| Course | MT281 Fundamentals of Construction Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 8 |
| Paper type | Change order analysis |
| Length | About 1,090 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MT281 Unit 8
Soft Clay, a Bigger Generator and Drains Set High: A Unit 8 Change Order Analysis of Three Station 2 Events
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT281: Fundamentals of Construction Management
Unit 8 Change Order Analysis
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Station 2, its events, quotes, unit prices and every figure are composite and illustrative; the sources cited are real.
Purpose
Three events during the first months of construction at Station 2 each raised a claim for money, time or both. This analysis treats each the same way: the facts as logged, the clause of the AIA A201-2017 general conditions that governs, and the pricing. It ends with a summary table for the township's board.
Event 1: Concealed Soil Conditions
Facts. The geotechnical report, based on four borings, had found the bay's soft clay ending about two feet down, and the contract required removing it to two feet and replacing it with compacted granular fill. During excavation in the northeast part of the bay, the superintendent found soft clay continuing below two feet. The geotechnical engineer's field representative probed the area on the same day and confirmed soft clay to about 4.5 feet across roughly 1,900 square feet. The engineer directed the deeper undercut in writing.
Clause. Section 3.7.4 of A201-2017 covers concealed or unknown conditions: if the contractor encounters subsurface conditions that differ materially from those indicated in the contract documents, the contractor must notify the owner and architect promptly, before disturbing the conditions, and the contract sum and time may be adjusted if the conditions cause a change in cost or time (American Institute of Architects [AIA], 2017). The contractor notified the architect the same day and stopped work in that area until the engineer's visit. The conditions differed materially from the borings, which showed two feet. The claim is valid.
Pricing. The extra depth was 2.5 feet over 1,900 square feet, or 176 bank cubic yards removed, replaced with 220 loose cubic yards of fill. At the contract's unit price of $46 per bank cubic yard removed and replaced, the excavation and fill come to $8,096. Twelve additional compaction tests at $85 each add $1,020, two additional geotechnical visits $3,094, and six days of dewatering pump rental and operation for the deeper excavation $4,092. The base is $16,302. The contract allows 15 percent markup on change order work performed by the contractor's own forces, $2,445.
Time. The bay undercut is on the critical path with zero float. The extra excavation and fill took four working days, which moved the foundation inspection and every activity after it. The contractor is owed four days and its extended general conditions for those days, at $39,500 a month, or about $1,837 per working day, $7,349.
Total: $26,096 and four days.
Event 2: The Larger Generator
Facts. After award, the fire chief asked that the standby generator be increased from 150 to 250 kilowatts so that the station could power its full kitchen and the bay's exhaust system during an outage. The township's board approved the request at its next meeting, with the architect's estimate attached.
Clause. Article 7 of A201-2017 lets the owner order changes in the work by change order, with an adjustment to the contract sum and time agreed by the parties. This is an owner-requested change in scope, so the contractor is entitled to its cost plus markup.
Pricing. The electrical subcontractor quoted $58,600 for the larger unit, its pad, transfer switch and wiring, net of the credit for the smaller generator. The contract allows the general contractor 5 percent on subcontracted change order work, $2,930, for a total of $61,530.
Time. The new generator has a twelve-week lead time, but it is set on its pad during the paving and site work window, which has 99 days of float. The change does not affect the critical path, so no time is added.
Event 3: Drains Set High
Facts. At the underslab inspection in the living wing, the inspector found that the floor and trench drains in the decontamination room and kitchen had been set three-quarters of an inch above the elevation shown on the plumbing drawings, which would have left water pooling around them. The plumbing subcontractor reset the drains, and the inspection was repeated.
Clause. Section 12.2 of A201-2017 makes the contractor responsible for fixing work that does not match the contract documents, paying both for the correction and for any delay it causes. The contractor's request for $8,900 and two days was therefore rejected.
Time. The underslab inspection is critical, and the rework moved it by two working days. Those days are the contractor's responsibility: the contract time is not extended, and the two days count against the contractor's finish.
The drains cost two critical days, but they were the contractor's own days to lose.
Negotiation Notes
The contractor's first request for Event 1 was $34,800 and six days. The difference from the approved figure came from two items. The contractor had priced the deeper excavation at its own time-and-material rates rather than the contract unit price, which the contract requires where a unit price exists. And it had counted six days by including two days of rain that fell during the same week, which are already covered by the rain allowance and by a separate weather extension. Removing both left $26,096 and four days, which the contractor accepted. For Event 2, the electrical subcontractor's quote was compared with a second quote the architect obtained, $61,200 before markup, which confirmed the first was reasonable.
Summary Table
Event 1, concealed soil: valid under 3.7.4; $26,096; four days added
Event 2, larger generator: valid owner change under Article 7; $61,530; no days added
Event 3, drains set high: rejected under 12.2; no money; no days added, two days carried by the contractor
The approved changes total $87,626 and four working days. Halpin et al. (2017) note that change orders are best evaluated one event at a time against the contract, so that a valid claim and an invalid one are not blended into a single negotiated figure. Trauner et al. (2009) make the related point that only delays to the critical path justify extensions, which is why the generator, though large, adds no time.
Lessons
Two lessons carry forward. The borings missed the deeper clay because four borings covered a 5,376-square-foot bay; two more would have cost far less than the change order. And the contractor's prompt notice in Event 1 protected its claim, while the drains in Event 3 show the value of checking elevations before an inspector does.
References
American Institute of Architects. (2017). AIA document A201-2017: General conditions of the contract for construction. American Institute of Architects.
Halpin, D. W., Lucko, G., & Senior, B. A. (2017). Construction management (5th ed.). Wiley.
Trauner, T. J., Manginelli, W. A., Lowe, J. S., Nagata, M. F., & Furniss, B. J. (2009). Construction delays: Understanding them clearly, analyzing them correctly (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann.
What the MT281 Unit 8 assignment asks for
Unit 8 asks students to analyze several construction events that raise claims for money or time and decide each one under the contract. For each event, set out the logged facts, quote or summarize the governing clause, test whether the claim is valid, including notice requirements, and then price it. Time should be granted only where the event affects the critical path. Separate owner-requested changes, unforeseen conditions and contractor errors, since each falls under a different clause. Many sections also ask how the first claim was negotiated down. Close with a summary table for the owner and lessons for the next project. Eight pages with one section per event is a common format.
Inside the MT281 Unit 8 example
The analysis states its method and then takes each event in turn. The soil section records the borings, the field probe and the engineer's direction, applies the concealed conditions clause and its notice rule, then prices excavation, tests, visits and dewatering at contract unit prices, with four critical days of general conditions, under a margin note on testing validity first. The generator section applies Article 7, prices the subcontract with markup and explains why float means no added time. The drain section rejects the claim under Section 12.2, with the highlighted line about days the contractor lost. Negotiation notes explain how a $34,800 request fell to $26,096. A summary table, Halpin and colleagues and Trauner and colleagues, and two lessons close it.
Where the points sit in the MT281 Unit 8 rubric
Change order analyses are graded on accurate facts, correct clause selection, a validity test, sound pricing and time tied to the critical path. Instructors reward analyses that check notice requirements before pricing a concealed conditions claim. Pricing should use contract unit prices where they exist and allowed markups, shown line by line. Granting time only for critical delays, and explaining why an expensive change adds none, shows understanding of the schedule. Rejecting an invalid claim with a clause, rather than splitting the difference, demonstrates discipline. A summary table and lessons for future projects complete the analysis, with accurate citations throughout. Negotiation notes that explain how a first request was reduced show the writer can defend the final figures.
Common MT281 Unit 8 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The most common mistake is treating every claim as negotiable, so valid and invalid claims blur into one settlement. Another is granting time for a change that never touched the critical path. Some papers price unforeseen conditions at the contractor's time-and-material rates when the contract has unit prices. Others overlook the notice requirement that protects a claim. Check each markup percentage against the contract, and confirm the daily rate used for extended general conditions. Describe the events on your project and the contract terms you have, and a writer can test each against its clause and price the valid ones.
Get an MT281 Unit 8 example written to your instructions
Every change prompt hands out its own facts and its own contract. Share the Unit 8 scenario, the clauses or general conditions it quotes, any unit prices, and the instructions and rubric. What comes back within 24-48h, the first one free, decides entitlement before price, reads time from the schedule, and states the owner's remaining contingency. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More MT281 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MT281 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- MT281 Unit 2: Delivery Method Comparison
- MT281 Unit 3: Drawing and Specification Review
- MT281 Unit 4: Quantity Takeoff
- MT281 Unit 5: Construction Schedule
- MT281 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- MT281 Unit 7: Cost Estimate
- MT281 Unit 9: Site Safety Plan
- MT281 Unit 10: Project Management Report
- MT262 Unit 8: Virtual Conflict Case
- MT260 Unit 8: Conflict and Cohesion Case
- MT247 Unit 8: Impediment Analysis
- MT246 Unit 8: Resource Assignment Plan
MT281 Unit 8 questions, answered
What makes a site condition a valid claim?
Broadly, a physical condition that differs materially from what the contract documents indicated, or an unusual condition nobody would reasonably expect. The contractor must usually give prompt notice before disturbing it. Check the exact clause your scenario supplies; the sample tests each element separately, borings against findings, then materiality, then notice, before pricing anything at all.
Why did the generator change earn no extra time?
Because the added work fell on a part of the schedule with float. A change adds time only when it delays the critical path. Here the bay's mechanical and electrical work had 86 days to spare, so a larger generator changed the cost and left occupancy where it was. The paper shows that check rather than asserting it.
Is contractor rework ever a change order?
Not when the work failed to meet the contract. Correcting nonconforming work is the contractor's obligation at its own cost, and the days it takes are not excusable. Only if the owner accepts the defect in exchange for a credit, or the defect traces back to a design error, does a change order become the right instrument.
Where can I find a free MT281 Unit 8 sample paper?
You can read the complete MT281 Unit 8 change order analysis on this page. It decides three fire station events under the A201 general conditions, prices the valid ones and rejects a rework claim.
Why does the larger generator in the MT281 Unit 8 sample add no time?
The generator is set on its pad during the paving and site work window, which has 99 days of float, so the change costs money but does not touch the critical path.