Add skills/municipal-change-order/SKILL.md

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).