Giovanni Di Folco

Techno Engineering & Associates Group and GDF ADR Solutions

Bucharest www.technoeng.com

giovanni.difolco@technoeng.com Tel: +40 743 046 910

Biography

Giovanni Di Folco is the president of Techno Engineering & Associates Group and GDF ADR Solutions, both international techno-legal consulting engineering firms specialising in integrated contract management, claims and dispute avoidance and resolution internationally, with particular experience representing clients in international adjudication, arbitration and litigation. He is a civil engineer, adjudicator, arbitrator and an expert witness in delay and quantum, and a legal arbitration practitioner and counsel, with more than 30 years’ experience of managing multidisciplinary civil engineering projects around the world and resolving disputes.

Personally, as a seasoned civil engineer with a legal background and my encounters with the typical master-servant mindset of many employers / owners, led me on a path in pursuit of more equality, balance and fairness in construction decisions and disputes. Many contractors experience biased decisions and determinations from their employers / owners and their engineers, which can only be resolved by the available dispute resolution procedures and ultimately arbitration, which I consider to be at the pinnacle of the profession.

How has the dynamic between arbitral tribunals and experts changed over the years?

In my experience, arbitral tribunals have evolved in a manner which demonstrates that they take a greater interest in the function of the contract conditions as a whole, when multiple clauses and other relevant contract documents are read in conjunction, as opposed to singling disputes down to a literal meaning of a single clause. I have also seen a progressive improvement in the technical ability of tribunals over recent years, which is likely due to their greater propensity to use experts to assist in their decision-making. What is becoming more popular is the process of “hot-tubbing” where the tribunal’s expert and the respective party experts openly discuss issues, under the tribunal’s questioning, assisting the tribunal’s reasoning and ultimate decisions in the process.

How does your deep expertise in civil engineering enable you to provide creative solutions to clients?

Most disputes involve the technologies of design and construction, innovative developments in their specialities, coupled with the constraints and underestimations at the time of tender. The majority of disputes I have dealt with have involved delay stemming from inadequate or erroneous site data and errors in the employer’s / owner’s design in construction projects, or misleading or ambiguous employer’s requirements in design-build projects. Without an in-depth knowledge of civil engineering, it’s difficult to imagine the range and selection of the various approaches to a technical dispute, which could influence the make or break of a case.

How is AI and technological developments affecting the analyses you conduct? How do you anticipate it will affect analyses moving forward?

AI is in its infancy when it comes to construction, yet other technological advances have developed apace, such as more reliable drone survey techniques and the further development and improvement of specific project management and programming software. I imagine that AI will have a significant importance in the future development of software aids to the construction industry as a whole.

To what extent does the shift towards virtual arbitration influence counsel when it comes to selecting the geography of their arbitrator’s seat?

One of the most important aspects to consider regarding the seat of arbitration is the applicable rules and the likelihood of them being implemented diligently. Virtual arbitrations remove much of the importance of the geographical location of the seat, which generally influences the level of expenses associated with essential attendees and allows more freedom to choose more trusted seats.

What challenges do hybrid hearings present from an impartiality standpoint?

In these recent times, we have experienced both virtual and hybrid hearings, and in terms of impartiality, I don’t consider that hybrid hearings have caused any significant challenges. Naturally, a chosen venue has to be equipped with reliable technology which is fit for the purpose, such as adequate video, sound systems and transcript recording facilities and stable multiple internet connections are essential. Impartiality relies upon the behaviour of individuals, expert witnesses and especially the chair of the tribunal, which would be the case in a virtual or a face-to-face hearing.

What affect does a more interventionalist approach from tribunals have on independent expert work?

A more interventionalist approach gives more opportunity to take advantage of expert evidence in selected disciplines. With a delay dispute, for example, the evidence given by an expert delay analyst would generally encourage a more reliable outcome. The same applies to other disciplines, especially in complex engineering or legal disputes.

As president, co-owner and senior partner, what are your main priorities for the firm’s development over the next five years?

Apart from the continuation of regular scheduled personnel training at all levels, high priority is given to maintain pace with current technology, which enhances the efficiency, accuracy and reliability of case preparation and the ready access to evidence.

Peers and clients say: “He is one of the finest tactical minds I have ever seen” “He is an astute engineer and a skilled advocate, particularly on technical construction issues” “Giovanni is committed to achieving the best results possible for his clients” “He is a master of cross-examination”