Construction Claims Analysis: Building the Case Before the Dispute Escalates
The window for the best construction claims outcomes — whether through negotiation, mediation, or arbitration — typically closes before most claimants have fully developed their analysis. By the time a dispute escalates to formal proceedings, the contemporaneous documentation has often become harder to gather, positions have hardened, and the cost of resolution has increased.
Building a rigorous claims analysis early, before the dispute is formally declared, produces better outcomes at lower cost.
The Three Elements of Every Construction Claim
Every construction claim requires three analytical components: entitlement (was the claimant contractually entitled to additional time, money, or both?), causation (did the event that gives rise to entitlement actually cause the delay or cost impact claimed?), and damages (what is the quantified value of the impact?). A claim that’s strong on entitlement but weak on causation, or strong on causation but vague on damages, will underperform its potential.
Why Independent Analysis Matters
An independent construction claims analysis expert provides a perspective that internal claims preparation rarely achieves. Internal analysis is inevitably influenced by advocacy — the instinct to emphasize the strongest arguments and minimize the weaknesses. Independent analysis identifies where the claim is genuinely strong and where it has vulnerabilities that should be addressed in how the claim is presented.
The American Arbitration Association’s Construction Dispute Resolution guide provides useful context on how claims are evaluated in arbitration, which influences how they should be structured in the preparation phase.
Quantification Methodology
The damages quantification methodology in a construction claim matters as much as the underlying facts. Claims calculated using the total cost method — comparing what the project cost to what it was supposed to cost — are more vulnerable than claims built on specific, documented cost impacts tied to specific cause events.
Where the documentation supports it, a modified total cost or discrete cost impact approach is more defensible and typically more persuasive to arbitrators and mediators.