Experience Matters

Prepared entitlement and damage analyses for a hydroelectric pumped storage facility. Performed financial analyses and wrote expert reports.

Prepared detailed as-planned and as-built schedule analyses for a contractor on a dam project. Participated in negotiations between the contractor and the Province of Alberta.

Provided dispute resolution services for the City of Columbus’ wastewater treatment plant Project “88.” Participated in document research and discovery of 160,000 project documents. Created an as-built CPM schedule with over 1,600 activities in order to evaluate alleged delays and impacts. Performed a retrospective CPM schedule delay analysis to determine schedule delays to the critical path as well as project acceleration. Determined the validity of 141 alleged contractor claim issues with a value over $7 million. Scrutinized the cause and effect relationship between alleged impact issues and schedule delays. Assisted in damage calculations and manpower distribution analysis. Based on the team’s analysis of the facts, the City of Columbus successfully negotiated an equitable settlement of claims.

Peer review of an analysis of a contractor’s right to recover damages for delay to early completion on an Activated Sludge Facility sanitation project in California.

Provided expert witness services and prepared preliminary damages analyses for an electrical subcontractor on a water reclamation project.  The claim issues concerned the electrical subcontractor’s loss of productivity and extended overhead damages.  The dispute settled in negotiations after preparation of our expert report.

The project centered on the EPC design/build of a state-of-the-art sewage treatment plant to replace an existing, overutilized facility in order to meet the current and future needs of the city. Due to site constraints, the plant involved stacking SBR’s on top of each other and building the new works parallel to maintaining the old plant prior to demolition. EU environmental regulations were critical to maintaining high standards of odor and treated water outputs. The plant ultimately failed to meet performance standards, was delayed in construction, and had operational issues for the local residential areas. Engaged to provide support in developing the main contractor’s construction claims (in conjunction with the main contractor’s consortium partners) against the owner and assist with resolution of insurance claims for E&O problems during the design process. This involved CPM and disruption analysis, plus coordinating outside counsel and other experts to support the contractor’s position.

Prepared schedule delay and damages analyses and an expert report on behalf of an electrical subcontractor on claims against a general contractor on two Corps of Engineers lock and dam projects on the Red River.

On behalf of an owner, reviewed a contractor’s expert’s schedule delay analysis and damages claim for a wastewater treatment project.  Reviewed the as-planned and as-built schedules, impacted as-built schedule, delay issues, bid data, labor cost overrun data, damages calculations, and project correspondence.  Prepared observations and findings and a draft letter response from the owner to the contractor regarding claim.

On behalf of an owner, analyzed a $1.7 million claim for schedule delays and disruptions during the construction of two wastewater treatment plants and barometric condenser conversions at an oil processing unit. Prepared detailed CPM schedule analyses and expert reports. The dispute was successfully resolved prior to the arbitration.

On behalf of an African country, provided a rebuttal report and testimony in international arbitration regarding a claimant’s alleged value of its lost business opportunity after performing, at its own expense and risk, engineering and project development services for a port and rail project that it was not awarded. Evaluated the class of the claimant’s estimates of the project costs before and after it performed its de-risking of the project to lower project costs and determined that the estimates were inaccurate based on the information that was available to prepare the estimates. Thus, found that the claimant’s alleged project savings and its claim amount were speculative.