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 5, 2026, 14:00 Eastern time

Propose a solution

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

This challenge is open to receive proposals in Phase 2 (Prototype Development) of the Challenge Stream:
- Proposed solutions that fall within technology readiness level (TRL) scale 5 and 9 can be submitted to this challenge
We recently made changes to the Challenge Stream, we have outlined the new parameters
Read through the official Grant Instructions and Procedures document
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 simple^{Footnote *} digitalized code rules, and at least 80% with complex^{Footnote **} 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 Canada^{Footnote ***}
50% or more of its FTE employees have Canada as their ordinary place of work^{Footnote ***}
50% or more of its senior executives (Vice President and above) have Canada as their principal residence^{Footnote ***}

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.

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

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

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)

Indicate the current TRL of the proposed solution. (Drop Down Menu of the Challenge Stream Submission Form)
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:

There is insufficient/no evidence provided for TRL judgment and/or to prove the solution's feasibility.
The solution involves the development of basic or fundamental research.
The solution is demonstrated at TRL 4 or lower.
The solution is demonstrated at higher than TRL 9.
Insufficient/unclear/no justification explaining the R&D that took place to bring the solution to the stated TRL.
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:

An invention^{Footnote *}, new technology or new process that is not currently available in the marketplace.
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.
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)

Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the solution will address any of the Additional Outcomes. 0 points
Information provided demonstrates that the solution will address some (<50%) of the Additional Outcomes. 3 points
Information provided demonstrates that the solution will address most (50% or more) of the Additional Outcomes. 6 points
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)

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
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
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)

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
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
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)

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
Information is feasible for the Phase 2 project plan but not clearly demonstrated and/or includes gaps. 10 points
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)

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
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
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)

No description and/or concrete examples of actions provided that would be taken to encourage greater participation of under-represented groups. 0 points
A description and concrete examples of actions to encourage greater participation of under-represented groups provided. 10 points
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)

Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate the Applicant's ability to manage funds in Phase 2. 0 points
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
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)

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

Questions and answers

The essential outcomes state that sample digitalized code data "can be optionally provided by NRC for the project." Can applicants access sample digitalized code data during the proposal preparation period, or is it available only to funded projects after award?

Sample data may be made available to funded projects following the grant award.

The sample data represents new digitalized formats of the National Model Construction Codes that is in the process of being optimized and validated.

NRC anticipates collaboration with grant recipients in working with the new digitalized formats.

If sample data is available, in which of the listed formats is it currently provided (XML/DITA, JSON/JSON-LD, TTL/RDF ontology, RASE annotations), and which NBC Parts, Sections, or provisions does the sample set cover?

The formats indicated are under development as part of NRC Codes digitalization efforts. Samples can be optionally made available for funded projects. Samples will generally be with NBC 2020, with some sample French content.

What is the mechanism and expected turnaround for requesting access (e.g., data-sharing agreement, direct download, contact point)?

A NRC project / technical lead contact will be provided for funded projects, for collaboration including the provision of sample data.

Will NRC provide sample building permit application test data — such as representative 2D drawing sets (PDF/CAD) and/or BIM/IFC models — for development and demonstration purposes, or are applicants expected to source their own test files?

Grant recipients may choose to use NRC sample archetypes (CAD, Revit/IFC), their own models, or a combination of both.

Does the sample digitalized code data include French-language code provisions (e.g., the French version of the National Building Code), given the essential outcome requiring compliance verification against both French and English codes?:

Yes, a sample of digitalized French codes (e.g. a portion of NBC Part 9) can be provided to grant recipients.

Is there a published specification, data schema, or API documentation available for the NRC's digitalized codes database that applicants can reference when preparing proposals for the optional outcome involving a data pipeline with an NRC or AHJ digitalized database?

The data pipeline, schema, and API information will be provided to grant recipients. Collaboration with NRC is anticipated to support configuration and optimization.

For the virtual integration test referenced in the Travel section, what digitalized code format(s) will NRC use, and which National Building Code (NBC) Parts, Sections, or provisions are expected to be included in the test rule set?

The Phase 2 project plan should include a virtual integration test and demonstration as a milestone. During the project, NRC will work with the grant recipient to prepare for the integration test e.g. schemas and API endpoints etc.

Does the French-language outcome require verification against both the French NBC and the Quebec Construction Code, or is either sufficient?

NRC can provide a sample set of digitalized codes in French for NBC Part 3 and 9, for funded projects.

Quebec Construction Codes may also be used (e.g. if the applicant is already working with Quebec codes), though NRC does not anticipate having digitalized sample data of the Quebec codes available for the project.

Are PDF, Excel and BCF each mandatory export formats, or illustrative examples of "multiple formats"?

The formats specified are illustrative examples.

For the typology outcome, are applicants expected to develop prototype rule coverage across all NBC 3.2.2 building classifications, or is demonstration of classification capability and representative rule coverage for the major occupancy groups sufficient?

The prototype should demonstrate the ability to support, or be readily extended to support, a range of Part 3 and Part 9 building typologies. Validation activities are anticipated to focus on a representative sample of archetypes (e.g., one Part 3 and one Part 9 building).

Is there an expected minimum exit TRL at Phase 2 completion?

As per ISC guidelines, the starting point for Phase 2 is within TRL 5-9 with a target of TRL 9 at completion (but not mandatory).

Will representative IFC building models be provided for testing and demonstration purposes? If so, will NRC provide Canadian building archetypes suitable for demonstrating occupancy and egress compliance (for example, small commercial or multi-storey residential buildings), along with guidance regarding the expected level of model completeness, such as spaces, floor areas, door counts, and storey definitions?

Prototypes should be extensible with multiple typologies. For the project(s), a representative sample of objects is anticipated. Inclusion of more than one archetype in the project (e.g. Part 3 and Part 9 examples) is preferred.

The challenge includes an additional outcome related to support for French-language and Québec codes. Would a proposal that supports Part 3 of the 2020 Québec Construction Code (QCC), which has been in force since April 2025, be considered responsive to this outcome? In addition, does NRC have any preferred approach for implementing bilingual rule metadata, compliance reports, or other outputs in both English and French?

French-language content from either the Québec Construction Code (QCC) or the National Building Code of Canada (NBC) is acceptable. As this challenge is intended as a simulation, flexibility in the code edition is permitted (e.g., NBC 2020, NBC 2025, or the QCC based on the adoption of NBC 2020).

Would a proposal satisfy the Phase 2 TRL 5–9 requirement if its current prototype can process 2D construction drawings and produce structured construction outputs in a test environment, while the Phase 2 activities are focused on extending the solution to support broader permit compliance checking and the achievement of all essential outcomes?

Applications should articulate a credible approach for achieving essential (and additional) outcomes based on work-to-date (at a minimum TRL 5) experience and project plan.

May applicants withhold proprietary technical details in their proposals, provided that sufficient information is included regarding the solution architecture, methodology, and expected outcomes to enable a fair and complete evaluation?

The proposal should provide sufficient information to evaluators on how the solution is able to achieve the desired outcomes of the challenge.

Would a proposal be considered responsive if the current solution is primarily focused on Part 9 residential and small-building compliance, but the proposed Phase 2 work plan demonstrates how the solution will achieve broader Part 3 and Part 9 compliance-checking capabilities while meeting all essential outcomes?

Applications should articulate a credible approach for achieving essential (and additional) outcomes based on work-to-date (at a minimum TRL 5) experience and project plan.

The Challenge summary states that, following the evaluation of proposals, priority will be given to firms with in-depth knowledge of Canadian construction codes and experience in the research and development of AI and digitalization solutions for the Canadian construction sector or for provincial, territorial, or municipal regulators.

How will this priority be applied after proposal evaluation and point scoring? For example, is it used as a tie-breaker among equally scored proposals, as a ranking factor among responsive proposals, or through another selection method? In addition, what types of evidence are most useful in demonstrating expertise in Canadian construction codes and experience in AI and digitalization R&D for the construction sector or regulatory authorities?

The post-evaluation proposal selection prioritization will take into account the applicant's track record or experience in developing AI and digitalization solutions for the Canadian construction sector.

Does Question 1a (Pass) require machine-executable digitalization of the entire National Building Code (NBC) prior to the start of Phase 2, or is it acceptable for applicants to demonstrate an adequately scoped subset of Part 3 and/or Part 9 provisions at the challenge stage, with broader and deeper digitalization occurring during the Phase 2 project period, including alignment with NRC digitalized construction codes?

If a subset of NBC provisions is acceptable at the time of proposal submission, what minimum level of coverage is considered sufficient for evaluation purposes (for example, specific Parts, Subsections, occupancy classifications, or families of code provisions)?

Applications should articulate a credible approach for achieving essential (and additional) outcomes based on work-to-date (at a minimum TRL 5) experience and project plan.

The Essential Outcomes require solutions to export results in multiple formats (for example, PDF, Excel, and BIM Collaboration Format (BCF)) and to support information exchange through open APIs or similar mechanisms. The Additional Outcomes separately reference buildingSMART and ISO standards, including BCF.

For the purposes of meeting the Essential Outcome requirements, would support for PDF and Excel exports, combined with an open API, be considered sufficient if BCF support is planned as part of Phase 2 or under the Additional Outcomes? Or is support for BCF (or another BIM issue-tracking/exchange format) effectively required in order to satisfy the Essential Outcome?

BCF is an example format as an additional outcome.

The challenge specifies accuracy targets for compliance-checking results. How will accuracy be measured for evaluation purposes? For example, will accuracy be assessed on a per-clause basis, a per-rule basis, a per-building basis, or using another methodology? Will the assessment use micro-averaged, macro-averaged, or other performance metrics?

In addition, where a solution returns outcomes such as "Uncertain" or "Information Not Available," how will borderline cases be evaluated, and who will be responsible for adjudicating and establishing the ground truth for those determinations?

Generally, rules are defined at the level of an individual code or by-law provision that would be reviewed by a Building Official. A single code sentence or by-law provision may correspond to one rule or, in some cases, multiple rules that must be checked against a plan.

A virtual integration test and demonstration with NRC digitalized construction codes is identified as part of the challenge. What interfaces, data formats, and integration mechanisms are expected to be used for this demonstration?

In addition, what criteria will be used to determine whether the integration test has been successful? For example, are there specific functional, interoperability, performance, or accuracy requirements that participants will be expected to meet?

Should applicants explicitly include activities, deliverables, and milestones related to this integration within their Phase 2 project plans? If so, what level of detail is expected?

Finally, will API documentation, data schemas, interface specifications, or other technical integration guidance be provided at project kickoff to support alignment with NRC digitalized construction codes?

The challenge notice indicates that Canada may make partial awards and may negotiate project scope and funding levels with successful applicants.

If project scope is reduced during negotiations, which outcomes are considered the highest priority from NRC's perspective? In particular, are there specific Essential Outcomes or Additional Outcomes that are of greater importance in supporting NRC's intended use cases, such as:

Assisting Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJs) with building permit compliance review and decision support; and
Supporting NRC's validation and testing of machine-executable construction code rules?

Understanding these priorities would help applicants propose scalable work plans and identify which capabilities should be maintained if adjustments to scope or budget become necessary.

The project proposal is considered non-responsive if the proposed solution does not address all the essential outcomes of the challenge.

Is the sample digitalized code data referenced in the challenge available to prospective applicants during the proposal preparation period, or will it only be made available to successful recipients after contract award?

If access to the sample data is limited until after contract award, can NRC provide advance documentation describing the applicable data formats, schemas, data models, markup structures, APIs, or other technical specifications so that applicants can design solutions that are compatible with NRC's digitalized construction code environment?

The new digitalized formats / sample data is not available during proposal preparation.

What format(s) and markup structure(s) are used in NRC's sample digitalized code data (for example, RASE-annotated XML/DITA, RDF/TTL ontologies, or other formats), and which National Building Code (NBC) Parts or provisions are included in the sample set (e.g., Part 3, Part 9, or both)? In addition, applicants are aware of the EU ACCORD project outputs referenced in the Background section, including the AEC3PO ontology and BCRL rule format. Is alignment with those outputs the intended direction for solution development and integration?

NRC is working with a DITA/XML format for managing changes to the codes, and creating multiple output formats, including the existing PDF, new HTML, JSON and RDF/TTL/JSON-LD, with the idea of providing additional options for end-users and technology developers.

For solutions intended for commercial deployment, does NRC recommend a specific licensing or access pathway for incorporating NBC text into a compliance-checking product, beyond the free PDF access available through the NRC Publications Archive?

The licensing and distribution model for new digitalized Code format(s) is under development.

With respect to the accuracy targets of at least 90% for simple rules and 80% for complex rules, will NRC provide a reference ruleset and associated test cases, or otherwise specify the evaluation benchmark against which accuracy will be measured?

NRC will collaborate with grant recipients to determine and provision a suitable representative ruleset for the project. These are under development.

For the purposes of building classification analysis, may applicants use the British Columbia Building Code (BCBC) instead of the National Building Code of Canada (NBC) where the relevant provisions are identical?

It is acceptable given the structural similarity between the codes. It is preferable that the solution is able to accommodate both the NBC and the provincial codes. Accommodation or future extensibility for municipal bylaws may also be included in the solution design.

Essential Outcome 1 states that the system must process "2D drawing files (PDF and/or CAD) and BIM/IFC models." For the 2D drawing component, must applicants demonstrate the ability to extract information from both PDF and CAD formats, or is support for a single 2D format sufficient? If support for CAD files is proposed, are applicants expected to support a specific CAD format (e.g., DWG), or are alternative formats (e.g., DXF or converted intermediate formats) acceptable?

PDF and/or CAD is acceptable (i.e. one or both), and BIM.

For PDF-based drawings, should applicants assume that the input files will be vector/machine-readable PDFs, or should proposed solutions also support scanned or raster PDFs that may require OCR or computer vision techniques for information extraction?

Proposals should specify how data will be extracted and pre-processed for compliance checking from each format (PDF and/or CAD, and BIM).

May applicants incorporate National Building Code of Canada (NBC) content, including code provisions or derivative formats of those provisions, into their proposed solution or a future commercial product? Does participation in this challenge provide any licence or rights to use NBC content for these purposes?

One or more machine-readable formats of the National Codes will be made available to grant recipients for the projects. NRC is in the process of updating licensing and distribution approach for commercial use of machine-readable codes.

The Additional Outcomes state that proposed solutions should be compatible with buildingSMART Information Delivery Specifications (IDS). Does NRC currently have, or intend to publish, a Canadian IDS profile, model view definition, or other specification identifying the model content required to support National Building Code compliance checking? Alternatively, should applicants define their own model content requirements as part of their proposed solution?

NRC anticipates development of a National Model Information Delivery Specification (IDS) as part of the current digitalization initiative. For the purposes of the prototype project, assumptions may be made on IDS content, or an example used, and the solution would ideally be configurable to accommodate IDS adjustments.

The challenge notice indicates that a virtual integration test and demonstration with NRC digital construction codes is expected. Can NRC provide additional information regarding the anticipated scope of this activity, including the applicable code content, expected input formats (e.g., 2D drawings and/or BIM/IFC models), and the criteria that will be used to determine whether the demonstration has been successfully completed?

NRC will collaborate with grant recipients to define test plans and criteria, based on representative sample provisions, building typologies, and plan inputs, based on Essential and Additional Outcomes. The solution should demonstrate extensibility/scalability and configurability to broader sets of provisions, typologies and plan inputs.

During Phase 2, will successful applicants be provided with representative building permit application packages, evaluation datasets, or other sample data to support solution validation and testing? If so, will such datasets include examples containing known compliance deficiencies? Alternatively, are applicants expected to source and prepare all validation data required for their proposed solution?

NRC anticipates collaboration with grant recipients to establish test sets, such as digitalized code provisions, and optionally an IFC plan with known deficiencies. Given multiple formats (PDF and/or CAD, and BIM), and multiple building typologies, applicants should be prepared to source and prepare input plans. NRC will collaborate with grant recipients to define suitable test plans and sample datasets.

The challenge includes building classifications under NBC Subsection 3.2.2 and buildings within the scope of Part 9 (Housing and Small Buildings). For a prototype solution, are applicants expected to support the full range of applicable provisions, or is it acceptable to demonstrate compliance checking using a representative subset of provisions?

A representative subset of Part 3 and Part 9 building classifications/typologies is acceptable for a prototype. Applicants should describe how the prototype could be extended to additional typologies and associated provisions.

Should the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) be assessed for the proposed permit-compliance solution as a whole, or may applicants consider the maturity of previously validated platform components that form part of the proposed solution? What types of evidence are considered appropriate to demonstrate validation in a simulated permit-review environment?

Evidence of past and present development efforts that have taken place to demonstrate the solution's feasibility and bring the proposed solution to the current TRL should be provided in the proposal section: Proof of Feasibility and Current Technology Readiness Level (TRL).

What security, data protection, or information classification requirements are expected to apply to solutions processing building permit application data during Phase 2? Are there any specific expectations for solutions hosted in Canadian cloud data centres?

For the purpose of this challenge, the proposal is expected to meet the Canadian data residency requirement. Meeting robust data security frameworks such as ITSG-33 is encouraged but is optional. Similarly, the solution should preferably consider security expectations for a provincial/territorial/municipal regulator in handling permit applications.

The Additional Outcomes state that proposed solutions should achieve at least 90% accuracy for simple digitalized code rules and at least 80% accuracy for complex digitalized code rules. For the purposes of measuring accuracy, how will results categorized as "Uncertain" or "Information Not Available" be treated?

NRC will work with funded projects to clarify methodology and calculations. In principle, flagging an uncertain result due to compliance rule or plan ambiguity, can be considered as supportive of accuracy, as it could mitigate a false positive or false negative result for a given check. Information not available means a missing element or object in the plan, or missing compliance rule, and is also supportive of accuracy in mitigating a false positive or negative.

Can applicants use National Building Code of Canada (NBC) content for automated compliance-checking purposes, including extracting, processing, transforming, and referencing code provisions within their solutions?

The application should clearly specify how data will be extracted and pre-processed for compliance checking from each format (PDF and/or CAD, and BIM).

Are there any licensing, permission, fee, or other usage requirements associated with the use of National Building Code of Canada (NBC) content for the purposes of this challenge, and do these requirements differ between NBC 2020 and NBC 2025?

Will a common reference dataset or testing environment be made available to applicants for demonstrating Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 5 requirements, and if so, what materials will be provided?

Applications will be evaluated against criteria set out in the call documentation, including Essential and Additional Outcomes. NRC will collaborate with funded projects on test plans, but applications should articulate validation techniques for the proposed solution.

How should applicants identify individuals who will contribute to the project as part of the applicant's implementation team, including team members whose participation may change over the course of the project and collaborators who are not employees, such as subcontractors of the applicant?

Individuals who are expected to contribute to the project should be identified in the application, along with a description of their roles and responsibilities. For team members whose participation may change during the project, applicants should provide the information available at the time of application. Collaborators who are not employees should also be identified, with a description of their contributions and how they support the proposed innovation and challenge outcomes.

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.