MAUT-Based Dispute Resolution Selection Model Prototype for International Construction Projects

Disputes are common in international projects because of contractual, cultural, and legal factors. The dispute resolution methods currently adopted in international projects are varying, including litigation, arbitration, adjudication, mediation, expert-determination, dispute resolution board, and minitrial. The problem in question is on how to select the most appropriate resolution method that can fit nicely in the nature of the dispute and the disputing parties’ needs. A dispute resolution selection prototype (Model) based on the analytical hierarchy process and multiattribute utility technique (MAUT) is presented in this paper. The Model developed consists of five components: Selection factors, dispute resolution methods, utility factors, relative importance weightings, and user’s preferred weightings. These were based on the quantitative data provided by 41 experts in the field, who were barristers, arbitrators, mediators, and project managers. The Model is considered beneficial to the industry, as it provides construction professionals with a systematic and objective approach in the management of international project disputes.     

Adjudication outside Construction, Adjudication for Consumer Disputes

Adjudication is increasingly seen as the preferred means of resolving many construction and consumer disputes. As one party in dispute observed in a personal communication to the writer “It is a forum to finally express my woes. One can often feel helpless . . . in this situation and the process of adjudication has proved cathartic.” However, the differences between construction adjudication and consumer adjudication are not often understood or appreciated. This paper, first, explores some of those differences using, as an illustration of consumer adjudication, the Communications and Internet Services Scheme (CISAS) administered by IDRS Ltd. for the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and approved by the Office of Communication which is the regulator for the U.K. telecommunications and Internet industry. Second, it looks forward to how the advantages of both may be combined to produce more effective dispute resolution with consistently high standards for resolving differences between parties, ensuring disputes are always effectively and efficiently investigated while streamlining procedures so that they are easy to use, transparent, and cost effective.     

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.     

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.     

Construction Adjudication in the United Kingdom: Past, Present, and Future

Adjudication was enacted in the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act (1996) as a means of improving payment practices in the U.K. construction industry. It is a statutory right that can be invoked unilaterally at any time on a construction contract that is in writing and is a quick (28?days) and usually inexpensive alternative to arbitration or litigation covering all manner of disputes. Construction adjudication has developed from zero in 1998 to 2,000 cases in the year 2002 reducing to about 1,500 cases per annum currently. Construction adjudication produces a decision that is “temporarily binding” and will be enforced by the courts until the substantive issues in dispute are resolved by litigation, arbitration, or agreement. The principles of natural justice apply but the courts apply them pragmatically because of the statutory time scales. The adjudicator may get the decision wrong. The courts will still enforce the Decision. A dispute must exist for adjudication to be invoked. A governmental review of the Act has resulted in recommendations including extending adjudication to oral contracts.     

Dispute Resolution in the Construction Industry in Ireland: A Move to Adjudication?

Dispute resolution in the construction industry in Ireland is about to change radically with the introduction of the new Public Works forms of contract. Traditionally, Ireland has had an image of being able to resolve disputes by the use of informal channels and recourse to formal dispute resolution was seen as something to be avoided. Will this now change? This paper reviews the forms of dispute resolution which have traditionally been used in Ireland and details the new form of dispute resolution which is to be introduced. The new form of dispute resolution is unique and does not fit easily into any standard dispute resolution category. How will this dispute resolution procedure operate in practice and how will it affect the ability of parties to resolve disputes? This paper intends to provide an insight into the answers to these questions.     

Insight into Resolving Construction Disputes by Mediation/Adjudication in Hong Kong

Resolving construction disputes using an adversarial approach is considered to be in opposition of the maintenance of a harmonious relationship between two parties. The modern arbitration process may emulate the litigation proceeding leading to delay and cost escalation. During the past decade, the Hong Kong Government has implemented a mediation clause as an alternative mode for settlement of construction disputes. In this paper, the experience and insight into resolving construction disputes by integrating mediation and then arbitration in Hong Kong are highlighted. The state-of-the-art modern mediation process and its philosophical origins are reviewed. The shortcomings of the present system are pinpointed. The success of the adjudication now practiced in the United Kingdom may suggest that there is a place for another process of dispute resolution, which may help improve the situation. The prospect of the proposed mediation/adjudication and then arbitration mechanism is discussed with particular reference to the construction industry in Hong Kong.     

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.     

Perspective from the United States: Tensions between “Getting It Done” and “Getting It Right”

For over 2 decades, and in response to complaints that arbitration was too expensive and too time consuming, the American construction bar has been energetic and innovative in developing a broad array of dispute resolution tools for resolving construction disputes. These “tools” have included “partnering,” mandatory negotiations, interim decision making by design professionals, mediation, standing neutrals and dispute resolution boards, minitrials, early neutral evaluation, and expert determinations, all developed as alternatives to arbitration and litigation. More recently, in 2006, a voluntary “fast track” process for resolving construction disputes within 100?days has been proffered by the CPR Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution. Yet, there are certain dynamics or “tensions” inherent within, and associated with, all construction disputes that continue to resist efforts to speed up dispute resolution processes; these tensions must be reconciled or taken into account before any fast track or “adjudication”-type process will be generally accepted in the United States construction industry. Thus, for now and in the foreseeable future, there will continue to be a smorgasbord of dispute resolution processes for resolution of construction disputes. This is a good thing, because parties to construction disputes come with a great variety of appetites and needs. The focus of attention should be, not so much on development of the ideal or best dispute resolution tool, but having a willingness to select the “best tool for the job,” after the nature of the dispute is known.     

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.     

Alternative Dispute Resolution Techniques: Design Professional's Perspective

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) techniques offer members of the design‐construct community the opportunity to resolve disputes without having to resort to expensive and lengthy litigation. Disputes inevitably arise because elements of the design‐construct process, such as contracts, specifications, and personnel, are not perfect. Even with a qualified project team that is dedicated to the construction of a quality project, some disputes will occur. Knowing this, a project team's primary objective should be to anticipate circumstances which might generate a dispute and to develop proactive strategies for dealing with such circumstances. When a dispute does occur, internal negotiation should be tried first. This process involves decision makers—those involved financially and those who understand the ultimate impacts of the dispute on the quality and long‐term success of the project. Lawyers should not actively participate in internal negotiation except as a last resort. If this process does not generate a settlement, mediation and arbitration should be tried before commencing litigation proceedings. ADR is an approach to dispute resolution that may be less expensive and time‐consuming, and is more likely to yield “win‐win” settlements than other dispute resolution techniques.     

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.     

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.     

Progress of Statutory Adjudication as a Means of Resolving Disputes in Construction in the United Kingdom

This paper reports on a longitudinal study on the progress of statutory adjudication in the United Kingdom since its commencement in 1998. This study was carried out by the Adjudication Reporting Centre at Glasgow Caledonian University and it considers the statistical data provided by both Adjudicator Nominating Bodies and adjudicators themselves. Various trends are shown and reasons explored. These trends include the growth in adjudication referrals, numbers of adjudicators, causes of disputes, sums of money in dispute, seasonal trends, monitoring of adjudicators’ performance, procedures adopted, time limits, fees, etc. There is evidence that the disputes, while still predominantly about payment and valuation issues, are becoming larger and more complex. The impact of statutory adjudication on other forms of dispute resolution is considered.     

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: Singapore Perspective

Adjudication was introduced into Singapore under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act of 2004. The Singapore regime is the seventh of its kind, taking after the precedent regimes in the United Kingdom, Australia (in the states of New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, and Western Australia), and New Zealand. The adjudication regime in Singapore most closely resembles the regime in New South Wales under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act of 1999. Based on the statistics currently available, it would appear that the Singapore regime has enjoyed some success thus far in achieving its policy objectives of expediting payment and improving cash flow within the construction industry. There is some indication that this has been due to a positive change in the underlying mindset towards payment in the construction industry. Nevertheless, it remains to be seen whether this success can be sustained and improved upon. This may have wider implications including a possible reduction in the use of litigation and arbitration proceedings for resolving construction payment disputes in Singapore.     

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.     

Global Legal Issues for Engineers and Constructors

When performing engineering and construction (E&C) throughout the world E&C personnel need to be aware of the differences in legal systems and how contracts are enforced in different countries. This paper provides information on some of the international legal conventions, regional legal issues, and comparative legal systems. Next the paper addresses international engineering and construction contracts by providing a discussion on the clauses that could differ in contracts throughout the world and which clauses are important to include in international contracts. Specific contract clauses are examined in relation to how their inclusion or exclusion might impact global engineering and construction projects. The next section presents issues related to claims and change orders along with a brief discussion of dispute resolution techniques including international arbitration and contract clauses related to dispute resolution techniques. Anticorruption legislation is mentioned along with kidnapping and ransom insurance because both of these issues are increasing in importance in the global E&C arena. Liability issues that firms might face in the global E&C marketplace are explained along with risks associated with currency valuations and local labor conditions. A table of clauses pertinent to global E&C contracts is provided to help firms prepare for projects in foreign nations.     

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.     

Case for Expanding the Claim Dispute Resolution Training of TxDOT Personnel

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) currently uses general alternative dispute resolution and dispute management tactics to resolve construction claims. The successful application by TxDOT of project partnering methods, critical path management, and the Contract Claims Committee has resulted in a relatively low number of claims filed. However, one weakness in TxDOT’s current methodology is the lack of specific protocol for project-level personnel and administrators. The following survey of TxDOT dispute resolution methods emphasizes the importance of developing a personnel training catalog for Area Engineers in order to avoid costly claim dispute escalation. As the individual primarily responsible for resolving project and district-level disputes, the Area Engineer should be equipped with dispute resolution training if TxDOT wishes to improve the efficiency of its alternative dispute resolution protocol.