In contract management, and more broadly for anyone running a complex project, getting a clear grip on what a “claim” is and what it covers really matters. In many companies, particularly in France, a claim is still often read as a sign of distrust, or even a declaration of war. That negative reading creates unnecessary tension, complicates contract management and, more importantly, lets the underlying opportunities slip away. In other, more mature organisations, including many in the Anglo-Saxon world, the claim is treated as nothing more than a contractual mechanism to be used wisely. This article aims to bring some clarity on the claim. We start with general principles (A), then walk through the difficulties that come with claim management (B), and finally share a few practical pointers (C).
A. General principles on the claim
1. Defining a claim
Let us start with the basics: what is a claim? First clarification: we are talking about a “contractual claim” here. The word has very different meanings in other fields, marketing for instance. A useful starting point is a literal one, looking at the definition from the Collins dictionary. The well-known British reference tells us that the literal translation of “claim” is “assertion or demand”. The absence of words from the litigation or judicial vocabulary already gives us a first clue about what a contractual claim is, and what it is not.
Turning to contractual definitions, let us take the well-known FIDIC suite as an example (see our article on the subject). Article 1.1.5 defines a claim as: “a request or assertion by one party to the other party for an entitlement or relief under any clause of these conditions or otherwise in connection with, or arising out of, the contract or the execution of the works“.
Cross-referencing these sources, we can define the claim as a request raised within a contract, mainly concerning price or schedule.
2. The difference between a claim and a dispute
In too many companies, particularly in France, a contractual claim is often read as a sign of distrust or a declaration of war. That negative reading creates unnecessary tension and complicates contract management. In other organisations, particularly Anglo-Saxon ones with more mature contract management practices, the claim is simply treated as a standard contractual mechanism. It is a process that aims to clarify the terms of the contract and make sure each party’s obligations are met.
Distinguishing clearly between claim and dispute really matters: a claim is a legitimate request to adjust or interpret contractual terms, while a dispute only arises when a claim fails to reach a consensual resolution. Confusing the two leads to unnecessary escalation and stands in the way of calm, effective contract management.
To illustrate the difference, look at the wording from the DAU (Defense Acquisition University), for whom a claim is a “written demand or written assertion by one of the contracting parties seeking (i) the payment of money, (ii) the adjustment or interpretation of contract terms, or (iii) any other relief arising under or relating to the contract”. The DAU then specifies that “a contract dispute exists when a claim cannot be resolved during preliminary discussions between the contracting party representatives”.
In short, the one thing to keep in mind is this: a claim is not a dispute, even if it can lead to one.
3. What is a claim for?
Now that we have introduced what a claim is and how it differs from a dispute, time for the third foundational question of this opening chapter: what is a claim actually for? There are many possible grounds for raising a claim, from notifying a deviation from the contract, a breach or a defect, to seeking payment for additional works, and so on.
Our view at Prime Conseil is that in many sectors, the claim is one of the main levers of project profitability. We are not alone in that reading. According to McKinsey, in the construction industry “players make money from claims rather than from good delivery”. From there, calling claim management an essential activity in the life of any complex project is a small step indeed.
In any case, keep in mind that the claim is a useful tool and an inseparable part of the life cycle of any complex contract. Preparing a claim is not an act of hostility towards your counterparty, and receiving a claim is not a declaration of war.
Think of the claim as an important lever for a healthy and profitable contract execution. If you find yourself reluctant, remember that your counterparty is unlikely to be reluctant for very long.
B. The main difficulties around claims
Now that we have covered the fundamentals of the contractual claim, time for a less cheerful truth: claim management is genuinely complicated, or at the very least “not that simple” for those who prefer to see the glass half full.
Several reasons explain why claim management is still an underdeveloped activity in France, which in turn creates a fair share of difficulties on international contracts.
1. Form and admissibility conditions of a claim
Let us start with the form, since there is no mandatory layout (except in the very rare contracts that ship with annexed templates). The structure and form of a claim can vary from one project to the next, depending on its nature, the goal pursued and so on. Most claims, however, follow this general outline:
- Statement of facts: a reminder of what happened, as factual and detailed as possible, including the difficulties and consequences encountered.
- Legal and contractual references: a recap of the contractual provisions or, more broadly, the legal and regulatory obligations involved (personal data, health and safety, and so on).
- Causation and liability: establishing the link between the facts and the consequences, to show that the recipient of the claim is (even partially) responsible.
- Financial and schedule impact: an estimate (more or less detailed depending on what the contract’s claim procedure requires) of the costs and delays linked to the situation.
The form of the document is, with a bit of practice, a fairly easy difficulty to handle. The admissibility conditions of a claim, on the other hand, are (too) often unknown or overlooked, creating a difficulty that can lead to the claim being rejected outright. Many contracts, particularly those based on FIDIC standards, set precise conditions (especially around timing) for a claim to be admissible. Not knowing the contract well enough, or missing the deadline for submitting a claim, can lead to a rejection for time-bar.
Knowing these terms and admissibility conditions well, ideally mapping them in a diagram and circulating it internally, helps the team stay clear of those traps.
2. The challenge of building a solid case
Once the form and admissibility conditions are under control, the difficulty level goes up again when you turn to the substance.
A good claim is a claim that is well documented and substantively solid, retracing as unambiguously as possible the sequence: triggering event, damage, causation. In practice, though, the situation is rarely clear and clean. A claim usually arises in the middle of a project, a test campaign, a construction site or a plant, in conditions that hardly favour stepping back and analysing the situation factually and rationally. You end up with verbal commitments, evidence that is hard to defend (particularly in the age of AI and deepfakes), inaccurate accounts of events, a chronic lack of time and resources, and sometimes a hint of bad faith or subjectivity, which is part of the human equation.
The suddenness of the situation, combined with the fact that the people involved at the moment of the triggering event are very often field operators with little exposure to the subject, makes activities like tracing the chain of liability or gathering admissible evidence remarkably complex in practice. The contract manager often needs to draw on resourcefulness, a bit of guile and a great deal of persistence to reconstruct a reliable history. That difficulty, combined with the deadlines for raising a claim (see paragraph 1 above), does not always make it possible to build claims of the quality you would like.
3. Company culture
The third and not least factor that makes claim management complex is company culture. We touched on it briefly in the introduction. French companies, and more broadly Latin-culture companies, relate to the contract very differently from their Anglo-Saxon counterparts.
In a majority of companies, the contract is the lawyers’ business and the claim (wrongly equated with litigation) is something to avoid in order to preserve a healthy relationship between stakeholders. That stance gets in the way of effective claim handling, because the various project actors do not feel as involved, and may even view claim work with suspicion. At the other extreme, in those same companies with uneven contractual culture, when a decision is finally made to prepare a claim, those same people will tend to approach it as a battle rather than a collaborative process. That makes the topic even harder than it needs to be.
In short, these three factors capture the main difficulties we see in drafting and handling claims. The good news is that with a bit of method, the right tools and adequate training, those difficulties can be overcome, and the claim can genuinely become a profitability lever.
C. Good practices in claim management
In contract management, and here specifically in claim management, good practices are plentiful and templates abound. The catch is that they need to be tailored to a company culture, a sector, and sometimes to the expectations and quirks of the counterparty. That said, three broad families of good practice can be picked out from the jungle of tools, processes and methods, whether you are a large construction group or a sub-contracting SME in electronics.
1. Adopt a process and tracking tools
There are plenty of SaaS tools out there to help with document management (DMS), contract administration (CLM) or construction site management (BIM). For a concrete example, take our partner Smartpreuve, whose application lets field operators document claims with concrete evidence in seconds from their smartphone. It is a textbook example of a tool that supports people on the ground, with an immediate return on investment for claim management.
That said, at Prime Conseil we are firm believers in the people-process-technology triangle. Never overlook the first two while relying on a piece of technology supposed to change your life. Clarifying the internal claim process (who, what, how, when), and formalising it within a Contract Management Plan, or failing that within a Project Management Plan, helps lay out that process clearly and limits oversights and slips. On top of that, a contract awareness session run by the contract manager helps rally project teams and site staff around the claim as a shared concern.
Finally, embedding claim management in the day-to-day contract execution is a practice we see too rarely, yet it delivers meaningful results. Many meetings and events over the life of a contract are useful for spotting potential claim situations early (project meetings, site visits, documentation reviews, HSE reports and so on). Giving the contract manager access to those events and documents really pays off when it comes to claim quality.
2. Have a claim strategy
Tackling claim management effectively means letting go of the combative posture. Approaching the claim “sword in hand” tends to create tension and make the situation worse, not better. Real thought needs to go into the message the claim is sending, ideally with input from a mix of stakeholders to enrich the debate. That message needs to be clear, measured and consistent with the facts.
Measuring the potential impact of a claim before submitting it is important. That includes the financial and schedule aspects, but also the impact on the relationship with the counterparty. A claim should reflect a fair assessment of the situation, with no exaggeration that would undermine its credibility.
Keeping the claim consistent with reality is critical. A claim should always be based on verifiable, documented facts. Maintaining that consistency calls for strict objectivity in analysing the situation. If at some point the claim turns out to be unfounded, having the courage to raise the flag internally matters. Having internal processes that make those signals easy to raise is what keeps unfounded claims out of circulation, claims that would otherwise erode trust and cooperation between the parties.
Dosage and relevance are also key. Going overboard with claims dilutes their impact and effectiveness. Used too often, they read as constant aggression and lose their bite, while souring the contractual relationship. Varying the communication channel depending on the severity of the topic is another good practice. An email may be enough for minor adjustments, while a face-to-face meeting can be more appropriate for more complex or sensitive matters.
In short, a well-defined claim strategy lets you navigate the contractual bumps with composure. It rests on thoughtful communication, accurate impact assessment, unwavering objectivity and measured use of claims. Companies that adopt these practices can turn contractual challenges into opportunities to strengthen their relationships and improve overall performance.
3. Pay attention to the writing
The last good practice may sound obvious, but writing quality plays a real role in whether a claim lands well. Being synthetic and factual is what keeps the message clear. A well-written claim gets to the point, stating the facts and the requests cleanly, with no padding. Clear and concise communication helps prevent misunderstandings and makes resolving contractual issues much easier.
When drafting a claim, leaving emotion and subjectivity aside is just as important. Feelings and personal opinions have no place in this kind of document. A claim should stay neutral and professional, based only on verifiable facts. That helps keep the tone respectful and constructive, instead of feeding the tension.
Being didactic is another essential practice. The claim needs to be understandable for everyone involved, including those who are not familiar with every aspect of the contract. A quick internal review can help here, since colleagues who were not directly involved often bring a fresh eye and can spot ambiguities the author has stopped seeing.
Writing a claim also calls for a touch of craft and writing skill. Knowing the contract and its clauses well helps avoid the “anything you write may be used against you” trap. Each statement needs to be backed by solid evidence, and each word chosen carefully to avoid unfavourable interpretations. A good claim demonstrates a thorough understanding of the contract, citing the relevant clauses precisely and showing how they apply to the situation at hand. That rigour reinforces the claim’s credibility and improves the odds of a favourable outcome.
In short, writing a claim is a delicate exercise that calls for clarity, objectivity and precision. By staying synthetic, factual and didactic, while drawing on writing craft and a thorough knowledge of the contract, you can produce effective claims that help resolve differences and strengthen overall contract management.
Conclusion
To wrap up, claim management is an essential component of contract management. It allows the parties to clarify and adjust contractual terms so that projects can run as well as possible. In France, shifting the negative perception attached to claims and treating them as legitimate contract management tools is what unlocks the value. Drawing a clean line between claims and disputes lets companies avoid unnecessary conflict and improve project profitability. With structured practices and teams that understand what is at stake, claim management becomes a profitability lever and a real driver of project success.
