The Watson case has been troublesome. The court manifests hostility towards post-completion claims for extras by contractors on small jobs. The time span of a construction contract and the flexibility needed in design make changes inevitable. Yet, the court seems hard on the contractor. It imposes administrative requirements both in terms of those needed in the field and those needed if disputes arise before the contractor can recover for changes. As suggested in the book, the contractor in such a job might be better to add a contingency in the price to cover small extras that are likely to be requested rather than to comply with the formal requirements.

Describe another alternative to the change process on small projects (like the one involved in Watson). Why is this an improvement? What are the downsides?