"Manifest error" is often described as an error as plain as the nose on one's face. In this case, the principle of manifest error pertains to disputed technical decisions made by the Independent Engineer (IE) for an oil refinery modernization project. Three arbitral tribunals relied on our expert reports and testimony to decide if the IE had ruled correctly, within limits of its responsibility, and if there was manifest error.

The oft-learned lesson of an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure certainly applies to planning and executing turnkey construction jobs in the hydrocarbon processing industry. Baker & O'Brien was engaged to review and assess contractual requirements, plans, estimates, schedules, and responsibilities for cost escalation and completion delays. We provided an expert report and testified at the arbitration.

Basic front end engineering design (FEED) parameters are typically supplied by an owner to an EPC contractor as requirements to build a process plant. A dispute arose when the contractor claimed the as-built product was not representative of the FEED, and the owner believed the differences were the result of normal design development. Baker & O'Brien submitted testimony to an arbitration tribunal based on an analysis of the completeness of FEED and the pertinence of design/scope differences between the as-built plant and FEED.