One of the things I love most about construction is the process itself.

When a project is working the way it should, owners, designers, contractors, and consultants are all moving in the same direction. The work is demanding, but it is also collaborative. It is disciplined. It is creative. It is deeply rewarding.

When the process breaks down, the industry becomes something else entirely.

That is when we get finger pointing, posturing, chest puffing, claims, and disputes.

That is also why I appreciate HKA’s annual CRUX Insight report so much. It strips away the noise and focuses on the real causes of claims and disputes in engineering and construction projects. The recent Lexology summary of the report does a very good job of walking through the findings, and I recommend that everyone in our profession read it.

The Main Causes of Construction Claims Are Not a Mystery

According to the Lexology summary of HKA’s findings, the five primary causes for claims and disputes are change in scope, incorrect design, late design information, incomplete design, and failure in contract management or administration. Change in scope remains the most prevalent issue, while the next three causes are all design related, followed by contract administration failures.

That should get everyone’s attention.

These are not exotic problems. These are not one-off project anomalies. These are recurring failures in planning, documentation, coordination, and contract execution. They are also the exact issues this blog has been calling out for years.

If you have followed my writing for any length of time, then you already know where I stand on this. Poor scope development leads to bad pricing. Weak procurement leads to bad alignment. Ambiguous contracts lead to conflict. Allowing parties to move forward without clarity is an invitation to claims.

That is why articles like Working without a contract? The reasons why Owner’s should never allow it still matter. That is also why the way we solicit work matters, which I discussed years ago in What you need to solicit a quote.

Contract Disputes Continue to Affect a Huge Share of Projects

The part of the report I especially wanted to highlight is the discussion around contract disputes.

As summarized by Lexology, contract disputes, usually related to contract formation or contract terms, affect between 36 percent and 68 percent of capital projects across different sectors and regions, and more than 43 percent of projects worldwide. The same summary reports that these disputes affect 48.3 percent of megaprojects globally and 39.2 percent of non-megaprojects.

That is not a side issue.

That is not legal clean-up after the fact.

That is core project risk.

These disputes also tend to include interconnected issues such as contract management or administration, cash flow and payment, contract interpretation, bid and tender errors, inaccurate estimates, breaches of contract, ambiguous drafting, force majeure, and termination.

This is why what I do is so important.

Why Boilerplate Construction Contracts Cause So Much Trouble

I have said many times that careless contracting is bad for all parties and bad for the profession.

Too often, parties rely on boilerplate language without really thinking through how it will operate once the project is under pressure. Standard forms can be useful tools, but they are not self-executing solutions. If clauses are vague, internally inconsistent, unfairly allocated, or poorly coordinated with the actual scope and delivery model, they create ambiguity. Ambiguity is where claims grow.

That is why I continue to push back on contractual clauses that are routinely overlooked.

That is why I believe allowing boilerplate language, including standard language from familiar industry forms, to remain unexamined is a mistake.

That language may feel safe because it is common.

It is not safe if it leaves room for multiple interpretations.

It is not safe if it ignores the commercial realities of the deal.

It is not safe if it shifts risk to a party who cannot control it.

For years, I have written about this from different angles. In How Much Time Should Procurement Take?, I talked about how rushed procurement and incomplete contracting create downstream problems. In Best Practices – How Architects Can Proactively Manage Value Engineering and Avoid Budget Overruns, I pointed again to the importance of better upfront communication and clearer contracts.

Fair Construction Contracts Create Better Projects

I love construction.

I love the construction process and everything that goes into it. I want to see all parties love the process the way I do. That is one of the biggest reasons I work so hard to craft fair and even agreements.

Fair contracts are not weak contracts.

Fair contracts are disciplined contracts.

They hold parties responsible for the things within their control. They also recognize the risks parties knowingly accept when they enter the deal. That balance matters. When it is done well, the contract becomes a tool for alignment instead of a weapon for later use.

The profession needs more of that mindset.

We need less gamesmanship and more clarity.

We need less strategic ambiguity and more disciplined drafting.

We need less adversarial positioning and more collaboration.

The goal should not be to leave room for argument later. The goal should be to remove unnecessary argument before the work starts.

HKA’s CRUX Insight Report Supports a More Collaborative Industry

One of the encouraging things from HKA’s more recent CRUX reporting is that some dispute drivers appear to be declining in parts of the industry. HKA’s Eighth Annual CRUX Insight Report: From Insight to Foresight said it was “very encouraging” that many dispute types were affecting a smaller share of projects, although the firm also noted that improvement is not universal. In a January 27, 2026 article, HKA added that the sector appears to be managing some disputes more effectively, while warning that cash flow and payment pressure remain significant concerns.

That is good news.

But progress like that does not happen by accident.

It happens when professionals focus on the right things. It happens when scope is clearer. It happens when design information is better. It happens when contracts are better drafted and better administered. It happens when the industry chooses fairness and collaboration over ego and positioning.

That is why I am glad HKA continues to produce the CRUX report. It shines a light on the exact issues that deserve our attention. It reminds us that most claims do not come from nowhere. They come from predictable failures that can be reduced with better planning, better drafting, better administration, and better teamwork.

Final Thoughts on Construction Claims and Contract Fairness

The Lexology article is well worth your time, and I encourage you to read it. The full CRUX reports page from HKA is also a valuable resource if you want to spend more time with the underlying material.

For me, the takeaway is simple.

The causes of claims are not hidden.

The causes of disputes are not mysterious.

The profession already knows where many of these problems begin.

Now we need to do the harder thing. We need to act on that knowledge with fairness, discipline, and collaboration.

What do you think causes more damage on projects, poor scope development or poor contract drafting?

What contract clauses do you see most often overlooked but most often disputed?

Have you seen boilerplate language create avoidable conflict on a project?

Tell me your stories.