In this article, the author intends to demonstrate, through specific cases, that the custom in the construction sector (Lex Constructionis) is increasingly immersed in the Public Administration, being recognized as a supplementary regulatory source in public works contracts, by the State Procurement Law. Overcoming the idea that the custom does not has a place in public law. Likewise, it seeks to demonstrate that the responsible and reasonable importation of custom in the construction industry has not violated in any way the legality that governs public works contracts, but, on the contrary, has nurtured and strengthened it, in benefit of the public interest and of the contract administrators, who are, ultimately, the end users of the public infrastructure.

In this article, the author intends to demonstrate, through specific cases, that the custom in the construction sector (Lex Constructionis) is increasingly immersed in the Public Administration, being recognized as a supplementary regulatory source in public works contracts, by the State Procurement Law. Overcoming the idea that the custom does not has a place in public law. Likewise, it seeks to demonstrate that the responsible and reasonable importation of custom in the construction industry has not violated in any way the legality that governs public works contracts, but, on the contrary, has nurtured and strengthened it, in benefit of the public interest and of the contract administrators, who are, ultimately, the end users of the public infrastructure.

In this paper, the author identifies the legal devices within the Peruvian legal system that allow the acceptance of a claim and acceptance for loss of productivity or disruptions in public construction contract, under the Public Procurement Law. This, in the framework of an arbitration in which a party is a Public Administration Entity. For this, the author makes a roadmap of a claim for loss of productivity, what is disruption, what is not disruption, how to properly quantify it and, finally, what legal tools of our legal system allow its acceptance.

En el presente trabajo, el autor identifica los dispositivos legales dentro del ordenamiento jurídico peruano que permiten el planteamiento y aceptación de un reclamo por pérdida de productividad o disruptions derivado de un contrato de obra pública, sin vulnerar el principio de legalidad que subyace a la Ley de Contrataciones del Estado. Ello, en el marco de un arbitraje en el que una parte es una entidad de la Administración Pública. Para tal fin, el autor realiza un roadmap de un reclamo por pérdida de productividad, qué es disrupción, qué no es disrupción, cómo cuantificar adecuadamente la pérdida de productividad y, finalmente, qué herramientas legales de nuestro ordenamiento jurídico permiten su acogimiento.

In this paper, the author identifies the legal devices within the Peruvian legal system that allow the acceptance of a claim and acceptance for loss of productivity or disruptions in public construction contract, under the Public Procurement Law. This, in the framework of an arbitration in which a party is a Public Administration Entity. For this, the author makes a roadmap of a claim for loss of productivity, what is disruption, what is not disruption, how to properly quantify it and, finally, what legal tools of our legal system allow its acceptance.

In this article, the author intends to demonstrate, through specific cases, that the custom in the construction sector (Lex Constructionis) is increasingly immersed in the Public Administration, being recognized as a supplementary regulatory source in public works contracts, by the State Procurement Law. Overcoming the idea that the custom does not has a place in public law. Likewise, it seeks to demonstrate that the responsible and reasonable importation of custom in the construction industry has not violated in any way the legality that governs public works contracts, but, on the contrary, has nurtured and strengthened it, in benefit of the public interest and of the contract administrators, who are, ultimately, the end users of the public infrastructure.

The emergency arbitrator proceeding has managed to enhance and provide efficiency and celerity to the system of precautionary measures, for the benefit of effective jurisdictional protection prior to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. However, such proceeding could be undermined, and the interim relief granted be frustrated, due to bad practices.In this paper, the author analyses the existence of pathological scenarios in the Peruvian emergency arbitration proceeding, which may undermine its purpose. Some of these pathological scenarios refer to guerrilla tactics used by the party affected with the precautionary measure, others are covered by regulatory gaps and some of them are based on the procedure’s own regulations, by defrauding it through the irregular exercise of a right.

The emergency arbitrator proceeding has managed to enhance and provide efficiency and celerity to the system of precautionary measures, for the benefit of effective jurisdictional protection prior to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. However, such proceeding could be undermined, and the interim relief granted be frustrated, due to bad practices.In this paper, the author analyses the existence of pathological scenarios in the Peruvian emergency arbitration proceeding, which may undermine its purpose. Some of these pathological scenarios refer to guerrilla tactics used by the party affected with the precautionary measure, others are covered by regulatory gaps and some of them are based on the procedure’s own regulations, by defrauding it through the irregular exercise of a right.

The emergency arbitrator proceeding has managed to enhance and provide efficiency and celerity to the system of precautionary measures, for the benefit of effective jurisdictional protection prior to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. However, such proceeding could be undermined, and the interim relief granted be frustrated, due to bad practices.In this paper, the author analyses the existence of pathological scenarios in the Peruvian emergency arbitration proceeding, which may undermine its purpose. Some of these pathological scenarios refer to guerrilla tactics used by the party affected with the precautionary measure, others are covered by regulatory gaps and some of them are based on the procedure’s own regulations, by defrauding it through the irregular exercise of a right.