You are on page 1of 15

Disputes Review Board (DRB)

1.0 Dispute Review Boards (DRB): An Overview

Dispute Review Boards are made up of typically one or three experts who can assist
in the management of conflicts and disputes in longer term and large projects. Relatively
unused in Australia they can be a very useful adjunct to the project planner.

Typically, the DRB is established shortly after execution of the contract documents, as
performance of work on the project begins.

A DRB has two basic responsibilities. The first is to become familiar with the project
during construction. This process begins with the Boards review of the plans and
specifications, followed by periodic visits to the project.

During these visits, in addition to viewing the work in progress, the DRB members
meet with the owners and contractors staff at the job site to discuss the progress of the work,
as well as potential issues on the horizon. These activities on the part of the DRB play a
useful role in preventing disputes from arising because the parties are encouraged to clearly
and objectively state their positions. They also provide the DRB with valuable background
information should it need to hear a dispute.

The DRBs second major responsibility is conducting hearings on any disputes


referred to it. At a hearing, which usually is held at the construction site, owner and
contractor representatives who have first-hand knowledge of the issues, are given the
opportunity to present facts, documents, and the rationale in support of their respective
positions. Formal recording of the hearing and participation by lawyers are both relatively
rare. Following the hearing the DRB issues a written recommendation or a decision, setting
forth its analysis and opinion. If one or both parties elect to reject the recommendation, the
issue proceeds to the next stage of dispute resolution under the terms of their agreement.

DRBs were first used about 25 years ago in the USA. Since then they have been used
on over 800 projects, primarily those involving public infrastructure construction. DRBs have
been credited with a 99% success rate.

1.1 DRB Panel and Selection Procedures

Usually DRB Guidelines provide for the owner and the contractor to each nominate a
member to the Panel. Each must approve the others nominee. Then the two part-appointed
members of the DRB nominate the third member, who must also be approved by both the

1
Disputes Review Board (DRB)

owner and the contractor. Unless the parties otherwise agree, the DRB members can be
selected from the AMAs lists of graded arbitrators or accredited mediators.

The principal criteria for selecting the members of a DRB are experience and
neutrality. Experience includes having the technical and professional background necessary
to understand the disciplines involved in the construction contract. It includes experience
with interpreting contract documents and resolving disputes.

Typical Guidelines for DRBs call for a rapid selection process that can be
administered by the IAMA. The IAMA will provide the owner and the contractor with the
names and background information on potential DRB candidates once the process is set in
motion.

Each partys contentions and supporting arguments are usually submitted in writing in
a pre-hearing statement of position. Thus, at a DRB hearing the claiming party makes a
presentation of the facts as it sees them, providing relevant exhibits and documents. This is
followed by the presentation of the responding party. This sequence may be repeated several
times until the issues have been fully to the DRB. The Panel may ask questions during the
presentations or reserve questions until the presentations have been completed.

An authorised representative of each party is usually required at any hearing. Lawyers


and third-party consultants who lack first hand factual knowledge of the dispute may usually
participate only with prior notice, subject to the discretion of the DRB.

The DRBs written recommendation is due two weeks after the conclusion of the
hearing, unless the parties otherwise agree. The Guidelines usually provide that the DRB is
not bound by judicial forum rules of evidence or by the prevailing burden of proof standards,
even though in practice DRBs frequently look to these sources for guidance.

1.2 Three-Party Agreement

A Three-Party Agreement is the usual contractual mechanism establishing the rights


and responsibilities of the contracting parties and the members of the DRB. It details the
scope of work for the Panel, which may develop its own routine operating and hearing
procedures. The owner and contractor have responsibilities to the DRB, which are also set
forth in the Three-Party Agreement. For example, the parties to provide the Panel with plans
and specifications, periodic reports and other information about the project.

2
Disputes Review Board (DRB)

The neutral role of DRB members is supported by provisions on immunity and


indemnification. The contract gives DRB members quasi-judicial immunity for their actions
or decisions associated with the hearing and making recommendations in respect to disputes.

Obligations with respect to compensation and expenses are contained in the Three-
Party Agreement. The owner and contractor share equally the fees and expenses (this could
be changed to joint and several liability if required) of the Panel.

2.0 Disputes Review Board: Literature Review

In year 1952, the concept of dispute review board (DRB) was initiated in the
construction of Central Artery/Tunnel in Boston (Harmon, 2009). The implementation is a
success by means of the usage of DRB in most tunnel construction thereafter. Surprisingly,
DRB concept achieved a track record for itself between the year 1975 and 1985 and the year
after. That is the nature of DRB change itself from the original intended tunnelling project
towards other major heavy civil engineering construction (Mc Killop, 2003). This change
marks the evolution of the DRB.

Research has been conducted in searching for the credibility of DRB and the first ever
manual was published in year 1996 being title as Construction Dispute Review Board
Manual. In the same year, a non-profit organization called as the Dispute Resolution Board
Foundation (DRBF) was established to promote the usage of DRB worldwide and to boost
the confidence in adopting DRB. In year 2007, DRBF published their own Dispute Review
Board Manual which can be seen as the advanced version of the first manual published.

In recent years, DRB were virtually implemented in every construction areas such as
bridges, airports, building cogeneration plants, roadways and etc. in many countries such as
United States, Great Britain, Australia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Vietnam, China and India
(Harmon, 2009). Generally, the context, nature and size of the dispute will influence the
choice of specialist chosen to act for the claimant or respondent and, very probably, the
choice of the method of dispute resolution (Turner, 1999). In Malaysia, contractual parties are
often faced with three kinds of dispute resolution methods (Sundra Rajoo, 2009):

1. Litigation (Formal way as in court)

2. Arbitration (Less rigid procedure but resemble to court)

3. Alternative Dispute Resolution (Informal, Third parties involvement)

3
Disputes Review Board (DRB)

DRB are yet to be utilized in the Malaysian construction industry (Fenn, Davies and
OShea, 1998). It requires DRB members who are selected for their knowledge and technical
expertise in that particular type of project to be constructed and for the employer and
contractor to have complete confidence in the impartiality of the DRB.

One of the most important elements in the effectiveness of a dispute resolution system
is to institute the system at the very beginning of the project and incorporate it into the basic
contract documents. Without prior agreement on a process for dealing with problems and
disputes, it can be difficult, after a disagreement has developed, to get parties to come to
agreement on a method of dispute resolution.

Prior to that, one must have sufficient knowledge on each and every dispute resolution
method available. Thus, the objectives of the study are identifies as: (1) to understand and
explain the concept of DRB ; (2) to determine the practicability of DRB; and (3) to identify
the barriers in implementation of DRB.

The research would render useful information and guide regarding DRB. It could
enhance the project stakeholders awareness and knowledge of the DRB particularly for its
effectiveness as a prevention method from escalating to a higher or more protracted level of
resolutions like arbitration and litigation.

Dispute Review Board is a board of impartial professionals formed at the beginning


of the project to follow construction progress, encourage dispute avoidance, and assist in the
resolution of disputes for the duration of the project. It is a unique, proactive, no adversarial
project management technique utilized during the course of construction to help the
contractual parties in dealing with the conflicts and solving any disputes arise thereon
(Harmon, 2003). DRB was form usually in a three person board from a trusted independent
construction equipped with the experienced and appropriate technical background to address
prevention and resolution of disputes (Pena-Mora, Sosa and Mccone, 2003).

A DRB is typically comprised of a single person, or a panel of three or five members


as required (Mc Killop, 2003). The purpose to keep the odd number is to achieve a majority
decision in case of any decision could not be reached. The member are selected in such
manner that one of the member appointed by the employer and approved by the contractor,
the second member appointed by the contractor and approved by the employer, and a third
member selected by the first two members and approved by both the employer and contractor
(Corgan, Kelleher and Dorris, 2002). The third member usually serves as the chairperson.

4
Disputes Review Board (DRB)

Although members are selected each by both contractor and employer, it should be strongly
emphasized that this does not implied that the members are employed to provide their
services and stand towards their respective owner. They are so selected to implement fairness
into the contract so that initially, faith was there.

This provide DRB a much reliable process as the person dealing with the disputes are
mainly construction experts and are familiar in that particular types of project involved.

DRB comes into existence by agreement of the parties at the commencement of the
project (Pena-Mora, Sosa and Mccone, 2003). In most instances, DRB are incorporated into
the contracts overall dispute resolution mechanism prior to bidding the work (World Bank,
International Federation of Consulting Engineer (FIDIC), International Chamber of
Commerce (ICC), and American Arbitration Association (AAA)). It may refer to as bespoke
contract.

Prior to implement DRB, the Board members are usually selected and approved by
both the employer and contractor soon after the award of the contract as mentioned earlier
and was officially established after the execution of three party agreements (Harmon, 2004).

Utilization of DRB in early stage is preferable before beginning of construction. It


maximizes its benefit and value as the previous experience of the delay in the organization
proved to decrease its effectiveness. If DRB was implemented during the construction
progress, it does make no difference as other ADR as the significant characteristic of DRB
vanished. On the other hand, administrating problem is one of the issues when it is
implemented in preliminary stage. The best stage to begin with usually in the contract award
stage as it standing characteristic of being neutral.

The main contracting parties are sharing the cost to set up DRB equally. According to
Harmon (Harmon, 2009), average cost of setting up DRB range from 0.05% to 0.25% of the
total contract sum. In most of the time, the cost is subject to how often the Board is asked to
resolve dispute either during the site level or hearing (Menassa, and Pena-Mora, 2007).

The reason on DRB more prone towards mega projects is undoubtedly high in
maintain the board (monthly basis throughout the whole duration until the completion of the
project). Nevertheless, if the cost of setting up the board to be made comparison to the overall
benefits obtain, it is reasonable.

5
Disputes Review Board (DRB)

There was an early concern that the ready availability of a DRB would attract
disputes, but in practice, just the opposite has occurred (Hinchey & Haris, 1999):

The existence of the DRB seems to have had a dampening effect on controversies by, in
effect, giving the parties an incentive to resolve disputes among themselves, rather than
suffer the inconvenience, disruption, and possible embarrassment of having to call in the
DRB. According to virtually all surveys and commentary, party satisfaction with DRBs is
high. Those who have used the process on one project tend to use it repeatedly. The high
level of satisfaction is usually attributed to the real time resolution of the dispute, while all
involved parties are available and the job can continue to move forward.

Furthermore:

Contractors are less likely to present exaggerated claims for the sake of increasing pressure
on the owner/employer, and owners/employers are less likely to reject meritorious claims.
Stated differently, both sides have a vested interest in preserving their credibility, which may
suffer if they misbehave while the teacher is in the room .

2.0 Case Study of Dispute Review Board

In Canada, the use of DRB has been breaking ground only over the course of the last
20 years. Only nine Canadian projects are reported as having employed a DRB since record
keeping by the Dispute Review Board (DRB) started in 1996. In light of the fact that
construction disputes seem just as common in Canada as anywhere else, this is a surprisingly
low number. Seven of these projects were related to the expansion of the Toronto Transit
Commission (TTC) subway from 1996 to 2002. As such, one owner (TTC) and five Canadian
contractors were exposed to the DRB process. The other two projects listed in the DRB
database involve two current tunnel projects: one in Niagara Falls for the Ontario Power
Generation (OPG) and the other for the Greater Vancouver Water District (GVWD). These
contracts however, were awarded to non-Canadian contractors.

2.1 Project Background of a the Toronto Sheppard Subway Twin Tunnels Project

The City of Toronto's Yonge Street subway line, the first of its kind in Canada, opened
in 1954. And on January 1 of that year, the Toronto Transit Commission (the TTC), an
agency of the City of Toronto, became the sole provider of public transportation services in
the city. Over the years, new subway extensions, branches and lines extended the reach of
the city to the growing suburban populations.

6
Disputes Review Board (DRB)

The Sheppard Subway line, which took 8 years to build, and which cost almost $1
billion, opened on November 22, 2002. It was the first subway line in Canada whose two
separate subway tunnels (the Twin Tunnels) were built entirely by two tunnel boring
machines (TBMs). The TBMs (nicknamed Rock and Roll) not only dug through the
earth, but also installed reinforced concrete liner rings as they passed. The Twin Tunnels
were approximately 2.7 miles in total length, were to run side by side, approximately 40 feet
apart, and were generally located from approximately 15 to 85 feet below the surface of
Sheppard Avenue East.

2.2 Nature of Disputes to Be Referred

The transit commission had previously developed another subway project in Canada
11 years ago, which also included a twin tunnel component costing approximately $93
million.

The contractor for the tunneling work was a joint venture consisting of 3 experienced
and well-respected contractors. The tunneling contract established, and set out the procedure,
function and key features of, a Dispute Review Board, and the mandate of the Board included
the provision of written recommendations to the parties in order to assist in the resolution of
disputes. However, although not binding on either party, the contract stipulated that the
recommendations of the Disputes Review Board should carry great weight for both [the
transit commission] and [the contractor].

The 3 Board members on that project consisted of a prominent engineer who had
substantial underground and mass transit project experience and expertise; a Professor of
Civil Engineering at Stanford University, who had experience as an expert witness in cases
involving geotechnical, contractual or construction practice issues, and who had served both
as Chair and as a member of numerous other dispute review boards; and an engineering
consultant with substantial experience managing large tunneling and other underground
construction contracts, and who also had considerable experience chairing numerous other
dispute review boards relating to tunnelling, subway and other construction and infrastructure
projects.

Within a short time after commencing its tunneling work, the joint venture contractor
gave notice to the transit commission that it was incurring additional cost as a result of muck
disposal problems due to high foam usage. The contractor alleged that the actual quantity of
foam that it was required to use in order to successfully excavate the tunnels far exceeded

7
Disputes Review Board (DRB)

both what it expected to use and what it could have reasonably been expected to use; and it
contended that, as a result of the high foam usage, its tunnel spoil was reduced to such a high-
slump condition that its disposal costs were significantly increased. The contractor further
alleged that both it and its trucking subcontractor were forced to haul the excavated and
conditioned tunnel muck to inconvenient and expensive disposal sites, all at costs far beyond
what had been included in its tender.

Subsequently, the contractor submitted its 369-page claim for $4.4 million in
additional costs associated with tunnel spoil disposal, but the transit commission responded
that there was no valid basis for the claim. After preliminary settlement discussions, the
parties agreed to bring the matter before the Dispute Review Board for a formal hearing.

Shortly after a 2-day hearing, the Board released its detailed and comprehensive 41-
page written Recommendation. The three members of the panel, in unanimously rejecting
the contractors claim, stated that the contractor has not made a reasonable case for extra
compensation based upon arguments that lay within the four corners of the contract.

Subsequently, the contractor notified the transit commission of its rejection of the
Boards Recommendation, and commenced litigation proceedings.

2.3 Legal Issues Discussed By the Court

The facts, issues, pleadings, and submissions in the ensuing litigation were virtually
identical to those which were put before the Board. However, in its Statement of Claim, the
contractor made no reference whatsoever to the hearing before, or to the Recommendation of,
the Board. So the transit commission, in its Statement of Defence, pleaded that the claim
being asserted by [the contractor] against [the transit commission] in this litigation is
precisely the same claim that was submitted by [the contractor] and [the transit commission]
to the DRB for hearing more than 2 years ago.

The transit commission also pleaded that the commencement of this litigation gave
rise to the risk of the court making a decision that would be inconsistent with the
Recommendation made 2 years earlier by the panel of three eminently qualified and
experienced experts comprising the Dispute Review Board; and that inconsistent decisions
would bring the alternative dispute resolution and DRB processes into disrepute.

Furthermore, the transit commission pleaded that, as a matter of public policy, the
commencement of litigation, after the same claim was unanimously and unequivocally

8
Disputes Review Board (DRB)

rejected previously by a DRB, created a precedent that only served to discredit the benefits of
the partnering, dispute resolution and DRB concepts and processes, and to discourage other
parties on other projects from attempting to resolve their disputes using those concepts and
processes instead of litigation.

The litigation settled before trial. And money changed hands. The parties obviously
felt that it would be more prudent to settle the claim than to bet on a successful result at trial.
Despite the expense, time and resources which were incurred by the parties in initially taking
their dispute to the Board, the fact that the Boards Recommendation was non-binding
permitted the party, who was not satisfied with the resulting recommendation, simply to
transfer the dispute to another forum.

2.4 Judicial Precedent

The few cases of a DRB application in Canada allow us to delve more deeply into
some of the lessons learned from these disputes. Many of the seven TTC projects involved
the construction of subway stations as well as tunnel sections. DRBs were not mandatory on
the TTC projects; rather they were an option that could be exercised by the contractor and the
TTC if both were in agreement. The DRB process appears to have helped since only three
disputes of the seven projects (two of which were on the same project) went to a formal DRB
hearing. These disputes were settled after the DRB hearings, but one of the TTC cases came
very close to litigation. The two project which were on the same project to a formal DRB are
the Sir Adam Beck hydroelectric generation complex at Niagara Falls, Ontario (1996-2005)
and the other Seymour-Capilano Tunnel in Vancouver, British Columbia (2004-2008).

2.4.1 Niagara DRB result


The contractor put the owner on notice alleging several differing subsurface
conditions (DSC) which required changes to its means and methods. After initial discussions
between the parties, no agreement was reached with regard to entitlement for any DSC. The
owner alleged that the excessive over break was the result of the contractor's decision to
change its means and methods, not the result of any DSC. After excavating only 2,000m to
3,000m of tunnel (some 20-30% completion), the project was facing a significant schedule
overrun and an unsupportable expected increase in cost for the contractor to complete the
work.

The parties eventually agreed to put the matter before a formal hearing of the DRB,
which responded with a comprehensive recommendation examining each alleged DSC. The

9
Disputes Review Board (DRB)

DRB rejected many of the contractor's claims but did recognize some shared responsibility
with regard to the difference between anticipated over break quantities and expected rock
support types in the geotechnical baseline report (GBR) versus the actual over break
quantities and rock support type that was installed. Interestingly, although neither party fully
accepted the recommendation of the DRB (neither party got what it wanted) these
recommendations formed the basis of negotiations between the parties to revise the lump sum
design build contract into one with a target cost and a schedule with incentives and
disincentives related to achieving the revised target cost and schedule.

This case underlines that a DRB is especially useful in technically complex disputes
and can intervene at a critical juncture to save a project from being interrupted and forced
into legal proceedings.

2.4.2 Seymour-Capilano complexities

During the excavation of the vertical access shafts, the contractor encountered reaches
of difficult mixed rock conditions. These conditions and their impact were the subject of the
first formal DRB hearing and were resolved by the parties with the help of a DRB
recommendation. However, the success of the DRB process on this project remained limited
to this one issue. Another important problem was not brought before the DRB.

Rock stability problems occurred in the deepest part of the alignment, when the
tunnels were about 55% into their long drive. A safety issue was declared and work could not
restart until the problem was resolved. The Owner believed that the tunnel designer and
construction supervision engineer had prepared a plan that addressed the safety concerns and
allowed for the resumption of work. The contractor did not accept the plan and high-level
discussions between contractor, client, designer, and provincial safety authority failed to
resolve the stalemate. Although the contractor requested that the situation of perceived unsafe
conditions in the tunnels be taken to the DRB, the Owner declined to participate. The
contract's DRB clause permitted the GVRD to terminate the contract at any time, instead of
passing before the DRB.

Faced with the contractor's refusal to return to work, the Owner terminated the
contract expressing the position that it was left with no practical alternative in terms of
completing the work. The Owner also took possession of the equipment on site. The Owner
rebid the project and awarded a contract to complete the work to another joint venture at
almost double the original value of the remaining work. The Owner has sued to recover these

10
Disputes Review Board (DRB)

additional costs from the original contractor. In return, the contractor is suing to recover its
losses. These include many millions of dollars for equipment confiscated by the Owner, as
well as millions in unpaid labor and materials supplied to the project prior to termination.

This case is a study in contrast to the successful use of DRBs for technically complex
disputes such as the Niagara tunnel case. While resolution of the differences between the
original contractor and the Owner ultimately rest with a judge to decide years from now and
no doubt after significant expense has been incurred by both sides, one wonders if this
situation could have been settled more quickly, more economically, and perhaps more
amicably, had the parties accepted to bring the matter before the DRB.

3.0 Commentary

Actually it is so few DRBs in Canada, the sum of the past, present and future projects
employing the DRB process throughout all of Canada averages less than one project per year,
as opposed to more than 100 such projects annually in the United States. Reluctance to use
DRBs in Canada in the past may be explained by the unfamiliarity of Canadians with the
DRB process.

The legal community in Canada has been more comfortable working within the
bounds of established procedures and jurisprudence. Lawyers might have been resistant to
including provisions for a DRB into the contract clauses thinking a DRB could work outside
the terms of the contract. This fear is unfounded because all disputes must be reviewed in
strict reference to the contract's terms and conditions. A DRB cannot rewrite the contract.
There may also be some concern from lawyers about being trapped by an un-appealable DRB
recommendation. Again, this fear is unfounded. The current popularity of the DRB process is
due in part to the fact that advisory opinions and recommendations are non-binding. The
disputing parties get the benefit of a neutral panel's experience and opinion about the case.
This advice is given at a time when costs and impacts can still be mitigated.

Consulting engineers and architects might have been reluctant to include DRBs into a
contract believing the DRB could usurp their authority as first deciders when a dispute arises.
This fear is also unfounded. Consulting engineers maintain their right to express themselves
first regarding any dispute that arises. The DRB will intervene only after a dispute is brought
before it at the request of both parties. Consulting engineers and other experts are also able to
express their opinion during any DRB hearing.

11
Disputes Review Board (DRB)

Owners may have been hesitant to impose the process on contractors unfamiliar with
this approach. In such a case, the TTC's approach of including optional DRBs with the
approval of both parties seems wise at this time.

Considering all the positive aspects, proven record of success and growing popularity
throughout the world, it is suggested that the Canadian construction industry seriously
consider the use of DRBs in Canada. This suggestion is not ours alone. In fact articles by
Marston, (2009) several prominent Canadian lawyers and engineers over the last few years
have already suggested the same. The concluding remark of one of these articles is
reproduced below:

"The DRB process, properly organized and implemented, makes a great deal of sense.
As governments and the private sector prepare to embark on various infrastructure project
initiatives, through public-private partnerships or otherwise, the implementation of project-
based DRB dispute resolution can provide important savings and benefits too valuable to
ignore. (Marston, 2009)

4.0 Conclusion

Dispute Review Boards (DRB) provide the construction industry with a mechanism to
help construction projects to predict and handle potential construction problems before they
occur, to provide advisory opinions on questionable or disputed matters, and to provide an
alternate dispute resolution process to settle any disputes that cannot be settled between the
parties to the construction contract. DRBs are currently used all around the world in the
construction of roads, railroads, tunnels, dams, bridges and other major construction projects.

It is only in recent years that the DRB has been used in the construction of large
commercial buildings such as manufacturing facilities, shopping centers, hotels, etc. Because
the construction industry has seen the many benefits, DRBs are now being used for the
construction of small commercial projects and large residential houses. If the DRB is
empowered with the ability to render final and binding decisions upon the parties to the
construction project, the project is virtually guaranteed to continue with a minimum amount
of lost time and money that would normally be encountered when arbitration or litigation is
required to settle disputes. CDRS recommends the DRB having the authority to make final
and binding decisions, which is reflected in the following information.

12
Disputes Review Board (DRB)

Lots advantages by using the DRB in construction works. For large, complex projects,
DRBs can save enormous amounts of money and time. Disagreements are settled
contemporaneous with the construction project, which allows the parties to free up time and
resources and allows personnel to work on more productive things. The costs of pursuing
court claims are avoided. Further, DRBs offer a forum for subcontractor complaints; many
claims involve subcontractors, and DRBs are able to assign responsibility between the owner
and primary contractor for those claims.

There are intangible benefits as well. The prospect of reporting to a board of experts
shifts owners and contractors into a more proactive, pre-emptive disposition, which
contributes to a more positive atmosphere at the job site. Both parties tend to want to appear
cooperative and to hammer out problems before they reach the board level. Preparing for a
review may uncover new or better information that can lead to settlement. When settlement
cannot be reached, the DRB's recommendation diminishes the likelihood of hard feelings
developing between contractors and owners.

Foremost, though, the goal of DRBs is the quick resolution of construction disputes so
that construction jobs get completed faster and the parties can avoid adding their case to
already clogged civil court dockets.

However, DRB also have a potential disadvantages. DRBs are normally cost-
effective for both parties in large projects because of the potential savings in claims
avoidance. For small projects that may find the cost of supporting a DRB prohibitive, the
one-person DRB is an option. Like the three-person panel, the single expert is chosen by
owner and contractor and operates using the same principles and procedures (Matyas, 1996).
Research is underway to measure the costs and benefits of DRBs

Another drawback may be the relative newness of this concept. Although use of
DRBs has spread quickly in the construction industry, contractors who are unfamiliar with the
concept may view the DRB as simply an added cost rather than a potential source of savings
(Matyas, 1996). Without appropriate training and information about the demonstrated value
of DRBs, some contractors may resist their use. Understanding is key to making the process
work.

13
Disputes Review Board (DRB)

5.0 References

B. G. Corgan, T. J. Kelleher and E. Dorris, Construction Disputes: Practice Guide with Forms
2nd edition. New York: Aspen Publisher, 2002.

C. C. Menassa, and F. Pena-Mora, Analysis of Dispute Review Boards Application in U.S.


Construction Projects from 1975 to 2007, Journal of Management in Engineering,
Vol. 26, 2010, pp. 65-77.

D. F. Turner and A. Turner, Building Contract Claims and Disputes 2nd Edition. Singapore:
Longman, 1999.

D. Marston, Dispute Resolution Boards (DRBs) Creative ADR for Infrastructure Projects
Canadian Arbitration and Mediation Journal, Fall, 2009

DRRF, DRBF Practices and Procedures, 2007. Retrieved from


http://www.drb.org/manual_access.htm

F. Pena-Mora, C. E.Sosa and D. Mccone, Introduction to Construction Dispute Resolution.


United States: Prentice Hall Publisher, 2003.

K. M. J. Harmon, Resolution of Construction Disputes: A Review of Current


Methodologies, Leadership in Management in Engineering, Vol. 3, 2003, pp.187 -
201.

K. M. J. Harmon, K., Dispute Review Board: Elements of a Convincing Recommendation,


Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, Vol. 130, 2004, pp. 289 -
295.

K. M. J. Harmon, Case Study as to the Effectiveness of Dispute Review Boards on the


Central Artery / Tunnel Project, Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in
Engineering and Construction(ASCE) , Vol. 1, 2009, pp.18-31

Matyas, R. M. (Ed.). (1996). Construction dispute review board manual. McGraw-Hill


Professional Publishing.

14
Disputes Review Board (DRB)

Mc Killop, Dispute Review Boards Help Settle Disputes During Construction, AACE
International, 2003, 11.1-11.4.

P. Fenn, E. Davies and M. OShea, Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management in


Construction: An Internatioinal Review (eds). London: E & FN Spon, 1998.

S. Rajoo. Sundra Rajoo Trade Disputes Solving Mechanisms, 2009. Retrieved from
http://www.sundrarajoo.com/2009/10/trade-disputes-solvingmechanisms-poram-
course-july-2009/

The institutes of Arbitrators & Mediators


https://www.iama.org.au/sites/default/files/resources/rulesguidelines/disputereview.pdf

15

You might also like