General Information

Project General Information

Project Name : LRT Jakarta Phase 1B

Project Number : 107/UT0000/IX/2023/0054

Personnel In Charge of The Submission

Project Role : Contractor

Company : Waskita – Nindya – LRS KSO

Name :

Phone :

Email :

Submission Information

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 D1 D2 D3 Other
Status Code

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 Other
Revision Code

PIM PIM PIM PIM PIM

SC DD PC AB AIM Other
1 2 3 4 5
Phase Code

Comments
 Submission Discipline Discipline Code Checkbox

Road Geometry RG

Signage and Marking SM

Road Safety RS

Road Pavement RP

Civil C

Architecture A

Façade FA

Lighting L

Stormwater SW

Geo-technical Study GS

Structural S

Landscape LS

Irrigation IR

Materials MT

Mechanical M

Electrical E

Plumbing P

Addressing AD

All files submitted following the naming convention

Classification
Vertical Zone
Organization
Project Code

Horizontal

Originator
Document

Document
Discipline

Number

Initials
Work
Zone

Type

Job

Submitted: 30-09-2023 Checked: 01-10-2023 Checked: 01-10-2023 Approved: 01-10-2023

………………………………….. ………………………………….. ………………………………….. …………………………………..

(Contractor Personnel) (Consultant Personnel) (Engineer Personnel) (Employer Personnel)
 Submission File List
BIM Models

Equivalent
Authoring File
No. Discipline File / Model Name LOD LOI Exchane
Tools Format
Format

All Other Documents

Equivalent
Authoring File
No. Discipline File / Model Name Exchane
Tools Format
Format

7
 Submittals
Pass to
No. Submittals Yes No N/A Comments Technical
Review
1 Submittal File Compliance
All Files submitted through CDE are in the
1.1 ☐
correct folder.
The submission has the correct
1.2 ☐
Status/Suitability code.
1.3 The submission has the correct revision code. ☐
Files naming is following the File Naming
1.4 ☐
Standards.
All design proposals had been submitted in
1.5 ☐
full submission.
2 List of Models and Drawings
All submitted files/models list according to
2.1 ☐
MIDP.
2.2 Native BIM model had been submitted. ☐
2.3 NWD federated model had been submitted. ☐
NWC files had been submitted for each
2.4 ☐
volume.
2.5 IFC files format had been submitted. ☐
3 File Format/Software Version
3.1 All submitted files are in correct format. ☐
3.2 All submitted file in the correct version. ☐
4 Documentation
All submitted models following the
4.1 ☐
predefined LOD submission phase.
Clash report had been submitted in the
4.2 ☐
correct format.
Clash proposed resolutions had been
4.3 ☐
submitted.
Compare model versions (BIM 360 feature)
4.4 ☐
report had been submitted.
5 Replies to Previous Comments
All submitted drawing sheets/ models
5.1 responding to previous submission ☐
comments.
All submitted drawing sheets responding to
5.2 ☐
previous RFIs.
All submitted drawing has revision clouds
5.3 ☐
(in case of resubmission).
Comments:
 Model Health and Set-up
Pass to
No. Model Health and Set-up Yes No N/A Comments Technical
Review
1 Submittal Health & QA/QC
Submitted models size as per agreed in the
1.1 ☐
BEP.
1.2 Submitted models files open correctly. ☐
2 Templates and Central Library
Employer’s predefined template had been
2.1 ☐
used in creating the model.
2.2 Employer’s central library had been used. ☐
Newly introduced objects are following the
2.3 ☐
Employer’s library standards.
3 Naming Convention
Civil 3D Models
Object naming is following the Employer’s
3.1 ☐
standards.
Layer naming is following the Employer’s
3.2 ☐
standards.
Material naming is following the ADM
3.3 ☐
standards
Revit Models
Model's sheets naming is following the
3.4 Employer’s ☐
standards.
4 Project Set-up
Civil 3D Models
4.1 Model units following the BEP. ☐
Model coordinates and origin point following
4.2 ☐
the Employer’s GIS system.
All models have the same insertion/origin
4.3 ☐
point.
Model levels and grids have any changes
4.4 ☐
from the approved submission.
All drawing sheets submitted are included in
4.5 ☐
the BIM model.
All drawing sheets have the same internal
4.6 ☐
revision number as per the file attribute.
Revit Models
The model has correct worksets as approved
4.7 ☐
in the BEP.
The model is in Share Coordinates and the
4.8 origin point following the Employer’s GIS ☐
system
5 Model Subdivision Strategy
Model federation strategy as per agreed on
5.1 ☐
the BEP and has no update.
6 Clean Up Model
 The model is clean and has no warnings,
6.1 ☐
unreferenced links, DWG imports.
The model is clean from unused/
6.2 unnecessary information, sheets, lines or ☐
views.
The model has all corridor files with no
6.3 ☐
profile views.
The Model is free of unnecessary surface
6.4 ☐
snapshots.
Comments:
 Modelling Issues
Pass to
No. Modelling Issues Yes No N/A Comments Technical
Review
1 Elements Geometry
Model is visually accepted and has no
1.1 ☐
floating or misplaced elements.
Model objects are geometrically accurate and
1.2 ☐
correctly located.
All model surfaces had been created from
1.3 ☐
XML links or other input dates in Civil3D.
Model corridors had been created with
1.4 ☐
respect to the road alignment.
2 LOD Compliance
Model objects are following the LOD matrix
2.1 ☐
as per Employer’s standards
Model objects are geometrically following
2.2 ☐
the Employer’s LOD standards.
Model families are following the
2.3 ☐
Employer’s LOD standards.
3 LOI Compliance
Model objects are following the LOI matrix as
3.1 ☐
per Employer’s standards
3.2 Model families are in the correct category. ☐
Model objects attributes are following the
3.3 ☐
Employer’s LOI Standards.
Model families are following the
3.4 ☐
Employer’s LOI standards.
Model objects attributes are following the
3.5 ☐
Asset Management standards.
4 Modelling Method Inconsistency
Model objects are not overlapping/
4.1 ☐
duplicated on the same place.
Model objects are referenced to the correct
4.2 ☐
level and correctly located.
Model objects had been modelled with
4.3 ☐
defined materials.
Model object's assembly code is following
4.4 ☐
the Employer’s LOI matrix.
Comments:
 Coordination & Constructability
Pass to
No. Modelling Issues Yes No N/A Comments Technical
Review
Discrepancies between 2D Drawings
1
and BIM Model
The submitted models and sheets have no
1.1 discrepancies between 2D drawings (Plans, ☐
Sections, Elevations) and BIM model.
2 Phasing Types
All Phasing types (i.e. new, existing,
2.1 interface, demolition, etc.) are following the ☐
submission phase.
3 Clashes and Coordination Issues
The submitted model has no significant
3.1 ☐
clashes between objects.
The submitted models of different interface
areas (different volumes/disciplines) are free
3.2 ☐
of clashes with respect to the submission
phase.
Resolution of clashes had been submitted
3.3 ☐
along with the clash report.
Discrepancies between Native and
4
Navisworks files
The submitted native (Civil3D/Revit) model
and Navisworks files are consistent with
4.1 ☐
no discrepancy (i.e. hidden elements,
deleted elements etc.)
5 Utilities Routing and Location Issues
All modeled pipelines are properly connected
4.1 ☐
to manholes.
All modelled drainage pipes are modelled
4.2 with a slope to allow for more appropriate ☐
Spatial coordination
All modeled pipes/ manholes/ duct banks are
4.3 ☐
modeled at the appropriate elevation.
All modelled lighting / electrical equipment
4.4 ☐
placed at the correct elevation
6 Non-Standard Elements
All Modeled objects (Pipes/ manholes/ Duct
6.1 ☐
banks) have standards size and fittings
Comments:
 Status Revision
Description
Code Code

For coordination only S1 P(n)

For information S2 P(n)

For internal review & comments S3 P(n)

For technical review S4 P(n)

For Stage Approval S5 P(n)

For PIM Authorization S6 P(n)

For AIM Authorization S7 P(n)

Costing D1 P(n)

Addendum D2 P(n)

Obtain Utilities Approval D3 P(n)

BIM Submission Submission Code

Spatial Coordination SD

Detailed Design DD

Pre-Construction PC

Construction PIM

As-Built AB

Asset – Handling Over AIM