Revit Shared Coordinates Handoff Checklist

A coordinate handoff needs an identified reference, the project-approved checks, their observed results and a named decision owner. It should not start with an assumed tolerance or an instruction to move a model until it looks right.

This recommended worksheet documents the handoff decision. It is not a coordinate-setting tutorial or a survey verification method.

Identify the reference and environment

Autodesk's shared-coordinate guidance recommends deriving shared coordinates from one file. The same page notes that publishing coordinates to a linked model is unavailable when collaborating in Autodesk Construction Cloud. Record the hosting environment and applicable software documentation before a qualified project lead chooses the workflow.

The worksheet should identify the exact source file and revision chosen by the project, not merely say “use the survey.” If that choice is unresolved, mark it unresolved. Neither this article nor the recipient should invent coordinate authority from a job title.

Coordinate decision record

Do not fill an unknown field with a plausible value. A numerical observation is useful only with its unit, reference and method. A threshold must come from the project; this worksheet supplies none.

For overall package acceptance, connect the record to the Revit model handover checklist.

Keep package identity separate from coordinate conclusions

Autodesk explains that eTransmit packages saved file versions. Record which versions were delivered before comparing results. This is a package-traceability point, not evidence that a coordinate relationship is correct.

A disagreement between two views can have more than one explanation. Record the observed difference and refer it to the designated coordination lead. Do not prescribe Acquire, Publish, repositioning or relinking based solely on an appearance.

Separately supplied components should be identified through the family-library handover record. A content-release decision does not settle model positioning.

Hypothetical example: two different reference revisions

For a fictional interior coordination task, the handoff instruction names Reference-C. The recipient's review note names Reference-B. An apparent alignment discrepancy is also reported.

The receiving coordinator records both reference identities and the affected comparison. The next action is to establish which reference the project intends, not to adjust geometry.

The named coordination lead confirms C, supplies the relevant project check and requests a review against the correct package. The reviewer records the result and any remaining discrepancy. A decision to permit the stated task is documented separately. The example establishes no acceptable offset, survey accuracy or engineering conclusion.

Close without hiding limitations

Record whether the requested check is complete, incomplete or awaiting interpretation. If approved evidence is unavailable, hold the activity that depends on it and ask the lead to define the next action. Preserve earlier observations so the reason for a later decision is visible.

Use Nest's standards handoff guide for the wider production brief, and Revit documentation support for service scope. Final technical interpretation stays with the appropriately authorized project professionals; a completed register is not certification of site coordinates.