Claims are a normal feature of major construction and infrastructure projects. Some arise from clear entitlement; others are more complex, reflecting the reality that large projects rarely unfold according to plan. Alongside well supported claims, major projects also encounter strategic claims; those where the factual or contractual foundation is uncertain, incomplete, or contested, but where the claimant believes a commercial conversation is still warranted.

Strategic claims are often a sensitive topic. Principals may view them as unfair or opportunistic. Contractors may see them as necessary to protect their commercial position under pressure. In practice, most strategic claims sit somewhere in the middle: not improper, but shaped by imperfect information, evolving design, overlapping causes of delay, or the need for commercial rebalancing when project conditions shift. Handled poorly, strategic claims can inflame relationships and escalate into major disputes. Handled well, they can become an opportunity to identify underlying issues, stabilise delivery, and reach commercially sensible outcomes without undermining contractual integrity. This article explains why strategic claims arise, why they sometimes result in a commercial resolution despite unclear entitlement, and how principals and contractors can address them constructively.

Why strategic claims arise

Strategic claims tend to emerge when projects are under real pressure. Contractors experiencing disruption, increased cost, or programme risk may lodge claims even where formal entitlement is uncertain. These claims often reflect genuine difficulty: high impact risks eventuating, unforeseen issues, late or conflicting information, or compound delay events that are difficult to separate.

Strategic claims also arise when project teams face imperfect records. If notices were missed, contemporaneous evidence is thin, or delay causation has become entangled, the contractual entitlement may be debatable even though the contractor has absorbed real impact. A strategic claim is often used as a vehicle to open a conversation about addressing accumulated pressure.

Contractor leadership may also encourage strategic claims to crystallise issues, generate visibility on commercial risk, or recalibrate expectations. At the same time, principals may contribute to the emergence of strategic claims by failing to enforce obligations consistently, by providing unclear instructions, or by allowing design or scope to drift without structured governance. In these cases, strategic claims reflect confusion rather than opportunism.

Why strategic claims have (albeit limited) success 

Although entitlement may be uncertain, strategic claims can still lead to commercial outcomes for several reasons. One is the practical cost of escalation. Even where a principal believes its position is strong, proving (and maintaining) that position requires extensive factual analysis, expert evidence, management time, and a willingness to accept the relationship and programme consequences that come with formal dispute resolution. Principals may choose a pragmatic resolution that stabilises delivery rather than divert resources into a prolonged, adversarial process.

Strategic claims also gain traction where the evidential landscape is imperfect. In many distressed projects, the principal’s contract administration processes may not have kept pace with the project’s complexity. Records may be inconsistent, knowledge may have been lost through personnel turnover, and key decisions may not have been documented. In these circumstances, even a claim with limited entitlement can carry risk simply because the principal cannot confidently demonstrate the alternative narrative. Faced with evidential uncertainty, some principals opt for a commercial settlement rather than litigate a position that may be correct in principle but difficult to prove in practice.

Another factor is the inherent uncertainty in delay and disruption analysis. When multiple events overlap, or when design evolution and site conditions interact in unpredictable ways, there is rarely a clean, singular causal thread. Both parties may recognise that the underlying truth is nuanced. Strategic claims, in this context, can reflect an attempt to negotiate a fair outcome rather than litigate every hour of delay or strand of disruption.

Timing also plays a role. Claims tend to intensify near key milestones (particularly practical completion) when principals are more risk averse to delay and contractors face heightened cost pressure. In these moments, both parties may agree that a commercial settlement, even a modest one, delivers a better overall project outcome than taking a rigid, contractual stance.

Approaching strategic claims constructively

Strategic claims require a sensible, balanced, and structured approach: one that preserves the contractual framework while acknowledging the commercial realities of project delivery.

The first step is to avoid emotional reactions. Even where a claim appears exaggerated or unsupported, dismissing it outright often entrenches positions and increases tension. Instead, acknowledging the claim, outlining the assessment process, and seeking relevant information creates a constructive pathway.

Clarity is essential. Separating entitlement from valuation helps to reduce confusion. Many strategic claims blend questions of liability with cost impacts or delays that may be legitimate in part. By addressing entitlement first, the parties can narrow the scope of disagreement and avoid debating quantum for claims that lack foundation.

A rigorous causation assessment is central to managing these claims. Strategic claims are often characterised by broad assertions about systemic delay or disruption. Testing these assertions against contemporaneous records anchors the discussion in facts rather than feelings. Even where the evidence is imperfect, this process helps both sides understand the roots of the issue.

Expert input can also be valuable, provided it is used to inform rather than inflame. Independent delay, quantity surveying, or legal assessments help recalibrate expectations, clarify uncertainties, and depersonalise difficult conversations. Experts can also highlight areas where additional evidence or agreement on methodology would improve clarity.

Understanding each party’s commercial context is equally important. Principals should consider whether the contractor is facing genuine pressure, such as subcontractor insolvency, accumulated unrecovered cost, or misalignment between design development and contractual risk allocation. Contractors should consider the principal’s governance environment, political or stakeholder constraints, and the broader commercial implications of repeated strategic claims. When both sides understand the pressures driving behaviour, negotiations become more principled and less positional.

Constructive commercial pathways

Not every strategic claim warrants financial settlement, but some do. The challenge is identifying pathways that support delivery without undermining contractual discipline.

Interim agreements can stabilise projects by providing partial relief while parties develop better evidence or clarity. These agreements are particularly useful where the quantum of impact is genuinely uncertain but the parties share a desire to maintain momentum.

Re-baselining programme logic is another valuable tool. Where causation is complex, focusing on forward looking planning rather than backward looking blame helps refocus the team on delivery rather than dispute.

In some cases, structured commercial settlements tied to milestones or performance obligations strike a sensible balance between fairness and risk management. These settlements recognise the commercial reality without conceding entitlement in a way that distorts the contract.

Principals do need to remain cautious about creating precedent. Settling strategic claims too readily can incentivise similar behaviour, particularly if the claims are poorly evidenced. The key is to separate genuine project pressure from claims that are speculative or unsupported, and to rely on clear governance to ensure consistency.

When strategic claims should be resisted

There are times when strategic claims should be firmly defended. Claims that undermine core risk allocation, ignore clear contractual obligations, or arise from a party’s own failure to comply with process may warrant a more robust response. Consistency is crucial; inconsistent decisions can erode credibility and complicate future negotiations.

In resisting claims, principals should rely on evidence, structured communication, and transparent reasoning, not adversarial behaviour. Explaining why entitlement is not established, providing contemporaneous records, and offering alternative commercial pathways (if warranted) helps maintain trust while holding the line.

Contractors benefit from similar discipline. Advancing claims with uncertain foundation can damage credibility and relationships if not framed constructively. Strategic claims should be carefully positioned, well structured, and supported by whatever evidence is available.

Conclusion

Strategic claims arise because projects are complex, pressure is real, and information is imperfect. They occupy the space where contractual analysis and commercial reality overlap. When approached poorly, they can escalate conflict and distort relationships. When approached constructively, they can provide a structured way for parties to address uncertainty, stabilise delivery, and make commercially sensible decisions.

Read more from the Inside Construction Delivery series