Global Claims: Total Cost Methodology and Substantiation



Global claims come in various forms. It is not uncommon for the contractor to claim the recovery of all the costs incurred in the project less the amount certified. This is often referred to as a total cost claim. Further method has been adopted by deducting from the total cost all costs that are not be related to the contractor own faults or if certain causes could be computed and claimed separately. This category of global claims falls under the modified total cost method. The total cost method and the modified total cost method are described in details in this chapter which emphasis on case law especially in the United States courts where they have originated. The calculation of losses in global claims are explained which are formulated to show the reader the methods needed for a proper calculation. Necessary steps to substantiate these types of claims such as records keeping, documentation, avoidance of claims and mitigation are also included. This chapter intends to provide full awareness on the different types of globally presented claims and the main objectives the claimant must ensue to formulate his claim in an acceptable manner and without prejudicing his rights in case the claim is disputed.


Actual Cost Change Order Contract Price Trial Court Cost Overrun 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Case Law

  1. Allied Materials and Equipment Co. v United States 210 Ct. Cl. 714 (1976)Google Scholar
  2. Amelco Electric v City of Thousand Oak (2000), 82 Cal.App.4th 373Google Scholar
  3. Atlantic Dry Dock Corp. v U.S. 773 F.Supp.335 (M.D.Fla. 1991)Google Scholar
  4. Attorney General for the Falkland Islands v Gordon Forbes (Falklands) Construction Ltd (2003) 19 Const LJ T1 49Google Scholar
  5. Biemann and Rowell Co. v Donohoe Companies Inc 556 S.E.2d 1, 5 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001)Google Scholar
  6. Boyajian v United States 423 F.2d. 1231 (U.S. Ct. Claims, 1970)Google Scholar
  7. British Westinghouse v Underground Railway Co. (1912) A.C. 673 at 689Google Scholar
  8. Ernst EC Inc. v Koppers Company, Inc. 47 F. Supp. 729 (WD Pa. 1979)Google Scholar
  9. Dillingham-Ray Wilson v City of Los Angeles (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1396Google Scholar
  10. General Contracting and Construction Co. v U.S. 84 Ct.Cl. 570 (1937)Google Scholar
  11. Shupe GM Inc. v United States, 5 C1. Ct. 662 (1984)Google Scholar
  12. Huber, Hunt and Nichols Inc. v Moore (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 278Google Scholar
  13. Crosby J and Sons Ltd. v Portland Urban District Council (1967) 5 BLR 121Google Scholar
  14. Hedin JD Constr. Co. v United States, 347 F.2d 235 (Ct. Cl. 1965a)Google Scholar
  15. Lichter v Mellon Stuart Company 305 F.2d. 216 (3d Cir. 1962)Google Scholar
  16. London Borough of Merton v Stanley Hugh Leach (1985) 32BLR 51Google Scholar
  17. Luria Brothers and Company, Inc. v U.S. 369 F.2d 701 (Ct.Cl. 1966)Google Scholar
  18. McDevitt and Street Co. v Department of General Services (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)Google Scholar
  19. Saddler PL v U.S. 287 F.2d 411 (Ct.Cl. 1961)Google Scholar
  20. Penvidic Contracting Co v International Nickel Co of Canada (1975) 53 DLR (3d) 748 CanGoogle Scholar
  21. Phillips Construction Co Inc v United States 394 F 2d 834 (1968)Google Scholar
  22. Propellex Corpration v Brownlee, 342 F.3d 1335 (2001)Google Scholar
  23. Servidone Construction Corporation v the United States 931 F.2d 860. April 24, 1991Google Scholar
  24. Wood v Grand Valley R Co (1913) 16 DLR 361Google Scholar
  25. WRB Corp. v United States 183 Ct. C1. 409, 426 (1968)Google Scholar
  26. Wunderlich Contracting Co. v United States, 351 F So. 956 (Ct. Cl. 1965b)Google Scholar


  1. Callahan M (2010) Construction change order claims. Aspen Publishers, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  2. Carnell N (2005) Causation and delay in construction disputes. Blackwell Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Davison P, Mullen J (2008) Evaluating contract claims. Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Pickavance K (2010) Delay and disruption in construction contracts. Sweet and Maxwell, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  5. Reese C (2010) Hudson’s building and engineering contracts. Sweet and Maxwell, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited  2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dar Al RiyadhRiyadhSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations