International Arbitration
Our Footprint
SUBSCRIBE
Learn More
For over 50 years, Exponent has provided arbitration expertise to clients all over the world. Our experience in courts of law and global arbitration forums offers clients valuable, rigorous analysis they can trust.
LITIGATION, ARBITRATION & DISPUTES
Read More
Chemical
Read More
Construction & Infrastructure
Read More
Oil & Gas
Read More
Transportation
Read More
Utilities
Our established testifying experts have international experience in high-profile matters and high-stakes litigation.
Industries We Serve
With decades of experience providing expert and advisory services, Exponent is recognized for its integrity, objectivity, independence, and professionalism.
Asia Africa Europe North America Oceania South America
Contact Us
888.656.EXPO(within the U.S.) 650.326.9400(outside the U.S.) info@exponent.com
Offices Project Locations
Electric Utility vs. Nuclear Equipment
ICC-Rules Arbitration
Gas Pipe
Manufacturer vs.
Steel Supplier
ICC-Rules Arbitration
A Pipeline
Partnership vs. Multiple
Construction Companies
ICC-Rules Arbitration
Architecture/
Engineering Design Firm vs. Construction Joint Venture
ICC-Rules Arbitration
Explore Experience
An electric utility submitted a claim to arbitration under International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) rules against a nuclear equipment vendor, seeking to hold the vendor responsible for defects discovered in critical equipment at a nuclear power plant. The utility asserted that the vendor failed to properly design the equipment components and systems and that they were contractually required to repair or replace them but failed to do so. The vendor responded that the equipment was designed and manufactured with the utility’s full supervision and approval and in accordance with well-established and accepted codes and standards.
As part of the dispute, Exponent was retained by outside counsel for the utility. Our role was to perform an independent investigation as to the cause of the observed defects and a detailed review of the vendor’s design-stage analysis of the equipment and their proposed repair. Exponent testified at the arbitration hearing.
Electric Utility vs. Nuclear Equipment Vendor
ICC-Rules Arbitration
CLose
As part of the construction of a major transnational natural gas pipeline, a gas pipe manufacturer contracted with a steel supplier for plate material. During pipe fabrication, the manufacturer noticed defects in the plate material being supplied, and a dispute arose between the two parties as to the root cause of the defects. Claims were submitted to arbitration by a three-member tribunal under International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) rules.
Exponent was retained by outside counsel for the pipe manufacturer. Our scope of work included an independent assessment of the root cause of defects in the plate material and determination of whether those defects would render the plate unfit for its intended purpose. Exponent testified at the arbitration hearing.
CLose
Gas Pipe Manufacturer vs. Steel Supplier
ICC-Rules Arbitration
A pipeline partnership contracted with multiple construction companies to design and construct a major crude oil pipeline. During construction of the pipeline, inspectors reported apparent non-conformances to project specifications and the applicable codes and standards. These non-conformances were significant in nature and affected the structural integrity of the pipeline. A dispute arose out of the discovery of these non-conformances, and claims were submitted to arbitration by a three-member tribunal under International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) rules.
Exponent was retained by outside counsel for the pipeline partnership to independently assess the impact of alleged non-conformances on the structural integrity of the pipeline. As part of our evaluation, we reviewed design drawings and applicable standards and conducted advanced finite element analysis. Exponent testified at the arbitration hearing.
CLose
A Pipeline Partnership vs. Multiple Construction Companies
ICC-Rules Arbitration
As part of the construction of a major urban metro rail system in the Middle East, a construction joint venture (JV) contracted with an architecture/engineering (A/E) design firm to develop detailed design documents and specifications for tunnels, underground stations, elevated stations, viaducts, and other civil infrastructure associated with the metro development. The A/E firm alleged that the baseline design as required by the owner and JV continually changed, requiring multiple updates to the detailed design that affected the A/E firm’s ability to meet key contractual milestones. A dispute arose between the two parties as to the root cause of the necessary changes and whether the design provided by the A/E firm met the applicable standard of care in the metro rail industry.
Exponent was retained by outside counsel for the A/E firm. Our scope of work included performing an independent assessment of the root causes of the design changes, the level of completion of the design documents relative to contractually defined milestones, and whether the design provided by the A/E firm was appropriate relative to the industry standard of care. Exponent prepared a written report and gave evidence at the arbitration hearings.
Architecture/Engineering Design Firm vs. Construction Joint Venture
ICC-Rules Arbitration
CLose
Construction Joint Venture vs. EPC Contractor
LCIA-Rules Arbitration
Mine Owner vs. Engineering & Procurement Contractor
SIAC-Rules Arbitration
Government Entity
vs. EPCM Contractor
ICC-Rules Arbitration
EPC Subcontractor
vs. EPC Prime Contractor
ICC-Rules Arbitration
A major joint venture (JV) of two large general contractors filed a claim with the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) against a large engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractor, seeking an adjustment to their fixed-price contract based on changes made to their scope of construction work on a nuclear power plant in the Middle East. The JV asserted over 25 claims related to a wide variety of technical matters, including design changes made after award of tender, alleged defects to below-ground concrete structures, and various standard-of-care issues related to the design and construction of both nuclear island structures and ancillary structures at the site. The EPC contractor responded and counterclaimed, alleging that the JV’s claims were for work that was included under the original contract, and denied an adjustment to the fixed price.
As part of the dispute, Exponent was appointed as an expert by outside counsel for the JV. Our role in the arbitration was to perform an investigation into the proximate causes of the changes made to the construction scope, analyze the alleged construction defects, and render opinions regarding the issues in the context of the nuclear industry standard of care. Exponent gave expert evidence on behalf of the JV at the arbitration hearings in London in November 2018, providing several days of direct testimony and cross examination.
Construction Joint Venture vs. EPC Contractor
LCIA-Rules Arbitration
CLose
An owner of a mine filed a claim with the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC) against a large engineering and procurement (EP) contractor, seeking damages based on extra costs due to alleged design errors and delays to ore commissioning. The owner asserted 16 specific claims related to the civil and structural design of plant facilities, including design revisions made after issuance of issued-for-construction (IFC) drawings and various standard-of-care issues related to the design of steel structures and an embankment dam. The EP contractor responded, alleging that the owner’s claimed design errors were instead revisions made during the design process and that the claimed damages were a result of the owner’s actions.
As part of the dispute, Exponent was appointed as an expert by outside counsel for the EP contractor. Our role in the arbitration was to perform an investigation into alleged design errors and to render opinions regarding the issues in the context of the engineering industry standard of care. Exponent prepared a comprehensive written report and gave expert evidence on behalf of the EP contractor at the arbitration hearings in Sydney in November 2017.
Mine Owner vs. Engineering & Procurement Contractor
SIAC-Rules Arbitration
CLose
An owner of an international airport filed a claim with the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) against a large engineering, procurement, and construction management (EPCM) contractor, seeking damages based on extra costs and delays due to alleged design and construction management errors that occurred during design and construction of the airport. The owner asserted several claims related to the civil and structural design of airport facilities, including design and specification errors for concrete and steel structures as well as concrete bridges. The EPCM contractor responded, alleging that the owner’s claimed design and construction management errors were instead changes that resulted from owner-instructed changes.
As part of the dispute, Exponent has been appointed as an expert by outside counsel for the owner of the airport. Our role in the arbitration is to perform an investigation into alleged design and construction management errors and to render opinions regarding the issues in the context of the engineering industry standard of care. We will give expert evidence on behalf of the owner of the airport at the arbitration hearings in London in April 2022.
Government Entity vs. EPCM Contractor
ICC-Rules Arbitration
CLose
An engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) subcontractor for structures at a solar power plant filed a claim with the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) against the prime contractor for the plant, seeking damages for design and construction costs that were allegedly unpaid to them. The EPC subcontractor asserted several claims related to structural design and construction, including extra design that resulted from errors in the prime contractor’s scope of work. The prime contractor responded and counterclaimed, alleging that the subcontractor’s work contained design errors that resulted in delays and extra costs to the project.
As part of the dispute, Exponent was appointed as an expert by outside counsel for the EPC subcontractor. Our role in the arbitration was to perform an investigation into alleged design and construction errors and to render opinions regarding the issues in the context of the engineering industry standard of care. We gave expert evidence on behalf of the EPC subcontractor at the arbitration hearings in Paris in November 2019.
EPC Subcontractor vs. EPC Prime Contractor
ICC-Rules Arbitration
CLose
Explore Our ExpertS
Angola
Nigeria
Seattle
SF Bay Area
Sacramento
Denver
Chicago
Austin
Houston
Detroit
Washington DC
Philadelphia
New York
Boston
Canada
United States
Harrogate, UK
Derby, UK
London, UK
Basel, Switzerland
Germany
Poland
Shanghai, China
Hong Kong
Singapore
Taiwan
Thailand
Vietnam
Yemen
Uzbekistan
South Korea
Laos
Malaysia
Macao
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan
Jordan
Israel
Iraq
Bangladesh
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Georgia
Japan
Philippines
France
Brunei
Virgin Islands, U.S.
Costa Rica
Nicaragua
Panama
Spain
New Zealand
Ecuador
Brazil
Peru
Australia
United Arab Emirates
Morocco
Egypt
Sweden
United Kingdom
Paris, France
Slovakia
Lorem ipsum dolor
amet sans lorem ips
Brian McDonald
Lorem ipsum dolor
amet sans lorem ips
Chase Meyers
Lorem ipsum dolor
amet sans lorem ips
Chris Buehler
Lorem ipsum dolor
amet sans lorem ips
Chris Dyson
Lorem ipsum dolor
amet sans lorem ips
Dave Sykora
Lorem ipsum dolor
amet sans lorem ips
Denise Martini
Lorem ipsum dolor
amet sans lorem ips
Elise Salerno
Lorem ipsum dolor
amet sans lorem ips
Eman Elnakly
Lorem ipsum dolor
amet sans lorem ips
Eric Guyer
Lorem ipsum dolor
amet sans lorem ips
Gabriel Ganot
Lorem ipsum dolor
amet sans lorem ips
Harri Kytomaa
Lorem ipsum dolor
amet sans lorem ips
Jessica Donnelly
Lorem ipsum dolor
amet sans lorem ips
John Martens
Lorem ipsum dolor
amet sans lorem ips
Joseph Rakow
Lorem ipsum dolor
amet sans lorem ips
Joshua Ritti
Lorem ipsum dolor
amet sans lorem ips
Juan Perri
Lorem ipsum dolor
amet sans lorem ips
Kaitlin Spak
Lorem ipsum dolor
amet sans lorem ips
Lamis El Didi
Lorem ipsum dolor
amet sans lorem ips
Manuel Garcia-Leiner
Lorem ipsum dolor
amet sans lorem ips
Mark Anderson
Lorem ipsum dolor
amet sans lorem ips
Mark Fecke
Lorem ipsum dolor
amet sans lorem ips
Matthew Yew
Lorem ipsum dolor
amet sans lorem ips
Meredith Sellers
Lorem ipsum dolor
amet sans lorem ips
Nareg Sinenian
Lorem ipsum dolor
amet sans lorem ips
Peter Atkinson
Lorem ipsum dolor
amet sans lorem ips
Ray Huang
Lorem ipsum dolor
amet sans lorem ips
Robert Freas
Lorem ipsum dolor
amet sans lorem ips
Shane Kennett
Lorem ipsum dolor
amet sans lorem ips
Stephen Garner
Lorem ipsum dolor
amet sans lorem ips
Troy Morgan
Lorem ipsum dolor
amet sans lorem ips
Yike Hu
Lorem ipsum dolor
amet sans lorem ips
First Last
Lorem ipsum dolor
amet sans lorem ips
First Last
Lorem ipsum dolor
amet sans lorem ips
First Last
Lorem ipsum dolor
amet sans lorem ips
First Last
Lorem ipsum dolor
amet sans lorem ips
First Last
A contractor specializing in factory automation was hired to design and construct an automated assembly line to install flooring in cargo containers. The as-designed equipment was unable to meet production speed and quality specifications, and the project fell massively behind schedule. The purchaser partially and then fully canceled the contract and shortly thereafter exited the container business altogether. A dispute arose as to whether the failures to meet specifications and schedule were due to engineering errors on the part of the contractor or were due to the purchaser’s failure to supply appropriate and timely materials for testing. The contractor also asserted that but for these material defects it would have completed the project per the contract time schedule. Claims were submitted to arbitration by a one-member tribunal under London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) rules.
Exponent was retained by outside counsel for the cargo container manufacturer. Our scope of work included an independent assessment of the design basis for the assembly line, review of the test materials supplied by the manufacturer, a schedule and delay analysis, and an assessment of the project cost allocations. Exponent submitted separate expert reports and rebuttal reports on both the technical and schedule/quantum issues, prepared to give expert evidence on behalf of the cargo container manufacturer, gave tutorials to counsel on the technological issues, and participated in a joint expert conference and joint expert statement. The parties reached a settlement shortly after the joint expert statement and days before the arbitration was to begin.
Assembly Line Designer/Builder vs. Cargo Container Manufacturer
LCIA-Rules Arbitration
CLose
Assembly Line Designer/Builder
vs. Container
Manufacturer
LCIA-Rules Arbitration
Consultants
Exponent assists chemical manufacturers, distributors, and retailers in dealing with issues that affect their ability to do business effectively. We are recognized for our work on manufacturing, distribution, health, and environmental issues that impact the chemical industry. Our staff works proactively with clients on risk mitigation and accident avoidance as well as with the technical aspects of business challenges, such as expanding existing products lines and brining new lines to market, and we continue to work reactively when releases, explosions, accidents, or failures occur in the chemical product lifecycle.
Chemical
CLose
Construction & Infrastructure
CLose
Read More
From residences to commercial buildings, power plants, bridges, dams, and roadways, Exponent is uniquely positioned to provide its construction and infrastructure clients with a diverse set of engineering, construction management, environmental, and health consulting services. We work with many sectors of the industry including construction owners, lending agencies, engineering and construction contractors, subcontractors, designers, attorneys, and insurance carriers.
Read More
For more than 50 years, we have provided consulting services to most of the major international oil and gas companies, in all aspects of their operations. With our experience analyzing complex projects and evaluating thousands of failures, Exponent is a leader in loss investigation and failure analysis in the petroleum industry, with investigations ranging from high-loss disasters to small incidents for major national and international exploration and production companies. Because of this knowledge, we are able to assist proactively with design assessments, health studies, environmental evaluation, and regulatory compliance.
Read More
Oil & Gas
CLose
From mopeds to automated vehicles, including trucks, trains, fixed wing and rotary aircraft, boats, ships, and recreational products, our work for the transportation industry is extensive. Exponent’s multi-disciplinary staff provides design analysis; manufacturing process reviews; product and real-world testing; accident, injury, and failure investigation services; and operational, performance, health, and environmental evaluations for large and small manufacturers, suppliers, operators, insurers, attorneys, and individuals.
Read More
Transportation
CLose
Exponent has served the utilities industry for 50 years and ranks among the most respected engineering and scientific consulting firms in the utilities marketplace because of our unique combination of breadth and depth of expertise. Whether for utilities, independent power producers (IPPs), regulatory bodies, emerging industry players, or technology developers, Exponent is a valued solution provider for utilities industry clients managing complex technical, business, regulatory, and commercial issues.
Read More
Utilities
CLose
Southern California
Phoenix
Atlanta
Miami
Senegal
Finland
Explore Our ExpertS