Construction DPP Validation Checklist: a pre-flight conformance review before procurement

What this page covers

A practical pre-flight checklist you can run before tenders and procurement reviews: completeness, consistency, and rule mapping signals that trigger back-and-forth.

Where reviews usually fail

Not on the first missing field. The failure happens when the dataset structure is inconsistent across products, identifiers don’t line up, and mapping to sector expectations is unclear — so reviewers can’t trust the passport.

Construction DPP validation: the pre-flight checklist procurement teams expect

Teams rarely lose time because they “don’t have a DPP”. They lose time because the passport dataset fails a basic conformance review: missing fields, inconsistent structure across products, and unclear mapping to sector expectations. This guide is a practical checklist you can run before a tender or procurement checkpoint.

Step 1 — Confirm your dataset is structured consistently across products and variants

The first red flag for reviewers is not a single missing field. It’s inconsistency: different products using different shapes, naming, or nesting for the same concept. When structure changes across variants, every downstream check becomes manual.

• Pick 3 representative products (and at least 1 variant) and compare field structure side-by-side.
• Check that the same “kind” of information appears in the same place every time (same field names, same nesting, same type).
• Remove optional fields that appear randomly unless you can justify their rules and ownership.

Step 2 — Run completeness checks that mirror procurement review

Completeness is not “we have data somewhere”. It’s “required fields are present and readable in the dataset we submit”. Make missing fields visible as a list, not as a vague status.

• List the fields you treat as required for submission and review (even if internally you call them “minimum viable”).
• For each product, mark fields as present / missing / present-but-empty.
• Flag “present but inconsistent format” separately from “missing”. They create different fixes.

Step 3 — Catch identifier mismatches early (the silent tender killer)

Procurement reviewers need a dataset they can trust. If identifiers are inconsistent, everything looks unreliable: internal references, external IDs, and cross-links between parts of the passport.

• Check that identifiers use a consistent format (same casing, separators, length rules).
• Validate that the same identifier refers to the same thing across the dataset (no collisions, no duplicates, no “almost the same” IDs).
• Confirm that references resolve cleanly (no dangling links between objects/sections).

Step 4 — Make rule mapping explicit (so reviewers don’t have to guess)

Most re-submissions happen when mapping is unclear. Reviewers see the information, but can’t tell how it satisfies a sector rule expectation. Your job is to remove interpretation from the process.

• For each key requirement, document where the dataset expresses it (field path + example value).
• Separate “we have the data” from “the data is mapped in a way procurement can verify”.
• Keep the mapping consistent across products: same rule, same mapping approach.

Step 5 — Turn findings into a fix list your team can execute

A checklist is only useful if it produces a clear “what to fix” queue. Avoid generic outputs like “non-compliant”. You want a list that an engineer or data owner can close, one item at a time.

• Group issues by type: missing fields, structural inconsistencies, identifier issues, rule mapping gaps.
• Attach a “next action” to every item (add field, normalize format, align structure, clarify mapping).
• Prioritize what blocks review first: missing/empty required fields, then inconsistencies, then mapping clarity.

When a checklist isn’t enough

If you’re doing these checks manually in spreadsheets, you can get through one tender — but it won’t scale across product lines. The moment volume increases, review turns into back-and-forth and nobody is sure what changed.

If you want, the Construction DPP Conformance Checker is built to run this as a repeatable workflow: ingest your dataset, apply construction-specific rule mapping, detect missing/inconsistent elements, and output a clear report you can share internally and with reviewers.

FAQ