Perspective from the United States: Tensions between “Getting It Done” and “Getting It Right”

For over 2 decades, and in response to complaints that arbitration was too expensive and too time consuming, the American construction bar has been energetic and innovative in developing a broad array of dispute resolution tools for resolving construction disputes. These “tools” have included “partnering,” mandatory negotiations, interim decision making by design professionals, mediation, standing neutrals and dispute resolution boards, minitrials, early neutral evaluation, and expert determinations, all developed as alternatives to arbitration and litigation. More recently, in 2006, a voluntary “fast track” process for resolving construction disputes within $100\text{days}$ has been proffered by the CPR Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution. Yet, there are certain dynamics or “tensions” inherent within, and associated with, all construction disputes that continue to resist efforts to speed up dispute resolution processes; these tensions must be reconciled or taken into account before any fast track or “adjudication”-type process will be generally accepted in the United States construction industry. Thus, for now and in the foreseeable future, there will continue to be a smorgasbord of dispute resolution processes for resolution of construction disputes. This is a good thing, because parties to construction disputes come with a great variety of appetites and needs. The focus of attention should be, not so much on development of the ideal or best dispute resolution tool, but having a willingness to select the “best tool for the job,” after the nature of the dispute is known.