Construction Price Escalation Clauses: Allocating Risk in Volatile Markets
Category | Briefing Papers
By Hugh D. Brown and Kristen N. Williams
Hugh and Kristen are members of the firm’s Construction Law Department. Hugh can be reached at 612.359.7663 or HBrown@fwhtlaw.com. Kristen can be reached at 612.359.7619 or KWilliams@fwhtlaw.com
Volatile material, labor, fuel, tariff, and supply-chain costs have made lump sum bids less reliable than has historically been the case. Price escalation clauses can allocate that risk more deliberately, but their effectiveness depends on the details: what costs are covered, what triggers relief, how adjustments are calculated, and who ultimately bears the increase. This Briefing Paper discusses the most common variables and offers some tips to draft an effective escalation clause.
Volatile market conditions; price increases
If the last five years have taught us anything, it’s that the construction industry has faced a significant increase in the volatility of market conditions. First, the COVID-19 pandemic caused widespread labor shortages and massive supply chain disruptions. This had a cascading effect on inflation, from which the industry has still not fully recovered.[1] Labor and material prices critical to the construction industry experienced significant price fluctuations further exacerbated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This compounded the impact of inflation in certain markets. Sanctions, blockades, and destroyed factories have triggered steep increases for aluminum, copper, steel, cement, bitumen, and other energy-intensive building materials. Now more recently, tariffs and the US war with Iran have continued to increase construction costs related to materials, supply chain adjustments, and energy costs. These impacts often affect multiple facets of a construction project regardless of the project type. It is clear the construction industry is facing increasingly volatile global market conditions, and that market volatility and uncertainty will persist as the geopolitical landscape continues to shift. Those in the construction industry are left navigating this ever-changing landscape.
Under traditional contract structures and standard clauses, lump sum contractors bore the primary risk of that inflation. Absent an unusually understanding or pragmatic owner, they remained obligated to provide the work at the bid rate. As a result, many were left absorbing the loss. Contractors have tried to navigate global factors by fine-tuning various contract clauses, including change-of-law and force majeure provisions. These provisions are limited to the language used and have seen limited success as a result. As a result, escalation clauses that account for price increases regardless of the basis are becoming increasingly popular. But, as with any contract clause, the protection afforded by an escalation clause can vary wildly depending on the language and circumstances.
Purpose and Types of Clauses
An escalation clause “provides for upward and downward revision of the stated contract price upon the occurrence of specified contingencies” Crosby Construction Services, Inc. v. Rigid Constructors, LLC, Not Reported in Fed. Supp. (2024). The primary purpose of an escalation clause is “to preserve, substantially, the benefit of a bargain” and “to protect against unanticipated or unpredictable changes which might render the bargain unduly harsh” Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Turner Const. Co., 2 N.Y.2d 456 (1957). Escalation clauses should be tailored to the project needs; however, effective clauses should address three things: what costs are covered, what triggers an adjustment, and how the adjustment will be calculated and limited.
Step One – What is Covered?
An escalation clause can address a single commodity, several identified categories of cost, or potentially extraordinary economic events more broadly. The appropriate scope depends on the project and the risks the parties are actually trying to allocate.
a. Materials
Material escalation clauses may apply to a particular material, a defined group of materials, or materials generally. A material clause should clearly identify the covered material(s), establish the baseline price and date, address quantity changes, and specify whether the contractor must show an actual purchase, a binding quote from a supplier, or another form of evidence. A materials clause should also address whether the contractor may recover increases caused by delayed procurement when earlier procurement would reasonably have avoided the increase.
b. Labor
Labor escalation clauses should distinguish increases in wage rates from additional labor costs caused by overtime, low productivity, rework, staffing choices, or delays. It should also identify whether the adjustment covers only direct wages or if it includes payroll taxes, fringe benefits, insurance, and other labor costs.
c. Equipment
Equipment escalation clauses should distinguish a genuine increase in the equipment rate from additional costs caused by extended project duration, inefficient utilization, idle time, changes or delays caused or requested by an owner, or a contractor’s failure to schedule or procure equipment properly. It may also need to address whether owned equipment is eligible for an adjustment and, if so, how the cost increase will be measured.
d. Fuel or Energy
Fuel and energy clauses should identify the covered fuel or energy source, establish the baseline price, define the quantity or usage measure, and explain how the adjustment will be calculated.
e. Tariffs and Governmental Action
Tariffs warrant specific treatment because relying on generic contract provisions can produce uncertainty. The parties can expressly identify newly imposed or increased tariffs, duties, import restrictions, or similar governmental actions as covered events and define whether the resulting adjustment encompasses only the tariff itself or also directly resulting procurement costs.
That approach avoids having to litigate whether a tariff fits within language drafted for a different purpose, such as “change in law” or force majeure. Current construction-law guidance likewise recommends addressing tariffs and governmental actions expressly when the parties intend those events to trigger relief.
f. Extraordinary events
Extraordinary events clauses may address specified events that cause unusual or substantial increases in project costs. These clauses may supplement ordinary cost-escalation or provide a separate remedy for events outside the parties’ ordinary pricing assumptions. These should define the qualifying event and require a direct connection between that event and the claimed cost increase. It should address notice, documentation, mitigation, alternative sourcing, causation, and whether the remedy includes only additional compensation or also schedule relief. A general reference to “unforeseeable events” will likely be insufficient unless the clause clearly explains what events qualify and what relief is available.
Step Two: Establish the Trigger
Simply defining a covered cost does not answer when an adjustment becomes available. A well-drafted escalation clause should also expressly state when the contractor is entitled to a cost increase.
The simplest approach is an any-increase clause, under which a qualifying increase after the baseline date is compensable. That protects the contractor but transfers substantial pricing risk to the owner. A threshold clause provides relief only after the increase exceeds a specified percentage or dollar amount. For example, the contractor might absorb the first five percent of an increase, with some or all of the amount above that threshold becoming compensable. Threshold clauses are among the recognized approaches used to allocate escalation risk. A third alternative is a time-based trigger. The contractor may hold its price for a defined procurement period, after which qualifying increases become compensable. That approach can be particularly useful when bids are obtained months before the expected purchase of high-volatility materials.
The trigger should fit the risk. A five-percent threshold might make sense for one material but be commercially unrealistic for another. Likewise, using the same adjustment mechanism for labor, fuel, steel, and tariffs simply because each involves “increased cost” can produce unintended results.
Step Three: Determine How the Adjustment Is Calculated
Once the clause identifies a qualifying increase, the next question is how much is recoverable.
a. Actual Cost
An actual-cost mechanism reimburses the documented difference between an established baseline cost and the contractor’s actual qualifying cost. Though conceptually simple, the clause should still identify the objective criteria by which the cost increase will be calculated. Those criteria include baseline price and the date of that price, the evidence to establish actual costs, whether taxes, shipping, tariffs, insurance, and storage are included, and what causal relationship must be established. For example, an escalation clause providing for tariff relief only may preclude a contractor from recovering when prices increase due to the market pressures of tariffs depending on the language of the escalation clause in question.
b. Index-Based Adjustments
Rather than examine actual invoices, the parties can measure movement in an agreed published index. The benefit is objectivity. The difficulty is selecting an index that sufficiently tracks the cost at issue. A broad construction-cost index may not adequately measure a highly volatile specialty material. The drafting should identify the precise index, baseline publication or period, comparison date, formula, and procedure if the index is discontinued or materially changed.
c. Fixed Percentage
The parties may instead agree to a predetermined percentage adjustment when a defined event occurs.
This is administratively simple, but simplicity comes at the cost of precision. The actual increase may be substantially greater or smaller than the contractual adjustment.
d. Shared Cost
Risk need not be transferred entirely from contractor to owner. The parties can split qualifying escalation. For example, the contractor might absorb the first five percent of an increase; increases between five and fifteen percent might be shared equally; and increases above fifteen percent could be allocated differently or give the parties specified termination or substitution rights. Tiered sharing can be particularly effective because both parties retain an economic incentive to mitigate the increase.
e. Caps
An escalation clause may also establish a maximum adjustment. For the owner, a cap preserves some degree of budget certainty. For the contractor, however, a cap means the contractor continues to bear catastrophic escalation risk once the ceiling is reached.
The cap therefore should not be considered in isolation. If escalation beyond the cap would make performance commercially untenable, the clause might pair the cap with substitution, renegotiation, suspension, or termination rights.
The Owner’s Perspective
An escalation clause plainly exposes an owner to cost increases that otherwise might remain with a lump-sum contractor. But there is a broader benefit. When contractors must bear uncertain escalation risk, they have an incentive to price that risk into their bids. An owner may therefore pay a significant contingency even if the anticipated escalation never occurs. An appropriately structured escalation clause can reduce that incentive. It also may increase competition by allowing contractors that are unwilling to assume unlimited market risk to bid without adding an excessive contingency. Industry guidance identifies escalation provisions, allowances, phased contracting, early procurement and larger contingencies among the tools available to deal with uncertain pricing. The tradeoff is reduced price certainty. Owners considering an escalation provision therefore should focus heavily on thresholds, caps, documentation, mitigation requirements, downward adjustments, audit rights, and clearly defined covered costs.
The Contractor’s Perspective
For contractors, the principal benefit is obvious: protection from extraordinary cost increases that cannot reasonably be predicted or controlled at bid time. But an escalation clause is not necessarily a windfall. A contractor may have to disclose supplier pricing, invoices, quotations, procurement dates, quantities, and other information it ordinarily would regard as confidential. It may also assume express mitigation obligations, accept limits on markups, share increases with the owner, or provide credits when prices decline. All things considered, however, an escalation clause provides significant risk mitigation in today’s market.
Drafting the Clause: A Practical Checklist
There is no universally correct escalation provision. A clause addressing commodity steel on a multi-year infrastructure project should not necessarily look like a clause addressing lumber on a short-duration commercial project.
However, the parties should consider:
• Covered costs and qualifying events. Identify precisely which materials, labor, equipment, fuel, tariffs, or events qualify.
• Establish the relevant date, price, quotation, wage rate, or published index.
• Determine whether relief begins with the first dollar of increase or only after a threshold, date, or other condition is reached.
• Specify whether the adjustment is based on actual cost, an index, a fixed percentage, or another formula.
• Risk sharing. Decide what portion of the increase each party bears.
• Caps and floors. Identify maximum adjustments and consider whether decreases require corresponding credits.
• Identify the invoices, quotations, indices, payroll information, or other records required to support the adjustment.
• Procurement and mitigation. Address timely purchasing, alternate suppliers, substitutions, early procurement, storage, and other reasonable measures to avoid or reduce the increase.
• Require a demonstrated connection between the qualifying event and the claimed additional cost.
• Determine whether overhead, profit, bond, insurance, or other markups apply to the adjustment.
• Avoidance of double recovery. Coordinate the escalation provision with change-order, force majeure, delay, differing-site-condition, change-in-law, allowance, and contingency provisions.
• Exit rights. For extreme escalation, consider whether either party may substitute materials, suspend procurement, renegotiate, or terminate rather than absorb an economically untenable increase.
Conclusion
Market volatility has been with us for over five years, and it would be a bad bet to count on that changing. A thoughtfully drafted escalation provision allows the parties to allocate the risk of that volatility in a deliberate manner. The best clauses do more than state that the contractor is entitled to an adjustment when prices increase. They identify the specific risks being shared, establish an objective baseline, define the trigger, prescribe the calculation, require documentation and mitigation measures, and address the relationship between price and schedule relief.
For owners, that may mean accepting some price uncertainty in exchange for more competitive pricing and less embedded contingency. For contractors, it may mean receiving protection from extraordinary market movements while accepting transparency, mitigation obligations, and some continued participation in the risk. In any case, it is usually better for the parties to take the time in advance to carefully consider the allocation that makes the most sense for the specific situation, and tailor the clause to that allocation. This ensures that both parties know where they stand and will likely reduce disputes later.
[1] In 2021, the annual inflation rate reached seven percent, the highest since 1982, with steel and lumber prices increasing more than 200% in some cases. §7:296. Cost escalation of critical labor, materials or equipment, 2 Bruner & O’Connor Construction Law. These fluctuations continued with Engineering News-Record reporting in April 2026 that steel had year-over-year increases of 6.8% and lumber had 10.7% increases year-over-year. ENR, Construction Economics, April 13, 2026, https://www.enr.com/ext/resources/static_pages/Economics/2026/0413_CE_WK2.pdf.
Announcements
Congratulations to Fabyanske, Westra, Hart & Thomson, P.A. attorney Hugh Brown for being inducted into the CLSA. The ceremony will be at the CLSA International Conference and the Induction of Fellows will be held on Thursday, October 22nd at the Four Seasons Jackson Hole. For more information, click here.
Fabyanske, Westra, Hart and Thomson, P.A. has been named among Minnesota Lawyer’s “In the Lead: Best Legacy Law Firms”
For over four decades, Fabyanske, Westra, Hart & Thomson, P.A. has specialized in construction law, maintaining the most extensive practice of its type in the Upper Midwest. Its staff of 21 attorneys dedicate their expertise primarily to the construction sector, serving a diverse array of public and private clients ranging from contractors and suppliers to property owners and design professionals.
Fabyanske, Westra, Hart & Thomson, P.A. is pleased to announce the following thirteen attorneys have been selected as Best Lawyers by their peers in the recent Best Lawyers© publication, one of the oldest and most respected peer-review publications in the legal profession: Scott Anderson, Mark Becker, Hugh Brown, Matt Collins, Julia Douglass, Rory Duggan, Gary Eidson, Kyle Hart, Jeffrey Jones, Jesse Orman, Robert Smith, Dean Thomson, and Katie Welsch. Also, congratulations to Rob Smith for being named “Lawyer of the Year” by Best Lawyers® for Litigation – Construction, Minneapolis (2027) and to Katie Welsch for being named “Lawyer of the Year” by Best Lawyers® for Banking and Finance Law, Minneapolis (2027)