International Construction Dispute Adjudication under International Federation of Consulting Engineers Conditions of Contract and the Dispute Adjudication Board

The role of institutional arbitration has become significantly less commercially viable in the international construction industry as a primary means of dispute resolution because of the uniqueness of the construction process. As a result, the construction industry has developed an innovative form of primary dispute adjudication called the Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB). This paper will show the need for an efficient dispute resolution process because of the globalization of the construction industry. It will focus on the standard contract forms of the Féderation Internationale des Ingénieures-Conseils (International Federation of Consulting Engineers) (FIDIC), which are widely used in international construction projects. The paper will then discuss recent developments in the FIDIC, including the development of the DAB to address the fundamental need for a commercially viable means of construction dispute adjudication.     

Analytical Framework for the Choice of Dispute Resolution Methods in International Construction Projects Based on Risk Factors

International construction projects provide opportunities for developing countries to advance in the global economy and for international construction and design firms to increase their profit and market share. Despite the attractive opportunities that international construction offers, international contractors are faced with many challenges and difficulties when moving into international markets. Many risks are associated with international construction, whether external or project-specific risks. Those risks affect how contract clauses are written, including the dispute resolution clause. This paper discusses the different dispute resolution methods employed in international construction contracts and develops an analytical framework (DRM-Risk matrix) suggesting the use of specific dispute resolution methods depending on the risks expected in the project. The matrix may eventually help international contractors in the selection of the appropriate dispute resolution method during contract formation depending on the risks involved in a project.     

Lessons Learned from Principled Negotiation in International Construction Projects

Compared with other dispute resolution approaches, negotiation is still the easiest, most efficient, and most time- and cost-saving approach, if conducted appropriately. However, dispute resolution in international construction projects faces many unique challenges. This requires effective negotiation approaches, principles, and strategies. Although principled negotiation has been developed for more than two decades and is widely accepted by academics as an effective approach to solving conflicts and disputes, its applications in industries are still very limited. Practitioners need applicable guidelines and lessons learned. This paper, by reviewing and analyzing the negotiation processes in two international projects, discusses the key challenges facing construction dispute negotiation and the applications and limitations of principled negotiation in dispute resolution.     

Effective Management of Construction Dispute Resolution

The various methods of dispute resolution can be intimidating to the untested and daunting to even those who have experienced them. Yet no matter the method selected, the parties own the process and the result. It is therefore incumbent upon the parties to not only understand the various methods of dispute resolution, but they must also be prepared to manage the selected process to conclusion. This article reviews the various methods of dispute resolution and provides tools that parties can use to manage the selected process to an end result. While not a guarantee of success, these tools sufficiently increase the likelihood of making the selected method of dispute resolution an efficient and cost-effective process.     

Disputes and Dispute Resolution Systems in Sino-Foreign Joint Venture Construction Projects in China

There has been a sharp increase in the number of Sino-Foreign Joint Venture (SFJV) construction projects in the People’s Republic of China since the 1990s. Despite the Chinese Government’s new measures for boosting foreign involvements, entering into the construction market remains problematic for many foreign contractors. One of the problems concerns construction disputes. In light of this, this paper reports a study on disputes and dispute resolution systems in SFJVs. A questionnaire survey of 41 practitioners in the field was carried out. The main purpose was to identify the most common sources of disputes and the most commonly used dispute resolution methods in SFJVs. Results show that the sources of construction disputes can be classified into three categories: contractual, cultural, and legal matters. The most commonly used dispute resolution methods are mediation and arbitration. These findings will give both Chinese and foreign contractors invaluable insights into disputes and dispute resolution systems in SFJV projects.     

Adjudication: Temporary Binding and Tiered Dispute Resolution in Construction and Engineering: Hong Kong Experience

Hong Kong (under the “One Country Two Systems” Policy, Hong Kong, although an administrative region of the PRC operates a separate legal system, whose roots lie in the English common law system) has a justified reputation for being at the forefront of developments in techniques to avoid and resolve disputes in the construction industry. [This is illustrated by the adoption of the UNITRCAL Model Law by the Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance 1996, specific powers given to Arbitral Tribunals under the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 341) including powers to consolidate, and the development of the dispute resolution adviser system. See the genesis, development and future use of the dispute resolution adviser system by Colin J Wall, Hong Kong Society of Construction Law dated November 17, 2004]. However, it has not, to date, seen the widespread adoption of adjudication as a means of resolving disputes. This article examines the history of the use of adjudication in Hong Kong, current trends, and offers some possible reasons for the limited adoption of adjudication.     

Legal Framework for Alternative Dispute Resolution: Examination of the Singapore National Legal System for Arbitration

Effectiveness of any alternative dispute resolution (ADR) method depends on the national legal system to which it is subjected. In Singapore, the increasing growth in the use of ADR methods may be adduced to developments in the Singapore legal environment. This paper reviews the characteristics of the Singapore national legal system for arbitration. It examines how the legal system facilitates effective use of ADR. By its features, the Singapore national legal system ensures parties’ autonomy but deters parties from taking opportunistic advantage of the voluntary nature of ADR. It enables procedural flexibility, and confidentiality of arbitration proceedings. It insulates the arbitration process from intervention from the Singapore courts and from corruption; and it provides maximum judicial support in the arbitral process. Hence, it ensures that disputes can be brought to a conclusion within a reasonable amount of time, at a reasonable cost, as well as preserving business relationships. The Singapore legal system insures the integrity of arbitration and the independence of arbitrators and arbitral institutions by immunity provisions. In addition, the legal system enhances the use of mediation and conciliation in a sequential tier with arbitration by providing a time limit for mediation or conciliation to terminate should they fail to produce a mutually acceptable settlement. In Singapore, the court system is generally known to be efficient; hence, ADR faces the practical challenge of becoming lengthier than court proceedings. The continuing search for and use of expedited arbitration procedures by arbitral institutions such as the Singapore International Arbitration Centre should reduce this challenge. This paper provides useful information on how a national legal system may be designed to support the use of ADR methods and facilitate their effectiveness.     

Dispute Review Boards: Expected Application on Egyptian Large-Scale Construction Projects

The construction industry is heavily affected by the troubles arising out of construction disputes, especially when it comes to large-scale projects, as a direct result of the inherent complexity of such projects. This paper seeks the most suitable dispute-resolution mechanism for large-scale construction projects in Egypt, which is a developing country in the Middle East with an emerging reformed economical policy, a population in excess of 70 million people, and an increasing need for infrastructure and industrial development. This dispute-resolution mechanism was attained through a multistep methodology that (1) started with the study of the Arbitration process in relation to an Egyptian construction project with an initial contract price of 85 million; (2) continued with interviews of five senior experts in the field of construction disputes in Egypt about their views pertaining to the most efficient dispute-resolution methodology for Egyptian megaprojects; (3) developed a tailored questionnaire to assess the perceptions of 35 professionals toward the issue of construction disputes and dispute resolution mechanisms, including DRB; (5) concluded by carrying out a what-if scenario for the arbitration case of the large-scale construction project using DRB instead of arbitration. On basis of the analysis of the methodology, the authors concluded that despite the wide range of current dispute-resolution methodologies, the employment of DRBs in accordance with a set of 13 regulatory guidelines should mitigate the negative effects of disputes in Egyptian large-scale construction projects. Accordingly, this paper is both timely and valuable for all owners, contractors, and professionals who are acquainted with Egyptian megaprojects.     

Cultural Considerations in International Construction Contracts

International construction projects involve multinational participants from different political, legal, economic, and cultural backgrounds. As one of the major issues affecting the management of international construction projects, culture deserves wide research. This paper aims to establish a valid groundwork for further research on the impact of cultural issues on contractual arrangements; conflict causation, and the selection of dispute resolution mechanisms for international construction projects. The paper reviews the characteristics of international construction activities and discusses the cultural context. It sets the research background for disseminating the findings of two surveys, carried out in Hong Kong and in London and Sydney. The study identifies the important features expected for the contract of international construction projects and ascertains their significance to further in-depth research.     

Mediation∕Arbitration: Alternative Dispute Resolution Process

Interest in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) techniques for the construction industry has grown in recent years. Traditional litigation has been criticized on several fronts. The traditional procedures are often cumbersome, expensive, and lengthy. The outcome of litigation is uncertain and often confusing. For certain cases, alternative procedures may be useful in quickly resolving disputes. Sometimes there is no alternative to litigation. Each case is unique, and the appropriate form of dispute resolution mechanism must be established for each project. This paper reviews the process of mediation∕arbitration, and compares that process to other alternative dispute resolution procedures.     

Evolution of Statutory Adjudication as a Form of Dispute Resolution in the U.K. Construction Industry

This paper reports on the rapid growth in the use of this form of dispute resolution and its apparent decline. It considers how this novel form of dispute resolution has changed in nature from its original limited role of providing a speedy and inexpensive process of resolving disputes so that cash could flow in the industry and be of help primarily to those in the lower reaches of the subcontracting chain into a highly developed legal process which has increasingly been utilized for large and contractually complex disputes. Statutory adjudication is still used extensively in the U.K. construction industry as the method of choice to resolve disputes, many of which would previously have gone to court or to arbitration. Data for this study were provided by the Adjudication Reporting Center at Glasgow Caledonian University.     

Quantification of Costs for Dispute Resolution Procedures in the Construction Industry

The extent to which disputes affect the construction industry has been well-documented. There are a plethora of anecdotal stories, and even some data that explain how unresolved conflict can impact project cost, schedule, and quality. In response, many systems and procedures have been developed to address disputes and their resolution within the construction industry. However, no data exist that quantitatively compare these various alternatives and the real costs of resolving a dispute using methods other than litigation. This paper presents a framework for identifying and capturing the transactional costs incurred to resolve disputes throughout the full spectrum of resolution options. Transactional cost data from 46 recently completed construction projects, totaling over $2 billion of total installed costs, confirm that these sums can account for a large portion of the settlement/award amount, the original claim amount, and even the total contract value when using some dispute resolution methods. Furthermore, using dispute trend and cost data, a comprehensive dispute management system based upon the concepts of risk management is proposed, highlighting the overriding objective of promoting dispute avoidance/resolution in the most cost-efficient manner possible.     

Exploring the Potential for Predicting Project Dispute Resolution Satisfaction Using Logistic Regression

The success of a construction project depends on the coordinated efforts of project team members. This is especially crucial when a project is in dispute and hence the achievement of satisfactory project dispute resolution is critical to project success. This proposition has been empirically demonstrated a previous research that studied project dispute resolution satisfaction (DRS) using multivariate discriminant analysis (MDA). This paper reports on a study that builds on that research, with the specific aim of predicting project DRS through the use of logistic regression (LR). In this study, a LR model of project DRS (Model 1) is developed, and then compared with the MDA model. The findings suggest that the LR technique provides a higher hit rate and thus a higher proportion of correct classification. With the wider acceptance of the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods, the effect, on the LR model, of changing the demarcation between adverse and favorable project DRS is also examined. For this examination, another LR model (Model 2) was developed. It is believed that Model 2 may reflect the prevailing sentiment that ADR is viewed as an amicable way to resolve disputes. Both the MDA model and LR models (Model 1 and Model 2) indicated that “design changes” are the root cause of adverse project DRS. Within the scope of the project data, these findings suggest that design changes are not just disruptive to project progress but also a critical cause of 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.     

Exploring the Influence of Contract Governance on Construction Dispute Negotiation

The obligations and rights of the contracting parties are typically set out in the conditions of contract. The attempt to have a “water-proof” contract that caters to all eventualities has turned contracts into management manuals with detailed contractual procedures to deal with, inter alia, performance, changes, payment, approval, and dispute resolution. Contract disputes, therefore, have to be negotiated within the ambits of the contracts. This study revisits the assumption of free negotiation that underpins most conventional negotiation studies, i.e., negotiation is free with rational negotiators who can walk away from the negotiating table at will. Constraints imposed by a contract are collectively described as contract governance. With taxonomies developed through principal component factor analyses for contract governance (CG) and negotiating behaviors (NH), the influence of CG and NH is explored by a Pearson correlation analysis. In general, it was found that dominating and obliging behaviors are mostly influenced by CG while compromising behavior is the least influenced. It was further found that procedural requirements influence all types of negotiators under the Rahim organizational conflict inventory except integrators. This suggests that if negotiators are having concern for both themselves as well as their counterparts, amicable settlement is possible notwithstanding the complex procedural requirements.     

Effectiveness of Dispute Review Boards

A Dispute Review Board (DRB) is a panel of three respected, experienced industry professionals jointly selected by the owner and contractor of a project and established at the beginning of a construction project. It meets regularly at the job site to be briefed on the work, the schedule, and any potential issues in dispute. With the use of DRB growing, a pilot study was undertaken to determine the attitudes of industry members concerning its effectiveness in preventing and contemporaneously resolving disputes.     

Dynamic Conflict Management in Large-Scale Design and Construction Projects

The construction industry plays a major role in both the economy and infrastructure project delivery worldwide. However, one major critical characteristic of the construction industry is the high cost incurred by the resolution of arising conflicts in projects. As a result, project managers are seeking ways to avoid conflicts and resolve them effectively and equitably when they happen. This paper discusses the dynamic nature of conflicts in terms of their evolution and escalation within a project and the interaction between conflicts and dispute avoidance and resolution techniques (DART). The paper also presents the background and development of a conflict management system, entitled the DART Simulator (DART-S). The intent of the DART-S is to provide project managers with a comprehensive and integrated approach to evaluate the impact of a DART implementation on the reduction of conflicts. The simulator was built using a system dynamic modeling within a visual simulation environment. The core of the simulator was developed by using data from literature on the nature of conflicts, dispute resolution processes, and the potential effectiveness of 46 different DART-S on conflict avoidance and resolution. The simulator was then tested and verified with a case study comparing the traditional two-step dispute resolution process with a five-step dispute resolution process. The results of this comparison clearly show that the five-step dispute resolution process is able to decrease the initial number of conflicts of a project, reduce the number of conflicts which may escalate to a higher step in the resolution process, and provide resolutions of conflicts before they reach litigation. By quantifying the amount of conflicts, evaluating the evolution of conflicts, and assessing the impact of DART implementation on conflict escalation, the DART-S provides project managers with an integrated strategy for conflict management.     

Moderating Effect of Equity Sensitivity on Behavior-Outcome Relationships in Construction Dispute Negotiation

This study builds on Adam’s equity theory by examining the moderating effects of equity sensitivity (i.e., a person’s perception of what is equitable or inequitable) on behavior-outcome relationships among negotiators in construction dispute negotiation. First, an equity sensitivity construct is developed. This construct reveals that most construction negotiators are entitleds, also known as “takers,” at the negotiation table. Moderated multiple regression (MMR) is used to test the moderating effects of equity sensitivity. The MMR models affirm that the nature of behavior-outcome relationships varies, depending on the perception of equity. An entitled construction negotiator is found to be a versatile moderator who fosters satisfactory negotiation outcomes. The models show that negotiators are able to predict inequitable responses and to take measures to forestall or deal with different inequitable situations. This study indicates the merit of further study of equity theory in the context of construction dispute negotiation. Future challenges in this area include the examination of the equity restoration responses of negotiators to create an equitable environment.     

Social Network Analysis of Collaborative Ventures for Overseas Construction Projects

As the world construction market becomes more globalized, an increasing number of construction companies, including both large companies (LCs) and small and medium-sized companies (SMCs), have extended their business to the global market. During this process, the number of collaborative ventures to mitigate the burden of entry risks has greatly increased. This study aims to investigate the formation of construction firms’ collaborative networks for performing international projects from both the LC and SMC network perspectives. To this end, 389 real cases of overseas projects executed by Korean firms over the last two decades that involved collaboration were analyzed using social network analysis (SNA) approach. The result showed that LCs and SMCs have different perspectives when pursuing collaborative ventures for overseas construction projects; LCs have a tendency to form large and dense networks, whereas SMCs prefer to maintain long-term and targeted relationships. Moreover, this study showed a series of apparent tendencies in the development of collaboration networks to realize better profit performance under risky project conditions. Through analysis based on real cases, this study validated the applicability of SNA in analyzing the collaboration in the construction domain. More importantly, this study is useful as an aid for developing collaboration strategies to achieve better outcomes while considering the relevant network patterns and their different levels of performance under the assorted network attributes.     

Application of Equity Sensitivity Theory to Problem-Solving Approaches in Construction Dispute Negotiation

This study applies equity sensitivity theory to investigate how the sensitivity of negotiators to perceived equity or inequity varies with their perception of the adoption of problem-solving approaches (PSAs) in negotiation in the construction industry. Drawing upon this theory, we identify three classes of negotiators: benevolents (known as “givers”), equity sensitives, and entitleds (known as “takers”). Our results suggest that most of the negotiators in our sample are entitleds. The study also provides statistical evidence that the perception of the adoption of PSAs appears to be associated with the degree of equity sensitivity of negotiators. For instance, benevolents demonstrate a significantly stronger preference for the adoption of PSAs and are thus able to obtain a higher level of negotiation satisfaction compared to the other types of negotiators. These findings are particularly relevant to the corporate managers of construction organizations, who may want to consider the inherent equity sensitivity traits of their negotiators before sending them to the negotiating table.