Scope of Work Question

[Fred]

do you, in the corrected report, revise your scope of work

No. "Communicating" is not part of the "scope of work," so additional communicating has not revised your scope of work. That is, if you are using the term scope of work to mean scope of work as defined by USPAP.

 

[PropertyEconomics]

I just added a comp for the brokers funding source. I added a paragraph to my expanded SOW section.

So you opt to change your Scope of Work? My original thoughts are the same as yours.
Does it make a difference if its added to the scope of work or identified in a letter or additional addenda?

 

[Fred]

It has. Just last week. The house I appraised had a non-permitted room in the garage which I didn't count in value. It was a three car garage. The cost to remove the interior walls was less than $500 - it was really a make-shift type of office, but functional. I commented in the report all about it and how it is not considered in living area and not in value and that the cost to cure is less than $500, but then in the sales comparison approach I gave value for a 2 car garage only. I fell asleep on the report actually. I had to finish it before taking my seven year old son to the hospital (he's okay now), and the rush made me do something stupid that was picked up on.

[1] I changed the report, increased the value, stated the error that was made and how it was corrected in both a cover letter and in the addendum, and gave it a new signature date.

[2] Whether the scope of work changed or not, I don't know. I think I was still asked to appraise the property for market value following the client and Fannie guidelines and that remained the same. My best guess would be that I was supposed to be accurate and instead of the scope of work being changed, it wasn't quite lived up to perfectly the first time, so it is more of a correction to comply with the original scope, than a change in the actual scope.

I could be wrong.

I'd say, 1) you didn't just change a report, you developed a new opinion and created a new report; and 2) it's not that the scope changed, but that you had two scopes, one for each assignment.

 

[CANative]

So you opt to change your Scope of Work? My original thoughts are the same as yours.
Does it make a difference if its added to the scope of work or identified in a letter or additional addenda?

I didn't change the scope of work because the old scope of work was in the prior report and the new scope of work in this report is just the scope of work.:icon_mrgreen:

And I don't think it matters too much how you do things as long as you make it clear what you did. We forumites worry too much. Like worrying about being tainted by looking at a purchase contract.

 

[Mr Rex]

I'd only change the SOW if my current SOW allowed for typos, grammatical errors, or errors of fact or ommission. If your current SOW allows for that, I do suggest you change your boilerplate SOW

 

[Mike Garrett RAA]

Define Scope of Work...per USPAP.

Correcting a typo does not change your scope of work.

 

[Lobo Fan]

A modification could be significant enough to change the scope of work, such as asking for a cost approach after the fact. I would not consider a minor error correcton to be change in the scope of work. Like almost all answers, it depends upon the change. Adding a new comp or two is on the border line. Adding new listings that were not requested originally is a change IMHO.

Whenever I make a change of anu consequence, I make a note in the additional comments section citing what was done and who requested the change. I will even sometimes cut and paste the revision request, especially if it is requesting more detail.

 

[PropertyEconomics]

Define Scope of Work...per USPAP.

Correcting a typo does not change your scope of work.

Removed because of Stevens response. Thank you Mr Garrett.

 

[PropertyEconomics]

No. "Communicating" is not part of the "scope of work," so additional communicating has not revised your scope of work. That is, if you are using the term scope of work to mean scope of work as defined by USPAP.

Thank you Steven .. that actually makes it very clear to me. I appreciate your response.

 

[Mr Rex]

Does your original SOW not include proofreading? If not specifically mentioned, I would think it would be implied or inferred.