Inspect establishment against agreed acceptance criteria

Acceptance should answer an agreed project question, not simply whether the surface looks green on inspection day. Installed material, emerging seedlings and a landscape ready for its intended use are different states. If criteria are introduced only after the work is complete, both owner and contractor face avoidable uncertainty. This HAUSE guide helps organize the inspection process before application. It does not establish a universal cover percentage, warranty period or municipal approval. The governing contract, applicable authority and competent reviewer determine the actual criteria and decision.

Define the milestones before work begins

List the decisions required at preparation, installation, establishment and final handover. Identify who makes each decision and what evidence is needed. A small residential project may use a simpler process than a public landscape contract, but the distinctions still matter. State whether acceptance applies to material installation, observed vegetation development or a broader performance objective.

The City of Calgary — park development guidelines and acceptance forms page includes separate construction-completion and final-acceptance forms. That is an example of staged municipal decisions, not a mandate for every private project. The City of Edmonton — current design and construction standards page provides current standards and explains applicability. Use the version and requirements actually governing the site. Do not rely on an older downloaded document solely because it appears first in a search result.

Write criteria appropriate to the planting objective

Define what will be evaluated: intended species, distribution, bare areas, surface condition, maintenance completion or other specified attributes. A native planting may require different observations from maintained turf. Total green cover can include unwanted plants, so it may not answer the intended question. Avoid using one generic lawn standard for every polygon on a mixed-use property.

Identify any required measurement method and observation period. If professional ecological or reclamation assessment is required, retain that role. A homeowner photograph or a contractor's walkthrough cannot replace a prescribed technical review. Likewise, do not invent a numeric threshold from a general article and add it to a contract retrospectively. Resolve unclear criteria while the parties can still choose a realistic scope and maintenance arrangement.

Choose representative observations

Plan locations that include ordinary, difficult and repaired areas. Use the treatment map so inspection covers the released scope rather than only the easiest route. Record where access is unsafe or a zone cannot be assessed. Keep overview photographs and close views with dates and identifiable positions. Consistency between visits helps show development without implying that photographs alone measure every required attribute.

Caltrans Construction Manual — Erosion Control provides an example of establishment inspection and documentation. Its frequencies and forms belong to its public contracts. For the actual Canadian site, define the schedule from the governing documents and relevant conditions. Include event-driven observations after damage or significant weather where the project plan requires them. Do not use a favourable inspection day to omit known unresolved problems elsewhere on the site.

Use a decision record with precise outcomes

Use only outcomes permitted by the project's process. The table is a documentation framework, not a set of legal effects. A person who can inspect may not have authority to accept, waive a requirement or authorize payment. Record the actual role rather than assuming attendance implies approval.

Work through a phased inspection example

Suppose a 2,000 m² project has 1,600 m² of original planting, a 250 m² repaired area and 150 m² held for later utility work. The inspection should identify all three histories. The held area is not an establishment failure because it has not been released. The repair may need a different observation period from the older planting. A single whole-site “complete” label hides those distinctions.

If the original planting meets its agreed criteria while the repair still needs observation, the reviewer should record the permitted project decision precisely. Do not assume that partial acceptance is available under every contract. Retain the map, dates and criterion references so the next reviewer can understand the state. Numerical area examples illustrate record structure, not a pass/fail tolerance.

Connect defects with a cause-based repair process

For each concern, record the observed condition, location, relevant criterion and evidence. Then review cause and responsibility through the governing process. A repair should address preparation, drainage, traffic or maintenance issues where they are involved, not merely replace surface colour. Preserve the original observation and add a new repair baseline. Do not erase the defect history when a task is marked complete.

Before the walkthrough, circulate the current map and list the decisions expected from the visit. Allow the maintenance representative to flag inaccessible areas or recent incidents. At the end, read back each open item with its owner and next review trigger. A signed attendance sheet shows who was present; the separate decision record should state exactly what, if anything, the authorized person accepted.

Give the owner a final package containing the accepted scope, open items, material information and ongoing care responsibilities. An installation receipt does not prove finished vegetation: evidence of one stage establishes only that stage. Continue with quality records, washout assessment and maintenance handover.