Identify Issues In Engineering Procurement Construction Contract

---
name: identify-issues-epc-contract-solar-utility
task_id: energy-natural-resources/identify-issues-in-engineering-procurement-construction-contract
description: Guides issue identification in an EPC contract for a utility-scale solar project by cross-referencing the contract against related project documents, quantifying any exposure created by timing or cap mismatches when the relevant inputs are available, and checking construction-period documentation obligations tied to applicable incentives or certifications.
activates_for: [planner, solver, checker]
---

# Skill: Identify Issues in EPC Contract — Issue Memorandum for Utility-Scale Solar Project

## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting

- Treating the EPC in isolation and missing cross-document mismatches with the PPA, lender materials, geotechnical report, or other project papers.
- Identifying a risk in words only, without tying it to the specific clause, the affected project term, the interacting document, and the project consequence.
- Flagging timing or cap gaps without checking whether the source documents let those gaps fall through to lenders, owners, or replacement-contractor economics.
- Overlooking construction-period recordkeeping, certification, cooperation, and audit-support duties needed for incentives, labor compliance, or similar project benefits.
- Missing practical constructability issues that arise from soil, subsurface, access, weather, or foundation assumptions reflected in the geotechnical record.
- Not separating severity levels, which makes the memo hard to prioritize for negotiation and closing review.

## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply

- Delay liquidated damages and milestone alignment: compare the EPC’s delay-damages period, rate, and cap against the commercial operation and related milestone mechanics in the project documents; if the EPC protection ends earlier than the project timetable, flag the uncovered period and its financing and replacement-cost effect.
- Aggregate damages, exclusivity, and lender protection: compare the EPC’s aggregate liability cap and carveouts against the lender-side risk allocation and any required project protection standard; assess whether insurance, performance security, indemnities, or other credit support actually fill the gap.
- Force majeure allocation: distinguish schedule relief from cost relief, and test the EPC wording against the broader project risk-allocation structure; an excuse for time without an allocation of added cost may leave unpriced exposure.
- Performance security adequacy: evaluate not only the face amount of any bond, guaranty, or LC, but also the supporting conditions that make the security bankable or enforceable in project finance.
- Insurance and workers’ compensation: confirm the contractor’s insurance program covers personnel, subcontractors, and statutory workers’ compensation obligations in the applicable jurisdiction, including any non-subscriber or alternative regime issues.
- Partial, phased, or provisional completion: assess whether the contract permits beneficial use, sectional completion, or provisional acceptance of completed workstreams so the project can operate while punch-list items remain.
- Termination for convenience and replacement-cost planning: test whether the fee mechanics create a material early-stage payment burden and whether the financing package contemplates that exit cost.
- Incentive and certification support: review whether the EPC obligates the contractor to maintain, produce, and cooperate on records, certifications, attestations, and audits required for tax credits, bonuses, prevailing-wage style compliance, apprenticeship tracking, domestic content support, or similar benefits.
- Domestic content feasibility: where the project supply chain or equipment package suggests a possible mismatch with content-based thresholds, check whether the procurement and submittal structure makes compliance realistically achievable under the contract.

## 4. Analytical scaffolds

- Issue-by-issue method: identify the EPC provision; identify the interacting project document or external standard; state the mismatch; state the legal or commercial consequence; state the remediation.
- Cross-document comparison method: compare the EPC clause against the PPA, financing term sheet, geotechnical report, and any other project paper only to the extent that document speaks to timing, risk allocation, performance standard, or documentation duties.
- Quantification method: where the source documents provide enough inputs, scale the issue against the relevant term, cap, milestone, exposure period, or representative project stage; do not invent missing numbers.
- Severity method: classify each issue using a uniform ordinal scale; reserve the highest level for mismatches that can block financing, commissioning, compliance, or enforceability.
- Construction-risk method: if the geotechnical record reveals subsurface, drainage, access, settlement, or foundation assumptions that differ from the EPC allocation, flag the allocation gap and the resulting cost or delay consequence.
- Documentation-compliance method: list each missing recordkeeping, certification, cooperation, or audit-support obligation separately where multiple incentive or regulatory regimes are implicated.
- Authority method: when the memo states a legal proposition, identify the governing source, clause, regulation, or other authority by name and section when available in the project materials or applicable law.

## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships

- Begin by mapping the documents in play and identifying which provisions of the EPC are controlled or qualified by the PPA, lender materials, geotechnical data, or related schedules.
- If more than one timing milestone exists, enumerate them before analysis and compare each EPC timing protection against the corresponding project date or condition.
- If multiple counterparties, packages, equipment streams, or incentive regimes are implicated, separate them into distinct issue rows rather than combining them into one general comment.
- Track vertical risk flow from contract clause to project schedule to lender acceptability to operational consequence, so the memo shows why a drafting point matters in execution.
- Where a clause interacts with a later-condition precedent, notice period, testing regime, or acceptance milestone, explain the temporal dependency and the practical effect if the sequence breaks.

## 6. Output structure conventions

- Write a true issue memorandum, not a generic contract summary.
- Open with a short severity legend that defines the ordinal scale used throughout the memo.
- Organize the body by severity, with each issue presented in a consistent format: issue title, affected provision, cross-referenced document(s), concise analysis, consequence, and recommended cure.
- For each issue, state the specific clause or topic, the interacting document or external standard, the scaled magnitude or timing where available, and the downstream effect on the client.
- Separate issues that concern delay, pricing, security, insurance, completion mechanics, geotechnical risk, incentives, and documentation, rather than merging them.
- When source inputs support it, show any timing gap, cap mismatch, or representative exposure explicitly and tie it to the relevant milestone or project phase.
- End with a dedicated Recommended Actions block that assigns an action, the responsible role, and the timing anchor tied to the transaction or project milestone.
- Keep the memorandum oriented to negotiation and diligence decisions; each issue should be stated as a practical redraft, clarification, or diligence follow-up.
---