Dispute Resolution Services
Expert Services International can provide dispute resolution services in the United States under the Federal Arbitration Act, AAA-ICDR Rules, JAMS and Dispute Resolution Boards.
United States Dispute Resolution Practice
Dispute resolution in the United States is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act 1925 at the federal level, with individual states maintaining their own arbitration statutes, many based on the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act. The AAA (American Arbitration Association) administers domestic arbitrations under the Construction Arbitration Rules, and the ICDR handles international matters.
Expert Services International can provide arbitration, mediation, dispute board and dispute advisory services in the United States. JAMS provides additional arbitration and mediation services, and Dispute Resolution Boards (DRBs) are used on major infrastructure projects. AIA and ConsensusDocs contract provisions establish dispute resolution procedures for construction projects.
The United States is a common law jurisdiction with a dual federal and state framework. The Federal Arbitration Act 1925 provides the federal statutory framework for arbitration, with individual states maintaining their own arbitration statutes.
Commercial Arbitration
Commercial arbitration in the United States operates under the comprehensive framework established by the Federal Arbitration Act, which renders arbitration agreements "valid, irrevocable, and enforceable" and has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as preempting state law rules that discriminate against arbitration or impose unique or special requirements upon arbitration agreements. The FAA applies to all agreements to arbitrate arising out of transactions involving interstate commerce, a category the Supreme Court has interpreted broadly to encompass the vast majority of commercial and construction contracts. The principal institutional arbitration rules utilised in commercial arbitration are the AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures, which provide a comprehensive procedural framework for the conduct of arbitration from the filing of the demand through final award. The International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) operates substantially similar rules for international arbitration, providing a framework aligned with the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules whilst remaining responsive to American practice and legal requirements.
JAMS provides an alternative framework through its Comprehensive Arbitration Rules and Procedures, which offer flexibility in scheduling, hearing procedures and the management of discovery. JAMS arbitrators include former federal and state judges, senior law partners and leading practitioners with experience in commercial and construction disputes. The International Bar Association Rules on Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration, whilst not mandatory in United States arbitration, are frequently incorporated by reference or adopted as guidance by arbitrators and are recognised as reflecting international best practice. The Council of the International Chambers of Commerce has published detailed Arbitration Rules, and the International Bar Association has published the IBA Protocol for the Conduct of Arbitration, which addresses the role of arbitration counsel and procedural ethics. The Council of the International Chambers of Commerce has also developed detailed rules applicable to disputes arising from the application of the DAB (Dispute Adjudication Board) rules found in the FIDIC contracts widely used in international infrastructure projects. The Federal Arbitration Act preempts contradictory state law and requires courts to grant motions to stay litigation where a valid arbitration agreement exists, a principle confirmed in cases including Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., 596 U.S. 411 (2022). Vacatur of awards is constrained by FAA section 10, which permits vacatur only in exceptional circumstances, primarily where fraud, corruption, manifest disregard of law or exceeding the arbitrator's powers is demonstrated with specific evidentiary support.
Construction Arbitration
Construction industry arbitration in the United States has developed distinctive procedures and institutional rules reflecting the specialised needs of construction disputes and the prevalence of industry-standard contracts. The American Arbitration Association provides comprehensive Construction Industry Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures, which are designed to address the particular characteristics of construction disputes, including the frequent presence of multiple parties, the technical complexity of construction claims and the importance of maintaining project schedules and relationships. These rules provide mechanisms for joinder of additional parties where appropriate and for the consolidation of related disputes. The American Institute of Architects, through its standard form contracts including the AIA Document A201, specifies mediation-then-arbitration cascades and incorporates procedural requirements that parties must follow prior to arbitration, recognising that construction disputes often benefit from a preliminary structured mediation process designed to narrow issues and enable early resolution before the expense and formalisation of arbitration.
ConsensusDocs, produced by a coalition of construction industry associations including the Associated General Contractors of America, has developed industry-standard contracts including ConsensusDocs 135 (Standard General Conditions of the Construction Contract) and ConsensusDocs 200 (Design-Build Agreement) that incorporate mediation and arbitration cascades specifically adapted to the construction industry. The AGC of America, the Associated Builders and Contractors and the Design-Build Institute of America all incorporate mediation-arbitration provisions in their standard form contracts and dispute resolution guidelines. The FIDIC contract suite, including FIDIC Conditions of Contract for Construction, FIDIC Conditions for Plant and Design-Build, and FIDIC Short Form, provides internationally recognised standards for construction contracts and incorporates a Dispute Adjudication Board process that is widely used in international projects and increasingly used on major United States infrastructure projects undertaken with international financing. Construction arbitration rules in the United States provide for fast-track procedures for disputes involving smaller claims, with abbreviated evidence procedures and shorter hearing timeframes. The Council of Construction Arbitrators and the Construction Industry Arbitrators represent organised groups of arbitrators with specialised expertise in construction claims, delay analysis and quantum issues. Many leading construction companies maintain standing lists of preferred arbitrators with construction experience, recognising that the technical complexity of construction claims benefits from arbitrators with direct familiarity with construction practices, standards and industry norms.
Mediation Services
Mediation has become the predominant intermediate dispute resolution mechanism in United States construction and commercial disputes, with the vast majority of disputes being resolved through mediation before proceeding to arbitration or litigation. The American Arbitration Association provides comprehensive mediation services through its Commercial Mediation Rules and Procedures and its Construction Industry Mediation Rules, which set out frameworks for mediator appointment, conduct of mediation sessions and confidentiality protections. JAMS provides mediation services through its Mediation Rules, which emphasise mediator neutrality and the voluntary nature of mediation whilst providing procedural frameworks for document exchange, mediation statements and structured settlement discussions. Many federal courts have established court-ordered mediation programs requiring parties to participate in mediation before proceeding to trial, recognising the effectiveness of mediation in achieving early settlement and reducing court docket pressures. The concept of early neutral evaluation, in which a neutral evaluator with expertise in the subject matter of the dispute provides a structured assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of each party's position, has become increasingly prevalent in complex construction and commercial disputes.
The American Institute of Architects A201 standard contract form specifies a mediation-then-arbitration cascade, requiring parties to engage in good faith mediation before commencing arbitration, recognising that construction disputes frequently arise from misunderstandings or divergent interpretations that can be clarified through structured dialogue. ConsensusDocs similarly incorporates mediation-then-arbitration cascades in its standard form contracts. Federal court mediation programs, administered by United States magistrate judges and mediators appointed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(c), have achieved consistently high settlement rates and are credited with significantly reducing litigation costs and duration. Many district courts in major metropolitan areas, including the Southern District of New York, the Central District of California and the Northern District of Illinois, operate active mediation programs with lists of qualified mediators experienced in commercial and construction disputes. The construction industry has embraced mediation as a means of preserving contractual relationships and enabling parties to craft solutions adapted to the specific circumstances of their disputes, recognising that arbitration and litigation impose binary outcomes that may not address the underlying relationship issues affecting construction projects.
Dispute Review Boards
Dispute review boards represent one of the most distinctive and successful dispute resolution innovations in United States construction practice, with a track record spanning more than five decades and encompassing over 2,700 major infrastructure projects aggregating more than 270 billion United States dollars in construction costs. The Dispute Review Board Foundation, established as a non-profit organisation dedicated to promoting the use of dispute review boards in infrastructure and construction projects, maintains comprehensive records of DRB usage and effectiveness. The concept originated with the construction of the Eisenhower Tunnel in Colorado in the 1970s, where the construction industry recognised the need for a mechanism enabling rapid, impartial resolution of disputes arising during construction whilst preserving the contractual relationships essential to project completion. Since that pioneering application, dispute review boards have become standard on major infrastructure projects throughout the United States, including major tunnelling projects, highway construction, bridge replacement, dam construction and public transit system development.
A typical dispute review board comprises three neutral members selected jointly by the owner and contractor before construction commences. The three members are customarily selected to bring complementary expertise, typically including engineering expertise, construction management expertise and legal expertise. The members are required to be thoroughly familiar with the contract and project specifications, to attend regular project meetings throughout construction, and to maintain awareness of project developments, emerging disputes and the parties' positions regarding contractual entitlements. Rather than becoming engaged only when a dispute arises and existing in a formal adjudicatory posture, members of an effective dispute review board maintain continuous awareness of project issues and often serve an important informal advisory role, providing advice to the parties regarding contract interpretation and available remedies before formal disputes crystallise. Monthly meetings, typically held on site, provide a forum for project stakeholders to present information to the board members and for the board members to identify emerging issues and provide informal counsel to the parties regarding available dispute resolution mechanisms and potential outcomes.
When a formal dispute arises and a party requests a formal proceeding, the dispute review board conducts a hearing at which both parties present evidence, arguments and expert testimony regarding the disputed issue. The board then issues a non-binding written recommendation, which the parties may accept or reject. The critical innovation in dispute review board practice is that these recommendations, although non-binding, are accepted in the vast majority of cases. The Dispute Review Board Foundation records indicate that approximately sixty percent of projects utilising a dispute review board experience no formal disputes at all, and of the disputes that proceed to a formal board proceeding, approximately ninety-eight percent result in acceptance of the board's recommendation without further litigation or arbitration. This extraordinary acceptance rate reflects both the quality of board members selected and the respect that the parties accord to the board members' expertise and impartiality. The difference between a dispute review board and a dispute adjudication board, which appears in FIDIC contracts and other international contract forms, is that a DAB renders binding decisions on the merits of claims, whereas a DRB provides non-binding recommendations. This distinction, whilst significant from a legal perspective, has proven immaterial in practice, as the recommendations of dispute review boards are accepted with such consistency that the practical effect is equivalent to binding resolution.
Contemporary Developments
The United States has experienced significant developments in arbitration law and practice during the 2025 and 2026 period, with the Supreme Court continuing to refine and expand the scope of Federal Arbitration Act protection for arbitration agreements whilst the AAA and JAMS have adapted their rules to address contemporary issues including mass arbitration, the use of technology in arbitral proceedings and the management of costs in high-volume dispute resolution. The Supreme Court has maintained and expanded its pro-arbitration jurisprudence, continuing to interpret the Federal Arbitration Act as establishing a strong national policy favouring arbitration and requiring courts to compel arbitration where parties have entered into valid arbitration agreements. The resolution of waiver questions through cases such as Morgan v. Sundance has clarified standards for determining when parties have waived their right to arbitration, expanding the availability of the arbitration defence in certain circumstances.
A significant recent development has been the emergence of mass arbitration, in which large numbers of claimants pursue coordinated claims against a single defendant through the arbitration process. In response to this development, the American Arbitration Association has established comprehensive mass arbitration rules that provide for the appointment of a "process arbitrator" to manage administrative issues, the initiation of global mediation alongside arbitration, and streamlined procedures adapted to the high-volume, low-value claims characteristics of many mass arbitration situations. The JAMS has established parallel procedures for handling mass arbitration matters, establishing thresholds for application of mass arbitration rules and providing alternative mechanisms for coordinating multiple individual arbitrations. The fee structures established by the AAA and JAMS for mass arbitration reflect recognition that traditional hourly billing and per-case arbitrator compensation would render mass arbitration prohibitively expensive, and both institutions have restructured their fee arrangements to enable efficient resolution of high-volume claims.
Construction industry participants have adapted to the increased use of virtual hearing technology that became prevalent during the global pandemic, and both the AAA and JAMS have refined their procedures for conducting hearings through video conferencing and remote technology. At the same time, construction industry groups including the American Institute of Architects have maintained that certain categories of dispute resolution, particularly those requiring site inspections and direct observation of existing conditions, benefit from in-person proceedings. The dispute resolution bar has seen continuing evolution in the approaches to expert evidence, with growing use of concurrent expert evidence procedures in which experts from both parties present evidence jointly and simultaneously, enabling judges and arbitrators to question both experts regarding areas of agreement and disagreement and significantly reducing hearing time and costs.
United States Dispute Resolution Expertise
Expert Services International provides dispute resolution services across United States jurisdictions, from Federal court arbitration to state court litigation, mediation and expert determination. Led by Neil Kirkpatrick, a quantity surveyor and chartered arbitrator with decades of experience in construction and infrastructure disputes, the practice combines technical expertise in quantum, delay, disruption and construction defects with knowledge of the Federal Arbitration Act, state arbitration frameworks and contemporary dispute resolution procedures.
Whether the dispute is proceeding in Federal court, a state court, a private arbitration seated in a major arbitration centre, mediation under AAA or JAMS rules, an expert determination, or a dispute review board process on a major infrastructure project, our team understands the specific requirements and strategic considerations applicable to each mechanism. We prepare expert opinions that comply strictly with applicable procedural rules and standards of practice, we provide testimony capable of withstanding expert and judicial scrutiny, and we participate effectively in concurrent expert procedures and mediation-arbitration cascades designed to narrow technical issues and promote efficient resolution.
Our Expertise
Expert Services International can provide dispute resolution services to parties involved in construction and infrastructure disputes. Our services include acting as arbitrator, expert determiner and mediator. We also provide expert witness reports and testimony addressing quantum, delay, disruption, construction defects, contractual interpretation, variations, liquidated damages and claims for set-off.
We prepare claims submissions, expert reports and advocacy for use in arbitration, expert determination, mediation and dispute board proceedings. We can assist parties with the preparation and presentation of claims and defences across all forms of dispute resolution.
Service Scope
Acting as arbitrator in domestic and international arbitration proceedings. We manage all aspects of arbitral procedure, conduct efficient hearings and deliver reasoned awards addressing the issues in dispute in accordance with applicable law and the parties' contractual framework.
Acting as expert determiner under contractual expert determination clauses and institutional rules. Expert determination provides a binding resolution of technical and valuation disputes by a suitably qualified professional, typically within a shorter timeframe than arbitration or litigation.
Preparation of expert reports addressing quantum, delay, disruption, construction defects, contractual interpretation, variations, liquidated damages and claims for set-off. We provide expert testimony in arbitration, court proceedings, mediation and expert determination proceedings.
Acting as mediator and providing mediation services to assist parties in reaching a negotiated resolution of disputes. We facilitate structured discussions, assist in identifying common ground and help parties achieve settlement without the need for formal adjudication.
Acting as dispute board member, chairperson or single neutral on major infrastructure projects. Dispute boards provide a standing mechanism for the rapid resolution of disputes during project execution, maintaining familiarity with the project throughout its duration.
Preparation of claims submissions and expert analysis for use in arbitration, expert determination, mediation and dispute board proceedings. We assist parties with the preparation and presentation of claims and defences addressing quantum, delay, disruption and contractual matters.
