Asset records built during delivery, not after it.
The contractors on your projects already produce QA records in CivilPro. Structured, located against survey coordinates, and landing in the systems your contracts already mandate – as the work happens, not as a PDF bundle at the end.
The handover problem, named
Contractors hand over a PDF bundle. Your team spends months making it usable. The model and the QA records never actually meet.
Unstructured arrivals
As-constructed records arrive as document sets — not as data your asset management system can consume.
Sighted only at the end
You accept the asset on a record you had no view of while it was being built. Gaps surface at acceptance, when they are expensive to close.
Expensive traceability
When something fails in year 8, finding the year-0 QA evidence is an archaeology project.
Findable in year eight, not just year zero
Drawings are spatially registered when they are imported, so marking a Lot on them gives it a local coordinate definition. The QA record inherits it.
That means the evidence for a section of pavement is retrievable by where it is, not only by a Lot number in a document register nobody kept the index for.
- Lots defined against survey coordinate systems – MGA zones, WGS
- Engineers define Lots in CivilPro, no third-party CAD required
- Chainage and offsets held on the record, not in a filename
- Out via DXF or the API into your own environment
You don't have to wait until handover
Your representatives work in the same database as the contractor, on free seats, for the life of the job. Hold Points released in-app with the trail kept. The Lot register, test results and NCRs visible while the crew is still on site.
Gaps in the record surface during delivery, when they can still be closed out, rather than at acceptance.
- Free Associate seats for your representatives and superintendents
- Permissions scoped to review and approve, not edit
- Every release timestamped against the person who made it
- Conformance Reports available on demand, not only at completion
Lands in your mandated systems
Oracle Aconex and Teambinder integrations put Lot Summaries into the DMS your contracts already mandate, as linked Documents. The API exposes everything the web UI can see, for Maximo, AssetWise or in-house systems.
Government-grade hosting
Single-tenant Azure databases domiciled in Australia. SSO via Azure AD. Used on a wide range of government projects, including defence. Full role and permission configurability for reviewer-only access.
It outlives the contract
The record does not leave with the contractor. Everything is exportable through the same API at any point, so the as-constructed data set is yours whether or not the delivery team is still around.
What this asks of your contractors: nothing new
Contractors keep producing the QA records they're contractually obligated to produce — checklists, test results, conformance reports, all captured against Lots as the work happens. Because those records are already structured and spatially referenced in CivilPro, the as-constructed data set falls out of the delivery process rather than being assembled after it.
What we'd want from your team: the target data shape and specification, so the export lands cleanly in your systems. That's the conversation we'd like to have.
Where this capability is heading
Shipped
2D Lot definition against survey coordinates. PDF drawing import with georeferencing. DXF / API export.
In development
Surface-linked 3D model generation from Lot data. IFC attribution of QA evidence.
In conversation
Federated as-constructed model workflows with asset owners — shaped with your team, not guessed at.
Half an hour with our founder
We would rather refine our approach in conversation with your team than guess. Tell us the shape your data needs to take.
Request a Technical Briefing