Cordova Energy Center

Cordova Energy Center

  • Market Segment: Industrial/Power
  • Services Provided: Construction Claims Analysis and Dispute Resolution
  • Client: Cordova Energy Company
  • Location: Cordova, IL
  • Project Value: $250,000,000

Unlike most cases in which experts are provided ample time and information from which to do their analysis, in this case you were provided neither. Nevertheless, the work product we ultimately received…reflected the careful thought, creativity and hard work that we expected…(W)hile our opponents had two years to work…I was only able to provide you 30 days…I felt the work you provided was excellent. I will promise to sing your praises loudly to anyone who will listen.


- David A. Hecker (Formerly of Kutak Rock LLP – now Group General Counsel, Infrastructure, Kiewit)

TRAUNER analyzed a $40M claim submitted by the Contractor responsible for the engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) of a $208M, 530-megawatt combined cycle power plant in Illinois.

After the Contractor fell behind schedule significantly, TRAUNER was called in to analyze the project. The Contractor submitted a significant claim for lost labor productivity for overtime. The owner cited poor management, oversight, and performance of the welders as one of the core issues that led to the project delay.

TRAUNER’s comprehensive report provided the owner and its attorneys with a detailed analysis of claims, which alleged owner responsibility for delays, acceleration, labor inefficiency, and weather impacts.  The analysis addressed entitlement, analyzed impacts, and not only critiqued damage calculations provided by the EPC contractor, but also presented alternative calculations that employed preferred methodologies and contemporaneous documentary support.  Our thorough understanding of the project and its issues resulted in the client requesting support during preparation for depositions prior to the hearings, and cross-examinations during the arbitration proceedings.

Work on this project was performed within a very short timeframe, due to an unusual ruling by the panel that resulted in the owner receiving the contractor’s seven expert reports only six weeks prior to the start of the arbitration.