Power Plant

Brief

In 2008, a power plant owner entered into a lump-sum, turnkey engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contract with an energy contractor for the design and construction of a 300-MW solid fuel-fired power plant in Guatemala. The plant consists of two units and can be operated with coal fuel and/or petroleum coke, with the capability of running on 100% coal and up to 60% petroleum coke. The plant was scheduled to begin construction in Spring 2010 and commence operations in mid-2013.

Throughout the project, the energy contractor failed to perform its EPC work in a timely manner, leading to lengthy and unexcused schedule delays. In 2013, after the energy contractor failed to achieve the scheduled takeover dates, the owner terminated the energy contractor for default. The owner retained several subcontractors to complete the work post-termination. Both units were ready for commercial operations in mid-2015.

What we did

HKA was retained by outside counsel on behalf of the power plant owner to assist in resolving the dispute. Our experts analyzed the owner’s claims and analyzed and rebutted the energy contractor’s delay and disruption claims. The energy contractor’s claims purportedly resulted from late site handover, delayed basic design approval, customs delays, visa delays, and other alleged owner-responsible impacts.

HKA also evaluated and confirmed the reasonableness of the owner’s post-termination estimate to complete and schedule to complete. In July 2015, we testified at arbitration hearings in Dublin, Ireland, before a three-member International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) tribunal.

Outcomes

In 2016, the ICC arbitration panel ruled in the power plant owner’s favor, awarding more than US$300 million to the owner and effectively zeroing out the energy contractor’s US$875 million in counterclaims. As part of the award, the owner recovered all liquidated damages amounts to which it was contractually entitled and approximately 95% of its claimed re-procurement costs.

HKA’s analysis helped show that the energy contractor’s delay and disruption claims were almost entirely unfounded.