Proceedings W113 - Special Track 18th CIB World ... - Test Input

The attorneys also stated that some are experimenting with hybrid forms of dispute resolution such asa mediation-arbitration hybrid.Attorneys were also questioned about the changes in the most recent version of the AIA documents(2007). All of the attorneys agreed that the change in the consolidation clause was important. The1997 AIA forms require disputes involving the architect to be held at a hearing separate and apartfrom other parties; i.e., that claims against architects cannot be consolidated with claims against otherparties. To illustrate, an owner has a potential dispute that involves both the architect and the generalcontractor. The owner would be required to have two hearings in order to resolve this matter underAIA 1997. Many owners and contractors were frustrated with this clause and were threatening todiscontinue use the AIA contract documents altogether if it was not modified. The change isreflected in the 2007 AIA documents in that their no longer is the “no consolidation” clause.Most of the attorneys stated that it was too early to adequately assess the changes in the disputeresolution clauses from the 1997 to 2007 AIA documents. That we are still at least a couple of yearsaway from being able to see if the “check box” system and the default provision for litigation willhave any effect on how the parties handle disputes.Project managers were also questioned and all reported that when a dispute arose on one of theirprojects they were intimately involved in dispute resolution process. They also reported that therewas a heightened degree of tension on a project during the course of the dispute resolution. Theproject managers also reported that they had worked with IDMs other than an architect and thesealways turned out to be independent construction managers. They also reported that they werepersonally involved with the data collection process during disputes and this required a significantamount of their time.5. ConclusionNot surprisingly, the research results indicate that all parties prefer to settle disputes by negotiating.All agreed that maintaining relationships and keeping dispute resolution costs to a minimum are veryimportant factors in how they conduct business and that negotiating a settlement is the best way toaccomplish this goal. Mediation is seen as an effective form of dispute resolution by all of thegeneral contractors and attorneys. However, subcontractors offered different opinions on the matterwith some preferring mediation while others found it futile since it is non-binding.All parties essentially agreed that litigation is the worst form of dispute resolution mechanism.However, an interesting part of this research is the attorneys’ attitude towards dispute resolution.Attorneys have similar opinions to the construction executives, in that they believe that the quickerdisputes can be resolved, the better for everyone; but they take a legalistic approach towards thesubject, essentially stating that any dispute resolution if fine as long as the parties have the freedomto choose during the time the contract is negotiated.32