Negotiation — risk moved

ILLUSTRATIVE · SAMPLE DATA

A synthetic negotiation fixture, not the governed record. No figure here is filed, and none of it is aggregated with the filed instruments.

Contract version selector

Compare any two versions. History is preserved, never overwritten.

Before

Current / proposed

Risk position delta

The seven figures a version comparison must answer.

Owner direct $

$3.80M → $1.20M

−$2.60M

Owner days

110 → 95

-15

Owner time $

$1.98M → $1.71M

−$270k

Contractor direct $

$2.70M → $2.45M

−$250k

Contractor days

65 → 65

no movement

Shared $

$0 → $2.00M

+$2.00M

Unallocated / ambiguous count

2 → 2

no movement

Negative means modeled exposure moved away from the owner; positive means it moved toward the owner. Lower is not automatically better — a developer may rationally retain risk for a lower EPC price.

Risk moved in this round

MODELED RISK TRANSFER — negative moved away from the owner, positive moved toward the owner. The event may never occur.

Top risk moves

Movements, ordered by modeled magnitude. Not ranked as wins.

1.Material escalation−$300kowner modeled exposureCOUNTERFACTUAL
2.Utility delay−$270kowner modeled exposureCOUNTERFACTUAL
3.Late completion−$250kowner modeled exposureCOUNTERFACTUAL

Before / proposed / delta

Per allocation. Table D: risk, before, after, Δ days, Δ direct $, Δ time $.

Risk	Before	Current / proposed	Δ days	Δ direct $	Δ time $	Provenance
Utility delay	Owner bears 60 d · $1.08M time $	Owner bears 45 d · $810k time $	-15	$0	−$270k	COUNTERFACTUAL
Late completion	Contractor bears 30 d · no time economics	Contractor bears 30 d · no time economics	0	−$250k	—	COUNTERFACTUAL
Differing site conditions	Owner bears 20 d · $360k time $	Owner bears 20 d · $360k time $	0	−$300k	$0	COUNTERFACTUAL
Material escalation	Owner bears GAP · no time economics	Shared bears GAP · no time economics Escalation band ±5%, then shared 50/50	GAP	−$300k	—	COUNTERFACTUAL
Abnormal weather	Shared bears 8–26 d · $216k time $	Shared bears 8–26 d · $144k time $ Contractor first 10 days, owner thereafter	0	$0	−$72k	COUNTERFACTUAL

Negotiation events in this round

Who proposed what, and which fields moved.

Date	Risk	Proposed by	Changed fields	Δ direct $	Δ time $	Provenance
2026-02-11	utility delay	owner counsel	durationExposure, economicTimeExposure Rev 2 redline, §8.4	—	−$270k	COUNTERFACTUAL
2026-02-14	escalation	contractor counsel	primaryRiskBearer, shared, directCostExposure Rev 2 redline, Exhibit G	−$300k	—	COUNTERFACTUAL
2026-02-16	late completion	contractor counsel	caps, directCostExposure Rev 2 redline, §9.2 (cap 40 → 30 days)	−$250k	—	COUNTERFACTUAL

Open issues against this risk

Drawn from the open-issues register by risk category. A modeled movement and a live argument are different things; both are shown.

No open issue on the register carries a risk category on this version. That is an answer, not an empty block.

Owner modeled exposure over negotiation

How did the owner's risk position move through negotiation? Lower is not automatically better.

Price and retained risk

The bargain is the signed price and the risk retained to get it. Read both columns together.

Version	EPC price	Owner direct risk	Owner days	Owner time $
Bid	$380.00M	$3.80M	110	$1.98M
Rev 2	$365.00M	$1.20M	95	$1.71M
Signed	$354.40M	$1.20M	95	$1.71M

Price fell across the three versions while owner days rose. That is risk transfer accompanying a price reduction, not a saving.