Source: https://www.jamsadr.com/publications/2008/jams-global-construction-solutions-newsletter-fall-2008
Timestamp: 2018-11-19 06:05:47
Document Index: 357369989

Matched Legal Cases: ['§20', '§7', '§5', 'Art.\t20', '§12', '§15', 'Art.\t7', 'Art.\t11', 'Art.\t8', 'Art.\t7', 'Art.\t7', 'Art.\t6', 'Art.\t7', '§5', 'Art.\t7', '§5', '§4', '§19', 'Art.\t7', 'Art.\t12', 'Art.\t12', '§4', '§5']

JAMS Global Construction Solutions Newsletter Fall 2008
Publications JAMS Global Construction Solutions Newsletter, Fall 2008
Volume 1, No. 1 • Fall 2008 ALSO IN th IS ISSue . . . tips on educating Your Clients About Project Neutrals. . . . . . . . . pag e.2 efficient Case Management Makes the Difference. . . . . pag e.4 “ Adjudication” as a Method of Resolving Construction Disputes. . . . . . . . . p age.6 ADR Case Notes. . . . p age.8 Notices & Calendar of events. . . . . . . . p age.9 Sample Project Neutral Contract Clause. . . p age.12 JAMS, The Resolution Experts, is the largest private provider of ADR services in the United States, with Resolution Centers in major cities throughout the country. The JAMS Global Engineering and Construction Group provides expert mediation, arbitration, project neutral, and other services to the global construction industry to resolve disputes in a timely and efficient manner. JAMS’ Vision for Construction ADR By PhiliP l. BRunER, ESq. Director, JAMS Global Engineering and Construction Group Engineering	and	construction	projects	have	mushroomed	in	number	and	complexity	in	the	past	century	–	and	so	has	the	need	for	improved	construction	industry	dispute	resolu- tion	processes.	More	than	100	years	ago,	the	increasing	complexity	of	construction	caused	the	construction	industry	to	favor	arbitration	by	peers,	who	applied	the	“law	of	the	shop”	as	much	as	the	“law	of	the	courts,”	rather	than	by	judges	or	juries	with	minimal	knowledge	about	or	experience	in	construction	issues.	In	recent	decades,	the	industry	has	maintained	a	relentless	search	for	new	and	innovative	processes	that	enhance	dispute	resolution	efficiency .	This	search	has	produced	a	variety	of	new	approaches,	such	as	partnering	commitments,	information	exchange	and	structured	“stepped”	negotiation	clauses,	mediation	and	conciliation,	expert	determination,	independent	decision	makers,	standing	See “Director’s Corner” on Page 5 By JOhn W. hinChEy , ESq. International	com- mercial	and	con- struction	arbitra- tors,	acting	under	typical	arbitration	agreements	and	ar- bitral	institutional	rules,	have	broad	power	and	authority	to	decide	not	only	the	disputes	put	before	them,	but	also	the	scope	of	their	own	jurisdiction	to	decide	those	disputes. 1 Moreover,	international	arbitrators	are	granted	extensive	discretion	by	most	arbi- tration	agreements	and	institutional	rules	to	determine	the	procedures	by	which	disputes	will	be	decided. 2 Once	a	dispute	is	decided	and	the	final award	is	rendered,	the	grounds	on	which	the	award	can	be	challenged,	particularly	for	errors	of	law	and	mistakes	in	deciding	issues	of	fact,	are	limited	to	nil. 3 When	these	stark	reali- ties	are	fully	appreciated,	it	appears	quite	obvious	that	nothing	is	more	important	to	achieving	a	fair,	efficient, and	economical	international	arbitration	than	the	selec- Selecting Qualified Arbitrators is the Key to Success in International Construction Cases See “Selecting Qualified Arbitrators” on Page 10 to learn more about the JAMS Global engineering and Construction Group, go to http:/ /www.jamsadr.com/construction-practice/ JAMS GLOBAL CONSt RuCt ION SOLut IONS Leading.ADR.Developments.from.The.Resolution.Experts DIReCtOR’S CORNeRJAMS GLOBAL CONSt RuCt ION SOLut IONS • FALL 2008 • PAGe 2 Five tips on educating Your Clients About Project Neutrals By KEnnETh C. GiBBS, ESq. Many	people	find it	difficult to	accept	change,	even	if	for	no	other	reason	than	they	are	used	to	doing	things	“the	old	way.”	But	in	the	con- struction	world,	which	for	years	has	been	at	the	cutting	edge	of	the	ADR	process,	lawyers,	clients	and	profes- sional	neutrals	are	always	trying	to	improve	and	change	the	dispute	resolution	system	so	we	can	resolve	matters	quicker,	more	efficiently	and	better	than	before.	One example	is	the	concept	of	the	“project	neutral.”	Project	neutrals	are	trained	ADR	specialists	who	are	des- ignated	in	the	contract	documents	to	literally	join	the	construction	team	and	follow	the	process	from	ground	breaking	to	completion.	That	doesn’t	mean	that	you	have	a	mediator	on	the	project	everyday	–	there	have	been	several	projects	in	which	I	have	been	designated	the	project	neutral	and	was	never	called	upon	–	but	it	does	mean	that	you	have	a	dedicated	neutral	who	is	ready	to	help	resolve	matters	“on	a	moment’s	notice”	and	who,	unlike	any	other	player	on	the	construction	team,	has	only	one	cli- ent:	the	project. Although a	project	neutral	can	be	designated	at	any	time,	it	is	clearly	the	best	practice	to	designate	a	project	neutral	in	the	contract	docu- ments.	To	do	so,	a	lawyer	may	need	to	explain	to	a	client,	whether	they	be	the	owner,	design	professional,	or	contractor,	why	it	is	in	their	best	inter- est	to	have	a	project	neutral	provision	in	the	contract	documents.	Here	are	some	tips	on	what	you	might	tell	your	client: 1. Choosing an Effective ADR Process while Everyone is Still Friends is a Good idea By	putting	a	provision	for	a	proj- ect	neutral	in	place	in	the	contract	documents	and	by,	in	fact,	selecting	the	individual	who	will	be	the	project	neutral,	you	eliminate	arguments	of	who	will	eventually	serve	and	which	side	they	may	theoretically	favor.	Selecting	a	mediator/project	neutral	at	the	time	of	the	contract	that	all	parties	trust	is	a	step	forward	on	the	dispute	avoidance	road. 2. A Project neutral Takes Any Perceived Bias Out of the Dispute Evaluation Process Traditionally the	architect/engi- neer,	as	the	“master-builder,”	has	been	the	initial	evaluator	of	disputes	between	the	owner	and	contractor.	But	as	more	of	those	disputes	have	centered	on	the	preparation	and	coordination	of	plans	and	specifica - tions,	decisions	by	design	profession- als	have	been	questioned	by	various	JAMS GLOBAL CONSt RuCt ION SOLut IONS • FALL 2008 • PAGe  parties,	and	architect/engineers	have	been	put	in	the	difficult	situation	of	rendering	opinions	that	could	affect	their	own	liability.	Selection	of	a	“dis- interested”	project	neutral	eliminates	the	perception	of	bias	and	allows	the	architect/engineer	to	remain	involved	in	the	design	and	aesthetic	aspects	of	the	project	without	having	to	be	the	“dispute	resolver.” 3. A Project neutral Moves Dispute Resolution to the Front End of the Project On	many	projects,	significant	problems	are	encountered	shortly	after	commencement	relating	to	site	access,	subsurface	conditions,	government	regulations,	etc.	These	problems	should	not	wait	until	proj- ect	completion	for	resolution.	I	was	recently	an	arbitrator	on	a	major	construction	project	where	a	sub- surface	condition	–	which	the	parties	became	aware	of	within	60	days	of	the	Notice	to	Proceed	–	was	never	resolved	which	led	to	confusion	over	the	project	schedule,	which	led	to	arguments	over	acceleration/delay,	which	led	to	a	major	dispute,	which	required	an	arbitration	to	resolve.	Having	an	ADR	process	in	place	at	the	outset,	with	a	project	neutral	on	board,	allows	for	the	resolution	of	these	front	end	disputes	and	may	well	prevent	costly	and	protracted	litigation	or	arbitration. 4. A Project neutral helps to Prevent Small Problems from Festering into Big Ones One	of	the	biggest	mistakes	con- tractors,	owners	and	design	profes- sionals	make	is	to	defer	resolution	of	problems	and	disputes	to	the	end	of	the	project.	While,	on	occasion	it	is	necessary	to	do	so,	all	too	often	rela- tively	small	issues,	which	could	have	been	resolved,	are	carried	forward,	deferred	and	then	grouped	into	a	See a sample Project Neutral Clause on Page 12 of this newsletter or on the JAMS website at: http:/ /www.jamsadr.com/construction-practice/ “cumulative”	claim.	It	is	a	much	better	practice	to	resolve	claims	and	issues	on	an	ongoing	basis.	Often	a	“bubble	up”	system	is	used	–	try	to	resolve	disputes	at	the	project	level,	if	that	is	unsuccessful	bring	in	senior	project	management,	if	that	is	unsuc- cessful	bring	in	senior	executives.	The	project	neutral	can	be	used	to	help	facilitate	the	process	with	the	senior	project	management	or	executive	teams,	much	as	a	mediator	would	do	at	the	end	of	a	project. 5. The Project neutral Can Work with the Parties to Proactively Prevent Disputes By demonstrating	true	impartiality	and	gaining	the	trust	of	all	members	of	the	construction	team,	the	project	neutral	can	have	private,	confidential	meetings	with	each	member	and	determine	their	concerns	and	the	threats	to	the	project	not	being	com- pleted	on-time	and	within	budget.	The	project	neutral	can	then	care- fully	use	that	information	to	facili- tate	group	meetings	to	address	and	prevent	disputes.	On	several	projects,	after	having	worked	with	the	par- ticipants	for	some	time,	I	conducted	regular	meetings	to	discuss	the	“top	ten	threats”	to	successful	project	completion	and	to	determine	what	needed	to	be	done	to	make	sure	the	threats	did	not	materialize. Mr. Gibbs is a JAMS mediator, arbitrator, and project neutral based in Santa Monica, CA. Email him at kgibbs@ jamsadr.com or view his Engineering & Construction bio online.JAMS GLOBAL CONSt RuCt ION SOLut IONS • FALL 2008 • PAGe  One	of	the	most	important	parts	of	administering	a	large	construction	case	is	efficient	case	management.	Here	is	an	interview	with	two	JAMS	Case	Managers	in	Santa	Monica,	CA.	• MOJGAn BinDER Title:	Senior	Case	Manager GEC	Neutral:	Jerry	Kurland	Years	with	JAMS:	13	• JOSElyn AlExAnDER Title:	Case	Manager GEC	Neutrals:	Ken	Gibbs, Viggo	Boserup	Years	with	JAMS:	5	q . How	is	administering	large	construction	cases	differ- ent	than	administering	other	types	of	cases?	What	makes	them	unique? Joselyn: The	clientele	is	sophis- ticated.	We	enjoy	working	with	seasoned	construction	attorneys.	Mojgan: There	are	usually	mul- tiple	parties	in	these	cases.	Keeping	things	organized	and	moving	quickly	is	important.	We	are	very	responsive	to	all	our	clients,	and	this	is	especially	important	with	these	construction	cases.	Joselyn: We	see	a	range	of	issues	from	projects	going	over	budget	to	delays	to	mechanic	liens.	q. What	is	your	role	in	schedul- ing	and	managing	these	cases?	Mojgan: Parties	will	call	us	–	most	of	the	time	they	have	a	specific	neu- tral	in	mind,	although	not	always.	Sometimes	attorneys	call	me	to	tell	me	about	their	case	and	ask	for	a	recommendation	about	which	neu- tral	I	think	would	be	most	appropri- ate.	We	gather	as	much	information	about	the	case	as	possible	–	what	is	the	nature	of	the	dispute,	how	many	parties,	where	do	they	need	to	meet.	We	check	neutral	availability,	and	we	sometimes	help	coordinate	calendars	with	all	parties.	We	really	handle	all	of	the	administrative	aspects	of	these	cases,	which	have	a	lot	of	moving	parts.	Joselyn: We	sometimes	call	par- ties	on	the	service	list	and	ask	them	to	agree	to	mediate.	We	coordinate	with	the	party	who	originally	con- tacted	us	after	we	have	had	contact	with	all	sides.	Mojgan: The	majority	of	the	time	attorneys	wait	to	agree	among	themselves	before	they	call	us,	but	as	Jos	said,	that’s	not	always	the	case.	The	attorneys	use	us	to	get	the	ball	rolling	sometimes.	Joselyn: On	occasion,	a	cli- ent	will	call	and	will	have	to	do	a	mediation	on	a	certain	date	or	within	a	certain	timeframe.	If	the	neutral	they	are	requesting	cannot	be	available,	then	we	help	the	attorney	select	another	mediator	or	arbitrator	who	is	a	good	fit	for	their	case.	q. How	do	you	work	with	the	parties	and	the	neutral? Joselyn: I	would	say	our	re- lationships	with	all	of	our	clients	and	neutrals	is	professional,	and	yet	relaxed.	One	of	my	most	im- portant	jobs	is	to	keep	everyone,	neutrals	and	attorneys,	updated	on	the	status	of	the	case	and	its	various	elements.	If	there	are	issues	that	I	can’t	take	care	of,	I immediately	notify	the	mediator	or	arbitrator,	so	he	can	step	in	and	help	the	parties.	Mojgan: We	work	with	our	neutrals	as	team	players.	We	really	think	of	ourselves	as	a	team.	Our	relationships	with	our	clients	are	very	important.	The	key	for	me	is	trust.	The	clients	trust	us	and	they	count	on	us.	I	try	to	be	as	responsive	as	possible	to	all	of	our	clients.	Quick	response	helps	them	do	their	jobs	better.	If	an	attorney	is	expecting	a	document	from	us,	I	get	it	to	him	or	her	as	soon	as	possible.	We	try	to	meet	their	needs	in	every	aspect	of	the	case.	q . Is	there	something	unique	that	you	personally	do,	or	that	JAMS	does,	that	you	think	clients	especially	like? Joselyn: Follow	up.	Clients	have	efficient Case Management Makes the Difference JAMS Case Managers Mojgan Binder and Joselyn AlexanderJAMS GLOBAL CONSt RuCt ION SOLut IONS • FALL 2008 • PAGe  told	me	that	they	appreciate	the	level	of	follow	up	they	receive	from	us.	Mojgan: I	try	to	avoid	getting	voicemail	as	much	as	possible.	I	do	my	best	to	pick	up	the	phone	when	a	client	is	calling.	It’s	more	efficient	for	the	attorney	because	he	or	she	can	get	an	immediate	response.	If	I	do	get	voicemails,	I	answer	them	right	away.	This	goes	not	only	for	partners,	but	associates,	secretaries,	and	legal	assistants.	I	talk	with	sitting	judges	and	their	clerks.	I	work	with	people	at	all	levels	and	give	them	the	same	type	of	quick	response.	q . What	do	you	think	is	the	key	to	the	case	management	system	at	JAMS?	Mojgan: JAMSware,	which	is	our	software	database,	allows	us	to	keep	organized.	It’s	really	an	advanced	case	management	system.	We	keep	all	of	our	case	notes	there	with	dates	and	reminders	or	“recalls”	as	we	say.	It	is	all	real	time	so	we	can	access	the	most	up	to	date	information	when	we	have	an	attorney	on	the	phone.	We	keep	track	of	everything	through	JAMSware.	Joselyn: JAMSware	is	a	safety	net	–	it	doesn’t	let	things	fall	through	the	cracks.	It’s	really	the	best.	q. Do	you	ever	work	with	other	ADR	providers,	or	non-JAMS	neutrals	on	cases,	or	do	you	ever	get	cases	with	contracts	which	have	other	providers	written	into	them?	Joselyn: Yes	to	all	of	those	ques- tions.	We	work	with	AAA,	the	OAH	Administrator	(Office	of	Administra- tive	Hearings	for	the	State	of	Cali- fornia).	We	work	with	outside	arbi- trators.	This	happens	with	tripartite	arbitration	panels.	Mojgan: We	do	get	contracts	with	AAA	written	into	them.	The	parties	stipulate	to	use	Ken	or	Jerry	or	JAMS	and	as	long	as	everyone	agrees,	it’s	not	a	problem.	q . Practice	Tips	–	if	you	could	give	attorneys	advice	on	how	to	best	use	the	service	of	a	Case	Manager,	what	would	be	the	top	one	or	two	things	you	would	advise?	Any	tips	or	tricks	you	want	to	share	that	you’ve	seen	successful	attorneys	use? Joselyn: If	it’s	possible,	I	would	tell	attorneys	to	be	forthcoming	and	as	detailed	as	possible	at	the	onset	of	the	case.	The	more	information	project	neutrals,	dispute	review	boards,	adjudication,	mini-arbitration/trial	proceedings	and	expedited	arbitration.	With	the	plethora	of	new	processes	have	come	increasing	industry	demands	for	expertise,	innovation,	impar - tiality	and	efficiency	of	neutrals,	and	competent	case	administration. In	response	to	these	historic	industry	trends	and	modern	demands,	JAMS	–	America’s	largest	private	provider	of	dispute	resolution	services	–	formed	the	Global	Engineering	and	Construction	(GEC)	group	on	January	1,	2008.	The	GEC	panel	of	neutrals	comprises	lawyers	and	judges	recog- nized	among	the	world’s	most	highly	regarded	construction	experts	from	within	and	outside	the	U.S.	Each	panel	member	is	supported	personally	by	a	highly	competent	case	manager	and	staff	in	JAMS	Resolution	Centers	throughout	the	U.S.	–	offices	uniformly	designed	to	provide	ample,	well- appointed	hearing	and	consultation	spaces	in	which	to	resolve	disputes.	JAMS’	vision	is	to	provide	to	the	global	construction	industry	the	finest,	most	expert,	ethical,	innovative	and	efficient	level	of	dispute	resolution	services	in	the	world.	Through	this	quarterly	newsletter,	we	look	forward	to	keeping	you	informed	of	our	quest	and	of	important	developments	that	will	shape	the	future	of	construction	ADR.	Our	goal	is	to	make	this	a	valuable	part	of	the	ongoing	dialog	within	the	industry	about	best	prac- tices	in	dispute	resolution.	We	encourage	your	feedback	and	ideas,	and	more	importantly,	we	would	like	to	receive	articles	from	you	about	cutting	edge	issues	(see	Editorial Guidelines	on	Page	12).	It	is	with	this	spirit	of	collaboration	and	learning	that	we	hope	you	enjoy	the	inaugural	issue.	Respectfully yours, Phil Bruner Mr. Bruner is a JAMS mediator, arbitrator, and project neutral based in Minnesota. Email him at pbruner@jamsadr.com or view his Engineering & Construction bio online. JAMS Global Engineering and Construction Group may be reached at its Rapid Resolution “one call” national number: 866-956-8104. we	have	on	the	front	end,	the	more	we	can	help	them	expedite	the	case	or	anticipate	challenges.	It	will	help	avoid	bumps	along	the	way. Also, we	act	as	“neutrals.”	JAMS’	service	as	a	neutral	provider	is	ex- tended	to	case	managers.	If	parties	don’t	get	along,	we	can	contact	the	other	side.	That’s	what	we	are	here	for	and	we	are	happy	to	do	it.	Mojgan: Communication	is	key,	and	they	should	keep	the	case	man- ager	updated,	so	we	can	keep	ev- eryone	involved	at	every	stage	of	the	process.	In	my	many	years	here,	I’ve	found	that	to	be	very	important.	DIReCtOR’S CORNeR continued.from.Page.1JAMS GLOBAL CONSt RuCt ION SOLut IONS • FALL 2008 • PAGe  By hAR vEy J. KiRSh, ESq. The latham Report Of 1994 In 1993,	Sir	Michael	Anthony	Latham,	a	retired	British	Conservative	Member	of	Parliament,	was	commis- sioned	to	lead	an	investigation	into	concerns	expressed	in	the	United	Kingdom’s	construction	industry	about	the	significant	expenses	and	unreasonable	delays	required	to	resolve	construction	claims,	and	the	shortcomings	of	the	existing	dispute	resolution	methods.	Latham’s	inquiry	ultimately	led	to	the	July	1994	pub- lication	of	his	joint	government	and	industry	report,	“Constructing	the	Team”	(which	came	to	be	known	as	the	“latham Report” ). The	Latham	Report’s	identifica - tion	and	critical	evaluation	of	the	inefficiencies in	the	processes	and	procedures	in	the	construction	indus- try	set	the	agenda	for	reform.	One	of	its	major	recommendations	was	that	“adjudication”	should	be	the	standard	form	of	dispute	resolution.	This	became	the	driving	force	for	legislative	reform	which	followed. legislative Amendment introduces Adjudication The	Housing	Grants,	Construc- tion	and	Regeneration	Act	1996 1 (also	known	as	“The Construction Act”),	which	received	Royal	Assent	on	July	24,	1996,	was	responsible	for	introducing	a	new	form	of	“adjudi­ cation” for	construction	disputes. As	Sir	Michael	Latham	wrote: “The coming	into	force	of	the	Construction	Act	on	May	1,	1998,	nearly	two	years	after	it	received	Roy- al	Assent,	was	a	seminal	event	for	the	construction	process	throughout	Brit- ain.	One	of	the	most	significant parts	of	the	Act	was	the	statutory	right	of	adjudication,	intended	to	provide	speedy	and	relatively	inexpensive	settlements	of	construction	disputes	throughout	an	industry	which	had	been	plagued	by	them.” 2 A set	of	imposing	regulations	followed	in	1998,	entitled	“Scheme	for	Construction	Contracts	(England	and	Wales)	Regulations	1998,”	and	included	by	default	in	contracts	to	which	the	Construction	Act	applies,	if	the	contract	does	not	meet	the	minimum	procedural	requirements	for	compliance	with	the	Act.	Section	108	of	the	Act	provides	that: (a)	A party	to	a	written 3 construc- tion	contract	(as	broadly	defined) has	the	right	to	give	notice	at	any	time	of	his	intention	to	refer	a	“dispute”	to	adjudication.	“Dispute”	is	defined	to	include	“any	difference;” (b)	An	impartial	adjudicator	is	to	be	appointed,	and	the	dispute	is	to	be	referred	to	him/her	within	7	days	of	such	notice; (c)	The	adjudicator	is	required	to	reach	a	decision	within	28	days	of	the	referral	(subject	to	a	specified 14-day	time	extension,	with	the	agreement	of	the	referring	party,	or	to	a	further	time	extension	by	agreement	of	both	parties); (d)	The	construction	contract	is	to	provide	that	the	decision	of	the	adjudicator	is	binding	until	the	dis- pute	is	finally determined	by	legal	proceedings,	by	arbitration	(if	the	contract	provides	for	it)	or	by	agree- ment;	and (e)	The	construction	contract	is	also	to	provide	that	the	adjudicator	is	immune	from	liability,	provided	that	he/she	has	acted	in	good	faith. The Adjudication Process Once the	adjudicator	receives	the	referral	notice,	he/she	will	set	the	procedure	for	the	adjudication;	will	take	the	initiative	in	reviewing	the	facts	and	the	applicable	law;	may	seek	advice	from	others,	with	the	consent	of	the	parties;	and	will	render	a	decision	(with	reasons,	if	requested)	within	the	four	corners	of	the	referral	notice,	and	within	the	allotted	time	(28	days,	42	days,	or	longer,	depending	upon	the	agree- ment	of	the	parties).	Once	the	deci- sion	has	been	rendered,	the	parties	must	comply	with	it	(until	it	is	finally	resolved	by	arbitration,	litigation	or	agreement).	In his	speech	to	the	House	of	Lords,	Lord	Ackner	stated: “What	I	have	always	understood	to	be	required	by	the	adjudication	process	was	a	quick,	enforceable	interim	decision	which	lasted	until	practical	completion	when,	if	not	acceptable,	it	would	be	the	subject	matter	of	arbitration	or	litigation.	This	was	a	highly	satisfactory	process.	“ Adjudication” as a Method of Resolving Construction DisputesJAMS GLOBAL CONSt RuCt ION SOLut IONS • FALL 2008 • PAGe  It	came	under	the	rubric,	‘pay	now,	argue	later’	which	was	a	sensible	way	of	dealing	expeditiously	and	relatively	inexpensively	with	disputes	which	might	hold	up	the	completion	of	important	contracts.”	4 Enforceability Of An Adjudication Decision As	indicated	above,	the	adjudica- tor’s	decision	is	provisionally	binding	on	the	parties,	unless	and	until	it	is	challenged	and	finally resolved	by	arbitration,	litigation	or	agreement.	Until	then,	and	subject	to	a	possible	defense	by	the	unsuccessful	party	that	the	adjudicator	exceeded	his/her	jurisdiction,	the	adjudicator’s	decision	may	be	enforced	by	the	court. The	issue	of	enforceability	of	the	adjudicator’s	decision	was	confirmed,	shortly	after	the	promulgation	of	the	Construction	Act,	in	Macob	Civil	Engineering	Ltd.	v.	Morrison	Con- struction	Ltd., 5 a	1999	decision	of	the	Technology	and	Construction	Court	(High	Court	of	Justice,	Queen’s	Bench	Division).	In	that	case,	Hon.	Mr.	Justice	Dyson	held	that	“(c)rucially,	[Parliament]	has	made	it	clear	that	decisions	of	adjudicators	are	binding	and	are	to	be	complied	with	until	the	dispute	is	finally	resolved.” 6 The Costs Of Adjudication Although	construction	contracts	usually	provide	that	both	parties	are	jointly	and	severally	liable	for	pay- ment	of	the	adjudicator’s	fees,	the	adjudicator	is	often	given	the	author- ity	and	discretion	to	apportion	them	between	the	parties.	Typically,	they	are	to	be	paid	by	the	unsuccessful	party.	As	for	the	parties’	own	costs	(e.g.,	for	lawyers,	experts,	etc.),	they	are	usually	not	recoverable	from	the	opposing	party,	although	the	adjudi- cator	may	be	given	the	authority	to	award	or	apportion	them	as	well. Epilogue On Adjudication In an	extended	lament	about	the	unacceptable	delays	and	high	expense	inherent	in	construction	arbitrations	in	the	U.S.,	JAMS	GEC	neutral	Barry	Grove,	after	reviewing	some	of	the	processes	being	used	by	the	American	Arbitration	Association	(e.g.,	Fast	Track	Rules)	and	the	In- ternational	Chamber	of	Commerce,	concluded	that	“(a)rbitration	avoid- ance	is	the	panacea.	This	is	done	through	better,	fairer	contracts	and	schemes	like	partnering,	alliancing,	dispute	review	boards	and	media- tion.” 7 Then,	turning	his	critical	sights	on	“adjudication,”	he	continued: “The	response	in	England	is	dra- conian.	Most	construction	disputes	that	arise	from	projects	within	the	geographical	reach	of	Parliament	must	now,	by	statute,	be	heard	and	resolved	within	28-42	days	by	an	‘adjudicator’	who	will	be	appointed	if	the	parties	cannot	select	one	by	agreement.	The	adjudicator’s	deci- sion	is	immediately	binding	but	not	final	since	the	dispute	is	subject	to	de	novo	rehearing	in	subsequent	arbitration	or	litigation.	It is doubt- ful that this process can do jus- tice to a significant or complex dispute. 8 And anyway it is open to either party to go on with an unacceptably long and expensive arbitration or litigation. What adjudication has really achieved is rough justice on an interim basis.” 9 [emphasis	added] Having said	that,	legal	writers,	who	have	advocated	the	adoption	of	the	adjudication	model	for	use	in	Canadian	construction	contracts,	have	also	observed	that	versions	of	the	U.K.	scheme	have	already	been	promulgated	in	other	Common- wealth	countries	such	as	Singapore,	New	Zealand	and	Australia. 10 Similarly,	John	Hinchey	(of	JAMS’	GEC	Group)	and	Troy	Harris,	in	their	recently	published	text	“International	Construction	Arbitration	Handbook,”	concluded	that:	“	.	.	.	the	English	ex- periences	with	Adjudication,	both	good	and	bad,	will	undoubtedly	be	drawn	upon	by	other	countries,	particularly	the	United	States,	in	de- ciding	whether	or	what	aspects	of	Statutory	Adjudication	can	or	could	be	transplanted,	either	into	domestic	contracts	or	legislation.”	11 Mr. Kirsh is a mediator, arbitrator, and project neutral with the JAMS New York Resolution Center, and a partner at Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP in Toronto, Canada. Email him at hkirsh@ jamsadr.com or view his Engineering & Construction bio online. 1.	Acts	of	the	UK	Parliament,	1996,	Chapter	53 2.	Sir	Michael	Latham,	in	his	Foreword	to	Rich- ard	Anderson’s	“A	Practical	Guide	to	Adjudica- tion	in	Construction	Matters”	(W.	Green/	Sweet	&	Maxwell,	2000) 3.	There	is	speculation	that	anticipated	amend- ments	to	the	Act,	which	will	form	part	of	the	Government’s	legislative	program	for	2008- 2009,	will	provide	that	construction	contracts	will	no	longer	have	to	be	in	writing	for	the	right	to	adjudicate	to	apply. 4.	Speech	of	Lord	Ackner,	reported	in	Hansard,	House	of	Lords	Volume	571,	Columns	989-990,	as	referenced	in	John	W.	Hinchey	and	Troy	L.	Harris,	“International	Construction	Arbitration	Handbook”	(Thomson/West,	2008)	(hereinaf- ter	called	“Hinchey	and	Harris”),	at	fn.	12	of	para.	1:17 5.	[1999]	B.L.R.	93 6.	ibid,	at	98 7.	Jesse	B.	Grove	III,	“New	Rules	for	Expedited	Construction	Arbitration	in	the	United	States,”	[2007]	The	International	Construction	Law	Review	136,	at	137 8.	But	see	Hinchey	and	Harris,	para.	1:17,	at	page	58,	where	the	authors	contend	that,	despite	the	suggestion	that	the	truncated	process	is	not	suitable	for	complex	construc- tion	cases,“	the	Act	has	been	increasingly	used	for	more	complex	cases	being	referred	to	adjudication.” 9.	ibid 10.	Duncan	Glaholt,	“The	Adjudication	Op- tion:	Time	for	Uniform	Security	of	Payment	Legislation	in	Canada,”	paper	presented	at	The	Canadian	Institute’s	15th	Annual	Construction	Superconference	(November	21-22,	2005,	Toronto) 11.	Hinchey	and	Harris,	para.	1:17,	at	page	53JAMS GLOBAL CONSt RuCt ION SOLut IONS • FALL 2008 • PAGe 8 • May parties enlarge by agree­ ment statutory grounds for judi­ cial vacatur and modification of an arbitration award: “no” under the Federal Arbitration Act (Hall Street Associates LLC v. Mattel, Inc., 552 u. S. __, 128 S. Ct. 1396, 170 l . Ed. 2d 254 (March 25, 2008)) and “yes” under the Cali­ fornia Arbitration Act (Cable Connection, Inc. v. DIRECTV, Inc. __Cal. Rptr. 3d __ , 2008 Wl 3891556 (Cal. August 25, 2008)). 1. The FAA.	Since	enactment	of	the	Federal	Arbitration	Act	in	1925	parties	desirous	of	binding	arbitration,	but	uncomfortable	with	the	limited	statutory	grounds	for	judicial	vaca- tur	or	modification	of	an	arbitration	award,	have	questioned	whether	the	statutory	grounds	could	be	expanded	by	the	agreement	to	arbitrate.	Over	the	years	a	split	of	authority	had	arisen	among	the	federal	circuits	over	the	exclusiveness	of	the	statutory	grounds.	The	U.S.	Courts	of	Appeals	for	the	Ninth	and	Tenth	Circuits	ruled	that	par- ties	could	not	contract	for	expanded	judicial	review.	See,	Kyocera	Corp.	v.	Prudential-Bache	Trade	Services,	Inc,	341	F.	3d	987,	1000	(9th	Cir	2003);	Bowen	v.	Amoco	Pipeline	Co.,	254	F.	3d	925,	936	(10th	Cir.	2001).	The	First,	Fifth	and	Sixth	Circuits	had	held	that	parties	may	so	contract.	See,	Puerto	Rico	Tel.	Co.	v.	U.	S.	Phone	Mfg.	Corp.,	427	F.	3d	21,	31	(1st	Cir.	2005);	Jacada	(Europe),	Ltd.	v.	International	Marketing	Strategies,	Inc.,	401	F.	3d	701,	710	(6th	Cir.	2005);	Roadway	Package	System,	Inc.	v.	Kayser,	257	F.	3d	287,288	(3d	Cir.	2001). The	U.S.	Supreme	Court	now	re- soundingly	has	rejected	the	consensual	modification of	the	FAA’s	statutory	grounds	for	judicial	review,	and	has	held	that	FAA	Sections	10	and	11	pro- vide	the	exclusive	grounds	for	award	vacatur	and	modification.	In	Hall,	the	Court	refused	to	enforce	the	parties’	arbitration	agreement,	which	provided	that	the	award	could	be	vacated	judi- cially	upon	a	finding	either	that	it	was	not	supported	by	substantial	evidence	or	that	the	arbitrator’s	conclusions	were	erroneous	as	a	matter	of	law.	In	so	doing,	the	Court	also	ruled	that	Wilko	v.	Swan,	346	U.S.	427	(1953),	which	has	been	viewed	as	creating	an	additional	ground	for	judicial	review	based	on	an	arbitrator’s	“manifest	disregard	of	law,”	did	not	create	a	new	review	standard	but	merely	referred	to	the	Section	10	grounds	“collec- tively.” 2. The California Rule.	Five	months	to	the	day	after	the	Hall	de- cision	was	announced,	the	Supreme	Court	of	California,	in	a	6-2	decision	issued	August	25,	2008,	ruled that	parties	arbitrating	under	the	Califor- nia	Arbitration	Act	may	enlarge	by	consensual	agreement	the	limit - ed	grounds	for	vacation	of	an	arbitra- tion	award	provided by	Cal. Code	Civ.	Proc.	Section	1286.	In	Cable	Connec- tion,	the	arbitration	agreement	said	that	“the	arbitrators	shall	not	have	the	power	to	commit	errors	of	law	or	legal	reasoning,	and	the	award	may	be	vacated	or	corrected	on	appeal	to	a	court	of	competent	jurisdiction	for	any	such	error.”	In	enforcing	this	language,	the	Court	reaffirmed its	decision	in	Moncharsh	v.	Heily	&	Blase,	3	Cal.	4th	1	(Cal.	1992),	which held	that	the	Cali- fornia	Legislature	had	adopted	the	po- sition	taken	in	prior	case	law	that	“in	the	absence	of	some	limiting	clause	in	the	arbitration	agreement,	the	merits	of	the	award,	either	on	questions	of	fact	or	of	law,	may	not	be	reviewed	except	as	provided	by	statute.”	The	Cable	Connection	Court majority	ruled	that	the	language	in	the	arbitra- tion	agreement	constituted	such	an	enforceable	“limiting	clause.” The Cable	Connection	decision	is	limited	to	California	state	law,	and	thus	its	application	should	be	limited	to	California	contracts	not	involving	“interstate	commerce.”	The	FAA	ap - plies	to	all	contracts	in	“interstate	commerce”	–	an	exceptionally	broad	reach	in	the	modern	business	envi- ronment	–	and	preempts	contrary	state	arbitration	law.	See	generally	6	Bruner	&	O’Connor	on	Construction	Law	§20:10	et.	seq.	Courts,	however,	have	been	known	to	confuse	“state	arbitration	law”	with “state	general	contract	law.”	Such	confusion	could	arise	under “interstate” contracts	in	which	the	parties	expressly	agree	that	the	contract	is	governed	by	California	law.	The	Supreme	Court	of	California	itself	interpreted	the	U.S.	Supreme	Court’s	language	in Hall,	which	stated	that	federal	law	does	not	preclude	“more	searching	review	based	on	au- thority	outside	the	[federal]	statute”	including	“state	statutory	or	common	law,”	as	consistent with	its decision	in	Cable	Connection.	Such	substantive	“state	contract	law,”	however,	should	be	limited in	application	in	“interstate”	contracts	to	substantive	arbitrability	issues	going	to	the	validity	of	an	arbi- tration	agreement	itself,	and	should	not	be	construed	to	enlarge	statutory	grounds	for	vacatur	or	modification of	an	arbitration	award	governed by	the	FAA.	The	Supreme	Court	of	California	also	noted	that	“the	United	States	Su- preme	Court	does	not	read	the	FAA’s	procedural	provisions	to	apply	to	state	court	proceedings,”	does	not “address	whether	the	FAA	provision	for	vaca- tur	‘where	the	arbitrators	exceeded	their	powers’…is	applicable	when	the	agreement	specifically limits	the	arbitrators’	powers	by	providing	for	an	award	governed	by	law and	review- able	for	legal	error,”	and	despite	its	“strict	reading	of	the	FAA	[the	court]	left	the	door	ajar	for	alternate	routes	to	an	expanded	scope	of	review.” ADR Case NotesJAMS GLOBAL CONSt RuCt ION SOLut IONS • FALL 2008 • PAGe  New JAMS Arbitrator Based in London: His Honour Humphrey LLoyd QC The	newest	JAMS	GEC	neutral	and	Advisory	Board	Member	is	his honour humphrey lloyd,	a	former	judge	of	the	High	Court	of Justice	of	England	and	Wales.	He	brings	tremendous	experience	as	an	arbitrator	on	major	matters	involving	business	commercial	and construction	contracts.	Since	2005,	he	resumed	his	career	as	an	arbitrator	in	international	and	domestic	matters,	practicing	from	Atkin	Chambers,	in	Gray’s	Inn,	London.	His	Honour	Humphrey	LLoyd	served	for	12	years	on	the	bench	of	the	Technology	and	Construction	Court	in	London,	a	division	of	the	High	Court	of	Justice	of	England	and	Wales.	His	work	there	included	supervision	over	numerous	major arbitrations	and	adjudications	involving	construction	disputes.	Prior	to	his	service	on	the	bench,	he	was	for	30	years	a	barrister	and	arbitrator,	specializing	in	UK	and	international	construction	matters.	He	was	appointed	Queen’s	Counsel	in	1979. SEPT. 10­12, 2008: JAMS Sponsors ABA Fall Meeting American Bar Association Forum on The Construction Fall Meeting, “Winds of Change? The Consensus Docs” The	Fairmont	Hotel	•	Chicago,	IL	•	http://www.abanet.org/forums/construction/ SEPT. 22­23, 2008: John Hinchey Speaks at Associated Owners and Developers 2008 national Conference East – “Finishing on Time, Within Budget, and Without lawsuits“ Four	Seasons	Hotel	Midtown	•	Atlanta,	GA	•	http://www.constructionchannel.net/2008AOD_CCiC_EAST_atlanta.html Sept. 22 • 10 - 11 AM: Effectively Resolving Local and Global Disputes Through Mediation, Arbitration or Litigation Panelists	include	John W . hinchey, Esq.,	Partner,	King	&	Spalding	LLP	&	JAMS	GEC	Neutral OCT. 5­8, 2008: JAMS Neutrals Speak at International Construction Law Conference Presented by the American College of Construction lawyers Program in Conjunction With The Society of Construction law London,	UK	•	For	additional	information	and	to	register,	visit http://www.sclinternational.org/accl. Oct. 5 • Guoman Tower Hotel • London: International Construction Law Fundamentals (a U.S. Perspective) JAMS	GEC	Neutrals	John W . hinchey, Esq.	(ACCL	president),	Philip l. Bruner, Esq.,	Jesse B. (Barry) Grove, iii, Esq.,	Katherine hope Gurun, Esq.,	and	hh humphrey lloyd qC	will	speak.	OCT. 12­14, 2008: Ken Gibbs Speaks at CMAA National Construction Conference Construction Management Association of America national Conference & Trade Show: “Ahead of the Curve – On Top of the Trends” • Hyatt	Regency	Embarcadero	Hotel	•	San	Francisco,	CA	•	http://cmaanet.org/nationalconference08.php. Oct. 14 • 10:15 AM: “Are You Ready for Dispute Resolutions in the 21st Century - Alternative Forums and Contracting Strategies” – Panelists	include	JAMS	GEC	Neutral	Kenneth C. Gibbs, Esq.	DEC. 10­12, 2008: “ADR in Cross Border Disputes” at 23rd Construction SuperConference The	Palace	Hotel	•	San	Francisco	•	http://www.constructionsuperconference.com/ME2/Default.asp The	SuperConference,	now	in	its	23rd	year,	is	recognized	as	one	of	the	preeminent	legal	construction	conferences.	The	program	will	provide	insight	into	some	of	the	most	complex	legal	and	business	issues	facing	the	construction	industry. Dec. 11 • 2:15 - 3:30 PM: ADR in Cross Border Disputes Featured	JAMS	GEC	Neutrals	include	Philip l. Bruner, Esq.	(moderator),	Thomas J. Stipanowich, Esq. (Pr ofessor	of	Law	at	Pepperdine	University	and	Academic	Director	of	the	Straus	Institute	for	Dispute	Resolution),	and	Katherine hope Gurun, Esq. Notices & Calendar of eventsJAMS GLOBAL CONSt RuCt ION SOLut IONS • FALL 2008 • PAGe 10 Most commentators agree that at least one or more of the arbitrators on a construction case should have a background in the construction industry, and in many international arbitrations there should be an appropriate mix of nationalities so as to create “international neutrality” on the tribunal. tion	and	appointment	of	qualified	arbitrators	in	whom	the	parties	can	repose	their	trust. Because	arbitration	is	a	creature	of	contract,	the	parties	have	it	within	their	power	to	agree	concerning	arbitrators	on	how	many	to	have,	having	what	qualifications,	and,	in	rare	cases,	who	shall	sit	as	their	judges.	If	and	to	the	extent	that	the	parties	have	agreed	on	these	matters,	their	agreement	will	be	controlling.	Therefore,	the	first	stop	in	determin- ing	the	number,	qualifications,	and	the	manner	and	method	of	selecting	the	tribunal	is	the	arbitration	agree- ment.	Most	arbitration	agreements	contained	in	construction	contracts	will	either	spell	out	or	incorporate	arbitral	institutional	rules	stating	the	selection	procedures	and	criteria	for	the	appointment	of	arbitrators	to	decide	disputes	arising	out	of	that	contract. 4 If	the	arbitration	agreement	does	not	provide	explicitly	for	selection	of	arbitrators	but	does	incorporate	arbitral	institutional	rules,	those	rules	will	most	likely	contain	detailed	pro- cedures	for	confirmation or	selection	of	arbitrators. 5 Most	international	arbitral	institutions	maintain	panels	or	“lists”	of	distinguished	arbitrators,	many	with	construction	backgrounds	or	expertise, 6 from	whom	the	parties	may	select	their	tribunal. If the	arbitration	agreement	makes	no	provision	for	selection	of	arbitrators	and	fails	to	name	an	arbitral	institution	or	otherwise	in- corporate	procedures	for	selection	of	arbitrators,	then	the	parties	will	likely	be	required	to	look	to	the	applicable	laws	and	courts.	The	UNCITRAL	Model	Law,	for	example,	states	that	the	parties	are	free	to	agree	on	a	procedure	for	appointing	arbitrators,	and,	failing	such	agreement: Each	party	shall	appoint	one	ar- bitrator,	and	the	two	arbitrators	thus	appointed	shall	appoint	the	third	arbitrator;	if	a	party	fails	to	appoint	the	arbitrator	within	thirty	days	of	receipt	of	a	request	to	do	so	from	the	other	party,	or	if	the	two	arbitrators	fail	to	agree	on	the	third	arbitrator	within	thirty	days	of	their	appointment,	the	appoint- ment	shall	be	made,	upon	request	of	a	party,	by	the	court	or	other	authority	specified	in	article	6. 7 In	cases	involving	the	rules	of	an	arbitral	institution	and	the	dispute	is	to	be	decided	by	three	arbitrators,	the	most	common	method	of	ap- pointment	is	for	each	party	to	nomi- nate	or	select	one	arbitrator,	with	the	third	arbitrator	to	be	selected	either	by	the	two	nominees	or	the	institu- tion. 8 If,	on	the	other	hand,	a	party	is	unable	or	unwilling	to	designate	their	arbitrator	within	a	specified time,	the	institutional	rules	frequently	contain	a	default	provision	by	which	the	arbitral	institution	itself	will	select	an	arbitrator	on	a	party’s	behalf,	and,	in	some	cases,	will	select	a	sole	arbitrator	or	the	entire	tribunal. 9 If	the	parties	have	not	agreed	to	use	a	particular	arbitral	institution	in	their	arbitration	agreement	and	have	reached	an	impasse	with	respect	to	any	stipulated	method	for	selection	of	arbitrators,	one	or	more	parties	may	have	to	revert	to	the	applicable	laws	to	determine	an	“appointing	authority,”	which,	in	turn,	will	typi- cally	designate	an	arbitral	institution	to	proceed	with	the	selection	of	ar- bitrators	according	to	its	rules. 10 Such	a	default	process	should	be	avoided,	if	possible,	as	the	procedure	is	likely	to	be	time-consuming,	tedious,	and	expensive	for	all	the	parties. The	vast	majority	of	international	arbitrations	are	composed	of	tribu- nals	of	either	a	sole	arbitrator	or	a	panel	of	three	arbitrators.	There	are	advantages	and	disadvantages	to	ei- ther	number.	Generally,	the	tradeoff	is	between	cost	savings	on	the	one	hand	and,	on	the	other,	having	more	Selecting Qualified Arbitrators Is the Key t o Success Continued from Page 1JAMS GLOBAL CONSt RuCt ION SOLut IONS • FALL 2008 • PAGe 11 diverse	perspectives	and	a	greater	likelihood	of	a	thoroughly	considered	award.	If	the	parties	cannot	agree	on	the	number,	the	arbitral	institutions	typically	apply	their	standard	criteria	in	determining	whether	the	arbitra- tion	shall	proceed	with	one	or	three	arbitrators. 11 The	desirable	nationality,	qualifi- cations,	and	experience	of	interna- tional	construction	arbitrators,	or	the	most	desirable	“mix”	of	backgrounds	and	expertise	on	a	construction	ar- bitral	tribunal,	are	an	oft-discussed	topic	in	the	literature	of	international	commercial	arbitration. 12 Most	com- mentators	agree	that	at	least	one	or	more	of	the	arbitrators	on	a	construc- tion	case	should	have	a	background	in	the	construction	industry, 13 and	in	many	international	arbitrations	there	should	be	an	appropriate	mix	of	nationalities	so	as	to	create	“inter- national	neutrality”	on	the	tribunal. Perhaps	the	most	important	time	that	can	be	spent	before	initiating	an	international	construction	arbitration	is	for	the	parties	and	their	representa- tives	to	obtain	and	gather	as	much	pertinent	information	as	possible	about	prospective	arbitrators	before	making	an	appointment.	In	some	cases,	it	is	desirable	to	interview	prospective	arbitrators,	keeping	in	mind	the	applicable	ethical	rules	and	guidelines. 14 However,	once	the	tribunal	is	appointed,	ex	parte	com- munications	between	parties	and	arbitrators	is	either	prohibited	or	extremely	limited. 15 It is	fundamental	that	all	arbi- trators	in	international	cases	are	required	to	be	“independent,”	“impartial,”	and	“neutral.” 16 To	better	ensure	that	arbitrators	meet	these	criteria,	the	treaties,	conven- tions,	applicable	laws,	institutional	rules,	and	generally	accepted	ethical	guidelines	applicable	to	international	arbitrations	require	extensive	disclo- sure	by	arbitrators	of	their	business	and	professional	relationships	and	interests	to	the	parties,	both	before	appointment	and	thereafter	during	the	course	of	the	arbitration. 17 In summary,	the	selection	of	qualified	arbitrators	is	probably	the	most	important	determinant	of	a	successful	international	construction	arbitration. Mr. Hinchey is a JAMS mediator, arbitrator, and project neutral based in Atlanta, GA. Email him at jhinchey@jamsadr.com or view his Engineering & Construction bio online. 1.	See	International	Construction	Arbitration	Handbook	(ThomsonWest,	2008)	(ICA	Hand- book)	§7:2.	This	article	is	based	on	Chap.	5,	§5.19,	from	the	ICA	Handbook,	published	here	with	the	permission	of	Thomson	Reuters.	Infor- mation	about	the	ICA	Handbook	may	be	located	and	previewed	online	at	http://west.thomson. com/productdetail/147028/40552299/product- detail.aspx. 2.	For	example,	the	ICC	Rules	permit	the	Arbi- tral	Tribunal	“to	establish	the	facts	of	the	case	by	all	appropriate	means.”	See	Art.	20(1).	3.	See	ICA	Handbook,	§§12:4	to	12:12.	4.	See,	e.g.,	FIDIC,	Conditions	of	Contract	for	Construction,	for	Building	and	Engineering	Works	Designed	by	the	Employer,	General	Conditions	(1st	ed.	1999)	Subclause,	20.6	“Ar- bitration;	AIA	Document,	A201-2007	General	Conditions	of	the	Contract	for	Construction,	§15.4.1. 5.	See,	e.g.,	JAMS	International	Arbitration	Rules,	Art.	7. 6.	For	example,	the	JAMS	Global	Engineering	and	Construction	Group,	led	by	Philip	L.	Bruner	and	other	highly	distinguished	construction	experts,	provides	mediation,	arbitration,	project	neutral,	and	other	services	to	the	global	con- struction	industry	to	resolve	disputes	in	a	timely	and	efficient	manner.	See	http://www.jamsadr. com/practices/construction.asp.	7.	UNCITRAL	Model	Law,	Art.	11(3).	Article	6	states	that	these	functions	shall	be	performed	by	a	court	designated	by	the	enacting	State.	In	the	United	States,	these	are	the	United	States	District	Courts	or	the	courts	of	the	several	constituent	states. 8.	See,	e.g.,	ICC	Rules,	Art.	8(4);	JAMS	Inter- national	Arbitration	Rules,	Art.	7.4. 9.	See,	e.g.,	LCIA	Rules,	Art.	7.2;	AAA/ICDR	Rules,	Art.	6;	JAMS	International	Arbitration	Rules,	Art.	7.5.	The	rules	of	appointment	of	arbitral	institutions	are	generally	straightfor- ward	and	easy	to	follow,	but	parties	and	their	representatives	should	pay	close	attention	to	the	procedural	requirements	and	deadlines. 10.	See	discussion	in	ICA	Handbook,	§5:22.	The	Secretary-General	of	the	Permanent	Court	of	Arbitration	at	The	Hague	is	available	to	serve	as	a	neutral	agency	to	designate	an	“appointing	authority;”	See http://www.pca-cpa.org.	11.	The	ICC	notes	on	its	website	that	“[t]he	parties	are	free	to	decide	upon	the	number	of	arbitrators,	either	in	the	arbitration	agreement	or	later.	Failing	agreement	by	the	parties,	the	Court	appoints	a	sole	arbitrator,	save	where	it	appears	that	the	dispute	is	such	as	to	warrant	the	appointment	of	three	arbitrators.	If	the	dis- pute	is	small,	and	the	parties	have	chosen	three	arbitrators,	the	Secretariat	draws	the	attention	of	the	parties	to	the	possible	consequences	of	their	choice,	including	the	tripling	of	arbitra- tors’	fees	and	expenses	and	the	longer	time	generally	required	for	three	arbitrators	rather	than	one	arbitrator.”	ICC	website,	“Setting	in	motion	of	the	arbitration;	number	of	arbitra- tors	(http://www.iccwbo.org).	See,	also,	JAMS	International	Arbitration	Rules,	Art.	7.1. 12.	See	§5:25.	See,	generally,	Redfern	and	Hunter,	Law	and	Practice	of	International	Com- mercial	Arbitration	(4th	ed.	2004)	§§4-39	to	4-50;	Bunni,	The	FIDIC	Forms	of	Contract	(3d	edition,	2005)	§19.7;	Buchman,	“How	to	Select	an	Arbitrator,”	The	Arbitration	Process;	Com- parative	Law	Yearbook	of	International	Business	(2001)	p.	89;	Maeijer,	et	al.,	“Party-Appointed	vs.	List-Appointed	Arbitrators,”	The	Arbitration	Process,	supra,	p.	95;	Peter,	“Lawyers	vs.	Non- Lawyers	and	One	vs.	Three	Arbitrators,”	The	Arbitration	Process,	supra,	p.	109. 13.	See	ICC	Final	Report	on	Construction	In- dustry	Arbitrations	(Summary),	¶¶15	to	17.	14.	See	AAA/ABA	Code	of	Ethics	for	Arbitra- tors	in	Commercial	Disputes	(March	2004);	CIArb,	Practice	Guideline	16;	The	Interviewing	of	Prospective	Arbitrators. 15.	See,	e.g.,	AAA/ICDR	Rules,	Art.	7(2);	JAMS	International	Arbitration	Rules,	Art.	12. 16.	See	UNCITRAL	Model	Law,	Art.	12(2)	(“An	arbitrator	may	be	challenged	only	if	circum- stances	exist	that	give	rise	to	justifiable	doubts	as	to	his	impartiality	or	independence	.	.	.	.”);	Redfern	and	Hunter,	Law	and	Practice	of	Inter- national	Commercial	Arbitration	(4th	ed.	2004)	§4-52;	Bunni,	The	FIDIC	Forms	of	Contract	(3d	ed.	2005)	p.	398.	17.	See	ICA	Handbook,	§5:27.	JAMS GLOBAL CONSt RuCt ION SOLut IONS • FALL 2008 • PAGe 12 Board of Editors PHILIP L. BRuNER, ESQ.* Director, JAMS Global Engineering and Construction Group HARvEy J. KIRSH, ESQ.* JAMS Global Engineering and Construction Group JOhn J. WElSh, ESq. JAMS Executive Vice President and General Counsel JAMS Global Construction Solutions	seeks	to	provide	informa- tion	and	commentary	on	current	developments	relating	to	dispute	resolution	in	the	construction	industry.	The	authors	are	not	engaged	in	rendering	legal	advice	or	other	professional	services	by	publication	of	this	newsletter,	and	information	contained	herein	should	not	be	used	as	a	substitute	for	independent	legal	research	appropriate	to	a	particular	case	or	legal	issue.	JAMS Global Construction Solutions	is	published	by	JAMS,	Inc.	Copyright	2008	JAMS.	Photocopying	or	reproducing	in	any	form	in	whole	or	in	part	is	a	violation	of	federal	copyright	law	and	is	strictly	prohibited	without	the	publisher’s	consent.	Additional	members	of	the JAMS Global Engineering and Construction Group Viggo Boserup, Esq. Hon. William J. Cahill (Ret.) Richard Chernick, Esq.* Zela “Zee” G. Claiborne, Esq. Hon. John W. Cooley Robert B. Davidson, Esq.* Linda DeBene, Esq. Bruce A. Edwards, Esq. Kenneth C. Gibbs, Esq.* Jesse B. (Barry ) Grove iii, Esq.* Katherine hope Gurun, Esq.* William E. Hartgering, Esq. John W. hinchey, Esq.* Gerald A. Kurland, Esq. hh humphrey lloyd qC* Joseph T. McLaughlin, Esq. Donald R. Person, Esq. Alexander S. Polsky, Esq. Vivien B. Shelanski, Esq. Thomas J. Stipanowich, Esq.* Michael J. Timpane, Esq. Eric E. Van Loon, Esq. Hon. Curtis E. von Kann (Ret.) Catherine A. Yanni. Esq. Michael D. Young, Esq. *GEC Advisory Board Member JAMS GLOBAL CONStRuCtION SOLutIONS EDItORIAL GuIDELINES JAMS Global Construction Solutions	invites	the	submission	of	articles	on	topics	related	to	ADR	and	construction.	To	find	how	to	submit	an	article,	please	go	to: http://www.jamsadr.com/images/PDF/JAMS­ Construction­Solutions­Guidelines.htm or email constructionsolutions@jamsadr.com. RECEIvE tHE NEwSLEttER ELECtRONICALLy To	sign	up	for	your	complimentary	electronic	copy	of JAMS Global Construction Solutions,	please	go	to http://www.jamsadr.com/practices/construction.asp or	email	constructionsolutions@jamsadr.com. SAMPLe PROJeCt NeutRAL CONtRACt CLAuSe AlTERnATivE DiSPuTE RESOluTiOn 1. Design and Construction Phase a. Project neutral The	Owner,	Architect	and	Contractor	(collectively,	the	“Parties”)	shall	agree	to	the	selection	of	one	or	more	Project	Neutral(s)	for	the	Project.	The	Project	Neutral(s)	shall	be	experienced	both	in	the	design	and	construction	of	major	real	estate	developments	as	well	as	the	me- diation	of	design	and	construction	disputes.	The	Parties	shall	select	the	Project	Neutral(s)	from	among	the	members	of	the	construction	panel	of	JAMS	or	from	other	panels	as	mutually	agreed	to	by	the	Parties.	The	Project	Neutral(s),	in	close	consultation	with	all	parties	involved	in	a	given	dispute	(the	“Involved	Parties”),	shall	assist	in	resolv- ing	any	disputes,	claims,	or	other	controversies	that	might	arise	from	the	commencement	of	design	through	issuance	of	the	final certificate	of	occupancy	and	acceptance	of	the	Project	by	the	Owner.	The	Project	Neutral(s)	shall	have	no	adjudicatory	authority	and,	therefore,	shall	act	solely	as	a	mediator	in	working	with	the	Involved	Parties. If requested	in	writing	by	the	Involved	Parties,	the	Project	Neutral(s)	shall	attend	the	regular	job	meetings	at	the	site	of	the	Proj- ect.	Also,	if	requested	by	the	Involved	Parties,	the	Project	Neutral(s)	shall:	(1)	attempt	to	be	available	to	attend	any	specific	job-related	meeting,	and	(2)	attempt	to	be	available	to	confer	or	meet	with	any	Involved	Party	or	Parties	if	so	requested.	If	the	services	of	the	Project	Neutral(s)	are	retained,	they	shall	be	provided	on	an	hourly	basis	and	the	cost	shall	be	borne	in	equal	parts	by	the	Involved	Parties	which	may	include	the	Owner,	Architect,	Contractor,	and	any	other	necessary	parties,	including,	but	not	limited	to,	consultants,	subcontractors,	sub-subcontractors,	and	suppliers	(col- lectively,	“Subcontractors”)	except	as	agreed	to	in	writing	between	any	Subcontractor	and	the	parties. The confidentiality of	any	discussion	involving	the	Project	Neutral(s)	shall	be	protected	by	all	applicable	statutes	and	case	law	with	respect	to	mediation.	The	term	of	service	by	the	Project	Neutral(s)	shall	end	when	the	design	and	construction	phases	of	the	Project	are	complete.	The	Project	Neutral(s)	may	be	involved	in	subsequent	dispute	resolution	negotiations	or	proceedings	under	the	terms	and	conditions	set	forth	herein.