Why global claims fail

A global claim adds up everything that went wrong, subtracts the bid from the actual cost, and asks the owner to pay the difference. It is tempting, because linking each event to its cost is hard work. It is also the claim most likely to fail, because it assumes the contractor did nothing wrong and the estimate was perfect. This lesson explains why, and how to rebuild a global claim into one that can be paid.

Learning outcomes

• Define global and total cost claims.
• Explain why reviewers and tribunals reject them.
• State the minimum conditions under which a global claim might be considered.
• Convert a global claim into an itemized, causal claim.

The lesson

What a global claim is

A global claim groups the delay and disruption events together and claims the difference between actual cost and tender budget, without linking each event to its effect. One commentator puts it bluntly: it effectively tries to turn a lump-sum contract into a cost-plus contract [2].

Why they fail

A global claim implies three things that are rarely true: the estimate was accurate, the contractor caused none of the overrun, and every cost was reasonable. Under most contracts, the claimant must prove the events, the other party's responsibility, the costs and the causal link [2]. The SCL Protocol discourages global claims that do not show cause and effect, and notes that a global claim may fail entirely if any material part of the loss was caused by something the employer is not responsible for [3].

Minimum conditions

Commentary suggests a global claim should only be considered where there is no viable alternative method of analysis, the original plan was demonstrably feasible, and there is no concurrent contractor-caused delay; even then, a partial result may depend on showing causal links for specific events or apportioning [2]. In practice, those conditions are seldom met.

Rebuilding the claim

Take each event separately. Establish entitlement and notice. Show its effect on the critical path or on productivity. Price only the costs that the event caused, from records. Where costs cannot be separated, apportion openly and explain the basis. The result is smaller, and far more likely to be paid.

Northgate worked example

Northgate Distribution Centre (fictional) is a 12,000 m² tilt-up warehouse in Vaughan, Ontario, built by Halvorsen Builders Ltd. (fictional) under CCDC 2-2020, with Ridgeline Architects Inc. (fictional) as Consultant. See the Northgate fact sheet. This course follows one delay claim from first notice to settlement. Ready-for-Takeover (M9) was due Friday, January 14, 2028 and was reached on Tuesday, March 14, 2028: 60 calendar days late. All events, dates and amounts are illustrative.

On December 14, 2027, before Ready-for-Takeover, Halvorsen wrote to the owner forecasting a cost overrun of $1,860,000 against its tender and stating that the owner's changes and delays were responsible. The letter listed events but did not link any of them to a cost.

The owner's representative replied within 10 Working Days. She did not reject the events. She rejected the method: no entitlement analysis, no schedule analysis, and no allowance for Halvorsen's own crane breakdown, roof deck delay and rework, which the records already showed. She asked for a detailed account under GC 6.6, event by event.

View the data

Item	Value
Global figure, Dec 14, 2027	$1,860,000
Itemized Claim C-01, Apr 7, 2028	$1,140,000
Assessed entitlement	$265,060

Halvorsen's itemized Claim C-01, on April 7, 2028, came to $1,140,000: $720,000 less than the global figure, because it had to leave out costs no event explained. The evidence then supported $265,060. A global claim that could not be paid became an itemized claim that could be negotiated.

Your move

If you are the owner

• Reject the method, not the events. Ask for a detailed account, event by event.
• Point to the contractor's own delays. They break the global assumption.
• Respond promptly in writing. Silence lets the global figure become the anchor.
• Keep your own analysis ready. It frames the itemized discussion.

If you are the contractor

• Don't lead with total cost. It anchors the owner's scepticism.
• Link every dollar to an event. Event files and cost codes make it possible.
• Remove your own overruns first. Bid errors and rework are yours.
• Apportion openly where you must. And explain the basis.

Common mistakes

1. Actual minus bid as the claim.
2. Ignoring the contractor's own delays.
3. No cost coding by event.
4. Owners refusing to engage at all. Reject the method, invite the detail.
5. Treating the global figure as a starting point for splitting the difference.

Quick quiz

1. What does a global claim usually claim?

   1. Each event's cost
   2. Actual cost minus tender budget, without linking events to costs
   3. Only LDs
   4. Only time

2. Which assumption does a global claim make?

   1. The contractor caused part of the overrun
   2. The estimate was accurate and the contractor caused none of the overrun
   3. The owner caused nothing
   4. Costs were unreasonable

3. What does the SCL Protocol say about global claims?

   1. It recommends them
   2. It discourages them where cause and effect are not shown
   3. It requires them
   4. It says nothing

4. How much smaller was Halvorsen's itemized claim than its global figure?

   1. $265,060
   2. $720,000
   3. $1,140,000
   4. $0

5. How should an owner respond to a global claim?

   1. Ignore it
   2. Reject the method and ask for a detailed account by event
   3. Pay half
   4. Terminate the contract

Show answers and explanations

1. B. That is the defining feature.
2. B. Those assumptions are rarely true.
3. B. And a global claim may fail entirely if a material part of the loss is not the employer's.
4. B. $1,860,000 − $1,140,000 = $720,000.
5. B. Engage with the events, not the method.

Key terms

Global claim

A claim that groups events and claims total cost without linking each event to its effect.

Total cost claim

A claim for actual cost minus the bid, attributing the difference to the other party.

Itemized claim

A claim that links each event to its time and cost effect.

Apportionment

Dividing a loss between causes where it cannot be separated exactly.

Detailed account

The full statement of a claim under GC 6.6.

References

1. Canadian Construction Documents Committee, CCDC 2-2020 Stipulated Price Contract, GC 6.4 to 6.6 and Part 8. Clause content checked against a publicly posted tender copy; buy the form from CCDC.
2. FTI Consulting, Global claims: are they worth the paper they are written on? (January 13, 2023).
3. Fenwick Elliott, The SCL Delay and Disruption Protocol: a second edition (November 2017), summarizing the Society of Construction Law Protocol, 2nd edition (February 2017).
4. BRC, Northgate fact sheet (fictional case study, v1, November 4, 2026).

Verified on November 9, 2026.

Next lesson in this trackReviewing a claim step by step