In the engineering and infrastructure ecosystem, the occurrence of claims is often a reality. The contract is signed, construction begins, and soon a deviation may arise—especially where records are poorly maintained or decisions are unclear. Claims consume time, damage reputation, and generate costs. However, they are not inevitable. With strategic contractual practice and document management, many claims can be avoided or resolved without friction.
Before addressing how to prevent them, it is important to understand why claims arise. As already noted, they do not emerge suddenly; rather, they are largely the result of poorly conducted management practices, inadequate risk allocation, communication processes that could have been better structured from the outset of the project, insufficiently defined scopes, delayed decisions, or even misaligned expectations between the employer and the contractor.
Against this backdrop, we present below five practices that companies involved in engineering contracts should assess in order to prevent claims from arising.
1) Robust upfront planning and clear definition of project requirements
The pre-contractual phase is decisive. For large-scale projects, the lack of clarity regarding requirements, technical criteria, objectives, and basic assumptions may lead to divergent interpretations and affect future stages of project development.
Accordingly, good practices include: (i) defining the project’s strategic objectives and requirements; (ii) clearly describing the project basis and uncertainties; and (iii) ensuring proper disclosure of information to the parties.
This preparation enables the parties, particularly the contractor, to correctly understand the scope, thereby reducing technical gaps.
2) Rigorous technical selection compatible with the project’s complexity
The selection of the contractor should never be guided exclusively by the lowest price. Aggressively low bids are often among the main factors associated with the emergence of claims, whether due to estimation errors or subsequent attempts to recover losses through claims.
Technical prequalification processes, due diligence, and objective assessments of a company’s capacity, experience, and resources mitigate these risks and contribute to more stable contractual relationships.
3) Contracts structured as operational tools, not merely legal instruments
Effective contracts are those that translate clear procedures, response timelines, decision paths, and change rules. In this regard, some essential elements to be considered in their drafting include: (i) appropriate deadlines for responding to claims and technical approvals; (ii) standardized change procedures, with a defined methodology for assessing impacts; (iii) definition of document precedence and documentary records (with standardization and regularity); and (iv) realistic risk allocation clauses, aligned with each party’s ability to control the relevant risks.
These mechanisms help reduce ambiguities and prevent technical disagreements from turning into claims.
4) Contemporaneous documentation and integrated teams during execution
The absence or weakness of records is one of the main factors leading to dispute escalation. Solid evidence makes it possible to identify deviations, measure impacts, and resolve disagreements within contract management—without their conversion into formal claims. Recommended practices include: (i) standardized daily site records; (ii) consistent formal communications; (iii) organized and validated minutes, photographs, and technical reports, among other documents relevant to the project; and (iv) integrated and collaborative action among engineering, operations, legal, and procurement teams.
5) Continuous monitoring, timely response, and preventive legal involvement
Claims tend to flourish in environments marked by silence, delay, or lack of evidence. The role of contract administration is precisely to prevent inconsistencies from accumulating.
Preventive action may include: (i) systematic monitoring of productivity and contractual milestones; (ii) identification of deviations before they become entrenched; (iii) ongoing legal guidance on the formalization and documentation of facts; and (iv) the direct involvement of the legal team in risk analysis and the management of contractual changes.
Each project has its own dynamics, and it is up to each organization to assess how these measures can be adapted to its reality. When properly tailored to the project context, these practices can consistently contribute to reducing claims and to achieving safer contractual management.
Preventing claims does not depend on isolated measures, but on a mature contractual structure aligned with engineering, planning, and project governance. The more operational the contract and the more robust the documentation, the smaller the space for disputes and the greater the predictability and security of the project.
When the legal team is integrated into the project workflow from the outset, the tendency is to reduce disputes and strengthen the company’s position in eventual negotiations or dispute resolution proceedings.
If your company aims to transform contracts into instruments of control rather than sources of conflict, it is worth revisiting its internal practices.
