For the second consecutive year, the leading cause of construction contract disputes in North America was errors and/or omissions in contract documents. And while the value of disputes fell by nearly 14% in 2014, the time it took to resolve them lengthened substantially last year.
These are some of the key findings in the “Global Construction Disputes Report 2015,” the fifth such annual report produced by Arcadis, a leading global natural and built asset design and consultancy firm. Its data are based on contract disputes handled by Arcadis’ Construction Claims Consulting teams in North America, Europe, the UK, the Middle East, and Asia.
(Arcadis could not provide statistics on the total value of disputes. But last year it served as a claims consultant on approximately 40 disputes with values up to $100 million last year.)
Globally, the report found an increase in the value and length of disputes, with the most common cause being a failure to properly administer the contract. “This is both a revealing and concerning statistic,” observes Mike Allen, Arcadis’ Global Leader of Contract Solutions. “It raises myriad questions as to how projects and programs are briefed, scoped, [and] structured,” as well as questions about resourcing, training, and contracting environment itself.
The transportation sector accounted for 31% of global contract disputes. And despite the presumed advantages of joint ventures, one in three still ends up in a contract dispute, although that number dips to less than one in five (19.8%) in North America.
Worldwide, the average value of disputes increased last year to $51 million, from $32.1 million in 2013. The highest average was in Asia, where dispute values more than doubled to $85.6 million. Arcadis attributed the jump primarily to the region’s growth, the complexity of its construction projects, and the rise in joint ventures.
Dispute values in the Middle East rose to $76.7 million, from $40.9 million in 2013. In the UK, dispute values dipped slightly to $27 million.
The average time taken to resolve disputes globally rose to 13.2 months, up from just under 12 months in 2013. All areas of the world saw their resolution processes extend, with the exception of Asia where the average dispute length took two months less than it did the year before.
In North America, the length of disputes last year increased by more than 18% to 16.2 months. On the other hand, dispute values dipped by nearly 14% to $29.6 million, and there was evident willingness on behalf of contractual parties “to try and try again to arrive at a settlement” and avoid the inevitably escalating costs associated with formal litigation and negative publicity, said Roy Cooper, Arcadis’ Vice President and Head of Contract Solutions in North America.
For the second year running, the most common cause of disputes in North America during 2014 was errors and/or omissions in the contract documents. Differing site conditions came in second, while a failure to understand or comply with contractual obligations on the part of an employer, contractor or subcontractor was the third most commonly cited reason for a dispute.
With North America’s crumbling infrastructure system in need of a significant overhaul, Cooper sees the construction industry moving towards a program of interconnected projects, rather than discrete projects. But big programs can come with bigger risks, so “failure and high visibility disputes are not an option,” he said. “Owners have turned to alternate project delivery, increased project controls and early intervention to mitigate disputes to help manage that risk.”
The three most common methods of Alternate Dispute Resolution in the U.S. were party-to-party negotiation, mediation, and arbitration.
Still, Arcadis predicts that the number of projects going into dispute would to rise this year globally, with projects accepted for lower margins during economic downturns and labor shortages in some markets likely to prove the catalysts for disputes.
Related Stories
BIM and Information Technology | May 27, 2015
4 projects honored with AIA TAP Innovation Awards for excellence in BIM and project delivery
Morphosis Architects' Emerson College building in Los Angeles and the University of Delaware’s ISE Lab are among the projects honored by AIA for their use of BIM/VDC tools.
Healthcare Facilities | May 27, 2015
Rochester, Minn., looks to escape Twin Cities’ shadow with $6.5 billion biotech development
The 20-year plan would also be a boon to Mayo Clinic, this city’s best-known address.
BIM and Information Technology | May 21, 2015
How AEC firms should approach BIM training
CASE Founding Partner Steve Sanderson talks about the current state of software training in the AEC industry and common pitfalls in AEC training.
Architects | May 20, 2015
Architecture billings remain stuck in winter slowdown
Regional business conditions continue to thrive in the South and West
University Buildings | May 19, 2015
Special Report: How your firm can help struggling colleges and universities meet their building project goals
Building Teams that want to succeed in the higher education market have to help their clients find new funding sources, control costs, and provide the maximum value for every dollar.
University Buildings | May 19, 2015
Renovate or build new: How to resolve the eternal question
With capital budgets strained, renovation may be an increasingly attractive money-saving option for many college and universities.
University Buildings | May 19, 2015
KU Jayhawks take a gander at a P3 development
The P3 concept is getting a tryout at the University of Kansas, where state funding for construction has fallen from 20% of project costs to about 11% over the last 10 years.
Retail Centers | May 18, 2015
ULI forecast sees clear skies for real estate over next three years
With asset availability declining in several sectors, rents and transactions should rise.
Contractors | May 18, 2015
Gilbane foresees double-digit growth in construction spending in 2015
In its Spring outlook, the construction company frets about hiring patterns that aren’t fully taking a project’s workload into account.
Architects | May 10, 2015
Harness the connection between managing risk and increasing profitability, Part 2
In Part 1, we covered taking control of the submittals schedule and managing RFIs. Let’s move on to properly allocating substitutions and limiting change orders.
