Case Study: Comparison Study Between Dispute Adjudication Boards and Arbitrations for Construction Contract Resolution
Year: 2025
Type: conference-paper
Abstract: The construction Industry is a sector vulnerable to disputes in terms of parties not being able to reach agreements. Collaboration between parties (client, contractor, subcontractors) is altered when a conflict arises and threatens to disturb relations, schedules and even the project itself. Typical methods to solve unresolved disputes involve arbitrations and court litigation, however, both options present conditions that take time and cost from both parties. Managing dispute resolution methods in construction contracts is crucial to avoid delays and ensure the work completion within the scheduled timeframe. This paper investigates the implementation and effectiveness of Dispute Arbitration Boards (DABs) in construction projects for the 2019 Pan American Games in Lima, Peru. In the Peruvian case study presented in this paper, the role of arbitration stands out as a conventional mechanism for resolving disputes, although its use may result in work being halted until the dispute is resolved. Statistical analysis of the present case study compares the use of DB and arbitration in two fronts: numer of claims presented in each dispute and the time it took for resolution. The study provides practical insights into the benefits and limitations of DABs in resolving disputes effectively, with implications for global construction practices.
Source: CIB Conferences
Institution: Purdue University West Lafayette
Language: English
Field: Decision Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W4411472500