A Construction Litigation Example That Could Have Used Neutral CCA™

I want to share one of my favorite quotes: “I have been financially ruined twice in my life: Once when I was in litigation… and I lost. The other time was when I was in litigation… and I won.”

Construction litigation typically takes a minimum of 2.2 years to conclude(1), and can take over a decade before a resolution is reached.  Unbelievable, but true.  Neutral CCA™ takes 90 days.   As a construction executive, would you prefer to tie your team up for years, or for 90 days?  Neutral CCA™ has a greater than 90% success rate, so why not take the more innovative route to resolve construction disputes?

Listen to Keith Kelly, former Vice President of Skanska USA, tell a true story of a project he built, then provided testimony in the project's litigation 7 years later.


Let us know about your experience with construction litigation in the comments below.
 
1 Construction Industry Arbitration vs. Litigation: The Lines Aren’t Drawn Where You May Think


83% of the Industry Experiences Claims and 98% of Mega-Projects Suffer Cost Overruns

Do either of these statistics bother you as a construction professional? They bother me.

The Dodge Smart Market Report reported that 83% of general contractors experienced claims in the last 5 years. McKinsey’s Construction Productivity Imperative research found that 98% of mega-projects suffered cost overruns.
The 83% is more upsetting to me for one simple reason: Cost overruns can be agreed upon by the parties, which means that good minds got together and determined that spending additional money meant that the project outcome was improved. To the contrary, 83% of participants experiencing claims means that there has been a meeting of the minds, and no agreement.
As a business, Proactive has taken on the challenge of proactively reducing both. But you tell me, which is the bigger problem to you? Let our team know in the comments below.