With a career spanning field engineering, forensic consulting, and high-stakes arbitration, Charles Boland brings a uniquely technical lens to construction dispute resolution.
As an AAA panelist, he offers the perspective of someone who began in civil engineering and spent decades analyzing complex claims—applying that experience to his role as a neutral. From international infrastructure disputes to high-profile projects, Boland is known for bringing objectivity, clarity, and technical precision to every case.
We sat down with Charles to learn how his hands-on experience in engineering and consulting informs his approach to resolving today’s most complex construction disputes.
Q. Tell us about your background in construction law or the construction industry.
Charles: I earned a BS & MS in civil engineering and am a licensed PE. My professional carrier started in heavy construction—refineries and nuclear power plants—before transitioning to forensic consulting. I spent more than a decade at Hill International, then managed a forensics practice at ERM before joining GREYHAWK at its founding, where I continue to oversee consulting assignments and dispute resolution work.
My focus in forensic consulting has always been in managing risk, analyzing construction claims and interpreting contract responsibilities from the perspective of a construction professional. I have provided expert services in this regard for over 40 years on behalf of all stakeholders in construction across all market sectors on projects ranging in size from relatively small to world’s largest. As a non-lawyer arbitrator, I apply those decades of experience and lessons-learned to objectively and efficiently assess the merits of the issues in dispute to achieve resolution.
Q. What types of construction disputes can you handle as an arbitrator or mediator?
Charles: My decades of experience as a construction expert provide the foundation for me to handle disputes across all sectors—from high-end residential projects to major infrastructure, building construction and stadium projects.
Earlier in my career, in addition to serving as an AAA Arbitrator in resolving building construction disputes, I served as the independent neutral arbitrator of disputes on a large high-profile site remediation project.. . Whether large or small, every case comes down to analyzing duties, impacts, and performance through both technical and contractual lenses.
Q. What drew you to ADR work in the construction space?
Charles: My personal philosophy has always been to bring value to a situation. ADR allows me to bring real value to complex construction disputes. Having worked in the field and in consulting, I understand both the technical realities and the business pressures at play. As a neutral, I try to balance those perspectives—combining construction analysis with legal reasoning to achieve fair, efficient, and fact-based outcomes.
Q. What advice do you have for parties preparing for arbitration or mediation?
Charles: Come in with an open mind and realistic expectations. Too often, parties are focused on “winning” rather than resolving. Look at the facts, separate strong issues from weak ones, and understand that compromise is part of the process. The closer you are to a realistic assessment of your position, the better your outcome will be.
Q. What do you hope to achieve in conflict resolution?
Balance and fairness. I want the parties to feel their case has been heard and fully considered. Whether through settlement or award, I aim to shed light on the salient facts and encourage reasoned, durable resolutions.