Getting construction underway before a contract is signed can feel like a practical necessity in fast-paced projects. But what seems like progress can create unintended legal and operational risks. Modern construction agreements are detailed documents that define scope, risk allocation, insurance, compensation, and dispute resolution. When work begins without those terms firmly in place, parties may inadvertently assume obligations or lose negotiating leverage.

Below are four common ways teams try to bridge the gap—and practical strategies to reduce downside risk:

Letters of intent and memoranda of understanding – These tools can signal an intention to negotiate and, if carefully drafted, limit obligations until a definitive agreement is in place. But informal conduct during negotiations can blur those lines and unintentionally create binding commitments.

Moving forward without any written agreement – Starting scheduling, planning, or field work without documentation leaves key terms unaddressed. This often leads to disputes over scope, timelines, compensation, and risk allocation because there’s no reference point for resolving disagreements.

Authorizations to proceed – A better approach than doing nothing, a letter authorizing work can include a defined scope, schedule, maximum costs, insurance requirements, indemnity language, and dispute-resolution provisions. This creates some protection while negotiations continue.

Negotiating toward a definitive contract – The ideal strategy is to use the urgency to start as motivation to finalize the full contract quickly and deliberately, preserving negotiating leverage and clarity.

Starting work early may sometimes be tempting—but without careful documentation and disciplined communication, it can expose parties to obligations they never intended and disputes that are difficult to resolve.

Read the full article here for a deeper look at how to balance project momentum with contractual protection.