🎯 NNL Construction Claims Specialist
Job #6788 - Fluor Marine Propulsion
OFFENSIVE (Building Claims) + DEFENSIVE (Evaluating Claims)
Question 1 of 21
Loading...
📋 All 21 Questions - Click to Jump
| # | Question |
|---|
Mock Interview - Practice Your Delivery
Question will appear here
🎬 6 Situational Scenarios
Scenario 1: Sub submits major REA Monday morning
Hours 1-4: Read claim completely. Identify core assertion. Check notice requirements. Assemble team: field ops, project controls, engineering, legal.
Hours 5-8: Site visit if feasible. Interview Fluor staff. Retrieve contemporaneous documentation. Request sub's backup.
Hours 9-24: Conduct entitlement analysis. Build preliminary timeline. Identify additional information needed.
Hours 25-48: Team meeting. Assign tasks. Establish timeline. Draft acknowledgment. Goal: Establish control and analytical path.
Scenario 2: PM needs advice on documenting sub's poor performance
I tell the PM: Document daily in real-time. Capture: baseline schedule/scope, deviations as they occur, causation (sub's actions causing delays), our notice to sub, our mitigation efforts, actual impact on costs and schedule. Create contemporaneous record—photos, daily reports, RFIs, correspondence. This builds the claim package we'll need if performance doesn't improve.
Scenario 3: You disagree with Fluor PM about claim determination
First, ensure I understand PM's perspective—field knowledge might reveal factors I missed. If we still disagree, I document both positions and escalate to mutual supervisor with both perspectives and recommendation. My responsibility is claims analysis integrity, but I can help find alternative solutions while protecting DOE interests.
Scenario 4: Multiple claims arrive same week with conflicting deadlines
Prioritize by: (1) Contractual deadline—missing response deadline can waive rights, (2) Dollar magnitude—$1M+ requires DOE notification, (3) Operational impact—critical path impact jumps priority. Conduct 24-48 hour triage. Categorize: immediate, standard, routine. Document prioritization decisions.
Scenario 5: Contractor threatens to stop work if claim not approved immediately
Respond in writing: Contract requires continued performance during claim evaluation. We're evaluating per contract requirements. Please confirm your intent to continue work. Internally: Notify Fluor leadership and DOE. Assess: legitimate cash flow issue or leverage tactic? Can we make partial payment for undisputed work? Will not approve under duress, but will find legitimate solutions.
Scenario 6: You discover your own mistake in previous claim analysis
Immediately acknowledge and correct. Document: what was the error, what was impact, what is correct analysis. Notify supervisor before anyone else. If under-payment to contractor, recommend immediate correction. If over-payment, assess recovery options. Conduct root cause analysis. Implement corrective action to prevent recurrence. Principle: Integrity matters more than being right.
I bring twenty years of acquisition and program management experience from NATO, DoD, and DCMA, with proven capability in both developing claims and evaluating claims—the dual focus this role requires.
At NATO NC3A from 2002 to 2010, I managed C4ISR acquisition programs requiring both offensive and defensive claims work. When contractors submitted Engineering Change Proposals and Engineering Change Orders, I evaluated their entitlement and quantum. But critically, when those changes were legitimate, I developed the authorization packages—building the technical analysis, cost justification, and schedule impacts—that went before NATO's Investment Committee for approval.
This work required coordinating across technical teams, legal counsel, project controls, and auditors to build defensible packages that could withstand 28-nation oversight. My effectiveness in developing these authorization packages led to my promotion to NATO Headquarters Office of Resources.
At DCMA Portsmouth from 2019 to 2020, I led the 14-person Program Support Team for Navy weapons programs. I documented contractor performance issues for potential claims and termination actions.
From 2020 to 2025, I conducted strategic analysis at RAND Corporation for DoD combatant commands on acquisition strategy and contract risk management. I led acquisition reform workshops analyzing how contract structure and risk allocation affect program outcomes. My doctoral research on narrative effectiveness provides a data-driven framework for building persuasive claim packages.
What I bring to NNL: I can advise Project Teams on what documentation is needed to pursue claims when subs impact us. I can develop the claim packages coordinating technical, legal, and cost analysis. And I can evaluate claims from subs when they arise. That dual capability—building and defending, offensive and defensive—is what this role requires and what I've done for twenty years.
This is what got you promoted and what makes you perfect for this role:
At NC3A, you developed Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) and Engineering Change Order (ECO) documentation packages that went before NATO's Investment Committee (IC) for authorization. This required:
- Building technical justification for changes
- Developing cost analysis and schedule impacts
- Coordinating with legal, engineering, project controls
- Creating authorization packages for approval authorities
- Withstanding 28-nation oversight and audit scrutiny
This is EXACTLY what NNL needs: "leading the development of claims" and "advise Project Team as to documentation required to pursue claims." Your NC3A ECP/ECO work is the perfect experience for this role.
Based on Job Posting #6788, expect these questions:
- OFFENSIVE: Tell us about your experience DEVELOPING/BUILDING claims (not just evaluating them)
- OFFENSIVE: How do you advise Project Teams on documentation needed to PURSUE a claim?
- OFFENSIVE: How do you work with in-house legal counsel when developing claims?
- DEFENSIVE: Walk us through responding to a subcontractor REA
- DEFENSIVE: How do you prioritize multiple claims with conflicting deadlines?
- COMPLIANCE: How do you ensure compliance with policies while meeting tight deadlines?
- COMPLIANCE: What's your experience working with auditors on claims?
- SITE: Job requires regular monthly travel - how does that align with your background?
- FIT: What makes you the right candidate for THIS specific role?
When a delay occurs, ask two questions: (1) Is it EXCUSABLE? (2) Is it COMPENSABLE?
| Category | Who Caused Delay? | Time Extension? | $$$ Compensation? | Examples |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EXCUSABLE + COMPENSABLE | OWNER / GOVERNMENT | ✓ YES | ✓ YES | Late-issued drawings, differing site conditions (Type I), government-directed changes, government delays access to site, defective specifications |
| EXCUSABLE but NOT COMPENSABLE | FORCE MAJEURE / NEITHER PARTY | ✓ YES | ✗ NO | Acts of God, fires, floods, epidemics, strikes, unusually severe weather, freight embargoes, civil unrest |
| NON-EXCUSABLE (Not Compensable) | CONTRACTOR | ✗ NO | ✗ NO | Contractor workforce shortages, contractor equipment breakdown, subcontractor delays, contractor poor planning, underestimating work |
| CONCURRENT DELAYS | BOTH OWNER + CONTRACTOR | PARTIAL | ✗ NO | Both owner and contractor delays occur simultaneously affecting critical path. Requires windows analysis to separate owner-caused days from contractor-caused days. |
Key Definitions
EXCUSABLE: Delay is beyond contractor's control. Contractor not at fault. Entitled to time extension (no liquidated damages).
COMPENSABLE: Delay was caused by owner/government. Contractor entitled to recover increased costs (extended overhead, escalation, acceleration).
Concurrent Delay Doctrine
When BOTH owner and contractor delays affect critical path simultaneously:
- Time Extension: May grant extension for portion attributable to owner (requires windows analysis to separate)
- Money: Generally NO compensation because contractor's own delays prevented them from working even if owner hadn't delayed them
Example: NATO FOC - contractor claimed 180 days government delay. Windows analysis showed government equipment arrived 30 days late in March-April, BUT contractor's site preparation was 45 days behind due to their workforce issues. Even if equipment had arrived on time, contractor wasn't ready to install it. Result: Granted 67-day time extension (owner-caused days on critical path), denied cost compensation due to concurrent contractor delays.
Your NNL Analysis Process (5 Steps)
- Check Notice: Did contractor provide timely written notice per contract? (Usually 20-30 days)
- Identify Causation: Who caused the delay? Owner, contractor, force majeure, or concurrent?
- Determine if Excusable: Is delay beyond contractor's control? If YES → time extension. If NO → no relief.
- Determine if Compensable: Was delay caused by owner? If YES → entitled to costs. If NO → time only (or nothing).
- Verify Contract Clause: Which FAR clause applies? 52.243-4 (Changes), 52.236-2 (DSC), 52.242-17 (Government Delays)
Only if compensable → Move to quantum validation (verify costs using FAR Part 31)
Critical Path Requirement
Delays only matter if they affect the critical path. If delayed activity has float (slack time), it doesn't extend project completion and contractor isn't entitled to time or money. Always verify: Did this delay actually push out the completion date? Use schedule analysis (CPM, fragnets, windows analysis) to prove critical path impact.
Core Requirements for Formal Construction Claim:
- Written Notification (FAR 33.201): Identify what government action caused impact, which contract clause supports entitlement, when impact occurred, general nature of costs. Timing: Within 20-30 days per contract.
- Certified Claim if over $100K (FAR 33.207): Senior official must certify: "I certify that the claim is made in good faith; that the supporting data are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief; that the amount requested accurately reflects the contract adjustment for which the contractor believes the Government is liable; and that I am duly authorized to certify the claim on behalf of the contractor."
- Sum Certain: Must request specific dollar amount, not "TBD".
- Supporting Documentation for Entitlement: Contract documents, correspondence showing government direction, technical documentation, schedule analysis showing delay causation.
- Supporting Documentation for Quantum: Detailed cost breakdown (labor/materials/equipment/overhead/profit), timecards, equipment logs, material invoices, overhead rate calculations, schedule analysis if claiming delay costs.
- Contracting Officer Final Decision: CO must issue decision within 60 days (if under $100K) or 60 days with time estimate (if over $100K). Decision can be appealed to Board of Contract Appeals or Court of Federal Claims.
REA vs Certified Claim Comparison:
| Feature | REA | Certified Claim |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Informal negotiation tool | Formal demand under CDA |
| Certification | Not required | Required if over $100K |
| CO Decision | Not required | Required within 60 days |
| Appeal Rights | None | Yes - ASBCA/CBCA/COFC |
| Flexibility | Can be withdrawn/modified easily | Creates formal record |
Your NNL Role: Evaluate whether sub's claim meets requirements. If documentation deficient, request additional information. Deficiencies weaken sub's position and strengthen Fluor's denial.
FAR Part 31: Contract Cost Principles and Procedures
Governs allowability, allocability, and reasonableness of costs. Three tests for any cost claim:
- Allowable: Not expressly unallowable under FAR 31.205 (e.g., entertainment, bad debts, fines, lobbying)
- Allocable: Properly chargeable to this contract based on benefits received or causal relationship
- Reasonable: Would a prudent businessperson incur these costs under similar circumstances?
Key Sections: 31.201 (Cost Principles), 31.205 (Selected Costs - what's unallowable)
FAR Part 33: Protests, Disputes, and Appeals
Governs Contract Disputes Act (CDA) claims process:
- 33.201: Disputes - contractor must submit written claim to CO
- 33.207: Certification of Claims - required for claims over $100K
- 33.211: Contracting Officer's Decision - CO must issue within 60 days (under $100K) or notify contractor of time needed
- 33.214: Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) - encourages mediation/settlement
Appeal Rights: Contractor can appeal CO decision to Board of Contract Appeals or Court of Federal Claims
FAR Part 43: Contract Modifications
Governs changes to contracts:
- 43.103: Types of contract modifications - bilateral (agreed by both parties) vs unilateral (government directs)
- 43.201: General - CO authority to make changes
- 43.204: Administration - documenting modifications, using proper modification forms
Key Clauses:
- 52.243-1: Changes - Fixed-Price (government can direct changes within general scope)
- 52.243-4: Changes (construction contracts) - covers changes in drawings, specs, method of performance
- 52.243-7: Notification of Changes - contractor must notify CO of changes government directs
FAR 52.236-2: Differing Site Conditions (DSC)
Standard clause in construction contracts covering unforeseen site conditions:
- Type I DSC: Subsurface or latent physical conditions at site differing materially from those indicated in contract
- Type II DSC: Unknown physical conditions at site, of unusual nature, differing materially from those ordinarily encountered
Contractor Obligations: Must provide prompt written notice to CO before conditions disturbed. CO investigates and determines if conditions differ materially and cause increased cost.
FAR 52.242-17: Government Delay of Work
Covers contractor entitlement when government unreasonably delays work:
- Applicability: When government delays issuance of drawings, specs, instructions, or access to site
- Contractor Rights: May be entitled to time extension and compensation for increased costs
- Exclusions: No entitlement if delay within contract allowances, or if contractor caused or concurrent delay exists
FAR 52.249-10: Default (Fixed-Price Construction)
Termination for contractor default on construction contracts:
- Grounds for Default: Failure to complete work within time specified, failure to make progress endangering performance, failure to perform other contract provisions
- Government Rights: Can terminate contract, take over work, charge contractor for excess costs of completion
- Contractor Defenses: Excusable delays (strikes, acts of God, government delays), constructive changes
At NNL: You'll reference these FAR parts constantly. Know which clause applies to which type of claim. Keep FAR Parts 31, 33, and 43 bookmarked.
Operator: Fluor Marine Propulsion, $30B over 10 years
Size: 8,000 employees
Mission: Naval nuclear propulsion - design, build, train since 1946
Facilities:
- Bettis (PA) - Ford Class carriers
- Knolls (NY) - Virginia/Columbia Class subs
- Kesselring (NY), Naval Reactors (ID), NPTU Charleston (SC)
- What's the typical mix between responding to subcontractor claims versus developing claims on behalf of Fluor/NNL?
- How does the claims team coordinate with in-house legal counsel—from the start or hand-off?
- What's the most common type of claim currently—delay, DSC, scope changes?
- What does regular monthly travel typically look like?
- What does success in this role look like in the first year?
- How does claims interface with DOE oversight?