This page contain information copyrighted by other individuals and entities. Copyrighted material displayed in this page is done so for archival purposes only and is not intended to infringe upon the ownership rights of the original owners.
Fisher Maritime Consulting Group (ID: 33)
Page 1 of 1 [Back to companies list]
Services Menu Most of our work pertains to contract preparation and management for ship construction, conversion and repair. We perform project management services, contract development, technical analyses and provide expert consultation services in several areas of maritime matters. The services we provide fall into four areas: (1) Contract Services for Ship Construction, Conversion, Repair and Design; (2) Claims Preparation and Alalysis Services (3) Litigation Support and Expert Witness Services; (4) Training Programs for the Maritime Industries. Click on the area listed to the right that interests you, and it will take you to a more detailed menu. Below you will find a link to our services brochure in PDF format. This brochure can be viewed online or be downloaded to read off-line. It is recommended that you download the brochure instead of viewing online. This will help you in the speed of viewing and give you a permanent copy of the PDF file for future reference. Use the bookmarks feature in Acrobat to help you view the document. Contract Services - Recent Experience A SHIPOWNER returned to Fisher Maritime for development of a second multi-ship contract. We previously developed a four-ship contract with additional-ship option, including integration of specifications and plans. The new contract, for a different class of vessel, also calls for multiple ships with options for a total of up to eight vessels. After the contracts were signed, Fisher Maritime developed for the owner's construction management staff a series of spreadsheets to use as updating check-off lists for performance of all the owner's rights and obligations during design, production and testing. The owner's staff received one-day training in the use of the spreadsheets, and has found that their use provides a thorough understanding of the status of all work and ensures a timely inspection of all deliverables in addition to the vessel itself. When Washington State Ferry system contracted for up to three new, Super Jumbo Mark II ferries, Fisher Maritime was selected to draft the pro-forma construction contract. The reason for selecting Fisher Maritime to draft the contract, rather than use the State Attorney General's office, was in recognition of Fisher Maritime's expertise for maximizing the compatibility of the contract with the project at hand and to minimize the likelihood of contract disputes arising due to phrasing which would be considered ambiguous in a shipbuilding environment. (The AG's office is, or course, much more familiar with highway construction contracts.) The State contracted for the propulsion system of each vessel separately, which was then provided to the shipyard as owner-furnished equipment. The contract addressed that particular variation from usual shipbuilding contracts. For those reasons, the contract is certainly not a repetition of any other contract. A CLIENT SHIPOWNER was facing a small number of very large value change orders that appeared to be outrageously priced by the shipyard. Specifically, within the first two months during a major offshore conversion, two change orders totaling over $4.2 million (about 20% of the initial contract price) were presented to the shipowner on a take-it or leave-it basis. Needless to say, the shipowner was extremely annoyed with the shipyard's change order pricing. Similarly, the shipyard was upset with the owner for questioning the price and administration of its change orders. The on-site relationship between the shipyard and shipowner quickly deteriorated on all matters, including the change order process. Fisher Maritime was selected by the shipowner to stabilize the contractual relationship before further deterioration, and to then correct the misunderstandings that led to the nearly-irreconcilable situation. Working out of the shipowner's on-site office, Fisher Maritime's personnel brought a cool, professional approach to all the issues that were bringing the contractual relationship to the boiling point. Within the next several weeks, Fisher Maritime analyzed and exposed the shipyard's erroneous pricing assumptions, leaving the shipyard no choice but to reduce the price on those two change orders to $44,000 (one percent of their original value). The continuous back-and-forth process of discussing the factual and contractual information relevant to those two changes helped restore a working relationship between the shipowner and shipyard. Fisher Maritime accomplished its task of restoring order by a cold, hard analysis of the facts as opposed to making self-serving, one-sided arguments for the sake of posturing. Claims Analysis Recent Experience A SHIPYARD called in Fisher Maritime when a ship owner became unreasonable and refused to pay for work that the owner had directed, and the shipyard had performed. Fisher Maritime prepared the shipyard's formal claim. With our participation in a mediated settlement, the shipyard received nearly all the funds for shipyard expenses and delays that were set forth in the claim developed by Fisher Maritime. A SHIPOWNER: Fisher Maritime defended a shipowner in a post-contract claim regarding the repowering of a vessel. Included in the repowering work was the installation of new engines, shafts, propellers, gears and an integrated control system. The claim, launched by the shipyard, was for about 30% of the base contract price. Fisher Maritime analyzed the claim, prepared a rebuttal, and presented our analyses in state court. In the end, the court awarded the shipyard less than 1%, and the owner retained liquidated damages. Fisher Maritime's work was key to the success of the defense, both in the form of prepared reports and presented testimony. A FORMER DIRECTOR of a shipbuilding company was sued personally by a vessel owner for nearly $3.5 million for alleged extra construction costs to complete a vessel after the shipyard had entered into bankruptcy, defaulting on a ship building contract which had not been fully performed. The vessel was completed at another yard. Fisher Maritime reviewed and analyzed the contract and files, prepared an expert report and testified at trial. The analysis indicated that the extra costs were due to owner-directed changes, not part of the basic contract. The federal court's decision was in total support of our client who was found not liable for any of the alleged additional construction costs. A MAJOR PROPULSION system manufacturer supplied a considerable amount of owner-furnished equipment for inclusion in a large vessel. The shipyard encountered significant delays and cost overruns, alleging that about half of those extra costs and delays were due to problems created by the ship owner's propulsion system vendor. Fisher Maritime was retained by the vendor to defend its actions, the quality of its equipment, and the completeness of the services provided in association with the equipment. Fisher Maritime rebutted those portions of the shipyard's claim that the ship owner was attempting to pass through to the vendor. Fisher Maritime also developed the vendor's limited counter-claim. By its active participation in a mediated settlement, Fisher Maritime was able to convince all parties to let the propulsion system vendor depart from the fracas without making any payments to the owner or the shipyard. A SUPPLIER retained Fisher Maritime's services to rebut a multi-million dollar claim. A shipyear had encountered significant problems applying coatings to a series of several ships. The need to remove or repair and recoat a significant percentage of the coatings on the hulls, decks and bulkheads led the shipyard to assert a claim against the coating supplier, alleging the coating materials were defective products. Fisher Maritime's report identified the application of coatings onto steel that was colder than the air as a major cause of repeated occurrences of amine blush. Other sources of failures, in addition to temperature-related ones, were insufficient curing time between successive applications, and too much application to overcome shadowed areas. The matter was resolved by a negotiated settlement reflecting the shipyard's almost-complete withdrawal of its claim. Liability Analysis Recent Experience FISHER MARITIME has been providing analyses and expert witness services to both defendants and plaintiffs in product liability issues since 1976. The book, "Maritime Product Liability" was developed by Fisher Maritime. Our experience is unsurpassed. If your organization finds itself defending or asserting maritime product liability issues, Fisher Maritime is the source of expertise needed to achieve your objectives in such matters. Over the past several years Fisher Maritime has been asked to assist in personal injury litigation involving safety devices that could not be tested. In each instance, an injury appears to have resulted because the user of the equipment could not verify that the safety device was inoperable at the time the user relied on that device's integrity. Here are some examples. A CRANE MALFUNCTION: A shipboard pedestal crane malfunctioned when the ship came to a northeast US port after departing South America in February. As a result of a short-circuit caused by condensation within the control cabinet, the operator could not stop the crane from slewing when it was activated in the US port. A personal injury and shipboard damage resulted because the limit switches were inoperable. The crux of the problem was that the limit switches could not be independently tested prior to crane operation. The crane manufacturer's operating manual dissuaded the crew from testing the limit switches by specifically stating that such testing may result in damage to the crane. Thus, at perhaps the only time in the crane's lifetime that the limit switches were vital to safety, they did not function. AN OUTBOARD MOTOR: A second example focuses on a pull-start outboard motor. A safety feature is that it cannot be started in gear -- only in neutral. The operator's manual cautions the user to not try to start the motor in gear -- in other words, do not verify that the safety feature is operable. A severe personal injury resulted when an operator inadvertently started the motor in gear -- which occurred because the safety device had previously failed. But according to the operator's manual and the design of the motor, there was no way a user could have determined that the safety feature had failed without having the outboard motor stripped down by a qualified technician. A CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTOR: An overnight stay aboard a small boat ended in asphyxiation by onboard generator exhaust. Fisher Maritime's analyses uncovered deficiencies in design, construction, and maintenance that led to the casualty. Our experts focused on the generator exhaust system, the electrical systems, the generator high-exhaust-temperature shutdown, the carbon monoxide detector, and the permeability of the machinery space bulkheads. Most of our work pertains to contract preparation and management for ship construction, conversion and repair. Fisher Maritime Consulting Group