Termination Triggered by Legislative Changes — Vendor Claims Refuted
Engaged as both Superintendent and Stream Lead, we led the client’s internal commercial response. Our role included:
• Coordinating and guiding legal and procurement teams based on deep knowledge of the AS4910 head contract and the relevant inclusions/exclusions
• Clarifying the client’s true contractual standing
• Engaging external industry experts for independent opinion support
• Deconstructing the vendor’s claim against contract scope and termination clauses
• Surfacing supplier-side logic gaps to invalidate assumed entitlements
• Leading a resolution strategy that neutralised risk without triggering escalation
The $2M vendor claim was resolved. The client paid only for validated deliverables, avoided downstream liability, and exited the program cleanly. Importantly, this was done without reputational fallout — preserving future market standing and supplier relationships.
When regulatory frameworks shift, clients need more than compliance — they need conviction. We led a focused, evidence-based defence that protected commercial integrity without burning bridges. To the vendor’s credit, once senior leadership became aware of the claim being issued, they stepped in swiftly and constructively — helping resolve the dispute in a manner that prioritised long-term partnership.
This case proved that even when projects are cancelled, value can still be protected. Through structured governance and expert intervention, the client avoided seven-figure exposure — and set a new precedent for how to manage commercial exits triggered by external legislative change.
