Operational Mechanisms and Effectiveness of Adjudication as a Key Step in Construction Dispute Resolution

Abstract

Construction contract conditions that address the administration of claims and disputes are nowadays expected to be designed following a multistep approach. Adjudication, among other alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods, has long been used as a step in the mechanisms stipulated in three widely used standard contract forms: the Joint Contracts Tribunal, the New Engineering Contract, and the International Federation of Consulting Engineers. The objectives of this paper were (1) examining the operational stipulations adopted for the incorporation of this ADR method in each of these forms and (2) investigating the factors and trends that have been governing the implementation of adjudication in practice. The research methodology includes a thorough comparative review of adjudication’s requirements and conditions prescribed in the standard contract forms. It further involved carrying out an analysis of historical data dealing with adjudication in the United Kingdom over the last two decades. The collected data, available in the form of annual reports were published initially by the UK-wide Adjudication Reporting Centre (ARC) at Glasgow Caledonian University (starting in 1999) and later by the Adjudication Society (starting in 2012). The structuring and analysis of these data (inclusive of those furnished in the 2017 annual report) allowed for meaningful inferences as to the practices and outcomes of adjudication during the last 20 years. The findings revealed several indications supporting the acceptance and effectiveness of this ADR technique. To this end, major trends, as well as shifts, were either deduced or clearly highlighted. These were in relation to a number of operational factors, including the membership of adjudication boards, the timing of referral to adjudication, the procedures and steps followed in conducting the adjudication proceedings, and the like.