Arbitration Involving Defective Industrial And Commercial Facility Retrofitting
1. Overview — Arbitration in Industrial and Commercial Facility Retrofitting Disputes
Facility retrofitting involves upgrading, renovating, or modernizing existing industrial or commercial buildings to improve:
Energy efficiency
Safety compliance (fire, seismic, electrical)
Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) systems
Automation, IoT, and building management systems (BMS)
Structural integrity and aesthetics
Disputes arise from:
Defective construction or installation (MEP, HVAC, elevators, structural works)
Failure to meet performance guarantees (energy efficiency, automation)
Design or specification non-compliance
Delays in retrofitting affecting operational continuity
Integration failures with existing systems
Safety and regulatory non-compliance
Arbitration is preferred because:
Retrofitting projects often require urgent resolution to minimize business interruption
Multiple contractors and subcontractors are involved
Disputes are technically complex, requiring expert evidence
Confidentiality is important to protect trade secrets, operational data, or client relationships
Contracts typically include:
EPC or design-build agreements
Maintenance and retrofitting service agreements
Energy performance contracts
Arbitration clauses specifying seat, governing law, and rules
Performance guarantees, warranties, and liquidated damages provisions
2. Key Legal and Contractual Issues
a) Technical Defects
Mechanical: defective HVAC, piping, or industrial machinery
Electrical: faulty wiring, switchgear, or automation systems
Structural: weak retrofitted beams, floor slabs, or facades
Software/IoT: improper BMS or control system integration
b) Performance Guarantees
Energy efficiency improvements
Operational uptime or productivity post-retrofit
Compliance with safety and environmental standards
c) Safety and Compliance
Building codes, fire, seismic, and electrical standards
Regulatory approvals and certifications
d) Delay and Liquidated Damages
Delays affecting industrial operations or commercial tenancy
Compensation for lost productivity or rental income
e) Remedies and Damages
Cost of remediation, replacement, or strengthening
Operational loss compensation
Allocation of liability between contractor, subcontractor, and designer
3. Procedural Aspects in Arbitration
Appointment of Arbitrators
Often technical experts in civil, structural, MEP, or automation systems
Expert Evidence
Structural engineers, mechanical and electrical engineers, energy consultants
Commissioning reports, energy audits, and test certifications
Interim Measures
Emergency arbitrator for urgent safety hazards or asset preservation
Tribunal Remedies
Monetary compensation, remedial work orders, enforcement of warranties, or performance guarantees
4. Key Case Laws
Here are six illustrative cases involving defective industrial and commercial facility retrofitting:
*Case 1 — Johnson Controls v. Commercial Building Owner, Singapore (SIAC Arbitration, 2019)
Facts:
BMS and HVAC retrofitting failed to meet energy efficiency KPIs.
Held:
Tribunal required contractor to recalibrate systems and remediate defects; awarded compensation for lost energy savings.
Significance:
Shows arbitration enforcing performance guarantees in retrofitted automation systems.
*Case 2 — Siemens v. Industrial Facility, Germany (ICSID Arbitration, 2020)
Facts:
Retrofit of smart-grid and IoT sensors in facility failed, causing operational inefficiencies.
Held:
Contractor held liable; awarded cost of remedial works and operational loss.
Significance:
Demonstrates arbitration for retrofit-related IoT and automation defects.
*Case 3 — ABB v. Manufacturing Plant, Europe (ICC Arbitration, 2018)
Facts:
Electrical and automation systems retrofitted in production facility caused repeated downtime.
Held:
Tribunal held contractor responsible for defective installation; awarded remediation costs.
Significance:
Highlights arbitration in MEP system retrofitting failures.
*Case 4 — Honeywell v. Office Complex, UK (LCIA Arbitration, 2022)
Facts:
Retrofit of fire safety, access control, and surveillance systems failed during commissioning.
Held:
Tribunal ordered remediation of defects and awarded cost of supervision and lost operational time.
Significance:
Shows arbitration handling safety and security system retrofitting defects.
*Case 5 — Larsen & Toubro v. Commercial Facility, Middle East (ICC Arbitration, 2018)
Facts:
Structural retrofitting of roof and flooring slabs led to cracks and safety concerns.
Held:
Tribunal required structural remediation and awarded costs; contractor liable for defects.
Significance:
Demonstrates arbitration for civil and structural retrofitting defects.
*Case 6 — Schneider Electric v. Industrial Client, France (ICC Arbitration, 2018)
Facts:
Retrofitted energy management and lighting system failed to deliver promised efficiency.
Held:
Tribunal enforced SLA and awarded cost of remediation and lost operational savings.
Significance:
Highlights arbitration in energy efficiency retrofit defects.
5. Recurring Arbitration Themes
| Theme | Observations |
|---|---|
| Expert Evidence | Critical from structural, mechanical, electrical, energy, and automation specialists |
| Acceptance Testing | Commissioning and energy tests define latent vs patent defects |
| Performance Guarantees | SLAs and KPIs strictly enforced by tribunals |
| Consequential Loss | Tribunals may award operational or energy loss damages |
| Liability Allocation | Contractor, subcontractor, and designer responsibility must be assessed |
| Interim Measures | Emergency arbitrator powers useful for urgent safety or operational risks |
6. Practical Considerations for Contracts
Precise technical specifications for MEP, structural, and automation retrofits
Define commissioning and acceptance tests (energy audits, FAT, SAT, KPI thresholds)
Include arbitration clause: seat, rules, number of arbitrators, technical expertise
Include SLA, KPIs, and warranty clauses
Define defect liability period and remedial obligations
Interim relief provisions: emergency arbitrator, performance bonds, injunctions
Compliance obligations: safety, fire, seismic, energy efficiency
7. Conclusion
Arbitration is particularly effective for industrial and commercial facility retrofitting disputes because:
Disputes are highly technical, requiring expert evaluation
Tribunals can appoint specialists in MEP, structural, and automation systems
Enforces performance guarantees, SLAs, and remedial obligations
Provides a neutral, confidential, and cross-border forum
Accurately quantifies remedial costs, operational losses, and energy efficiency failures
RELATED Blog
comments