I. Introduction

The construction industry has always had a special need for effective

mechanisms to resolve disputes promptly. Over 100 years ago the

industry developed a two-step process for resolving disputes at the

project site: Whenever a problem arose that the parties could not resolve

themselves, the project architect or engineer (A/E) would make an

objective nonbinding ruling. If that ruling did not resolve the problem,

the parties could refer the issue to a relatively informal ad hoc arbitration

process to obtain a binding decision.

This approach served the industry reasonably well when used to

resolve single-issue disputes shortly after they arose. Over time,

however, decisions by the A/E ceased to be given the weight that they

had traditionally been accorded. Also, arbitration involving large

construction projects tended to become more formal and complex, with

the parties accumulating their disputes over the course of construction for

a massive arbitration at the end of the project.

The desire for a quicker “real time” resolution of construction

disputes led to the development of the dispute review board (DRB) in the

United States and the adjudication process in England. This chapter

looks at both processes and evaluates their relative strengths and

weaknesses.