Kurt L. Dettman has over 40 years of legal and public management experience to facilitate dispute avoidance and dispute resolution on construction projects, focusing on open communication and consensus building among contractors, owners, attorneys, and consultants. His current consulting practice focuses on the use of all forms of dispute avoidance and resolution in the construction industry.
He has worked on many types of construction projects, including highways, bridges, tunnels, water/wastewater, airports, commercial developments, residential and institutional buildings, and a variety of commercial buildings and professional practices. We asked him how his expertise informs his approach on the AAA Construction DARB panel.
Q. What types of construction disputes do you typically handle as an arbitrator or mediator?
Most of my construction disputes as an arbitrator or mediator involve disputes regarding time or money at the end of construction projects. As noted above, I have experience with disputes arising on many different types of construction projects.
Q. What drew you to ADR work in the construction space? What do you value most about serving as a neutral?
Prior to starting my dispute resolution practice full-time, I was the Associate Project Director for Claim Resolution on the $15B Big Dig Project in Boston. After serving in that capacity, I decided that, by becoming a full-time dispute resolution professional, I could help project teams avoid claims, if possible, and resolve claims at the project level, if necessary. As a neutral, I value assisting parties in getting to resolutions, one way or the other, so that projects can be closed out and resources applied to future projects rather being tied up on past projects.
Q. What advice do you have for parties preparing for arbitration or mediation in complex construction disputes?
Work with the arbitrators and mediators to set up a timely, efficient, and fair process at the start; follow the process agreed upon; look for opportunities for “off-ramp” resolutions as the process unfolds; and work cooperatively as a “dispute management team” to deliver to clients whatever they signed up for in the process selected by contract or otherwise.
Q. What do you hope to achieve in conflict resolution?
I want to work with the parties to achieve “conflict resolution” by exploring alternative outcomes as resolution processes are implemented. At a minimum, I want the parties and their counsel to make informed judgments about the merits of their respective positions, the risks if the conflict is not resolved, and the potential reward of finality if it is resolved.
Q. How has your experience with dispute avoidance resolution boards (DARBs) shaped your approach to managing and resolving construction disputes, and what value do you believe these boards bring to the overall dispute resolution process?
DARBs have the unique ability to combine both dispute avoidance and dispute resolution in one process, in place for the duration of a construction project. Dispute avoidance comes from regular meetings with the project team, availability for advisory opinions, and the ability to ask “hard questions” of the project team as issues unfold during the course of the project. Dispute resolution comes from being able to bring disputes, in real time, to neutral, knowledgeable construction professionals using a relatively informal, but thorough, process focusing on the merits of the dispute—and which results in a non-binding reasoned recommendation that leaves ultimate decision-making with the project team. Combining dispute avoidance and dispute resolution into the DARB process gives many more opportunities for “claims-free” projects, or at the very least the opportunity to close out a project without lingering arbitration or litigation.