EPC Variation Analysis.
From notice to substantiated claim.
Leah ingests the contract, the project execution data, and every variation request. She classifies each variation against the governing clauses, quantifies time and cost, and drafts the claim or response with evidence linked to source.
Variations are the largest commercial loss in EPC delivery.
Variation requests sit in inbox for weeks
Notices arrive by email, by transmittal, by site instruction. Without a single intake layer, contractual notice periods slip past, and entitlement is lost before the variation is ever logged.
Substantiation evidence scattered across project teams
Daily reports sit with site engineers, schedule data with planning, cost ledgers with commercial. Pulling the evidence to support a single variation can take weeks of cross-team chasing.
Time and cost quantification is manual
Delay analysis, prolongation cost, disruption, and resequencing impact are calculated in spreadsheets that no two project controls leads build the same way. Quantification is slow and inconsistent.
FIDIC and bespoke contract terms applied inconsistently
FIDIC Red, Yellow, Silver, NEC option clauses, and heavily amended bespoke contracts each handle variations differently. Project teams interpret the same clause differently across packages and sites.
Counter-claims missed
When the contractor submits a claim, the employer often has counter-entitlement under the same contract. Without a structured analysis layer, counter-claims are missed and the negotiation starts on the back foot.
Arbitration prep starts from zero
When a dispute escalates, legal teams reconstruct the variation history from scratch: contracts, notices, programmes, cost data, correspondence. Months of work that should have been a query against a structured record.
Every notice captured, classified, and clocked
Leah ingests variation notices from email, transmittals, site instructions, and project management systems. Each notice is tagged by type (design change, scope, ground conditions, force majeure, regulatory, employer instruction), linked to the relevant contract package, and clocked against the contractual notice period.
“We used to find out about variations when the monthly report landed. Now every notice is logged, classified, and the contractual clock is running from day one.”
Project Director, Infrastructure Contractor
Five steps from variation notice to resolution
Leah works on top of the project systems you already run. No replacement of Primavera, Aconex, or your ERP. Value from the first variation logged.
Receive Variation
Notices arrive from any channel: email, transmittal, site instruction, or PM system. Leah captures, deduplicates, and registers each variation against the right contract package.
Classify Against Contract
Each variation is classified by cause and tested against the governing clauses. FIDIC, NEC, and bespoke conditions are applied as written, including particular conditions and amendments.
Quantify Impact
Time impact is analysed against the live programme. Cost is built up from labour, plant, materials, and prolongation. Every figure is traceable to source records.
Draft Claim or Response
Leah produces the claim narrative, contractual basis, chronology, quantification, and indexed evidence bundle. Contractor claim or employer response, in the format the contract requires.
Track to Resolution
Every variation is tracked from notice to resolution. Negotiation history, decisions, and the underlying record are preserved for arbitration if it comes to that.
Got Questions? Get Answers.
Leah works with FIDIC Red, Yellow, Silver, and Green books, NEC3 and NEC4 (all main and secondary options), AIA, JCT, and bespoke EPC and EPCM contracts. She reads the actual document, including particular conditions and amendments, so heavily negotiated terms are applied as written rather than against a generic template.
No. Leah operates on top of the systems you already use. Programme data from Primavera or MS Project, document control from Aconex or Procore, cost from your ERP, and contracts from your CLM all flow into Leah's analysis layer. Nothing is replaced. The variation register, classification, quantification, and drafting outputs are produced on top of your existing data.
Concurrency is one of the most contested areas in delay analysis. Leah applies the concurrency principle specified by the contract (apportionment, dominant cause, or the Malmaison approach, depending on the governing law and clauses) and documents the reasoning in the claim narrative. Where the contract is silent, Leah follows the prevailing approach in the relevant jurisdiction and flags the assumption for legal review.
Yes. The same analysis layer produces contractor claims and employer responses. When a claim is received, Leah surfaces any counter-entitlement under the same contract, drafts the contractual rebuttal, and assembles the supporting evidence. Both sides of the negotiation work from a substantiated record.
Leah ingests from email, EDMS platforms (Aconex, Procore, Asite), planning tools (Primavera, MS Project), cost systems, and uploaded site records. Each piece of evidence is indexed against the variation it supports, so the claim narrative cites the underlying daily report, transmittal, programme version, or cost line directly.
Yes. Leah is deployed by infrastructure, energy, and EPC contractors with strict data security requirements. Project data and contract content do not train Leah's underlying models. Customer data is encrypted in transit and at rest. SOC 2 Type II, GDPR, and ISO 27001 aligned. Private instance deployment is available for projects with strict data isolation requirements.
