Projects & Infrastructure Lawyers Worldwide.

While both work on the same building, they focus on different foundations. A Construction Lawyer handles the physical “bricks and mortar” issues, drafting contracts for builders and architects (like JCT or NEC forms) and fighting over defects or delays. A Projects Lawyer acts as a “financial architect,” focusing on the money and the deal structure. They create the “Special Purpose Vehicle” (SPV) to ring-fence risk, negotiate financing with banks to ensure the project is “bankable,” and draft the long-term operating agreements that keep the revenue flowing for decades after the ribbon is cut.

A PPP legally transfers the risk of “delivery” from the taxpayer to the private company. If the bridge or hospital is late or goes over budget, the private partner eats the loss, not the government. In exchange, the government retains “Political Risk” (like changes in law) and “Regulatory Risk.” These contracts are massive, long-term commitments; in the UK alone, there are over 700 PFI/PPP contracts, most of which lock the parties together for 25 to 30 years, requiring strict legal frameworks to survive decades of changing governments.

An EPC contract is the gold standard for bankability because it puts “single-point responsibility” on one contractor to deliver a completed facility for a fixed price by a fixed date. It is called “turnkey” because the legal obligation is to build everything so completely that the owner simply has to “turn the key” to start operations. This structure is essential for lenders because infrastructure projects are notoriously risky; industry data suggests that 9 out of 10 large projects experience cost overruns, so banks demand EPC contracts to cap that liability.

Lawyers generally cannot stop the government from taking land if it is for a valid “public use,” but they are critical in fighting for “Just Compensation.” They hire specialized appraisers to prove that the government’s offer is lower than the property’s “highest and best use” value. This negotiation is highly effective; statistics show that while the government holds the power to seize land, roughly 95% of eminent domain cases in the US settle before trial, often with the landowner receiving a significantly higher payout than the initial offer.

If a project’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is legally flawed, opponents can sue to halt construction immediately. In the US, under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), litigation is a primary driver of delay, with the average EIS review taking roughly 4.5 years to complete. A lawyer’s job is to “bulletproof” this document by ensuring it legally considers all reasonable alternatives. If they miss a single endangered species or water runoff calculation, a judge can revoke the building permits even if billions have already been spent.

A concession agreement grants a private company the right to collect revenue (like tolls or landing fees) from a public asset for a set period, typically 30 to 50 years, in exchange for building or upgrading it. Lawyers structure these deals to define the “Revenue Cap” (how much profit the company can make) and the “handback standards” (the quality the road must be in when returned to the state). They also negotiate “Minimum Revenue Guarantees” to protect the company if traffic falls below projections due to an economic recession.

A Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB) is a panel of three neutral experts appointed at the start of a project to resolve disagreements in real-time, preventing them from festering into lawsuits. Under standard contracts like FIDIC, a DAB’s decision is contractually binding and must be implemented immediately, even if one party is unhappy and plans to arbitrate later. They are incredibly effective at keeping projects moving; industry data indicates that over 90% of disputes referred to a DAB are resolved without needing to go to expensive litigation.

Force Majeure clauses excuse a party from performance during unforeseeable “Acts of God” like hurricanes, wars, or pandemics. However, lawyers in infrastructure projects must aggressively distinguish between a true Force Majeure (which usually just grants extra time) and a “Change in Law” (which often grants extra money). For example, if a new government regulation forces a construction site to shut down, a lawyer argues this is a compensable political risk, ensuring the contractor gets paid for the downtime rather than just receiving a deadline extension.