I want my claim tested before the main contractor sees it
The claim is written, or half written, and I want to know where it will be attacked before it goes in.
Updated: . By Jack Butler-Kettle, Construction Claims Consultant.
What's happening?
A finished or half-finished claim is worth a hostile read before it goes in. That matters most when the people who built it are close to the figures. Check the arithmetic, the rates and their sources, the quantities, the allocation, any overlap between heads and the records behind each significant head. Check that each event was notified as the subcontract requires.
The review should separate a confirmed error in a calculation from a limit of the sample or an evidence gap still open. It helps you decide. It does not predict whether the claim will survive challenge, and it is not a neutral decision on a dispute.
While the claim is still inside your business, you can reshape it freely: drop heads, repair records, rebuild figures. Once a figure has gone to your main contractor, even informally, every change has to be explained. So the test is worth most before anything is sent.
The solution
Test the claim head by head, the way your main contractor's surveyor will. Log each duplicated cost, uncertain quantity and unsourced rate as a separate finding, with a named person and a next action. Record whether each one is corrected, supported, conditional or unresolved.
That stress test is the first stage of Delay & Disruption Claim, and it is priced on its own. After it, you decide whether we value and submit the claim or your team repairs it. You get straight findings to decide on, not a promise that the claim will survive challenge.
Example
Illustrative example. The scenario and figures are invented.
The facts
A subcontractor's £275,000 loss and expense claim is finished. Before it goes anywhere, the commercial manager has it tested over 2 days. Each finding is logged separately, with a named person and a next action.
What happens
- The summary carries a £3,000 subtotal error. The cabin hire appears in the prolongation head and again inside a priced variation, an overlap of £4,200.
- An excavation quantity was taken from a drawing revision that has since been replaced, so it is marked uncertain. The fencing rate has no invoice behind it.
- Two members of staff have no allocation sheets for 3 of the 14 weeks claimed.
- A week later the log is updated. The subtotal is corrected and the £4,200 is removed. The quantity is remeasured from the current revision and comes down by £1,800.
- The fencing invoice turns up in the accounts system. Allocation sheets are found for 2 of the 3 weeks, leaving one week worth £1,400 marked conditional.
- The claim goes over at £266,000. The conditional week is shown as conditional, not hidden in the total.
The claim before and after the test
| Item | Amount |
|---|---|
| Claim as finished | £275,000 |
| Subtotal error corrected | £3,000 |
| Cabin hire overlap removed | £4,200 |
| Excavation quantity remeasured | £1,800 |
| One week marked conditional, still in the claim | £1,400 |
| Claim as sent | £266,000 |
The outcome
The main contractor's surveyor challenges the period and whether the money is owed. Those are for a programming expert and the solicitor. The surveyor finds nothing to challenge in the arithmetic.