Partnering: Partnering is an attempt to head off disputes before they become problems. Typical public works construction projects that are awarded to the low bidder often breed adversarial relationships between the owner and the contractor. This occurs because the contractor has bid the project, often without a lot of time to really become familiar with the project. If the contractor believes their bid to have been too low, they may look for opportunities to increase their profit margin by requesting payment through change orders. In addition, a low bid situation is really a forced marriage between the contractor and the owner and communications may suffer.
In partnering, the owner, contractor, designer, and any other key parties get together for a retreat, perhaps a half-day or full day prior to the start of the work to discuss the protocols they will use to communicate with one another. They identify potential risks and problems with the project and how they plan to mitigate against those risks, all in a spirit of cooperation. It’s much easier to try to “partner” with the other parties before tensions rise and relationships become frayed. The hope is that in partnering, relationships will be established to such a degree that it will help the parties to successfully navigate through the project. Usually, a professional facilitator is hired for the partnering session to help the parties identify issues and discuss communications. At the end of the retreat, the participants, which includes key individuals from each party, sign a joint document describing how they will communicate with one another in a spirit of cooperation. This document isn’t contractually binding, but represents their good faith intentions.
Disputes Review Board: Typically used for larger projects, a Disputes Review Board is used during the project to help informally adjudicate disputes between the contractor and owner. If the Board includes three members (typical), one member is appointed by the owner, one by the contractor, and the third member is jointly appointed by the other two members. During the course of construction, the Board members meet somewhat regularly on the job site to review the progress of the project and to become familiar with brewing issues. If a dispute arises, the Board hears from both sides and makes a decision. It is most effective if the parties have agreed that the decision of the Disputes Review Board will be binding. This helps from keeping issues from moving onto more serious forms of dispute resolution, such as court.
Mediation: Through the use of a third party mediator who helps the parties understand the position of the other party, the parties in a dispute are often able to agree to a resolution of the dispute. The mediator is an impartial third party chosen by both parties to the dispute. The mediator helps each party understand the position of the other party, makes recommendations, and the parties ultimately decide whether they can agree to a resolution of the dispute. Mediation is an informal, non-binding tool to bring both parties to the table with an impartial third party and try to move forward toward a resolution.
Lawsuit: This is a step to avoid if possible. It can be very costly and may not be worth it financially if the dollar amount of the dispute is smaller (less than the amount of attorneys fees for the lawsuit).
2 comments:
Mike, I'm a silent subscriber to your blog and enjoyed your most recent post about dispute resolution options. You did a little bit of a better job summarizing this information than we did on our construction law blog http://blog.wolfelaw.com! We just got finished publishing a 3-part article series on ADR (separated into ADR options, pre-contract steps to elect ADR, post-contract election of ADR).
Your ADR overview was a great overview of the tools available to the construction market. Keep up the good work.
Thanks for your comments. It looks like you have a lot of good resources on your blog.
Post a Comment