[T]he Tribunal framed a hypothetical question to the experts who had testified on behalf of both Parties. The experts were first asked to assume that all the information disclosed during the hearings as to LBG's knowledge at the time of Contract execution had been disclosed to Samwhan prior to Contract execution. Under that assumption, the experts were asked to calculate the sum that should have been fairly and competitively added to Samwhan's bid to compensate Samwhan for having to perform the contract under the circumstances known to LBG but undisclosed to Samwhan.... [T]he sums of the experts were remarkably close. Samwhan's expert estimated $4.48 million. LBG's expert estimated $3.58 million.
(Award at 88). Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded $4.03 million, the numerical average of the two sums estimated by the respective experts. (Id. at ¶ 88).
(3) where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced; or
(4) where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.
9 U.S.C. §§ 10(a)(3) and (4).
(a) Where there was an evident material miscalculation of figures or an evident material mistake in the description of any person, thing, or property referred to in the award.
(b) Where the arbitrators have awarded upon a matter not submitted to them....
(c) Where the award is imperfect in matter of form not affecting the merits of the controversy.
(i) Samwhan failed to comply with the Contract's dispute resolution provisions and there was, therefore, no agreement to arbitrate these disputes;
(ii) the Tribunal deprived Louis Berger of a fundamentally fair hearing because the issue was not submitted to the Tribunal; and
(iii) the Tribunal imposed its own conception of sound policy.
(Louis Berger's Reply Brief, ECF No. 21 at 32-33). None of these three arguments have any merit.
Already registered ?