Bali operating-building records

Which records should be requested first?

Not every file is equally useful. Start with what connects the asset to current operation: identity of building or unit, current rights and formal-data context, service agreements, work history, open reports and access rules. For each item, ask at once: what does it relate to, who prepared it, when was it current, and what does it not prove?

The short answer

Assemble not a pile of PDFs, but a register: category, record, source, date, period, asset, responsible holder, what it supports and what remains outside it. This register exposes gaps without attempting to fill them by guesswork.

1. Begin with a register, not a search for the ‘complete pack’

Create one sheet with columns: record name, category, asset or system, source, date, period, version, owner of the next answer and limitation. Even if there are only three files, the sheet immediately reveals which connections are missing.

Name records precisely: not ‘water documents’ but ‘manager letter about customer account, date, period, whether it relates to unit or common system’. This makes the file understandable to another person and stops one record accidentally becoming confirmation for the whole asset.

2. Formal records are a context line

PP 16/2021 provides a framework for building administration. SIMBG describes PBG, SLF, SBKBG and building-data processes. For a buyer, this is a reason to identify which formal questions relate to the selected asset and who can explain existing records.

But do not turn the name PBG, SLF or a service link into a conclusion about a particular building. For the selected asset, separately confirm what exists, what it relates to, through which date it is current and what lies outside review.

3. Operating records show the course of life, not building quality

Work logs, reports, invoices, service agreements, inventory and messages help show what happened with systems and who was involved. But they do not automatically become a conclusion on condition: every record is limited by its date, author and subject.

It is useful to split history by system and period. Instead of asking ‘were there problems?’, you get a working sequence: what was recorded, how it was addressed, whether there is a completion record and what still needs to be reopened.

4. Access to data is part of handover

Keys are only the visible part of handover. Record separately access to accounts, contacts, instructions, logs, bills, warranty reports and maintenance calendar. Every transfer has an owner, format and date on which recipient can test that access works.

If access is not yet available, do not mark it ‘transferred’ on a promise. Record who must open it, which data is needed and what will prove actual transfer. This matters particularly when different parties manage services.

5. Questions that make the pack verifiable

Put the same three questions to each material file: which asset or system does it name; for which period does it answer; and what does it not confirm. Then add a practical question: who can provide the next version if this material is old or incomplete.

Do not replace an absent record with an oral retelling. Record the retelling as a party’s position and the gap itself as a question. This is fairer to both seller and buyer: later no one can say they did not see the evidence boundary.

Decision steps

1. Describe asset and purpose

   Define which systems, periods and questions relate to the selected decision.

2. Build the register

   Enter every received item with source, date, period and limitation.

3. Map to holders

   Separate owner, manager, contractor and service data.

4. Mark gaps

   For an absent or old record, assign question, owner and next-action date.

5. Check access

   Move transfer of keys, accounts, instructions and contacts into a separate block.

What to check

Sources

Next reading