$318M
Outside counsel spend YTD
1.8% over plan
$2.4M
Cost per closed environmental matter, type-adjusted
Benchmark $2.1M
$14.1M
Net realized savings, reconciled to payment
4.4% of reviewed · 92% retained after appeals
3.9%
Arbitration cost as % of amount in dispute
Benchmark 3.2% · 11 live arbitrations
7
Matters needing a phase-gate decision
p(overrun) above 0.6
$4.8M
Unresolved FY28 budget gap after modeled actions
Decision due 31 Oct
$41.3M
Proposed month-end accrual
Firm WIP $27.6M + predicted $13.7M
488
Invoices pending review
26 need your decision
Proactive insights
5 new1 action required2 decisionsRanked by expected dollar impact · filtered to your roleAction requiredSettle vs arbitrate. Three JV arbitrations (amount in dispute $45–120M) have legal spend above 4% of the amount in dispute before the hearing; comparable matters settled at 0.62× claim at this stage. Expected avoided cost-to-go $2.1M.
Review 3Decision neededLocal counsel pass-through. Firm X is marking up local counsel in Angola and Nigeria by 18–24% against the at-cost protocol; $1.7M annualized. A covenant letter is drafted.
Open draftProposalAssignment rule candidate. Routing environmental permit matters in the Gulf Coast to Firms Y and Z saves $2.6M/yr at an equal permit-grant rate and 2 months faster.
SimulateProposalFixed-fee candidate. Standard-form offtake and supply agreements show CV 0.20 across 410 units. Quote $24,000 (p60) to the panel.
Build quoteDue 5 OctAccrual. Proposed accrual $41.3M includes $13.7M of predicted unbilled arbitration and permit work. Firm-only accrual last quarter under-stated by 29%.
Review accrualDecision neededFY28 budget. Regulatory matter volume and a scheduled hearing explain $8.1M of an $11.3M variance; modeled actions recover $6.5M; $4.8M remains.
Open scenariosProposalRule retune. OCG-3.1 local counsel at cost is catching 16% of international firm invoices; OCG-10.2 site travel is losing power as narratives change. Draft v2026.2 ready.
Open draft packPanel value curve
Cost per closed environmental matter, type-adjusted, last 24 monthsSame outcome band (permit granted or consent decree within plan in 74–81%) across all seven firms. Firm X is flagged for local-counsel markups.
Ask Spend · "Which firms would you move Firm X's Gulf Coast permit matters to?" → Firms Y and Z have capacity for 15 more matters each this year. Expected saving $2.6M at equal permit-grant rate. Open the simulation.
The write-down is the wrong trophy
Invoice adjustment rate ranks Firm X first; cost to award at equal award ratio ranks it last.Adjustment rate · ignore for firm choice
Firm X
4%
Firm T
6%
Firm Y
7%
Firm U
8%
Cost to award vs cohort · the sort
Firm Y
−11%
Firm U
−4%
Firm T
+2%
Firm X
+27%
Cheapest on the bill, most expensive to award. Firm X runs every arbitration to award with local counsel marked up; Firm Y settles before the hearing at the same award ratio. Open regulatory portfolio.
Executive decisions this week
Each has an owner, a deadline, a baseline and a follow-up date| Decision | Owner | Due | Evidence | Follow-up |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Authorize settlement approach on 3 JV arbitrations Amount in dispute $45–120M; spend above 4% pre-hearing | Head of disputes · JV commercial lead | 9 Oct | Cohort n=42 · 0.62× claim p50 | Award or settlement vs claim |
| Approve routing rule: Gulf Coast permit matters to Firms Y and Z Capacity and conflicts to confirm | Panel owner | 15 Oct | Cohort n=70/96 · p20–p80 shown | Cost per closed matter, 2 quarters |
| Fund or accept the $4.8M FY28 gap After $6.5M of modeled actions | General counsel · CFO | 31 Oct | Variance decomposition | Quarterly reforecast |
Where the money is decided
FY27 YTDAssignment and panel mix$6.1MPhase gates and settle/arbitrate$4.4MInvoice review, realized$14.1MRate, AFA and local-counsel negotiation$2.8M
A recommendation shows its trigger, cohort definition and exclusions, sample size, freshness, uncertainty, the status-quo option, who can approve, what is reversible, and the follow-up measure. A forecast is useful when it changes a decision.