Click to edit Master title style

1. Dispute Review Board Value Contributions Ralph Ellis, P.E., Ph.D. Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master subtitle style 1

2. Potential Benefits • Direct saving in dispute resolution cost • Direct savings in improved project performance • Indirect value gained from DRB hearings

3. Savings in Dispute Resolution Cost • Litigation cost is high • Legal expenses • Key personnel time • Loss of attention to your business • The outcome is uncertain

4. Improved Project Performance • Projects with DRBs on average perform better than projects without DRBs • Lower cost growth • Lower time growth

5. Analysis of FDOT Projects • In 1994 FDOT began introducing DRBs • From 2000 to 2002 we have both non-DRB and DRB projects • This provides a rare opportunity to compare project performance

6. Time Cost Growth = Final Contract Amount - Original Contract Amount Original Contract Amount Time Growth = Final Contract Time - Original Contract Time Original Contract Time Performance Measures

11. Findings DRBs resulted in: 2.7% Net Cost Growth Savings 15.1% Net Time Growth Savings

12. In Today’s Work Program 2.7% x $3 Billion = ? 15.1% x 60,000 days = 9000 days 9000 x $4,000 per day = ? DRBs result in significant direct savings.

13. DRB Hearing Recommendations are an Indicator of Areas that Need Improvement

14. Rework Design Errors Differing Site Conditions 6% 7% 27% Other Issues 14% 21% 24% General Contract Interpretation Pay Items and Quantities DRB Hearing Disputes by Category 1996 - 2006

15. 27%Differing Site Conditions • Utility Conflicts • Different Subsurface Conditions • Different Project Environment

16. Differing Site ConditionExisting Gravity Walls • Plans do not show existing gravity wall and do not call for removal • Walls are mostly underground, from the road they appeared to be a thickened sidewalk edge • Contractor did not notice the walls during the pre-bid site visit • Contractor request compensation for removing the walls

17. EOR : We generally we don’t call out items to be removed such as curb, sidewalks, etc. The intent is to have the contractor perform a site visit before submitting a bid as required by the specifications. Specification 2-4 Examine the contract documents and the site of the proposed work carefully before submitting a proposal for the work contemplated.

18. Cross sections did not show gravity wall.

19. Contractors also read the PPM.

20. Differing Site ConditionsEnvironmental Issues • Noise ordinances and permitting • No night work ordinances • Security procedures

21. Contract Interpretation DisputeTime Extensions • Design-Build contract with A+B bid and I/D provisions • Contractor believes that weather time extensions are applicable to Liquidated Damages and Disincentives

23. Rework • We have had several substantial disputes involving replacement of concrete structures due to cracking • These are serious issues because of the time and cost

24. Lessons to Be Learned DRB hearing issues are indicators of areas that may need management attention. Owners can use this information to improve the design and construction process.

25. Official Construction Engineering Career Qualification Test Dr. Ellis

26. Find the Shortest Path from A to B A B

27. Find the Shortest Path from A to B A B Forget Engineering. Try Art History or Journalism

28. Find the Shortest Path from A to B A B Not a Construction Engineer Great Potential in Structural Engineering

29. Find the Shortest Path from A to B A B Definitely Construction Engineering. Great Potential as Owner’s Project Engineer

30. Find the Shortest Path from A to B A B Definitely Construction Engineering. Great Potential as a Contractor

31. Go Gators