Introduction
When we talk about contractual risk, we often focus on legal Terms & Conditions, risk distribution methods using different delivery models, scope, and claims. But the real risk landscape is much broader — spanning finance, regulation, insurance, data, people, politics, and even Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG).
Although this is applicable to all contracts, the more complex our projects become, the more concerning it is to treat contracts as purely legal documents instead of strategic risk instruments. While some contractual risks are well documented in standards and guidance, others—particularly those related to ambiguity, integration, digital responsibility, and lifecycle blind spots—remain under-represented in formal literature despite being frequent causes of failure in practice.
This piece reflects both industry research and real project experience, and aims to shift the conversation from contracts as legal protection to contracts as strategic delivery tools. I hope it resonates with fellow project leaders, PMOs, and decision-makers working in complex delivery environments.
Contractual Risk in Projects: Why the Contract Itself Deserves More Attention
Many of the risks that derail our projects are embedded in the contract itself. Treating contracts solely as legal tools—rather than delivery strategies—creates systemic risk.
Contracts don’t just allocate responsibility. They shape behaviour, influence decisions, and quietly determine how risk will surface across delivery, governance, and operations. By the time problems appear on site or in operations, the root causes are often already written into the agreement. That’s why contractual risk must be treated as a core project-risk category—not a legal afterthought.
Organizations that do this well can:
- make stronger go/no-go decisions,
- negotiate more strategically,
- plan more realistically,
- and build contingencies where they truly matter.
This article draws on a combination of established industry research (Flyvbjerg, Merrow, IPA, FIDIC, CII, RICS, OECD) and over two decades of practical experience in complex AEC projects. While some contractual risks are well documented in standards and guidance, others—particularly those related to ambiguity, integration, digital responsibility, and lifecycle blind spots—remain under-represented in formal literature despite being frequent causes of failure in practice.
Contractual Risks
When we examine how contractual risks are treated in practice, a clear pattern emerges. Some risks are familiar. They appear in risk registers, workshops, and contract negotiations. Others, however, remain largely invisible—poorly defined, inconsistently managed, and often underestimated. For simplicity, contractual risks can be viewed in two broad groups:
- Risks that are widely recognized and commonly discussed
- Risks that are less visible, less structured, and often underestimated
And while both matter, it is usually the second group—the risks that live in the grey areas of governance, behaviour, and interpretation—where projects quietly lose the most value.
1. More Known and Commonly Considered Contractual Risks
These risks are familiar to most project teams, even if they are not always managed well.
1.1 Misaligned Risk Allocation
When contracts transfer risk without transferring real control, teams become defensive instead of solution-oriented.
Typical impacts: inflated pricing, disputes, adversarial behaviour.
Strategic response: align responsibility with authority and test risk allocation against real delivery scenarios before finalizing contracts.
1.2 Ambiguity in Scope and Change
Unclear scope definitions and weak change mechanisms remain a primary source of conflict.
Typical impacts: scope creep, unpriced changes, schedule slippage.
Strategic response: define baselines clearly and link contingencies to design maturity—not optimism.
1.3 Financial and Market-Driven Risks
Often treated as “external,” but deeply contractual in nature:
- inflation and escalation clauses,
- currency exposure,
- interest-rate sensitivity,
- supply-chain volatility,
- contractor or supplier insolvency,
- cash-flow pressure from payment terms.
1.4 Legal and Regulatory Risks
Contracts become fragile when the regulatory context shifts:
- environmental and safety regulations,
- permitting delays,
- force-majeure definitions that no longer reflect reality,
- sanctions, trade restrictions, and ESG compliance.
1.5 Insurance, Bonds, and Security Gaps
Often viewed as boilerplate—but critical in crises:
- coverage gaps,
- unclear deductibles,
- bonding limitations,
- professional-liability shortfalls,
- misalignment between indemnities and insurance.
2. Less Known and Often Overlooked Contractual Risks
These risks receive far less attention—but often cause the deepest damage.
2.1 Ambiguity Beyond Scope
Ambiguity exists not only in scope, but also in:
- roles and responsibilities,
- decision rights,
- interfaces,
- performance standards,
- escalation paths.
Impact: gaps, overlaps, delays, and disputes that no one clearly owns.
1.6 Claims, Dispute Resolution, and Enforcement Risks
The way disputes are handled can be as risky as the dispute itself:
- escalation paths that inflame conflict,
- unrealistic notice provisions,
- jurisdictional uncertainty,
- difficulty enforcing judgments or awards.
2.2 Complex Legal Language That Project Teams Cannot Easily Understand or Apply
Many contracts are legally sound but operationally unusable. They are written to protect against claims and litigation, not to support clear decision-making by project teams in real time. As a result, they are rarely read and understood by those delivering the work.
Impact: slow decisions, unnecessary escalation, risk-averse behaviour.
Hidden cost: teams stop managing the contract—and start fearing it.
2.3 Increasing Complexity of Contracting Models and Delivery Structures
Hybrid models, layered agreements, progressive frameworks, and sophisticated risk-sharing mechanisms are powerful—but also confusing.
Impact: blurred accountability, overlapping authority, weak team alignment.
Reality: complexity without clarity becomes a new form of risk.
2.4 Inconsistencies Inside the Contract
Different sections are often written by different teams—legal, commercial, technical, quality, PMO, controls.
Impact: internal contradictions that surface only when disputes arise.
In practice, even small inconsistencies can trigger major commercial consequences.
2.5 Lifecycle and Long-Term Performance Blind Spots
Some of the most expensive contractual risks appear only after handover:
- materials that meet specs but fail early,
- systems that are cheap to build but costly to maintain,
- performance tests that don’t reflect real operations.
Impact: optimizing delivery at the expense of operations.
2.6 Information, Data, and Digital Risks
A rapidly growing blind spot:
- unclear ownership of data and models,
- BIM responsibility gaps, Level of Information (LOI) and Level of Detail (LOD)
- cybersecurity obligations misaligned with real systems,
- AI use without liability frameworks.
2.7 Human and Organizational Risks
Contracts assume rational behaviour—but people drive outcomes:
- key-person dependency,
- capability gaps,
- cultural misalignment in JVs and alliances,
- decision paralysis driven by fear of contractual exposure,
- loss of institutional knowledge through turnover.
2.8 Stakeholder, Political, and Reputational Risks
Especially in public and mega-projects:
- political interference,
- community opposition,
- reputational exposure,
- misalignment between public commitments and contract terms.
2.9 Exit, Termination, and Transition Risks
Often ignored—until they dominate the project:
- unclear termination rights,
- weak step-in provisions,
- poor transition planning,
- asset handover disputes,
- knowledge-transfer gaps.
2.10 ESG, Sustainability, and Social-License Risks
Increasingly important—and contractually fragile:
- vague ESG obligations,
- greenwashing exposure (Greenwashing exposure is the risk that a project, company, or consortium claims to be sustainable, but the contract, delivery methods, or actual performance do not support those claims.),
- unenforceable carbon targets,
- Indigenous engagement commitments not embedded contractually.
2.11 Strategic and Portfolio-Level Contractual Risks
Seen only when projects are viewed together:
- inconsistent contract strategies across a portfolio,
- over-reliance on templates,
- lessons learned not embedded,
- disconnect between corporate risk appetite and project contracts.
Why This Matters
Contractual risk is not limited to legal interpretation. It is a project, governance, commercial, and lifecycle problem and like any serious project risk, it must be identified early, assessed honestly, mitigated deliberately, and supported by realistic contingencies.
Projects rarely struggle because of one bad clause. They struggle because multiple contractual risks interact—until the contract itself becomes the biggest risk on the project.
Key References & Further Reading
Note: This article was prepared with the support of AI-assisted research tools and draws on a combination of published industry sources and professional experience. While care has been taken to ensure accuracy, readers are encouraged to consult original sources for detailed guidance and formal application. The risks discussed in this article reflect a combination of:
- Practitioner insight drawn from real-world experience in complex AEC and infrastructure projects—particularly in areas such as contractual ambiguity beyond scope, contract usability, internal inconsistencies, digital-risk exposure, exit and transition risk, ESG as contractual exposure, and portfolio-level contract strategy.
- and Established industry research on megaproject governance, risk allocation, dispute prevention, and lifecycle value such as:
- PMI — PMBOK® Guide, 7th & 8th Editions
- FIDIC — Red, Yellow, Silver Books
- AIA — Integrated Project Delivery Guide
- DBIA — Design-Build Best Practices
- CCDC — Canadian Standard Construction Contracts
- UK Infrastructure & Projects Authority — Project Routemap
- Construction Leadership Council (UK) — Collaborative Procurement Guidance
- Australian Alliancing Association — Alliance Contracting Principles
- World Economic Forum — Risk Mitigation in Infrastructure Investment
- Flyvbjerg, B. — How Big Things Get Done
- OECD — Public Procurement and Infrastructure Governance
Do you have any questions?
Click and book a 60 minutes free consultation meeting today.