EPC change-order review
Change-order evidence for EPC commercial review
Bring a change event, its contract context and supporting records into one reviewable pack. NeoBram helps teams scope AI-assisted preparation of notices and variation evidence, with commercial and legal authority kept explicit.
Define the event before the claim
Start by identifying what changed, when the team became aware of it and which package or obligation may be affected. A drawing revision, instruction or site condition is evidence to investigate, not automatic entitlement. Agree who classifies the event, checks notice requirements and decides whether a commercial response is needed.
Preserve the chronology and baseline
Collect the executed contract and amendments, dated instructions, RFIs, correspondence, drawings and relevant field records. Link each item to the correct project, location and revision. Keep original dates and source references so a reviewer can reconstruct the sequence without relying on a generated summary.
- Identify the baseline scope and record later revisions separately from the original obligation.
- Gather cost-rate assumptions, quantities, progress evidence and schedule snapshots available around the event.
- Have reviewers identify notice triggers, potential deadlines and disputed facts; do not infer these as settled legal conclusions.
Prepare a draft that shows its gaps
The workflow can assemble a chronology, retrieve relevant clauses and draft a notice in an agreed format. It should distinguish quotations, recorded facts, assumptions and missing evidence. Commercial reviewers check every consequential assertion and decide the recipients, timing and final wording. No draft is submitted to a client or contract system automatically.
Separate estimated impact from entitlement
Cost and schedule scenarios need traceable quantities, rates, dependencies and baseline assumptions. Reviewers test whether the event affected the work and whether other causes overlap. Model-generated impact estimates should show ranges and exclusions. A calculated cost does not establish recoverability; a schedule comparison does not establish contractual responsibility for a delay.
Evaluate against reviewed change cases
Use historical cases with a reference chronology and known document set. Test missing notices, conflicting dates, revised drawings, duplicate correspondence and unsupported claims. Measure citation accuracy, missing material facts, draft correction burden and evidence-finding effort. Keep later settlement information out of any evaluation intended to reproduce what the team knew at the notice stage.
Agree a commercial evidence pack
Useful outputs may include a change register entry, dated event chronology, draft notice, source index and cost or schedule assumption sheet. Record unresolved questions and the responsible reviewer. Handover should explain how new correspondence is incorporated and how drafts are versioned. Portfolio reporting must distinguish proposed, submitted, accepted and disputed amounts.
An illustrative design-change review
A revised equipment layout appears after installation planning. The workflow collects the issued drawings, instruction, affected work package and relevant schedule snapshots, then prepares a draft chronology. The commercial team checks what was instructed, which work actually changed and whether notice is appropriate. This is an illustrative case, not evidence of recovered margin or an accepted claim.
Start with one type of variation
Bring an example change event and your existing review template. Agree the evidence boundary, reviewer responsibilities, error checks and expected output before discussing broader automation. Confidentiality and permitted document access must be scoped to the engagement. Legal advice, entitlement decisions and client-facing commitments stay with your authorized team.
More clarity
Questions and answers
Will the assistant send a change notice?
No. This scope prepares drafts and supporting evidence. An authorized commercial or legal reviewer approves the content and controls any external submission.
Can it decide whether we are entitled to payment?
No. It can surface clauses and relevant facts for review, but interpretation, entitlement and negotiation positions require the responsible commercial and legal judgment.
What if cost or schedule inputs are incomplete?
The output should identify the missing evidence and show any scenario assumptions clearly. Unsupported amounts or dates should not appear as established project facts.
Does this work with our contract format?
The format, terminology and review rules are assessed on representative examples. Bespoke clauses and amendments need expert input; a standard contract-family label is insufficient.
How should we judge value?
Compare evidence completeness, preparation effort and reviewer corrections with the current method. Track later claim outcomes separately and do not attribute recovery to AI without a defensible assessment.
Start with one business problem