Off-plan buyers cannot inspect the finished home they are paying for. A developer's completed buildings offer a limited, observable sample of how similar projects reached handover and operated afterward. This page is a fieldwork worksheet for those buildings. For the broader legal-entity, registration and escrow checks, use the companion developer due-diligence guide. Neither record predicts a delivery date or guarantees build quality for the new project.
Identify the developer and the comparable project first
Start with the legal developer named in the sale and purchase agreement, not only a group brand or a broker's brochure. Check whether a completed building was delivered by the same entity or a related company, and whether it is comparable in type, scale and construction complexity. A villa community is weak evidence for an apartment tower's lifts, facade and shared plant. A completed first phase does not automatically establish that a later phase has passed the same approval and handover gates.
Make a short list of two or three completed projects with the closest property type and scope. If none exists, say so. The absence of a comparable history is a genuine unknown, not a verdict that the current project will fail.
Reconstruct dates from documents, not memory
For each comparable phase, record the launch material's forecast date, any later written revisions, the official completion evidence and the actual buyer handover notice, each with its publication or issue date. These are different events. A sales launch is not a construction start, and a completion certificate is not proof that every unit was occupied that day.
ADREC's Project Development division describes the lifecycle from developer and project registration through completion certificates. Its Developer Journey describes construction progress reporting, escrow-linked stages and the handover gate. Use that sequence to ask what document supports a claimed stage for the exact phase. Do not infer a completion percentage from a site photograph or a marketing update alone.
If a launch forecast moved, retain both dates. A schedule change may have several causes; the evidence supports asking why, not assigning blame without records. The current contract's completion, extension and remedy clauses require a separate review. An advertised date is not itself the buyer's entire contractual position.
Inspect the work that already exists
Where access is permitted, visit a finished project. Look at lifts, corridors, entrances, parking, plant access, drainage and the condition of shared facilities, not only a show apartment. Ask residents or owners about recurring problems, then request records from the community management company or developer to test a specific allegation. One complaint and one tidy lobby are both small samples.
For a newly handed-over comparable building, ask how snagging was documented and whether identified defects were closed. For an older one, ask whether major systems have required unexpected replacement. Do not assume a universal defect-remedy period from another project's contract. The current purchase's handover and warranty documents matter.
Read the operating costs separately from the build
Poor maintenance can reflect design, construction, age, management decisions or a budget mismatch; it is not automatically a developer defect. ADREC's Community Affairs guidance distinguishes community management companies, Owners Committees and the regulator, and describes approved budgets and reserve-fund studies. Ask for the completed project's recent approved budgets, reserve study and planned works where available. Compare the facilities and the service scope before comparing charges.
A stable past charge does not guarantee a stable future charge for a new phase. Likewise, a higher charge does not by itself prove bad management if the buildings provide different services. Keep the ownership-cost assessment separate from the developer's completion record.
A track-record evidence sheet
| Question | Stronger evidence | What it cannot establish |
|---|---|---|
| Who delivered the older project? | Legal developer and exact phase on official documents | That a similarly branded new phase has the same obligations |
| When was it delivered? | Dated launch forecast, revisions, completion and handover notices | A guaranteed date for the current project |
| How did the building age? | Site visit plus documented repairs and manager responses | A building-wide conclusion from one visit |
| What did owners pay? | Approved budgets and reserve information with service scope | The future charge for a different building |
| What is the new project's status? | Official project, escrow and stage evidence for that phase | Quality or on-time handover merely because it is registered |
Use an evidence column for every entry: document link or copy, issuer, date, phase and what remains unconfirmed. If two documents conflict, keep both and seek an explanation. Do not average conflicting dates into one confident answer.
Bring the completed-building evidence back to this project
Bring the historical record back to the current unit. Ask which completed projects actually share the same team, building type and construction approach. Place the observation date and source beside each finding, and leave a blank where there is no accessible record. The current unit's registration, escrow, proposed handover and agreement still require separate checks in the broader developer guide. A famous name, an attractive finished building or a resale price chart cannot substitute for those documents. Past registered prices also cannot isolate build quality from location, unit size, market cycle and incentives.
This is not legal, financial or investment advice. Have a qualified adviser review material contractual rights, payment and handover terms. Where the historical record is thin, name the uncertainty and decide whether the actual current-project protections answer it. That is more useful than treating a developer's reputation as a guarantee.