In 1981-82 a Northwest A-E (architecture and engineering) firm was providing design services for renovations and additions to a Regional Medical Center (RMC) in Idaho. The RMC board of directors and its construction manager expressed dissatisfaction with the timing and quality of the services provided, and the medical center board refused to make payments for contracted services that had been performed and invoiced by the A-E firm.

Albert Russell, a junior project manager with the A-E firm, researched and reviewed project records, reconstructed an historic sequence of events, wrote correspondence related to the dispute, and generally prepared the firm to defend its claim to the unpaid fees. The reconstructed records strengthened the firm’s position by highlighting both the efforts of the A-E and untimely delivery of important information by the RMC. Through subsequent negotiations, the A-E firm recovered $400,000 in fees.

In the late 1980’s a Northwest city school district employed a prominent structural engineering firm to conduct a study of its 300 buildings to assess each structure’s ability to withstand an earthquake of a magnitude expected in the area. The study ranked the buildings from safest to least safe. The subject neighborhood school was ranked among the very least safe, and the school district used this information to schedule the closure of this popular facility. A group of parents and teachers organized to try to have the closure decision reversed.

Albert Russell, an architect and one of the parents, obtained a copy of the study and, through records research, determined that the subject school, although ranked among the least safe, was actually a twin of two schools that were ranked most safe. All three schools had been built at the same time from the same plans and materials and on sites that had similar soil characteristics. Only the paint and decoration on the exterior were different. In fact, as the structural engineer had noted in ranking the twin schools among the safest, the type of construction found in the building is one that is inherently safer than that found in most other buildings in the district. This research strengthened the argument that the popular neighborhood school should not be closed for earthquake safety reasons. The school district subsequently closed the school but then cited different reasons.

An attorney representing a Massachusetts regional school district contacted a well known Vermont architecture firm for a peer review of construction documents for the district’s new middle school. The project was out to bid at the time of the review. Albert Russell, lead architect for the peer review firm, conducted the review process that highlighted numerous inconsistencies and gaps in the construction documents, and these were then corrected by addenda issued during the bidding period, avoiding expensive change orders. The review also exposed a major design deficiency in the building’s exit system at a time when corrective conditions could be negotiated with authorities having jurisdiction over the project.

An attorney representing a Maine public school district contacted a well known Vermont architecture firm for an independent review of many issues that remained unresolved after three years of post-construction discussions with the architect and contractor who had completed the district’s new, 120,000 SF high school. Albert Russell conducted the independent review for the Vermont architecture firm and, in collaboration with a Maine engineering firm, validated many of the school district’s concerns through document research and by citing code and ADA requirements, industry standards, and matters of professional standard of care. Mediation progressed to agreement on most issues and reached a monetary settlement on outstanding issues. The reviewer’s knowledge of the design and construction processes and applicable standards measurably strengthened the school district’s position in this mediation that initially approached $1 million in the value of disputed items. The reviewer recommended against pursuing claims that appeared unreasonable and also helped guide the original architect in developing effective solutions to design problems.