Due diligence
Geotechnical checks
This stage checks ground conditions, fill, slope stability, groundwater, bearing assumptions, retaining implications, foundation options, investigation limits, and the need for further geotechnical design or monitoring. This page shows what a beginner residential developer in Auckland should check, who to ask, what evidence to save, and where to verify before committing money or instructions.
How to execute this stage
Micro-stage control plan
Work through each applicable step in order. A hold point means pause the dependent decision or work until the stated evidence and authorised review are complete.
01Investigation coverageLevel 2 · Due diligence
TaskCheckHold pointEvidenceRecordNext actionSimple explanation
Investigation coverage
Technical context
Test this point against Geotechnical desktop review, the current feasibility version and written input from Geotechnical engineer. Separate verified facts, professional opinion and assumptions.
Why it matters: This check can change yield, consent pathway, acquisition terms, funding, cost, programme or exit strategy. It must be resolved before the developer relies on further investigation scope.
Prerequisites
- Geotechnical desktop review is current and its source/date are recorded.
- The project objective, feasibility version and decision deadline are clear.
- Geotechnical engineer has a focused brief where professional confirmation is required.
Checks
- Does Geotechnical desktop review directly support the conclusion?
- Which information is verified, assumed, missing, superseded or contradictory?
- Has the feasibility, programme, risk register and decision register been updated?
Evidence to save
- Geotechnical desktop review
- Written Geotechnical engineer response or a recorded reason it is not required
- Dated feasibility/risk/decision update
Hold point
Do not waive a condition, instruct design/work, commit funding, lodge, purchase, settle or represent the conclusion as confirmed until the authorised decision-maker has the required evidence and advice.
Stop or escalate when
- The source is missing, old, inconsistent or outside the reviewer's scope.
- The check changes yield, approval pathway, funding, legal rights, tax, safety or a material cost/programme assumption.
- A deadline is approaching and the responsible professional has not confirmed the position.
Documents and records
- Geotechnical desktop review
- Geotechnical brief
- Site assessment checklist
- Current feasibility, risk register and decision register
- Cost effect
- Record changes to land value, consultant/council cost, construction/civil cost, finance, holding cost, contingency and exit value before further investigation scope.
- Programme effect
- Record the decision deadline, dependencies, information lead time and effect on acquisition, consent, procurement, construction, sales or settlement milestones.
Next action
Fill and unsuitable ground
Applicability: Confirm whether this check applies to the actual site, ownership, strategy, consent pathway, infrastructure and delivery model; record a reason when not applicable.
Use current site-specific documents and appropriately appointed professional advice. BuildPath does not make the development decision for you.
02Fill and unsuitable groundLevel 2 · Due diligence
TaskCheckHold pointEvidenceRecordNext actionSimple explanation
Fill and unsuitable ground
Technical context
Test this point against Site investigation report, the current feasibility version and written input from Structural engineer. Separate verified facts, professional opinion and assumptions.
Why it matters: This check can change yield, consent pathway, acquisition terms, funding, cost, programme or exit strategy. It must be resolved before the developer relies on foundation and retaining allowance.
Prerequisites
- Site investigation report is current and its source/date are recorded.
- The project objective, feasibility version and decision deadline are clear.
- Structural engineer has a focused brief where professional confirmation is required.
Checks
- Does Site investigation report directly support the conclusion?
- Which information is verified, assumed, missing, superseded or contradictory?
- Has the feasibility, programme, risk register and decision register been updated?
Evidence to save
- Site investigation report
- Written Structural engineer response or a recorded reason it is not required
- Dated feasibility/risk/decision update
Hold point
Do not waive a condition, instruct design/work, commit funding, lodge, purchase, settle or represent the conclusion as confirmed until the authorised decision-maker has the required evidence and advice.
Stop or escalate when
- The source is missing, old, inconsistent or outside the reviewer's scope.
- The check changes yield, approval pathway, funding, legal rights, tax, safety or a material cost/programme assumption.
- A deadline is approaching and the responsible professional has not confirmed the position.
Documents and records
- Site investigation report
- Geotechnical brief
- Site assessment checklist
- Current feasibility, risk register and decision register
- Cost effect
- Record changes to land value, consultant/council cost, construction/civil cost, finance, holding cost, contingency and exit value before foundation and retaining allowance.
- Programme effect
- Record the decision deadline, dependencies, information lead time and effect on acquisition, consent, procurement, construction, sales or settlement milestones.
Next action
Groundwater
Applicability: Confirm whether this check applies to the actual site, ownership, strategy, consent pathway, infrastructure and delivery model; record a reason when not applicable.
Use current site-specific documents and appropriately appointed professional advice. BuildPath does not make the development decision for you.
03GroundwaterLevel 2 · Due diligence
TaskCheckHold pointEvidenceRecordNext actionSimple explanation
Groundwater
Technical context
Test this point against Bore or test-pit logs, the current feasibility version and written input from Civil engineer. Separate verified facts, professional opinion and assumptions.
Why it matters: This check can change yield, consent pathway, acquisition terms, funding, cost, programme or exit strategy. It must be resolved before the developer relies on whether concept levels or yield change.
Prerequisites
- Bore or test-pit logs is current and its source/date are recorded.
- The project objective, feasibility version and decision deadline are clear.
- Civil engineer has a focused brief where professional confirmation is required.
Checks
- Does Bore or test-pit logs directly support the conclusion?
- Which information is verified, assumed, missing, superseded or contradictory?
- Has the feasibility, programme, risk register and decision register been updated?
Evidence to save
- Bore or test-pit logs
- Written Civil engineer response or a recorded reason it is not required
- Dated feasibility/risk/decision update
Hold point
Do not waive a condition, instruct design/work, commit funding, lodge, purchase, settle or represent the conclusion as confirmed until the authorised decision-maker has the required evidence and advice.
Stop or escalate when
- The source is missing, old, inconsistent or outside the reviewer's scope.
- The check changes yield, approval pathway, funding, legal rights, tax, safety or a material cost/programme assumption.
- A deadline is approaching and the responsible professional has not confirmed the position.
Documents and records
- Bore or test-pit logs
- Geotechnical brief
- Site assessment checklist
- Current feasibility, risk register and decision register
- Cost effect
- Record changes to land value, consultant/council cost, construction/civil cost, finance, holding cost, contingency and exit value before whether concept levels or yield change.
- Programme effect
- Record the decision deadline, dependencies, information lead time and effect on acquisition, consent, procurement, construction, sales or settlement milestones.
Next action
Slope stability
Applicability: Confirm whether this check applies to the actual site, ownership, strategy, consent pathway, infrastructure and delivery model; record a reason when not applicable.
Use current site-specific documents and appropriately appointed professional advice. BuildPath does not make the development decision for you.
04Slope stabilityLevel 2 · Due diligence
TaskCheckHold pointEvidenceRecordNext actionSimple explanation
Slope stability
Technical context
Test this point against Laboratory results where used, the current feasibility version and written input from Architect. Separate verified facts, professional opinion and assumptions.
Why it matters: This check can change yield, consent pathway, acquisition terms, funding, cost, programme or exit strategy. It must be resolved before the developer relies on whether the risk is acceptable before purchase.
Prerequisites
- Laboratory results where used is current and its source/date are recorded.
- The project objective, feasibility version and decision deadline are clear.
- Architect has a focused brief where professional confirmation is required.
Checks
- Does Laboratory results where used directly support the conclusion?
- Which information is verified, assumed, missing, superseded or contradictory?
- Has the feasibility, programme, risk register and decision register been updated?
Evidence to save
- Laboratory results where used
- Written Architect response or a recorded reason it is not required
- Dated feasibility/risk/decision update
Hold point
Do not waive a condition, instruct design/work, commit funding, lodge, purchase, settle or represent the conclusion as confirmed until the authorised decision-maker has the required evidence and advice.
Stop or escalate when
- The source is missing, old, inconsistent or outside the reviewer's scope.
- The check changes yield, approval pathway, funding, legal rights, tax, safety or a material cost/programme assumption.
- A deadline is approaching and the responsible professional has not confirmed the position.
Documents and records
- Laboratory results where used
- Geotechnical brief
- Site assessment checklist
- Current feasibility, risk register and decision register
- Cost effect
- Record changes to land value, consultant/council cost, construction/civil cost, finance, holding cost, contingency and exit value before whether the risk is acceptable before purchase.
- Programme effect
- Record the decision deadline, dependencies, information lead time and effect on acquisition, consent, procurement, construction, sales or settlement milestones.
Next action
Retaining implications
Applicability: Confirm whether this check applies to the actual site, ownership, strategy, consent pathway, infrastructure and delivery model; record a reason when not applicable.
Use current site-specific documents and appropriately appointed professional advice. BuildPath does not make the development decision for you.
05Retaining implicationsLevel 2 · Due diligence
TaskCheckHold pointEvidenceRecordNext actionSimple explanation
Retaining implications
Technical context
Test this point against Topographical survey, the current feasibility version and written input from Quantity surveyor. Separate verified facts, professional opinion and assumptions.
Why it matters: This check can change yield, consent pathway, acquisition terms, funding, cost, programme or exit strategy. It must be resolved before the developer relies on further investigation scope.
Prerequisites
- Topographical survey is current and its source/date are recorded.
- The project objective, feasibility version and decision deadline are clear.
- Quantity surveyor has a focused brief where professional confirmation is required.
Checks
- Does Topographical survey directly support the conclusion?
- Which information is verified, assumed, missing, superseded or contradictory?
- Has the feasibility, programme, risk register and decision register been updated?
Evidence to save
- Topographical survey
- Written Quantity surveyor response or a recorded reason it is not required
- Dated feasibility/risk/decision update
Hold point
Do not waive a condition, instruct design/work, commit funding, lodge, purchase, settle or represent the conclusion as confirmed until the authorised decision-maker has the required evidence and advice.
Stop or escalate when
- The source is missing, old, inconsistent or outside the reviewer's scope.
- The check changes yield, approval pathway, funding, legal rights, tax, safety or a material cost/programme assumption.
- A deadline is approaching and the responsible professional has not confirmed the position.
Documents and records
- Topographical survey
- Geotechnical brief
- Site assessment checklist
- Current feasibility, risk register and decision register
- Cost effect
- Record changes to land value, consultant/council cost, construction/civil cost, finance, holding cost, contingency and exit value before further investigation scope.
- Programme effect
- Record the decision deadline, dependencies, information lead time and effect on acquisition, consent, procurement, construction, sales or settlement milestones.
Next action
Foundation recommendations
Applicability: Confirm whether this check applies to the actual site, ownership, strategy, consent pathway, infrastructure and delivery model; record a reason when not applicable.
Use current site-specific documents and appropriately appointed professional advice. BuildPath does not make the development decision for you.
06Foundation recommendationsLevel 2 · Due diligence
TaskCheckHold pointEvidenceRecordNext actionSimple explanation
Foundation recommendations
Technical context
Test this point against Concept plan, the current feasibility version and written input from Earthworks or piling contractor. Separate verified facts, professional opinion and assumptions.
Why it matters: This check can change yield, consent pathway, acquisition terms, funding, cost, programme or exit strategy. It must be resolved before the developer relies on foundation and retaining allowance.
Prerequisites
- Concept plan is current and its source/date are recorded.
- The project objective, feasibility version and decision deadline are clear.
- Earthworks or piling contractor has a focused brief where professional confirmation is required.
Checks
- Does Concept plan directly support the conclusion?
- Which information is verified, assumed, missing, superseded or contradictory?
- Has the feasibility, programme, risk register and decision register been updated?
Evidence to save
- Concept plan
- Written Earthworks or piling contractor response or a recorded reason it is not required
- Dated feasibility/risk/decision update
Hold point
Do not waive a condition, instruct design/work, commit funding, lodge, purchase, settle or represent the conclusion as confirmed until the authorised decision-maker has the required evidence and advice.
Stop or escalate when
- The source is missing, old, inconsistent or outside the reviewer's scope.
- The check changes yield, approval pathway, funding, legal rights, tax, safety or a material cost/programme assumption.
- A deadline is approaching and the responsible professional has not confirmed the position.
Documents and records
- Concept plan
- Geotechnical brief
- Site assessment checklist
- Current feasibility, risk register and decision register
- Cost effect
- Record changes to land value, consultant/council cost, construction/civil cost, finance, holding cost, contingency and exit value before foundation and retaining allowance.
- Programme effect
- Record the decision deadline, dependencies, information lead time and effect on acquisition, consent, procurement, construction, sales or settlement milestones.
Next action
Earthworks controls
Applicability: Confirm whether this check applies to the actual site, ownership, strategy, consent pathway, infrastructure and delivery model; record a reason when not applicable.
Use current site-specific documents and appropriately appointed professional advice. BuildPath does not make the development decision for you.
07Earthworks controlsLevel 2 · Due diligence
TaskCheckHold pointEvidenceRecordNext actionSimple explanation
Earthworks controls
Technical context
Test this point against Historic property information, the current feasibility version and written input from Geotechnical engineer. Separate verified facts, professional opinion and assumptions.
Why it matters: This check can change yield, consent pathway, acquisition terms, funding, cost, programme or exit strategy. It must be resolved before the developer relies on whether concept levels or yield change.
Prerequisites
- Historic property information is current and its source/date are recorded.
- The project objective, feasibility version and decision deadline are clear.
- Geotechnical engineer has a focused brief where professional confirmation is required.
Checks
- Does Historic property information directly support the conclusion?
- Which information is verified, assumed, missing, superseded or contradictory?
- Has the feasibility, programme, risk register and decision register been updated?
Evidence to save
- Historic property information
- Written Geotechnical engineer response or a recorded reason it is not required
- Dated feasibility/risk/decision update
Hold point
Do not waive a condition, instruct design/work, commit funding, lodge, purchase, settle or represent the conclusion as confirmed until the authorised decision-maker has the required evidence and advice.
Stop or escalate when
- The source is missing, old, inconsistent or outside the reviewer's scope.
- The check changes yield, approval pathway, funding, legal rights, tax, safety or a material cost/programme assumption.
- A deadline is approaching and the responsible professional has not confirmed the position.
Documents and records
- Historic property information
- Geotechnical brief
- Site assessment checklist
- Current feasibility, risk register and decision register
- Cost effect
- Record changes to land value, consultant/council cost, construction/civil cost, finance, holding cost, contingency and exit value before whether concept levels or yield change.
- Programme effect
- Record the decision deadline, dependencies, information lead time and effect on acquisition, consent, procurement, construction, sales or settlement milestones.
Next action
Construction monitoring and producer-statement requirements where specified
Applicability: Confirm whether this check applies to the actual site, ownership, strategy, consent pathway, infrastructure and delivery model; record a reason when not applicable.
Use current site-specific documents and appropriately appointed professional advice. BuildPath does not make the development decision for you.
08Construction monitoring and producer-statement requirements where specifiedLevel 2 · Due diligence
TaskCheckHold pointEvidenceRecordNext actionSimple explanation
Construction monitoring and producer-statement requirements where specified
Technical context
Test this point against Geotechnical desktop review, the current feasibility version and written input from Structural engineer. Separate verified facts, professional opinion and assumptions.
Why it matters: This check can change yield, consent pathway, acquisition terms, funding, cost, programme or exit strategy. It must be resolved before the developer relies on whether the risk is acceptable before purchase.
Prerequisites
- Geotechnical desktop review is current and its source/date are recorded.
- The project objective, feasibility version and decision deadline are clear.
- Structural engineer has a focused brief where professional confirmation is required.
Checks
- Does Geotechnical desktop review directly support the conclusion?
- Which information is verified, assumed, missing, superseded or contradictory?
- Has the feasibility, programme, risk register and decision register been updated?
Evidence to save
- Geotechnical desktop review
- Written Structural engineer response or a recorded reason it is not required
- Dated feasibility/risk/decision update
Hold point
Do not waive a condition, instruct design/work, commit funding, lodge, purchase, settle or represent the conclusion as confirmed until the authorised decision-maker has the required evidence and advice.
Stop or escalate when
- The source is missing, old, inconsistent or outside the reviewer's scope.
- The check changes yield, approval pathway, funding, legal rights, tax, safety or a material cost/programme assumption.
- A deadline is approaching and the responsible professional has not confirmed the position.
Documents and records
- Geotechnical desktop review
- Geotechnical brief
- Site assessment checklist
- Current feasibility, risk register and decision register
- Cost effect
- Record changes to land value, consultant/council cost, construction/civil cost, finance, holding cost, contingency and exit value before whether the risk is acceptable before purchase.
- Programme effect
- Record the decision deadline, dependencies, information lead time and effect on acquisition, consent, procurement, construction, sales or settlement milestones.
Next action
Make and record the stage decision: Whether the risk is acceptable before purchase. Then open the next applicable development stage.
Applicability: Confirm whether this check applies to the actual site, ownership, strategy, consent pathway, infrastructure and delivery model; record a reason when not applicable.
Use current site-specific documents and appropriately appointed professional advice. BuildPath does not make the development decision for you.
Developer go / no-go control
Decision gates before the next commitment
A gate records whether evidence supports a commercial decision. It does not replace advice or predict an authority, lender, purchaser or market outcome.
Before the next material commitment
Decision: Proceed, pause, obtain evidence, or escalate
Minimum evidence
- • Current source documents and professional responses
- • Versioned feasibility, risk and programme update
- • Named owner and deadline for every unresolved dependency
Update before deciding
- • Cost and contingency
- • Time and holding/finance effect
- • Yield, value, consent and exit effect
Stop / escalate when
- • A material conclusion is still an assumption
- • Sources conflict or are out of date
- • The authorised decision-maker cannot see the downside consequence
What this stage means
- Geotechnical checks is the part of the project where the developer turns an idea into a checked decision, not a guess.
- The stage should connect market demand, planning rules, legal constraints, design, cost, funding, time, risk, and exit strategy.
- For Auckland residential development, the answer is site-specific. The same idea can be low risk on one site and unworkable on the next because of zoning, overlays, title interests, services, slope, flooding, neighbours, or finance.
Why this stage matters
- Early mistakes become expensive because land, design, consultants, holding costs, consent fees, and finance costs continue even when the project is paused.
- The developer needs written evidence for lenders, consultants, lawyers, valuers, builders, purchasers, and future dispute protection.
- This stage usually needs verification from Auckland Council GeoMaps, Auckland Council property file, MBIE Building Code compliance, Relevant professional advice before the developer treats the conclusion as reliable.
Step-by-step guide
- 1Define the decision needed at the end of this stage and the date it is needed by.
- 2Gather the stage documents: Geotechnical desktop review, Site investigation report, Bore or test-pit logs, Laboratory results where used, and the remaining stage records.
- 3Read the documents once for understanding, then again to list unknowns, risks, contradictions, missing evidence, and professional questions.
- 4Ask the responsible professionals to confirm the critical points: Geotechnical engineer, Structural engineer, Civil engineer, Architect.
- 5Update the feasibility, programme, risk register, and decision register with source references and dates.
- 6Decide whether to proceed, pause, redesign, renegotiate, add conditions, seek more advice, or abandon the option.
- 7Save the evidence in a dated folder and write a short stage closeout note explaining what was decided and why.
What the developer must do
- Write down the development objective for geotechnical checks in one clear paragraph: build-to-sell, build-to-rent, retain one dwelling, subdivide, renovate, or staged development.
- Open the current feasibility, programme, decision register, risk register, and due diligence folder before making new commitments.
- Collect the documents needed for this stage: Geotechnical desktop review, Site investigation report, Bore or test-pit logs, Laboratory results where used, Topographical survey, Concept plan, Historic property information.
- Send focused questions to the right people: Geotechnical engineer, Structural engineer, Civil engineer, Architect, Quantity surveyor, Earthworks or piling contractor.
- Record assumptions separately from verified facts so the feasibility does not look more certain than it really is.
- Update cost, time, consent, finance, and sales assumptions immediately after receiving new information.
- Escalate anything that changes yield, sale price, cost, timing, consent pathway, title, funding, or settlement risk.
Verification
Source / where to check
Use current official information and the controlled documents for the actual project.
Use GeoMaps as an early desktop check for property layers, contours, flooding/overland flow information, services context, and council spatial information. Confirm critical matters with professionals and council.
Review historic building consents, drainage plans, previous approvals, CCC records where available, and historic plans. Compare records with what physically exists on site.
Use MBIE Building Performance to find the current Building Code clauses, Acceptable Solutions, Verification Methods, updates, and technical guidance.
Planner, surveyor, architect, engineer, quantity surveyor, lawyer, accountant, lender, valuer, real estate agent, and other project specialists must confirm site-specific decisions.
Project-specific consented documents and professional advice override generic guidance.
Common mistakes
- Treating an agent comment, generic online rule, or old document as verified site-specific advice.
- Forgetting to update the feasibility after design, consent, finance, or market information changes.
- Not allowing enough contingency, professional fees, council fees, finance costs, holding costs, and time risk.
- Failing to keep written records of who confirmed what and when.
- Using geotechnical checks to push ahead even when the red flags show the project should pause.
Common risks
- Yield reduces after proper planning, engineering, title, or infrastructure review.
- Costs increase after QS, builder, civil, geotechnical, demolition, asbestos, or consent information is received.
- Programme moves out because consultant inputs, council RFIs, neighbour issues, finance, title, or construction sequencing take longer than assumed.
- Funding or sales assumptions change before the project reaches settlement.
- The developer relies on unverified information and loses negotiating power or misses a due diligence deadline.
Common costs
- Professional fees for planner, architect/designer, surveyor, engineer, QS, lawyer, accountant, valuer, and lender reports.
- Council fees, consent fees, development contribution estimates, engineering approvals, infrastructure checks, and inspection/monitoring costs where relevant.
- Design revisions, reports, investigations, demolition/asbestos work, service location, geotechnical testing, and valuation updates.
- Holding costs such as interest, rates, insurance, utilities, temporary maintenance, and security.
- Contingency for unverified conditions until the relevant professional confirms them.
Quotes and fee proposals to obtain
- Obtain written fee proposals or quotations from the relevant stage professionals: Geotechnical engineer, Structural engineer, Civil engineer, Architect, Quantity surveyor, Earthworks or piling contractor.
- Issue the same current documents and a clear scope to each party so prices, exclusions, assumptions, deliverables, lead times, and programme can be compared.
- Identify council, authority, investigation, testing, design, construction, monitoring, and close-out charges that may sit outside a consultant or contractor quote.
- Record every provisional sum, estimate, exclusion, expiry date, dependency, and unverified allowance in the Quote Register and feasibility.
- Do not approve an appointment or purchase order until scope ownership, evidence required, payment terms, variation process, insurance or competency checks, and completion deliverables are understood.
Common delays
- Waiting for property file, LIM, title instruments, survey information, consultant reports, or council responses.
- Design changes caused by planning controls, infrastructure constraints, engineering findings, budget pressure, or market feedback.
- Lender, valuer, lawyer, or purchaser conditions not being satisfied on time.
- Council RFI responses needing more consultant work than expected.
- Construction or subdivision closeout documents not matching settlement or sales deadlines.
Common consultant questions
- For Geotechnical checks, what are the three highest risks that could change cost, time, yield, or approval pathway?
- Which parts of your advice are confirmed, which are assumptions, and which require another professional to confirm?
- What documents did you rely on, and are any documents missing, outdated, superseded, or inconsistent?
- What decision does the developer need to make now, and what should wait until more information is available?
- What wording should go into the decision register, consultant meeting minutes, or lender/client update?
Red flags
- A professional says the issue is outside their scope and no one else has been asked to confirm it.
- The feasibility only works if optimistic sale prices, low construction costs, fast consent, low interest, and no delays all happen together.
- A title, planning, flooding, geotechnical, access, service, or covenant issue may prevent the intended yield.
- A seller, agent, builder, or consultant pressures the developer to waive due diligence before core checks are complete.
- The project file has no written evidence for a major decision.
When to stop and get professional advice
- Stop and get professional advice when title, easements, covenants, unit title, cross lease, or subdivision matters affect the proposal.
- Stop and get professional advice when zoning, overlays, activity status, notification, infrastructure capacity, flooding, geotechnical, contamination, or heritage could affect yield.
- Stop and get professional advice when GST, income tax, entity structure, lending, guarantees, or sale contract terms affect the decision.
- Stop and get professional advice when the developer is about to sign, waive a condition, lodge consent, start work, approve a variation, accept practical completion, or settle.
Decisions that must be made
- Further investigation scope
- Foundation and retaining allowance
- Whether concept levels or yield change
- Whether the risk is acceptable before purchase
Evidence to save
- Dated source documents and consultant advice.
- Feasibility version showing the assumptions used at the time of decision.
- Risk register and decision register entries.
- Meeting notes, emails, marked-up plans, calculations, photos, and council/lender/consultant responses.
- Clear note of who approved the next step and any conditions attached to that approval.
Beginner-friendly example
A desktop review identifies possible uncontrolled fill, so intrusive investigation and a larger contingency are arranged before the developer waives due diligence.
Use this in my project
Turn geotechnical checks into controlled action
Open the relevant workspace register, create the project-specific record, link the controlling documents and preserve evidence. The guide does not automatically approve or verify the action.