Definition

A Dispute Resolution Board (DRB) is a standing panel of independent experts appointed at contract award to monitor project progress, conduct regular site visits, and issue decisions or recommendations on disputes referred to it during the project. A Dispute Resolution Adviser (DRA) is a single neutral appointed to assist parties approaching or already in a dispute, providing non-binding guidance to facilitate resolution. Both fall within the broader category of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), as recognised by the RICS guidance note on Conflict Avoidance and Dispute Resolution in Construction.

Why this matters for Conflict Avoidance, Management and Dispute Resolution

  • APC candidates must demonstrate awareness of the full range of dispute avoidance tools, not just formal adjudication and arbitration.
  • DRBs and DRAs represent the proactive, preventative end of the dispute resolution spectrum — a distinction assessors frequently probe.
  • Surveyors advising on procurement strategy must understand which mechanism is proportionate to the project's scale and risk profile.
  • Knowledge of these mechanisms supports compliance with RICS guidance on conflict avoidance and collaborative working.

Key principles

Purpose and timing

A DRB is established at contract award and remains in place throughout the project's life, accumulating contextual knowledge before any dispute arises. A DRA is typically engaged once a dispute begins to crystallise, making the arrangement reactive rather than preventative.

Composition and cost

A DRB comprises three independent experts jointly appointed by both parties; it conducts regular site visits and attends progress meetings. This continuity comes at a cost over a multi-year project. A DRA is a single neutral engaged on an ad hoc basis, making it considerably less expensive and administratively simpler.

Binding effect of decisions

A DRB may issue binding decisions (a Dispute Adjudication Board, used in FIDIC contracts) or non-binding recommendations (a Dispute Review Board). A DRA's guidance is always non-binding; its value lies in facilitating agreement rather than imposing one. If the DRA's recommended settlement is not accepted, the parties retain all formal rights to pursue adjudication, arbitration or litigation.

Suitability and proportionality

DRBs are best suited to large infrastructure projects where the investment in a standing panel is proportionate to the contract value. DRAs are more appropriate for mid-sized projects or where parties want informal access to neutral expertise without the full overhead of a board.

Relevant RICS guidance and legislation

  • RICS guidance note, Conflict Avoidance and Dispute Resolution in Construction — recognises DRBs and DRAs as conflict avoidance tools.
  • Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 — establishes statutory adjudication rights; DRBs operate alongside, not instead of, these rights.
  • Arbitration Act 1996 — governs binding arbitral proceedings that may follow if DRB or DRA processes do not resolve the dispute.
  • RICS Rules of Conduct (effective 2 February 2022) — acting competently includes advising clients on appropriate dispute avoidance mechanisms.

Ethics and Rules of Conduct angle

The RICS Rules of Conduct require members to act with competence and to promote the legitimate interests of their clients. Advising a client to incorporate a DRB or DRA clause at contract formation is a practical expression of that duty and reflects the principle of Responsibility — taking ownership of risk management rather than leaving disputes to fester. A surveyor who fails to advise on available conflict avoidance tools when they are clearly appropriate risks falling short of the competence standard.

APC-style Q&As

Q (Level 1)What is a Dispute Resolution Board?

A Dispute Resolution Board is a standing panel of independent experts appointed at contract award to monitor project progress, conduct regular site visits, and issue decisions or recommendations on disputes referred to it during the life of the project.

Q (Level 1)How does a DRA differ from a DRB in terms of composition?

A DRB comprises a panel of three independent experts, whereas a DRA is a single neutral individual. This makes the DRA a lighter-touch and more cost-effective option, particularly for projects where a full standing board is not proportionate to the contract value.

Q (Level 2)A client is procuring a major infrastructure project valued at over £500m. What dispute avoidance mechanism would you recommend, and why?

For a contract of that scale, I would recommend a Dispute Resolution Board, ideally constituted as a Dispute Adjudication Board with binding decision-making powers, as used under FIDIC contracts. The continuous involvement of three independent experts who attend regular site visits means the board accumulates project knowledge early, enabling faster and better-informed decisions if a dispute arises. Although a DRB costs more than a single DRA, the cost is proportionate to the contract value and early resolution typically saves far more than the cost of the board itself.

Q (Level 2)Are DRB decisions binding? What happens if a party refuses to comply?

The binding effect depends on how the board is constituted. A Dispute Review Board issues non-binding recommendations, whereas a Dispute Adjudication Board issues decisions that are temporarily binding — both parties must comply whilst any challenge is pursued. If a party refuses to comply with a binding decision, the other party can refer the failure to arbitration or seek enforcement through the courts. DRA guidance is always non-binding, so non-compliance simply means the parties proceed to a formal process.

Q (Level 3)A contractor refuses to accept a DRB's non-binding recommendation. The employer wants to know its options. How would you advise?

(example) I would explain that because the DRB issued a recommendation rather than a binding decision, the contractor is entitled to reject it. However, the recommendation carries persuasive weight in any subsequent adjudication or arbitration, as it was produced by experts with continuous project knowledge. I would advise the employer to consider mediation as the next step, using the recommendation as a basis for settlement discussions. If mediation fails, statutory adjudication under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 would provide a temporarily binding decision within 28 days. I would also note that the Pre-Action Protocol for Construction and Engineering Disputes requires genuine attempts at resolution before proceedings are issued, so mediation is procedurally important, not merely optional.