Dispute Resolution Processes - Design-Build for Water and Wastewater Projects - page 300

(EJCDC), Design-Build Institute of America (DBIA), and ConsensusDOCS® (www.con-
sensusdocs.org). First, it is often more expedient and cost-effective than litigation, partic-
ularly given the limited discovery and motions practice. There is also a greater likelihood
for a compromise decision among a panel of three arbitrators that considers business
issues, as opposed to a rigid decision by a judge based solely on legal grounds. Arbitra-
tion panels frequently offer more informed and technically capable fact-finders than those
offered by a judge or jury (Loulakis 2000).
There are two major reasons why some parties prefer litigation. First, arbitration
awards are subject to very limited appeal rights. This basically means that once a decision
is reached, it truly is final. Second, courts are much more likely than arbitrators to specifi-
cally follow judicial precedent and contract terms, because they face the risk of appeal if
they do not.
REFERENCES
Brierley, G. S., D. H. Corkum, and D. J. Hatem. 2010. Design-Build Subsurface Projects ,
2nd ed. Littleton, Colo.: Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, 164.
Dettman, K., and C. Kane. 2011. The Potential Use of DRBs on Public Private Partner-
ship Projects. The Dispute Resolution Board Foundation Forum, Special Edition Reprint:
May.
Loulakis, M. C. 2000. Avoiding Disputes in the Design-Build Environment. Punchlist ,
American Arbitration Association, 1, 5.
Loulakis, M. C., and D. J. Donohue. 1998. Creatively Avoiding and Resolving Design-
Build Disputes. Design-Build Contracting Claims , Aspen Law, 301-332.
Water Design-Build Council (WDBC). 2010. The Municipal Water and Wastewater Design-
Build Handbook , 2nd ed. Washington D.C.: Water Design-Build Council.