Risks Must Be Managed More Than Ever in
Today's Oil & Gas Industry
By: Dr. Kris R. Nielsen, Ph.D., JD, PMP, MRICS

The Current Situation
What a difference a few years make! Today, there certainly are significant investment opportunities related to the global oil & gas industry. Yet, are the opportunities all the same? Obviously not, and the potential rewards vary considerably. First, the owners and operators, whether the integrated multinational companies, independents, or national oil companies, find themselves faced with developing projects that are located in decidedly difficult places, for instance, in deepwater and frontier regions geographically, or the need to use expensive technology to “squeeze” more out of mature fields. In all cases, these projects are enormously costly. In fact, owners and operators of these projects will spend billions of dollars for field development, transportation, and so on. Then there are engineering and construction contractors (E&C contractors), equipment vendors, material suppliers, etc., collectively, the services companies, who will be paid the billions of dollars to execute these projects. Stakeholders also include investors, since all of this activity to a greater or lesser extent must be financed through equity investment, financing, etc.

Recent project experience and recent trends within the oil & gas industry indicate that executing projects is going to be more difficult and more risky in the future. Understanding these risks will be critical for both operators and contractors to be successful. Today we must focus on risks that are specific to the execution of a project. The traditional risks that are handled during the defining or selection stage of a project, i.e. subsurface risk, risk of selecting the best system, or risk that the reservoirs will not perform, are important, and the industry continues to address these significant risks through the development and application of cutting edge technology. The greatest near term risk for oil & gas industry stakeholders, however, is successfully executing the projects under the prevailing global conditions.

Successful Execution is in the Eye of the Beholder
The standards by which management in the oil & gas industry measure success are typical metrics. These metrics generally focus on things that can be measured, like functionality, e.g. “pipe and valves;” or timeliness, e.g., timeframes for delivery of key components. In the practical reality of project execution, the success is more likely perceived than measured by most stakeholders. As recent management research suggests “…each stakeholder assesses project success on the basis of evaluation dimensions that fit within his own agenda or within the interests of the group he represents….Perceptions may sometimes be incorrect representations of reality, but perceptions are the stakeholders’ sole possession and are the very basis upon which he makes his decisions.”

Ultimately, the oil & gas industry, like all industries, perceives project execution success in commercial terms. Does the project work? Was the project completed on time? Was the project on budget? Was the involvement profitable? Will production goals be met? Will the ultimate production cover the invested cost plus a return? So, how have stakeholder perceptions changed in a matter of a few years?

I described the then current stakeholder perceptions of success during a plenary session at the May 2004 Offshore Technology Conference (OTC) in Houston, Texas, as follows:

“Certainly, as an industry we can point to amazing technological successes. Every day we are pressing the technology envelops and moving the technology bar higher, even for mature developments or regions. Yet, our industry grumbles and rumples in the commercial reality behind many of these successes. A reality is that in the last decade we have concentrated the number of Owner “Players” at all levels and sectors. A co-reality today is that many of the key Contractor “Players” of a decade ago no longer exist, are combined, or are no longer willing or capable of “playing.” There are many reasons, but query: has there been a significant change in the way we have handled these increasing risks as we execute today’s projects? The answer is partially ‘YES.’ But we must ask, are we achieving success from the perspective of the both the Project itself and its execution stakeholders? Clearly, the answer is ‘NO.’

Although there are examples of successes (commercially and otherwise) to which we can all point, there are also many near or actual commercial disasters that are still in the throes of resolution. There is, as a result, extensive mistrust between the Owners and the Contractors. This mutual mistrust leads Operators to claim the Contractors want too much for the work (asserted has creating CAPEX issues). The Contractors claim all the Owners want to do is shift their risks to Contractors without compensation. Much of the mistrust has evolved from the manner in which we are accomplishing project execution coupled with the conditions and contexts that are created or result there from.

Today, the commercial risk in offshore and frontier regions is huge. Projects are often packaged as a single mega-project requiring a long development period. Then as an industry, we try to control risk contractually, with non-negotiable terms, and generally through lump sum pricing. These are exacerbated by contracting approaches that are driven by transparency requirements of national oil and gas companies or the financial community funding many of the projects. To further create commercial complexity, local content requirements have been handed down to the lowest tiers of the execution hierarchy, where there is the least capability. Deep water offshore regions and frontier regions have reduced the capability and capacity to successfully execute in these contract formats – especially in the time-driven environment required of today.

Concurrently, as oil and gas prices gyrated in the last two decades, Owners have shed both research efforts and comprehensive in-house engineering/project management capacity to rationalize costs. Conversely, Contractors too have shed research efforts, but have heavily promoted EPCI (Engineering, Procurement, Construction and Installation) contracting. Yet, most Contractors oversold in-house capacity to do so and have not had the required management processes to manage lump sum EPCI contracts on this scale.

What then is the commercial reality we face now: Risk in project execution in all forms is not being effectively managed. Execution is delayed, costs of execution soar, and parties’ must protect their commercial status. Owners must minimize CAPEX impacts. Contractors must recover real out-of-pocket costs and some profit. Risk shedding has become everyone’s game. Owners are forced to reduce exposure through even transfer of equity risk to entities whose business model is based on near term execution profits and slim capitalization. Needed return on investment requires maintenance of production timing and production cost requirements. In reality, Contractors can and should only accept risk that can be reasonably defined. The reality is that Owners are not achieving their risk management needs and Contractors have a fraction of shareholder value of a decade ago. Out of commercial necessity then, both Owners and Contractors are employing “hardball” project management/contract administration that further breeds mistrust and further exacerbate the conditions and context that bred the mutual mistrust in the first place.

The oil & gas industry is not handling efficiently or effectively project execution risk. The projects are suffering and the stakeholders are not meeting goals, especially perceived and actual commercial goals. We are turning into groups of “risk accepting” and “risk adverse” stakeholders – both on the sides of Owners and Contractors. As the project execution risks are growing almost exponentially, the challenge is to seek joint methods to enable both Owner and Contractor stakeholders to manage risk appropriate to their corporate and project needs while achieving the very technological marvels our executed projects represent. No industry is viable over time if the stakeholders are not viable.”

Many of these issues still have to be faced by Owners and Contractors. But, a few years make a difference, or rather a difference in the stakeholder perceptions. Stakeholders now have a sense of predictability about the future of the oil & gas industry. Both Owner/Operators and Contractors are extremely optimistic about the future of their industry. And, investors are equally enthusiastic about the resultant opportunities.

The Current Reality and Stakeholder Management of this Reality
The success of the individual organizations within each grouping of stakeholders can vary according to the manner in which their management faces the current risks and the consequences thereof. Investors, out of necessity, will have to develop new sources of information and new ways of analyzing consequences. Each of the above paragraphs from early 2004 highlight the consequences of project execution risk that require new risk management approaches. I only will address of few of these risk issues, but they are the main ones that our current client experience suggests. The resultant trends must be adequately addressed by management. The success of addressing these trends will determine the success of investment opportunities and decisions. These trends affect both our Owner/Operator and E&C Contractor clients. The emphasis, however, will be on the Services Sector as that is the focus of this track.

The consolidation that we observed before 2004, is today a reality, and actually continues. The rationale for consolidation was and continues to be the fact that the projects, whether in deepwater or in frontier areas, require large investments by the Owner/Operators. Thus, today most E&P projects are undertaken by consortiums of Owner/Operators. These projects, however, have a number of critical activities that must take place during project execution and that put the physical assets of the companies and the projects at risk. These activities include major construction, transoceanic transportation of facilities for installation, logistics requirements in remote locations, and the like. Risk to these activities has high consequences, since a single serious event results in potential losses on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars, significant schedule delay impacts, and large revenue losses. This need to spread the potential risk impacts has resulted in combinations of stakeholders on both the E&P Operators and the E&C Contractors in order to spread the financial risk. Consortiums of E&P companies can spread the financial consequences.

For the services sector, this consolidation of companies, however, superficially creates the illusion of apparent size and financial security necessary to tackle large projects. In addition, services sector “players” are not getting out of the business. In fact, there is an abundance of smaller and new players, and they represent many of the subcontractors and vendors that are instrumental in fulfilling contracts. Yet, there is an abundance of optimism. Parenthetically, I think that Contractors as a whole actually may be the most optimistic people on the planet. Therefore let me enumerate issues that the services sector is facing and why investors must be savvy with respect to these issues.

First is an issue that is really one of the old issues that existed in 2004. It is an issue that many stakeholders alleged resulted in strife between them. The issue emanates from the type of contracts that services sector companies, whether old, consolidated or new, actually are signing. It is the result of a contracting strategy – a strategy that was promoted as a means of allocating and managing risk in project execution. These contracts are Lump Sum Turnkey (LSTK) for the EPCI work, i.e., under contract the Owner provides a functional specification, so called FEED design, and the Contractor is responsible for the engineering, procurement, construction, and installation necessary to meet those requirements for a lump sum or fixed price. This contracting approach actually has had mixed success over the last decade, even though promoted by the Contractors and embraced by the Owners.

For the last decade, the largest source of disputes between Owners and Contractors has been under LSTK or similar contracts, and the largest single issue has been the project management employed. When a Contractor gives that lump sum bid, he obligates himself to provide the project scope and quality that meets the Owner’s requirements (functionality), that can be accomplished in the time when required (timeliness), and thus he affirms that his costs are sufficient to meet both requirements in terms of resources (labor, equipment, etc.) – all for a fixed cost.

Here is where the problem begins. Owners want and demand the best, but in the past they may not have been willing to pay for the best, engaged in project management practices that may frustrate that intent, or do not recognize the impact on timing and cost that their actions may have. But, under today’s Lump Sum Turnkey, EPCI contracts, Owners have transferred almost all risk of problems that can occur to the Contractors. As a result, the services sector companies have taken on a large mountain of risk, and growth in company backlog or projected earnings do not provide a measure of risk. For example, backlog does not give a measure of whether a company, as a whole, various business units, or subcontractors and vendors under those contracts represented by the backlog, accounts for and provide a reasonable assurance level of success. Similarly, projected earnings may be illusory over the multiple years that it takes to execute the projects.

As a group, therefore, the services sector companies must give investors reasonable assurance and investors also must demand reasonable assurance that they are using the Industry Best Practices for the project management to execute the contracted projects. Today’s successful services sector companies reasonably can provide such assurance through regular, periodic audits and evaluations of the generally accepted processes and practices that are used corporately, in specific business units, geographically between projects, and in the management of project execution. The practices and processes should assure the use of Industry Best Practices, and provide for transparency, uniformity and accountability in project execution. The reality is that problems in these areas occur now but have significant consequences several years in the future. The services sector companies must evaluate these issues, show there is adequate planning to meet these issues, and report their performance against plan, include:

• Demand that is so great that there has been a “convergence of demand globally” for just about everything required for project execution. This convergence is unique in that it:
  • has never occurred before so universally in all geographic regions
  • covers multiple resources and has resulted in shortages, witness for instance even in developed areas, such as, Alberta, Canada, Brazil, or Australia. Such shortages include:
    • staff personnel and engineering personnel – the are being “stolen” from each other, and many do not have current or the company project management training, or it will takes years to train an adequate number of personnel, such as, the recently announced goal of Brazil in undertaking the training of 10,000 engineers and 60,000 skilled labor in 7 years
    • permanent equipment and construction / installation equipment is more costly and will take longer to deliver, in fact, the greatest challenge for the services sector may be the procurement of such equipment because vendors require the same categories of personnel and have limited production capacity
    • materials of all types required for construction require particular attention timely procurement and expediting, for instance, the world wide demand for cement has led to a tripling of the cost in less than a year
    • labor, especially skilled labor, such as, welders and pipefitters that can produce the quality that the Owners and the oil & gas industry require
  • covers all areas of the services sector contractors, including:
    • E&C contractors
    • specialty contractors
    • subcontractors
    • vendors, and
    • material suppliers
  • is becoming more critical everyday, and
  • is a condition that will be part of the industry for years to come
• Projects that have been “on the shelf” for a long period or which have been planned for certain cost thresholds, e.g., most projects that have been announced or contracted required a threshold of $30 to $40 a barrel for oil. The current pricing clearly exceeds this threshold and the Owners demand unrealistic schedules or their budgeting no longer realistically reflects the costs of execution. Many projects may not reflect the current or evolving requirements, for instance, environmental requirements, local content requirements, and so on. This latter situation plagues projects in Sakhalin Island in far eastern Russia, Central Asia, West Africa and South America. These projects will result in short term risk issues that will manifest themselves in the long term because of delay issues brought on by the schedules demanded by the Owners and agreed to by the Contractors. Especially, the impacts from specialty contractors, subcontractors and vendors who may not agree to the same contract terms as the E&C contractors.
• Diversification versus specialization, by this I mean: there are certain risks associated with a diversified company or a diversification plan, such as, promising the same resources on many contracts and having performance problems that our borne of the “hope” that you can perform. Similarly, there are certain risks of a specialized company and a specialization, such as, demand so great that you cannot perform or the time to create the resources that specialization demands take a significantly longer time to establish. In this category are resources, such as, fabrication yards, installation vessels, etc. There is one area that diversification can be an advantage, however. Take the tar sands of northern Alberta for instance. A diversified company may have an advantage because the various extraction technologies require vast quantities of water that has to be cleaned up or the creation of co-generation power facilities to provide the steam and power required for extraction.
• The national oil companies have become the largest holder of the oil & gas resources globally. They insist that local companies provide a greater and greater share of the value of all project costs. Their adequacy and competency were an issue in the past. In most areas today, it is the timeliness of their performance that is an issue, and they do not have a history of contracting to performance requirements. This situation can cause more issues for fixed price type contracts. In many areas the contractors, vendors and suppliers are not and do not live up to their contracts. Often, as has been experienced by one our Japanese clients, the will not adhere to the terms of the contract and the E&C contractor now finds himself at the mercy of the local contractors when he is liable for liquidated damages to the Owner.
• Ethics and professionalism demand a new attention from all stakeholders. With the amount of money that can be earned from many projects, the issue of bribery takes on considerably more importance. Publicly traded firms are primarily from the developed or developing countries. These companies can take a very real hit to their stock price, and subject executives and/or board members to civil lawsuits. This has happened to one of our clients within the last month. The issue requires more than a policy. It must be regularly checked and audited externally. Only then can services sector companies assert that they have taken all reasonable steps and precautions.

There is one more caution I would like to mention. Many of the disputes in the last five years have involved project management issues during project execution before the year 2001. Many of the issues turned upon the adequacy that companies exhibited in achievement of the project management goals under lump sum type EPCI contracts. Now that times are perceived as good, as distinct from the conditions that existed when those contracts were executed, there is a tendency to assume that things have changed. We hear too often that “we are to busy to address such issues.” Those conditions that caused the problems of project management failures have not gone away. The contract terms are just the same, and the risk is much greater as a result. Those firms that realize that they must change and must adjust are succeeding. And those that merely go with the flow of optimism, well …

What does this all mean in the end?
For all stakeholders in the oil & gas industry there are very real opportunities, but ones that require constant vigilance. Performance and investment requires more than perceptions of risk management, there must be real demonstration and commitment to risk management practices. As one financial media source proclaimed, the situation is like the aftermath of the Watergate era that afflicted the US. The mantra at that time was “follow the money.” This admonition is good advice, for the services sector companies will receive the bulk of the owners spending on projects and the investment potential can be large. But the opportunities for all stakeholders will be short lived unless the Services Sector Companies can assure each party that their execution of projects will not be a repeat of the past a few short years ago.

As the Chairman and a Principal Owner at Nielsen-Wurster, Dr. Nielsen provides strategic direction to the firm’s operations, subsidiaries and affiliated companies, as well as direction to engagements throughout the Risk Management, Management Consulting, and Dispute Resolution Divisions. Since founding the firm in 1976, Dr. Nielsen has served as an Engagement Director and primary team member on wide-ranging, complex engagements involving construction, engineering, building, power, process, transportation and infrastructure projects, on behalf of private and public sector clients throughout the US and globally. With an extensive background in engineering, construction and project management, including controls and scheduling, he has presented expert witness testimony in legal proceedings around the world and served as a chairman and member on dispute review boards, as well as an arbitrator and mediator on related dispute matters.

Dr. Nielsen serves as a senior member on Risk Management engagements, leading and undertaking audits, evaluations and assessments of project-specific and corporate risk. Further drawing upon his extensive Dispute Resolution experience, Dr. Nielsen also consults on claims prevention, management and negotiation. As a global innovator in the development and application of Risk Management techniques, he has developed and led training and instructional programs for a variety of private, multinational and public agency clients.

On Management Consulting engagements, Dr. Nielsen leads a variety of audits and assessments of executive and operational management process, performance, prudence and related project-specific and corporate issues. His Management Consulting experience includes comprehensive project management design and development, management evaluations, change management, contract negotiations and administration, feasibility studies, partnering, value engineering, and project management instruction and training.

As an Engagement Director in Nielsen-Wurster’s Dispute Resolution Division, Dr. Nielsen has led and undertaken myriad dispute engagements. He has extensive experience with Dispute Resolution analyses involving issues of engineering, construction, management and controls, scheduling (delay, acceleration, early completion and disruption), productivity, lost revenue / business interruption, change order, differing site conditions, causation and responsibility, cumulative impact, costs, damages, termination, fraud and others. As an internationally qualified expert, Dr. Nielsen has presented extensive testimony in jury and non-jury venues in North America, and in arbitrations around the world under the rules of the American Arbitration Association (AAA), International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre (BCICA) and Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC). He has served as an arbitrator and mediator globally, as well as dispute review board chairman and member, on matters involving international transportation, infrastructure, process and other projects. Dr. Nielsen’s Dispute Resolution experience includes evaluation of errors and omissions, measured mile analysis, cost-to-complete calculations, technical issue evaluations and forensic engineering. He also has extensive experience in the review and analysis of asbestos abatement and related dispute issues.

His engagement experience also includes pre-design work, bidding and bid solicitation, procurement, estimating (conceptual through bid and change), constructability reviews, schedule resource loading and activity evaluation, code and permitting process, due diligence studies, overhead calculations, quality assurance and control, startup and operations, and commissioning, testing and maintenance. (...more)

Reza Nikain, P.E., PMP, PSP President E-mail: rnikain@nielsen-wurster.com Tel: +1 (609) 497-7300

Nielsen-Wurster would like to congratulate Reza Nikain for obtaining certification from AACE International as a Planning and Scheduling Professional. Mr. Nikain is the President and a Principal of The Nielsen-Wurster Group. Mr. Nikain often acts as the Engagement Director on Management Consulting, Risk Management and Dispute Resolution engagements.

Mr. Nikain has extensive experience with the analysis of issues on heavy civil and infrastructure projects, power plants, process and petrochemical plants, hydroelectric generating facilities, and mining, resource, and metals industries facilities. Mr. Nikain has testified extensively on project management, workmanship, delay/disruption, project controls, time, resource and cost impacts, overall management and other issues in AAA and ICC arbitrations and U.S. courts and administrative bodies. He periodically lectures on damages quantification, schedule delay analysis methodologies, disruption evaluations and other engineering and analysis issues. (...more)

Nielsen-Wurster would like to congratulate Ancizar Portilla for obtaining certification as a Certified Cost Engineer (CCE) with AACE International. In addition he has passed the Project Management Institute’s Professional Certification Examination and is now a certified Project Management Professional. Mr. Portilla is a Nielsen-Wurster Consultant with comprehensive experience in construction management, project engineering, construction contract compliance, management consulting, and dispute and claim resolution and avoidance. He assists management, senior consultants and senior associates in analyzing claims, claim support, Critical Path Method (CPM) scheduling and formulating management strategies. Mr. Portilla provides expertise in cost, delay, productivity and inefficiency analyses.

Mr. Portilla's construction management experience includes schedule delay analysis, productivity analysis, causation and responsibility, quality assurance/quality control, lost revenue analysis on infrastructure projects such as sewerage facilities, aqueducts as well as highways, bridges and utilities.

Mr. Portilla has experience with a variety of computer applications including databases, spreadsheets and scheduling software.

Prior to joining Nielsen-Wurster, Mr. Portilla was a Resident Engineer for Conalvias S.A. in Cali, Colombia where was involved in projects such as highways, bridges (metallic, pre stressed), aqueduct, sewerage and utilities. His duties involved TQM system, site development, estimating, scheduling, and land subdivision.

Nielsen-Wurster would like to congratulate Danielle Delprato for obtaining certification as a Certified Cost Engineer (CCE) with the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineers (AACE International). Danielle Delprato is a Project Consultant with a background in mechanical engineering. She provides technical input and support for engagements involving projects in the power, process infrastructure, transportation, and building industry sectors.

As a team member on Dispute Resolution engagements, Ms. Delprato participates in the analysis of schedule delay, project management, causation and responsibility, and other issues. Utilizing the Window Analysis methodology, she performs document review and analysis to support the development of expert witness and supplemental reports. Ms. Delprato's experience includes projects of various type, scope and claim size, including nuclear and fossil fuel power plants.

Ms. Delprato's engagement experience includes projects in the nuclear power, fossil power, environmental and air conditioning industries. She is experienced in interpreting environmental legislation, including UNFCCC and KYOTO Protocol and the EULCP emission control legislation.

Prior to joining Nielsen-Wurster, Ms. Delprato was a Consultant at EEMA Consulting where she developed market entry strategies for the electricity market in Eastern and Central Europe and developed financing scenarios for Eastern European projects.

Karie O'Donnell-Jones, PHR Executive Assistant to the Chairman of the Board and CEO & Corporate Assistant Secretary E-mail: karieoj@aol.com Tel: +1 (509) 857-2235

Nielsen-Wurster would like to congratulate Karie O'Donnell-Jones for obtaining certification as a Professional in Human Resources (PHR) from the Human Resources Certification Institute. Ms. O'Donnell-Jones is responsible for the organization, control systems, procedures and overall management of a variety of cases including large complex litigation matters. Ms. O'Donnell-Jones has been instrumental in Nielsen-Wurster project teams reviewing project documentation, cost and schedule documentation, assisting in cost damage analysis and schedule delay analysis. Her technical support activities include development of document management databases, research assistance, and statistical and technical analyses. She is responsible for document control of records and work papers on project engagements. She also assists in the preparation of witness files, topic files, case chronologies, exhibit indices, spreadsheets, timelines, graphics, and reports.

Prior to joining Nielsen-Wurster, Ms. O'Donnell-Jones was extremely active in the communication arena. She served as Senior Producer for ECTV Newswatch, anchor and reporter for Newswatch, a reporter for The Observer Newspaper and worked on numerous advertising campaigns.

Anders Axelson Senior Consultant E-mail: andersnwap@aol.com Tel: +61 (0)3 9639 895

Nielsen-Wurster would like to congratulate Anders Axelson for his role as one of the editors of the textbook "Delay and Disruption in Construction Contracts", as was recently recognized in a book review appearing in "Legal Notes", a journal published by Australian law firm, Fenwick Elliott Grace. Mr Axelson is a Senior Consultant with Nielsen-Wurster Asia-Pacific and is based in Melbourne, Australia.

The book, in its third edition by author Keith Pickavance, has been described as "by far the most thorough treatment in the common law world of how to analyse delay and disruption". The third edition, as the review mentions, has expanded on its previous coverage to deal with the relevant clauses of a selection of Australian standard form contracts, as well as standard forms of contract used in the United States, Singapore and Hong Kong.

The review goes on to state:

"The problem of project delay is a huge one. ...Neither is the problem is a parochial one; this delay fuels vast amounts of litigation and arbitration around the world. ...The book is a potent tool for those charged with making, evaluating or determining delay claims [and is] a well-worthwhile piece of weaponry on the bookshelf."

2006 Fall Short Course
Presented by the American Concrete Pipe Association
The Westin Charlotte - Charlotte, NC
October 16-18, 2006 (...more)

DBIA 2006 Annual Conference
Design-Build: Harmony & Rhythm in Project Delivery
Gaylord Opryland - Nashville, TN
October 18-20, 2006 (...more)

ASCE Annual Civil Engineering Conference
Representing: International Round Table
Westin River North - Chicago, IL
October 19-21, 2006 (...more)

Building the Future —Transforming Global Engineering and Construction
Princeton University, Princeton, NJ (invitation only)
November 2-3, 2006 (...more)

21st Construction SuperConference
Sheraton Palace Hotel, San Francisco, CA
December 7-8, 2006 (...more)

The Nielsen-Wurster Group is celebrating its 30th year of providing private and public clients independent expert advice required to effectively manage the risks inherent in projects, operations, and technology, as well as provide expert analyses in disputed situations. Our extensive experience in power, process, infrastructure, resource, industrial, telecommunications and transportation matters have involved analysis of large and complex projects from all perspectives, including analysis of project changes and changed conditions, design and constructability issues, assessments associated with project and schedule delays, costs overruns, resource efficiency and work quality.

For more information, please go to www.nielsen-wurster.com.