Entitlement
Every line of the contract, its quantity, its agreed rate, and the variations that revise it. Not a task list — the priced basis on which you are allowed to ask for money.
No. Moorstack is not project management software, and calling it that gets the job wrong. A project tool coordinates people and tasks — who is doing what, by when. Moorstack governs money and obligation: what you are contractually entitled to, what you have already claimed against it, what the employer must certify and by when, what the tax authority must receive, and whether you can prove any of it eighteen months later in a dispute.
The unit of work in a project tool is a task. Here it is a claim — and behind every claim sits a line of your contract with a quantity, an agreed rate, and a history of everything already drawn against it.
That is not a bigger version of the same idea. It is a different instrument.
Every line of the contract, its quantity, its agreed rate, and the variations that revise it. Not a task list — the priced basis on which you are allowed to ask for money.
What has been done this period, valued at the rate in force when it was claimed, less retention, less what was already certified. Assembled in your contract's format so the S.O. can certify it rather than query it.
MyInvois submission against the certified figure. Statutory payment clocks computed from the dates you entered, each cited to its provision. These are duties with deadlines, not reminders.
Every figure traceable to the document it came from and the person who entered it. A record built to survive an S.O. query, a subcontractor dispute, and a CIDB audit.
| Project management tool | Moorstack | |
|---|---|---|
| Unit of work | A task | A claim, and behind it a contract line with a quantity and a rate |
| Question it answers | Who is doing what, by when | What are we owed, on what basis, and can we prove it |
| Cost of being wrong | Lost coordination | Lost money, or a lapsed statutory right |
| Design posture | Permissive — anyone can edit, that is the point | Restrictive — the ledger structurally prevents claiming the same work twice |
| Opinion on a number | None. A field is a field | It refuses to produce one. Your QS types every figure; the platform does transparent arithmetic on it |
| Who it answers to | The team | The S.O., LHDN, CIDB, and eventually an adjudicator |
A tool that claims to be everything is telling you it has no opinion. These are the jobs Moorstack does not do.
No Gantt charts, no critical path, no resource levelling. If programme management is your problem, buy a programme tool — Primavera, MS Project, or the scheduling module of a large platform.
The BIM viewer links model elements to jobs and claims. It is not a coordination or clash-detection environment. That is Autodesk's business and they are good at it.
It feeds your accountant; it does not replace them. Ledgers, statutory accounts and tax computation stay in AutoCount, SQL or whatever your firm already runs.
If what you want is Asana, Monday or Trello shaped for construction, this is the wrong purchase and we will say so on the call.
No. Project management software coordinates people and tasks. Moorstack is the money and compliance layer underneath that: contractual entitlement, progress claims in your contract's format, e-invoicing, statutory payment deadlines, and an audit trail behind every figure. Firms often run a project tool and Moorstack together — they answer different questions.
The closest honest description is a system of record for contractual entitlement and its discharge. It sits between the site and the accounts: the site feeds it what was done, and it produces the claim, the certified figure, the compliant invoice, the payment clock, and the proof. If a category name is required, call it construction operations and compliance, not project management.
Because the two fail differently. When a task tracker is wrong you lose coordination and someone chases it up. When this is wrong you claim for work twice and get caught, or you miss a statutory payment window and lose a right you cannot get back. That difference is why the ledger blocks a double claim structurally rather than warning you, and why the platform will not generate a figure at all.
Possibly, and we will not pretend otherwise. If you run large programmes with genuine critical-path dependencies, a scheduling tool earns its place and Moorstack does not replace it. Most CIDB G3-G5 firms we speak to do not have a scheduling problem. They have a claims, cash and compliance problem, which is a different tool entirely.
Because it would win us traffic and lose us the point. The largest search term in this space is construction project management software, and refusing the category costs us that traffic deliberately. We would rather a smaller number of contractors arrive already understanding what this does, than a larger number arrive expecting a scheduler and leave disappointed.
Then run both. Moorstack is built to be the layer your money and compliance live in; it does not require you to abandon whatever coordinates your people. What it does replace, in almost every firm we meet, is the spreadsheet that currently holds the claim.
The money layer in detail: progress claims, MyInvois, CIPAA payment deadlines, and CIDB audit.
Thirty minutes with both founders. We take a claim you have actually submitted and show what this does with it. If a scheduler is what you need, we will tell you that instead.