International Construction Law Review
DISPUTE AVOIDANCE PROCEDURES (“DAPs”)—THE CHANGING FACE OF CONSTRUCTION DISPUTE MANAGEMENT
PAUL A GERBER
Director of Studies, Construction Law Law School, University of Melbourne Consultant, Lander & Rogers, Lawyers
INTRODUCTION
Several decades ago the health profession worked out that it is better to spend money trying to get people to quit smoking than to have the significantly greater expense of treating the ever-increasing number of people with smoking related illnesses. The construction industry seems to finally be grasping this concept of prevention being better than cure. We are seeing a growing awareness in the construction industry that proactive rather than reactive measures are the answer, and a consequential readiness to embrace Dispute Avoidance Procedures (“DAPs”).
DAPs are providing the construction industry with innovative systems for stopping the conflicts, which inevitably arise during the course of construction projects, from escalating into disputes. They represent a refreshing new way of looking at, and responding to, the underlying causes of disputes, rather than merely trying to improve existing processes.
This article1
provides an analysis of the theoretical and practical aspects of DAPs and concludes with a look at some of the deficiencies in the current models of DAPs, and how these might be addressed in the future in an effort to promote wider utilisation of this proactive conflict management tool.
DAPS MODELS
ADR is now universally acknowledged as the umbrella term used to describe a range of dispute resolution techniques including such diverse models as mediation, mini trials and expert determination. In a similar vein, DAPs is increasingly being recognised as the umbrella term used to describe the preventive measures being adopted on large-scale construction projects.
There are currently three different DAP models being utilised on projects around the globe, namely:
Pt. 1]
Dispute Avoidance Procedures
123