Geoffrey Beresford Hartwell is a Chartered Engineer who practices as an Arbitrator, Adjudicator and Expert for Determination. Geoffrey is the former Senior Partner of Consulting Mechanical and Electrical Engineers BHA Cromwell House.
A one time Chairman of the Expert Witness Society, Geoffrey Hartwell has experience giving evidence in court (in both civil and criminal matters) and in International Arbitration. He sometimes is retained as a Single Joint Expert or as a Tribunal Expert. His services are offered to both Plaintiff and Defense. Even when retained on behalf of a Client he, like all Experts, has an overriding responsibility to the Court or Tribunal.
After his early career in aerospace and nuclear energy, Geoffrey entered private practice in association with the late Leslie Heap and Gerald Lewis of Heap and Digby, Consulting Engineers, in 1969. While with them he designed water and sewage equipment and also the bascule moving machinery for the Lowestoft Bridge, in Suffolk. He practiced also as Beresford Hartwell and Associates and, in 1971 established a separate office in Wallington, South London.
In parallel with his design career, Geoffrey was first appointed as arbitrator in 1972 and his first foreign arbitration, an ICC appointment in Switzerland, took place later that year. He studied Law to Intermediate level and then transferred to the examinations of the Institute of Arbitrators (now Chartered) of which he became Chairman in 1996-1997 and for whom he taught in various countries on several courses, including the prestigious Diploma in International Commercial Arbitration.
Electrical Engineering and Design
Mechanical Engineering and Design
Automation and Computer Control Systems
Maritime and Infrastructure Engineering
Solid Waste Handling
Moving Bridges and Lock Gates
Construction Project Management
Water and Waste Water Treatment
Arbitration: Geoffrey Hartwell also acts as an arbitrator and adjudicator, as an expert mediator and conciliator, as an expert investigator and assessor for arbitral tribunals, and also as a Special Referee in the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man. His services have been required in the UK and internationally.
Dispute Boards: Geoffrey Hartwell has experience both as Member and as Chairman of Dispute Boards?. He has been a member of Dispute Boards, retained from the beginning of a project or, alternatively, appointed on an ad hoc basis when a problem arises, Dispute Adjudication Boards to determine a binding decision, and on Dispute Review Boards to make decisions that are advisory but not binding.
Adjudication: Similar to arbitration, Mr. Hartwell adjudicates domestic and international disputes which are only temporarily binding unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties.
International Commercial Arbitration, the chosen basis of the annual Willem Vis Moot, is arguably not au fond a process at law. It is quite simply the performance of an agreement between two parties to have a chosen third party hear and determine some difference between them.
Stephen (Steve) T. Hopper, PE, Founder and Principal with Inviscid Consulting, is a Supply Chain professional with extensive experience planning and streamlining warehousing, logistics, and distribution operations.
For more than 30 years, Mr. Hopper has solved supply chain problems for numerous clients ranging from small businesses to Fortune 100 corporations. He helps his clients drive down operating costs, boost capacity, improve customer service, reduce risk, implement effective supply chain solutions, and enhance the performance of their supply chain resources: people, processes, inventory, facilities, equipment, material handling systems, transportation assets, and supply chain information technology (IT).
Mr. Hopper earned a Bachelor of Industrial Engineering (BIE) degree from The Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech). He is past president of both the Atlanta chapter of the Institute of Industrial & Systems Engineers (IISE) and the Atlanta chapter of the Warehousing Education & Research Council (WERC). He is also a Lean Six Sigma Green Belt and a licensed professional engineer (PE).
Litigation Support - Mr. Hopper serves as an expert witness for cases involving Business Operations and Supply Chain issues. His services are available to attorneys representing plaintiff and defendant and include thorough reports, depositions, and trial testimony as needed.
Long International provides expert claims analysis, expert testimony, dispute resolution, and project management services to the process plant engineering and construction industry worldwide. Our primary focus is on petroleum refining, petrochemical, chemical, oil and gas production, mining/mineral processing, power, cogeneration, and other process plant and industrial projects. We also have extensive experience in hospital, commercial and industrial building, pipeline, wastewater, highway and transit, heavy civil, microchip manufacturing, and airport projects.
Richard J. Long, PE., P.Eng., Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Long International, has over 50 years of U.S. and international consulting experience involving construction contract disputes analysis and resolution, arbitration/litigation support and expert testimony, project management, engineering/construction management, cost and schedule control, and process engineering. As an internationally recognized expert in the analysis and resolution of complex construction disputes for over 35 years, Mr. Long has served as the lead expert on over 300 projects having claims ranging in size from US$100,000 to over US$2 billion. He has presented and published numerous articles on claims analysis, entitlement issues, CPM schedule and damages analyses, cumulative impact claims, and claims prevention.
Rod C. Carter, CCP, PSP is President of Long International and has over 20 years of experience in construction project controls, contract disputes and resolution, negotiations, mediation, arbitration support, and expert testimony related to scheduling, loss of productivity, and quantum issues. He has experience in entitlement, schedule, and damages analyses on over 30 construction disputes ranging in value from US$100,000 to US$7 billion concerning oil and gas, oil refinery, LNG, heavy civil, nuclear, environmental, chemical, power, industrial, commercial, and residential construction projects. Mr. Carter is proficient in the use of Primavera P6 and P3 software, and he has extensive experience in assessing the impact to engineering and construction works of RFIs, change orders and other events. Mr. Carter specializes in loss of productivity, cumulative impact, and quantum calculations, and had a lead role in assessing damages on more than a dozen major disputes. In addition, Mr. Carter has developed cost and schedule risk analysis models using Monte Carlo simulations to address the uncertainty of estimates and claims.
Michael J. Vallez, P.E., MBA, LEAN SIX SIGMA is a Senior Principal with Long International, and has over 40 years of hands-on and leadership experience in project management, engineering/construction management, cost and schedule control, change management, claims, and dispute resolution. He has served in executive management roles for both the owner and contractor working on world-class oil and gas, power, and international mining projects. Mr. Vallez has a proven ability to organize, integrate and manage the work of multi-disciplined technical specialists and project construction teams to achieve corporate financial goals and objectives of return on investment, safety, reliability, availability, maintainability, cost, and time. In all, he has provided leadership on several billion dollars’ worth of projects in the chemical, heavy civil, mining, power, oil and gas, industrial, and commercial sectors. Mr. Vallez has written several books on the subjects of construction management, safety, and effective project leadership.
The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the internal and external project execution environments. The pandemic has caused impacts of varying degrees to nearly every aspect of projects involving the activity of people. Ordinary practices in the creation of project documentation are robust and are utilized to support the analysis of construction claims. Although project productivity losses may be demonstrable, providing compelling evidence and proof that the losses were caused by the pandemic may not be as easy to demonstrate.
An As-Built But-For Schedule Delay Analysis (ABBF) is a retrospective CPM schedule delay analysis technique that determines the earliest date that the required mechanical completion activity, project completion activity, or various milestone activities could have been achieved but-for the owner-caused compensable delays that occurred during the project.
Contractor’s claim submittals and expert reports are often deficient in proving causation, i.e., the cause-effect linkage. These claims generally outline the owner-caused impacts and separately calculate quantum; however, the two are often not linked in any meaningful way. Most claims are settled prior to a decision by a panel, court, or board, and therefore these deficiencies are not made apparent. Yet, a well-prepared claim document which includes a persuasive and accurate causeeffect analysis can greatly improve the contractor’s chances of a successful recovery, either through negotiations or in arbitration/litigation. This analysis is difficult and often costly to prepare, and is therefore not performed in many disputes, which may be the reason why the claims fail.
The leader of a corporation or project is the individual who must ultimately be willing to take responsibility for results. Within the context of an organization or team made up of individuals, it is the collective performance of the individuals, as a team, that defines the results of the whole. While it can be said that the best motivation is internal motivation as opposed to external motivation, the leader is ultimately the one responsible for creating the conditions where motivation can thrive.
Time is money especially on engineering and construction projects. Because delays in the completion of the project usually result in increased owner, engineer, and contractor costs, the overall time of performance is vital to the financial success of the project. The importance of time is evidenced by the significant role played by CPM schedules, completion dates, and milestones in the bidding and awarding of engineering and construction contracts. The desire to minimize costs and the time of performance often causes the occurrence of acceleration.
In the construction industry, it is largely agreed that overtime work adversely affects labor productivity. However, there is no universally accepted method for estimating the resulting loss of productivity, and many of the studies commonly used to estimate such losses have been subject to criticism by industry experts and the courts.
The Collapsed As-Built Windows Schedule Analysis (AACE® International Recommended Practice 29R-03, Method Implementation Protocol 3.9) is a modeled, subtractive, multiple-base method. It is a retrospective CPM schedule analysis which is typically used to prove entitlement for compensable delay and assess concurrency of delay within a window of time. The analysis simulates the as-built conditions within a schedule window and then delays are removed from the CPM model. If the forecasted project finish date “collapses” but-for or absent compensable delays, then entitlement for compensable time-related costs can be demonstrated. This article addresses the usage of the Collapsed As-Built Windows protocol and the advantages and disadvantages of the methodology.
The "discrete damages/cost variance analysis method" for quantifying construction claim damages involves the specific distribution of all costs incurred on the project rather than quantifying only certain parts of the cost or damage analysis as may be used in the other methods.
ABSTRACT - This paper provides guidelines to commercial construction cost engineers for the development of a plan for obtaining and utilizing subcontractor cost information for use in bidding, procurement, scheduling, change order management, and claim management. The paper is based upon personal field experience gained in cost engineering, scheduling, bidding, planning, contracting, and claim analyses.
A component of a construction claim often relates to the cost, quantity, and quality of the materials that the contractor installed on a project. The contractor frequently purchases these materials and agrees to install the quantities of materials on a unit price basis, i.e., a unit price that includes both the cost of the materials and the cost to install them.
Most construction contracts, whether they are standard or customized forms, usually contain specific provisions related expressly to the process of giving "notice." The notice generally refers to an obligation on the part of the Contractor to notify the relevant party administering the contract, normally the architect, resident engineer, or owner's representative, of a claim or change event that gives rise to possible additional entitlement for time and/or cost.
The equitable allocation of responsibility for project delays is essential to the resolution of many construction disputes. Contractors frequently assert that they have been delayed for reasons beyond their control. Owners often remain unconvinced that the Contractor is legitimately entitled to a time extension or delay, acceleration and loss of productivity damages.
Expert Background: Dr. Thomas L. Read is the Principal and CEO at A. Read Consulting, LLC. He received his PhD. from Stanford University in 1972 and has over 25 years of manufacturing experience in electronics, metallurgy, factory safety, failure analysis, glass fracture, glass failure and bottle failure. As a member of the electronics industry, he has earned process patents and has an extensive background in manufacturing techniques.
In parallel, Dr. Read has spent over twenty five years as a consultant to attorneys and engineers. He has given more than 100 depositions and has appeared in court numerous times.
Company Profile: Read Consulting, LLC is a full service laboratory providing services in the following areas:
Failure Analysis; Factory Safety and Personal Injury (including machine guards and manufacturing safety)
During normal operation, the arm on an automatic wafer test station failed. Root cause failure analysis determined that the drive shaft on the right angle gear motor used to raise and lower the manipulator arm had failed first.
This grinding wheel was part of a product liability and personnel injury case. It was claimed that the subject wheel had unexpectedly failed (i.e. flown apart) and an escaping piece had hit the plaintiff in the face causing serious injuries. According to the user, the grinder with the wheel was purchased approximately one hour before the grinding wheel failure.
A failed plastic lawn chair was examined to determine the cause of failure. This chair failed on the premises of a restaurant In this study the subject chair is examined and compared to several exemplar purchased at the same time. The objective of this study is to determine the cause of failure.
Glass Failure Analysis Expert Witness performs a failure analysis of a several tempered glass doors that had "spontaneously" failed at a construction site. The objective of this glass failure analysis is to determine the cause of failure and make recommendations to the contractor.
Before expending the effort necessary to reverse engineer a device or object, it must be definite that the object under study is not covered by one or more patents. This avoids a dispute over patent violations. Once it has been established that no patent coverage exists, one can use multiple techniques to reverse engineer a product. These are summarized below:
The cracked tank was first inspected in the "as received" condition. In this condition it was cracked, but it was still whole. Next, the failed tank was separated by pulling it apart. This was done to expose the fracture surfaces of the main crack. This allowed for a complete failure analysis and for a determination of where the crack initiated.
Glass fractography is the most effective method for determining why a glass object, such as a bottle, failed. This technique consists of examining the fracture surfaces of the failure for artifacts such as Wallner lines and using them to trace the crack back to its origin. Once the origin has been identified, it can be examined in detail with a microscope to determine the cause of the failure.
Note: Glass Fractography is the most effective method for determining why a glass object, such as a bottle, failed. This technique consists of examining the fracture surfaces of the failure for artifacts such as Wallner lines and using them to trace the crack back to its origin
David G. Curry, PhD, CHFP, CSP, is part of Solution Engineering Group, which has experts representing a wide variety of engineering and scientific disciplines. Each has the ability to work as a team, matching your needs with the right Expert. Dr. Curry consults on all aspects of Human Factors, Applied Human Performance, Ergonomics, and Safety. He has over 30 years of experience working in accident investigation, product design and development, operational testing and analysis, and both laboratory and field research in the control / display, aviation, and surface vehicle arenas.
Dr. Curry holds graduate degrees in Experimental, Human Factors, and Cognitive/ Perceptual Psychology, Industrial Engineering, and Business. He retired as a Lieutenant Colonel from the Air Force Reserve, where he worked with the Air Force Research Laboratory in the area of display technologies, aircrew training, and pilot-vehicle interfaces.
Litigation Support - Dr. Curry is recognized as an expert in operator-vehicle interaction and is both a Certified Human Factors Professional and Certified Safety Professional. He holds several patents and has or does serve as a member of national standards-making committees for a variety of organizations (e.g., ANSI, ASTM, and SAE.) Dr. Curry has provided expert testimony in both State and Federal courts.
Areas of Particular Expertise:
Human / Machine Interface Design and Evaluation
Human Capabilities and Limitations in Applied Environments
Instructions and Warnings
Perception / Vision / Visibility
Slips / Trips / Falls
Evaluation of Equipment / Facilities / Structures from a Human Use Standpoint
The public looks to safety professionals for guidance as experts in risk avoidance and hazard mitigation. This is reasonable as they are ostensibly trained in that area and, thus, in a better position to evaluate the risks inherent in different activities and to assess what can and should be done to alleviate or reduce those risks to an acceptable level. As such, it behooves safety professionals to be aware of not only safety-related heuristics that are presented to the public, but also the research that underlies that guidance to assess the appropriateness of the various safety rules that are promulgated to address potential hazards. In the real world, however, ostensible safety experts often simply accept these rules as representing appropriate, normal or typical behavior based on longevity, common sense or the simple frequency with which they are expressed.