Site instructions by SMS: keeping a defensible record

On most Australian sites, directions to proceed are given the fastest way available: a text message from a personal phone. That works fine — right up until a variation claim, an EOT dispute or a defect argument turns on whether the instruction was given, when, and by whom.

Why do site instructions by text go wrong?

The problem is never the SMS itself — texts are fast, universally read, and hard to ignore. The problem is where the record ends up:

• It lives on one person's phone. Staff leave, phones are replaced, messages are deleted to free storage. The project has no copy.
• The timestamp is a device clock. A screenshot shows what one phone displayed, not an independently recorded send time.
• There is no project context. Eighteen months later, nobody can say which contract, which clause, or which piece of work “go ahead as discussed” referred to.
• Nothing proves delivery. “I never received that instruction” is very hard to rebut with a sent-items screenshot.

What does a defensible site-instruction record need?

Whether or not you use SMSuni, a site-instruction record you would be comfortable putting in front of a superintendent, adjudicator or solicitor needs five things:

1. A server-side timestamp. The send time recorded by an independent system at the moment of sending — not a device clock, and not editable after the fact.
2. Sender identity and authority. Who sent it, and in what role. An instruction from the contract administrator carries different weight from a message by someone without authority to direct the work.
3. Project and contract context. The message linked to the project, the contract, and ideally the clause it was issued under, at the time it was sent — not reconstructed later.
4. Classification. A contemporaneous record that this message was an instruction — not a chat, a quote request or a social message.
5. Delivery confirmation. A carrier-level delivery receipt and message ID, so the “never received it” argument meets evidence rather than assertion.

Is a text message a valid site instruction?

That depends on your contract. Many standard-form contracts require directions to be “in writing”, and electronic messages can satisfy writing requirements in many circumstances — but contracts differ on permitted service methods and addresses. The practical approach: check what your contract says about directions and notices, follow it, and keep a record good enough that the argument never becomes about what was sent when. SMSuni provides the record; whether SMS is a valid instruction format under a specific contract is a question for your contract and, where it matters, your lawyer.

How do you set this up in SMSuni?

Takes about ten minutes at project kick-off:

1. Create the project with its number and site address, and add team members with roles (owner, contract administrator, site supervisor, legal).
2. Add the head contract and relevant subcontracts with counterparty details.
3. Send instructions classified as operational instructions or formal notices — every message is timestamped server-side, linked to its contract, and logged with delivery status and carrier message ID.
4. When you need the record, export a PDF evidence pack with a SHA-256 integrity hash — organised, complete and verifiable.

The full workflow is documented in the SMS governance docs and the contract administrator guide.

What should you do when a dispute lands?

• Stop deleting anything — on any device. If you use SMSuni, activate legal hold on the project so records are preserved regardless of retention settings.
• Export early. Get the full message record in front of your contract administrator or solicitor at the start, not the night before a deadline.
• Keep sending through the recorded channel. Mid-dispute is the worst time for instructions to drift back to personal phones.