We know we've lost money and don't know what to claim under
The costs are real and nobody has separated them into heads a tribunal will recognise.
What's happening?
The job lost money and everyone roughly knows why: it ran long, it ran ragged, the supervision doubled, the overheads sat unrecovered. The draft claim says exactly that, one number wrapped in a narrative. Then somebody on the other side asks the only question that matters, what is this sum for, and the answer is everything, which reads as nothing.
Loss and expense is argued head by head, and each head has its own logic and its own evidence. Time-related costs need the period established. Disruption needs productivity measured. Head office overheads and finance need their own support, not a share of the general pain.
Real costs claimed under the wrong head, or under no head at all, get struck out while everyone agrees the money was lost, and the overlap between badly drawn heads is the first thing a hostile reviewer goes hunting for, because one double-count discredits the rest.
So the sorting comes first: every cost assigned to the head it belongs to, each head listed with the evidence it needs to stand up, the gaps visible early while records can still be rebuilt. Only then is there a claim to draft.
The solution
The costs sorted into heads before anyone argues them.
If you would rather it were done for you, Claim Quantum Build is the service that does it.