Owner-directed change or design error: why the cause matters and what you write
A revised beam depth leads to a different corridor bulkhead layout. The owner asks whether the contractor should have caught the conflict earlier. The change request needs to explain the altered work without turning a document comparison into an unsupported liability argument.
Describe the changed requirement and its source, compare the relevant earlier and revised documents, and state the work and timing effects you are submitting. Use owner direction or design revision where the records support those descriptions; do not label an error or assign fault before the authorized review. Price support and notice still need checking on the contract's basis. The contractor's request should make the factual change understandable without deciding how other parties settle responsibility.
Explain the cause with its document trail
- Identify the source of the change. Record the instruction, revision or condition and its date and issuer. Separate a direct owner request from a design clarification. If the classification is uncertain, describe the factual sequence rather than choosing a blame category to strengthen the request.
- Compare the requirements precisely. Mark the relevant location on the earlier and current documents. Identify which work differs and which remains included. Preserve the coordination and approval history where relevant; a revised sheet alone may not explain what the team previously knew.
- Describe the consequence. List added, removed or repeated tasks and the affected workface. Provide the pricing build-up and a supported time explanation where requested. Separate the cost of changed scope from unrelated overrun so the cause and amount can be reviewed together.
- Follow the commercial process. Have the project manager check authorization, notice and submission requirements. Identify any disputed scope or responsibility openly. Do not address a design consultant as the paying party merely because its drawing changed; the actual agreements determine the route.
- Answer blame questions with records. State what the team received, observed and communicated, and refer liability conclusions to the authorized advisers. Continue the necessary coordination so the revised work can be planned while the commercial issues are assessed. Retain the exact submitted position and response.
Common mistakes
- Calling every design revision an error without the supporting history.
- Using an accusation where a document reference would explain the change.
- Assuming the source of a revision alone decides who must pay.
Checklist
What the request should show
- Source and date of the changed requirement.
- Earlier and current document comparison.
- Relevant coordination history.
- Defined work and timing consequences.
- Notice and submission basis checked.
- Liability questions routed separately.
Check your understanding
A consultant issues a revision, but the reason for it is unclear. Should you describe the cause as a design error?
