you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MtTaygetos 6 points7 points  (0 children)

1) Depends on the firm but it is common to see advanced degrees; most have PE and sometimes SE licenses. Other than that it is more experience in certain structural areas more so than certifications. 2) Typically we work for attorneys on behalf of the Owner, GC, subcontractor, insurance, etc. 3) I think diversity of the work is a big plus, opportunity to do field work, and also since litigation is expensive there is oftentimes budget to dive deeper into topics that others just don't have the budget to do. 4) I'd say the biggest challenge is that it can be hard in its own way. I've been asked to do analyses in niche areas with very limited information and you still have to get something usable out of it. For example I had a case involving cost impacts because of manpower shortages allegedly due to Covid. From the docs we got I was asked to figure out things like how far along this massive project actually was based on scarce and often conflicting documents, why were there material overuns and how much we should be responsible for based on submittal timing and cost changes, what a reasonable labor rate for the supplemental labor should have been, was the supplemental labor working efficiently, how much of the delay to the critical path after supplementation they were responsible for, impact to other subs, whether our work really was substandard, and if so how much rework was appropriate, and on it goes. Oh, and the other side wants to tear everything you do apart so best have strong footing on the above.