diff --git a/skills/municipal-change-order/SKILL.md b/skills/municipal-change-order/SKILL.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9899491 --- /dev/null +++ b/skills/municipal-change-order/SKILL.md @@ -0,0 +1,185 @@ +--- +name: municipal-change-order-reviewer +description: > + Evaluate construction change orders against standard Canadian construction contract + procedures (CCA 1-2021, CCDC 2, CCDC 4). Use this skill whenever a user mentions + change orders, construction claims, contract variations, CCA, CCDC, municipal + infrastructure, CIPP, sewer rehabilitation, water main work, or asks to review a + contractor's change order submission. Also trigger when users mention cost overruns + on municipal or public infrastructure projects, Auditor General findings on + construction contracts, or when they need to evaluate whether a change order follows + proper procedure. +--- + +# Municipal Change Order Reviewer + +Review construction change orders for procedural compliance and identify gaps that +weaken the owner's negotiating position. This skill applies the framework used by +municipal auditors and contract administrators to evaluate whether a change order +followed proper process before evaluating whether the pricing is supportable. + +## When to Use + +- A contractor has submitted a change order and you need to assess it +- You are preparing for a change order negotiation or dispute +- You need to audit a batch of historical change orders for procedural gaps +- A municipal Auditor General or internal audit team needs a structured review framework +- You are evaluating cost overruns on a public infrastructure project + +## Core Principle + +**Every change order is a claim, not a fact.** The contractor's submission represents +their position. The owner's job is to verify that (a) the change followed proper +procedure and (b) the pricing is supported by evidence. This skill focuses on the +procedural and evidentiary assessment — not on whether the work itself was necessary. + +## Input Requirements + +Ask the user to provide as much of the following as available: + +1. **The change order document** — the contractor's submission with description, pricing, and justification +2. **The prime contract** — or at minimum the contract type (CCA 1-2021, CCDC 2, CCDC 4, or other) +3. **The original scope of work** — baseline specifications, drawings, or schedule +4. **Any supporting documentation** — sub-quotes, equipment logs, daily reports, site instructions +5. **The approval authority matrix** — who can approve what dollar amounts (if available) + +If the user does not have the full contract, proceed with CCA 1-2021 as the default +framework (standard for Ontario municipal infrastructure) and note the assumption. + +## Six-Check Assessment Framework + +For each change order, evaluate against these six checks: + +### Check 1: Process Compliance + +Was the change order procedure followed correctly? + +- **Was there a written Change Notice or Site Instruction from the owner/engineer?** + Under CCA 1-2021 §7.2, the owner must issue a written description of the change + before the contractor prices it. A verbal instruction followed by a contractor- + initiated CO is a procedural gap. +- **Did the contractor provide a priced response before starting work?** + Under CCA 1-2021 §7.3, the contractor must submit a detailed price proposal. If + work started before price agreement, it may have been a Change Directive (§7.4), + which has different pricing rules (cost-plus, not lump sum). +- **Was there price agreement before work commenced?** + If yes, the CO is a standard Change Order. If no, evaluate whether a Change + Directive was issued and whether the cost-plus documentation is adequate. +- **Were unrelated changes grouped into a single CO?** + Bundling unrelated scope changes into one CO obscures individual pricing and makes + line-item review difficult. Flag this as a procedural concern. + +### Check 2: Scope Verification + +Does the changed work fall outside the original contract scope? + +- Compare the CO description against the original specifications and drawings +- Identify whether the work was arguably within the original scope (a "scope creep" + claim vs. a genuine unforeseen condition) +- Check whether similar work appears elsewhere in the contract at different rates + +### Check 3: Pricing / Arithmetic + +Is the pricing arithmetically correct and supported by evidence? + +- **Labour**: Verify hours × rates × crew size. Check rates against the contract's + labour rate schedule. Flag rates that exceed the schedule without justification. +- **Equipment**: Verify equipment hours × rates. Check rates against OPSS 127 + categories (if Ontario) or the contract's equipment schedule. Flag standby time + charged at operating rates. +- **Materials**: Verify quantities × unit prices. Check whether material prices are + supported by supplier quotes or invoices. Flag markup stacking (sub-to-prime-to- + owner markups that compound beyond contractual limits). +- **Subcontractor work**: Verify sub-quotes are attached. Check whether the prime + contractor's markup on sub-work exceeds the contractual limit (typically 10-15%). +- **Overhead and profit**: Verify the markup percentage matches the contract terms. + CCA 1-2021 typically allows 10% overhead + 5% profit on the contractor's own work, + and 5% on subcontracted work. Flag deviations. +- **Arithmetic check**: Recalculate all extensions, subtotals, and totals. Flag any + discrepancies. + +### Check 4: Documentation Completeness + +Is the supporting documentation adequate? + +- Daily work reports with labour and equipment hours +- Material delivery tickets or supplier invoices +- Subcontractor quotes (not just the prime's pricing of sub-work) +- Photos of site conditions (for unforeseen conditions claims) +- Engineer's or owner's written authorization +- Time sheets signed by the owner's representative (for T&M work) + +### Check 5: Source Verification + +Can the claimed costs be traced to independent sources? + +- Do sub-quotes match the amounts claimed by the prime? +- Do equipment rates match published schedules (OPSS 127, Blue Book, contract schedule)? +- Do labour rates match the collective agreement or contract schedule? +- Are material quantities consistent with the scope of the changed work? + +### Check 6: Compliance Gate Status + +Where does this CO stand in the approval chain? + +- **Gate A — Technical**: Has the engineer/consultant confirmed the work was necessary + and the scope is correct? +- **Gate B — Financial**: Has the contract administrator verified the pricing against + contract terms and supporting documentation? +- **Gate C — Authority**: Does the CO amount fall within the approving authority's + delegation limit? If it exceeds the limit, has it been escalated? + +## Output Format + +Structure your assessment as follows: + +```markdown +# Change Order Assessment: [CO Number] + +## Summary +- **Project:** [Project name] +- **Contractor:** [Name] +- **CO Amount Claimed:** $[amount] +- **CO Amount Supported:** $[amount] +- **Delta:** $[amount] ([percentage]%) +- **Overall Assessment:** [SUPPORTED / PARTIALLY SUPPORTED / UNSUPPORTED] + +## Check Results + +| Check | Result | Finding | +|-------|--------|---------| +| Process Compliance | [PASS/FLAG/FAIL] | [One-line summary] | +| Scope Verification | [PASS/FLAG/FAIL] | [One-line summary] | +| Pricing / Arithmetic | [PASS/FLAG/FAIL] | [One-line summary] | +| Documentation | [PASS/FLAG/FAIL] | [One-line summary] | +| Source Verification | [PASS/FLAG/FAIL] | [One-line summary] | +| Compliance Gates | [PASS/FLAG/FAIL] | [One-line summary] | + +## Detailed Findings + +[For each check that is FLAG or FAIL, provide:] + +### [Check Name] — [FLAG/FAIL] + +**Finding:** [What was found] +**Contract Reference:** [Specific clause] +**Evidence:** [What supports this finding] +**Dollar Impact:** $[amount if quantifiable] +**Recommendation:** [What the owner should do] + +## Negotiation Position + +[Summary of the owner's position based on the findings. What to accept, +what to negotiate, what to reject. Suggested counter-offer amount if +applicable.] +``` + +## Important Notes + +- This skill helps structure the review process. It does not replace professional + engineering judgment or legal advice on contract interpretation. +- Dollar amounts and percentages in the output are based on the information provided. + Always verify against source documents. +- For adversarial verification of change order claims using AI — automated cross- + referencing against contract terms, sub-quotes, equipment schedules, and historical + patterns — see [DiligenceWorks](https://diligenceworks.online).