A service agreement is essentially a contract for activity [1]. You hire someone to perform a service, and the focus is on the activity and its continuity, not on the delivery of a specific “result” as such. This model is suitable when what is sought is the mere performance of a specific task—maintenance, consulting, cleaning, supervision, technical support… all of these fit well within this framework.
In a works contract (empreitada), this logic is turned upside down. You are not paying merely for the performance of activities, but for the completion and delivery of the contracted object. The contractor assumes risk and is liable for defects and for the soundness of the work [2]. In an infrastructure project with dozens of interfaces, this represents predictability.
The owner is not hiring “hours of work,” but a defined result, with a beginning, middle, and end. And the contractor knows that the more efficient the execution, the more profitable the contract becomes, even for itself.
Now let us turn to the point that is often overlooked in initial discussions: choosing the wrong model based solely on practice. Failing to properly assess what is actually intended can completely change the dynamics of the contractual relationship.
A common example occurs when a company hires a service agreement for assembly works believing it has entered into something close to a works contract: the client begins to demand coordination of work fronts and integration with third parties—functions that typically belong to a works contract, not to a service agreement. The contractor, limited to the scope of performing activities, is unable to meet these expectations, and the project loses momentum.
In the end, everything stems from the same issue: the contract did not reflect the true business intent. And this simple mistake can cost far more than the service itself.
When a company hires a service agreement expecting the security of a works contract, a management gap emerges. The manager loses control because the contract does not provide sufficient instruments to demand the final result. It would be like hiring someone to design the structural project of a warehouse and expecting, by some miracle, that this would include delivering the finished warehouse.
Conversely, forcing a works contract where a service agreement would be appropriate leads to a rigid, artificially expensive contract and creates fertile ground for claims for economic-financial rebalancing. Costs rise, and the contract becomes detached from the reality of the project.
That is why it is always important to keep one thing in mind: a contract is not just about clauses; first and foremost, one must understand the intent behind what is being contracted. The legal team’s role is to translate that intent into the right incentives, proper risk allocation, and efficient control mechanisms.
Good contractual governance is not only legal, it is strategic. It balances interests, protects the financial equation, and prevents minor frictions from turning into serious disputes. A well-chosen contract generates efficiency, and in the engineering environment, where every idle day is costly, efficiency is gold.
[1] “Note-se, portanto, que na empreitada tem-se por meta o “resultado” da atividade, e não a atividade em si, como se dá na prestação de serviços.” (GAGLIANO, Pablo S.; FILHO, Rodolfo Mário Veiga P. Novo Curso de Direito Civil – Vol.4 – Contratos – 8ª Edição 2025. 8. ed. Rio de Janeiro: SRV, 2025. E-book. p.383. ISBN 9788553627424. Acesso em: 03 dez. 2025.). Cf., ainda: “A distinção, nem sempre muito clara, reside no fato de que o fulcro da prestação de serviço é a atividade prometida do prestador, enquanto na empreitada seu objetivo é a conclusão da obra proposta.”. (VENOSA, Silvio de S. Direito Civil – Contratos – Vol. 3 – 26ª Edição 2026. 26. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Atlas, 2025. E-book. p.431. ISBN 9786559778034. Acesso em: 03 dez. 2025.).
[2] “Ainda, é o empreiteiro que suporta o risco decorrente da construção, do resultado final, não sendo isso o que ocorre na prestação de serviços de natureza civil, no contrato de trabalho e no mandato.” (VENOSA, Silvio de S. op. cit.). Cf., ainda: “Na empreitada, diferentemente da prestação de serviços, os riscos são do empreiteiro, que é o devedor da obra.” (LÔBO, Paulo. Direito Civil – Contratos – Vol.3 – 11ª Edição 2025. 11. ed. Rio de Janeiro: SRV, 2024. E-book. p.352. ISBN 9788553624850. Acesso em: 03 dez. 2025.)
