Customer Change Order Mid-Build Protocol

Purpose

A mid-build change request is not a problem the job created, it is the customer changing their mind, upsizing the footprint, swapping a rail system, adding a built-in bench, after the crew is already days into framing on the original scope. The stake differs from a discovered defect: nobody is at fault, but a verbal yeah, we can probably do that, from whoever is holding the framing square that afternoon is exactly what turns a reasonable request into a fee dispute, a missed material lead time, or framing built past a permit drawing nobody amended. This procedure guarantees a scope change gets priced and authorized before a board changes because of it, a change touching structure or the permitted footprint gets checked against the span tables and the AHJ before anyone commits, and the authorized change becomes the job's new record rather than a side conversation the next crew never hears about.

Scope

Covers any customer-requested change to material, layout, footprint, or feature after the contract is signed and work has started, from the request through authorized, priced, and where required re-permitted work. Applies to every request regardless of size, since a small-sounding one, add a gate, is sometimes permit-affecting, and a large-sounding one, upgrade the decking species, sometimes is not.

Does not cover a change order triggered by a discovered condition, hidden rot or a boundary encroachment; those procedures own their own trigger and hand off to this one's mechanics, steps 5 through 10, once a remedy path is chosen. Does not cover the closing walkthrough's punch-list items, which deckbuilding-customer-walkthrough-and-punch-list routes through its own X code once the job is substantially complete.

Roles and responsibilities

Procedure

1. Take the request off the crew's plate the moment it is raised, with one answer: I will get you a price and a timeline. Acceptance: no commitment about feasibility, cost, or schedule made on site by anyone other than the office. Wrong looks like a lead saying sure, that's easy, about a change whose structural impact nobody has checked. Stop rule: any crew member who catches themselves estimating a change verbally stops and refers it to the office. Hazard: none; the risk here is about what gets promised, not a physical one.

2. Classify the request against one concrete test: does it change any dimension shown on the permitted plan, any post spacing or span, or does it stay within cosmetic or material-only territory such as a species swap or a color change. Acceptance: a written classification, structural or footprint-affecting versus cosmetic, before pricing begins. Wrong looks like assuming a request is cosmetic because it sounds small, such as just add a gate, which can still add a post and change a span. Stop rule: any doubt about the classification defaults to structural and routes through step 3. Hazard: none.

3. Route a structural or footprint-affecting request to the designer for reverification before a price is quoted, not after. Acceptance: a confirmed or revised beam, post, and joist layout, checked against the span tables at the actually delivered lumber species and grade. Wrong looks like pricing the change first and discovering during framing that the requested footprint needs an additional post the price never accounted for. Stop rule: no price goes to the customer for a structural change until the designer confirms it is buildable as requested. Hazard: none.

4. Contact the permitting authority about an amendment requirement before ordering material or starting the changed work, for any request that alters what the issued permit shows. Acceptance: a written record of the inquiry and the AHJ's answer, whether or not an amendment turns out to be required. Wrong looks like assuming a small footprint increase does not need an amendment because the original permit probably covers it. Stop rule: a confirmed amendment requirement pauses the affected work until it is filed, even if the customer wants to move faster. Hazard: none.

5. Price the change from the existing takeoff plus the delta, expressed as added or reduced material, labor hours, and schedule days rather than an isolated new number pulled from memory. Acceptance: a priced delta referencing the original takeoff and estimate it modifies, with a stated labor-hour and schedule-day impact. Wrong looks like a verbal ballpark that never gets reconciled against the original contract. Stop rule: no price goes out without being tied back to the original job's numbers. Hazard: none.

6. Hold current work at the boundary of the affected scope while the price and authorization are pending, and say so to the customer in the same conversation as the price. Acceptance: the crew working unaffected areas of the job, nothing built speculatively ahead of authorization in the affected area. Wrong looks like the crew getting a head start on the probable outcome, which the shop eats if the customer declines or the price changes the scope again. Stop rule: any work that assumes approval before it actually happens gets stopped and, if it cannot be undone cheaply, disclosed to the customer as a sunk cost the shop absorbs, not billed as authorized. Hazard: none.

7. Get written authorization before ordering material or starting the affected work. Acceptance: a documented approval on file, referencing the priced delta. Wrong looks like proceeding on a verbal yes during a site visit with nothing in writing. Stop rule: no authorization, no material order, no affected framing. Hazard: none.

8. Reorder or adjust material through the supplier once authorized, and track the resulting lead time against the schedule, communicating any delay as soon as the supplier confirms it. Acceptance: a confirmed delivery date reflected in the customer-facing schedule before the crew reaches the point where they need it. Wrong looks like discovering the lead time gap only when the crew is standing at the point in the sequence where the new material was supposed to already be on site. Stop rule: framing or decking that would outrun the changed material's delivery date gets resequenced to other tasks rather than stopping the crew cold. Hazard: none.

9. File the permit amendment where step 4 confirmed one is required, and hold any inspection-affected step until it clears. Acceptance: an approved amendment on record before the affected work reaches its own hold-point inspection. Wrong looks like proceeding past a hold point on the original permit while an amendment for the changed scope is still pending. Stop rule: no cleared amendment, no inspection call for the affected scope. Hazard: none.

10. Fold the authorized change into the job's working record so every downstream procedure reads the current scope, not the original. Acceptance: the framing plan, takeoff, and permit set on file all reflect the authorized change, dated, before affected work resumes. Wrong looks like the framing crew working from the original plan while the office's copy shows the change. Stop rule: any discrepancy between the field copy and the office copy stops work until reconciled. Hazard: none.

The record this produces

One Change Order Record per request: the original request as raised and by whom; the step 2 classification; the designer's reverification where triggered; the AHJ inquiry and answer; the priced delta tied to the original estimate; the authorization date and method; the supplier's confirmed delivery date and any resulting schedule change communicated to the customer; the permit amendment reference where filed; and the date the updated plan superseded the original in the field.

The office reads it to reconcile final billing against the original contract. The next crew reads the updated framing plan so nobody frames to a footprint the job no longer has.

Worked pass, including the stop that fired

Contract for a 14 by 18 ft deck, framing in progress, when the homeowner asks the lead on site whether the deck can extend 4 ft further to fit a larger table, since you're already out here anyway.

Step 1 held: the lead said only that the office would get back to them with a price, and did not commit despite the request sounding modest. Step 2 classified it structural, since it changes the joist span and moves the beam line.

Step 3 is where the stop fired. The initial read, based on the lead's sense that it's just a few more feet, was that the existing beam could carry the extended span with the posts moved out. The designer's reverification found otherwise: the extended 16 ft joist span exceeded what the beam size supported at any reasonable post spacing, and the fix required either a larger beam or an added intermediate post. Pricing paused until this was resolved, rather than quoting the just-move-the-posts version the initial read assumed.

Step 4's inquiry confirmed an amendment was required, since the extension changed the permitted footprint. Step 5 priced the delta against the original takeoff: the added footprint worked out to roughly a quarter more decking and joist material than the original scope, plus the upsized beam, and an added labor-hour estimate of about 40 percent over the framing stage's original hours. Step 6 held current framing at the original footprint's boundary while this was priced, with the crew working the unaffected ledger and stair prep in the meantime.

Step 7 got written authorization four days after the request, once the homeowner reviewed the priced delta and the schedule impact. Step 8 reordered the additional decking and the upsized beam stock, with a lead time that pushed decking start back about a week; the office communicated that date the same day the supplier confirmed it. Step 9's amendment cleared before the framing inspection was called on the extended footprint. Step 10 updated the framing plan and takeoff on file before the crew resumed, and the field plan matched the office copy when framing continued.

What the pass shows: the request that sounded like just a few more feet was actually a beam redesign and a permit amendment, and the stop that mattered was refusing to price the easy version of the change before the designer confirmed whether that version could even be built.

When the site does not match this procedure

If the customer wants the change decided on the spot and will not wait for the office's price, tell them plainly what waiting protects, an accurate price and a buildable design, and that a same-day verbal commitment risks both. If a requested change turns out infeasible at any reasonable cost or schedule once designed, present that finding the same way a price would be presented, in writing, rather than letting the request quietly drop.

References

• Local building department permit amendment requirements for a mid-permit scope change, which vary by jurisdiction and by the size of the change
• See related: deckbuilding-post-and-beam-framing-standard, deckbuilding-material-staging-and-site-protection, deckbuilding-customer-walkthrough-and-punch-list