Rewritten subcontractor agreements holding up on a $38k scope dispute
Builders sometimes carry paperwork inherited from a prior employer long after it stops fitting the business, a two page sub agreement with no change order procedure, no notice requirement, and a payment clause that just says progress payments. Having a construction attorney rebuild that package properly, for a fee that often runs in the five figures, typically produces a master sub agreement, a scope exhibit format, a change order form, and a written procedure stating that no additional work gets paid without a signed change order before the work happens. A good construction attorney also walks through the lien notice timeline for that state, since those windows are often short and differ meaningfully by jurisdiction, which is why confirming the specific timeline with local counsel matters. The real test of paperwork like this comes on a scope fight. Say a framing subcontractor claims $38k in extras on a gut rehab, mostly work described as discovered once floors were opened up, with no signed change orders and only a few informal texts along the lines of "take a look at it." Under weak paperwork, an owner might pay most of that or end up in arbitration paying some of it plus fees. Under a properly built package, even a subcontractor who files a lien can be met with the notice-and-procedure section and an unsigned change order log, often settling well below the claimed amount, sometimes around a quarter of it, for the portion of work that was actually authorized in writing. A lien release recorded within days of settlement, ahead of a scheduled construction draw, is frequently worth more in the moment than the dollar amount of the settlement itself. What holds up: a pre-work signature requirement, since the argument stops being about whether work happened and becomes about whether it was authorized. And building the lien release timeline into any settlement, since getting a release recorded on time can matter more than the number attached to it.