This is very, very strange, we have here an extremely rare wording, so rare and contradictory that I am, say, quite sure that this must be the outcome of a huge typo. Where it reads “preclude” it should read “endanger”. This is the only way the phrase makes sense to me. My advice: Ask your customer and confirm the trustworthiness of your source, which is, in my view, faulty.

Source text:
The company may terminate the performance of work under this agreement for:
a) if the consultant fails to make progress as to ENDANGER performance of this agreement or fails to perform any provisions of this agreement.

Possible translation:
La empresa puede/podrá dar por terminada la ejecución del trabajo en virtud del presente contrato por lo siguiente:
a) Si el consultor no logra avanzar IMPIDIENDO/COMPROMETIENDO así el cumplimiento de este acuerdo (…)

Here just an example of the so-called “termination for clause”:
https://itlaw.wikia.org/wiki/Termination_for_cause
Termination for cause
Definition
Termination for cause (also called termination for default (TFD)) is a contract provision that permits a party completely or partially to terminate performance of the contract for material breach or other stated causes.
Sample clause
Customer may terminate the whole or any part of this Agreement, by written notice of default to Vendor, in any one of the following circumstances:
(a) if Vendor fails to perform any duties or obligations within the time specified herein or any written extension thereof granted by Customer;
(b) if Vendor so fails to make progress as to endanger performance of this Agreement in accordance with its terms;



--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2020-08-26 09:59:02 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Important correction: If my reading is right and there is a typo in the source, the correct translation might only be "comprometiendo" (= as to endanger) or "poniendo en peligro", but not "impidiendo", since "preclude" is wrong in this context.