Dispute Review Board Research Articles

Optimal Buyer Credit Arrangements for Chinese Procured Dam-building Projects: An Iranian Perspective

Dam-building projects in Iran procured under buyer credit arrangements from foreign providers experience high rates of construction stoppages. An understanding of the financial and technical issues that give rise to problems is needed. This study provides an analysis of internal and external factors impacting Iran's bank-to-bank buyer credit-based dams procurement process. By way of TOWS matrix, optimal strategies in such procurement arrangements are identified. Data supporting the matrix are extracted through focus groups comprised of industry experts. Findings facilitating a better dams procurement process include: 1) formulation of an execution structure comprising comprehensive control, management, and implementation; 2) utilization of an omnibus buyer credit dispute review board involving financial, legal and technical representation; and 3) comprehensive stakeholder participation. Strategies identified are applicable at addressing ongoing challenges regarding off-shore dam project procurement, both from the viewpoint of host country and international provider.

An Assessment of Disputes Resolution Mechanisms in Road Construction Projects in Tanzania

Over the years, Tanzania National Roads Agency (TANROADS) has been facing a number of disputes, some of them ending in judicial courts. The reasons for disputes are partly due to having improper handling of project disputes by TANROADS and contactors as caused by both of them having inexperienced technical staff and in part due to having improper framework or having ineffective guidelines on how to handle such conflicts. To determine the extent of the above problems, it was vital to carry out a study by consulting key stakeholders through interviews in form of questionnaires and by case studies of disputed projects in TANROADS. In this regard, factors that cause disputes in the road construction industry were listed down and grouped into four clusters, namely: technical, contractual obligation, managerial and administrative, country laws and political. The current mechanisms to resolve conflicts in road construction were found to include; amicable settlement, adjudication, mediation, expert determination, neutral evaluation, conciliation, mediation, arbitration and litigation. However, these mechanisms have been inefficient, ineffective and lacking guiding framework to resolve such conflicts. Pursuant to the above, it was recommended that contracting parties need to establish the Dispute Review Board (DRB) similar to that used in UK and USA after signing the contract. Members of DRB shall be appointed by the contracting parties and approved by the National Construction Council (NCC). DRB members will be nominated from areas of specialization such as contract management and administration, engineering, procurement, law and finance. DRB members should have adequate qualification, experience, and technical know – how. It is expected that the Board will assist in resolving the disputes speedily and cost virtually exclusive of the necessity for arbitration or judicial courts. This can be achieved by enabling close communication and friendly settlement encouragement of controversial project related issues at the execution level before they become disputes.

A comprehensive review of disputes prevention and resolution in construction projects

The construction industry is complex, fragmented, dynamic and involves many parties in an adversarial relationship. This makes disputes almost inevitable in any construction project. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive review of the adopted methodologies in resolving disputes that arise in the construction projects. The paper evaluates and classifies the different methods of disputes resolution. A comparison was conducted between the advantages and disadvantages of each method. The paper distinguishes between the traditional method of disputes resolution; litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods such as arbitration, mediation, med/arb, mini-trial and dispute review board. In conclusion there is no best way to solve all kind of disputes in construction projects, however, a general step by step process of how disputes should be addressed is finally presented.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANATOMY OF CONSTRUCTION DISPUTE

The advancement of the construction industry in Indonesia is often not accompanied with adequate infrastructure system, especially in terms of regulations and legal system. The enactment of Law no 80–1999 has contributed to the expansion of construction market by allowing the private sector, including those from overseas, to play bigger roles in the industry. Although strongly acknowledged by stakeholders in the industry, the progress made by the government and the practitioner in the industry to response to the needs for more appropriate actions to cope with this ever increasingly complex system has been very slow. The dynamic of the construction industry in the region has changed the formerly rigid government-dominated construction sector to become an intricate one. The impact of such dynamic in the industry has been apparent. In particular, construction disputes have been experiencing changing in the dynamic of the way the disputes were handled; from the traditional litigation approach toward modern alternative dispute resolution mechanism. While litigation remains the dominant construction dispute resolution mechanism, nonlitigation approaches such as arbitration and dispute review board are beginning to gain recognition in industry. This paper presents a study on the development of anatomy of construction dispute in Indonesia, which will serve as a framework for analyzing the dynamic of construction disputes in Indonesia. Such a framework will help to identify factors affecting construction dispute mechanism, from the initiation of disputes to the resolution. The anatomy is developed based on analysis of construction dispute cases that have been recorded in judicial courts as well as from Indonesian Arbitration Board.

NEC Contracting: Evaluation of the Inclusion of Dispute Review Boards in lieu of Adjudication in the Construction Industry in the United Kingdom

AbstractThe construction industry is renowned for spending vast sums in the resolution of disputes, but never in the prevention. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the New Engineering Contract (NEC) to determine whether or not adjudication has become misaligned with the contract’s objective of promoting effective management. In doing so, the paper examines dispute review boards in order to ascertain if they could be a viable alternative to adjudication. A sequential mixed methodology is adopted including a detailed literature review and eight semistructured interviews, culminating in the circulation and analysis of a questionnaire, to record the significance of the factors identified. The research concludes that the majority of individuals agree that dispute review boards would be more aligned with the NEC. The familiarity of members, the potential to curb rogue behavior of parties, and the proactive nature of the board are flagged as positive features, however the cost aspect requires further invest...

Best Practice in the Training, Appointment, and Remuneration of Members of Dispute Boards for Large Infrastructure Projects

AbstractThis paper reports part of a qualitative study into evolving practice in the implementation of the dispute adjudication board (DAB) construction dispute resolution technique, a variant of the dispute review board (DRB) concept used in the United States and Canada. Data were collected through a focus group interview of 20 highly experienced dispute resolution practitioners from engineering and the law. The group was assembled from members of FIDIC-NET with direct experience of project DABs. The part reported here concerns practice and procedure for establishing DABs. The main findings are that the constitution of DABs is often delayed because of either project owners’ ignorance of the DAB process or deterrence by the cost of the DABs; such owners also tend to insist on appointing DAB members from local engineers and lawyers without sufficient understanding of the DAB process; rates of remuneration of DAB members vary widely; the training provision for DAB membership and advocacy skills is inadequat...

Analysis of Construction Dispute Review Boards

The construction industry has long been burdened with inherent adversarial relationships among the parties and the resulting disputes. Dispute review boards (DRBs) have emerged as alternatives to settle construction-related disputes outside courts. Although DRBs have found support in some quarters of the construction industry, the quantitative assessment of the impact of DRBs has not been adequately addressed. This paper presents the results of a research project undertaken to assess the impact of DRBs on the construction program of a large-scale highway agency. Three dimensions of DRB impact were assessed: (1) influence on project cost and schedule performance, (2) effectiveness of DRBs in preventing and resolving construction disputes, and (3) costs of DRB implementation. The analyses encompass data from approximately 3,000 projects extending over a 10-year period (2000–2009). Quantitative measures of performance were developed and analyzed for each category. Projects that used DRBs faced reduced costs and schedule growth (6.88 and 12.92%, respectively) when compared to non-DRB projects (11.53 and 28.96%). DRBs were also found to be effective in avoiding and settling disputes; the number of arbitration cases reduced consistently after DRB implementation, and DRBs have a success rate of 97% in settling disputes for which DRBs were used. Moreover, costs of DRBs were found to comprise a relatively small fraction (i.e., approximately 0.3%) of total project budgets. It was concluded that DRBs were effective dispute prevention and resolution alternatives with no significant adverse effects on project performance.

Alignment Partnering: A Bridge to ADR Processes?

Partnering is a well-established concept in the construction industry that addresses an old problem: How can a construction project get the collaborative participation of all project stakeholders and keep that collaboration going throughout the life cycle of the project? Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) tools such as mediation, dispute review boards, and arbitration (ADR processes) are other established concepts that address another old problem: When disputes arise on a construction project, how can the parties implement an effective, efficient process to resolve the issue in a timely manner at the project level? Neither approach alone responds to all the conflicts, disputes, and claims that develop on construction projects. For instance, partnering can foster negotiation and agreement among the parties on real-time issue resolution, but ADR Processes may be needed to provide authoritative mechanisms for third-party intervention if the parties have not been able to resolve disputes. The authors advocate that construction projects should design a proactive system that employs a coordinated continuum of processes ranging from collaborative partnering to more prescriptive ADR processes. These processes should not be used in isolation, but instead be part of a more complete project dispute risk management plan for dispute avoidance and resolution.

Feeling Combative? - Let's Dance

The article examines dispute avoidance processes, with a particular focus on analyzing how Dispute Review Boards work, Australia’s history with their use and the role that lawyers, particularly construction lawyers, can and should play in relation to this DAP model.

Alliances and dispute review boards: Best friends or worst enemies?

Dispute review boards (DRBs) are a very popular dispute avoidance process (DAP) used widely around the world as an effective tool for ensuring that the conflicts, which invariably arise during the course of construction projects, do not escalate into disputes. DRBs have enjoyed phenomenal success, with 98% of projects that used a DRB being completed with no outstanding disputes. However, Australia has not been part of the global DRB trend. Instead, Australia has embraced an alternative form of DAP, namely, project alliances. While alliances continue to grow in popularity within Australia, this DAP model remains virtually unknown internationally. This article examines why Australia has not embraced DRBs, and whether this country’s enthusiasm for alliances has been at the expense of DRBs, before considering whether there is room for both models of dispute management.

Alliances and dispute review boards: Best friends or worst enemies?

Alliances and dispute review boards: Best friends or worst enemies?

DRB Enhanced Partnering on the Marquette Interchange: Case Study

Completion of the Marquette Interchange Reconstruction project by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) under budget, ahead of schedule, and with no construction claims at the end of construction was a significant achievement and details of how it was accomplished provide valuable lessons for other public works projects. A standing Dispute Review Board (DRB) ensured that disputes did not linger and affect working relationships, use of partnering ensured effective communication between WisDOT and the contractor, and combining the two by having the DRB chair as an active participant in the partnering effort were identified as being vital to the success of the Core project. This paper describes the contractual establishment of the DRB, the formation and operation of the panel throughout the duration of the project, details of partnering participation requirements and utilization, and then identifies how the two programs were linked by mutual agreement between WisDOT and the prime contractor and...

Dispute review boards: expensive or priceless?

The soft skill of dispute management is often overlooked. Our paper explores the benefits that a dispute review board can bring to a project. Traditional attempts to resolve disputes once they have arisen will be hampered by the parties’ attitudes to each other and the dispute resolver’s ability to understand the specific nature of the project. We explore the growth in use of dispute review boards (DRB)–a small body of experts engaged at the commencement of a project, who become very familiar with the project and who can act as dispute managers. We contrast this model with traditional dispute resolution methods. As well as exploring the benefits that a dispute review board can bring to a project, our paper also discusses the costs associated with it. The paper also discusses practical matters such as how to structure, appoint and engage with a DRB.

APPLICATION OF METADATA MODELING TO DISPUTE REVIEW REPORT MANAGEMENT

Disagreements in construction projects often result in litigation that is both time‐consuming and expensive. A dispute review board (DRB) provides a valuable and proven alternative method of dispute resolution. Currently, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) stores DRB reports in portable document format (PDF) with limited search capability. Improving information retrieval of DRB documents and providing a certain level of integration of DRB reports with relevant but heterogeneous data and documents is the key to enhancing the current FDOT DRB system. This paper presents a web‐based data management framework to improve information management processes of the FDOT DRB system by providing key features such as metadata generation, an integrated review process, a simple issue description, member information management, and versatile information search. The new system not only allows DRB members and FDOT construction engineers to store and retrieve DRB reports but also provides more functionality to process those re‐ports. New functionalities include a structured search based on the metadata of DRB reports, an unstructured search using advanced computer technology, and the integration of DRB reports with other related information for analysis. This type of functionality improves the efficiency and effectiveness of the DRB system. Santrauka Del nesutarimu vykdant statybos projektus dažnai kyla teisminiu ginču, kurie yra brangūs ir trunka ilgai. Vertingas ir praktikoje prigijes alternatyvus ginču sprendimo metodas yra ginču nagrinejimo taryba (GNT). Šiuo metu Floridos transporto departamentas (FTD) yra sukaupes GNT ataskaitas PDF formatu su ribota paieškos galimybe. GNT dokumentu informacijos paieška ir tinkamo lygio GNT ataskaitu integravimas su reikalingais, bet heterogeniniais duomenimis yra esmine prielaida tobulinti dabartine FTD GNT sistema. Straipsnyje pristatoma internetine duomenu valdymo sistema, skirta patobulinti FTD GNT valdymo procesa remiantis šiomis esminemis savybemis: metaduomenu generavimo, integruoto peržiūros proceso, paprasto ginčo aprašymo, dalyvio informacijos valdymo, visapusiškos informacijos paieškos. Naujoji sistema ne tik leidžia FTD BNT nariams saugoti bei rasti GNT ataskaitas, bet ir sudaro galimybes funkcionaliau jas apdoroti. Naujos sistemos funkcijos apima struktūrizuota paieška GNT ataskaitu metaduomenu pagrindu, restruktūri‐zuota paieška naudojant pažangias kompiuteriu technologijas ir GNT ataskaitu integravima su kita susijusia analizuojama informacija. Šios funkcines savybes pagerina GNT sistemos efektyvuma.

To Be or Not to Be—That Is the Question: Is a DRB Right for Your Project?

Dispute review boards (DRBs) have been used on a wide variety of projects both in the United States and abroad. However, this alternative dispute resolution1 methodology has been around for over 3 decades and as of 2006 has been used on over 1,434 projects according to the Dispute Resolution Board Foundation; therefore, now is the time to consider whether the benefits of a DRB outweigh its potential downside. Some DRBs are successful in that all issues have been resolved prior to the close of the project, while others have failed and caused the issues to travel the continuum to litigation and/or arbitration. The writer’s first experience with a DRB was one that failed and the issues continued to both arbitration and litigation at great expense to both the owner and the contractor. The purpose of this paper is to explore the questions that need to be asked to determine whether or not a DRB is right for your project. It will outline the history and development of a DRB as well as its use in the United States and abroad. It will evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of using a DRB to permit a deliberate decision on whether or not a DRB is right for your project.

Analysing dispute mediation cases of infrastructure projects through project life cycle

Regardless of their pattern, construction disputes create additional costs in terms of money and time for both owner and contractor. The Taiwanese Government promulgated the Government Procurement Act (GPA) on 27 May 1998. This Act established a Dispute Mediation System (DMS) to mediate construction disputes involving contractors and the administration and attempted to reduce associated litigation. The DMS resembles the Dispute Review Board (DRB) that was established in the mid 1970s. The DRB is set up at the start of a construction project, and meets regularly at the job site to resolve any disputes as they occur. However, the DMS system does not become active in mediating construction disputes until a specific request is submitted by the contractor. The present study not only introduces this DMS, but also analyses previous dispute mediation cases involving Taiwanese infrastructure projects including dispute patterns, succinct case explanations, and mediation suggestions.

Mediation of Construction Disputes in the United States

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), including partnering, dispute review boards, mediation and arbitration, have become the primary ways of settling construction disputes in the United States. This article describes why mediation is used to resolve disputes and describes what the mediation process looks like. Mediation procedures and techniques may be quite different depending upon the style of the mediator (facilitative or evaluative) and the type of dispute (community or construction) being mediated. An evaluative style of mediation is used for construction disputes in the United States. The article discusses what mediation users want from mediators, the phases of development of ADR in the United States, as well as the costs of mediation. An appendix describes a model of mediation used for community disputes which can become the basis for understanding the evaluative approach to mediation used in construction disputes.

Analysis of Dispute Review Boards Application in U.S. Construction Projects from 1975 to 2007

Since their first successful implementation in 1975, dispute review boards (DRBs) gained popularity as a standing neutral alternative dispute resolution (ADR) technique, and were implemented on a number of high profile construction projects in the United States and worldwide. The purpose of this study is to present a review, trend analysis, and classification of U.S. construction projects that had DRBs for the period of 1975–2007. Thus, a total of 1,042 U.S. construction projects that had DRB as part of their contract provisions are extracted from the Dispute Review Board Foundation database and are analyzed. The results of this study are presented in two major sections. In the first section, results of trend analysis are reported as growth in number of projects with DRB since 1975, as well as the distribution of these projects in terms of construction type (i.e., building, highway, and tunnel), and construction volume category. On the other hand, the second section includes the results of the analysis undertaken to study the mechanics of DRB application in construction projects. In this context, the effectiveness of DRB as a preventive measure against the escalation of conflicts to disputes is first studied. For those projects that had disputes heard by a DRB panel, the data was further analyzed to determine the effectiveness of the DRB as an ADR technique that can help in the resolution of a dispute at the project level without further escalation to arbitration or litigation. The results of the study indicate that DRBs have been successfully implemented in all three construction sectors in the United States. The effectiveness of DRB as a prevention technique was observed on approximately 50% of the 810 projects where no disputes were ever heard through a DRB panel formal hearing. For the remaining 50% of the projects, the effectiveness of DRB as an ADR technique was found to exceed 90% when comparing the number of disputes that were settled due to DRB recommendation to those that were actually heard during a DRB hearing session. Finally, the paper concludes with a set of questions and hypotheses that may be undertaken to explain the recorded observations, and set the way for future research efforts in this area.

Dispute Review Board: Concept and introduction to develeoping countries

Dispute review board (DRB) is an effective alternative dispute resolution method in U.S. construction industry since 1952. Subsequently, this method has implemented in many high profiled projects around the world. However, the concept and procedures of DRB are relatively new in developing countries, namely Malaysia. The paper aims to investigate on the viability of DRB implementation in Malaysian construction industry. Three reputed experts were interviewed, who targeted initially as to their expertise and significant involvements or experiences in dispute resolution. The data analysis was carried out using content analysis approach. The consensus results has confirmed the concepts of DRB and also identified the practicality and barriers of DRB implementation. These qualitative findings have forecasted the trend of DRB practice and created an important insight in dispute resolution for developing countries. It is concluded that an optimistic viable outcome toward DRB has achieved.

Case Study as to the Effectiveness of Dispute Review Boards on the Central Artery/Tunnel Project

The most prevalent use of the dispute review board (DRB) process in the United States to date is the central artery/tunnel project located in Boston. A DRB is a three-member panel jointly chosen by the contractor and owner that is present throughout the course of the contract, and whose responsibility it is to hear disputes contemporaneously with their occurrence. This paper reviews the efficacy of the DRB on the central artery/tunnel project answering such questions as to whether or not (1) there was any discernable bid savings between DRB and non-DRB contracts; (2) the DRB was successful in resolving all disputes prior to contract completion; (3) were there any barriers to the DRB’s effectiveness, concerning bid savings; and (4) the DRB reduced the costs of resolving disputes. The questions are timely and important in an industry that looks for new ways to reduce construction costs and values timely prevention and resolution to disputes.