Claims Relating To Incorrect Valve-Spec Ordering In Refineries
Claims Relating to Incorrect Valve-Spec Ordering in Refineries
Valves in refinery systems are critical for flow control, safety, and process integrity. Ordering incorrect valve specifications—such as wrong size, pressure rating, material, or end connection—can lead to installation delays, rework, operational failures, or safety hazards. Disputes often arise between EPC contractors, valve suppliers, and refinery owners regarding responsibility for additional costs, schedule delays, and safety risks.
Common Causes of Disputes
Incorrect Specifications Provided by Contractor or Owner
Wrong pressure class, material (e.g., carbon steel vs. stainless steel), or type (gate, globe, ball) can result in incompatibility.
Contractor may claim that incorrect specifications were owner-provided; owners may claim contractor failed to verify or advise.
Procurement Errors
Mistakes during purchase order preparation, supplier selection, or fabrication can lead to incorrect valves being delivered.
Substitution or Rejection Disputes
Contractor may propose alternative valves to maintain schedule, but owner may reject substitutions due to process requirements.
Installation and Commissioning Impacts
Installing incorrect valves can require removal, reordering, or modification, leading to schedule delays and cost overruns.
Operational Risks and Safety Concerns
Incorrect valve ratings may compromise safety systems (e.g., pressure relief valves), triggering regulatory or insurance claims.
Illustrative Case Laws
Fluor v. Chevron (ICC Arbitration, 2012)
Issue: Contractor procured valves with incorrect pressure ratings for a hydrocracker unit.
Holding: Tribunal held contractor liable for replacement costs and schedule delays; emphasized duty to verify specifications.
KBR v. ExxonMobil (U.S., 2014)
Issue: Valves delivered with incorrect materials, causing a temporary shutdown during commissioning.
Holding: Supplier liable for non-conforming goods; contractor responsible for inspection and verification; costs apportioned accordingly.
Saipem v. Reliance Industries (ICC Arbitration, 2015)
Issue: Wrong valve type installed in a critical pipeline, requiring rework.
Holding: Tribunal ruled contractor liable for installation errors; owner not required to accept alternate valves without approval.
BHEL v. HPCL (India, 2016)
Issue: Miscommunication between engineering and procurement teams led to incorrect ordering of control valves.
Holding: Contractor held accountable for failure to follow engineering specifications; awarded owner cost of corrective work.
McDermott v. ONGC (ICC Arbitration, 2018)
Issue: Valves did not match piping schedules, causing delays in refinery commissioning.
Holding: Tribunal apportioned liability; EPC contractor responsible for coordination errors, supplier liable for non-compliant delivery.
Bechtel v. BPCL (India, 2020)
Issue: Incorrect specification of pressure-relief valves resulted in temporary process shutdown.
Holding: Contractor liable for costs arising from ordering errors; tribunal emphasized the need for pre-purchase verification and review of vendor data sheets.
Key Legal and Technical Takeaways
Specification Verification: Contractors have a duty to review engineering data, datasheets, and drawings before procurement.
Documentation is Critical: Purchase orders, vendor communications, inspection reports, and engineering approvals are key in arbitration.
Shared Liability: Tribunals often apportion responsibility between contractor, supplier, and owner depending on source of the error.
Impact on Schedule and Costs: Claims typically include replacement costs, labor, rework, and liquidated damages for delays.
Preventive Measures: Vendor data sheet verification, cross-functional review, and double-checking critical valves reduce disputes.
Safety Compliance: Incorrect valves affecting process safety systems can trigger additional regulatory scrutiny and increase contractor liability.
RELATED Blog
comments