Chris M. / 4 August 2026 / Reviewed 12 August 2026

How to Get Microsoft to Talk to Your Construction Platforms

A contractor running Procore for site records and Microsoft 365 for everything else asks a reasonable question: surely there is an official integration, built by one of the two companies, that keeps SharePoint and Procore's document register in step. There is a listing in Microsoft's own app store called "Procore Sharepoint Integration" that looks like the answer. Read the fine print on Microsoft's own certification page and it says something different: the listing is built by SyncEzy, an Australian software company, its certification is a "publisher attestation" for which "Microsoft makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy of the information," and it "does not use Microsoft Graph," Microsoft's own API for reading and writing Microsoft 365 data.¹ Neither vendor built it.

That gap between what the marketplace listing implies and what Microsoft's own documentation actually says is the real subject of this guide, and the honest way through it is to work out, platform by platform, who actually built the bridge you would be relying on.

No Microsoft-built connector exists for any major construction platform

This is checkable directly rather than taken on trust. Microsoft publishes a full reference list of every connector it has built itself, across Power Automate, Power Apps and Power BI.² Search it for Procore, Autodesk or Oracle Aconex and nothing comes back; the only Oracle-related entry is a generic database connector with no relevance to construction data. The Autodesk-branded connector that does exist, "Autodesk Construction Cloud Power Query Connector," is explicitly labelled on Microsoft's own page as "owned and provided by Autodesk," and its supported products are listed as Power BI and Fabric dataflows only.³ Power Automate, the tool most firms would actually use to move data day to day, is not among them, and the connector reads from a manually triggered data export rather than live account activity.

What each vendor offers instead is genuinely different in kind, and worth knowing before you build anything on top of it. Oracle actually built its own bridge: "Aconex for Outlook" lets a user send, reply to and register project email directly from Outlook into the Aconex mail register, though it stops short of full functionality, since it "cannot create transmittals," which still requires logging into Aconex directly.⁴ Autodesk's SharePoint connection runs through "ACC Connect," which Autodesk itself describes as "powered by" Workato, a third-party integration platform, with the actual connection logic built and maintained by Autodesk's technology partners rather than by Autodesk.⁵ Procore's listing, as already covered, is neither Procore-built nor Graph-based at all. None of this makes any of the three options useless. It does mean "certified" and "built by the vendor" are not the same claim, and a firm evaluating one of these should ask directly which is true before assuming a support relationship exists that may not.

What "certified" actually commits anyone to

Procore's own documentation is unusually direct about the limits of its own vetting. The badge it awards integrations describes only a company-level review: "Procore's Security review process does not constitute a detailed application-level security validation," and the badge "is not intended to replace any vendor vetting led by a Procore customer."⁶ Autodesk's certified partner programme states that a partner has been through "a technical review prior to joining the program," but its own documentation does not describe an ongoing support or reliability commitment attaching to what that partner subsequently builds.⁷ An integration passing a vendor's certification tells you it met a bar at onboarding. It does not tell you who fixes it when it breaks in eighteen months.

The actual limits you are building against

If the realistic route is a Power Automate flow rather than any packaged connector, Microsoft's own throttling documentation sets out exactly what that flow can and cannot do, and the limits are more specific than most firms expect. The SharePoint connector used inside Power Automate is capped at 600 API calls per connection every 60 seconds, confirmed independently in Microsoft's own licensing FAQ.⁸ That ceiling sits on top of, not instead of, the daily action limit tied to your licence tier: 6,000 actions a day on a standard Microsoft 365 licence, rising to 40,000 on Power Automate Premium, and considerably higher again on a dedicated Process licence.⁹ The two limits are independent. A firm well under its daily allowance can still be throttled mid-flow by hitting the per-minute SharePoint ceiling alone.

Outlook and Teams carry their own separate, more granular limits again, published directly by Microsoft rather than inferred: 10,000 API requests per mailbox in any ten minute window for Outlook, and for Teams a hard cap in some cases of one message per second per channel.¹⁰ None of this is exotic or hidden. It is published, numbered, and worth reading before committing a workflow to depend on it, because a design that assumes unlimited throughput will fail in exactly the way these published ceilings predict.

Where the real friction shows up in practice

A systems integrator's own published account of building a bespoke Procore to SharePoint connector is a useful, if unverified, data point on what this actually costs to get right. The firm reported having to "identify and configure the maximum number of API calls Procore and SharePoint can initiate in a given amount of time," and, more tellingly, having to build explicit "rules for resolving document version collisions to let users edit one document simultaneously in both systems."¹¹ That second problem, two systems disagreeing about which version of a file is current, is not a rate limit. It is what happens when two independently version-controlled systems are asked to hold the same record, and it is the kind of failure mode that only shows up once real people are using both sides of the connection at once.

The UK regulatory angle, and what it does not require

For anyone running a golden thread record under the Building Safety Act, there is a specific and useful piece of good news buried in the regulation itself. Regulation 7 of the Higher-Risk Buildings (Management of Safety Risks etc) (England) Regulations 2023 sets out exactly what standard information has to meet: electronic, transferable without corruption, accurate, intelligible, accessible, secure, and changed only through a procedure that records who made the change and when.¹² It does not require a single system of record. Read literally, a duty-holder keeping some golden thread information in SharePoint and some in a construction platform is not in breach simply for splitting it across two systems, provided each half independently meets those six standards.

What the regulation does not do is guarantee the two halves agree with each other. Nothing in it requires a unified audit trail across systems, which means "we are covered because both systems log their own changes" is a weaker claim than it sounds. Two logs that are each individually compliant can still disagree about what actually happened if nobody has reconciled them. That is a genuine, practical risk worth naming plainly rather than assuming the law has already solved it for you.

What to actually do with this

Before commissioning or trusting any Microsoft to construction platform integration, ask three direct questions and expect a specific answer to each. Who actually built this, the platform vendor, Microsoft, or a named third party, and can you see that stated on the vendor's own certification page rather than inferred from marketing copy? What happens when it breaks, is there a support channel with a stated response commitment, or does responsibility sit entirely with whoever built it? And where two systems both hold the same record, is there an explicit rule for which one wins when they disagree, or will that be discovered the first time it happens on a live project? None of these questions require deep technical knowledge to ask. They require reading the vendor's own documentation rather than the sales page, which is exactly where the real answers, as this guide has tried to show, actually sit.

Related reading

If Copilot itself, rather than the connection, is the question, see Microsoft Copilot or a custom construction AI assistant. For firms already routing data between Microsoft 365 and an accounting or ERP system, connecting AI to Sage accounts and MCP and the connected construction office cover the same integration problem from an adjacent angle. And SharePoint's own document-management service is covered directly in our SharePoint CDE setup service.

Where to check this yourself

• "What connectors does Microsoft actually publish for Power Automate?" The full official list is free to browse at Microsoft Learn.
• "What are the real throttling limits on the Microsoft Graph API?" Microsoft's own documentation sets these out in detail, service by service, at Microsoft Learn.
• "What does the Building Safety Act actually require of how I keep records?" The regulation itself is free to read at legislation.gov.uk.
• "What does RICS say about managing data and digital systems in practice?" RICS publishes its standards and guidance library free at rics.org.

What could not be established for this guide

No primary Microsoft source could be found confirming the commonly quoted pay-as-you-go price of roughly 60 pence per premium Power Automate flow run; it appears only in third-party summaries and is not repeated here as fact. No independent, non-vendor corroboration exists for the systems integrator's case study on Procore to SharePoint document version collisions, which carries no date or named client and should be read as one firm's account rather than a general finding. And no regulator guidance, as opposed to the bare wording of the regulation itself, was found addressing how a golden thread record split across Microsoft 365 and a construction platform should be reconciled, which leaves genuinely open how the Building Safety Regulator would view an audit trail that exists in two independently maintained halves.