n"r -ILE- COPY ullc

00

C*q

Cj

DTR;

ELECTE

JU 10 so

C B

a&fi Ttb uT

Approrvid for publJc roloflod,
The Corps Commitment to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR):

This case study is a part of a series of case studies describing applications of Alternative

Dispute Resolution (ADR). The case study is a part of a Corps program to encourage

its managers to develop and utilize new ways of resolving disputes. ADR techniques may

be used to prevent disputes, resolve them at earlier stages, or settle them prior to formal

litigation. ADR is a new field, and additional techniques are being developed all the

time. Theses case studies are a means of providing Corps managers with examples of

how other managers have employed ADR techniques. The information in these case

studies are designed to stimulate innovation by Corps managers in the use of ADR

techniques.

These case studies are produced under the proponency of the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, Office of Chief Counsel, Lester Edelman, Chief Counsel; and the guidance

of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, VA,

Dr. Jerome Delli Priscoli, Program Manager.

For further informt . on the ADR Program and case studies contact Program

Manager:

Dr. Jerome Delli Priscoli

Institute for Water Resources

Casey Building

Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060-5586

Telephone: (202)-355-2372

Fax: (202) 355-3171
TENN TOM CONSTRUCTORS, INC.

Alternative Dispute Resolution Series

Case Study #1

Lawrence E. Susskind

Principal Investigator

Susan L. Podziba

and

Eileen Babbitt

Co-Investigators

Prepared by

Endispute, Inc.

12 Arrow Street

Cambridge, MA 02138 DTIC

ELECTE

SJUL 10MO

August 1989 IWR Case Study 89-ADR-CS-I

DWW~UTON STATEWNT A

<' biu"'U- a 90 07 1le 028
CASE STIJDY #1

TENN TOM CONSTRUCTORS, INC.

THE PROJECT AND CLAIM

SUMMARY

On June 28, 1985, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ohio River Division, and

Tenn Tom Constructors, Inc., a joint venture headed by Morrison Knudsen, Inc. used a

mini-trial to settle a $55.6 million (including interest)* claim for $17.25 million. The claim

was originally filed in 1979 charging differing site conditions, i.e. increased moisture in the

soil, during a project that required the removal and disposal of ninety-five million cubic

yards of earth.

Professor Ralph Nash of the George Washington University I aw School served as

the neutral, and General Peter Offringa, Ohio River Division Commander, and Mr. Jack

Lemley, Group Vice President at Morrison Knudsen, Inc., were the decision-makers. The

Corps case was presented by Wesley Jockisch. Stan Johnson of Crowell & Moring

served as counsel for Tenn Tom Constructors, Inc.

This case highlights 1) important roles played by decision-makers on both sides; 2)

the role of attorneys as presenters/advisors; 3) the impact of organizational pressures on

decision makers regarding settlement decisions; and 4) the impact of district/division

relationships on decisions reached in mini-trials. ,

/

BACKGROUND

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contracted with Tenn Tom Constructors, Inc.

(T'TC), to excavate an eleven-mile stretch of the Tennessee Tom Bigbee Waterway. A five

year, fixed-price contract for $270 million, it required the removal and disposal of ninetyfive million cubic yards of earth. Prior to soliciting bids for the contract, the government

performed extensive studies to determine subsurface soil conditions, including a test

excavation of a 1500 foot wide section of the project area. The goverrunent provided

potential contractors with the test results to help them calculate cost projections.

During the excavation process, TTC claimed they encountered more drainage

inhibiting clay zones and higher moisture levels in the soil than pre-bid specifications

suggested. This resulted in severe "trafficability" problems and increased travel time per

truckload of earth. For these reasons, TTC filed a differing site conditions claim and

requested an equitable adjustment of $42.8 million. After negotiations reached impasse,

the Corps established an in-house task force to evaluate the merits of the claim. The project

was extensively monitotd aid documented by both the government and the contractor.

* This is the figure quoted by Corps staff in a July 18, 1989 phone call.
CHRONOLOGY OF THE CLAIM

Tenn Tom Constructors, Inc. was awarded the contract on March 26, 1979. They

formally notified the Nashville District of differing site conditions in August of 1980 and

again in April of 1981. As excavation continued more specific claims were filed. After

extensive investigation and ongoing communications between TIC and the Corps, a

Contracting Officer's Decision (COD) was issued on August 15, 1984 denying the claim in

full. TTC filed an appeal on October 18, 1984.

In March of 1985, counsel for TFC, with knowledge of the Corps pilot AD.,

program, requested they use a mini-trial to settle the claim. The Corps agreed, and on April

15, 1985 both sides signed a mini-trial agreement outlining its procedural rules. The minitrial took place as scheduled on June 11-13, 1985. Negotiations were expected to

commence at the close of case presentations, but the decision-makers identified

informational gaps and requested another day of presentations. Attorneys provided

additional data on June 27th, and the decision-makers, with the help of the neutral,

negotiated an agreement on June 28, 1985.

MAJOR ISSUES IN DISPUTE

The major issues in dispute centered on subsurface soil conditions and the

difference between the contractor's expectations based on pre-bid specificationss and the

actual conditions encountered. According to Corps tests, the soil was expected to drain

well with normal trenching operations so that the contractor's equipment would not be

adversely affected by excessive moisture. TIC found that the soil retained a high level of

water. This reduced the speed at which trucks could travel to and from the site, thereby

causing significant maintenance and repair problems for TrC's de-watering equipment.

The Corps contended that geological tests performed prior to awarding the contract clearly

identified subsurface soil conditions that were not significantly different from those

experienced by the contractor.

POSITIONS OF EACH SIDE PRIOR TO ADR

In appealing the contracting officer's decision, TC claimed they deserved an

equitable adjustment of $42.8 million. After an extensive investigation, the government

found no justification for a differing site condition claim. By the time TIC and the Corps

were considering ADR, the claim amounted to $55.6 million including interest.*

At the start of the project, TTC informed the Nashville District of its problems

associaied with the high moisture content of the soil. Since it was clear this would prove to

be a very large claim, both sides carefully docunented all aspects of the project as it

infolded. The Corps alone had more than 10,000 photographs and twenty hours of video.

Technical field staff on both sides were deeply entrenched in their positions. TITC

claimed they had great difficulties during excavations and had ruined a lot of their

equipment. The Corps refused any responsibility for the problems and argued that soil

conditions were nothing different from what should have been expected.

This is the figure quoted by Corps staff in a July I9, 1999 phone call.

-2-
DECISION TO USE ADR

RAISING THE OPTION OF ADR

Crowell & Moring, counsel for TTC, has had substantial involvement with ADR

and promotes its use in difficult cases that seem likely to require a great amount of time to

resolve and result in extensive litigation costs. Stan Johnson, a partner at Crowell &

Moring, knew of the Corps' recent success with a mini-trial, and thought it would be

interested in participating in another. He called Lester Edelman, Corps Chief Counsel, to

inquire about the possible use of ADR in the Tenn Tom claim and also recommended the

mini trial procedure to TTC.

At precisely the same time, the Corps was circulating a draft regulation regarding

mini trials. Districts and divisions were asked to look for suitable cases for a pilot

program. Thus, by the time this claim presented itself, the agency had already begun to

assimilate many ADR concepts and address some potential problems and barriers. In fact,

there was a good deal of pressure to further experiment with ADR.

When TTC's counsel recommended a mini-trial to the Division, We,ley Jockisch,

Ohio River Division Counsel, contacted Les Edelman, who fully supported its use in the

case. Jockisch then discussed it with General Peter Offringa, Division Commander. Since

Offringa had no prior knowledge of mini-trials, Jockisch explained the procedure and its

associated risks and benefits to him.

PROS AND CONS OF ADR: THE CORPS

The Corps deemed the case suitable for ADR for a number of reasons. First of all,

the dispute involved factual rather that legal issues. The legalities of the case were clear: If

differing site conditions existed, the contractor descrved additional compensation.

Questions, however, arose conceming facts and interpretations of geological and

engineering theory. Secondly, the possibility of government liability for $42.8 million was

enough to seek a form of dispute resolution that allowed for government input into the

eventual settlement and reduced the possibility of completely losing the case. The Corps

had identified a significant level of risk such that it preferred to stay out of court. In fact,

the Corps agreed the earth was slightly different from its description in pre-bid documents,

but not so great as to justify such a large claim.

If forced to go to trial, the case would have required substantial manpower and .

expense. The Corps had already assembled a task force of eight full-time people to

evaluate the claims. However, it was not clear this intensive effort would prove fruitful For

because it was possible the judge would limit the introduction of technical evidence. Given I

the highly technical nature of the dispute, and the time necessary to fully develop its case in

court, Corps counsel were concerned about the risk of obscuring rather than clarifying d technical issues before the Board. C-1

In contrast, the format of the mini-trial forced attorneys to present clear, concise

cases to already educated decision-makers, thus reducing the need to supply technical

background information. Since the decision-makers were interested parties, they were also "n/

more likely to insist on a full and clear understanding of the issues. In addition, if the Ity Codea

-3-and/or

,Dtat Peolai

I ! ....
Corps disposed of the claim through the mini-trial, it would also strike an additional $8

million in associated subcontractor's claims from its caseload and reduce interest payments

on the settlement.

The mini-trial could also serve as a medium for negotiations between decisionmakers who were not subject to its emotional entanglement. Whereas the technical staff of

both sides were emotionally entrenched in their positions, neither decision-maker had been

involved in the day-to-day operations of the project. Thus, they were more likely to

objectively weigh the evidence.

Another advantage of ADP in this case was the possibility of setting a harmful

precedent at trial. If the Board found in favor of TFC, the Corps could have conceivably

been forced to change its site conditions evaluation procedures.

Finally, the Corps recognized the need to sustain positive, long-term relationships

with contractors, and especially the large companies involved in this project. The ADR

procedure afforded the Corps a chance to amicably settle a large claim as opposed to the

adversity of a Board trial.

A serious drawback to ADR was the strain it put on the district-division

relationship. Whereas a positive attribute of the mini-trial is that the decision-makers are

unencumbered by the emotional aspects of the dispute, they are subject to organizational

pressures. District staff were frustrated by the decision to settle the claim because they

expected to win at the Board. The field staff did not want the Corps to settle; they wanted

to prove their case before the Board and had done a substantial amount of work towards

tl--it goal. However, Corps officials decided the level of risk outweighed these

considerations against using ADR.

Another potential problem associated with the mini-trial was that the Corps would

expose its case, thereby affording the other side a chance to prepare a better ca,.e for trial

should they fail to settle. However, according to the attorneys, both sides had meticulously

documented all phases of the project so there was nothing to hide. Each side knew the

strengths and weaknesses of the other's case.

General Offringa decided that it was worthwhile to try ADR. He reasoned that even

if it failed to resolve the claim, the Corps would have shown a good-faith resolution effort

outside the adversarial process of litigation.

PROS AND CONS OF ADR: THE CONTRACrOR

Counsel for the contractor initiated the use of ADR in this case. He felt the time

involved in preparing, trying, and waiting for a decision was a strong enough reason to

search for an alternative. He also thought the complexity of the case made trial a high risk

gamble given that the stakes were so high. Johnsoii decided that it was reasonable to

negotiate a settlement even if TC might have received a larger award in court.

-Pe contractor was enthusiastic about the prospect of a mini-trial, given operationslevel support for a shortened process to resolve the claim. TTC also felt the reduction in

legal fees offset the possibility of settling for less than it expected from a trial.

- 4-
CHOICE OF ACTUAL PROCEDURE

The procedure chosen in this case was a mini-trial. In a mini-trial each side chooses

a decision-maker, usually a senior level person unhampered by tile emotional aspects of the

dispute, and a mutually acceptable neutral, who presides at the hearing. The hearing is

usually scheduled for two to three days during which tile attorneys informally present their

cases to the decision-makers. Evidence is entered freely and not according to any strict

procedural rules. This allows information to be disseminated more quickly. Throughout

the case presentations, the neutral advisor and decision-makeis are free to ask questions.

At the conclusion of the presentations, the decision-makers, assisted by the neutral, attempt

to negotiate a settlement based on information provided during the hearing. If they fail to

settle, none of the information shared during the mini-trial can be used as evidence before

the Board. Similarly, the neutral is disqualified from serving as a witness in future

procedures concerning the claim.

FORMAL AGREEMENT TO USE AN ADR PROCEDURE

The attorneys on each side met to formulate the mini-trial agreement. It was based

on a model agreement designed by the Corps' Chief Trial Attorney, Frank Carr. They

decided the presentations would run for two-and-a-half days, followed by negotiations

between the decision-makers. They agreed on the decision-makers, the neutral, and a

precise schedule for presentations, cross examinations. rebuttals, and questions and to

exchange position papers two weeks prior to the procedure. Formal discovery proceedings

for the trial before the Board were suspended pending the outcome of the mini-trial. The

parties agreed to share al expenses incurred including the neutral's fee and that a settlement

would clear the Corps of all outstanding claims, including those of sub-contractors, from

this project.

SELECrION OF NEUTRAL

There was some difficulty in choosing the neutral. The parties quickly decided to

choose a legal, rather than a technical expert, and each side gave the other a list of six to

eight potential neutrals. 1T'C suggested a number of lawyers in private practice, and the

Corps suggested a number of retired judges. None of the individuals was mutually

acceptable. Wesley Jockisch then called the Chief Counsel's Office for advice and was

furnished with an additional list of names. Both sides agreed to Professor Ralph Nash

from George Washington University Law School, a highly reputable expert in government

contract law.

PRIOR EXPERIENCE WITht ADR

Stan Johnson had served as counsel for TRW in the TRW-NASA mini-trial, the

government's first experience in using ADR to settle a dispute of great magnitude. Jack

Lemley never participated in a mini-trial but had served on arbitration panels in construction

disputes.

Neither General Offringa nor Wesley Jockisch had any prior experience with formal

ADR procedures, though in the past Jockisch had organized division level review

- 5-
conferences.t Jockisch arramged approximately twenty-five such meetings in the past, but

the process is no longer an available option.

Professor Nash had never been involved in an ADR procedure before. However,

because of his extensive experience and numerous publications concerning government

contract law, both sides felt he was the best choice.

ADR PROCEDURE

PARTICIPANTS

The decision-makers for the mini-trial were General Peter Offringa, Division

Engineer of the Ohio River Division of the Corps, and Mr. Jack Lemley, a Group Vice

President of Morrison-Knudsen. Offringa becane commander of the Ohio River Division

after the contracting officer denied the claim and so had no prior involvement with the

project. A contracting officer's warrant was issued to authorize General Offringa to

negotiate a settlement of the Tenn Tom Contractors' claim. The Chief Executive Officer of

Morrison-Knudsen asked Mr. Lemley to serve in the capacity of decision-maker. He also

had little involvement with project operations.

The neutral was Professor Ralph Nash, identified above. Attorneys for TTC were

W. Stanfield Johnson and George D. Ruttinger, both from Crowell & Moring. Wesley C.

Jockisch, attorney at the Ohio River Division, served as the Corps trial attorney. Assisting

him were Robert Smyth md Willimn Hill, attorneys from the Nashville District.

SCHEDULE

Upon arrival and by prior mutual consent, the Corps flew Prof. Nash to the project

site to better acquaint him with the situation. The night before the mini-trial, Nash dined

with Gen. Offringa and Mr. Lemley to discuss their expectations of his role. Since none of

the three had previously participated in a mini-trial, they also discussed their hopes mid

e7.pectations of it. The decision-makers agreed that Nash should be a full participant,

meaning he was free to ask questions (luring presentations. He would also preside over the

hearings, keep time, and play an active role during negotiations. However, at the time of

the discussion, no one knew exactly what that would translate into.

During the first day of the mini-trial, ITC presented its case for entitlement for live

hours. This was followed by thirty minutes of cross examination by the Corps, a thirty

minute TI'C re-examination, and two hours of questions from the decision-makers mid

neutral. The second day was similar with slightly reduced time for presentations and

questions to allow for half-hour closing statements by each side. The third day consisted

of each side's ninety minute presentation regarding quantum followed by a one hour

question period.

Before the Contract Disputes Act, if a claim was denied by the CO. the dti son comnmnder could

overrule the contracting officer's decision and direct a settlement in appropriate civil works cases.

- 6-
The decision-makers were then expected to begin negotiating a settlement. They

were expected to reach a settlement within one and a half days, but felt they needed more

infornation on particular aspects of the project. They requested additional presentations,

but the attorneys (lid not feel they could immediately provide the necessary material. It was

decided to re-convene three weeks later and to give each side two hours to present its

additional data. After this session, the decision-makers and neutral commenced

negotiations and reached a settlement late tile next day.

DESCRIPITION

TTC began its case for entitlement with a two hour opening statement. Johnson

consciously set out to illustrate the government's exposure in the case, rather than convince

(en. Offringa of differing site conditions. In other words, he wanted to show that it was

reasonable to settle at the mini-trial based on the risk associated with a trial at the Board.

The central point in TIC's case was the amount of traction its trucks could expect on the

dirt road surface. Tie contractor claimed that because of increased moisture in the soil, ile

trucks had to travel slower, adding five to ten minutes per trip, and its equipment required

more repairs than expected. The project involved moving massive quantities of earth. TIC

had calculated its expenses for the project based on how quickly the trucks could load and

leave the site, dump, and return. They planned for 160 minutes per trip. Thus, because of

the number of trips involved, the contractor argued that each additional minute on the total

number of trips cost $2 million.

ITC used a computer model to generate the times and speed of trucks re'.ative to

various soil densities. They also tried to show that the project was efficiently managed and

that all the required de-watering procedures were completed.

During its rebuttal, the Corps showed the liinitations of the computer model based

on its validity only under ideal conditions and its inability to consider inefficiencies other

thut moisture levels of the soil. Johnson claimed that the Corps was questioning his

witnesses' credibility, something he felt was inappropriate within a mini-trial. One Corps

attorney, on the other hand, was surprised by the level of "lawyer tricks" used by Johnson.

The government's case rested on the Corps' knowledge of subsurface soil

conditions and how well it represented that information in pre-bid documents. It provided

detailed technical infonnation of tests done and interpretations of test results. The Corps

maintained that it had supplied potential bidders with enough information to detennine the

possible range of conditions to expect. Its tests included digging out a 1500-foot wide part

of a hill to expose a cross section of the site. The government conceded that TTC

experienced problems, but would not accept responsibility for differing site conditions,

especially at the level claimed by TIC.

During the mini-trial, the geo-technical experts for each side were asked to explain

their differences, and in effect, debate the issues. It became clear that they agreed on the

facts, but held different interpretations. The decision-makers then questioned the reasoning

behind their interpretations.

The third day was reserved for the financial aspects of the claim. Though scheduled to end at noon, the decision-makers (lid not begin to negotiate until about 4:30

p.m. By approximately 7:0() p.m, they identified infornational gaps. They asked for

additional presentations the next day, but tile attorneys for both sides said it would be

impossible to retrieve the specific information they wanted so quickly. Both attorneys

- 7-
preferred the decision-makers conclude the mini-trial that day, but agreed to continue it

three weeks later.

The additional infornation regarded the drainage procedures carried out by TfC.

The decision-makers wanted proof that 1TC had correctly excavated drainage ditches.

They also asked for technical information about the total sub-surface soil along a critical

stretch of the site. TIC was asked to provide a full range of readings regarding how

saturated the soil was at various points in the project.

After the additional presentations, the three panel members again commenced

negotiations. They did not rcceive all the data they asked for, but felt obligated to continue

despite the uncertainty.

SFFLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS

After the presentations, the decision-makers and neutral successfully negotiated a

settlement. Both decision-makers agreed that without the help of Prof. Nash they would

have quickly reached impasse. During their initial discussions of entitlement, Nash did not

take sides but asked appropriate questions that brought out relevant facts. Throughout the

negotiations both decision-makers had the right to consult with their legal counsel. This

right was exercised more frequently by General Offringa.

Once entitlement was established, they set out to determine a fair and equitable

quantum. In order to avoid impasse, Nash suggested they discuss the possible ranges of

moisture level in the soil and prevalent soil types, without raising dollar figures. Then they

spoke of (le prolailities that certain soil conditions existed during the project. Thus,

Nash helped them to agree on objective criteria that could later be translated into monetary

lerms. They eventually agreed on four plausible scenarios that when costed out provided a

settlement range between eleven and nineteen nillion dollars. They settled at $17.25

million, including interest and $1.25 million in subcontractor claims. This represented

approximately thirty-three* percent of the original claim.

EVALUATION

PROCESS

'liere was clear consen-..as that the procedure was excellent and served the interests

of both parties. Much of the credit for its success was given to Prof. Nash, and the

patrticipults stated that a competent neutral is essential for a successful ADR procedure.

According to Nash, the most important ingredient for success in a mini-trial is strong,

management- and task-oriented decision-makers. He thinks that once the attention of top

n1uiagement is focused on an issue, all their instincts are to successfully conclude the task

and that the mini-trial provides a vehicle for senior executive involvement in such problemsolving. Nash played m active role during the hearing and subsequent negotiations. His

expert ise allowed him to ask questions that revealed strengths and weaknesses in each

side's case. l)uring negotiations, Nash served as a mediator. He offered his opinions

Based on the figure quoted by Corps staff on July 18, 1989.

-8-
regarding central issues, but also steered the decision-makers away from impasse and

toward resolution.

The Trc case illustrates one of the strongest advantages of the mini-trial fonnat.

An already soured relationship among Corps and contractor field workers made it

impossible for the dispute to be settled at the district level. However, the use of individuals

at higher levels of authority and without negative pre-dispositions toward the other,

eliminated the biases that hindered resolution. '1'he decision-makers felt that the

negotiations proceeded in a businesslike fashion. Offringa was surprised they concluded

so quickly, especially since there were moments when he seriously believed they would fail

to reach an agreement. Each had a great deal of respect for the other and though there was

some professional antagonism, derived from the fact that each disagreed with the other's

professional opinion of the situation, there was never any personal antagonism.

Both decision-makers felt the success of the mini-tiial contributed to improving the

long term relationship between the Corps and Morrison-Knudsen. General Offringa stated

that the positive relationship established between Morrison-Knudsen and the Corps

transcended the individuals who participated in the mini-trial. Even if they never interact

again, the history of the relationship will carry into the future.

The days of the mini-trial and subsequent negotiations were taxing on al those

involved. The days were long and the pressures intense. General Offringa was in an

especially difficult position. On one hand, there was pressure to settle the claim and

successfully end the mini-trial. On the other hand, there was district pressure against

settling. He said the days spent at the mini-trial were "probably his most difficult days of

the last five to ten years." Jack Lemley was struck by the courage of General Offringa. He

felt that given the organizational pressure that rested on the General, he "showed exemplary

courage in reaching a settlement."

There are also some lessons to be learned from this procedure. To bel it] with, the

Corps trial attorney felt he was in a difficult position as presenter and advisor. He believes

that in the future, one individual should serve in each role. He found that as presenter, he

became an advocate, but was then forced to also show the weaknesses in his own case.

A second issue raised was the flexibility of the ground rules. Though all

appreciated the flexibility -allowed by the mini-trial, they felt the ground rules should have

been more clearly stated and enforced. For example, the Corps did not expect the two

technical experts to debate their interpretations of the facts. Corps attorneys felt they lost

control of the process at that point. They were physically separated from the General, and

therefore could not effectively advise him, They suggested the process include a

mechanism for consenting to procedural changes before they are instituted.

QUANTUM

The contractor was satisfied with the settlement. its attorney felt he probably

would have gotten a bit more at the Board, but all things considered, it was in his best

interests to settle for the $17.25 million.

General Offringa was also pleased with the outcome. lie exceeded his initial

bottom line, but through a risk analysis of the government's options, he deternined the

settlement was in its best interests. At least one of the Corps attorneys thought the

settlement would be even higher.

9-
Nashville District technical staff personnel were displeased with the settlement.

They preferred to gamble with the entire claim at the Board because they strongly felt there

was no validity to it. In fact, someone anonymously called the Inspector General's Office

and asked for an investigation regarding justification of the settlement and a review of the

dispute resolution procedure.

POSTSCRIPT:

The Department of Defense Inspector General reviewed documents associated with

the Tern Tom Constructors, Inc., Inc. case and conducted on-site interviews with

personnel involved. Based on its investigation, the office of the Inspector General found

that. "the government had sufficient liability to justify the $17.25 million settlement," and

that the "use of the mini-trial procedure appears to have been valid and in the best interests

of the government."

The report concluded that the mini-trial procedure is an efficient and cost-effective

means for settling contract disputes, but because it is a relatively new procedure its use

should be carefully considered on a case-by-case basis. It also recommended that in the

future the Corps more fully document its reasons for a given settlement.

- 10-
Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

I Form Approved

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE I OMB No 0704-0188

I Exp Date Jun 30, 1986

la REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION lb RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS

Unclassified

2a. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY 3. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY OF REPORT

Approved for public release:

2b. DECLASSIFICAT(ON /DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE unlimited

4. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) 5. MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)

IWR Case Study-89-ADR-CS-1

6a. NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 6b OFFICE SYMBOL 7a. NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION

Endispute, Inc. (If applicable) USACE, Water Resources Support Center EndisuteInc.Institute for Water Resources-(CEWRC-IWR)

6c. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 7b. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code)

12 Arrow Street Casey Building

Cambridge, MA 02138 Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060-5586

8a. NAME OF FUNDING/SPONSORING 8b. OFFICE SYMBOL 9. PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER ORGANIZATION USACE, Off ice of (api E c ab )

the Chief CounselI ECZ

8c. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 10. SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERS

20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW PROGRAM PROJECT TASK WORK UNIT Washington, DC 20314-1000 ELEMENT NO. NO. NO ACCESSION NO

11. TITLE (include Security Classification)

TENN TOM CONSTRUCTORS, INC.

12. PERSONAL AUTHOR(S) Susskind, Lawrence E., Principal Investigator; Podziba, Susan L., and

Babbitt, Eileen, Co-Investigators

13a. TYPE OF REPORT 113b. TIME COVERED ,14 DATE OF REPORT (Year, Month, Day) 15. PAGE COUNT

Series FROM TO 89/8 12

16 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION

17. COSATI CODES 18. SUBJECT TERMS (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)

FIELD GROUP SUB-GROUP Case study, alternative dispute resolution, claims, pros and

cons of ADR, decision to use ADR, ADR procedure, settlement

Inegotiations, evalutaion.

19. ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)

This case study is one in a series of case studies describing applications of

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The case study is part of a Corps program to

encourage its managers to develop and utilize new ways of resolving disputes. These

case studies are a means of providing Corps managers with examples of how other managers

have employed ADR techniques. The information in this case study is designed to stimulate

innovation by Corps managers in the use of ADR techniques.

20 DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT 21 ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

0 UNCLASSIFIED/UNLIMITED 91 SAME AS RPT. 0 DTIC USERS Unclassified

22a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL 22b TELEPHONE (Include Area Code) 22c. OFFICE SYMBOL

Jerome Delli Priscoli, Ph.D. ; (202) 355-2372 ICEWRC-IWR-P

DO FORM 1473. 84 MAR 83 APR edition may be used until exhausted. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

All other editions are obsolete. Unclassified