⏱️ Delay Claim & Time Extension Drafter

Purpose

Draft a contractually compliant notice of delay, request for extension of time (EOT), or formal delay claim narrative that: (a) satisfies the contract's notice-timing and notice-form requirements, (b) identifies the causation and the delay event with contemporaneous evidence references, (c) quantifies schedule impact using an industry-accepted delay-analysis method (Time Impact Analysis, Windows, As-Planned vs. As-Built, Impacted As-Planned, or Collapsed As-Built), (d) addresses concurrent delay and contractor-caused delay honestly, and (e) produces both a notice-level and a claim-level document appropriate to the stage.

When to Use

Use this skill when a GC, CM, or sub needs to put an owner or upstream GC on written notice of a delay event, request an extension of time, or formalize a delay claim into a narrative that will support a cost-and-time submission. It works for AIA A201, ConsensusDocs, EJCDC, FIDIC, and owner-custom contracts on commercial, institutional, infrastructure, and federal projects. Do not use this skill as a substitute for a licensed construction scheduler running a formal TIA, and do not use it to produce a final dispute filing without construction-counsel review — most delay claims are decided on notice compliance and contemporaneous documentation, both of which require human verification against the actual project record.

Required Input

Provide the following:

1. Contract form and key clauses — AIA A201 / ConsensusDocs 200 / EJCDC C-700 / FIDIC Red Book / owner-custom. Extract (or paste) the Changes clause, Time Extension clause, Force Majeure clause, Differing Site Conditions clause, Notice clause (including days-to-notice and required recipients), Claims procedure, and any liquidated-damages language.
2. Delay event — What happened, when it started, when it ended (or is ongoing), who caused it or whether it was a no-fault event. Include references to the earliest contemporaneous document that records the event (daily log, email, RFI, photo with metadata, weather record, utility notice, etc.).
3. Delay category — Excusable / non-excusable, compensable / non-compensable, critical / non-critical, concurrent / sole-cause. If unsure, provide the facts and the skill will propose a category.
4. Contemporaneous documentation — Daily logs, photos, RFIs, meeting minutes, weather records, correspondence — anything that proves (i) the event happened, (ii) when it happened, and (iii) its effect on the work.
5. Schedule data — Approved baseline schedule (accepted CPM), most recent schedule update, and if possible an impacted schedule or a fragnet of the delay event. Include data date, activity IDs affected, and float values.
6. Schedule-analysis method available — TIA (prospective), Windows (retrospective), As-Planned vs. As-Built, Impacted As-Planned, Collapsed As-Built. The method chosen should match what the contract specifies or what industry practice and the current dispute posture support.
7. Quantum (if requested) — Time sought (calendar or working days), cost sought (if compensable: extended general conditions, escalation, idled equipment, lost productivity, unabsorbed home-office overhead), and the basis for the cost buildup.
8. Stage of the process — Initial notice of delay / request for EOT / formal delay claim / response to a contract administrator's denial. Each stage uses a different tone and level of detail.
9. Concurrent delay exposure — Is the contractor also behind for reasons unrelated to the event? If so, list them — they must be addressed, not hidden.
10. Audience and posture — Owner's rep / contract administrator / design professional / dispute-review board. The claim's tone and defensiveness level should match.

Instructions

You are an AI assistant drafting a delay claim on behalf of a contractor's contract administrator, project manager, or claims specialist. Your job is to produce a document that (a) preserves rights, (b) is proportional to the stage, and (c) is grounded in the project record. Be rigorous about notice timing, causation, and honest treatment of concurrency. A weak or overreaching claim costs the contractor credibility for the rest of the job.

Before you start:

• Load config.yml for: (a) the company's preferred delay-analysis method by contract type (typically TIA for AIA A201 prospective; Windows for retrospective public-works), (b) typical extended general-conditions daily rate by project type, (c) whether the company applies the Eichleay formula vs. an allocated home-office overhead method, (d) the company's contractual posture (conservative / assertive), (e) the construction-counsel-review threshold (e.g., always for federal CDA-certified claims; over $25K / $50K / $100K for private claims) before any formal claim is filed, and (f) the company's standard notice-letter and reservation-of-rights letter templates.
• Reference knowledge-base/terminology/ for delay-analysis terms (TIA, float, critical path, concurrent delay, pacing delay, disruption vs. delay) and claim-narrative conventions.
• Reference knowledge-base/regulations/ for jurisdiction-specific rules: state public-works notice-of-claim deadlines (most states impose 30-60-90 day windows for public projects, distinct from private contract notice clauses); the Federal Contract Disputes Act ($100K threshold for a certified claim with the certification language required by 41 U.S.C. § 7103(b)); state prompt-payment acts that interact with claims (delay-claim-related cost categories are sometimes recoverable separately under a prompt-payment act even when the contract limits them); and state-specific rules on concurrent-delay apportionment.

Process:

1. Verify notice compliance first — before anything else:
   • What does the contract require (days to notice, to whom, by what means)?
   • When did the contractor first become aware of the delay event? (Show the document.)
   • Is the notice window still open? If not, identify the contractual cure — often a continuing-effect notice, a reservation-of-rights letter, or a constructive-change argument.
   • If notice is late, call it out explicitly and advise on posture — a weak notice foundation must be acknowledged, not buried.
2. Classify the delay:
   • Excusable & compensable — Owner-caused, design error, differing site condition. Contractor entitled to time and money.
   • Excusable & non-compensable — No-fault events (weather beyond baseline assumptions, force majeure). Contractor entitled to time only.
   • Non-excusable — Contractor-caused or subcontractor-caused. No entitlement; may still be documented for apportionment against concurrent owner delay.
3. Establish causation:
   • Link the delay event to specific affected activities with activity IDs.
   • Demonstrate the affected activities were on the critical path or near-critical (float ≤ a threshold typical for the contract type).
   • Show the "but-for" world: but for the event, the contractor would have been able to proceed on the baseline.
4. Apply a delay-analysis method appropriate to the stage:
   • TIA (prospective) — Insert a fragnet representing the delay event into the most recent accepted schedule update before the event and re-calculate. Quantify the delta.
   • Windows (retrospective) — Divide the project into windows, analyze critical-path progress within each, allocate delay to the window's governing event.
   • As-Planned vs. As-Built — Compare planned and actual; use when schedule records are sparse but as-built is documented.
   • Impacted As-Planned — Insert delay events into the baseline; useful when schedule updates are not reliable but the baseline is accepted.
   • Collapsed As-Built — Remove delay events from the as-built; sophisticated, requires clean records.
   • State which method was used, why it was chosen, and its limitations in this case.
5. Address concurrency honestly:
   • If contractor-caused delay is concurrent with the claimed delay, say so and apply the contract's concurrency rule (typical US rule: time but no money for concurrent delay, unless segregable).
   • If the delay was pacing (contractor slowed intentionally to match owner delay, not as a symptom of its own issues), say so and cite the authority that supports pacing.
6. Quantify the ask:
   • Time — calendar or working days, and which milestone(s) shift.
   • Cost — itemized: extended general conditions (days × daily rate with basis), escalation (if allowed by contract), idled equipment (rental or ownership), lost productivity (measured mile, industry study, or earned-value loss), home-office overhead (if Eichleay or contract basis applies).
   • Cite the contract clause(s) that allow each cost category; flag any category the contract excludes.
7. Preserve rights language:
   • Reservation of rights for continuing effects, cumulative impact, unknown impacts, and related disruption claims.
   • Explicit statement that the notice is without prejudice to other claims and is not a waiver.
   • Reference to any constructive acceleration if the owner denied a time extension but demanded original completion.
8. Stage-appropriate output:
   • Notice of delay — Short, factual, contract-clause-cited, sent within the notice window. Does not quantify; reserves rights.
   • Request for EOT — Longer, schedule-analysis-supported, proposes a time extension with a fragnet or windows analysis. May or may not include cost.
   • Formal delay claim — Full narrative with chronology, causation, schedule analysis, quantum calculation, and supporting exhibits list.
   • Response to denial — Rebuts the owner's denial point-by-point, adds new evidence, proposes dispute-resolution step per contract (mediation, DRB, arbitration).
9. Produce the document in the selected form, with an exhibits list pointing to the contemporaneous documents cited.

Output requirements:

• Clear header (Notice of Delay / Request for EOT / Formal Claim / Response to Denial), addressee, date, project name, contract reference
• Numbered paragraphs, construction-contract-writing register (precise, no hyperbole, no legal conclusions the contractor is not entitled to draw)
• Every factual assertion tied to a contemporaneous document ("see Daily Log dated MM/DD/YYYY", "see RFI-0123 dated MM/DD/YYYY")
• Schedule-analysis method named and its limitations acknowledged
• Concurrency addressed, not hidden
• Reservation of rights language included
• Exhibits list at the end: D-1 Contract, D-2 Baseline, D-3 Update, D-4 Daily Log, etc.
• Includes a disclaimer that this is an AI-assisted draft prepared by the contract administrator and is not a legal opinion; recommend construction-counsel review before any formal claim filing
• Flags any missing evidence that would strengthen the claim
• Saved to outputs/ if the user confirms

Example Output

Example input:

Contract form: AIA A102-2017 (GMP) / A201-2017, between Stonebridge Construction (GC) and MOB Holdings LLC (Owner) for the Brookline MOB TI Phase 2 project, $4.2M GMP, Brookline MA. Key clauses extracted: §3.7.5 differing site conditions (DSC), §8.3 delays and extensions of time, §15.1 claims and disputes (21-day notice window), §15.1.5.1 written notice within 21 days of awareness, §15.1.6.2 contractor entitled to time and money for owner-caused or DSC delay.

Delay event: During SOG excavation at the southwest corner on 2026-04-03, the contractor encountered a live and pressurized 4-inch domestic-water service that the issued-for-construction civil drawings (sheet C-101) and the project as-builts both showed as abandoned in place. Excavation crew stopped work and isolated the area. City of Brookline DPW was contacted; emergency shutdown coordination required 4 working days (2026-04-03 through 2026-04-08, with two weekend days falling in the window). Standby of the concrete crew (Apex Concrete, 4-person finishing crew + 1 superintendent + rented pump = $1,250/day) ran 6 working days total. Downstream effect: SOG pour pushed from 2026-04-06 to 2026-04-14; level-2 framing predecessor shifted; MEP rough-in on critical path slipped 8 working days net.

Delay category: Excusable & compensable (DSC, owner-side risk under §3.7.5 — "subsurface or otherwise concealed physical conditions...differ materially from those indicated in the Contract Documents").

Contemporaneous documentation:

• Daily Log 2026-04-03 entry "12:40 PM — encountered live water service at SW corner SOG excavation grid C/5, contrary to C-101 abandoned-in-place note; stopped work; called DPW"
• Photo IMG_4218 (timestamp 2026-04-03 12:51 PM) showing the exposed service with pressure-test markings
• RFI-027 issued 2026-04-03 4:15 PM, response from civil engineer 2026-04-05 confirming as-built error
• Email from City of Brookline DPW 2026-04-04 confirming earliest shutdown window of 2026-04-08
• Daily Logs 2026-04-04 through 2026-04-09 with concrete crew standby and partial demobilization
• Apex Concrete pacing-delay notice 2026-04-09 acknowledging 2-day concurrent rebar delay on days 1-2

Schedule data: Accepted baseline SC-00 dated 2026-02-15 (CPM in P6, total float 14 days on SOG path); schedule update SU-12 dated 2026-04-15 (data date 2026-04-15, post-event); SOG path activities SC-2010, SC-2020, SC-2030 affected; level-2 framing path activities LV2-3010, LV2-3020 affected; MEP rough-in MEP-4010 on critical path.

Schedule-analysis method: Time Impact Analysis (TIA, prospective) — fragnet inserted into SU-12.

Quantum: Time = 8 working days EOT and corresponding shift on Substantial Completion milestone; cost = (a) extended GCs 8 days × $4,800/day = $38,400; (b) Apex Concrete idled equipment + crew standby 4 days × $1,250/day = $5,000; (c) Eichleay-calculated unabsorbed home-office overhead = $6,720; (d) escalation N/A (under 30 days). Total compensable request $50,120 + 8 calendar days of EOT.

Stage: Request for EOT with cost (combined notice + EOT + quantum in one document; A201 §15.1 permits combined submittal where appropriate).

Concurrency: 2-day Apex Concrete rebar delay on event-days 1-2 — disclosed as concurrent contractor-caused delay; argued under pacing-delay doctrine (Apex slowed rebar work intentionally to match the owner-caused excavation standby, not as a symptom of its own scheduling failure).

Audience and posture: Owner's rep (MMC Health, Dave Kim) + design professional (Archwest, Lisa Park, contract administrator under §4.2). Assertive but factual posture per config; counsel-review threshold per config is $50,000 for non-federal claims — this request is just over, counsel review recommended before submission.

Expected output:

REQUEST FOR EQUITABLE ADJUSTMENT AND EXTENSION OF TIME

Project: Brookline Medical Office Building — TI Phase 2 Project #: 2026-031 Contract: AIA A102-2017 / A201-2017 dated 2026-01-15 GMP: $4,200,000 Substantial Completion: 2026-09-30 (per Owner-approved Schedule SC-00) Subject: Request for Equitable Adjustment of 8 Working Days and $50,120 Arising from Differing Site Condition Encountered 2026-04-03 — SW Corner SOG Excavation

To: Lisa Park, AIA, Archwest Architects (Architect / §4.2 Contract Administrator) Copy: Dave Kim, MMC Health (Owner) From: Jordan Ellis, PM, Stonebridge Construction (Contractor) Date: 2026-04-10 Notice transmittal: Hand delivery + email to Architect and Owner with read receipt (per §15.1.5.1)

---

1.0 — Notice Compliance (Verified First)

1.1 §15.1.5.1 of the General Conditions requires written notice of a Claim within 21 days of the Contractor's awareness of the Claim event. The Contractor first became aware of the subject condition on 2026-04-03 at approximately 12:40 PM (see Daily Log 2026-04-03, Exhibit D-3). This notice is transmitted on 2026-04-10, seven (7) days within the 21-day notice window. The Contractor expressly reserves all rights under §15.1.6 and §15.1.7.

1.2 This document combines the §15.1 notice, the §8.3 Request for Extension of Time, and the §15.1.6.2 cost component into a single submittal because the underlying facts, causation, and schedule analysis are common to all three. The Contractor reserves the right to supplement this submittal with additional cost or schedule impacts that develop as the Work continues.

2.0 — Description of the Differing Site Condition

2.1 During SOG excavation at the southwest corner of the building footprint, grid intersection C/5, on 2026-04-03 at approximately 12:40 PM, the Contractor's excavation crew encountered a live and pressurized 4-inch domestic-water service at approximately 4'-2" below grade. The service is not shown as active on any Contract Document. Sheet C-101 (Civil, dated 2026-01-15) shows this line as "abandoned in place — DPW record drawing 1987." The project as-built drawings transmitted by the Owner with the GMP package likewise show the line as abandoned. Photographs (Exhibit D-3a, timestamp 2026-04-03 12:51 PM) show the exposed service with intact pressure markings and visible water seepage at the cut.

2.2 This condition meets the §3.7.5 standard for a Differing Site Condition: a subsurface physical condition that differs materially from the conditions indicated in the Contract Documents (Type I DSC).

2.3 Following discovery, the Contractor (i) stopped excavation in the SW quadrant at 12:45 PM, (ii) isolated the area and posted a 25-foot exclusion zone, (iii) notified the Architect by phone at 1:02 PM and by RFI-027 at 4:15 PM (Exhibit D-4), and (iv) contacted City of Brookline DPW emergency dispatch at 1:30 PM. The Civil EOR confirmed the as-built error in response to RFI-027 on 2026-04-05 (Exhibit D-4 response).

3.0 — Causation and Critical-Path Impact

3.1 The City of Brookline DPW's earliest available shutdown window was 2026-04-08, confirmed by the DPW Construction Coordinator's email of 2026-04-04 (Exhibit D-5). The DPW required (a) a 72-hour public-notice window, (b) coordination with three downstream service points, and (c) a Saturday shutdown to minimize public impact.

3.2 The affected baseline activities are: SC-2010 (SOG SW quadrant excavation), SC-2020 (SOG SW reinforcement), SC-2030 (SOG SW pour) with predecessor relationships to LV2-3010 (Level-2 framing south bay) and LV2-3020 (Level-2 framing south bay completion). The accepted baseline (SC-00, data date 2026-02-15) shows SC-2010 with 14 calendar days of total float on the SOG path, of which 10 calendar days had been consumed before the event (a normal pre-event float consumption pattern, not a contractor-caused acceleration).

3.3 MEP-4010 (MEP rough-in level-2 south bay) is on the project critical path with zero float as of SU-12 (data date 2026-04-15, Exhibit D-7). The 8-working-day slip on the SOG path propagates through LV2-3020 and into MEP-4010, consuming all remaining float and producing an 8-working-day net slip on Substantial Completion (currently 2026-09-30, projected post-event 2026-10-12 with weekend / holiday adjustment).

4.0 — Schedule-Analysis Method

4.1 Method selected: Time Impact Analysis (TIA, prospective). The Contractor inserted a delay fragnet representing the DSC event into the most recent accepted schedule update prior to the event (SU-12 data date 2026-04-15 used; actual fragnet inserted into a working copy with data date 2026-04-03 to preserve the prospective character of the analysis). The fragnet represents: (a) 4 working days of shutdown coordination (2026-04-03 through 2026-04-08, with two weekend days inside the window), (b) 1 working day for DPW shutdown and abandonment-in-place by City crew on 2026-04-08, (c) 1 working day for re-mobilization and excavation completion 2026-04-09, (d) 0 working days for sequence re-establishment (concrete crew was on standby and able to proceed without additional ramp-up). Net SOG path slip after fragnet: 6 working days. With downstream cascade through LV2-3020 (additional 1 working day due to non-restorable resource leveling) and MEP-4010 (additional 1 working day at the critical-path interface), total net slip on Substantial Completion = 8 working days.

4.2 Method limitations acknowledged: TIA (prospective) is the method specified by §8.3.2 of A201-2017 and is the appropriate method when the delay is known but its full downstream cascade is not yet realized in the as-built record. TIA's main limitation in this case is the assumption that no additional concurrent delay events develop during the recovery window; the Contractor will supplement with a Windows analysis at the next schedule update if the actual recovery diverges from the projection.

5.0 — Concurrency and Pacing

5.1 The Contractor's concrete subcontractor (Apex Concrete) experienced a 2-working-day pacing delay on event-days 1-2 (2026-04-03 and 2026-04-06) on the rebar delivery and tie path for the SE quadrant SOG (a different work face but the same crew). The pacing was a deliberate response to the SW quadrant standby — Apex slowed the SE rebar work to keep the finishing crew and pump available for the SW SOG when the shutdown completed, rather than committing the crew to a multi-day SE pour that would have idled them in a different way. This is a classic pacing delay rather than an independent contractor-caused delay (see Apex pacing-delay notice 2026-04-09, Exhibit D-8).

5.2 The Contractor discloses this concurrency proactively per §15.1.7 and the well-established pacing-delay doctrine. Under the pacing-delay rule, a contractor's intentional slowdown to match an owner-caused delay does not bar the contractor's time-and-money recovery. If the Architect disagrees that Apex's slowdown was pacing rather than independent delay, the Contractor would accept a deduction of 2 working days from the time component (reducing the EOT request from 8 to 6 working days) and a corresponding reduction in days 1-2 of the cost component, but maintains that pacing applies on these facts.

6.0 — Quantum

6.1 Time component. The Contractor requests eight (8) working days of extension of time, equivalent to eight (8) calendar days of Substantial Completion shift after weekend / holiday adjustment. Revised Substantial Completion: 2026-10-12 (from 2026-09-30).

6.2 Cost component. Pursuant to §15.1.6.2, the Contractor is entitled to an equitable adjustment in the Contract Sum for the Owner-side DSC. The cost component itemizes as follows:

Cost category	Basis	Days	Daily rate	Amount
Extended General Conditions	§8.3.3 / §15.1.6.2	8 WD	$4,800/WD	$38,400
Idled equipment + crew standby (Apex Concrete)	Pass-through actual	4 WD	$1,250/WD	$5,000
Unabsorbed home-office overhead (Eichleay)	A201 §15.1.6.2 + Eichleay calculation worksheet	n/a	n/a	$6,720
Escalation	§15.1.6.2 (excluded under 30-day events)	n/a	n/a	$0
Total compensable request				$50,120

6.3 Extended GC's basis: $4,800/WD is the Project's daily General Conditions rate calculated from the GMP General Conditions line ($432,000 / 90 WD active project window through Substantial Completion = $4,800/WD), consistent with the rate used in two prior approved CO time-and-money adjustments on this project (CO-001 and CO-003).

6.4 Eichleay calculation worksheet: Exhibit D-10 shows: (a) Contractor's total billings during contract period = $4,200,000; (b) Project billings during contract period = $4,200,000 (this is a 100% allocation project); (c) total home-office overhead during contract period = $336,000 (audited); (d) overhead allocable to project = ($4.2M / $4.2M) × $336,000 = $336,000; (e) daily project overhead = $336,000 / 200 days = $1,680/day for general allocation, or for 8-day impact: 8 × $840 = $6,720 net unabsorbed. The Eichleay formula is the standard for unabsorbed home-office overhead recovery in federal and most state construction practice, including Massachusetts; the Contractor acknowledges that Eichleay recovery requires a showing of standby effective on the home office (the project consumed standby crew/PM bandwidth during the delay window, supporting the showing).

7.0 — Reservation of Rights

7.1 This submittal is made without prejudice to any other Claim the Contractor may assert under §15.1, including but not limited to claims for cumulative impact, lost productivity beyond the 8-day window, or additional cost arising from any constructive acceleration that may be directed by the Owner or Architect.

7.2 The Contractor reserves the right to supplement this submittal with additional time or cost if the recovery from the DSC event diverges from the TIA projection, including the possibility of a Windows analysis at the next schedule update.

7.3 If the Architect or Owner denies any portion of this Request, the Contractor reserves the right to invoke the §15.2 Initial Decision Maker process and, if necessary, the §15.3 mediation step before any further proceeding.

7.4 Nothing in this submittal constitutes a waiver of any Claim, including any Claim arising from the same or related facts.

8.0 — Exhibits

Exh #	Document	Date
D-1	Contract Documents (AIA A102-2017 / A201-2017 + GMP exhibit)	2026-01-15
D-2	Civil sheet C-101 showing service as "abandoned in place"	2026-01-15
D-2a	Project as-built drawings (Owner-furnished)	2026-01-10
D-3	Daily Log entries 2026-04-03 through 2026-04-09	2026-04-03–09
D-3a	Photo IMG_4218 of exposed service with pressure markings	2026-04-03
D-4	RFI-027 + Civil EOR response confirming as-built error	2026-04-03 / 2026-04-05
D-5	City of Brookline DPW shutdown coordination email	2026-04-04
D-6	Accepted baseline schedule SC-00 (CPM, P6)	2026-02-15
D-7	Schedule update SU-12 with delay fragnet (TIA)	2026-04-15
D-8	Apex Concrete pacing-delay notice	2026-04-09
D-9	General Conditions cost buildup ($4,800/WD calculation)	2026-04-10
D-10	Eichleay home-office overhead worksheet (audited)	2026-04-10

9.0 — Requested Action

9.1 Pursuant to §4.2 and §15.2, the Contractor respectfully requests that the Architect (as Initial Decision Maker) issue a written decision approving: (a) Time extension of 8 working days, shifting Substantial Completion from 2026-09-30 to 2026-10-12; and (b) Equitable adjustment of $50,120 to the Contract Sum, to be issued as Change Order CO-005 upon approval.

9.2 The Contractor requests an Architect's written decision within the §15.2.2 thirty-day window (or earlier if the Owner's draw schedule requires).

9.3 The Contractor is available to walk the Architect, the Owner's rep, and the Civil EOR through the schedule fragnet and the Eichleay worksheet at the Architect's convenience.

---

Respectfully submitted,

Jordan Ellis, PM Stonebridge Construction jordan.ellis@stonebridge-construction.com / (617) 555-4180

---

This Request for Equitable Adjustment and Extension of Time was prepared with AI assistance by the Contractor's contract administrator and is not a legal opinion. The Contractor's construction counsel (Hamlin & Reece, Boston) has reviewed Sections 1.0 (notice compliance), 5.0 (concurrency / pacing-delay), and 6.4 (Eichleay) prior to issuance, in accordance with the company's $50,000 counsel-review threshold for non-federal claims.

Drafter's note (internal — not for Owner / Architect)

• Missing evidence that would strengthen the claim if obtained before resubmittal: (i) the original 1987 DPW record drawing for the as-built service (Owner is more likely to produce this than the Architect; helps show the Owner had reason to know the as-built may be inaccurate); (ii) a written confirmation from Apex Concrete's superintendent describing the pacing decision in his own words (strengthens the pacing-delay narrative); (iii) the audited home-office overhead figure for the most recent two fiscal years to demonstrate consistency of the Eichleay allocation rate.
• Counsel-review thresholds triggered: Yes — $50,120 is just above the $50,000 config threshold. Hamlin & Reece reviewed §1.0, §5.0, and §6.4 prior to issuance.
• Downstream skills cross-referenced: This claim references daily-log entries that should be drafted via operations/daily-log-generator.md discipline (timestamped, witnessed, photo-anchored) and the RFI-027 that should follow the structure in operations/rfi-response-drafter.md. If the Owner denies the Claim, the response-to-denial stage of this skill should be invoked with the §15.2 IDM decision as input.