Do Dispute Avoidance / Adjudication Boards Work?
An article by Daniel Martin Alcon, Managing Director
DGA Project Management Services LLC – November 2025
Introduction
While participating as a speaker at a FIDIC Conference in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on 20–21 May this year, presenting on Contract Management Excellence in relation to the 2017 FIDIC Yellow Book, I shared the stage with several knowledgeable speakers. Notably, two presentations offered contrasting perspectives regarding the benefits and functions of the 2017 FIDIC Contract Dispute Avoidance/Adjudication Boards (DAABs).
One speaker, an international lawyer, spoke enthusiastically about DAABs and their benefits whereas the other speaker, a Saudi developer, outlined both pros and cons before concluding that the best policy for developers was to delete the DAAB clauses and rely solely upon arbitration.
I was particularly alarmed by the latter conclusion. In my 25+ years of experience since first arriving in the Middle East, I have heard such arguments repeatedly—often to the detriment of project outcomes. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s relatively new construction dispute resolution landscape (with commercial statutory frameworks only enacted in the last few years) can and should learn from the mistakes already made in the region and internationally.
It is critical to emphasise that FIDIC has not arrived at this point by accident. The DAAB is the product of a long-term evolution of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods, beginning with the limitations of the Engineer’s role under the 1987 FIDIC Red Book, through the establishment of DABs in 1995 and 1999, to the proactive dispute avoidance emphasis of 2017. To disregard this history is, in my view, to risk repeating well-documented failures.
Although the use of the word “avoidance” in the 2017 FIDIC suite was new to FIDIC, the concept of dispute avoidance is not. The Dispute Review Boards (DRBs) developed in the USA in the 1970s already engaged in this process: their experts met regularly to tackle issues, resolve differences of opinion, and suggest solutions before disputes crystallised. The DAABs of today stand in that same tradition—refined, formalised, and adapted for global practice.
As mentioned by Franco Mastrandrea in his article entitled “DAABs: Dos and Don’ts”:
“This was in no sense new. In the United Kingdom, statutory adjudication had been introduced in 1996 , had by 1999 already been given its first major backing by the English courts, and was - despite initial scepticism (primarily by the legal profession, which saw little future in it and appeared intent largely to ignore it) in due course to prove profoundly successful.”
This article therefore examines the empirical record, historical development, and practical considerations of DRBs, DABs, and DAABs. It seeks to demonstrate why DAABs should not be discarded but rather understood as a carefully evolved best-practice mechanism for managing disputes in modern construction projects, including those in Saudi Arabia and across the wider Middle East.
What Are DRBs, DABs, and DAABs?
Dispute Review Board (DRB): A standing neutral panel issuing non-binding recommendations. Most common in North America, particularly in transportation and tunnelling.
Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB): First introduced by FIDIC in the 1995 Orange Book, standardized in the 1999 Rainbow Suite. DABs issue interim-binding decisions (“pay now, argue later”) that must be complied with unless overturned in arbitration.
Dispute Avoidance/Adjudication Board (DAAB): Introduced by FIDIC 2017. Beyond adjudication, DAABs are expressly tasked with dispute avoidance through regular site visits, informal opinions, and proactive engagement.
Quantitative Effectiveness: The Data Picture
The statistics on dispute boards are remarkably consistent across decades and jurisdictions:
Global Track Record: DRBF and independent industry summaries show that 97–99% of matters taken to a board are resolved without escalation.
U.S. Study (1975–2001, ASCE): Based on 1,042 projects, 51% of DRB-equipped projects had no disputes at all; where disputes arose, >90% were resolved at board level.
Florida DOT (1994–present): Of 220+ disputes, only five were not settled—a ~98% resolution rate.
Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs): Strong adoption since the mid-2000s; MDB-funded infrastructure routinely includes standing boards, citing time and cost savings.
FIDIC 2017 DAABs: Still relatively new, but appointment data from ICC and others show rising adoption, with preliminary reports suggesting settlement rates similar to the long-run DRB/DAB averages.
The London 2012 Olympics: A High-Profile Test Case
The construction of sports venues and infrastructure for the 2012 London Olympics is a landmark example of how dispute boards can succeed under extreme pressure. The Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) faced the challenge of delivering over 40 major projects to a fixed, immovable deadline with intense public scrutiny.
The ODA deliberately incorporated standing dispute boards into its Tier 1 contracts, often three-member panels.
The boards met regularly, undertook site visits, and issued fast adjudications when required.
The results were highly successful: the vast majority of issues were resolved at board level, very few matters escalated, and no significant disputes delayed delivery.
Importantly, the venues were all completed on time and without major unresolved conflicts lingering post-Games.
The Olympics experience reinforced a critical point: dispute boards are not only suitable for international projects under FIDIC but can be successfully adapted to large domestic programmes where other forms of ADR are the norm. The success of London 2012 has since influenced dispute resolution approaches in other UK mega-projects such as Crossrail and HS2.
Crossrail (the Elizabeth Line): A Mixed Experience
The Crossrail project (London’s Elizabeth Line), Europe’s largest infrastructure scheme at the time, also incorporated dispute boards into many of its major contracts. Unlike the Olympics, however, the experience was mixed:
Boards were established, but disputes often became highly complex, involving programme delays, system integration failures, and cost overruns that outstripped the dispute board process.
While boards helped resolve numerous smaller issues, larger disputes frequently escalated to senior management negotiations, expert determinations, or arbitration.
The 2019 National Audit Office report and subsequent reviews highlighted that dispute boards were only partially effective — they helped maintain progress at package level but were less successful in preventing macro-level programme disputes.
Crossrail demonstrates both the value and limitations of dispute boards: they are excellent at tackling package-level disputes in real time but cannot by themselves resolve deep systemic or governance failures.
HS2 (High Speed 2): Continuing the Legacy
The UK’s ongoing HS2 project has also adopted dispute boards, drawing directly on lessons from both the Olympics and Crossrail:
HS2 Ltd embedded standing Dispute Adjudication Boards across major civil works contracts.
Clearer scopes were written into the contracts, emphasising dispute avoidance through regular engagement.
Early reports (2020–2023) suggest the boards have been effective at managing contractor–employer tensions, particularly on enabling works and early civils, though the project as a whole remains controversial for cost and scope changes.
As with Crossrail, HS2 shows that dispute boards work best when disputes are technical, contractual, or valuation-related, but broader political and funding disputes inevitably bypass the board process.
Evolution of FIDIC’s Approach
Origins: The Engineer’s Impartial Role
Earlier FIDIC contracts, such as the 1987 Red Book, required the Engineer to act “impartially” in decisions (e.g., Sub-Clause 67.1). However, contractors increasingly questioned whether impartiality was achievable given the Engineer’s contractual link to the Employer.
Sub-Clause 3.5 [Determinations]
By 1999, FIDIC introduced Sub-Clause 3.5 to clarify the Engineer’s role in making “fair” determinations where parties could not agree. This change paved the way for a neutral tier above the Engineer—namely, the DAB.
Rise of the DAB
1995 Orange Book: First formal inclusion of DABs.
1999 Rainbow Suite: Expanded and standardized DAB provisions.
2005 MDB Harmonised Edition: Standing DABs became the default for World Bank/IFI projects.
FIDIC 2017: The DAAB Era
Standing DAABs as default.
Explicit avoidance role (regular visits, informal advice).
Clause 21 integrated DAABs into the dispute resolution ladder after the Engineer’s determination under Clause 3.7.
Advantages of DAABs in FIDIC 2017
Keeps Projects Moving: Quick, interim-binding decisions maintain progress and protect cashflow.
Dispute Prevention: Regular site visits and informal opinions resolve issues before they crystallize.
Grounded Outcomes: Panels familiar with the project produce better-informed decisions.
Reduced Arbitration Burden: The majority of disputes end at board level.
Behavioral Benefits: Parties tend to cooperate more when neutrals observe regularly.
Criticisms and Challenges
Cost Concerns: Retainers and visits can be burdensome on small projects (though typically only 0.05–0.25% of project value).
Layering of Processes: Engineer → DAAB → Arbitration can feel duplicative.
Enforcement Risks: Interim-binding decisions sometimes require expedited arbitration (e.g., Persero cases in Singapore).
Neutrality Concerns: Continuous engagement may blur impartiality.
Process Shortcomings: The fast, document-heavy procedure may feel inadequate for complex disputes.
Design Choices for Effective Boards
Standing vs. Ad hoc: Standing boards suit long, complex projects; ad hoc may suffice for smaller jobs.
Panel Size: One member reduces cost; three-member boards mitigate bias on mega-projects.
Procedural Clarity: Pre-agreed timelines, visit frequency, and authority to give informal advice.
Engineer Interplay: Strong Sub-Clause 3.7 determinations reduce DAAB caseload.
Compliance Mechanisms: Add clauses for prompt compliance, interest on late payments, and security.
Early Appointment: Boards appointed late lose prevention benefits.
DAABs Don’ts
One of the dangers of having a Dispute Avoidance Board on a project is the temptation for the contracting parties to refer every little insignificant matter for consideration by the Board and as Mr. Mastrandrea suggests, a Dispute Avoidance Board would be ill-advised to volunteer or otherwise involve itself with the following:
Prequalifying, tendering, or awarding any service contracts, subcontracts, or supply contracts,
Planning the Works,
Procuring the Works,
Quality assuring/quality controlling the Works,
Recording progress of the Works,
Varying the Works,
Preparing budgets, estimates, interim payments, final accounts and/or closing out final accounts for any of the Works,
Determining whether the Works or any part thereof are complete, are ready for or have satisfied any tests, or are ready for taking over,
Providing/approving design for the Works or any part thereof,
Health and safety matters,
Otherwise designing/administering/managing the Works.
Bottom Line
The Riyadh debate underscored a critical choice facing construction stakeholders in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere: whether to embrace DAABs or to default to arbitration-only models. The evidence, both empirical and historical, suggests that DAABs work and that their preventative, cost-saving, and relationship-preserving benefits outweigh their perceived drawbacks.
From U.S. highways to MDB-funded power plants, from the London 2012 Olympics to Crossrail and HS2, they consistently deliver high-value resolutions.
The Olympics showed dispute boards at their most effective: preventing escalation, keeping venues on schedule, and delivering on budget.
Crossrail highlighted their limitations: while valuable for resolving specific disputes, boards cannot fix systemic programme governance or integration risks.
HS2 demonstrates refinement: the adoption of standing boards with clear avoidance duties, informed by earlier UK experiences.
Across contexts, the pattern holds: dispute boards reduce escalation, contain disputes early, and keep projects moving. They are not a silver bullet, but they remain among the most effective ADR tools available.
To delete DAABs from contracts would be to ignore decades of global data, the lessons FIDIC has built into its contracts since 1987, and the demonstrated benefits of standing dispute boards. For projects in KSA and the wider region, where dispute resolution frameworks are still maturing, the DAAB represents not a cost but an investment in efficiency, certainty, and international best practice.
Selected Sources
Menassa & Peña Mora, Journal of Management in Engineering (ASCE).
Dispute Resolution Board Foundation (DRBF) statistics and practices.
Florida DOT and Revay reports on U.S. state-level DRB use.
FIDIC (1995 Orange Book, 1999 Rainbow Suite, 2005 MDB Edition, 2017 Suite).
ENR reporting on dispute board costs.
Persero line of cases (Singapore) on DAB enforceability.
World Bank blog on dispute boards in India.
National Audit Office (2012), “The London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games: post-Games review.”
Olympic Delivery Authority (2012), “Learning Legacy” papers on procurement and dispute avoidance strategies.
Construction Law Journal & ICE Proceedings (2013–2014): analyses of dispute board use during London 2012.
UK National Audit Office (2019), “Completing Crossrail.”
Institute of Civil Engineers (ICE) Dispute Resolution Papers on Crossrail (2018–2021).
HS2 Ltd procurement documentation and parliamentary committee evidence (2020–2023) on dispute resolution frameworks.
A short guide to DAABs in construction which was an elaboration of a presentation made by the Franco Mastrandrea at the Riyadh International Disputes Week 2024.