Stay Plugged In With Canon
Latest News & Updates

Change orders are a normal part of any construction project, but their impact on budget and schedule can be outsized if not properly managed. The first step toward preventing disputes is to establish a formal process for identifying and recording changes the moment they arise. Responsibilities should be clear: who can propose a change, who evaluates it, who authorizes it, and how the information will be archived. This framework supports prompt decision-making and creates an auditable trail. Teams that codify these steps reduce ambiguity and provide a reliable reference if questions surface later. Moreover, integrating digital tools that timestamp submissions and approvals helps ensure accountability across all stakeholders.

A robust change-order system begins with a well-defined scope and a precise description of the contemplated modification. Vague language opens the door to misinterpretation and financial contention. Each change order should specify the affected drawings or specifications, quantify the change, identify any resulting schedule impact, and attach supporting documentation such as sketches, shop drawings, or supplier quotes. By documenting the exact nature of the modification, project teams minimize the risk that owners, designers, or contractors disagree about what was agreed to. Clear scoping also facilitates unit-price or lump-sum assessment, enabling faster financial reconciliation when the work is completed.

Documentation should capture all cost implications associated with a change, including labor, materials, equipment, and any overhead or markup. It’s essential to separate direct costs from indirect costs and to explain how those costs were calculated. For example, if a change alters sequencing, document the impact on crew productivity, material waste, and subcontractor coordination. A transparent, itemized cost breakdown helps prevent disputes about entitlement and reasonableness. It also assists owners in understanding how the change affects the project’s overall budget. When the justification is detailed and logical, stakeholders can reach consensus more quickly, reducing the likelihood of escalation.

Timelines are equally critical. Each change order should include a precise schedule impact, detailing new completion dates, milestones, and any required lead times for procurement or fabrication. If acceleration or delay is anticipated, the document should explain the reasons and justify adjustments to the project plan. Delay claims often hinge on whether the contractor provided timely notice and whether the owner approved the change promptly. By tying the schedule to performance criteria and deliverables, teams create a clear linkage between the modification and its effect on the project’s critical path. Regularly revisiting these dates helps keep everyone aligned.

Notice provisions are powerful tools for risk management. A change order should be issued immediately after a decision to modify the scope is made, with a clear description of the change and its implications. Ensure all parties receive the notice through a traceable channel, whether a project management platform or a documented email thread. Timely notice is not just courteous; it triggers the entitlement to adjustments and prevents later challenges about when changes were recognized. The notice should invite timely review and response, with a defined deadline for approvals. This discipline minimizes the chance that critical information leaks or is forgotten amid competing project priorities.

Approvals must be formal and retrievable. Relying on verbal consent or handwritten annotations scattered across papers invites confusion when project records are audited. The preferred practice is to use standardized change-order forms that require signatures from authorized representatives of each party. Digital signatures can expedite processing while preserving legal enforceability. Each approval should reference the specific change order number, the agreed scope, costs, and schedule changes. An organized approval workflow reduces the risk of back-and-forth disputes and supports efficient financial reporting and progress tracking throughout the project lifecycle.

Documentation should also include a complete set of supporting documents. This includes updated drawings, revised specifications, updated material lists, and any correspondence that corroborates the change. The goal is to assemble a coherent bundle that demonstrates why the change was necessary, who authorized it, and how the decision was reached. When contractors or subcontractors provide quotes, ensure they reflect the requested scope and are tied to the same change-order number. Keeping everything in one accessible repository makes it easier for owners, lenders, and auditors to verify that the change was legitimate, properly valued, and timely executed.

Contractors benefit from retaining contemporaneous records of labor hours, equipment usage, and on-site conditions related to the change. Timekeeping entries should distinguish work performed under the original contract from work added by the change order. This separation clarifies entitlement and helps prevent disputes about who bears the additional costs. In addition, capturing on-site photos or video demonstrating the change’s impact on existing structures or systems provides objective evidence that can be referenced during negotiations or dispute resolution proceedings. A disciplined approach to recordkeeping builds credibility and reduces the chance of costly arguments later.

Communication is a cornerstone of effective change-order management. Maintain a clear thread of conversations linking the initial request, the evaluation, the approval, and the completed work. Where possible, convert verbal discussions into written confirmations that summarize the consensus and decision rationale. This practice creates an unbroken narrative that can be reviewed by project managers, owners, and auditors. It also helps prevent “he said, she said” disputes by preserving concrete evidence of what was proposed, accepted, and executed. Over time, this documentation supports a constructive dialogue rather than a confrontation over misinterpretation.

Collaboration among design professionals, general contractors, and specialty subcontractors is essential. Inadequate involvement of trade partners in the change-order process can lead to misalignment and later remedies that are expensive and time-consuming. Invite early input from all affected parties, share revised drawings promptly, and document consensus points and dissenting opinions with timestamps. This inclusive approach enhances buy-in, reduces resistance, and fosters a cooperative environment focused on delivering the project’s objectives. When teams collaboratively govern changes, it’s easier to administer equitable cost allocations and schedule adjustments.

For owner-initiated changes, align expectations at the outset and maintain a transparent dialogue about the business case for the modification. Owners should provide a concise justification, outline desired outcomes, and acknowledge any facility or operating-impacts. The change-order documentation should reflect this context so the contractor can assess feasibility and risk accurately. Clear ownership of decisions helps prevent later claims that changes were imposed without proper consideration. A thorough, well-communicated rationale underpins cooperative problem-solving and supports steady progress toward completion without unnecessary disputes.

Finally, integrate a continuous improvement mindset into your change-order process. After each significant alteration, conduct a short, structured review to capture lessons learned. Assess what worked well, what caused friction, and how to streamline approvals, cost verification, and scheduling for the next change. Document enhancements to templates, workflows, and communication protocols so future projects benefit from accumulated wisdom. By institutionalizing feedback loops, teams enhance predictability, reduce risk, and sustain a proactive culture that minimizes both cost overruns and delay claims over the project’s life cycle.