The design and build method assumes that the scope of design and construction is fully delegated to a single entity, and in its theoretical sense, there can be no subsequent design-related claims. Although enough research has been done to analyze the causative effect of project changes, they have yet to focus solely on the sources of changes instigated by local government authorities regulating road utilities. This has created a lot of interpretative issues among the contract parties as to whether the changes instigated are, in essence, falling beyond the ambit of the design and build modality. Hence, the research problem considered in this study is “how to address the impacts of changes imposed by local authorities on road projects operated on a design and build basis”. A case study was undertaken to see how parties have acted upon each source of claim in a real-life design-build road project. A comprehensive desk review and an in-depth interview helped demystify the eventualities behind claims due to last-minute local government authority intervention. Accordingly, 19 design-related claim heads were identified in the data, resulting in 12 themes for an in-depth qualitative discussion. Among the factors amounting to claims were modifications to the plans already approved, additional third-party verification and design checks, changes in alignments to accommodate utility interface issues, changes in heights and invert levels of utility lines, delay in imparting international best practices, insisting upper limit boundaries instead of the minimum criterion, migrating to new specifications and design codes, scope creep and differing site conditions. The findings will be useful for future project teams to deal with similar changes effectively. A widely held view of a smaller number of claims as an oft-touted advantage in design-build projects is, in fact, a misnomer.