Change is inevitable in software projects. Exploitation of change is optional—but many contracts quietly allow it. When change control clauses are written to favor the vendor, cost creep becomes structural rather than accidental.
The red flag is language that treats any clarification, refinement, or dependency resolution as a change request. If the original scope is vague and the change process is aggressive, the vendor controls the price of understanding the work. Clients end up paying extra simply to get what they thought they were buying.
Vendor-favored change control often lacks thresholds. There is no distinction between material scope change and reasonable clarification. A single question can trigger a formal change order, delays, and additional fees. Over time, this conditions the client to avoid asking questions, which increases delivery risk even further.
This structure also weaponizes delay. Work pauses while changes are reviewed, priced, and approved. The clock keeps running. The client feels pressure to approve changes quickly just to keep momentum, even when the change is questionable. The vendor, meanwhile, bears little downside.
Fair change control is not permissive; it is balanced. It defines what is included within the original scope’s intent, what constitutes true scope expansion, and how minor adjustments are handled without renegotiation. It also sets timelines for review and requires impact transparency.
A contract where every clarification costs more is not protecting the vendor—it is undermining the project.
In software development, change control should manage uncertainty, not monetize it.
