THE OTHER HALF OF CLAIMS MANAGEMENT
Claims are usually discussed from the claimant’s side. Was the notice on time? Is entitlement established? Is the delay analysis sound? Are the costs substantiated?
Those are the right questions. But there is another side: what happens when a well-substantiated claim is rejected with a response that doesn’t engage with the evidence, the contract or the reasoning presented?
The first edition of the ICCP Claims Management Protocol (2026) treats this as half of the problem. It notes that disputes arise not only because claimants fail to prove their case, but also because respondents reject or undervalue claims without a clear explanation. Section 11 is devoted to responses and determinations, and sets a demanding test: a response should convince both parties that, if they raise a dispute, it will fail.
THE ENGINEER’S DIFFICULT POSITION
Under many contracts, the Engineer is appointed and paid by the Employer, yet must act fairly or neutrally when assessing claims. The two duties aren’t necessarily incompatible, but they create tension.
The Protocol addresses it directly. The Engineer is appointed to safeguard the Employer’s interests, it says, but that may not extend to defending claims unfairly, and it describes failure to act neutrally when responding as common. The cost is practical: a defensive reply to a just claim rarely persuades the Contractor, pushes the matter towards a dispute and, if the claim proves valid, wastes the time and money spent on that dispute.
The Engineer isn’t expected to accept a claim because the submission is extensive, nor to reject it because acceptance increases the Employer’s exposure. The task is to apply the contract to the facts the evidence establishes, and to explain how.
A REJECTION IS NOT AN ASSESSMENT BECAUSE IT IS WRITTEN
Take an extension of time claim after delayed access to part of the site. The submission includes correspondence, access records, programme updates and a delay analysis. The Engineer replies within the contractual time, citing the right clause, that entitlement hasn’t been demonstrated.
Has the claim been assessed?
The Protocol describes what an assessment should address: the cause and effect, the suitability of the delay method, the correctness of the programmes and of the analysis itself, the resources and daily costs claimed, the contractual entitlement, and compliance with any conditions precedent. Where the response relies on documents not in the claim, copies should accompany it.
If the delay analysis is defective, say where. If the programme logic is unreliable, explain how that affects the conclusion. A general finding that a claim is insufficiently substantiated may sometimes be justified, but where specific deficiencies can be identified, naming them gives the parties a basis to correct, agree or review.
A rejection is a contractual position. A reasoned determination explains why that position is justified.
PROPORTIONATE, BUT NEVER UNEXPLAINED
Not every response must reproduce the claim or commission an expert. A variation at an agreed rate may need little explanation; a major EOT claim with several delay events, disputed updates and concurrency allegations needs far more. The principle is constant: material conclusions should rest on identifiable evidence and contractual analysis.
None of this shifts the burden. The onus stays on the claimant to prove entitlement (Section 7), and contractual deadlines aren’t suspended because information is missing. But where particulars are lacking, the Protocol favours asking for them specifically, rather than treating every gap as a final rejection. The aim is to resolve the issue, not to close the correspondence.
IMPARTIALITY IS NOT COMPROMISE
Impartiality doesn’t mean finding a middle position. If entitlement and evidence support the claim in full, an impartial determination awards it in full. If the claim is unsupported, rejecting it in full is equally proper. If entitlement exists but quantum is overstated, a partial award follows.
The aim is not to split the difference but to reach a conclusion that withstands scrutiny. Consulting the parties should clarify facts and disagreements, not replace contractual entitlement with commercial bargaining. Negotiated settlements have their place, but they aren’t determinations under the contract.
THE CONTRACT STILL GOVERNS
The Protocol is good-practice guidance. It doesn’t become part of the contract and doesn’t replace the conditions or the governing law. Whether the Engineer must act neutrally, and what follows from a defective determination, depends on the actual contract: Sub-Clause 3.7 of the FIDIC 2017 Red and Yellow Books sets out a procedure for agreement or determination, while EPC and other forms may allocate assessment differently.
A poorly reasoned response doesn’t automatically invalidate a determination or establish the Contractor’s entitlement. It does weaken the credibility of the assessment and make later dispute more likely.
WHEN REJECTION BECOMES A PROJECT RISK
Unresolved claims leave the parties working to different assumptions about the completion date and delay damages, the forecast final account, cash flow and provisions. Repeated delay or thin reasoning lets that uncertainty accumulate, and the short-term gain of a rejection may be outweighed by the cost of experts, adjudication or arbitration.
That isn’t an argument for accepting claims. A defensible assessment is simply worth more than an unsupported refusal. The Protocol’s sequence shows how it works at project level: initial review, a request for specific particulars, full assessment, written findings to both parties, a joint discussion, revision, and a formal determination only if agreement isn’t reached.
DIGITALISATION SHOULD PRESERVE THE REASONING
Claims systems usually record that a claim was submitted, which deadline applies and whether it was approved or rejected. They rarely preserve why. The assessment itself stays scattered across emails, spreadsheets, programme files and internal notes.
A stronger approach keeps the claim, the contract provisions, the supporting records, the findings and the determination connected. When a cost is reduced, the reason and calculation stay with it. When a delay analysis is rejected, the disputed assumptions can be identified. When particulars are requested, the request and the response become part of the history.
AI can help locate records, flag inconsistencies and check whether material issues were addressed. It cannot supply the professional judgement or contractual authority to decide. The goal is neither automated rejection nor automated approval, but a decision that can be independently understood and verified.
THE PRINCIPLE
The Protocol places claim preparation and claim assessment in the same professional frame. The Contractor must establish facts, entitlement and consequences. The Engineer must examine them and explain the basis of the response. Neither side benefits when extensive submissions are met with unexplained conclusions, and the Employer isn’t protected by a rejection that can’t withstand independent examination.
A claim should be capable of being verified. A determination should be capable of being explained.
When either fails, the project may already be moving from contract administration towards dispute resolution.
HOW ACC TRUST CAN SUPPORT
ACC TRUST supports contractors, employers and project teams in structuring claim submissions and responses, reviewing the reasoning behind determinations, and keeping assessment records traceable.
Explore ACC TRUST services: https://acctrust.ro/services
Discuss a specific project: office@acctrust.ro
Reference: Institute of Construction Claims Practitioners, Claims Management Protocol, First Edition 2026, Sections 1, 7 and 11. Professional commentary only. The Protocol is good-practice guidance and does not replace contract terms, governing law or legal advice.