Case Studies - Demonstrating Value

handshake Client: Government Agency

Services: Dispute Management

Project Description
Rail Project – The contractor submitted various heads of claim for payment of additional costs including disruption, acceleration and prolongation.
The Challenge
  • The various heads of claim appeared to be well drafted and supported by relevant and appropriate evidence.
  • We needed to establish what the contractor was entitled to claim for, if anything, and make appropriate proposals to defend the claim if appropriate or proposals to settle the claim.
  • We needed to engage with the internal management team and external consultants to establish the facts and whether or not evidence was available to rebut the contractor’s claim.
The Solution
  • We immediately reviewed the contract, project correspondence and records and discussed matters with the entire project team.
  • Through a systematic analysis of all the correspondence and records, we offered options and valuable advice on the way forward in respect of each of the heads of claim.
  • We established the strategy and advised as to the likely outcome.
  • We drafted further correspondence for the client in respect of ongoing issues.
  • The overall strategy was to establish what needed to be done to rebut the heads of claim and make an initial assessment as to the client’s liability.
The benefits
  • The swift initial assessment which established what needed to be done to robustly defend the heads of claim and provided a view as to the client’s likely liability enabled the client to make specific commercial decisions surrounding completion of the project.
  • We demonstrated added value to the client by proposing strategies that had not been considered that impacted on the overall outcome.
  • The initial assessment allowed the client to have a clear vision as to its exposure and liability together with what needed to be done to rebut the heads of claim.
  • We saved the client both time and money through the use of in-house resources directed by our expertise. The team was led by us and supported by relevant experts, thereby removing the need for the client to identify and brief external lawyers and experts. Although lawyers were instructed by us to deal with legal issues as appropriate.
  • The cost models that we offered to the client shared risk.
  • We reduced the client’s exposure and liability.
  • Had we not been able to provide a cost effective resource solution which immediately put in place an appropriate strategy to manage the overall dispute it is likely that this matter would have drifted on for a longer period and as such would have impacted on the client’s exposure, liability and staff time.
  • Given our substantial experience in managing disputes and more specifically claim rebuttal, we were able to deal with issues quickly and with confidence. We identified the client’s risk and put in place an appropriate strategy to minimise its liability and exposure.