Can Adjudication assist Abu Dhabi in achieving its Sustainability - - PDF document

October 2012 1

Can Adjudication assist Abu Dhabi in achieving its Sustainability (Estidama) goals for the construction industry?

Presentation by: Paul Straker

FCInstCES, FRICS, FICE, MCIArb October 2012

October 2012

1

October 2012 1

Can Adjudication assist Abu Dhabi in achieving its Sustainability (Estidama) goals for the construction industry? Presentation by: Paul Straker

FCInstCES, FRICS, FICE, MCIArb October 2012

October 2012

1

(1) Adjudication!

October 2012

2

(2) Estidama!

October 2012

3

(3) The ICES survey

• n Dispute Resolution 2012!

October 2012

4

How do these 3 relate?

October 2012

5

My Hypothesis!

October 2012

6

October 2012 2

“I assert that Adjudication can significantly assist Abu Dhabi in achieving its Estidama (sustainability) goals for the construction industry”

October 2012

7

The results of the ICES dispute resolution survey for Abu Dhabi 2012, support my assertion!

How?

October 2012

8

First some background information.

An Overview

• f

Adjudication, Estidama & key findings from the dispute resolution survey.

October 2012

9

What is Adjudication?

• “A process whereby the [neutral third party]

adjudicator who may not be a lawyer has to reach a decision on matters referred to him [by] the complaining party”. (1.1)

October 2012

10

Who is the Adjudicator?

• Either

a single suitably qualified and experienced person / adjudicator.

• Or

a dispute adjudication board (DAB), comprising of 3 suitably qualified adjudicators.

• Appointed as a standing adjudicator/DAB at

commencement of the project; or on an ad- hoc basis; by the parties to the contract.

October 2012

11

What is an Adjudicator’s Decision?

• After a dispute (rejection of a clearly defined

claim) has been referred to the adjudicator for his decision thereon.

• The adjudicator, acting fairly and impartially, shall

adopt suitable procedures, to make his reasoned decision within a limited time (usually 3 months).

• The adjudicator’s decision will be contractually

binding; unless and until revised in an amicable settlement or an arbitral award.

October 2012

12

October 2012 3

What are the alternatives?

• In Abu Dhabi Arbitration is the preferred

method of dispute resolution!

• However,

the Abu Dhabi Commercial, Conciliation and Arbitration Center (ADCCAC) also offer Conciliation prior to Arbitration.(3.0)

• Other

potential

• ptions:

Negotiation; Mediation; Early Neutral Evaluation; Expert Determination; Litigation.

October 2012

13

Dispute Resolution Options

• The following are the more commonly used

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods.

• Discussed in order, from simple inexpensive

methods, to the more complex, legalistic and increasingly expensive methods.

October 2012

14

Negotiation

• Theoretically gives the parties most control
• ver the dispute resolution process.
• Without the intervention of a third party: “…

typically consists of a sequence of proposals … and counter proposals … that continue until agreement is reached or negotiations break down …”. (1.2)

• Negotiations often break down!

October 2012

15

Mediation

• The

least adversarial dispute resolution method!

• “… the facilitation, by a third party, of a

negotiated agreement … in which the mediator does not decide the dispute, but facilitates communication and problem- solving by the parties”.(1.3)

• The optimum solution? But would it work?

October 2012

16

Conciliation

• Utilizes similar techniques to Mediation, except:
• Its more formalized.
• Results in a settlement proposal, made by the

conciliator.

• Its a means of amicable settlement.
• Non-binding on the parties; therefore open to

further dispute!

October 2012

17

Early Neutral Evaluation

• Provided by an independent third party: “… an

early, frank and thoughtful evaluation of the relative positions of the parties …”;(1.4)

• “… to enhance the prospects of a successful

negotiation …”;(1.4)

• “… by offering a realistic view of what might

transpire if a case is fully prepared and tried”.

(1.4)

October 2012

18

October 2012 4

Expert Determination

• Used where the parties have appointed a third

party expert and: “… submit an issue for the determination of a third party …”.(1.5)

• Its “used primarily in disputes of a technical

nature which require … an opinion on a specific issue or issues”.(1.6)

• The parties may agree in advance, to be

contractually bound by the determination.

October 2012

19

Adjudication

• Discussed earlier: internationally proven; used

by the Multilateral Development Banks (incl. the World Bank); on projects worldwide.

– FIDIC MDB Harmonised Construction Contract 2010; Clause 20.4, Obtaining Dispute Boards Decision; and throughout the FIDIC 1999 contracts; NEC3; JCT; etc.

• Limited cost, similar to conciliation.
• Reaches an impartial and contractually binding

decision; usually within 3 months.

October 2012

20

Adjudication cont’d

• “The DB procedure amounts to serial adjudication

… over 90% of disputes referred to a DB will not go beyond that procedure into arbitration or litigation …”.(Dr. Robert Gaitskell QC CEng).(4.1)

• Speedy resolution; thereby facilitating the works,

enhancing cash-flowand project delivery.

• Disposes of the argument, before tensions build;

thereby preserving business relationships.

October 2012

21

Arbitration

• An independent, impartial and finally binding,

private dispute resolution process; proven worldwide.

• Typically the default method, after the client’s
• wn dispute procedure in the UAE; and the

final method under FIDIC contracts.

• Award

is enforceable in many countries (pursuant to the New York Convention); therefore may be attractive to foreign parties.

October 2012

22

Arbitration cont’d

• Takes many months or 1 – 2 years to reach a

resolution.

• Formal, adversarial, typically with only one

Arbitrator in UAE.

• Heard

in private; but may still damage business relationships.

• Similar cost to litigation.

October 2012

23

Litigation

• Settlement of the dispute through the courts.
• A judicial process that is finally binding;

subject to appeal.

• May not be enforceable outside the UAE

jurisdiction; therefore may not be attractive to foreign parties.

October 2012

24

October 2012 5

Litigation cont’d

• May take many months or years conclude.
• Public hearing that may damage reputations.
• Can

result in a breakdown

• f

business relationships.

October 2012

25

Estidama!

October 2012

26

What is Estidama?

• Estidama is Arabic for Sustainability!
• But with a difference.
• It is comprised of 4 fundamental pillars

– Environment. – Economic. – Cultural. – Social.

October 2012

27

Integration at its core!

• Estidama integrates the 4 pillars.
• What are its expectations of the construction

industry?

• “To achieve significant environmental, social,

economic and cultural benefits, while ensuring that the costs

• f

the development are minimized.”(2.1)

October 2012

28

Pearl Rating System for Estidama

• A green building rating system.
• Launched by ABU Dhabi UPC in 2010.
• Mandatory for all construction projects.

October 2012

29

Comprises

• Mandatory and optional sustainability

requirements, to achieve:

– Minimum One Pearl Rating for all developments. – Minimum Two Pearl Rating for government developments. – The maximum is Five Pearls.

October 2012

30

October 2012 6

How?

• “An essential part of the strategy for achieving

Estidama is to fundamentally change the way we approach design, construction and real estate development”.(2.2)

• To achieve Pearl Credit Points, under the Pearl

Rating Categories.

October 2012

31

Pearl Rating Categories(2.4)

• Integrated Development Process
• Natural Systems
• Livable Buildings
• Precious Water
• Resourceful Energy
• Stewarding Materials
• Innovating Practice.

October 2012

32

Integration

• Has

the potential to benefit from Adjudication.

• Integrated Development Process:
• “Encouraging cross-disciplinary teamwork to

deliver environmental and quality management throughout the life

• f

the project”.(2.5)

October 2012

33

Innovation

• Has the further potential to benefit from

Adjudication.

• Innovating Practice:
• “encouraging innovation in building design

and construction to facilitate market and industry transformation”.(2.6)

October 2012

34

Estidama

• I propose to you; that Adjudication would be

the most effective dispute resolution procedure; for Abu Dhabi, as it:

– Integrates the team – Results in a contractually binding decision – Gives a quick solution at moderate cost.

• Adjudication achieves Integration and would

be regarded as Innovative at present times.

October 2012

35

Implementation

• Currently the focus of the Pearl rating system

appears to be on design and construction.

• The benefits of adopting the most efficient

dispute resolution process are not usually considered.

• The UPC could help to facilitate the adoption
• f adjudication; by awarding significant credit

points for its demonstrable and beneficial use.

October 2012

36

October 2012 7

How?

• “An essential part of the strategy for achieving

Estidama is to …

• fundamentally change
• …the way we approach design, construction

and real estate development”.(2.7)

October 2012

37

Comfort Break

• Help yourself to the refreshments.
• Please

wait until the end

• f

the presentation before completing the questionnaire in your folder.

• We will continue in 10 minutes!

October 2012

38

Dispute Resolution Survey 2012

• Carried out between 14th June 2012 and 14th

July 2012.

• Issued by the ICES, RICS and associated

institutions in the UAE.

• Specific to the dispute resolution culture in

Abu Dhabi.

October 2012

39

Survey Results

• 31 survey returns were made by the closing

date.

• Comprising:

– Clients 21% – Contractors 31% – Consultants 48%

• The detailed results can be viewed now on the

ICES UAE web site; http://www.cices.org

October 2012

40

Survey Results Generally

• Unless stated otherwise; the results in this

presentation, are expressed in terms

• f

percentages of the combined results of all respondents.

October 2012

41

Key Results (2)

• The majority of our projects cost in excess of:

– $100 million (AED 360 million); 61% agreed and 6% disagreed.

October 2012

42

October 2012 8

Key Results (3)

• A substantial proportion of out projects use

the following base contract:

– FIDIC 4th edn. 1987/92: 68% agreed and 3% disagreed. – FIDIC 1999 red or yellow books: 52% agreed and 16% disagreed.

October 2012

43

Key Results (4)

• Dispute resolution procedures:

– Dispute adjudication board or adjudicator is appointed at project commencement. 68% disagree and 3% agree. – Dispute adjudication board or adjudicator is appointed on an ad-hoc basis. 45% agree and 32% disagree.

October 2012

44

Key Results (4) cont’d

• Dispute resolution procedures, cont’d:

– An independent expert is appointed. 19% disagree and 16% agree. – Mediation / counselling. 39% agree and 39% disagree. – Employer’s own procedure. 74% agreed and 6% disagreed.

October 2012

45

Key Results (5)

• Settlement of disputes:

– An amicable settlement is reached in a reasonable

• time. 32% agree and 26% disagree.

– The Engineer / CA acts impartially. 42% disagree and 35% agree. However, 84% of contractors disagree. – The Engineer / CA acts fairly. 39% agree and 29% disagree.

October 2012

46

Key Results (5) cont’d

• Settlement of Disputes, cont’d:

– Arbitration is the preferred method. 48% agree and 26% disagree. – Litigation is the preferred method. 61% disagree and 0% (none) agree. – Disputes are usually settled before reaching Arbitration or Litigation. 65% agree and 3% disagree. – But at what cost? and to Who?

October 2012

47

Key Results (6)

• A

substantial proportion

• f

disputes are related to: – Interpretation of the contract. 74% agreed. – Interpretation of drawings and specifications. 68% agreed. – Valuation of variations. 74% agreed.

October 2012

48

October 2012 9

Key Results (6) cont’d

• A

substantial proportion

• f

disputes are related to, cont’d:

– Extension of time entitlements. 97% agreed. – Quality of design. 48% agreed. – Quality of construction. 32% disagree and 29% agreed.

October 2012

49

Key Results (7)

• The Impact of disputes:

– More than 3 months delay. 58% agreed. Clients 85%; Contractors 68%; Consultants 40%; (the consultants low % distorts the result downwards). – Increased costs > 5%. 32% agree. – Increased costs > 10%. 48% agree. Clients 54%; Contractors 74%.

October 2012

50

Key Results (7) cont’d

• The Impact of disputes, cont’d:

– Detrimental impact on the quality of the design. 32% disagreed and 23% agreed. – Detrimental impact

• n

the quality

• f
• construction. 35% disagreed and 19% agreed.

October 2012

51

Key Results (8)

• A quicker settlement of disputes would have:

– Reduced project delays. 74% agreed. – Reduced project costs. 84% agreed. – Improved the quality of design. 32% agreed and 26% disagreed. – Improved the quality of construction. 32% agreed and 16% disagreed.

October 2012

52

Key Results (9)

• The following would be an effective method of

dispute resolution:

– Mediation/ counselling. 61% agreed. – Adjudication. 68% agreed. – Arbitration. 48% disagreed and 16% agreed. – Litigation. 81% disagreed.

October 2012

53

Summing up the Statistics

In my opinion, the key statistics fall under the following heads:

a) Trust b) Disputes c) Cost

which I suggest, are all correlated with the dispute resolution procedure stipulated in the contract.

October 2012

54

October 2012 10

Trust

• FIDIC contract is mainly used and without the use
• f the adjudication provisions.
• The

client’s

• wn

dispute procedure is predominantly used.

• The Engineer / CA (who represents the Client);

does not usually act impartially; and sometimes acts unfairly.

• I suggest that the lack of impartiality leads to

mistrust; which increases risk and cost.

October 2012

55

Disputes

• Disputes mainly relate to:

– Extension of time entitlements; 97% agreed. – Interpretation of the contract ; 74% agreed. – Valuation of variations; 74% agreed. – Interpretation of drawings & specs; 68% agreed.

• Which are all interrelated; resulting in risks to

time, cost and quality.

October 2012

56

Cost

• Projects typically cost > $100 million.
• With delays of > 3 months; due to disputes;
• and increased costs of 5% - 10%; due to

disputes.

• That’s a Substantial Loss!

October 2012

57

Dispute Resolution

• Arbitration and Litigation are not really the

preferred method for dispute resolution.

• A

quicker settlement of disputes would reduce delays and cost; as well as improving the quality of design and construction.

• Adjudication would be the preferred method

for settling disputes.

October 2012

58

Adjudication

• Settles disputes impartially and quickly, which

builds trust; resulting in time and cost savings, as well as improved quality.

• Is contractually binding, giving certainty; further

adding to trust.

• Achieves Estidama’s tenets of Integration and

Innovation, at reduced cost; as well as being the preferable method of dispute resolution.

October 2012

59

Conclusion

• Does my Hypothesis stand?
• Based on my research and the findings of the

dispute resolution survey; I maintain my assertion that:

• “Adjudication

can significantly assist Abu Dhabi in achieving its Estidama goals!”

October 2012

60

October 2012 11

End of Presentation

Questions? Please return the questionnaire with your opinions, before you leave.

October 2012

61

Afterward

• Your response will form part of an article on

the survey and following CPD presentation; to be published in the ICES Civil Engineering Surveyor magazine. This article will also be used as part of my dissertation for a Masters Degree in Construction Law and Arbitration.

October 2012

62

Bibliography

• Kindly note the following that have been cited

throughout this presentation:

– (1.0) Crook JA & Betancourt JC, What is Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)? (CIArb, London WC1A 2LP, 2010).

• (1.1)

Ibid. @ p. 5; citing, Reynolds, Michael et al. Construction Litigation Practice, (Welwyn Garden City, 2000, p.57.

• (1.2) Ibid. @ p. 19; citing, Forgas Joseph ‘On Feeling Good

and Getting Your Way: Mood Effects on Negotiator Cognition and Bargaining Strategies’, (1998) 74 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, p. 565.

• (1.3) Ibid. @ p. 15; citing, Menkel-Meadow, Carrie, ‘Lawyer

Negotiations: Theories and Realities-What we Learn from Mediation’, (1993) 56 Modern Law Review, p. 372.

October 2012

63

Bibliography

– (1.0) Crook JA & Betancourt JC, What is Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)? ; cont’d

• (1.4) Ibid. @ p. 5; citing, Levine, David, ‘Early Neutral

Evaluation: A Follow-Up Report’, (1986) 70 Judicature,

• p. 237.
• (1.5) Ibid. @ p. 9; citing, Jones, Doug, ‘Expert

Determination in Commercial Contracts’ in Cato, Mark, The Expert in Litigation and Arbitration (London, 1999),

• p. 789.
• (1.6) Ibid. @ p. 9; citing, Wright, Ian, et al. ‘Alternative

Dispute Resolution’ in Ramsey, Vivian et al., Construction Law Handbook(London, 2009), p. 905.

October 2012

64

Bibliography

– (2.0) Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council (UPC), The Pearl Rating System for Estidama, Version 1.0 (UPC, Emirate of Abu Dhabi, April 2010).

• (2.1) Ibid. @ p. 14.
• (2.2) Ibid. (emphasis added).
• (2.3) Ibid.
• (2.4) Ibid. @ p. 1.
• (2.5) Ibid.
• (2.6) Ibid.
• (2.7) Ibid. @ p. 14. (emphasis added).
• (2.8) Ibid.

October 2012

65

Bibliography

– (3.0) Abu Dhabi Commercial Conciliation and Arbitration Center (ADCCAC), Procedural Regulations 2005.

• (3.1) Ibid. @ p.
• (3.2) Ibid. @ p.

– (4.0) Gaitskell R QC, Trends – dispute resolution in the credit crunch (Construction Law International Journal, Vol. 6, issue 3, October 2011) @ p. 6-12.

• (4.1) Ibid.

October 2012

66

October 2012 12

Disclaimer

This survey and/or presentation material may not be used for any commercial purposes whatsoever. The

• pinions

expressed in this survey and/or presentation, do not necessarily reflect the views of the Chartered Institution

• f

Civil Engineering Surveyors (ICES), its Council of Management or

• ther committees or members, or those involved in

conducting the survey. No material may be reproduced in whole or in part without the written permission of the ICES. END.

October 2012

67