Geotechnical investigation scopes, drafted from the request and site plan for the engineer who sets them.

A request for geotechnical work scatters what matters. The structure and its loads sit in a project summary, boring locations on a plan sheet, depths in a note from the structural engineer, lab tests in a specification, utilities and permits in the general conditions, and an addendum may move any of them. Your project engineer pulls it together, decides what the site needs and writes the scope your firm will price.

For the test, AI reads copies of each request and drafts a scope sheet: the project type, stories, below-grade work and loads in the request's own figures and units; each boring or test pit with its label, depth and the person who asked for it; access, utility and permit items; the lab tests and sampling intervals named; every code or standard cited; and a list of what the request leaves unsaid. Each line points to its page. The sheet sets no boring count, no depth and no fee, and your reviewer compares it with the scope your firm actually sent.

Loads arrive in someone else's shorthand. Portage County, Wisconsin's 2025 request for soil boring services on a new law enforcement center named the 2015 International Building Code with Wisconsin amendments, up to two stories, elevator pits, and a basement under the jail that the geotechnical report's groundwater findings might settle. It gave maximum column loads written as 375k, 225k and 75k for three building cases, asked for recommendations on all three, listed a wall load of 6.5 klf, and gave typical settlement limits while deferring to the geotechnical engineer's recommendation. The sheet copies each figure with its unit and its case exactly as written, and notes the basement question as one the request hands to the report.

Depths come from different people. In that same request the structural engineer wanted building borings to 35 feet inside the footprint, the civil engineer wanted road borings to 5 or 10 feet, and the retention ponds got 5-foot test pits classified according to USDA and Wisconsin DNR technical standard 1002, signed by a soil scientist. The bid form priced lines by plan label, TP 1-12, BB 1-15, R5 1-18 and R10 1-2, listed extra borings and rock coring by the linear foot as alternates, and awarded on the lowest total. Samples were to follow ASTM D1586 every 2.5 feet to a depth of 10 feet and every 5 feet below. The sheet gives every label, depth, interval and requester its own line.

Access, utilities and permits sit in the back pages. Dane County, Wisconsin's 2015 request for on-call geotechnical services wanted a work plan before anyone drilled: a sketch of test pit and borehole locations, the depth of each hole, sampling intervals, sample custody and the ASTM methods to be used, reviewed with the county first so right-of-way and environmental clearance could happen. Its special instructions gave the Diggers Hotline call, and any private locating, to the general contractor. North Carolina DOT's on-site checklist for its field staff, updated December 3, 2025, lists property owners, drill site access, utilities and traffic control, wants every utility cleared through 811, expects a Nationwide 6 permit on site for every project, and adds a right of entry permit in railroad right of way. The sheet lists each item and whether the request assigns it to anyone.

Codes and contracts already hold some of the numbers. Where a request cites New York City's Building Code, section 1803.4.1 sets minimum boring counts by built-over area and one boring for every 50 linear feet of retaining wall taller than 10 feet, and 1803.4.2 gives borings from an earlier engineer only partial credit, with at least one new boring required. Cone penetration tests may stand in for borings one for one, but never below half the required standard borings, and never fewer than two. Loudoun County's 2025 on-call request asks the consultant to review and develop the number, location and depth of borings before the investigation starts, calls out karst evaluation, and lists lab work from moisture content, Atterberg limits and gradation to California Bearing Ratio and Standard and Modified Proctors under ASTM D698 and D1557 or AASHTO T 99. The sheet quotes whatever section or list a request cites. Whether the site needs more is your engineer's call.

What your reviewer will check. Did the sheet catch every load with its unit, every boring and test pit with its label, depth and requester, each sampling interval, each access, utility and permit item, every lab test and standard named, and every gap, each tied to its page? Did it add anything the request never said? The scope your engineer wrote is the answer key. The program, the count and the depth stay with your engineer. None of this is legal or engineering advice.

Once your reviewer approves, new requests get the same scope sheet for about 30 days.

Your engineer reads every sheet before a scope is written, and each proposal still leaves your office exactly as it does today.

Live requests keep being compared with the scopes your team writes. A second job would be its own decision, with its own price.