That Old Chestnut!
Dispute resolution in construction has a way of looping back to the same familiar battles. If you’ve been in the industry long enough, you’ll know exactly what I mean. Contract ambiguity, scope creep, and—of course—the infamous “unforeseen site conditions” argument.
Years ago, I found myself caught in one such predictable battle. A major commercial project, timelines tight, and a contractor who suddenly “discovered” that the soil conditions weren’t as per the initial assessment. Cue the back-and-forth emails, the increasingly tense site meetings, and the ominous reference to clause 12.2 buried deep in a contract nobody had read properly until now.
What fascinated me most wasn’t the technicality of the dispute itself, but the sheer predictability of it all. Everyone in the room knew the playbook. The contractor argued for cost escalations, the developer pushed back citing due diligence, and the consultants scrambled to find a middle ground that wouldn’t derail progress. It was a well-rehearsed dance—the same moves, different faces.
The breakthrough came in an unexpected way. Instead of getting sucked into the usual pattern of positional bargaining, I introduced a technique I’d picked up years earlier: reframing the narrative. Rather than debating whether the soil was unsuitable, we pivoted to how both parties could mitigate costs while keeping the project on track. This changed the dynamic completely—from confrontation to collaboration. The contractor found efficiencies in material procurement, the developer conceded minor timeline shifts, and the issue that threatened to derail the project quietly resolved itself.
Dispute resolution in construction isn’t just about contractual clauses or legal muscle; it’s about understanding the behavioral patterns that repeat themselves. The old chestnut of soil conditions wasn’t the real problem. The real challenge was breaking the cycle of predictable conflict and shifting the conversation toward practical solutions.
Fast forward to today, and I see the same disputes playing out across projects—different details, same patterns. But the key lesson remains: the most effective resolution isn’t about winning the argument. It’s about knowing the game well enough to change its rules.