Case Study: Owner-Driven Scope Creep on Urban Drainage Project in Seattle, WA (2022)

Project Overview
• Name: Seattle Drainage Resilience Program – Phase II
• Location: Seattle, Washington
• Year: 2022
• Project Size: $120 million
• Scope: New underground drainage conduits and upgrades to aging stormwater infrastructure
• Lead Agencies/Contractors: Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) /

Category of the Issue, Problem, or Challenge
• Contract Owner
• Scope Management

Summary of the Issue, Problem, or Challenge
After construction commenced, SPU introduced multiple new work elements—including green infrastructure features and public amenities—without adjusting the baseline schedule.

Root Cause Analysis

• Stakeholder pressure pushed SPU to expand scope mid-project.
• No formal change order process was used for additive work.
• Project controls team was not notified of the full scope implications.

Impacts Due to the Issue, Problem, or Challenge

• Contractor faced resource shortages and overtime pressures.
• Project delayed by 5 months, with cost increases exceeding $8 million.
• Relationship between owner and contractor became adversarial.

Corrective Actions Taken

1. SPU adopted a formal change control board for all active capital projects.
2. Scope changes now require cost and schedule impact assessments before approval.
3. Stakeholder input is filtered through a dedicated public engagement unit to manage expectations.

Lessons Learned

• Uncontrolled scope additions undermine budget and schedule control.
• Change orders must follow structured review and approval processes.
• Public stakeholder influence must be balanced against project discipline.

Audit & Prevention: Project Control Questions to Ask on Future Projects to Help Control the Situation

• Are all new scope elements evaluated for cost and time impacts?
• Does the project include a documented change control process?
• How is stakeholder input integrated into formal project decisions?