Choose the Right Option: How Facilitative and Evaluative Approaches Can Both Have a Role in Mediation

There are various mediation styles or philosophies that parties to litigation encounter when mediating. Generally, they can be categorized as either facilitative or evaluative approaches. Some mediators feel that they should never “evaluate” a case, such as the mediator who says, “a mediator should never express a personal opinion”. A similar approach is the mediator who only carries messages or talking points from one party to another without weighing in the validity of the issues.

On the other hand, I have also encountered mediators who appear to have decided prior to the actual mediation session, usually based on their review of the pre-mediation statements, how the case should be resolved. They then spend the mediation attempting to persuade both sides to accept their view of the outcome.

There are also mediators that will make statements like, “if you were my mother, I would tell you to accept this offer” when getting to the final offers. These types of mediators may be overstepping an “evaluative” approach to mediation.

Somewhere in between all these approaches is the mediator who uses the right amount of guidance or aggressiveness to help the parties reach a settlement without violating his or her principles or the rules of the state governing their conduct. Choosing the appropriate approach is a skill every mediator should master. Here’s a closer look at how to do so.

Adhering to Rules and Standards

Because I practice primarily in Tennessee and am a Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 31 listed mediator, I will refer to the Rules and Standards applicable in Tennessee; many states have similar requirements.

Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 31, Section 10(b)(3) provides that a neutral “must refrain from giving legal advice. However, while a Rule 31 mediator should not offer a firm opinion as to how the court in which a case has been filed will resolve the case, a Rule 31 mediator may point out possible outcomes of the case and may indicate a personal view of the persuasiveness of a particular claim or defense.”

In addition, the Standards of Professional Conduct for attorneys also apply to neutrals. Section 5 (b) states: “A neutral shall not coerce or unfairly influence a party into a settlement agreement and shall not make substantive decisions for any party to an ADR Proceeding.”

The above rules and standards make many mediators less aggressive than they might otherwise be during the mediation. However, it is reasonable to infer that the language in Section 10 also allows for more involvement by the mediator by allowing the neutral to point out possible outcomes and express personal views so long as he or she doesn’t give an opinion on how the court will ultimately rule.

Using Different Approaches at Mediation

When mediating a construction or commercial case, my approach often uses both facilitative and evaluative elements. It is important to be flexible as a mediator, especially at the beginning of every mediation. Being a “one-trick pony” will not make you an effective mediator.

At the start of the session, after the preliminaries are out of the way, you must understand where both sides are in the process and how close they are to resolving the case. This is the facilitative part of the session. Often, the participants can reach settlement using this approach alone. If so, that’s great. But if this approach isn’t working, you’ll have to use other tools or techniques to achieve settlement, including evaluative approaches.

Evaluate witness and expert testimony. One evaluative method is to ask the parties to articulate their claims and defenses and show how they plan to prove each of them. For example, if one of the parties requires an expert, has that expert been identified or disclosed? If so, what is the expert’s testimony, and how well will it hold up to rigorous cross-examination? If both sides have experts, and the mediator has this information she or he may give an opinion as to which one the mediator thinks is likely to be more credible or better received by the trier of fact.

If the liability is fact-based rather than expert-based, the mediator may thoroughly discuss the witnesses, their testimony, and their credibility, offering an opinion as to which side is more likely to be credible to the trier of fact.

Evaluate damages and defenses. Because liability and damages are usually in dispute, a separate analysis of damages is also often helpful. The mediator may ask the plaintiff to explain how he or she is proving damages as a starting point. In cases like construction cases where you usually don’t have the uncertainly of non-economic damages such as pain and suffering or emotional distress, there should be an objective starting point. Again, either expert testimony or sufficient documentation of the expenses should be available.

If documentation is lacking, the mediator can ask the plaintiff about that, and whether the plaintiff understands his or her shortcomings in this area. Is the plaintiff seeking damages that are not allowed by law or other damages, such as attorney’s fees, when there is no statutory or contractual provision for same? If so, how does the plaintiff plan to recover these?

The mediator may also discuss with the defendant how the defendant plans to defend the damages. Is the defense based on lack of documentation by the plaintiff? Does the defendant have his or her own expert to contest the damages, or are there other methods being utilized?

After reviewing all this material, an evaluative mediator can express an opinion to each side about how the mediator thinks the trier of fact is likely to resolve these issues.

Offer a mediator’s proposal. I also occasionally use a mediator’s proposal as one final method when the parties have reached impasse. While I don’t do this routinely, if I have reasonable belief that the parties still want to resolve the case and if both sides affirmatively agree that they want me to provide a mediator’s proposal, I will do so. However, if any of the parties state they do not want a mediator’s proposal, I will not offer one.

Choosing the Right Approach

While every mediation is different, mediators who know how to use both facilitative or evaluative approaches — and when to use them — are better equipped to help the parties reach resolution. Regardless of whether you’re a new mediator or a more seasoned one, understanding the nuances of these different types of strategies will enhance your skills at every mediation. 

---

Author, Barry L. Howard, a full-time mediator and arbitrator at Miles Mediation & Arbitration in Nashville, Tennessee, often mediates construction cases ranging from single-family home construction cases to multi-million-dollar commercial projects. He has mediated over 2,600 cases, including ones that involve construction defects, breach of construction contracts, construction insurance coverage issues, and construction site personal injuries. 

A Tuesday With Patricia Thompson

This is not a political article. Although I must admit its theme was prompted by recent political attention devoted to dismantling diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in education, businesses, law firms, and government. I have spoken and written about DEI in alternative dispute resolution in the past, but this article is not going to address the issue of allegedly discriminatory DEI agendas.

Instead, allow me to share my simply stated life philosophy of how to treat others, which may well help us all foster equity and inclusion. I say this because, at times over at least the past 20 years, colleagues have graciously praised me for being inclusive and encouraging and for promoting and mentoring minorities and women within the leadership ranks of several American Bar Association (ABA) committees and other professional organizations. Indeed, I received my latest award acknowledging my DEI activities just a few months ago.  

I have never sought such recognition. Instead, I merely try to be kind to others, especially those who need kindness. The concept has been described as “doing unto others as you would have them do unto you” or “loving your neighbor as yourself.”

I prefer the latter phrase. Millennia ago, an itinerant teacher said that loving your neighbor as yourself was one of two most important commandments for virtuous living. He was then asked by a lawyer, :“Who is my neighbor?” The teacher answered with a story about a traveler who came upon a man by the side of a road who had been robbed, beaten and left half dead. Two of the injured man’s countrymen, separately, had passed him by without stopping. Now, the traveler and the injured man came from two countries with a long history of enmity. They were of different religions and racial backgrounds. Nevertheless, the traveler had compassion for the man, bound his wounds and carried him on his own donkey to an inn where the traveler paid for his care.

The teacher then asked the lawyer which of the three persons who came upon the injured man proved to be a neighbor to that man. The lawyer answered, “The one who showed him mercy.” The teacher replied, “Go and do likewise.”

With that illustration, I take the commandment to love my neighbor to mean that any person — no matter where they come from or what they may look like — whom I find in my path with a need I can meet is a person to whom I am to show kindness.

How does this apply to my professional life, and specifically my involvement with the ABA and other professional groups? Here are some real examples, which can be varied in many ways.

Patricia with the partners in her first law firm

When I walk into an ABA reception with hundreds of attendees, I look for those who are new, who may not know many people and who may find it all just a bit intimidating. I then introduce myself and ask them about themselves and why they are there. I want them to feel like they belong, because they do. Indeed, at various times in my life, I have been in their shoes — such as when I started attending huge ABA TIPS Fidelity and Surety Law Committee meetings in the 1970s and, later, Forum meetings — and I did not look like or know most of the people at those meetings. And in such gatherings, invariably, someone kindly made me feel welcome. I remember them and usually count them among my friends to this day. In similar situations now, I find it a pleasure to do unto others, as others were kind enough to have done unto me.

For years, before the ABA issued any guidelines on speaker diversity, whenever I had influence over CLE programming, I intentionally included at least one speaker who was qualified on the topic and different from the rest of the panel or a majority of the audience in some way, especially if they had not spoken to the group before or were relatively new to it. In a similar fashion, when forming committees, appointing leadership or serving on membership committees, I looked for ways to add new members who might have differing life experiences and viewpoints to offer the veterans in the group.

I have put my philosophy of being kind to use several times in my career — including in the last few months — when disagreements threatened to destroy the harmony and even the existence of communities of which I have been a member. Lawyers are very good at making arguments and taking sides; I have seen it happen in law firms, ABA committees and other professional organizations. In such cases, it is my experience that it is better to be neighborly to those with whom we disagree and express opinions respectfully, with empathy and humility. After all, until the disagreement arose, we were proud to be colleagues. And, as those who write about implicit bias counsel, it is possible the persons with whom we disagree have reasonable bases for their opinions and actions that appear as valid to them as mine do to me. Shocking as it is to admit, on occasion, I have been persuaded to concede I have misjudged those with whom I disagreed. 

Loving your neighbor is applicable to all aspects of life. So, in my current practice as a neutral with JAMS, I try to treat every advocate and party with impartial and kind consideration, respect and patience, and to ensure a level playing field for those who do not yet understand the ways in which arbitration differs from litigation.

I can attest that being supportive and kind to others has provided decades of joy. I recommend this approach to all who would like to succeed, help others do the same and make wonderful friends.

---

Patricia H. Thompson, Esq., FCIArb, CollArb, is a JAMS arbitrator and mediator concentrating on construction and surety claims, employment discrimination, wage and noncompete disputes, fidelity and business insurance coverage analysis, and other complex commercial disputes. She brings nearly five decades of trial, arbitration and appellate experience to her ADR practice.

The Dispute Resolver was proud to work with Patricia in connection with this installment of the “Tuesdays With” series. This series recognizes that, whether gleaned from a lifetime of learning or a life-changing moment in time, we all have something worthwhile to teach each other. If you believe you have a perspective to share, please contact Marissa Downs for more information on how to contribute to this series.

Learning a Lesson by Sweating the Small Stuff

When negotiating contracts, it is sometimes difficult to properly assess the risks and rewards of certain terms. The idiom “that one can’t see the forest through the trees” comes to mind. At times, though, even determining which forest needs to be seen can be the bigger challenge. We are all informed by our experiences and “battle wounds” – sometimes to our own detriment.

Recently, my client and I considered a contract provision which many of our clients likely believe is an elementary exercise: the number of adverse weather days  that should be included in a prime contract. This exercise led us to some surprising conclusions and forced us to consider whether we were overlooking other seemingly routine contractual provisions.

Let’s assume that an owner and general contractor are negotiating a prime contract on a private project. Consider the following two options from the perspectives of each of these two stakeholders. The first perspective will be that of an owner who has experience writing “too many change orders” for weather days. The second perspective will be from a contractor who “never gets enough time for weather.” 

Option One 

The Contract Time is 15 months. The Contractor shall be allowed three (3) weather days per month. Each additional weather day in any month that delays the critical path of the schedule shall result in an extension of the Contract Time. The Contractor shall not receive compensation for additional weather days.

Option Two

The Contract Time is 16 months. The Contractor shall anticipate seven (7) weather days per month. Each additional weather day in any month that delays the critical path of the schedule shall result in an extension of the Contract Time. The Contractor shall not receive compensation for additional weather days.

What is your initial reaction to the above options if you are representing the owner? The general contractor? How would each party best mitigate risk and maximize possible earnings on the upcoming project?

Recently, my client and I were presented with a similar scenario. My client, a general contractor, much preferred Option One. This is because it would be easy to extend the schedule for weather delays – any month with four or more days of adverse weather would entitle them to a schedule extension. But after we further analyzed the options, we came to a different conclusion.

For purposes of discussing the hypothetical scenario, we will assume that my client determined:

• The entirety of the project’s work would be on the schedule’s critical path.
• They could complete the work in 15 months if there were three days or less of inclement weather each month.
• However, they were likely to encounter five days of inclement weather each month. 
• Thus, they believed the project would take 16 months to complete if they encountered the weather they expected.

From the contractor’s perspective, if Option One was utilized and their assumptions were accurate, the Contract Time would be adjusted by an extra two days for each of the contract’s 15 months – which would add 30 days to the Contract Time. The total adjusted Contract Time would then be 16 months. Thus, if the contractor had built a 15-month schedule and bid based on Option One, the contractor would receive payment for 15 months of general conditions, though it would have taken 16 months to build the project. In other words, the contractor would incur the costs of an extra month of general conditions without receiving compensation for those costs.

If Option Two was selected, the contractor would not receive any time for change orders. However, it would be expected to budget for a full 16-month contract duration. Thus, if the contractor entered the contract having budgeted for 16 months, they would receive compensated for all of their general conditions – not the 15 months as allowed by Option One.

Let’s change points of view and consider the owner’s perspective. If the owner does not want to issue change orders for weather-related time, it may initially favor Option Two. If, in the above scenario, Option Two was selected but it never rained more than five days in a month, there would not be weather-related change orders issued during the project and the Owner would presumably be satisfied because it would not have issued change orders for weather delays. However, the Owner would have paid to mitigate that risk, because the contractor would have accounted for the extra 1-2 months of contract time in its bid and proposal. The contractor would have carried at least 16 months of general conditions costs in its budget. These general conditions would not have been included if the contract included the terms outlined by Option One.

In summary, Option One initially appears to benefit the contractor (because weather days are easier to recover) and Option Two appears to benefit the owner (because the threshold to recover weather days is more onerous). In practice, the inverse may be true, because under Option One, the owner would not pay for the 16^th month of general conditions, while under Option Two the owner would have paid for that 16^th month. In our contract, the contractor and I negotiated toward the concept presented by Option Two so that they could recover more general conditions costs.

We were surprised by this analysis and glad we took the time considering both options. We should all try to keep this lesson in mind, to consider all possible “forests” when negotiating any contractual term on behalf of a client. Many terms that may appear to benefit one party on the surface could cause unneeded expense when the other party protects itself from the underlying risk. Consider how a contractor’s bid may increase if it is required to carry an extra-ordinarily low insurance deductible; or if it has to accept a broad definition of reasonably foreseeable conditions.

Of course, every contract contains a benefit of the bargain for both parties. As advocates for our clients, we should fully analyze how each party may benefit – or be harmed – when considering these types of risk-shifting provisions in construction contracts.

---

Author, Corey S. Lloyd, is of counsel with Riess LeMieux in New Orleans, practicing primarily in construction law. Before joining Riess LeMieux, he work as general counsel for at a large, regional design builder. Prior to his legal career, Corey obtained a degree in civil engineering and spent over two decades in commercial project management. 

Editor, Stu Richeson, is an attorney with Riess LeMieux in New Orleans, primarily focusing on commercial litigation with an emphasis on construction matters. 

Meet the Forum's In-House Counsel: AMANDA MESSA

Company: The Lemoine Company

Email: amanda.messa@1lemoine.com

Website: 1lemoine.com

Law School: LSU Paul M. Hebert Law Center (JD 2005)

States Where Company Operates/Does Business: LEMOINE is a Louisiana based ENR Top-400 Contractor since 2011 with a core practice in commercial construction as well as service lines in disaster services, program management services, infrastructure and fuel logistics.

---

Q: Describe your background and the path you took to becoming in-house counsel.

A: After law school, I was privileged to work under some great litigators and mentors at the law firms of Wiener, Weiss & Madison and later, Phelps Dunbar. I ultimately spent the majority of my litigation career at Phelps where I focused my practice on construction litigation. In early 2021, LEMOINE reached out about an opportunity to become their first general counsel that I could not pass up.  The last 4 years have been both rewarding and challenging. I’ve worked to build structure and process around our legal and contracts departments as we have experienced tremendous growth.

Q: How does working in-house compare or differ from firm life?  

A: I think the difference that surprises people the most is I definitely work more than I did when I worked at a law firm. I just don’t have the billables to prove it! Another key difference is I often don’t get the opportunity to collaborate and research issues comprehensively like I used to. The days of creating a research memo are certainly gone. My focus has to be on coming up with the best practical solution to help our project teams keep things moving forward.  

Q: How and when do you use outside counsel?   

A: While I still enjoy a healthy sparing match from time to time, a general rule of thumb for me is when something starts to escalate towards litigation (or I start to get aggressive emails), it’s time to call my litigator friends.  From a capacity standpoint, I can’t be tied up for extended periods of time with hearings or depositions, and I need those valuable extra resources a law firm has to offer.

Q: What are the work/business-related issues that tend to keep you up at night?  

A: It’s the unknowns that keep me up at night – i.e. what new legislation (or currently, executive order) is coming down the pipeline that we need to be aware of and take into consideration as we expand in new geographic areas and service lines.  I rely heavily on firm blogs/updates to keep leadership and our project teams up to speed on new industry issues.

Q: What qualities or characteristics do you look for in outside counsel? 

A: Responsive and practical – Because of the pace at which things move in-house and the number of emails I get each day, I truly value those outside lawyers we work with that timely respond with succinct, practical guidance and updates. If I’ve gone to outside counsel it’s because I’ve likely already run through the pros and cons and I need a recommendation based on their experience.

Q: What advice would you give to outside counsel about how to meet or even exceed their client's expectations? 

A: Spend some extra time (even if it’s non-billable) getting to know your client’s business – the specific industry they operate within, their leadership structure and the way they approach litigation and business issues. If you’re giving legal advice in a vacuum without that background information, it’s not going to be as effective.

Q: What is the biggest problem that you see when working with outside counsel? 

A: I’m still only a few years removed from the litigation practice so I remember how easy it can be to go down a rabbit hole on a particular legal issue. But from an in-house perspective, we often have a very limited budget to spend and countless issues that will come up throughout the year. On occasion, outside counsel will spend a lot of time on an issue that doesn’t necessarily warrant that allocation of resources from our end. I’ve tried to be more intentional about communicating expectations/goals/budgetary restrictions at the outset, but it’s great to proactively address those issues as outside counsel even if in-house counsel doesn’t raise them.  

Q: What are some of your interests or hobbies? 

A: Baseball and books! 13U baseball consumes a LOT of our weekends these days and gets me away from the computer screen. It’s therapeutic for me to be outside watching our son (Wyatt) and his teammates compete in travel baseball tournaments. Our daughter (Jules) has even started to join in on the fun and is learning to record the plays in game changer. In the last 9 months, I’ve also taken up reading for the first time in over 20+ years. It’s been a great way to keep me on the elliptical machine longer and provides another escape from the constant flow of work emails.

---

Assistant Editor-in-Chief Jessica Knox is a Partner in the Minneapolis office at Stinson LLP. She represents owners, general contractors, and subcontractors in litigation disputes. Jessica can be contacted at jessica.knox@stinson.com. 

Discovery Channel: Categories of Documents Required for a Schedule Analysis

Effective schedule analysis in construction projects hinges on the discovery and examination of key documents, which provide insights into project timing, progress, and the causes of delays. This article identifies the types of discovery (i.e., documentation formally requested and exchanged between the parties to a dispute) required for a scheduling or delay expert to provide a robust schedule analysis. The discovery types are grouped as follows: Category 1: documents related to the timing of the project; Category 2: documents that corroborate the schedules; and Category 3: documents that help identify the causal link.  The above categories, which are required irrespective of which schedule analysis method is deployed, are also described in this article using a hypothetical example of a residential construction project.

Category 1: Documents Related to Project Timing

Category 1 documents are those that provide the schedule analyst with an understanding of the planned and actual timing of the project. The most important documents in Category 1 are contracts, the baseline or rebaseline schedules, and schedule updates. Other schedules or timing-related documents may include lookahead schedules and change orders.

The contract(s) will help the analyst establish the parameters of the schedule analysis, as contracts contain clauses related to the planned timing for project delivery (represented by a milestone date or dates), as well as the penalties applicable for failure of the Contractor to meet the planned completion date (i.e., liquidated damages, or “LDs”). Additionally, contracts may stipulate the preferred or required methodology and/or course of action for claims and disputes. Lastly, any contemporaneous extension of time (“EoT”) requests and awards (possibly executed change orders) should be requested, as these will provide the analyst with the updated milestone date(s).

The other documents under Category 1 are the schedules themselves (baseline, rebaseline, and updates). While the contract may set out the high-level, planned timeline of the project, the schedules give the analyst a more detailed understanding of how the planned and actual sequences evolve over time. Schedules are typically prepared in Primavera P6 (“.xer” file type) or Microsoft Project (“.mpp” file type) but may only be available in PDF format. The native schedules are the preferred source to understand the parties’ contemporaneous intentions, as they enable the analyst to review and understand logic, criticality, resource information, and much more information that is not reflected in PDF format.

Other documents which are commonly produced and may provide additional time-related context are lookahead schedules and “Level 4” schedules (detailed schedules that depict granular tasks which are often prepared in Microsoft Excel). While not the primary time-related documents, these documents provide additional detail and further insight into the parties’ contemporaneous intentions. In summary, Category 1 documents arm the analyst with key information on the planned and actual timing of the project, and therefore, are foundational to the schedule analysis. 

Example:

To underpin the importance of Category 1 documents, imagine a hypothetical residential construction project. In this hypothetical, the Category 1 documents available are the contract, baseline schedule, and monthly schedule updates. The contract between the Owner and the Contractor provides an original planned completion date of August 14, 2025.  Additionally, the baseline and monthly schedule updates indicate that, amongst other activities, the design and construction of the kitchen are on the critical path; the figure below is an excerpt of the baseline schedule (in Primavera P6), showing the design and construction of the kitchen to be critical (see Activity Names “Design Kitchen” and “Construct Kitchen”).

Category 2: Documents Corroborating Category 1

An important aspect of any schedule analysis is corroborating the schedule to ensure accuracy and alignment with other contemporaneous records. These corroborating Category 2 documents include but are not limited to: progress reporting (monthly, weekly, daily), correspondence, manpower reports, procurement and equipment logs, requests for information (“RFI”) and logs, shop drawing logs, payment applications, and meeting minutes.

Typically, the most common corroborating document type is progress reporting (be it monthly, weekly, or daily), as these reports often contain granular progress information that assists in schedule analysis. For instance, the schedules may contain a summary-level activity titled “Prepare Shop Drawings”; progress reports may feature charts and tables that show how shop drawings have and are forecasted to advance, comparisons of the planned and actual production rates, and other useful information. Typically, these reports are viewed as the “official” progress information from the Contractor. Additionally, progress reporting may contain details about labor productivity, manpower, delaying issues, and more.

Meeting minutes, payment applications, and other logs may not contain the same types of charts and tables as progress reports and therefore can also be used to validate and supplement the schedules. For example, meeting minutes may record the timing of an owner-directed design change; this information may or may not be recorded in the schedule updates.

Example:

As explained above, the baseline schedule showed a single activity for the construction of the kitchen (which was critical), and the contract indicated the home construction would finish by August 14, 2025. Below is an example of a daily progress report dated August 15, 2025, which records drywall and tiling are ongoing in the kitchen, after the project should have finished according to the contract.  Also, the daily report highlights issues related to the tiling.  

In this example, by referencing the daily progress report, the schedule analyst can understand what work related to the construction of the kitchen is ongoing at a particular date, which cannot be determined by only examining the schedules (as they only contain a single activity representing the construction of the kitchen). In summary, Category 2 documents should always be reviewed to corroborate and supplement the available schedules.

Category 3: Documents that Establish a Causal Link

A requirement of any schedule delay analysis is demonstrating the causal link, also referred to as identifying the “cause” or “causes” of the critical delay that is measured.  Documents that help establish a causal link fall under the purview of Category 3. Causes of delay are unique to the challenges each construction project faces. Furthermore, unlike Category 1 and 2 documents, which are most likely in the Contractor’s possession, documents establishing causes of delay may be in the possession of both the Contractor and the Owner.

While Category 3 documents are unique to each project, some common examples of documents that describe or explain contemporaneous causes of delay include notices of delay, contemporaneously prepared claims, RFIs, potential change orders and executed change orders, Stop Work Orders, internal and external correspondence related to specific topics, witness testimony, and QA/QC reports.

Example:

Using the same example home construction project from above, the available Category 3 documents indicate that the Owner requested a larger kitchen via an executed change order dated June 14, 2025 (see figure below).

As mentioned previously, the baseline and schedule updates (Category 1) showed the kitchen design and construction on the critical path, and daily progress reports (Category 2), which were issued after the planned project completion date, recorded that the kitchen tiling works were experiencing extensive delays. Given the timing and scope, this change order (Category 3) likely explains some of the critical delays to the project. 

Conclusion

This article aimed to identify the types of discovery required for a scheduling or delay expert to complete a schedule analysis. The discovery types have been grouped into three categories: documents related to the timing of the project (Category 1), documents that corroborate the schedules (Category 2), and documents that help identify the causal link (Category 3). By analyzing these documents, a scheduling expert can effectively determine the critical path, understand the magnitude of the delays, and identify the causes of critical delays. 

---

Author Jordan Peponis is a Senior Director in Kroll’s Construction Expert Services practice. Based in Atlanta, Jordan has 13 years of experience in providing consultation on a variety of international and domestic projects. He serves most often as an independent delay expert, providing critical path delay and loss of productivity analyses. Jordan can be contacted at Jordan.Peponis@kroll.com.