Stay Plugged In With Canon
Latest News & Updates

Arbitration provisions in construction contracts promise faster resolution, reduced costs, and technical expertise from arbitrators. Yet, they can also constrain critical remedies, compress timelines, and obscure leverage for weaker parties. Project owners, general contractors, subcontractors, and design professionals must scrutinize how a clause handles interim relief, joinder of related claims, and the scope of arbitrable issues. The goal is to preserve access to appropriate remedies while leveraging the efficiency of arbitration. A thoughtful approach requires aligning ADR choices with the project’s complexity, risk profile, and jurisdictional framework, ensuring that the arbitration mechanism complements traditional dispute management rather than undermining it.

Before agreeing to an arbitration regimen, parties should codify the standards that govern selection, qualifications, and compensation of arbitrators. Transparent procedures for challenges to arbitrators, including mandatory disclosures and neutral appointment processes, prevent the appearance of bias. Consider specifying the number of arbitrators, the governing rules, and the procedural timelines to avoid protracted proceedings. Additionally, it is prudent to define what constitutes a “complex” or “novel” question that justifies referring issues to arbitration versus preserving court access. These clarifications help manage expectations, reduce ambiguity, and foster confidence among project participants about the ADR framework.

The scope of arbitration provisions should be neither too narrow nor overly expansive. Narrow scopes promote faster decisions on discrete contract disputes, such as payment or scheduling breaches, while broader scopes can engulf liability, warranty, and consequential damages. A well-drafted clause delineates which claims are arbitrable and which remain outside the process, ensuring that critical remedies—like injunctive relief for ongoing harm—remain accessible through courts when necessary. Moreover, carveouts for confidentiality, trade secrets, and publicly bid procurement considerations can prevent inadvertent exposure of sensitive information. Clarity in scope reduces later ambiguity and the speculative escalations that often stall projects.

Crafting procedural rules within arbitration matters as much as the substantive rights at stake. Parties should specify venue standards, discovery limitations, and the appropriate level of formality. ADR procedures can adopt fast-track timetables, but safeguards are essential to avoid grinding the project to a halt. Consider adopting a hybrid approach that preserves robust document exchange while avoiding excessive disclosure burdens. Incorporating expert-appointed procedures for technical disputes and providing a framework for expert testimony helps align decision-makers with industry realities. In addition, including a provision for the confidentiality of proceedings can protect commercial interests without undermining the adversarial process.

Since arbitration can limit traditional remedies, it is critical to spell out available reliefs. Parties should determine whether interim measures—such as injunctions or emergency relief—are obtainable from the arbitration forum or a local court, and under what conditions. The contract may authorize early injunctive relief to preserve critical paths, protect funds, or safeguard site safety, with rapid turnaround processes to minimize disruption. Additionally, the agreement should address the availability of damages, interest, and cost-shifting provisions in arbitration awards. By clarifying remedies at the outset, stakeholders reduce post-dispute surprises and preserve essential project momentum.

Another important design element concerns fee allocation and cost-sharing. Arbitration can shift significant costs to the non-prevailing party, so it is wise to include explicit provisions about attorney’s fees, arbitrator compensation, and administrative fees. A balanced approach might cap fees for certain disputes, grant fee-shifting in specific circumstances, or permit cost recovery for prevailing parties in alignment with public policy and local law. Clear budgeting expectations prevent disputes about what the project must bear when conflicts escalate. Transparent cost frameworks also encourage parties to pursue settlement discussions earlier, knowing the financial exposure is predictable.

Enforceability hinges on choosing rules that harmonize with jurisdictional law and contractual intent. Some jurisdictions impose limits on mandatory arbitration for certain claims, while others require specific disclosures or investor protections. It is vital to verify that the arbitration clause complies with state laws governing consent, capacity, and formality. Further, international or multi-jurisdictional projects demand careful cross-border considerations, including recognition of foreign arbitral awards and applicable treaties. Attorneys should anticipate potential challenges to arbitrability, including claims of unconscionability, public policy, or procedure irregularities, and structure the clause to withstand such scrutiny.

The choice of arbitration rules and the profile of the forum matter deeply. U.S. construction disputes commonly rely on established institutional rules that address technical evidence, site-specific experts, and industry practices. The contract should specify which institution’s rules apply, the selection method for arbitrators, and how confidentiality is handled. In addition, it is helpful to set expectations about the evidentiary standard and the possibility of award modification or correction. Thoughtful rule selection aligns the forum with construction practice, enabling efficient resolution of complex technical issues without sacrificing fairness or procedural rigor.

ADR provisions should be integrated into broader project governance, not treated as an afterthought. Governance frameworks that tie ADR outcomes to schedule milestones, change orders, and payment cycles reinforce predictability. For example, linking dispute timelines to critical path decisions can prevent bottlenecks from derailing progress. Risk planning should incorporate alternative dispute strategies during the pre-bid phase, with teams prepared to switch to arbitration or court for specific categories of claims. By embedding ADR in the project’s risk register, stakeholders gain a proactive, shared understanding of escalation pathways and avoidance tactics that save time and preserve relationships.

Communication is essential. Parties should establish a disciplined approach to notice, escalation, and documentation. Clear notification requirements for potential disputes, along with standardized templates for claims and responses, reduce ambiguity and enable faster triage. Documentation should capture decisions, approvals, and deviations that bear on liability and damages. A well-documented dispute history helps arbitrators understand context and supports reasoned outcomes. Maintaining open lines of communication among owners, contractors, and consultants can prevent minor disagreements from becoming costly, protracted fights that erode trust and derail schedules.

ADR provisions require regular review as projects evolve and laws shift. Parties should schedule periodic audits of dispute mechanisms to ensure they perform as intended. Feedback from project participants about experience with arbitration—such as perceived bias, efficiency, and cost—can guide updates to selection procedures, timelines, and remedies. A living contract clause that allows for revisions based on lessons learned helps maintain relevance and effectiveness across multiple projects. Additionally, post-dispute analyses can identify pattern issues, prompting refinements to risk allocation, insurance requirements, and performance metrics to minimize future conflicts.

Finally, integrate ADR planning with insurance and risk transfer strategies. Clear alignment with coverage can deter opportunistic claims and ensure adequate protection for all parties. Insurance certificates, inclusion of disclaimers, and explicit risk-sharing provisions augment the stability of the dispute framework. When a project is adequately insured, parties feel more confident pursuing early settlement without fear of catastrophic losses. Coordinating with risk managers to adjust coverage in light of arbitration realities reduces uncovered exposure and helps keep projects financially viable while preserving dispute-resolution integrity.