Buying the Autodesk/NVIDIA's 'recommended solution' is almost entirely for warranty and support.
Geforce cards have been shown to be 100% compliant with Autodesk's own tests before, they just don't state them as 'verified' because NVIDIA won't support them at a driver level for CAD software if something were to go wrong due to a geforce driver issue (I can't vouch for all cards/driver combos obviousyl, but you can find videos of people showing this).
If your running a business where reliability/warranties are paramount, then Quadro is the de facto standard, I'm not debating that. But not because dropping in a Geforce card won't do the same job most of the time for a tenth of the price. But because NVIDIA don't profit from it, and it will be arguably some amount less 'reliable'. It's not a scam, just business really.
For VRAM limited tasks like certain ML/Pro 3D animation/simulation work, the extra available (24gb+) on the Quadro/Tesla range and double precision may force your hand, but for most people (surveyors especially) these limits are unlilely to impact them.
Anyway I guess my point is if your an indie, self employed or even startup/smb, the actual risk of using your Geforce card, VRAM permitting, todo the same job for a tenth of the price is minimal (though should always be considered according to your use case). And as your Geforce card is likely clocked higher, there's a fair chance it will out perform it's like for like Quadro card in such tasks anyway, but comes with shorter third party warranty and potential (albeit small) driver compatibility problems.
If however you're paying the ~$2k/yr for Maya already, you're probably not fussed that Quadros are expensive anyway.