Construction change order review that asks whether anything is owed before it asks how much
Every claim tested against the contract before it is priced, not after it is paid.
See one case, screen by screen ↓A change order arrives as a PDF, a pricing spreadsheet and a covering letter. To answer it properly, the contract administrator needs the Employer’s Requirements (hundreds of pages), the bill of quantities, the schedule of rates, the drawing register, the tender clarifications and the site diaries — each kept somewhere else — and a 42-day response window is already running. So the quickest thing gets done: re-price the quantities and negotiate the number.
That order is backwards. A claim for work that was always in the contract can be negotiated down and still be paid. Markups arrive at 15% plus supervision plus insurance when the contract allows 10% all-in, new pay items go in with no pricing review, and nobody records that notice came after the 28 days, so the defence is lost. Internal audit can sample 20 approved change orders a year by hand, which says nothing about the rest.
Estimated split for one contested change order, in working days, by hand and with the solution.
Seven agents test entitlement first, then price each claim at the contract's own rates; the contract administrator decides.
Lumina Utilities is building Harbourside, a 132/11 kV substation, under a $48.6M design-build EPC contract with Calder & Voss Electrical. On Oct 2, 2026 the contractor submits change order HBS-CO-047: $640,012 for additional cable trays in the 11 kV switchroom and cable basement. Here is what happens on Oct 13, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Leah acts for the Engineer on Harbourside and Eastbank and has 11 change orders open, each on its 42-day response clock. HBS-CO-047 is on day 11 of 42. On the left, the claim as Calder & Voss wrote it; in the centre, the entitlement gate; on the right, the cost check against the contract rates. The overnight check, run 06:38–06:47, has already answered the four tests.
Not entitled: “In the original scope; the contractor’s own design change; no instruction; notice 18 days late” · Reject · $0 · recommendation · you decide
The claim reader lists what the contractor asked for: 1,860 m of 600 mm heavy-duty ladder tray at $182, 1,240 supports at $64, 1,150 hours of re-routing and pulling labour at $78 and a $17,020 scaffold lump sum — $524,600 direct, then 15% overhead and profit, 5% supervision and 2% insurance and bonding. The reason, quoted from letter CV-L-0441: the trays follow “the revised cable routing on drawing HBS-E-2104 rev D”. Leah can replay the check step by step; the cost column stays locked while the tests run.
“Valuation waits for entitlement” · “Waiting for entitlement — the cost is checked only after the four tests are answered.”
The Employer’s Requirements, Part 6, §6.4.2 on p. 214 already require “all cable trays, ladders, supports and fixings for the complete cable installation, including the 11 kV switchroom and the cable basement”, with 25% spare capacity. Bill item E-4.12, “Cable containment, complete — lump sum”, was priced at $1,118,400 in the tender, and tender clarification TQ-22 confirmed the spare capacity is in the lump sum. Anyone can run the same search on the Scope screen.
“Work the contract already describes is in the contract price unless an instruction changed it.”
Drawing HBS-E-2104 rev D was issued by Calder & Voss’s own design team on transmittal CV-T-0318, Aug 4, and Lumina’s requirements have not changed since award. Under Sub-Clause 4.1 the contractor is “responsible for the adequacy of the design and for its development”. The only instruction is site instruction SI-112 of Aug 12: “Rev D routing approved for construction — no change to the Contract Price”. Sub-Clause 13.1 is quoted beside it, word for word, with its page.
Scope checker: “Reports what the documents say; never decides entitlement.”
Calder & Voss became aware on Aug 4, the date of the rev D transmittal. Their notice letter CV-L-0441 is dated Sep 19 — 46 days later, against the 28 days of Sub-Clause 20.2.1, which fell on Sep 1. The notice ruler draws both. Beneath it, the run log shows every agent step with its time.
“A late notice is a further ground; the contractor may ask for it to be excused — that decision is yours.”
The cost column opens, marked for the record. The tray is claimed at $182 against $131 in Schedule of Rates E-4.12.3 (+39%), supports at $64 against $41, labour at $78 against $62 on dayworks DW-3, and the scaffold is already in preliminaries item P-14. The claimed 22% markup becomes the contract’s 10% all-in under Appendix C. At contract rates the claimed quantities are worth $402,380; at the field quantities — the tray installation log shows a net change of 140 m, not 1,860 m — they are worth $102,934. The subcontractor quote attached by Calder & Voss prices the tray at $118/m.
Rate and markup checker: “Never values a claim before entitlement is answered.”
The response writer has drafted the letter to Owen Pryce, Commercial Manager at Calder & Voss, test by test, quoting §6.4.2, Sub-Clauses 4.1, 13.1 and 20.2.1. The value at contract rates is attached for the record only, stating it does not admit any entitlement. Leah can edit anything, picks the meaning of her signature and signs and sends.
“Drafted by the Response writer · every clause quoted · edit anything before you sign”
HBS-CO-051, rock excavation in transformer bay T2, passes all four tests: borehole BH-07 showed stiff clay to 4.5 m, so the rock is unforeseeable ground under Sub-Clause 4.12, and notice came on day 6. Now the valuation unlocks: rock at the contract’s $112/m³ instead of $148, and 1,480 m³ on the as-dug survey. The recommendation is to negotiate at $210,012 of the $294,030 claimed.
“Entitled, but priced above the contract. Offer the contract value.”
The register shows the whole queue across four live contracts: $2,530,280 claimed, $891,166 recommended on the 9 checked, $1,152,383 held back and $486,731 waiting for particulars or the check. Filters pick out the claims not entitled, priced above the contract or notified after 28 days. WTW-CO-025, extended preliminaries at Westmere, is on day 38 of 42 and needs a request for particulars.
“11 open across 4 live contracts · $2,530,280 claimed · checked overnight, decided by you”
The audit re-check runs all 214 change orders approved from Oct 2025 to Sep 2026 back through the same tests. It finds markups not applied as the contract says on 61, extra charges on top of the markup on 38, work already in the contract paid again on 9 and quantities above the field records on 17 — $898,100 recoverable from 121 of them. 14 late notices were paid with no recorded decision. Recovery letters are drafted for 4 contractors and not sent.
“214 re-checked this year · 20 a manual sample would cover”
The same claim, seen by the four people who decide it, price it, co-sign it and audit it — what their month looked like, and what it looks like now.
Seven agents test entitlement first, then price each claim at the contract's own rates; the contract administrator decides.
Reads each change order request, its covering letter and quotes, and lists the claimed lines, quantities, rates, markups, the event and notice dates and the contractor’s stated reason, quoted word for word.
Finds the contract clauses that apply — variation, notice, design responsibility, risk, provisional sums — in the Conditions of Contract, appendices and tender clarifications, and quotes them word for word with their page.
Compares the claimed work with the Employer’s Requirements, the bill of quantities, the preliminaries, the drawing revisions and who issued them, and reports whether the work is already included.
Dates the event, the notice and the particulars, and measures them against the 28-day and 84-day limits and the 42-day response window.
Matches claimed quantities to daily reports, installation logs, as-dug surveys, weighbridge tickets and photos, and reports the field quantity and the gap.
Prices the quantities at the contract’s own rates, recalculates the markup as the contract says and flags extra charges, such as supervision or insurance, that the markup already covers.
Drafts the response or determination to the contractor — rejection, counter-offer, approval or request for particulars — citing every clause and record.
Decides and signs; co-sign over $250K. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Ask about any change order, clause, rate or notice — or say what to draft. Every answer points to its clause or record.
Why is the cable tray claim not a change?
Because the trays were always in the contract. Employer’s Requirements §6.4.2 requires “all cable trays, ladders, supports and fixings… including the 11 kV switchroom and the cable basement”, and bill item E-4.12 prices it at $1,118,400. Rev D was Calder & Voss’s own drawing, SI-112 said “no change to the Contract Price”, and notice came on day 46 of 28.
Which claims came after the 28-day notice limit?
Two: ETM-CO-029, upgraded pipe bedding — notice on day 63; it is the only ground left, so it needs your view and a legal opinion. And HBS-CO-047, cable trays — day 46, though it already fails on scope. Every other notice in your queue landed inside 28 days.
Where are markups above the contract’s 10%?
On four claims in your queue, $100,390 above the contract’s markup at the claimed quantities: HBS-CO-047 cable trays at 22% against 10% all-in ($62,952, for the record); ETM-CO-031 night traffic management, an $18,400 supervision lump sum on top of 10%; HBS-CO-049 feeder bays at 22% ($11,700); and HBS-CO-052 fire suppression at 22% ($7,338, check still running).
Draft the request for particulars on WTW-CO-025
Drafted. It asks Halden Process & Civil for the delay analysis on the accepted programme, the time-related costs behind the $41,200 a week for site staff, and the fully detailed claim due by Oct 26 under Sub-Clause 20.2.4. It goes out before day 42 (Oct 17). The draft is open for you to sign.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
The clocks, the markup rules, the tolerances and who signs what are settings, taken from each contract’s own conditions.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Notice of claim | 28 days | From when the contractor became aware · Sub-Clause 20.2.1 — set per contract from its Conditions of Contract |
| Fully detailed claim · response window | 84 days · 42 days | Sub-Clause 20.2.4 and the Engineer’s response under Sub-Clause 3.7.3 — set per contract |
| Warn the contract administrator at | Day 35 | Set as a day of the 42-day response window |
| Markup on variations | 10% all-in | Per contract — 12% all-in on Westmere; supervision, insurance and bonding are inside the markup |
| Rate tolerance | 5% | Per contract — a rate further above the contract rate is flagged |
| Co-signature | Above $250,000 | Head of Capital Delivery co-signs; the capital committee above $1,000,000 |
| Field record required | Above $10,000 | Any quantity worth more than this needs a field record behind it |
| Meaning of signature | I have reviewed the contract and decide as stated | I have reviewed the contract and decide as stated · I decide as stated, subject to legal review |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
“demo” = seen in the working solution, on its sample capital programme · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate (the working-days split; the results’ $1.3M = $420M programme × 8% change orders × 4% held back) · “typical” = published figures: City of Toronto Auditor General, change orders in capital projects (2026) — markups not per contract on 48%; South Florida Water Management District Inspector General (2024) — industry change-order norm 8–14% of contract value; City of Fort Worth Internal Audit (2022) — 17 of 18 added pay items with no documented pricing review. Contract clocks named as context: FIDIC 2017 Sub-Clauses 20.2.1 (28 days), 20.2.4 (84 days) and 3.7.3 (42 days). Lumina Utilities and the people, contractors, projects and records named on this page are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
Software that checks each contractor change order against the contract before it is paid. Construction Change Order Review tests entitlement first — is it a change, who carries the design or the risk, was it instructed, was notice in time — and only then prices the claim at the contract’s own rates and markup, matches the quantities to field records and drafts a cited response. The contract administrator decides and signs.
The claim reader lists the claimed lines, markups and dates. The clause finder, scope checker and notice clock answer the four entitlement tests, each with its clause quoted word for word. Then the field record matcher and the rate and markup checker price the claim at contract rates and field quantities, and the response writer drafts the letter.
Yes. It recalculates every markup the way the contract says and flags extra charges the markup already covers. In the sample queue, a claimed 15% overhead and profit plus 5% supervision plus 2% insurance and bonding is recalculated to the contract’s 10% all-in, and four claims carry $100,390 above the contract’s markup at the claimed quantities.
Yes. The audit re-check runs every approved change order back through the same tests — entitlement, contract rates, markup and field quantities. On the sample data it re-checked 214 approved change orders and found $898,100 recoverable from 121 of them, with recovery letters drafted and not sent.
No. The notice clock measures the notice against the 28-day limit and flags it late; it never declares a claim time-barred. The contract administrator decides, and can sign with the meaning “I decide as stated, subject to legal review”.
The clocks, markup rules and rate tolerances are set per contract from its own conditions. The sample programme mixes design-build EPC, design-build and construct-only remeasured contracts, with a 10% all-in markup on three and 12% on Westmere.
Yes. Agents read and draft; none can decide. Only the contract administrator rejects, negotiates, approves or requests particulars, with an electronic signature and its meaning recorded, and the Head of Capital Delivery co-signs above $250,000.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents — your contracts, schedules of rates, change order procedure and a sample of past change orders — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on your own change orders first.
Pay for the work done, at the contracted rate.
1-min demoTender Bid EvaluationEvery bid levelled to the same scope, so a hidden exclusion never wins the award.
1-min demoContract Obligation ManagementEvery penalty owed claimed inside its window, and no renewal missed.
1-min demoWe'll run Construction Change Order Review on a sample of your own approved change orders and the contracts behind them.