1. Home
  2. Help
  3. Engines
  4. Change Order Review
Post-Award · Engine

Change Order Review

Review a proposed change order against the original contract. Flags items that were already in scope, items with excessive pricing, items missing backup, and computes a recommended CO value.

Engine Phase: Post-Award Runtime: 45-90 seconds Pro+

What it does

Change Order Review takes the original contract or scope plus a proposed CO and evaluates each CO line item against the contract. Every line gets a status — JUSTIFIED / DISPUTED / EXCESSIVE / MISSING_BACKUP — with a contract-section reference explaining why. The engine also flags classic CO-gaming tactics: scope creep, inflated markup, vague line-items, duplicate charges.

Output includes a recommended CO value (sum of JUSTIFIED lines at supported prices) and savings relative to the requested CO amount.

When to use it

What to upload

Step by step

  1. Open the engine

    Sidebar → EnginesChange Order Review.

  2. Upload contract + CO

    Both required.

  3. Run

    30–60 seconds.

  4. Read the verdict card

    CO title + amount + recommended amount + verdict (JUSTIFIED / PARTIALLY_JUSTIFIED / DISPUTED / EXCESSIVE).

  5. Review each line

    Filter by status. Click a line to see contract-section reference and note.

  6. Check manipulation flags

    If present, the engine has detected CO-gaming patterns. Read carefully before responding.

Understanding the results

Verdict card

CO title, CO number, requested amount, recommended amount, savings, verdict.

CO percentage of contract

This CO / original contract value — helpful context for whether a CO is large or small in proportion.

Line-item table

Every CO line item, status, in-original-scope flag (YES / no), contract reference, note.

Manipulation flags

Red-bordered section listing any detected CO-gaming tactics (duplicate billing, vague line items, excessive markup, already-in-scope).

AI summary

2–3 sentence executive summary.

Every control, explained

Run analysis

One run.

Try with sample data

Bridgeport CO #3 — $847K request on a $45M contract with a documented scope dispute.

Filter by status

Narrow to DISPUTED, EXCESSIVE, MISSING_BACKUP, or JUSTIFIED.

Export PDF

Negotiation-ready report with recommended amount, contract references, line-item detail.

Export XLSX

Raw line-item data.

Chain to Negotiation

Open Negotiation Intelligence with this CO's leverage points pre-loaded.

Chains

Chains into

Re-check the Contract — Verify whether the change order work was covered in the original contract scope.
Verify in Next Pay App — Check that the approved CO amounts are correctly reflected in the next billing cycle.
Compare Related Invoices — Verify the invoices related to this change order match the approved amounts.

Chained from

Review Change Orders — When COs come in — check if the work was already in scope.
Dispute as Change Order? — Found discrepancies? Check if it qualifies as a disputed change order.
Review Related Change Orders — Check if any disputed line items relate to approved or pending change orders.
Dispute as Change Order? — Found discrepancies between quote and invoice? Check if it qualifies as a change order.
Dispute as Change Order? — Found discrepancies between PO and invoice? Check if it qualifies as a change order.
RFI Triggers Change Order? — RFI response reveals scope change \u2014 check if it qualifies as a valid change order.

Exports

Troubleshooting

Contract reference cited is wrong

Engine cites the closest matching section; contracts with unusual numbering systems can throw it off. Use chat to correct.

MISSING_BACKUP flag on lines that did have backup

Upload the backup documentation (T&M sheets, subcontractor quotes) as a third document.

Sample CO result seems too harsh

The Bridgeport sample is designed to show manipulation flags firing — the engine is intentionally showing its worst-case output. Real-world COs score milder on average.