Starting point
An international industrial mega-project held a broad portfolio of commercial claims and recovery opportunities across numerous suppliers. These included contractual entitlements, schedule-related effects, outstanding credits and further issues arising from project execution.
The cases differed significantly in financial relevance, contractual strength, evidence, negotiation maturity and enforceability. At the same time, several suppliers remained operationally critical. The initiative therefore could not be managed as a purely legal or claims exercise.
The challenge was not merely to formulate demands. It was to establish a system that prioritized cases economically, assessed their real enforceability and made the negotiation portfolio manageable at programme level.
Mandate
OSP was asked to structure the recovery initiative methodologically and operationally and to support the project and procurement teams in preparing and conducting the negotiations.
- Prioritize supplier cases by impact and enforceability
- Assess the commercial and contractual position
- Develop case-specific negotiation strategies
- Prepare and challenge internal negotiation teams
- Support selected supplier negotiations
- Consolidate outcomes and management reporting
Approach
Structure the case portfolio
Cases were classified by financial relevance, contractual basis, evidence, supplier dependency and negotiation maturity. This created a robust prioritization: not every theoretically available claim justified the same resource commitment or escalation intensity.
Build negotiation positions
For prioritized cases, OSP structured the target position, alternatives, likely counterarguments, possible concessions and escalation paths. Formal entitlement was combined with a realistic view of supplier interests and operational constraints.
Establish governance
OSP introduced a consistent status and outcome logic. Cases were distinguished as identified, under discussion, commercially committed, contractually secured or realized. Management gained a reliable view of progress, risk and bankable outcomes.
Steer the negotiations
Teams were prepared for the supplier, the situation and likely reactions. New information from each round was immediately translated into the next strategic move. The result was a controlled process rather than a static negotiation script.
Outcome
Several million euros in commercial effects were secured, including realized contractual entitlements, agreed credits and further binding relief.
The programme also established a durable decision and governance structure:
- Management and project leadership worked from one consistent outcome base.
- Open opportunities were no longer mixed with secured results.
- Negotiation resources focused on the economically relevant cases.
- Supplier relationships and operational dependency informed the strategy.
- Decisions and progress remained traceable throughout the initiative.
What made the difference
The decisive lever was not a single negotiation technique. It was the integration of commercial evidence, case-specific game planning and rigorous governance. Separating opportunity, discussion, commitment and secured outcome made the initiative genuinely steerable.