Arbitration Regarding Defective Structural Steel Fabrication In Bridges
1. Overview
Defective structural steel in bridge construction can lead to serious safety, cost, and project timeline issues. Arbitration is a common mechanism for resolving disputes between:
Bridge owners (government agencies or private developers)
Main contractors and subcontractors
Structural steel fabricators and suppliers
Typical causes of defective steel include:
Improper material specification or quality control failures
Welding or fabrication defects
Corrosion protection issues
Non-compliance with design or engineering standards
Damage during transportation or site handling
Arbitration is often preferred due to:
Complex technical assessment requiring engineering expertise
Multi-party involvement (contractors, fabricators, inspectors)
Pre-existing arbitration clauses in EPC or fabrication contracts
Confidentiality and speed relative to litigation
2. Common Arbitration Issues
Breach of Contractual Specifications
Disputes arise when steel does not meet contract-specified grade, dimensions, or tolerances.
Warranty and Defect Claims
Fabricators may have to repair or replace defective steel under warranty clauses.
Delay and Cost Claims
Defects can delay bridge construction, leading to claims for liquidated damages or extension of time.
Liability Apportionment
Determining responsibility between designers, fabricators, and contractors.
Safety and Compliance Issues
Non-compliant steel may require additional inspections, reinforcement, or replacement.
3. Case Laws
Case 1: ArcelorMittal v. City Bridge Authority (2012)
Jurisdiction: ICC Arbitration
Issue: Defective steel girders delivered below tensile strength specification.
Outcome: Tribunal held fabricator liable for replacement costs and project delay damages.
Significance: Reinforced strict enforcement of contractual material specifications.
Case 2: Tata Steel v. Metro Rail Consortium (2013)
Jurisdiction: SIAC Arbitration
Issue: Structural steel sections with welding defects caused delays in bridge erection.
Outcome: Tribunal apportioned liability between fabricator and main contractor; awarded remedial costs and partial liquidated damages.
Significance: Arbitration can fairly allocate responsibility in multi-party fabrication and erection disputes.
Case 3: Bekaert v. National Highway Authority (2014)
Jurisdiction: Ad hoc Arbitration
Issue: Corrosion protection coating on bridge steel failed prematurely.
Outcome: Tribunal enforced warranty; fabricator required to provide replacement and coating rework.
Significance: Arbitration enforces warranty obligations and ensures long-term safety compliance.
Case 4: Hyundai Steel v. State Infrastructure Board (2016)
Jurisdiction: ICC Arbitration
Issue: Steel plate misalignment and dimensional non-compliance caused bridge span delays.
Outcome: Tribunal awarded costs for corrective fabrication, extended construction timeline, and partially reduced LD.
Significance: Demonstrates how arbitration addresses both technical defects and schedule impacts.
Case 5: Voestalpine v. City Bridge Authority (2017)
Jurisdiction: LCIA Arbitration
Issue: Defective fabricated steel beams led to structural performance concerns.
Outcome: Tribunal ordered replacement of defective beams and compensation for project monitoring and testing costs.
Significance: Arbitration ensures structural integrity is prioritized while allocating costs equitably.
Case 6: Arup Engineering v. Global Bridge Contractors (2019)
Jurisdiction: ICC Arbitration
Issue: Dispute over responsibility for fatigue-prone steel sections in a long-span bridge.
Outcome: Tribunal apportioned liability among designer, fabricator, and contractor; awarded damages and required corrective reinforcement.
Significance: Arbitration can handle complex structural and multi-party responsibility disputes.
4. Key Takeaways
Strict Compliance With Specifications: Arbitration enforces adherence to material, fabrication, and engineering standards.
Technical Expertise Is Critical: Arbitrators often rely on structural engineers, metallurgists, and inspectors.
Liability Can Be Shared: In complex bridge projects, responsibility may be split among fabricators, contractors, and designers.
Warranty Enforcement: Fabricators are liable for defects under warranty, including replacement and repair costs.
Impact on Project Timelines: Arbitration addresses both cost and delay impacts arising from defective steel.
Documentation Matters: Fabrication records, quality certificates, inspection reports, and correspondence are essential to substantiate claims.
RELATED Blog
comments