"de-tail." shouldn't this be "detail."?

"pro-vide" shouldn't this be "provide" ?

minimum BIM section20

Shouldn't" Minimum" be capitalized?

Footnote 20 also points to the wrong pages.

The Chapter heading on each page of Chapter 4.1 is misnumbered as 4.2.  Correct to read "Chapter 4.1".

Move the comma to the end of the parenthetical phrase.

Define AECO and change to read "A/E/C/O" as done in Chapter 4.2, page 79, line7 and Chapter 5.2, page 90, line30.

I don't quite understand the logic of the statement.  If the facility need not be spatially located, as spatial location is considered a higher level goal, why does the last phrase read, "to be considered a minimum BIM."?  Shouldn't the item be worded (optional text in parentheses):

"The facility need not yet be spatially located, as this is a higher level goal not required (for the BIM) to be considered a minimum BIM."

While the USACE BIM Roadmap may be useful to any owner, there are requirements listed that rely on the specific functionality of the Bentley CAD-based BIM platform upon which they were based, due to the availability of the Bentley products to the USACE through an end user license agreement.

Caution is urged that in the next version of NBIMS, these specific USACE requirements do not get locked in as the standard.  Other vendor platforms may not readily provide some of these information exchanges, tests, verifications etc., without the use of pre-processing of CAD based BIM Datasets provided or post processing to provide deliverables in CAD based programs or other programs, whether part of a federated BIM that is part of the comprehensive BIM the bigger sense or not.  Examples might include Graphisoft Archicad and Autodesk Revit.  Extractions in these two BIM platforms are contained within the BIM database, while it appears that extractions in the Bentley product could be separate CAD type files.  True interoperability needs to take into account more than the definitions of building BIM objects.  Perhaps IFCs need to be expanded to include these specific information packages, which may well serve the AEC industry beyond just the USACE's needs.

On the planning side, the GSA has specific requirements, which may be accomplished in a separate purpose built BIM platform that provides the information downstream to a design purpose BIM platform, all through the interoperability we are all seeking.

Add a blank line between the introduction to the list of minimum requirements and the first requirement regarding Walls.

Suggest adding blank line between each listed requirement, as is the format in the ERDC document from which this was copied.

Suggest adding blank line between each listed requirement, as is the format in the ERDC document from which this was copied.

Delete hyphen from the word "detail".

Delete the hyphen from the word "provide".

"The specific requirements in each of these areas are described in the following paragraphs." I can't find the specifics. Perhaps they are in chapter 4.2.

Carl Matthews, AIA, Page Southerland Page, Houston, TX

suggest changing "Since all drawing should" to "Since all drawings should".

Carl Matthews, AIA, Page Southerland Page, Houston, TX

The idea that NCS3.1 compliance is necessary for Minimum BIM is important and should be discussed in the Standard. I agree that BIM documents should be NCS compliant. It should be noted that some areas of NCS do not apply to NBIMS very well. For instance, sometimes the layers for lines, arcs and circle do not match the layers for the corresponding building objects. Also there are new objects such as "spaces" which are not mentioned in the NCS. I think that the correct statement would be "The drawings, documents and reports produced from the BIM process should (or shall) be compliant with the National CAD Standard where applicable to be considered as Minimum BIM."

Carl Matthews, AIA, Page Southerland Page, Houston, TX