When a change is rejected: four review questions and how to answer them
A mechanical change for a duct reroute comes back marked included in coordination. The project manager has drawings, an RFI and a quotation, but no clear reply. Sending the same price again will not answer the reason the reviewer gave.
Answer the stated rejection reason before resubmitting the change. Four useful review questions are whether the work was included, whether the required process was followed, whether the price is supported and whether the decision reached the authorized person. These questions organize a review; they are not an exhaustive classification or proof that a refusal is wrong. Keep the disputed point visible and ask the commercial lead to check the contract and any approaching deadline.
Turn a refusal into a focused response
- Record the actual reason. Retain the dated response and identify the change, amount and portion refused. If the explanation is vague, request clarification through the proper channel. Distinguish a missing document from a substantive scope disagreement so the next submission answers a decision, not an assumption.
- Check the included-scope argument. Compare the agreed package, qualifications and relevant drawing revisions with the work requested. Prepare a marked comparison and the pertinent references. A coordination drawing is evidence to examine; its approval does not automatically remove contractual coordination responsibilities or prove an extra.
- Check the process argument. Locate the actual notice and submission requirements with the commercial lead, then trace what was sent, when and to whom. A disputed notice issue needs advice, not a backdated letter or a confident claim that an informal conversation satisfied every requirement.
- Check the price argument. Reconcile the quantity, labour basis, quotes and applicable commercial treatment. Separate agreed items from disputed ones. Explain an unsupported allowance or replace it with support where available; repeating the total will not resolve a reviewer who cannot reproduce it.
- Check authority and issue the reply. Confirm who can review scope, recommend a price and authorize a decision under this project. Send a short response identifying the requested determination and linked evidence. Record its actual due date and preserve any separate formal steps on advice; a follow-up meeting should not hide a deadline.
Common mistakes
- Resending the quotation without answering the scope objection.
- Treating every refusal as proof of bad faith.
- Allowing an informal response date to replace a required formal step.
Checklist
A reply that answers the decision
- Dated refusal and exact disputed portion.
- Relevant agreed-scope comparison.
- Actual notice and issue records.
- Reconciled pricing support.
- Authorized reviewer and requested determination.
- Follow-up owner and separately checked deadlines.
Check your understanding
The price is fully supported, but the reviewer says the work was included. What should the next response lead with?
