INDEX:
Click on a topic to see the information!

When most people think of changes, they think of the owner adding something to the contract or modifying some contract requirement. Changes also can be used to deduct work from a contract. Two primary issues arise when an owner decides to deduct work from a contract: (1) Should the deduction be accomplished by a change order or by a partial termination and (2) how is the deduction priced?

Some contracts contain a termination for conveyance clause that allows the owner to terminate a portion of the work for convenience. If such clause exists alongside a typical changes clause, an owner that wants to delete work must decide whether to use a deductive change order or a partial termination for convenience. No standards or prerequisites exist for choosing one method over the other, but too broad considerations can assist in making the choice.

The first consideration is whether the deletion is major or minor. If the deletion is major, it probably should be accomplished by a partial termination for convenience. If the deletion is minor, it probably should be accomplished by a change order. (J. W. Bateson Co. v. United States, 308 F.2d 510 (5th Cir. 1962)).

The second consideration is whether the other work will be substituted for the deleted work. If it will be, a change order accomplishing both the deletion of the original work and the addition of the substitute work probably would be the most appropriate mechanism. If work is to be deleted only and no other work is to be added as a substitute, a partial termination for convenience of the deleted work would probably be the most appropriate mechanism. (Frederick Construction Co., ASBCA Nos. 12108, 12241, 68-1 BCA 6832; Manis Drilling, IBCA No. 2658, 93-3 BCA 25, 931). This last consideration is more in the nature of a traditional change, and probably should not even be considered as a "deletion" of work.

Two primary methods exist for pricing the value of deleted work. The simplest method is where the deleted work is a separate contract line item. In that situation, the line item and the line item price are simply deleted. The price of the deletion is the line item price. (See Eugene Iovine, Inc., PSBCA 2867, 92-2 BCA 25, 013).

Although simple, that method can be contentious if the contractor has loaded overhead or other indirect costs into that contract line item price. The contractor may have anticipated that the work would be performed and paid early or perhaps expected the quantity of work under that line item to increase significantly. Unfortunately for the contractor, if a line item price or separate price exists for the deleted work, that price is the proper price to be used for calculating the value of the deleted work. (See Oneida Constr., Inc./David Boland, Inc., Joint Venture, ASBCA 47914, 95-1 BCAN 27, 363).

The more difficult method for pricing deleted work is where no separate contract line item price exists for the deleted work and instead the deleted work is an unseverable and integral part of the overall project. Examples might include a deletion that would reduce the height of a wall, eliminate a coat of paint, or decrease the depth of paving. In such a situation, the price for the deletion is the actual cost saved by the contractor or conversely, the cost of the deleted work that will not be performed. The difficulty is in determining the actual cost, with the owner and the contractor having significantly different opinions about the actual cost saved by the deletion.

If a dispute arises about the actual cost of deleted work, an owner many times will want to see the amount that the contractor had in its bid for performing the deleted work and for any number of reasons, the contractor will be extremely reluctant to allow the owner to see its bid documents. To resolve such an impasse, many contracts now require that the documents generated by the contractor in the process of preparing its bid be placed in escrow and be available through escrow when a dispute arises about the price that a contractor included in its bid for a particular item of work.

California, New York, and perhaps other states do not allow an owner to delete work and then have that work performed later by another contractor. If an owner does, the original contractor is entitled to recover its profit on the deleted work. (See Hensler v. City of Los Angeles (1954), 124 Cal. App.2d71, 268 F.2d12). In those states, if a private or public owner deletes work, the deletion has to be for the benefit of the project, that is, the owner has decided that it prefers the project without the deleted work. The owner cannot delete the work because it wants another contractor to perform the deleted work or it has encountered some difficulty that may make the deleted work more expensive and would prefer to have the deleted work performed at a later date when the difficulty is resolved. If it does, it may be liable to the contractor for the profit the contractor would have made on the deleted work. (Id.)

4. THE REQUIREMENT FOR WRITTEN CHANGE ORDERS

All construction contracts require that change orders be in writing. A contractor that ignores that requirement does so at its peril but paradoxically, an owner that refuses to pay a contractor for a change solely because no written change order was issued also does so at its peril.

A contractor that ignores a written change order requirement may find itself before a judge or arbitrator that believes in the strict enforcement of contract requirements, especially if the contract is a public contract with a state or local public agency. Such judges and arbitrators are not swayed by pleas that it is unfair and inequitable to have the contractor perform work and invest its time and money at the public agency's direction and not be paid for the benefit it bestowed upon the public entity simply because the formal prerequisite of a written change order was not satisfied. Those judges and arbitrators feel it is just as unfair and inequitable for the contractor to receive public money without fully complying with the requirements to receive that money.

Paradoxically, an owner that refuses to pay for changed work solely because no written change order was issued may find itself before a judge or arbitrator that feels it is unfair and inequitable to deny payment to a contractor solely because the owner failed in its duty to issue a change order for work it directed the contractor to perform. The safest course for both the owner and the contractor is to comply with all contract requirements for written change orders. The owner can comply simply by issuing the specified written change order. If an owner fails to issue the specified written change order, the contractor should send repeated written requests for the change order and provide notices to the owner that contain all of the elements necessary for the owner to issue a written change order.

5. VERBAL CHANGE ORDERS

Verbal change orders or changes directed verbally can be an extremely vexing problem for both owners and contractors, especially on state and local public projects where adherence to contract administrative requirements is more strictly enforced and where issues of authority by representatives of the public owner are more pronounced. Three primary issues arise with verbal changes: (1) Did the person that verbally directed the change have the authority to issue a change, (2) was a verbal change actually directed, and (3) what were the exact requirements of the verbal change?

Federal contracts specifically anticipate the situation where the federal government makes a change through some method other than a written change order. Most federal contracts contain a constructive change clause that define a constructive change as: "Any written or oral . . . direction, instruction, interpretation, or determination [other than an actual change order] . . . that causes a change . . . [provided the contractor gives notice] that the contractor regards the order as a change order." (FAR 52.243-4(b) (1987)). Although this type of constructive changes clause is rarely found outside federal contracts, the procedure specified by that clause is a good procedure for any contractor faced with verbal changes or other actions by the owner or one of its representatives that constitute changes to the contract.

Under that procedure, the contractor should promptly give notice stating the date, circumstances, and source of the verbal order and that the contractor regards the order as a change. If possible, the contractor if possible should include in the notice an estimate as precise as possible of the time and cost impact of the verbal change.

This is more of a practical issue than a legal issue. Owners should never require the signature of the contractor as a prerequisite to the effectiveness of a change order. Such a requirement gives the contractor control of the change order process and the veto power over changes.

The owner wants the sole and exclusive right to make changes to its project. It does not want to grant a contractor a veto right over those changes. In its construction contracts, an owner should always include the requirement that all changes be in writing, but it should never require the contractor's signature as a prerequisite to the effectiveness of the change order.

The change order should be effective upon signature by the owner and delivery to the contractor. The contract should allow the contractor to sign the change order if it agrees with its terms, especially the terms about time and money, and the contract should specify the exact effect of the change order once signed by the contractor. However, the owner should never give the right to the contractor to hold the entire change process hostage by requiring the contractor's signature to make a change order effective.

Owners and contractors often have diametrically opposing views about whether a contractor's right to impact costs should be waived or should be reserved on written change orders. Owners commonly prepare change orders that contain an express waiver of a contractor's rights to any additional costs or time other than what is allowed in the change order. Those waivers usually require the contractor to waive its rights to any additional delays or extensions of time and any costs for jobsite overhead, home office overhead, loss of productivity, or any other type of indirect cost or impact cost. Contractors are well advised not to sign a change order with such a broad waiver of its rights unless it is absolutely positive that the change order, in conjunction with other change orders and other events on the project, will not under any circumstances cause additional delays or generate any additional costs. Despite sophisticated scheduling and cost accounting techniques now available, contractors cannot always with certainty predict the effect that a change order may have on the project schedule or the project cost at the time the change order is issued.

Contractors usually want the opposite. They want a broad reservation of rights to later claim additional time or additional costs of any type resulting from the change order. Owners are reluctant to allow contractors such a broad reservation of rights because they do not want the change order payment to be nothing more than a down payment on an endless series of requests for additional costs and time resulting directly or indirectly from that change order. In return for the payment, the owners want the contractor to analyze the changed work and tell the owner whether that work effects the project schedule or project cost.

Owners routinely reject change orders onto which contractors have inserted a reservation of rights just as contractors routinely refuse to sign change orders onto which owners have inserted a waiver of rights.

Many contractors recognize that an owner has a legitimate concern about managing the time and cost of the project and has a legitimate right to ask the contractor to inform it of the cost and time impact of a change order. At the same time, many owners understand that a contractor might not be able to analyze and predict the exact impact that a change order may have on the project without knowing what subsequent change orders and events may impact the project, its cost, and its critical path. Many owners and contractors recognize that a reasonable compromise is to allow the contractor a reasonable period of time after the change order is signed to analyze and predict its cost and time impact and then inform the owner. That period will vary with the type and magnitude of the project but it could range anywhere from one month to six months. If the contractor does not inform the owner within the designated period of the cost and time impact of the change order, the contractor waives its rights to any additional time or cost resulting from that change order.

Owners can also use scheduling requirements to force contractors to analyze and identify the cost and time impact of change orders. Many contracts contain scheduling requirements in which the contractor is required each month in monthly schedule updates to graphically depict on the updated schedule the impact of any changes issued in the preceding month and to describe any delays and costs associated with those delays in a monthly schedule narrative.

The owner's right to make changes and the procedure for making those changes are a product of the contract between the owner and the contractor. Both the owner and the contractor should carefully read and fully understand both the owner's right to make changes and the procedure for making those changes, and both should strictly adhere to the specified procedure.

In addition to understanding the specified contractual process for change orders, owners and contractors should understand the definition of a change, actual changes, constructive changes, cardinal changes, deductive changes, changes as a breach of contract, written change order requirements, verbal change orders, a requirement for the contractor to sign change orders, and the battle between a waiver of rights and reservation of rights.

Even if both the owner and the contractor develop a full understanding of the contractually specified change order process, adhere to that process, and understand the various issues relating to changes, disputes about changes and change orders will still be inevitable, but the number and magnitude of the disputes will be reduced.

1. Legal Elite Online, LLC is a State Bar of California approved provider of continuing legal education.
   Provider number: 09777
2. To receive up to 3 hours of MCLE credit for this topic, reply to this email or send an email to: stacy@legalelite.com and include your name and bar number..
3. To receive more participatory MCLE Credit via email, send us an email and let us know how many credits you need and what topics interest you.

Home - Subscribe -How To Participate - Elites - Library - Discussions
MCLE Info - MCLE Form - Books - Forms - About Us - Friends