It is very common for construction projects to be chaotic. Delayed instructions, constant resequencing, and limited resources create circumstances in which it becomes difficult for contractors to maintain project delivery while simultaneously preparing a comprehensive claim that fully addresses all aspects of the claim’s impacts.

When delays arise, some contractors submit a global claim that includes the total impact of all delays and disruptions. Although the underlying losses and events may be genuine, such claims are often poorly received upon submission due to their lack of detailed substantiation.

What is global claim?

A global claim presents a single, composite sum as the compensation for multiple separate claims or complaints, where it is asserted that breaking down or allocating the sum between those matters is impractical or impossible.^[1]Andrew Burr, Delay and Disruption in Construction Contracts (5th edn, Informa Law 2016) 834.

When a project is delayed due to multiple causes of delay and disruption, and those causes are both excusable and compensable, it can be difficult for the contractor to determine which loss resulted from which delay. In such cases, the contractor may submit a global claim that aggregates all losses into a single amount without attributing them to individual breaches of contract, instead alleging that the total loss arose from all the breaches combined.

Why do global claims often fail?

Global claims are usually rejected by the employer because they are unsubstantiated and vague. Their weakness lies in the contractor’s tendency to combine time-related costs with productivity losses, which complicates the demonstration of both entitlement and quantum. Often, the contractor also fails to identify responsibility for each individual delay event or to establish whether the delay is excusable or compensable.

Additionally, to recover delay or disruption costs, a contractor must prove a link between the cause of the delay or disruption and the costs claimed. However, a global claim typically fails to adequately explain the link between the alleged breaches or relevant events and the loss, damage, or delay claimed.^[2]Stephen Furst and Sir Vivian Ramsey (eds), Keating on Construction Contracts (11th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2021) para 9-064 Instead, such claims typically assert that all delay or loss resulted from unspecified events for which the employer is alleged to be wholly responsible.^[3]Andrew Burr, Delay and Disruption in Construction Contracts (5th edn, Informa Law 2016) p. 834

Due to the absence of clear causation, such global claims rarely succeed, especially before an experienced and robust arbitral tribunal^[4]James Bremen, Contractors’ Claims, Remedies and Reliefs, Global Arbitration Review (12 October 2023) … Continue reading

In practice, if a claim does not clearly separate causes from their effects, it is unlikely to be accepted, regardless of the magnitude of the losses. Employers are not interested in broad or generalised narratives. They required clarity: what happened, when it occurred, who was responsible, what the impact was, and most importantly, credible evidence to substantiate the claim. Without the proper demonstration of causation breakdown and proof of entitlement and quantum, the claim is highly likely to be rejected.

With the absence of a clear cause-and-effect analysis, the SCL’s Delay and Disruption Protocol discourages the common practice of contractors submitting composite or global claims without substantiating cause and effect. While global claims may appear to offer a straightforward solution, they carry significant risk. They often consume substantial time and resources, and ultimately, they are frequently rejected.

Lessons from practice

I once reviewed a contractor’s global claim on a large-scale project that included both disruption and prolongation costs. Upon examination of the details of the claim, it became immediately apparent that the claim was fundamentally flawed.

The contractor had combined multiple cost components into a single lump-sum figure without distinguishing which portions related to disruption and which were linked to time-related prolongation. More critically, the contractor failed to differentiate the alleged additional work from their original scope of work. The contractor did not provide an explanation of how those activities gave rise to contractual entitlement.

The narrative was broad and emotional but lacked the structured evidence required to demonstrate entitlement. In this case, although the contractor may have had a basis for some compensation, the manner in which the claim was presented made it exceedingly difficult to substantiate or defend.

Best practice: What to do instead?

The practice of avoiding the global claims starts long before the claim is submitted. Establishing a proper process for documentation is essential. The key practices that make a real difference are:

Keeping detailed contemporaneous records

Global claims can be avoided by keeping clear records that identify who performed specific tasks, when they were done, and under whose instructions, and by ensuring that these records are maintained in an

organized and searchable system. A failure to maintain adequate project records is unlikely to justify a contractor’s reliance on a global claim.

Notifying delay and disruption promptly

Early notice of a potential delay or disruption should be given without waiting to determine the full extent of its impact. The contractor can submit detailed particulars once the situation becomes clearer.

Separating claims by event impact and responsibility

If design issues, delays, access restrictions, or a combination of these factors contribute to lost productivity, each cause should be addressed separately. The claim must be broken down into distinct and clearly defined components.

Work with experts

Through HKA expertise, it is ensured that the program analysis is sound, the cost calculations are defensible, and that the narrative ties everything together.

Conclusion

A successful claim is not defined by how problematic the project was, but by how effectively it can be substantiated.

Preparing a claim can be demanding, and it is often tempting to take shortcuts such as submitting a global claim. While such claims may seem to offer an efficient solution to expressing frustration, capturing disruption, and seeking compensation in a single submission, they often fail under examination. The strongest claims are not the lengthiest or the most forcefully worded; they are those prepared in a timely manner and supported by credible evidence. This distinction often determines whether a claim is rejected or a dispute is successfully resolved.

Need support with your construction claims?
HKA’s global team of experts can help you build robust, evidence-based claims. Contact us to learn how we can support you.