construction sector across Canada.

Automated Compliance Checking (ACC) as a decision support capability has potentially significant benefits for AHJs to support building officials in evaluating permit applications, and for AEC firms or project owners to conduct a preliminary check on a drawing or BIM model before submitting a permit application, by saving time and cost associated with re-work, repeated reviews and project delays.

Through this ISC challenge, NRC is seeking to support the prototype development and demonstration of Canadian ACC solutions driven by deterministic or neuro-symbolic AI that can utilize digitalized Canadian construction codes to check compliance of 2D drawing (PDF or CAD) and BIM (including international standard formats such as Industry Foundation Classes (IFC), openBIM, ISO 19650 and ISO 16739). The success of this challenge will enable further commercialization of additional and complementary digital construction tools for AECs, AHJ, and for NRC to test and validate machine-executable compliance rules (digitalized codes).

Desired outcomes and considerations

Essential (mandatory) outcomes

The proposed solution must:

  • Be able to process 2D drawing files (PDF and/or CAD) and BIM/IFC models of a house or building, along with additional structured or unstructured data included in a typical Canadian building permit application submission.
  • Demonstrate the ability to check code compliance across a range of building typologies as defined in Part 3 and Part 9 of the National Building Code of Canada (NBC), including the ability to distinguish applicable code provisions for the building classifications set out in NBC Subsection 3.2.2., and Part 9 Housing and Small Building types (e.g. one vs. multiple dwellings, house with or without secondary suite, etc.).
  • Include a deterministic component(s) that utilizes machine-readable construction codes, machine-executable compliance rules and/or an ontology of construction codes, for consistency, accuracy and repeatability of compliance evaluations. The overall solution may include a combination or hybrid approach of both deterministic and probabilistic AI models, agents and techniques.
  • Involve human-in-the-loop workflows, and provide traceability and auditability of AI-generated compliance checks with reference to applicable code provisions.
  • Be compatible with one or more digitalized code formats (sample data can be optionally provided by NRC for the project), including XML or Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA), Javascript Object Notation / Linked Data (JSON/JSON-LD), or an ontology / knowledge graph in Terse RDF Triple Language (TTL) or Resource Description Framework (RDF) format including semantic markups, such as:
    • Requirements-Application-Selection-Exception annotations (RASE);
    • Encoded logical expressions derived from natural language of building code provisions;
    • Tags or mappings to information classification systems such as Masterformat/Uniformat, Omniclass or Uniclass;
    • Mappings to Industry Foundation Classes objects in a data dictionary.
  • Generate itemized compliance verification results with at least four categories:
    • Meets (Pass);
    • Does not Meet (Fail);
    • Information Not Available (missing information in drawing/permit data or the building code ruleset);
    • Uncertain (model is unable to make a determination, not due to missing information but rather uncertainties such as rules subject to different interpretations, site specific considerations, critical health & safety requirements needing case-by-case human assessment).
  • Include an intuitive user interface (UI) for AEC practitioners or building officials, and/or include open Application Programming Interface(s) (APIs) to enable programmatic data queries and workflow initiation from other software or custom UIs.
  • Support Canadian data residency, such as a cloud-based solution in a data centre located in Canada, installable on-premise (e.g. private cloud), secure private instance of the LLM utilizing services such as Azure OpenAI, etc.
  • Be able to export compliance verification results in multiple formats (e.g. PDF, Excel, BIM Collaboration Format) and exchange data with other systems (e.g. existing AHJ e-permitting software) via open APIs or other (semi)-automated mechanism.
  • Support compliance verification against both French and English building codes, such as the French version of the National Building Code or the Quebec Construction Code.

Additional outcomes

The proposed solution should:

  • Be compatible with international standards for BIM (buildingSMART and ISO), including ISO 19650, ISO 16739, Industry Foundation Classes (IFC), BIM Collaboration Format (BCF), Information Delivery Specification (IDS), openBIM.
  • Achieve at least 90% accuracy of compliance verification with simpleFootnote * digitalized code rules, and at least 80% with complexFootnote ** rules.
  • Track versions of drawings / models / data to manage revisions or corrections following initial compliance verification, including identity, trust, and digital seals/signatures to enable trust in who submitted what, and when.
  • Be configurable to establish a data pipeline with an NRC or AHJ digitalized codes database, in order to ingest and pre-process amendments to regulations or bylaws, using data exchange mechanisms, such as APIs, file transfer protocol, event-driven dataflows, etc.

Background and context

Early adopters of ACC include Finland, Singapore, and Australia, with additional European countries working towards codes digitalization, digital permitting and ACC. NRC is collaborating with multi-disciplinary academia and industry experts in Canada, Europe and the UK on methodologies and solutions for codes digitalization, including adaptation of adoption of certain outputs from a recent European Union and buildingSMART International initiative ACCORD. Additionally, NRC is conducting collaborative R&D projects to facilitate broader BIM adoption in Canada, leveraging international standards and practices such as ISO 19650, openBIM, IFC, etc.

To date, few provincial and municipal-level initiatives are underway in Canada to implement advanced digital permitting and ACC. However, challenges and barriers to broader and faster adoption by Canadian AHJs and AEC firms are anticipated, such as the following:

  • Limited digitalization of Canadian construction codes and applicable municipal codes and bylaws, results in limitations to (semi)-automating compliance checking. NRC is working towards digitalizing the National Model Construction Codes, though variations in Code provisions across AHJs increase the level of effort.
  • BIM adoption in Canada, while progressing (particularly larger AEC firms), is very limited so far by AHJs and smaller AECs, due in part to readiness (learning curve), resource capacity and costs. Tools for BIM-based workflows for permitting and ACC have been successfully implemented in early adopter countries such as Finland, though ACC solutions with 2D submissions (e.g. PDF or CAD) through rules-based algorithms or deterministic AI (as opposed to generative / probabilistic AI), particularly when Canadian data residency is taken into consideration.
  • Many medium and larger Canadian municipalities have already implemented e-permitting software, and the province of British Columbia has also implemented a central permitting hub. Although some currently available e-permitting systems include ACC capabilities, most e-permitting solutions implemented by AHJs are limited to PDF or form-based permit tracking and workflows, without ACC. Many AHJs with existing e-permitting systems would benefit from a cost-effective ACC solution that does not require a full replacement of existing e-permitting implementations, some of which involved integrations with other municipal planning systems.

Maximum value and travel

Multiple grants could result from this Challenge.

Phase 2

  • Maximum funding: $500,000.00 CAD
  • Project duration: Up to 18 months
  • Estimated number of grants: 2

This disclosure is made in good faith and does not commit Canada to award any grant for the total approximate funding. Final decisions on the number of Phase 2 awards will be made by Canada based on factors such as evaluation results, departmental priorities, and availability of funds. The Government of Canada reserves the right to make partial awards and to negotiate project scope changes.

Note: Selected companies are eligible to receive one grant per phase per challenge.

Travel

No travel is anticipated but a virtual integration test and demonstration of the solution with NRC digital construction codes is expected.

Kick-off meeting

All communication will take place by telephone or videoconference.

Progress review meeting(s)

Any progress review meetings will be conducted by telephone or videoconference.

Final review meeting

All communication will take place by telephone or videoconference.

Eligibility
 

Solution proposals can be submitted by a business that meets all of the following criteria:

  • for profit
  • incorporated in Canada (federally or provincially)
  • small and medium sized business with 499 or fewer full-time equivalent (FTE) employees***
  • research and development activities that take place in Canada
  • 50% or more of its annual wages, salaries and fees are currently paid to employees and contractors who spend the majority of their time working in CanadaFootnote ***
  • 50% or more of its FTE employees have Canada as their ordinary place of workFootnote ***
  • 50% or more of its senior executives (Vice President and above) have Canada as their principal residenceFootnote ***

Evaluation criteria
Phase 2

The Applicant (offeror) must complete the Challenge Stream Submission Form with a degree of information sufficient to enable Canada's assessment of the proposal against the criteria and the Evaluation Schema. The information must demonstrate how the proposal meets the criterion.

Part 1: Phase 2 - Mandatory Criteria

Proposals must meet all Mandatory Criteria identified by achieving a "Pass" in order to proceed to Part 2. Proposals that do not meet all Mandatory Criteria will be deemed non-responsive and given no further consideration.

Mandatory Criteria

(Applicant's proposal must address)

Question 1 a: Phase 2 Scope

Describe the proposed innovation and demonstrate how it responds to the challenge. Include in your description the scientific and technological basis upon which the solution is proposed and clearly demonstrate how the solution meets all of the Essential Outcomes in the Desired Outcomes section in the Challenge Notice.

Question 1 a: Evaluation Schema (Mandatory – Pass/Fail)
Pass

The proposed solution is within the scope for the challenge, and clearly addresses all Essential Outcomes identified in the Challenge.

Fail

The proposed solution is articulated as out of scope for the challenge.

or

The proposal does not clearly demonstrate how the proposed solution addresses all Essential Outcomes identified in the challenge.

or

The proposed solution is poorly described and does not permit concrete analysis.

or

There is little to no scientific and/or technological evidence that the proposed solution is likely to meet all Essential Outcomes.

Question 2: Proof of Feasibility and Current Technology Readiness Level (TRL)
  1. Indicate the current TRL of the proposed solution. (Drop Down Menu of the Challenge Stream Submission Form)
  2. Describe the research and development activities that have taken place to prove the solution's feasibility and bring the proposed solution to the stated TRL.
    This section must include :
    • A description of the method of research;
    • The solution objectives and an analysis of the results proving the feasibility of the solution;
    • Data proving the solution's feasibility;
    • Evidence to demonstrate the highest level of validation conducted (e.g., activities such as paper studies, analytic studies, components that are not yet integrated or representative, integration of "ad hoc" hardware in the laboratory, laboratory test, simulated environment, field testing, debugging, etc.);
    • The type of environment(s) in which this was done and by whom, including title.
Question 2: Evaluation Schema (Mandatory – Pass/Fail)
Pass:

The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated that the proposed solution is currently between TRL 5 to 9 (inclusive), and provided justification by explaining the research and development (R&D) that has taken place to bring the solution to the stated TRL, proving the solution's feasibility.

and

The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated the research and development activities that have taken place to prove the solution's feasibility and bring the proposed solution to the stated TRL.

Fail:

The Applicant (offeror) has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the current TRL is between 5 to 9 (inclusive) including one or more of the following:

  1. There is insufficient/no evidence provided for TRL judgment and/or to prove the solution's feasibility.
  2. The solution involves the development of basic or fundamental research.
  3. The solution is demonstrated at TRL 4 or lower.
  4. The solution is demonstrated at higher than TRL 9.
  5. Insufficient/unclear/no justification explaining the R&D that took place to bring the solution to the stated TRL.
  6. The explanation simply paraphrases the description of a given TRL level and only provides a vague description and overview of the R&D completed.
Question 3a: Innovation

Demonstrate how the proposed solution meets one or more of the ISC definitions of innovation below:

  1. An inventionFootnote *, new technology or new process that is not currently available in the marketplace.
  2. Significant modifications to the application of existing technologies/components/processes that are applied in a setting or condition for which current applications are not possible or feasible.
  3. An improvement in functionality, cost or performance over an existing technology/process that is considered state-of-the-art or the current industry best practice.
Question 3a: Evaluation Schema (Mandatory – Pass/Fail)
Pass:

The proposed solution meets one or more of the ISC definitions of innovation.

Fail:
  • The proposed solution does not meet any of the ISC definitions of innovation

    or
     
  • The proposed solution is an incremental improvement, "good engineering", or a technology that would go ahead in the normal course of product development (i.e. the next version or release).
Question 3b: Advance on State of the Art

Describe in detail the competitive advantages and level of advancement over existing technologies. Where appropriate, name existing technologies as well as potential substitutes or competitors.

To demonstrate this, the proposal must include the following information:

  • Improvements (minor or major) over existing technologies or substitutes. Use direct comparison.
  • How the proposed innovation will create competitive advantages in existing market niches or market spaces.
Question 3b: Evaluation Schema (Mandatory Criteria – Pass/Fail + Points)
0 points/Fail:
  • The Applicant (offeror) has not demonstrated that the proposed solution advances the state-of-the-art over existing technologies, including available competing solutions; or
  • The proposed solution improves minimally upon the current state of the art, though not sufficiently enough to create competitive advantages in existing market niches; or
  • The stated advancements are described in general terms but are not substantiated with specific, measurable evidence.
5 points/Pass:
  • The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers one or two minor improvements to existing technologies, including available competing solutions that have potential to create competitive advantages in existing market niches.
12 points/Pass:
  • The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers three or more minor improvements to existing technologies, including available competing solutions, that together are likely to create competitive advantages in existing market niches

    or
     
  • The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers one significant improvement to existing technologies that is likely to create competitive advantages in existing market niches.
20 points/Pass:
  • The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers two or more significant improvements to existing technologies, including available competing solutions that are likely to create competitive advantages in existing market niches and could define new market spaces

    or
     
  • The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated that the proposed solution can be considered a new benchmark of state of the art that is clearly ahead of competitors and that is likely to define new market spaces.

Part 2: Phase 2 - Point-Rated Criteria

Proposals must meet the overall minimum pass mark of 65 of 130 possible total points (50%) to be deemed responsive. Proposals that do not achieve the minimum pass mark will be declared non-responsive and given no further consideration.

Point-Rated Criteria

(Applicant's proposal to address)

Question 1b: Scope

Demonstrate the scientific and technological basis of how the proposed solution addresses the Additional Outcomes (if identified) in the Desired Outcomes section in the Challenge Notice. If no Additional Outcomes are identified in the Challenge Notice, text entered in this section will not be considered.

If no Additional Outcomes are identified in the Challenge Notice, Applicants (offerors) will receive 10 points.

Question 1b: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the solution will address any of the Additional Outcomes. 0 points
  2. Information provided demonstrates that the solution will address some (<50%) of the Additional Outcomes. 3 points
  3. Information provided demonstrates that the solution will address most (50% or more) of the Additional Outcomes. 6 points
  4. Information provided demonstrates that the solution will address all (100%) of the Additional Outcomes. 10 points
Question 4: Phase 2 Science and Technology Risks

Identify potential scientific and/or technological risks to the prototype development and describe how they will be mitigated in Phase 2.

Question 4: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Information is insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Applicant (offeror) has identified potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies or information provided contains significant gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 0 points
  2. Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant (offeror) has identified potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies but there are minor gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 5 points
  3. Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant (offeror) has identified the potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies. 10 points
Question 5: Phase 2 Project Risks

Identify potential project risks to the prototype development and describe how they will be mitigated in Phase 2.

Applicants (offerors) should address the following risks:

  • Human Resources
  • Financial
  • Project Management
  • Intellectual Property
  • Material availability
  • Supply chain issues

Note to Applicants: S&T risks should not be included in this section. Question 4 addresses S&T risks.

Question 5: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Information is insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Applicant (offeror) has identified potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies or information provided contains significant gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 0 points
  2. Information provided demonstrates that the Applicants (offerors) has identified potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies but there are minor gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 5 points
  3. Information provided demonstrates that the Applicants (offerors) has identified the potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies. 10 points
Question 6: Phase 2 Project Plan

Demonstrate a feasible Phase 2 project plan by completing the table in the Proposal Submission Form.

  • Indicate if any milestones and activities will be completed concurrently;
  • Indicate the estimated exit TRL at the completion of Phase 2. (Drop Down Menu of the Challenge Stream Submission Form)
Question 6: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate a feasible project plan for Phase 2 and/or the project plan exceeds the maximum duration indicated in the Challenge Notice. 0 points
  2. Information is feasible for the Phase 2 project plan but not clearly demonstrated and/or includes gaps. 10 points
  3. information provided demonstrates a feasible project plan for Phase 2. 20 points
Question 7: Phase 2 Implementation Team

Demonstrate how your project implementation team has the required management and technological skill sets and experience to deliver the project plan for Phase 2 by completing the table provided.

Question 7: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the project team has the required management and technological skill sets and experience to deliver the Phase 2 project plan. 0 points
  2. Information is provided but there are minor gaps in required management and/or technological skill sets and/or experience to deliver the Phase 2 project plan. 10 points
  3. Information provided clearly demonstrates that the project team has the required management and technological skill sets and experience to deliver the Phase 2 project plan. 20 points
Question 8: Inclusivity

A key objective of the Innovative Solutions Canada program is to increase the participation of under-represented groups in the research and development of the proposed solution.

Applicants (offerors) should describe the policies, strategies, and/or procedures (e.g. recruitment strategy, internships, co-op placements, or other initiatives) that they currently have in place or would put in place to support the R&D effort in Phase 2 including an overview of the group(s); and which specific under-represented groups (women, youth, persons with disabilities, Indigenous people, visible minorities, 2SLGBTQI+ community, etc.).

Note: Do not provide any personal information of senior officials, individuals employed by your company or that of your subcontractors in the response below.

Question 8: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. No description and/or concrete examples of actions provided that  would be taken to encourage greater participation of under-represented groups. 0 points
  2. A description and concrete examples of actions to encourage greater participation of under-represented groups provided. 10 points
  3. If the Applicant (offeror) is registered on the Indigenous Business Directory, Modern Treaty or Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement (CLCA) business list/directory, please provide this information as part of this criterion as registered Indigenous Businesses will receive the maximum score for Question 8: Inclusivity.20 points
Question 9: Phase 2 Financial Controls, Tracking and Oversight

Describe the financial controls, tracking and oversight that will be used to manage the funds throughout Phase 2. Applicants (offerors) should indicate if an individual or firm will be managing the funds and provide their credentials and/or relevant experience.

A good financial control in R&D refers to effective management and oversight of financial resources allocated to R&D activities, with the goal of maximising the return on investment and ensuring funds are used efficiently and effectively.

For example, this section could include (but not limited to):

  • Establishing clear budgets and financial plan
  • Regular monitoring
  • Developing systems for tracking and recording costs (salaries, equipment and supplies, overhead expenses, etc.)
  • Providing accurate and timely financial reports (including actual and projected costs) to stakeholders such as management, funders or researchers
  • Ensuring compliance with relevant financial regulations, policies and procedures
Question 9: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate the Applicant's ability to manage funds in Phase 2. 0 points
  2. Information provided is vague and/or contains gaps. The Applicant (offeror) has some financial controls, tracking and/or oversight in place to manage the funds in Phase 2. 5 points
  3. Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant (offeror) has financial controls, tracking and oversight to manage funds in Phase 2. 10 points
Question 10: Commercialization Strategy

Explain your plan to commercialize the solution after Phase 2 into the commercial marketplace and/or ISC's Pathway to commercialization.

Applicants (offerors) should address the following:

  • Any previous experience and record in commercialization (e.g., sales; marketing; IP protection; demographic/target market analysis; manufacturing; technology commercialization);
  • Additional funding commitments from private and/or non-ISC funding sources;
  • Previous investments secured outside of the ISC program.

Note: Information on the Innovative Solutions Canada Pathway to commercialization process can be found on the program's website.

Question 10: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Applicant (offeror) has planned a realistic strategy for commercialization. 0 points
  2. Information provided demonstrates a conceivably realistic strategy for commercialization, however there are gaps and/or elements of the strategy is vague. 5 points
  3. Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant (offeror) has a clear, comprehensive and realistic strategy. 10 points

Questions and answers

All incoming questions regarding this specific challenge should be addressed to solutions@ised-isde.gc.ca.

All enquiries must be submitted in writing no later than ten calendar days before the Challenge Notice closing date. Enquiries received after that time may not be answered.

A glossary is also available.

 Report a problem
Date modified: