Common G702 & G703 Errors (and How to Avoid Them)
Most rejected pay applications don’t fail because of the work in the field—they fail because of math issues, missing backup, or a confusing SOV. Here are the mistakes reviewers see over and over, and how to stay off that list.
Need the “generate it” workflow (not just the checklist)?
Use the hub pages for the practical steps, examples, and how PayAppPro keeps your G702 totals tied to your G703/SOV automatically.
Why G702/G703 Errors Matter
AIA-style pay applications are often reviewed by project managers, accounting, and sometimes lenders or owners. When something doesn’t line up, they rarely “fix it for you.” They send it back, ask for revisions, and your payment waits for another cycle.
The upside: most of the common errors are predictable. Fixing them is less about “being perfect” and more about using a repeatable process that keeps the G702 summary tied to the G703/SOV detail.
Error #1: SOV Doesn’t Match the Contract
If the total of your Schedule of Values (SOV) doesn’t match the contract amount, you can almost guarantee a delay. From the reviewer’s perspective, they don’t know what you’re actually contracted to do.
- SOV total is higher or lower than the contract value
- Change orders are “real in the field” but not approved/updated in the SOV
- Alternates or allowances are missing, doubled, or misallocated
Error #2: Line-Item Math Doesn’t Add Up
On the G703 continuation sheet, each line has its own mini math problem: previous work + this period + stored materials = completed & stored to date (minus retainage rules). If those relationships are off, reviewers pause until they understand what happened.
Common issues:
- Totals completed and stored exceed the scheduled value
- “Materials presently stored” never goes down when materials are installed
- Retainage is miscalculated or applied inconsistently
Error #3: Stored Materials Are Inconsistent (or Unbacked)
Billing stored materials can help cash flow, but it adds tracking and documentation. Reviewers want to see that what you’re billing matches what’s actually on hand—and that it’s allowed by the contract.
- Billing stored materials without invoices/backup
- Charging stored materials under the wrong SOV line
- Forgetting to reduce stored amounts when materials are installed
Error #4: Retainage Is Applied Incorrectly
Retainage is simple in theory—hold back a percentage until milestones or completion—but it’s easy to misapply, especially if the rate changes mid-project or certain items are non-retainage.
- Applying retainage to tax/fees or items excluded by contract
- Using the wrong percentage on part of the job
- Not handling retainage release clearly at substantial/final completion
How to avoid it: Re-read the retainage clause and decide (1) does it apply to stored materials, and (2) is it by line item or summary only? Then apply it the exact same way every month.
Error #5: Change Orders Don’t Match the Documentation
Work often moves ahead while paperwork lags behind. On the pay app, that becomes a problem if the billed amount doesn’t match what’s been approved.
- The SOV doesn’t reflect approved change order values
- The GC’s CO log shows different amounts or CO numbers
- You’re billing for scope that hasn’t been formally approved
Error #6: Lien Waivers Don’t Match the Pay App
On many projects, a pay app isn’t “complete” without lien waivers. Reviewers check that waiver amounts and wording align with what you’re billing and the payment history.
- Waiver amounts don’t match the pay app or prior payments
- Wrong waiver type (conditional vs unconditional, progress vs final)
- Incorrect project, period, or party information
How to avoid it: Generate waivers from the same source data you use for billing so you’re not retyping amounts (and introducing new discrepancies).
Error #7: Project / Party Info Is Inconsistent
It feels small, but inconsistent names and addresses can slow review down—especially on lender-driven jobs where everything has to match the loan/contract paperwork.
- Project name spelled differently across pay apps and waivers
- Owner/GC entity names don’t match the agreement
- Subcontractor legal name doesn’t match W-9
How PayAppPro Helps Catch These Before You Submit
PayAppPro is built to reduce the number of ways a pay app can quietly go sideways. Instead of juggling multiple spreadsheets and copying numbers from tab to tab, you:
- Build your SOV once per project and reuse it every billing period
- Let the system handle G703 line-item rules and G702 summary totals
- Track stored materials, retainage, and change orders inside one workflow
- Generate lien waivers based on pay app data instead of retyping amounts
- Keep owner/GC/project details consistent across pay apps and waivers
The result: fewer resubmittals, fewer “please revise and resend” emails, and better odds your pay apps get approved on the first pass.
Create clean, consistent pay apps with built-in checks for SOV totals, retainage, stored materials, and lien waivers.
FAQ: Pay App Kickbacks
Totals that don’t tie out—usually the G702 summary not matching the G703/SOV detail, or the SOV total not matching the current contract sum (including approved change orders).
Generally no. Reviewers will flag it immediately. If scope truly increased, it usually needs an approved change order and an updated scheduled value before billing beyond the original amount.
Common backups include invoices/receipts, photos, storage location details, and sometimes proof of insurance. Requirements vary by contract and owner.
Because projects apply retainage differently (by line vs summary, completed work vs stored materials) and small inconsistencies compound over multiple billing periods.
Yes. Reviewers often check waiver amounts against the current application and payment history. A mismatch can delay approval until it’s corrected.