Our Partner Eugen Sârbu participated as a speaker at the Construction Forum 2026, organized by eDevize.
During the panel “Construction Legislation 2026 – Regulation, Speed and Ethics”, Eugen Sârbu addressed one of the most relevant topics for the construction industry: the application of Government Decision No. 1/2018 and the allocation of contractual risks in public construction projects.
His presentation began with a simple yet essential observation: more than eight years after its entry into force, Government Decision No. 1/2018 can no longer be regarded as a new or insufficiently tested regulation. It is a standard form of contract widely used in the public sector, under which thousands of projects have been implemented and investments worth billions of euros have been committed.
The situations that generate the greatest number of disputes in construction projects
Experience gained in the management of construction projects, claims, and construction arbitrations highlights a number of recurring challenges that significantly affect project delivery.
Price adjustment – the main source of construction disputes
In recent years, price adjustment has become one of the most disputed issues in the construction sector.
The rapid increase in the costs of materials, energy, and labour has transformed price adjustment mechanisms from a technical contractual instrument into a key factor for the economic viability of projects.
From a practical perspective, the difference between a company that incurs significant losses and one that succeeds in maintaining its financial stability often depends on how effectively it manages price adjustment.
At the same time, the applicable legislative framework is far from straightforward. In addition to the mechanisms provided under Government Decision No. 1/2018, the sector has been affected by a succession of legislative acts adopted during 2021–2022 to compensate for price increases (Government Ordinance No. 15/2021, Emergency Government Ordinance No. 47/2022, and Emergency Government Ordinance No. 64/2022), each with its own scope of application, conditions, and calculation formulas.
In practice, this legislative overlap frequently gives rise to disputes regarding the applicable legal framework, the calculation methodology, the cumulative application or exclusion of certain compensation mechanisms, and their impact on the financial claims submitted by contractors.
Furthermore, in projects financed through European funds, contract price adjustment creates significant challenges where projects are phased between different funding programmes due to changes in the rules governing the eligibility of expenditures applicable to each funding programme.
Suspensive payment clauses and suspension of works – recurring sources of disruption in construction projects
In recent years, the practice of concluding public procurement contracts containing suspensive payment clauses has become increasingly widespread in Romania, generating a significant number of disputes across the market and disrupting project cash flow.
At the same time, the suspension of works or of the contract itself remains another issue that continues to create major challenges for both contractors and contracting authorities. Although suspension is often viewed as a temporary measure, its financial consequences can be substantial. Standby costs, maintenance and site security expenses, as well as demobilisation and remobilisation costs, may have a significant impact on the project’s financial performance.
Practical experience shows that many of the disputes arising in such situations are not caused solely by the existence of the disruption itself, but by the way contractual obligations, notices, and related claims are managed.
In an increasingly complex contractual and legislative environment, the early identification of risks and the development of an appropriate legal strategy can make the difference between successfully managing a disruption and allowing it to develop into a long-term dispute.
Which claims withstand arbitration
In most cases, the existence of a contractual entitlement alone is not sufficient for a successful claim. In numerous cases, claims are rejected not because the alleged event did not occur, but because it was not properly documented and substantiated.
Among the most common grounds for rejection are the failure to comply with contractual claims procedures, the lack of adequate supporting evidence, and the inability to demonstrate the causal link between the event relied upon and the claims submitted.
For this reason, the success of a claim depends on several factors, including:
- compliance with contractual notice requirements and claim procedures;
- timely and thorough documentation of all relevant facts;
- the existence of strong technical evidence;
- demonstrating the impact on the project’s critical path;
- aligning technical arguments with the legal basis supporting the claims.
Accordingly, the claims that succeed in arbitration are generally those supported by a coherent contract administration and evidentiary strategy developed from the very beginning of project execution. Compliance with contractual mechanisms, careful evidence management, and continuous documentation of the impact on costs and project duration are the key elements that make the difference.
Sarbu Partners’ expertise in Government Decision No. 1/2018 contracts
We assist our clients in managing claims, price adjustments, and complex disputes by providing well-founded legal solutions tailored to their commercial objectives and the specific circumstances of each case.
For a specialised assessment of your situation, please contact us at office@sarbupartners.ro.
