Overview
Draft contested construction change order claim narratives with entitlement analysis, causation arguments, and damages quantification for schedule delays, differing site conditions, constructive changes, cardinal changes, acceleration, and cumulative impact claims.
Standard change order forms are simple fill-in-the-blank documents. Contested change orders — involving schedule delays, differing site conditions, design deficiencies, or disputed scope — require a structured legal claim narrative with entitlement analysis, causation proof, and damages quantification. This skill produces complete claim narratives — typically 20–60 pages — covering seven claim types, with recognized damages methodologies (measured mile, Eichleay formula, modified total cost), CPM schedule analysis, and CDA certification for federal contracts.
Getting Started
Add your source materials to the project workspace — contract documents, change order logs, daily reports, CPM schedules, cost records, RFIs, correspondence, and photos — then activate the Construction Change Order Claim Narrative skill. The agent will identify the claim type, gather facts, and build the narrative with entitlement, causation, and quantum sections.
Example Conversation
Below is an example of how a typical claim drafting session unfolds. The agent collects claim facts, identifies the legal basis, and iteratively builds and validates the narrative.
You: We hit unexpected rock during foundation excavation on the Riverside Hospital project. The geotechnical report in the contract documents showed clay and sand to 30 feet, but we encountered solid limestone at 12 feet across the entire building footprint. We’ve been using rock hammers for 3 weeks and are way behind schedule.
Agent: This is a classic Differing Site Conditions claim — likely Type I (actual conditions differ from contract document representations). Let me gather the details:
- What contract form is this? (AIA, FAR/government, ConsensusDocs, custom?)
- What is the geotechnical report reference — drawing number, spec section, or appendix?
- Did you send written notice of the differing condition? If so, when and to whom?
- What is the changes clause number in your contract?
- What are your additional costs so far — rock hammer rental, additional labor, blasting if any?
- How many days of critical path delay has this caused?
You: AIA A201/A401. The geotech report is Appendix G to the project manual — specifically boring logs B-1 through B-12 showing “stiff clay with sand lenses” to 35 feet. We sent written notice to the architect and owner within 48 hours of hitting rock, on March 3. Changes clause is A201 section 3.7.4. We’ve spent $340K extra so far on rock excavation. The critical path is delayed 18 working days.
Agent: Strong claim position. Here’s my analysis:
Entitlement (Type I DSC):
- Contract representation: Appendix G boring logs B-1 through B-12 specifically depicted “stiff clay with sand lenses” to 35 feet — this is an affirmative representation of subsurface conditions
- Actual conditions: solid limestone at 12 feet across the entire building footprint — materially different
- Reasonable reliance: you bid based on the boring logs provided in the contract documents
- Timely notice: 48-hour written notice on March 3 — well within typical contractual notice periods
- AIA A201 § 3.7.4 provides the contractual basis for the claim
Causation:
- But-for the limestone, you would have excavated clay as planned — no additional cost or delay
- The delay is on the critical path (foundation excavation is a predecessor to all structural work)
Quantum (preliminary):
- Direct costs: $340K (rock excavation equipment, labor, disposal)
- Indirect costs: 18 days × daily general conditions rate (I’ll need your daily rate)
- Home office overhead: applicable if you can demonstrate standby
- Markup per contract terms
Let me run the claim narrative checker on the structure… 1 error and 1 warning:
- [ERROR] Quantum: Missing indirect costs for delay claim. Extended general conditions and home office overhead must be separately calculated.
- [WARNING] No supporting documents referenced yet.
What is your daily general conditions rate, and can you provide a list of the supporting documents you have available?
You: Daily GC rate is $4,200. We have daily excavation logs, photos of the rock face, the original boring logs, our notice letter, the architect’s response, and our cost breakdown.
Agent: I’ve completed the quantum:
Category Amount Direct costs (rock excavation) $340,000 Extended general conditions (18 days × $4,200) $75,600 Home office overhead (Emden formula, private contract) $28,400 Markup (10% per contract) $44,400 Total claimed $488,400 Time extension requested 18 working days The narrative is saved to
output/change-order-claim-riverside-hospital-differing-site-conditions.mdwith a supporting document index referencing all 6 exhibits. I’ve included a reservation of rights clause for ongoing impacts not yet quantified.
Sample Output Excerpt
Below is a representative excerpt from a generated claim narrative, showing the Entitlement Analysis and Damages Quantification sections.
III. Entitlement Analysis — Differing Site Conditions (Type I)
A. Contract Representation
The Contract Documents include a geotechnical investigation report (Appendix G to the Project Manual), prepared by Geo-Associates, Inc., dated September 15, 2024, containing twelve (12) soil boring logs (B-1 through B-12) taken across the building footprint. Boring logs B-1 through B-12 uniformly describe subsurface conditions as “stiff clay with sand lenses” extending from the surface to depths of 30–35 feet below existing grade. No rock, limestone, or refusal was indicated at any boring location at the planned excavation depth of 18 feet.
This geotechnical report constitutes an affirmative representation of subsurface conditions within the meaning of AIA A201 § 3.7.4 and the Spearin doctrine (United States v. Spearin, 248 U.S. 132 (1918)).
B. Actual Conditions Encountered
On March 1, 2025, during mass excavation for Building A foundations, Contractor encountered solid limestone bedrock at a depth of approximately 12 feet below existing grade — 18 feet shallower than the clay-to-35-feet profile depicted in the boring logs. The limestone formation extends continuously across the entire Building A footprint (approximately 22,000 square feet), as documented in daily excavation logs dated March 1–21, 2025 and photographic evidence (Exhibits 3 through 7).
C. Material Difference
The difference between the represented conditions (clay to 35 feet) and the actual conditions (limestone at 12 feet) is material by any measure. The limestone required hydraulic rock hammers, modified excavation sequencing, specialized disposal, and extended duration — none of which was foreseeable from the contract documents.
D. Reasonable Reliance
Contractor relied on the boring logs in preparing its bid. Contractor’s estimator priced excavation based on clay removal rates, standard bucket excavation equipment, and the soil profiles depicted in the boring logs. Contractor had no independent obligation to conduct its own subsurface investigation — the contract documents included a specific geotechnical report for bidders’ use.
E. Timely Notice
Contractor provided written notice of the differing site condition to Owner and Architect on March 3, 2025 — within 48 hours of first encountering the limestone — in compliance with AIA A201 § 3.7.4. Contractor preserved the condition for inspection by the Architect, who visited the site on March 5, 2025 and confirmed the limestone formation.
V. Damages Quantification
A. Direct Costs
| Item | Description | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| Rock hammer rental | CAT H180 hydraulic breaker, 18 working days | $86,400 |
| Additional labor | 4-person crew premium, 18 days × $3,800/day | $68,400 |
| Rock hauling and disposal | 2,400 CY limestone at $52/CY | $124,800 |
| Equipment mobilization | Hammer delivery, rigging, demobilization | $18,200 |
| Small tools and consumables | Breaker points, fuel, wear items | $42,200 |
| Direct costs subtotal | $340,000 |
B. Extended General Conditions (Field Overhead)
The 18-working-day critical path delay required continuous site supervision, temporary facility maintenance, and project management during the delay period:
| Item | Daily Rate | Days | Amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| Site superintendent | $1,400 | 18 | $25,200 |
| Project manager (allocated) | $900 | 18 | $16,200 |
| Site trailer and temporary utilities | $280 | 18 | $5,040 |
| Insurance and bonds (daily allocation) | $620 | 18 | $11,160 |
| Temporary facilities and security | $1,000 | 18 | $18,000 |
| Extended GC subtotal | $75,600 |
C. Home Office Overhead
Calculated using the Emden formula (private contract):
(Home office overhead % + profit %) / 100 × (Contract sum / Contract period) × Delay period
(8.2% + 0%) / 100 × ($4,850,000 / 280 days) × 18 days = $28,400
Note: Profit is excluded from the Emden calculation and claimed separately under markup. The 8.2% home office overhead rate is based on Contractor’s audited financial statements for fiscal year 2024.
D. Summary
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Direct costs | $340,000 |
| Extended general conditions (field overhead) | $75,600 |
| Home office overhead (Emden) | $28,400 |
| Markup (10% on direct + field overhead per Contract § 7.3.6) | $41,560 |
| Total claimed | $485,560 |
| Time extension requested | 18 working days |
Built-in Validation
The skill includes a claim_narrative_checker tool that validates the claim structure against all required legal elements before the narrative is drafted. The agent runs it automatically after building the claim JSON structure and surfaces gaps so you can address them before finalizing.
What the validator checks
| Check Category | What It Validates | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| Claim type | Recognized construction claim category (delay, DSC, constructive change, cardinal change, acceleration, design error, cumulative impact) | ERROR if missing; WARNING if unrecognized |
| Contract background | Parties, scope, key contract provisions | ERROR if missing |
| Factual narrative | Chronological events with dates and document references | ERROR if missing |
| Entitlement: contract clause | Specific contract clause citation for the claim | ERROR if missing |
| Entitlement: notice compliance | Analysis of whether timely notice was provided | ERROR if missing |
| Entitlement: legal basis | Explicit legal basis statement | WARNING if missing |
| Causation: method | But-for analysis linking change to damages | ERROR if missing |
| Causation: schedule impact | CPM critical path analysis (delay and acceleration claims) | ERROR if missing on delay/acceleration |
| Causation: quantum of change | Magnitude and nature analysis (cardinal change claims) | WARNING if missing on cardinal change |
| Quantum: direct costs | Labor, material, equipment breakdown | ERROR if missing |
| Quantum: indirect costs | Extended general conditions + home office overhead | ERROR if missing on delay/acceleration claims |
| Quantum: markup | Profit/overhead per contract terms | WARNING if missing |
| Quantum: total claimed | Specific dollar amount | ERROR if missing |
| Supporting documents | RFIs, daily logs, correspondence, photos, schedules | WARNING if none referenced |
| Relief requested | Dollar amount and/or time extension | ERROR if missing |
Example validation output
========================================================================
Change Order Claim Narrative — Completeness Check
========================================================================
--- Errors (must fix) ---
[ERROR] Quantum: Missing indirect costs for delay/acceleration claim.
Extended general conditions (site overhead) and home office overhead
must be separately calculated and documented.
[ERROR] Entitlement: Missing notice compliance analysis (was timely
notice given?).
--- Warnings (recommended) ---
[WARNING] Cardinal change claim detected but no quantum_of_change
analysis found in quantum section. Document the magnitude and nature
of the scope change (multi-factor test: value, work type,
contractor's contemplation at bid).
[WARNING] No supporting documents referenced. Claims should cite
RFIs, daily logs, correspondence, photos, schedules.
========================================================================
The agent runs validation after each major section is added and surfaces findings inline, ensuring all legal elements — entitlement, causation, and quantum — are complete before the narrative goes to counsel review.