Lawyers get rich working on some projects determining what is within the normal scope of work and what constitutes a 'change'. That can be very costly to the owner unless there is clear evidence the contractor is intentionally attempting to defraud the owner by providing work that does not meet the requirements of the project specifications. One engineering change that is often invoked is the addition of NDT not specified in the original bid document. Few owners will refuse to consider a contractor's suggestions if it will save money or time and meets with the engineer's approval. Revisions based on the contractor's suggestions are often considered by the engineer and in many cases the contractor's input is sought. It is quite normal for the contractor to discuss the changes with the engineer.

That doesn't mean either party is happy, it simply means the work will be done. When the work is performed by the original contractor/fabricator, it is by mutual agreement at mutually agreed rates of compensation. When the fabricator says 'hell no, I can't do that!', no mutual agreement is reached and the work is given to someone that agrees to do the work. I tend to side with Chet that the changes are 'agreed to' by both parties. You work for Cianbro CHGuilford?Įven an engineering change entitles the fabricator to extra fees. going from a coal fired plant to a natural gas plant. That being said if the original bid has a clause to the effect of 'the bidder will complete any and all change orders within the scope of the original intended design of the project, with the understanding the client will pay any and all additional costs contingent upon the award of bid' then you would sort of be bound to the contract as long as the change order wasn't outside the original scope i.e. The contractor certainly does have the right to say you are going to pay me what I want to do your dreamed up pipe dream! or piss off it is out of the scope of what I agreed to do, sub it out. If the engineer finds out that that the joints require x amount of filler metal to be deposited due to a safety issue or flaw in the original design the contractor does not have a place to argue with them as they are being contracted to do the work not to dispute the design of the project UNLESS this is a design / build project and then again that is sort of a different issue. Just because the addition is not an addendum does not mean the contractor can debate the change to the system if it is viewed as a safety issue or flaw in the original engineered design. The 'acceptance' part of the change order could be possibly 'we will or will not do the work' and in the case the contractor didn't want to do it, it would be sub'd out. If the change order is about the design of a joint that would be an engineering decision and not subject to the acceptance of its correctness by the contractor as the contractor is not the designer unless of course this is a design / build project. Change orders do not have to be a 'mutual' agreement unless we are talking about a design / build project and in which case that is sort of a different issue.

Not to start an argument about bid document nomenclature, but my opinion on change orders is slightly different than what was stated.

Fillet weld tolerance