Abstract:
By looking at the changes in the formation and structure of the claims and dispute resolution
mechanisms in the FIDIC contracts, 1987, 1999 and 2017, it is shown that no attempt has been
made to improve procedural lethality and neutrality in managing construction disputes. This
research critiques the shift from the refinement of arbitration to the launch of Dispute Adjudication
Boards (DAB) in FIDIC 1999 and further to the intricate Dispute Avoidance/Adjudication Boards
(DAAB) in FIDIC 2017. In this work, the analytical approach is qualitatively based. It comprises
the documentary content analysis of the three editions of the document, assisted by the thematic
and sentiment analysis of the software NVivo in interviews with experts. It is suggested by the
study's results that the first guidelines were formed by FIDIC 1987, but they were neither detailed
nor efficient, and the dispute remained inefficient. The main drawbacks of DABs remain in the
two issues relating to enforceability and jurisdiction. So, there was an application of DABs not
only for FIDIC 1999 but with FIDIC 1999 introducing enhanced principles of dispute resolution.
Introducing the DAAB in 2017, these mechanisms have been further improved to contribute to
the industry's corporate spirit, which is aligned with current times. Expert sentiment analysis of
these advancements includes procedural guidelines and effectiveness of DAABs, limitations of
jurisdictional flexibility, notice scenario, and cost-effectiveness. Finally, the last section discusses
the ideas for improved regional flexibility in FIDIC frameworks and the international construction
industry through relevant and highly advanced technological use of suitable techniques for key
stakeholder groups.
