Root causes of dispute-

The main causes of dispute in the following case can be classified in stages in line with the project
progress. We will monitor the dispute at-

 Pre-contract stage
 Post contract stage

Pre-Contract stage-
The root causes of dispute which arose before the contract was signed are-

 Inadequacy of skills and training among the personnel-

The LG consultants lacked skillset and knowledge required as a consultant. Most of the
personnel hired were inexperienced and lacked basic skills. This can be a drawback in the
progress of an organisation as it lowers the productivity and deviates the organisation from
the planned progress.

 Lack of Organisational Process Assets-

The LG consultant consist of the mostly individuals who are less experienced so the
component of organisational process asset which is essential in most of the project
management process is missing. Organisational process asset helps to form the plans,
policies and procedures(standard) which may be required for the organisation to achieve its
mission.[ CITATION Aur20 \l 16393 ]

 Avoiding explication in Pre-bid meeting-

In the pre-bid meeting, most of the questions of the general contractor were remained
unanswered, this led to some unprecedented assumptions which were made by both the
parties this led to the dispute. Clarification of doubts are needed to be done to avoid any
sought of dispute at later stages. This can be done as a part of dispute avoidance system at
the inception of the project.

 Improper documentation and less preparation for bid floatation-

The bid was floated without keeping in mind implications of such a contract and without
much preparation. As stated in the case that the bid preparation was done without much
efforts for estimating the resources needed for the project to be successful. So, there was
lack of evidences to state the standard operating procedures which were needed for the
project to be successful.

 No reference to any dispute redressal mechanism and change management

system-
The contract did not state any provisions for the dispute redressal in case the dispute
happens and no system and format for the change management system. So, in case of
dispute the situation is bound to get worsen with no proper mechanism on the contract.
Change management clause is also important. There should be a format for change process
 which should state the remedy and the effect of the change in the project. “The change
management process is the sequence of steps or activities that a change management team
or project leader follow to apply change management to a change in order to drive
individual transitions and ensure the project meets its intended outcomes.”[ CITATION
Pro20 \l 16393 ].

 Choosing the lowest price bid without accessing competency-

Bid selected in the case was the lowest one without taking the technical specifications and
the quality of works in consideration. The case stated that the contractor was ready to
work for even less than what the client has estimated. This shows the work anyways would
not be as per the client’s expectations and the quality commitment will not be fulfilled.

Post-contract Stage-
The root causes of disputes at the post contract stage from the case are-

 Change in sequence of work-

The prime reason for the dispute to arise is the change in the sequence of the work to be
done. In the case given, the sequence of excavation was changed which resulted a change in
the plan and policies for the contractor and the sub-contractor. The utilities had to be
shifted and this caused delay and extra work.

 Issue of fresh drawing after the work starts-

Once the work gets commissioned bring out the new set of drawing creates unnecessary
confusion and the provisions of the rework. So, there will be chances of dispute arising
when the contractor is instructed to do the work again. Rework will cause delay and need
for more resources to be deployed.

 Clash in work planned due to delay-

The case shows the clash in civil and MEP works which was caused due to delay in works.
The varied agencies are deployed for the varied works and are given certain deadlines for
completion. So, when one work is delayed it forms a series for other works to be delayed
too. So, clash detection needs to be done in the project to avoid dispute.

 Provision of no extension of time in case of delay-

In cause of delay at the clients end there was no extension of time given to the contractor.
The main reason dispute was no time extension in case of delay. In a contract there should
be provisions for cost reimbursement and extension of time for the contractor to work
efficiently.

 Lack of decision-making ability –

The dispute caused due to delay in decision making abilities. For instance, in this case the
contractor’s decision was taken into consideration without much thinking by the client, later
 which proved to deteriorate quality of construction as contractor had cut the cost taking
advantage of client’s inexperience and delayed decision making.

Dispute Avoidance strategies-

“Contractual disputes can prove extremely costly for all parties. Prevention is always better than the
cure and getting the basics right is the best way to avoid descending into dispute.”[ CITATION
ARC20 \l 16393 ]

 LG Consultant- They could have avoided the dispute by following the strategies as
mentioned below.

 Clear contract documentations-

It may be referred to as one of the core techniques for avoiding the dispute in any case
related to construction. The dispute may arise due to ambiguities which may be in the
contract document which may not state certain clauses clearly. “Good documentation
means capturing the specific details of the project and addressing the circumstances and
risks of that project. Volumes of general specifications might not meet this requirement.
The key is to identify the main areas of risk and set out a strategy for dealing with them
clearly.”[ CITATION RIC12 \l 16393 ].
In the case proper documentation of the events was not done. Even at the bid finalization
stage the documentation was incomplete. The tender documents were incomplete in many
respects before bid was put forward. This was the result of inexperience at the consultant’s
end. Third party audit of the work done could have ensured better delivery of the project
and the quality would have been maintained.

 Good payment practice-

The cashflow of the contractor is an important aspect in any construction project. Contractor
should be given ample to avoid the negative cashflow of the contractor at any stage of
project at the starting importantly. But in this case the payment of retention money was
not done at the end, despite of the fact that contractor deployed more resources at the end
and the sub-contractor’s payment also had to be done for the extra double shift work done.

 Regular reporting and pro-activity-

LG consultant should have done the regular monitoring of the project to avoid the rework
which was done. If the monitoring was done regularly then the conditions such of rework on
3rd floor despite the work carried on 4 th floor would not have arisen. Conduction of minutes
of meeting, daily progress report submission, progress photographs should have ensured
sustainable working with lesser risk.

 Good management practice (design team)-

Good and timely design saves cost and time needed for the project. So, the design team
should deliver timely and proper design with minimal need for rework. “Good forward
planning and the management of conflict that could arise among the design team between
 the design team and the contractor are also crucial for the avoidance of dispute.” [ CITATION
RIC12 \l 16393 ].
 Project health check-
LG consultant should have gone for project health check at regular intervals to ensure the
continuous progress of the progress and may have applied concept such as earned value
management. The case shows lack of coordination between the contractor and the client. In
the given case changes were brought in drawing

 Alpha Numeric Contractor- The following strategies could have been avoided by the
general contractor to avoid the conflicts from the tendering stage.

 Alliancing and partnering-

The Alpha numeric contractor could have come up with a better strategy for partnering and
alliancing. If they would have proceeded with the better partnering, the need of change at a
later stage and rework could have been minimized. Partnering and alliancing would also
ensure better relation between contractor and the client.

 Record keeping-
The contractor should have kept the good and healthy record of amount spent on labour,
plant and machinery deployed in the project. This could have been essential when the
change would have taken place, the impact of change order would have inferred clearly
with the help of proper documentation and record keeping.

 Change management and recording of change-

A format for change management (i.e. record keeping of change orders in a chronological
way) would have ensured the proper and effective change and amount of money or
extension that could have been provided to the contractor. The sections of the project
rework have been done and amount of rework that must been done. LG contractors could
have come-up with the impact of change due to change order and present it to the client
for the efficient claim.

 Correct valuation of work to be done-

The contractor should have estimated the right amount of money to be required to execute
the project and should have not undervalued the amount to win the bid. The lower
estimation ensures the winning of bid, but the quality of work deteriorate. In, this case the
quality of work would be poor and due to low cost of work.

 Parties to listen each other and respect the decision making-

The decision making in a project should also involve the contribution of the contractor too.
Contractor should have evoked the need to reach out to the client in the situation of crisis
and should have deployed the resources only when it is thoroughly consulted by the client.
[ CITATION Ell18 \l 16393 ]
Bidding Strategy-

In the given case, it was very negligent on the part of DBL to take help from a non-experienced
consultant, LGC. So, after the estimates were prepared, the tender queries were not properly
attended to by the junior employees. It was the first lapse in communication. The area for dispute
resolution was not addressed appropriately.

So, when bid selection is considered, the criteria of choosing the lowest bid was a very risky choice.
DBL feel for the trap of an attractive bid.

The main criteria should have been the experience of the contractor especially in substructure works
because the project involved underground construction in a crowded place. The case study also
depicts how there was a delay in the foundation itself.

Other key criteria must have been:

 Additional value added by the bidder: Plant & Machinery, contacts, certifications, awards,
vendor network, in house manufacturing, etc.
The additional value can also be in terms of trust for long term relationships.
 Technical expertise: Technical staff, Certifications of the staff, experience of the staff,
Notable achievements of the staff, etc.
The minimum number of engineers and field experts are mandatory for the contract to be
awarded.
 Quality of the work done in the past: Quality records, Quality accreditations,
recommendations, etc. This will also help improve long term value of the firm in the market.
 Number of projects done in the past of the following contract values:
i. One project of 80% Contract value
ii. Two projects of 60% Contract value
iii. Three projects of 40% Contract value
 Number of projects completed on or before the given time. The delays caused in the
previous projects must be checked for reasons.

The client never considered any of the factors mentioned above. The contractor seemed to be an
inexperienced one because they submitted a mere bar chart done on excel instead of a proper base
line program. Adding to that the contract was not watertight. The payment clauses had a lot of
loopholes.

The delays on the site and the delays caused due to improper documentation shows how poorly the
planning was done. It is understandable that the work had to be started urgently, but effective
contractual agreements and planned selection of contractors could have helped complete the work
on time.
It is very important to have a background check done on the contractor for the technical expertise
before awarding the work. The low bid seems attractive but there are high chances that many
elements and risks have not been included in the tender estimate. Thus, in the long run it will be on
a riskier side to go ahead with a bidder quoting lower than the client himself. Not every low bid is a
bad bid, but quality must be considered over cost for the longer run.