The change order the GC approves is usually the one with a paper trail behind it. The one that surprises the GC — submitted three weeks after the work happened, with no contemporaneous record of what was encountered or when — gets disputed.
Most change order advice for specialty subs is about pricing: how to calculate the hours, what markup to apply, when to submit. Pricing matters. But the change order that fails doesn’t usually fail on price. It fails because the sub can’t prove that the scope change happened, that it was outside the contract, and that the extra work was directed or caused by a condition the sub didn’t assume in his bid.
The documentation that supports a change order isn’t built when the PM sits down to write the claim. It’s built by the foreman at the point of work, on the day the condition was encountered or the direction was given. By the time the PM is writing the change order, the foreman’s log entry from six weeks ago is either there or it isn’t.
Three Situations That Require Documentation at the Time of Work
Directed Changes
A directed change is when someone with authority — the GC’s super, the owner’s rep, the architect on a site visit — tells the sub’s crew to do something that isn’t in the contract. Move the conduit run to a different wall. Add a floor drain that wasn’t on the drawings. Install temporary lighting for a safety inspection. The direction is given verbally, on the spot, because there’s a problem to solve and the sub’s crew is standing there.
The documentation requirement is immediate: who gave the direction, what was directed, and when. Not next week. Not in the weekly progress report. At the time of the conversation, or as soon as the foreman logs his day.
What to capture:
- Name and role of the person who gave the direction
- Description of what was directed — specific enough to reconstruct what the crew did (“move 40 LF of conduit from the west wall to the east wall of Room 214 per GC super’s verbal instruction”)
- Date and approximate time
- Any photos of the before condition and the as-built result
A daily log entry from the day of the direction is the first link in the documentation chain. An email to the GC’s super that afternoon — “confirming today’s verbal direction to relocate the conduit run in Room 214 as discussed” — is the second. Together, they establish a contemporaneous record that the direction was given, who gave it, and what the crew did in response.
The foreman who logs this at the point of work — on his phone, before he moves to the next zone — has a record. The foreman who notes it mentally and plans to write it up later has a recollection.
Differing Site Conditions
A differing site condition is when the actual field condition doesn’t match what the drawings show or what the sub had reasonable grounds to assume. The soil conditions are rock instead of the soft fill shown on the geotech report. The wall dimension on the drawing is off by six inches, which means the stub-out locations have to move. The above-ceiling space is four inches tighter than the reflected ceiling plan, which means the conduit routing has to change.
The documentation here is about establishing what was encountered versus what was assumed in the bid — and capturing the condition at the moment it was discovered, before the crew made any modifications.
What to capture:
- Photos of the as-found condition, taken before any work is done to address it. The undisturbed rock layer. The wall dimension with a tape measure in the photo. The tight ceiling space with a measurement showing actual clearance.
- A note in the daily log: “Encountered rock at elevation 42.5 on the east side of grid line C3. Drawings show soft fill per geotech report. No penetration attempted. Foreman notified PM and GC super. RFI submitted this afternoon.”
- The RFI submitted that afternoon, before any rerouting or redesign work begins.
The entry-condition photo taken before the crew starts work is what distinguishes a defensible differing-condition claim from an assertion. The assertion says “the condition wasn’t what we expected.” The photo shows it — taken at the time it was encountered, timestamped in the log, attached to the RFI that went to the GC the same afternoon.
Trade Conflict Reroutes
On a commercial job, trade conflicts happen. The electrical conduit run on Floor 4 hits the mechanical contractor’s ductwork at grid line B3 — both are in the same ceiling space, and nobody coordinated who goes where. The plumbing riser conflicts with a structural element that wasn’t clearly shown on the coordination drawings. The sub’s crew has to stop, document the conflict, and wait for direction before they can proceed.
The conflict itself is a scope event. If the conduit has to reroute 25 feet to clear the duct — and that reroute wasn’t in the bid because the coordination drawings didn’t show the conflict — that’s extra work. The documentation of when the conflict was discovered, what was in place, and what the sub’s crew had to do as a result is the basis for the change order.
What to capture:
- Photos of the as-found conflict — the mechanical duct already in place, the electrical conduit blocked at grid B3, the physical interference clearly visible.
- A blocked task logged in the field at the time the crew stopped — not a note that the zone is “in progress,” but a specific blocked status with a note: “Floor 4 West conduit blocked at grid B3 — duct conflict with mechanical. RFI #47 submitted 8:47 AM. Crew redirected to Floor 5.”
- The RFI submitted the same morning — specific, timestamped, with the photos attached.
- The daily log entry confirming the stop, the redirect, and the hours the crew worked on alternate scope while the conflict was pending.
The zone-level task record that establishes when the crew was in the space and when they stopped is what the change order narrative draws on when the PM writes it up three weeks later. Without it, the PM is reconstructing a timeline from memory. With it, the PM has a log entry, a blocked task with a timestamp, an RFI with a date, and photos of the condition.
What Happens When Documentation Comes After the Fact
The PM who writes the change order four weeks after the work is done without any field documentation is arguing. He’s asking the GC to accept his account of what happened, on a job where the GC’s project engineer also has an account that may differ.
The GC’s project engineer walked the floor on the 16th. The sub’s foreman stopped the conduit run on the 12th due to a duct conflict and rerouted on the 13th. The GC’s engineer never saw the as-found condition — he saw the as-built condition on the 16th after the reroute was complete. His notes show “electrical conduit routing, Floor 4 West” with no indication of a conflict. The sub’s change order says there was a conflict on the 12th that required 25 LF of additional conduit.
Without a log entry from the 12th, an RFI from the 12th, and a photo of the duct in the way, the sub is asking the GC to take his word for it. The GC’s engineer has no record of a conflict. The change order becomes a credibility dispute. Those resolve in the GC’s favor more often than the sub’s.
A contemporaneous record — built as the job runs, at the point of work — is evidence. A reconstruction is an argument. The documentation that supports a change order is the same documentation that supports a payment dispute or a punch list defense. It’s one system, built daily, that serves all three purposes.
The Change Order Documentation Protocol
The protocol isn’t complex. Three things at the time of the event, every time:
1. Log entry in the daily report. What was encountered, who was involved, what the crew did in response, how many hours were affected. The daily report that auto-generates from the foreman’s field entries has this record as a matter of course — not as a separate documentation task, but as the natural output of the foreman logging his day.
2. Photos of the as-found condition. Before any work to address the condition begins. Timestamped, attached to the project in the field tool, tagged to the relevant zone or area. Not in the foreman’s camera roll where they’ll be lost when he gets a new phone.
3. Written confirmation to the GC the same day. Not a formal change order notice (that comes later) — a one-line email or RFI acknowledging what was encountered or directed: “Confirming verbal direction from [name] to [action] on [date]” or “RFI #47 submitted for duct conflict at grid B3 — see attached photos.” The paper trail that protects the sub in a scope dispute starts with the same-day written record, not the change order submission three weeks later.
The Change Order That Gets Approved
The change order that gets approved without a fight is the one that arrives with a log entry from the day the condition was encountered, an RFI submitted that afternoon, photos of the as-found condition, and a clear account of what the crew did and how many hours it took.
The GC’s project engineer may not remember the conversation from six weeks ago. He will recognize an RFI he received six weeks ago. He will recognize a daily report entry from that date. He may dispute the pricing. He won’t dispute that the condition existed and that a direction was given — because the sub has dated documentation that the GC received at the time.
The foreman who builds that record at the point of work, every time, isn’t doing extra paperwork. He’s building the evidence that keeps the PM’s change order negotiations short.
See how LogLoon’s daily reporting captures field conditions and directed changes for specialty contractors, or check the pricing — it’s on the website.