A Tale of Two Claims: Same Contract, Two Fates

Series: A Tale of Two Claims | Part 1 of 5

About This Series
The difference between a successful claim and a costly failure often hinges not on what happened in the field, but how it was documented, analyzed, and communicated. A Tale of Two Claims is a five-part series that explores how contractors can position themselves for success through stronger documentation, real-time schedule management, defensible cost modeling, and strategic claim preparation. Through the lens of two contrasting projects—one that failed to recover and one that negotiated a favorable settlement—we’ll break down critical topics including daily reports, cost segregation, time impact analysis, and the importance of early expert support.

While the examples draw from federal contracts governed by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), the lessons apply equally to state-funded infrastructure projects and private sector developments. Whether you’re building a school, a substation, or a semiconductor plant, these best practices will help you protect your time, your margin, and your credibility.

Trouble Before Sunrise
The Project West foreman radioed the trailer at 7:33 AM: “We’ve got a problem.”

Paul, the superintendent, hustled down to the site from the field office.

There, half-buried in fractured concrete, was a set of rusted conduit and wire—something no one expected, unmarked on as-builts. Surely this would delay the excavation.

Paul crouched beside the trench, staring at the mess, and sighed. “Take some photos and put it in the daily log. We’ll figure it out later.”

Unfortunately, Paul didn’t understand that it wasn’t just the conduit and concrete that would throw the project off course. It was how his team documented, analyzed, and framed the situation from that moment forward.

Same Surprise, Different Response
On the other side of the country, at Project East, a CAT 336 shuddered to a stop when the bucket struck something solid: a ledge of solid granite where the soil borings had promised soft fill.

Maria, the project manager, calmly snapped timestamped photos, opened the daily report on her tablet, and recorded notes:

• Activity ID: 3.4.2.A (Excavation, Zone B)
• Labor Impact: Crew #2 idle 4.5 hours; CAT 336 idle 3 hours
• Response: Notified geotechnical team and scheduler, opened cost impact tracking

By noon, the scheduler had inserted a fragnet into the Primavera P6 baseline to model the schedule delay. By evening, labor and equipment delays were coded under a distinct cost account, setting up clear segregation for future analysis.

Same problem, same contract type, same agency. But only one team was quietly laying the groundwork for a successful Request for Equitable Adjustment (REA) or claim. And behind the scenes, this team had help.

The Rules That Shape These Battles
Both projects were delivered under Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contracts and were subject to the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) and governed by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), including these clauses:

• FAR 52.236-2 – Differing Site Conditions
• FAR 52.243-4 – Changes
• FAR 52.233-1 – Disputes
• FAR 52.249-10 – Default (Construction)

Under these rules, a contractor seeking relief must meet certain obligations:

• Provide timely notice—10 days from the beginning of any delay per FAR 52.249-10.
• Demonstrate entitlement—that the condition qualifies under contract terms.
• Prove causation—that the issue materially impacted performance.
• Quantify quantum—the actual time and cost damages, backed by contemporaneous evidence.

In theory, it’s straightforward. In reality? Most contractors have no in-house expertise on federal claims mechanics, schedule forensics, or damage modeling. That’s where specialized consultants, like the ones quietly advising Maria’s team, enter the picture. While both examples are federally funded and administered projects, the underlying issues and the steps needed to protect against them are common across public and private construction. Whether it’s a FAR-based federal job, a state Department of Transportation contract, or a privately financed commercial build, the basic principles remain the same: delays must be documented, costs must be traceable, and entitlement must be proven with contemporaneous evidence.

The Project West REA: Where Is the Evidence?
Paul’s team submitted these materials:

• A five-page narrative describing the problem
• Seven low-res photos taken after the fact
• A spreadsheet estimating costs, built using an Engineer’s Estimate without factual backup
• A claim of 60 days’ delay with no Time Impact Analysis (TIA), fragnet, critical path demonstration … nothing

The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) marked it up internally:

• “No critical path analysis; delay days unsupported.”
• “Costs lumped and unsupported; no segregation between delay and Contractor delay/inefficiency.”
• “Daily reports vague; no contemporaneous evidence.”
• “Insufficient to support entitlement or quantum. Recommend denial.”

Had Paul’s team engaged expert guidance earlier, even informally, they might have learned ways to protect themselves:

• Flag the need for formal impact tracking at the moment of discovery.
• Collect contemporaneous schedule and cost data.
• Develop a forensic story built on evidence, not estimates.
• Frame the REA in a structure aligned with best practices.

Instead, they built a poorly written narrative—not a case.

This kind of rejection isn’t unique to federal projects. Whether it’s a state Department of Transportation engineer or a private owner’s representative, the questions are the same.

The Project East REA: Strategic and Solid
Maria’s team filed these:

• A 41-page REA package
• A detailed TIA showing 28 days of verified critical path delay
• Daily reports aligned to activities, costs, and subcontractor memos
• Measured mile productivity analyses quantifying disruption impacts
• Segregated cost records, ready for audit

Maria’s personnel were not guessing—because consultants quietly guided them:

• What to log in field records, and how
• How to update CPM schedules in real time
• How to analyze cost data and tie it directly to impact events
• How to anticipate agency questions and preemptively answer them

The result?

“Well-supported. Recommend negotiation.”

While the agency review framework used in this example is unique to federal construction, many owners, public and private alike, use similar review criteria when evaluating change orders or claims. In any project scenario, vague field logs, retroactive estimates, and disconnected narratives invite scrutiny. Structured records, proper schedules, and defensible cost segregation consistently earn credibility and accelerate resolution.

Knowing What Matters
It’s easy to assume that claims fail because the underlying event was not valid. More often, they fail because the contractor does not perform necessary tasks such as these:

• Tie delay days to the critical path.
• Segregate costs between government-borne and contractor-borne delays.
• Follow all preservation steps, including prompt notice and documenting impact.
• Translate operational facts into a structured legal argument.

That’s why many successful contractors, including the most experienced, quietly turn to external experts to support their claims strategies, schedule analyses, and damage quantifications. It’s not a sign that these contractors are incapable—quite the opposite. They know the stakes are too high to risk any inaccuracy. Also, savvy contractors know there is real cost associated with diverting project staff from managing ongoing projects and acquiring new work.

Field Tip: Build Your Case While You Build Your Project

• Provide prompt notice to the owner per contractual requirements.
• Link daily reports to schedule activities and cost codes.
• Collect contemporaneous, timestamped photos.
• Track subcontractor impacts and confirm with written records.
• Update schedules as soon as impacts arise, not months later.
• When situations become complicated, consider bringing in expert support to help shape the narrative, analyze data, and prepare for negotiation or defense.

The smartest project teams know: The most successful claims are not built after the REA is filed. They’re built in real time, piece by piece, as the job unfolds.

Human and Financial Cost
Paul sat outside the hearing room, his gaze resting on the binder of documents his attorney was thumbing through. The claim had dragged on for over two years, with legal fees crossing $250,000. The original project team had long since scattered.

Maria? She was signing a favorable settlement, negotiated in under eight months, and preparing her team to bid its next project.

Same problem, same type of contract, same agency. Radically different endings.

Coming Next: “The Daily Report Dilemma—Who’s Writing Your Future?”
In Part 2, we’ll explore more insights:

• The anatomy of a daily report that withstands REA review, audit, or litigation
• The silent mistakes contractors make in their field logs and how they corrode entitlement, causation, and quantum
• How the most successful project teams create processes and systems that don’t just record what happened but build a defensible, data-backed narrative ready for recovery

Because in federal contracting, your records don’t just tell your story—they write your defense.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Blog

Discover industry insights on construction disputes and claims, project management, risk analysis, and more.

MORE

Articles

Articles by our engineering and construction claims experts cover topics ranging from acceleration to why claims occur.

MORE

Publications

We are committed to sharing industry knowledge through publication of our books and presentations.

MORE