Project Management

Please login or join to subscribe to this thread

Method Statement from a Contract Management Perspective: Can It Play a Role in Claims and Contractual Disputes?

linkedin twitter facebook   Change Management   Construction  
avatar
Aleksandar Loncar Niš, Serbia

A Method Statement is primarily a technical document describing how construction works are planned and executed, including the scope of work, materials, responsibilities, methodology, sequence of activities, resources, quality control and safety measures.

However, I am interested in exploring its potential role from a Contract Management perspective.

Can an approved Method Statement serve as supporting documentation in variations, claims for additional costs, extensions of time (EOT) or contractual disputes?

For example, if the Engineer requires a change to an approved construction methodology, resulting in additional resources, costs, or delays, could the original and revised Method Statement become relevant evidence in assessing a potential claim?

I would be particularly interested in hearing from Contract Managers, Project Managers, and other construction professionals who have encountered such situations.

Could you share any examples from your professional experience?
avatar
Luis Branco CEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, Ldª Carcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
Thank you, Aleksandar. This is a valuable question because it connects technical execution with contract management.

An approved Method Statement can be relevant supporting evidence when comparing the originally proposed methodology with subsequent instructions, revisions and actual execution. Its contractual significance, however, depends on the applicable contract, the document's status and the scope of the approval.

Three distinctions matter.

First, technical approval does not, by itself, necessarily establish entitlement to additional time or payment.

Second, a change in methodology does not automatically constitute a compensable Variation or justify an Extension of Time. The contractual basis, authority for the instruction and applicable procedures must be examined.

Third, evidence that a methodology changed is not proof of its effects. Contemporary site records, programme analysis and cost records may be needed to establish what happened, causation and the impacts claimed.

The original and revised Method Statements can therefore form part of an evidentiary chain, but cannot alone establish contractual entitlement or quantify the consequences.

Beyond claims, maintaining traceability between instructions, decisions and execution can help resolve issues before they become disputes.

Please login or join to reply

Content ID:

"Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song, A medley of extemporanea; And love is a thing that can never go wrong; and I am Marie of Roumania."

- Dorothy Parker

Sponsors

Newsletters

Oct 28: Leadership Isn't a Popularity Contest
Oct 21: Leadership Takes Courage
Oct 7: The Skill That Refuses to Be Automated

See all newsletters