Boston Elevated Railroad Dismantlement Project
Owner: Metropolitan Bay Transportation Authority
Elements for Expert Inquiry: Performance extension analysis, schedule disruption claim, major rapid transit demolition project.
Engagement: Executed computerized dismantlement simulation as originally planned, compared with as-built schedule performance. Planned performance was non-existent; nullified by owner-caused schedule disruption. Performed engineering estimate of money damages. CPM schedule analysis.
Issues: Active interference, superior knowledge, misrepresentation, recovery under quantum meruit
Claim Value: $4,000,000 range
Coyote Dam Hydro-Electric Plant Retrofit: Rejected Construction Submittals
As the on-site claims consultant / claims analyst for the client’s project manager, I was engaged to review the project documents on a problem retrofit hydro powerplant underway in California.
This evolved into a continuous one-year fact finding claim analysis and expert report writing engagement which exposed and ultimately clarified defective design, owner overinspection, unreasonable work rejection, practical impossibility of performance; and actual impossibility of performance as well.
Unknown to the contractor-client, who was desperately trying to initiate progress on its fixed-price, fixed-duration project, with the project duration “clock” now racing ahead, my analysis was essential in conclusively exposing exactly how the powerplant’s designer had never received Corps of Engineers approval of its design for retrofitting the hydroplant to the Corps’ dam!
Meanwhile, the engineer-designer, in charge administratively at the site for the powerplant owner, was attempting to assuage the Corps’ design concerns by circulating, and re-circulating, the contractor’s construction installation submittals through the Corps’ approval channels, a thing not required in the client’s construction contract.
This exercise manifested itself in a long series of contractor installation submittal rejections by the designer, orders to the contractor to “revise and resubmit” and the like. Unknown to our client, the contractor’s submittals to demonstrate exactly how it proposed to execute performance did not suit the Corps as substitutes for owner design! Once the real technical and other factual reasons were clearly exposed in my expert reports they could be dealt with by the contractor’s attorneys.
Friant Dam Power Plant Project
Project: Friant Dam – Retrofit power plant, development stage, Fresno, California
Problem: Differing site conditions and defective design for excavation subcontractor at three power house sites at existing dam.
Outcome: Researched and prepared claim for equitable adjustment to establish basis. Engagement included providing proof of entitlement through schedule analysis and an analysis of cost overruns. Engineering estimates of money damages were packaged into a request for equitable adjustment for $1.0MM.
Engagement/Result: Construction claim for equitable adjustment, various differing site conditions and utility interference problems. Negotiated settlement, over $500,000.
California Geothermal Site Access Project
Engagement: Construction schedule analysis, site visit and expert report for corporate decision on construction s at geothermal power site access.
EPA Facility Mechanical Upgrade Project
Project: Mechanical prime contract to replace chillers and install fume hood exhaust system in 45,000 square-foot EPA laboratory.
Problem: Mechanical contractor met issues of government defective design and pre-bid concealment of superior knowledge and impossibility of performance. Government redesign and re-specification of the entire contract and all equipment delayed the start of the project nearly six months on an originally specified eight-month project. CPM schedule analysis was applied to the as-built schedule.
Result: Ultimately recovered approximately $50,000 and liquidated damages withheld. Original contract was $410,000.
Foundry Site Remediation Project
A call came from the executive vice president of a client, a well known demolition contractor. A “rogue” subcontractor had, unknown to my client, contaminated a valuable 18 acre site with foundry chemicals, locomotive oils and lubricants and low-value steel scrap.
Worse yet, the facility owner was demanding immediate action – and threatening to sue for $20 million in damages in its absence.
As requested, I went to the site, mobilized a workforce imported to the project by the client, dealt with the local equipment dealers for excavating and grappling equipment, and, over the course of less than 90 days, successfully excavated, tested, and exported the contaminated materials and sold the recovered steel scrap.
Before the actual field work, however, I used my contacts in the consulting and legal community to help my client identify the appropriate local law firm with the sufficient prestige and knowledge of the industry to handle the legal defense.
Concurrently with the field operations, I provided technical support and document research to assist the attorney, who successfully extinguished the lawsuit.