Snipped from Figas: " . . .need to:[ul][li]initiate a Procedure to identify the changes to the work scope,[/li][li] challenge them using our own knowledge of the service and[/li][li]track the changes and approval process."[/li][/ul]The changes to the work scope should be fairly easy. Presumably you work away at the project as you see it from your contract documents / scope of work. Whenever anyone, whether the consultant (if any) or the client's representatives, asks for work to be done that you did not plan for yourself, you give the item a tracking number (ie. a serial number), date when communicated, some code for how it was communicated to you, and not least of all, a brief abstract of what the scope of the potential claim is. I use spreadsheets for the purpose with a column for each category of info. Sometimes the potential change is communicated in the form of a "Change Directive" or "Contemplated Change Order" document issued by the client. In those cases it's obvious the change is conceded by your client and therefore an extra time and $ is expected. Sometimes the change is passed along as a "Site or Project Instruction" by either the client or consultant. The problem with these are that they are normally used as clarifications of the intent of the Scope of Work, but sometimes inadvertent changes creep in. Even if you think the work might not be extra, you should track it as if it is a change if you did not plan for it originally. Presumably your head office estimates the extra cost and time and sends it to the client for approval before extra work is done.
You probably shouldn't have to challenge your client about extras. Either the work is extra or it isn't. If a consultant is engaged, even if paid by the client, they often act as independent arbiters of the meaning of the contract. They usually have little or no pecuniary interest in the outcome of any debate on extras, so their decision is often final. The problem is that many consultants forget their fiduciary obligations to both parties of a contract and frequently "side" with their client and in many cases actually take instructions from the client on such matters. I don't think this is malicious for the most part, it just seems to happen frequently, possibly more from ignorance than from mal fide. If a consultant indicates signs of such bias, it may be wise ask them to be recused early and suggest another firm be engaged. If the client and you must sort out the question of extras on your own, it might be wise to suggest hiring a third party if you find yourself in frequent disputes. Assuming you both are reasonable, and the client indicates what clause of the contract refers to work being demanded, then you simply confirm the work is already in the contract or extra to it. If you adamantly dispute that work is in the original contract, then you consult a lawyer.
As for document tracking I use everything from internet based document tracking applications designed for multi-year, multi-million $ construction projects, to a simple spreadsheet for small IT development projects. A spreadsheet works well even in major multi-discipline projects as well.
Regards,
