I have been involved in construction 
claims across the Middle East and further afield for more than twenty years. Long enough to have seen the industry go through several distinct cycles – not just in workload, but in how claims are prepared, presented, and pursued.
Twenty years ago, detailed claim submissions were the norm.
Those were different times. Contractor margins were healthier. Cashflow, whilst never perfect, was more predictable. There was an expectation (often realistic) that claims could be resolved during the project or shortly after completion, without immediate recourse to arbitration or the courts. Investment in claims during project execution made commercial sense.
Then things began to change.
In the run up to the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), margins tightened sharply. Employer cashflow became uncertain. Contractors increasingly found themselves delivering projects where the signs were obvious: the Owner was struggling to fund completion, let alone entertain meaningful payment of claims along the way.
Under those conditions, detailed claim preparation during execution became difficult to justify. Why invest heavily in a fully articulated submission when the counterparty clearly lacked the ability (or willingness) to deal with it? Claims became shorter, more summary in nature, and often deliberately high level. Their purpose shifted from resolution to signalling: enough to preserve position, prompt a discussion, or tick a contractual box.
Post GFC, the situation did not materially improve. Margins remained thin. Risk transfer increased. Commercial pressure intensified. Claims were often treated as a precursor to formal dispute rather than a genuine attempt at resolution. If commercial discussions failed, the “formal dispute button” would be pressed – and only then would serious money be spent, under the guidance of external counsel.
The irony, of course, is that the cost of building claims at the back end of a project is always far higher.
This trend was further compounded by the near total cashflow collapse suffered during COVID and contractor investment in detailed claims during project execution was steadily eroded. Many submissions became little more than “hit and hope” exercises: limited analysis, weak substantiation, and broad assertions of entitlement. They preserved rights, but rarely persuaded anyone to part with anything.
Meanwhile, the cost of pursuing claims through arbitration and litigation continued to rise. Legal fees, expert fees, procedural complexity – all moving in one direction. The industry absorbed this imbalance for years, often without explicitly acknowledging it.
The consequences have been visible.
A significant number of major Tier 1 contractors failed over this period or withdrew from the market. Others have survived, but only after painful lessons. One of those lessons is now becoming clear: deferring proper claim articulation does not reduce cost – it merely postpones it, and usually multiplies it.
What we are now seeing, increasingly, is a shift back towards earlier engagement.
More time and resource is being invested in claims during project execution, with the clear objective of an early (reasonable) settlement. Claims are being developed contemporaneously, with proper linkage between events, programme impact, and cost. Claim narratives (chronologies) are being built as the job is being built. Records are being used, not just collected.
This is not a return to the world of twenty years ago and it shouldn’t be romanticised as such.
Consultant budgets are not suddenly larger. Many contractors now rely more heavily on internal commercial and planning teams to support claim development, using external specialists in a more targeted way. Technology has improved. Access to records is better. Teams are leaner, but often more capable.
The key difference is intent.
The aim is no longer to submit a placeholder and wait for a formal dispute. The aim is to present a credible, well reasoned, and properly substantiated claim while the project context is still alive – when facts are fresh, records are available, and alternate commercial solutions remain possible.
From an Employer perspective, this is also a positive development. Clearer claims mean clearer positions. They allow genuine assessment, not just defensive reaction. They reduce surprise, narrow issues, and often avoid escalation altogether.
From a disputes perspective, they change the complexion of any later proceedings. A contemporaneous, detailed submission carries far more weight than a reconstructed case prepared years after the event.
So, are we seeing the return of the detailed claim submission?
Not in the same form as before. Not with the same budgets or volumes. But we are seeing a rebalancing – a recognition that investing earlier, even modestly, is almost always cheaper than paying heavily later.
After two decades in this space, that feels like a quietly sensible shift. And a welcome one.
davidbrodiestedman@dispute.com
Disclaimer
This article is provided for general information and discussion only. It does not constitute legal advice, expert advice, or professional opinion on any specific matter. Views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of DisputeIQ or its experts. Readers should seek appropriate professional advice before acting on any issue discussed.
