From Project Delivery to Dispute Resolution: Why Practical Experience Matters

Ivan Rees-Davies

CEng, MEI, MCIArb

My career has been built within the delivery of major engineering, construction, and commissioning projects. Over the years, I progressed through a range of technical and management roles before leading construction and commissioning activities on complex projects across multiple sectors. The role demanded far more than technical expertise alone.

It required a broad understanding of engineering, planning, contracts, commercial management, quality assurance, regulatory compliance, risk management, and leadership.

A Construction and Commissioning Manager occupies a unique position within a project. They are often present when the circumstances that later become the subject of claims and disputes first begin to emerge. They witness decisions made under schedule pressure, observe how risks materialize, see how contractual obligations are interpreted, and understand the realities that influence project delivery.

Throughout my career, I have learned that disputes rarely arise from a single event. More commonly, they develop through a sequence of decisions, communications, contractual interpretations, and project pressures that accumulate over time. Delays occur, scope changes evolve, records become incomplete, and differing views emerge regarding entitlement and responsibility. What may initially appear to be isolated issues can eventually become significant disputes.

An important part of my project delivery experience involved the recovery of underperforming and distressed projects. Being brought into projects that are already experiencing difficulties provides valuable insight into how disputes develop. It highlights the importance of effective project controls, accurate reporting, robust documentation, and timely decision-making. It also reinforces how quickly issues can escalate when these fundamentals begin to break down.

Throughout both project delivery and dispute resolution, international standards, industry regulations, and contractual requirements provide the framework within which decisions are made. During project execution, these requirements influence engineering, construction, commissioning, and quality activities. During expert analysis, they frequently provide an objective benchmark against which actions, decisions, and outcomes can be assessed. Understanding how these standards are applied in practice, rather than simply how they are written, is often critical to understanding the issues in dispute.

Since moving into Expert Witness and Alternative Dispute Resolution work in December 2022, I have had the opportunity to apply decades of project delivery experience to the analysis of major disputes. One of the most significant lessons I have learned is the difference between managing a project in real time and analyzing it retrospectively.

When delivering a project, the priority is to solve problems and maintain progress. In dispute resolution, the focus shifts toward understanding why events occurred, what evidence exists to support the various positions, and how those events ultimately affected the outcome of the project.

This is where practical experience becomes particularly valuable. While schedules, reports, correspondence, and contractual records form the foundation of any analysis, understanding the environment in which those documents were created is equally important. Individuals who have spent decades delivering projects understand the realities behind the paperwork. They understand schedule pressures, construction sequencing challenges, commissioning constraints, and the commercial considerations that influence decision-making throughout the project lifecycle.

There is an old saying that the best gamekeeper was once a poacher. While not a perfect comparison, there is a principle within it that resonates strongly with dispute resolution. Those who have spent their careers delivering projects possess a practical understanding of how projects actually operate, rather than simply how they are intended to operate. That perspective can be invaluable when assisting legal teams, tribunals, adjudicators, and other decision-makers in understanding complex technical matters.

My experience has also demonstrated that dispute resolution does not always require the time and cost associated with formal proceedings. While adjudication and arbitration remain important mechanisms, there is growing recognition of the value of Expert Determination, particularly where disputes involve highly technical matters. In many circumstances, it can provide a faster and more cost-effective route to resolution while still delivering clarity and certainty for the parties involved.

My journey from project delivery into Expert Witness and Alternative Dispute Resolution work has reinforced a simple belief. The combination of practical project experience, technical knowledge, regulatory understanding, and dispute resolution expertise provides a unique perspective when analyzing complex disputes. Understanding how projects are conceived, planned, constructed, commissioned, and, where necessary, recovered, allows an expert to explain not only what happened, but why it happened. In my experience, that understanding is often the key to achieving fair, effective, and commercially sensible dispute resolution.

Through my work with DAC Consulting Services’ core expert group, I apply this practical project delivery experience to support legal teams, tribunals, and clients in complex technical and construction disputes.

About the author

Ivan Rees-Davies , CEng, MEI, MCIArb, is DAC’s Contract and Power Plant Expert. With over 30 years of experience in the international power generation and energy industries, he has played a critical role in more than eleven major energy projects worldwide. At DAC, Ivan leads expert witness investigations in power plant and energy-related disputes. Meet our Core Group