In complex projects, particularly in the construction sector, managing additional works remains a critical point in the contractual relationship. So-called “variation” works, added during execution, very often crystallise tensions between client-side project ownership, contractors and subcontractors. The recent decision of the Conseil d’État of 17 March 2025, although rooted in the field of public procurement contracts, offers useful guidance that transposes to any type of project, public or private. It is a reminder of how important it is to strike the right balance between contractual formality and operational reality.
The contract tested against reality on the ground
Every works contract is supposed to frame changes through a precise mechanism: site instructions, variation sheets, change orders, written approvals, and so on. These procedures are intended to protect the parties, make adjustments easier during execution and avoid after-the-fact interpretation. In practice, however, reality on the ground often disrupts the contractual framework.
Schedule pressure, technical contingencies, or coordination with other work packages or participants can lead to additional work being started without strictly following the agreed procedures.
This is notably the case when a project manager asks a contractor to carry out an adjustment that all parties consider urgent, without waiting for formal approval from the client. Even where everyone agrees that the works are useful, it is who bears the additional cost that often becomes a source of dispute, for want of compliance with the contractual procedure or of a written trail.
But can the absence of strict formality really prevent payment for additional works, once they have been carried out at the request of the client or its representative? That is precisely the question the Conseil d’État answered in March 2025.
Pragmatic case law
In the case decided by the Conseil d’État in March 2025, a contractor holding a public works procurement contract sought payment for additional work carried out at the request of the project supervisor. The problem: these works had not been the subject of a formal site instruction, as the contract required.
While the lower courts had held that the absence of formality barred any compensation, the Conseil d’État reversed that position. It ruled that an instruction, even a verbal one, given by the project supervisor grounds the right to payment, provided the contractor establishes that the works were useful and the client does not dispute the work performed.
The Conseil d’État thus acknowledges a reality that every practitioner on the ground knows: on a project, you cannot freeze everything in a document signed in advance. The decision chain often fragments, and action sometimes gets ahead of the paperwork. Through this decision, the court accepts that formality must not penalise one party when the project’s participants have worked around it to meet operational constraints that were recognised and accepted on the ground.
What this changes for private-sector players
Even though this decision concerns a public procurement contract, it sends a clear signal to every professional in the sector: the absence of formality is no longer a systematic obstacle to payment for additional works. That does not mean, however, that anything goes without safeguards.
Within a contract, implied or informal commitments can be recognised, provided they are proved. Contractors must therefore take a structured approach, documenting their exchanges even when those fall outside the framework originally agreed.
On that basis, teams must keep records (emails, minutes, photographs, verbal approvals written up, and so on) and build a memory of the decisions taken during execution of the project, so that it can be called upon in the event of a dispute.
The contract manager: driving change
In this context, the contract manager’s role goes well beyond simple contract administration. They provide strategic and operational support at the heart of the project, able to equip teams, smooth processes and anticipate areas of tension. Working alongside project managers and package leads, they help secure execution while adapting to constraints on the ground. Their work takes shape in particular through:
- Setting up contract management & administration tools that make it easier to react to urgent decisions or unforeseen technical changes;
- Anticipating contractual risks, by identifying grey areas or potential conflict early;
- Supporting teams in framing change requests in a structured way and anchoring them in the contractual framework;
- Translating operational realities into terms that can be used contractually;
- Implementing robust, shared and usable traceability, making it possible to justify the decisions taken throughout execution.
The contract manager thus acts as a pivot for security and fluidity, both close to the ground and guardian of contractual consistency. They allow the organisation to be agile without losing control or the ability to justify its position.
Their contribution allows companies to contain the risk of sliding into situations where works carried out by mutual agreement become, for want of evidence, sources of dispute that can translate into refusal of payment or significant financial losses.
The active presence of a contract manager is therefore a genuine prevention lever, ensuring that decisions taken under pressure or informally do not undermine the contractual soundness of the project.
Because, as we know, projects are by nature evolving. Technical variation and the need to adjust or supplement a scope of work are an integral part of running a site. That variability must, however, be matched by organisational and contractual reflexes. Every deviation must be thought through, explained, justified and built into a decision-making pattern that stays connected to the contract.
In short, it is the combination of operational adaptability and documentary rigour that makes it possible to run a project without compromising its legal and financial security.
Conclusion
Managing additional works is not a “necessary evil”, nor a sign of a badly prepared project. It is a structural reality of complex projects, whether the issue is adapting a technical solution, responding to a coordination constraint, or simply dealing with the unexpected. It still has to be anticipated, framed and documented rigorously.
On that score, the Conseil d’État judgment of 17 March 2025 is a particularly rich source of lessons. It gives a pragmatic answer to a difficulty well known to construction professionals. The decision rebalances responsibilities, accepting that action can sometimes precede the paperwork, without thereby justifying improvisation.
This is in no way about dropping our guard on formality or traceability. Quite the opposite. The flexibility allowed by the court reinforces the requirement for evidence, documentation and structured decisions and exchanges, so that the usefulness, the agreement and the consistency of the work performed can be demonstrated after the fact.
It is in this light that contract management embedded at the heart of operations makes full sense. It reconciles operational agility with contractual security, responsiveness on the ground with documentary rigour. A twin requirement that has become indispensable in an environment where margins are tightening, schedules are compressing, and where every technical decision can carry major legal and financial consequences.