When a Review Comment Is a Change Order

The panel package comes back Approved as Noted. Comment 9 says "provide redundant power supplies with diode OR-ing module." The spec never mentioned redundancy. The one-line shows one supply. But the stamp says approved, the comment is in the engineer's handwriting, and the panel shop needs to keep moving, so someone adds the second supply and the module and the extra DIN rail and nobody prices it. Multiply by a dozen comments across a job and the margin that leaks is real money, spent on work the contract never bought.

The fix is a habit, applied to every comment on every return: ask whether it corrects the package or changes the contract.

Comments that add scope

Most comments are corrections. The datasheet is unmarked, the wire numbers are missing, the enclosure rating is wrong against Part 2. You comply and move on; that obligation is covered in what Approved as Noted actually requires.

A minority ask for something the contract documents do not contain. They tend to look like these:

• A feature with no paragraph behind it. Redundant supplies, an extra communication port, a larger HMI, a UPS, a second Ethernet switch. If neither the section's Part 2 nor the drawings call for it, the comment is a design change.
• A higher grade than specified. Stainless where the spec allows painted steel, a ten-year warranty where the spec says manufacturer's standard, NEMA 4X where the drawings show an indoor NEMA 12 panel.
• Coordination you were not scoped for. Interfacing to a package system another contractor supplies, adding I/O for equipment not on the I/O list, terminating the generator control that Division 26 owns.
• Work reaching outside the submittal. A comment on the panel drawings that requires a conduit rerouted, a field instrument relocated, or another trade's drawing changed.
• A quantity change. "Provide spare I/O of 25 percent" when the spec said 20, or a spare parts list the spec located in a different section with different quantities.

Each of these may be a perfectly reasonable engineering request. Reasonable is not the test.

The test: is it in the contract documents

The contract documents are the agreement, the conditions, the drawings, the specifications, addenda, and modifications. A reviewer's comment is none of those. The standard general conditions say so twice. The architect's or engineer's review of a submittal is for the limited purpose of checking conformance with the information given and the design concept expressed in the contract documents. And a change to the contract sum or time can be made only by a change order, a construction change directive, or a written order for a minor change that carries no cost or time. A stamped comment is not on that list.

So the question for every scope-shaped comment is: can I point to the paragraph or the drawing that already requires this? If yes, it's a correction, and you missed it at bid time; comply. If no, it's a change, whatever the stamp says.

The engineer will sometimes cite the "reasonably inferable" clause: the contractor performs work reasonably inferable from the documents as necessary to produce the indicated results. That clause covers the mounting hardware nobody drew, not a second power supply. If the item changes what the panel does, what it costs to build, or what another trade must do, it is not inferable; it is a design decision the documents did not make.

Two of my own spec books say what to do when the answer is no, in almost the same words: if the contractor considers any correction indicated on the drawings to constitute a change to the contract documents, the contractor shall give written notice thereof to the engineer. That sentence puts the burden on you. Silence is agreement, and agreement at your cost.

Stop before building

The order of operations matters more than anything else in this article. Notice first, build second. The general conditions give a claim notice window, twenty-one days in the standard form and thirty in another common one, and a spec's silence on the point does not extend it. Work performed before notice is work you have volunteered.

Practically, on the day the return comes in:

1. Walk every comment and sort it: correction, clarification, or possible change. This is the same pass that builds the comment response log.
2. For each possible change, hold that item. Not the whole package; the item. The panel shop can keep wiring while the redundant supply question is open, as long as the layout leaves room.
3. Write the notice within the window, on the response log row and by letter or the project's RFI channel.

The response log row for such a comment reads "disputed" or "pending," with the paragraph reference and a sentence saying the item is not in the contract documents and a change proposal follows. That row, printed in the resubmittal, is written notice on the record.

The RFI that confirms it

An RFI is the cleanest way to get the engineer to say, in writing, which it is. The question is short: comment 9 on submittal 40 61 13-002 Rev 0 requests redundant power supplies; section 40 61 13 paragraph 2.06 specifies a single 24 VDC supply and drawing E-4 shows one; please confirm whether the comment is a design change to be priced or withdraw it. Attach the marked-up return. Propose the answer you expect.

Three outcomes, all better than silence:

• The engineer withdraws the comment. Common. The comment was a preference, and asked to put a number on it the owner declines.
• The engineer confirms the change. Now you have the written direction that supports a change order, and you can price it against an answer instead of a margin note.
• The engineer cites a paragraph you missed. Then it was a correction after all, and you learned it for one RFI instead of at closeout.

The judgment of when a question beats an interpretation is in submittal versus RFI. Here the judgment is easy: a comment that costs money and cannot be traced to a paragraph always gets the question.

Pricing and schedule impact

Price the whole ripple, not the part. A second power supply is a part number. The change is the part, the OR-ing module, the DIN rail and wire, the drawing revision across three sheets, the added terminals, the resubmittal cycle if the engineer wants to see the revised layout, and the days the panel waited for the answer. Every one of those belongs on the change proposal, itemized, because the reviewer who asked for "just a second supply" is the same person who will review the price.

Schedule is part of the price. If the hold pushed fabrication, say so with dates: comment received on such date, RFI issued on such date, answer received on such date, fabrication resumed. A time impact claimed a month later, without that trail, is a time impact you will not get.

Submit the proposal through the project's change process, a proposed change order or change proposal in most books, and keep building on the original scope until it is authorized. The general conditions are explicit that work proceeds on the contract documents as they are until a modification is signed; the one exception is a construction change directive, which the owner can issue unilaterally and which obligates you to proceed while the price is settled.

Logging the change order against the revision

When the change is approved, close the loop in the record:

• The response log row moves from "disputed" to "complied per CO-007," so the next reviewer sees the comment was honored and how.
• The resubmittal shows the change, clouded, with the revision block citing the change order. The revised sheets are the shop drawings for the changed work, and they carry the same approval weight as the original.
• The change order log entry cites the submittal number, the revision, the comment number, and the RFI. Two years from now, the question "why does this panel have two supplies" resolves in one lookup from any of the four records.
• The change flows to the equipment list, the O&M manual, and the as-builts, which will be wrong if it only lives in the change order.

A change order that cannot be traced back to the review comment that caused it is a change order someone will eventually dispute. Tie them together the day it is approved.

One example

A panel package for a water plant returns Approved as Noted with fourteen comments. Twelve are corrections. Two are not:

Comment 12 cost one sentence. Comment 9 cost one RFI and a change proposal and was paid for. Without the paragraph check, both would have been absorbed, and only the first would ever have been noticed.

Disclosure: I build Submittal Kit, which keeps the change order log, the RFI log, and the submittal's comment responses on one project so a comment can be traced to the RFI that questioned it and the change order that paid for it. The habit of asking "which paragraph" is the part that saves the margin, and it works on paper.