One project. Four findings. Every claim has a trail.Open the evidence.
Explore a fully fictional MarginScan on a $2.84 million medical office buildout. Open the findings, follow the example records, and see what a reviewer would check before making a financial claim.
BUILDOUTGeneral construction · fictional case
≠ COMMERCIAL APPROVAL
The number is the beginning of the investigation.
On this fictional project, leadership sees a forecast moving downward. The review separates what can be priced from what still needs documentation and human judgment.
| SOURCE REF. | REVIEW CONDITION | FACE VALUE | CLASSIFICATION |
|---|---|---|---|
| PCO-LOG | Six pending change orders | $87,400 | Potential revenue; not approved |
| CMT-012 | Remaining buyout vs. allowance | $41,200 | Calculated cost exposure |
| LAB-008 | Forecast labor above baseline | +640 HRS | Unpriced; excluded from total |
| SOV-009 | Billing support not reconciled | NOT PRICED | May overlap PCOs; not added |
Combined face value for review prioritization only. It is not confirmed lost profit, approved revenue, or a recovery promise.
These are two different views of the same project: a forecast movement and a register of identifiable conditions. Their difference is not additional recoverable money. A reviewer would reconcile forecast assumptions, labor cost rates, and potential overlap before taking action.
Don't take our word for it. Open the evidence.
Each finding starts with an observation. Expand it to follow fabricated example documents, examine what they establish, and see what would still need a real reviewer to decide.
F-01 / HIGHSix change orders in the approval gapField direction exists. Commercial entitlement still needs review.$87,400POTENTIAL REVENUEOPEN ↘OPEN / CLOSE ↕
In the fictional PCO register, six changes total $87,400. The field trail exists, but the owner-approval status is still open. The amount is not treated as approved revenue or guaranteed recovery.
What direction, notice, pricing, acknowledgment, and contract language support each individual change?
FIELDDaily Report DR-118VIEW EXCERPT +
“Additional partition backing installed at Level 02 per site direction. Foreman recorded crews and quantities pending formal CO approval.”
Control question: does the signed scope include this work?RFIRFI-042 / Scope ClarificationVIEW EXCERPT +
The drawing note references an alternate partition assembly. The response directs the revised detail but does not itself establish a negotiated change-order amount.
Control question: does the direction satisfy contractual change requirements?PCOChange Log / PCO-014–026VIEW EXCERPT +
Six pending proposals: $14,500 + $16,200 + $9,300 + $20,100 + $11,100 + $16,200 = $87,400. All six show “Pending”; none are classified as Approved.
Control question: verify exact items and prevent overlap with billed work.COROwner Correspondence COR-031VIEW EXCERPT +
“Received the revised pricing packet. Please attach the field directives and affected drawing references before commercial review.” Receipt is not approval.
Control question: who owns the response, and when is it due?SOVPay Application 08 / SOVVIEW EXCERPT +
The approved contract schedule does not yet include these pending proposals. This is a reconciliation condition, not proof that the work is presently billable.
Control question: what is approved, completed, submitted, and billed?Validate notice and entitlement, reconcile scope and quantities, assemble substantiation, assign the PM/contract administrator an owner and due date, and update the commercial log. No recovery amount is promised.
F-02 / HIGHRemaining buyout exceeds the allowanceThe estimate-to-commitment handoff needs a cost-to-complete check.$41,200COST EXPOSUREOPEN ↘OPEN / CLOSE ↕
The illustrative estimate carries $312,000 for remaining packages. The updated commitment-and-quote outlook is $353,200. The $41,200 difference needs to be tested for approved scope changes, duplicate allowances, and committed versus merely quoted costs.
Is this genuine cost growth, a forecast classification problem, or a scope item that can be legitimately passed through?
ESTEstimate Rev 03 / AllowanceVIEW EXCERPT +
Remaining buyout allowance for open finishes and MEP support packages: $312,000. Baseline source identifies quantities and exclusions requiring validation.
Check: compare scope inclusions and procurement status.POCommitment Register PO-021VIEW EXCERPT +
Committed amounts and the remaining procurement outlook total $353,200 for the same hypothetical scope grouping. Open quotes remain separately identified from executed POs.
Check: remove duplicates, allowances, and any approved owner additions.ETCCost-to-Complete ETC-009VIEW EXCERPT +
The variance is flagged for PM review and forecast classification. Labor cost is not included in this buyout comparison, avoiding accidental double counting.
Check: update the forecast only after actual scope and procurement reconciliation.Reconcile each remaining package against executed commitments, exclusions, allowances, and approved changes. Assign forecast ownership and document the expected cost consequence. Treat the amount as a cost exposure to validate, not a recovery claim.
F-03 / HIGHLabor hours moved, but cost is unverifiedQuantities, timecards, and projected man-hours require reconciliation.+640 HRSNOT DOLLAR-PRICEDOPEN ↘OPEN / CLOSE ↕
The fictional productivity comparison shows 7,820 budget-equivalent hours against an 8,460-hour projected total. The 640-hour difference is a useful exception, but rate mix, earned quantities, and forecast treatment must be verified before translating it into margin dollars.
Does the variance represent real productivity loss, changed scope, incomplete quantity tracking, or a stale crew forecast?
FIELDDaily Report DR-124VIEW EXCERPT +
Crew reports disrupted access and multiple remobilizations. The notes reference affected areas but contain no reviewed labor-cost claim.
Check: validate hours, earned progress, causation, and change documentation.TIMETimesheet Extract TME-015VIEW EXCERPT +
Crew allocation codes and time-book entries support an hour-count comparison. Loaded labor rates are not provided in this example.
Check: job coding, burdened rates, and rework versus added scope.ETCLabor Forecast LAB-008VIEW EXCERPT +
Budget-equivalent 7,820 hours. Current projected total 8,460 hours. Difference +640 hours. No cost impact is assigned and none is added to the $128,600 priced-items register.
Check: quantify only after labor-cost and production records reconcile.Validate forecast methods and earned quantities with the PM and superintendent, separate changed work from productivity variance, and price the impact only if the evidence supports it. Unquantified stays unquantified.
F-04 / MEDThe pay application lacks a clean paper trailBilling support is unresolved; the same change dollars must not be counted twice.OPENUNPRICED PROCESS RISKOPEN ↘OPEN / CLOSE ↕
A fictional pay-application review finds two schedule-of-values line items without an obvious approval-backup reference. The gap may relate to the pending changes already recorded in Finding F-01. No separate amount is counted.
Does every submitted line tie to completed work, approved contract value, supporting records, and actual billing history?
PAYPay Application 08VIEW EXCERPT +
Line items for revised partitions and supplemental supports are included for backup review. Supporting approval references are blank in the review workpaper.
Check: distinguish requested billing, approved value, and amounts actually paid.SOVSchedule of Values SOV-009VIEW EXCERPT +
Two cost-code references do not map cleanly to approved contract modifications in the hypothetical document set. The workpaper requests backup, not a new claim.
Check: approval history, billing status, and contract requirements.CTRLOverlap Check / PCO RegisterVIEW EXCERPT +
Potential connection to PCO-014–026. The billing exception is unpriced and excluded from financial totals until duplicate scope and approval are resolved.
Check: do not count one commercial condition as two separate losses.Tie the billing package, approved contract modifications, and change log together line by line. Build a clean approval packet and identify the responsible billing owner. No separate dollar exposure is claimed.
ABOUT THIS FILE TAP TO OPEN +
A fully fictional, evidence-linked construction profitability review. No actual client, contracts, or financial records are represented.
A finding is only useful when somebody can act on it.
The point isn't to decorate a report with red boxes. It's to give the owner and project team a defensible position, a priority, the source records, and an accountable next move.
What the project record shows, what is still missing, and why the issue matters.
Confirmed, calculated, estimated, or unquantified—never one misleading recovery total.
Human judgment before a finding becomes client-facing. Exceptions and uncertainty remain visible.
Clear next steps, responsible roles, and follow-up conditions that leadership can use.
Start with one project worth understanding.
MarginScan is a defined, human-reviewed construction profitability engagement—not a software subscription and not an accounting, legal, or engineering opinion. Scope and terms are confirmed before work begins.