Optimizing the More Effective Dispute Techniques in the Contract Phase to Find the Best Dispute Resolution

Abstract

Disputes are inevitable in construction projects and managing them is a considerable problem in project contract management, both for the time delay and for the cost involved. An increase in research to optimize Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods, able to guarantee a rapidly agreed settlement, can suggest lawyers new criteria to early assign in the precontract phase the most appropriate alternative dispute resolution criteria. For this purpose, this research investigates different methods to select the most effective dispute resolution criteria and try to translate in legal contract language the cumulative experience to being inserted as a clause into construction agreement. Other increases in research also occur in bringing the disputing parties together and in suggesting possible solutions to help achieve an agreed settlement during the conciliation steps. The authors analyze the common claims between the parties in construction contracts: delays, changes, unforeseen circumstances, insufficient information, and conflicts. Even though the claims must be properly constituted and documented, and the causes and effects must be clearly demonstrated, the quantification usually overestimates the loss due to inefficient productivity, which is extremely difficult to assess. The authors underline the role of the technical expert as specialized in identifying causes and effects by analyzing contemporaneous records and in verifying additional costs that must be backed up by full supporting documents.