Dispute Resolution - Arthur House

46+ Years of Experience in Dispute Resolution

With 46+ years of experience in the construction industry, Arthur T. House brings extensive practical knowledge, professional judgment, and real-world industry insight to dispute resolution, construction dispute resolution, business dispute resolution, and conflict management. His decades of experience provide a valuable perspective for helping parties understand complex disagreements, communicate effectively, evaluate their options, and pursue practical solutions.

Dispute resolution can play an important role in addressing construction and business conflicts involving contracts, project performance, payment issues, change orders, scheduling, delays, scope of work, claims, responsibilities, negotiations, and business relationships. Arthur T. House draws upon his extensive construction and business experience to help parties focus on the underlying issues and work toward constructive, informed, and mutually acceptable outcomes.

As an experienced professional in construction mediation and business mediation, Arthur T. House provides an objective and collaborative environment where parties can discuss concerns, clarify interests, explore settlement options, and negotiate practical resolutions. His approach emphasizes confidentiality, impartiality, constructive communication, problem-solving, negotiation, conflict avoidance, and relationship preservation.

His deep understanding of the construction industry—including construction contracts, project management, engineering, project development, contract administration, construction operations, claims, and business relationships—allows him to bring practical context to complicated disputes. This experience can be particularly valuable when parties need more than theoretical dispute-resolution guidance and require an understanding of the real-world commercial and project considerations involved.

The goal is to help parties move beyond entrenched positions and identify practical dispute-resolution solutions that address the issues while supporting business continuity and, where appropriate, preserving important professional and commercial relationships. Whether addressing a construction dispute, commercial dispute, contract dispute, contractor dispute, subcontractor dispute, business conflict, partnership dispute, or project disagreement, experienced dispute resolution can provide a constructive path forward.

With 46+ years of construction experience, Arthur T. House offers a rare combination of construction industry expertise, business experience, mediation knowledge, contract understanding, negotiation experience, conflict avoidance insight, and practical dispute-resolution perspective.

46+ years of construction experience. Deep industry knowledge. Experienced dispute resolution. Practical solutions focused on resolving conflict, protecting relationships, and moving projects and businesses forward.

Full Name

Title

Name of Company

City/Town

State

Email Address

Telephone

Website

Executive Advisory Services:

Strategic Business Development Services:

Preventive Planning & Risk Mitigation:

Conflict and Dispute Avoidance:

Standing Advisory or Mediation Services:

please fill out this questioner

A Nationally and Internationally Recognized Dispute Resolution Professional

Arthur House is a nationally and internationally recognized Dispute Resolution Professional, Mediator, Neutral, Executive Advisor, and Conflict Avoidance Specialist with 46 years of cross-industry experience. His extensive background spans construction, engineering, business management, finance, real estate development, contracts, strategic planning, executive leadership, negotiation, mediation, and dispute prevention.

With professional involvement in projects and business relationships exceeding $2.5 billion in combined value, Mr. House brings exceptional practical and executive-level experience to complex business disputes, construction disputes, commercial conflicts, contract disputes, claims, negotiations, and high-stakes controversies.

Arthur’s approach to dispute resolution is proactive and solution-focused. He recognizes that many disputes begin as business decision-making problems rather than legal problems—often involving miscommunication, unresolved expectations, contractual uncertainty, financial pressures, project challenges, or deteriorating relationships. His focus is to identify the underlying issues, facilitate productive communication, evaluate practical alternatives, and help parties reach informed and sustainable resolutions.

As an independent Dispute Resolution Professional, Mr. House provides objective judgment without replacing the role of legal counsel, management, or other professional advisors. His goal is to help organizations prevent disputes when possible, resolve conflicts efficiently when they arise, reduce unnecessary litigation, protect relationships, preserve enterprise value, and keep businesses focused on their strategic objectives.

His multidisciplinary credentials—including 46 years of executive leadership, an MBA, doctoral-level work, a law degree, extensive construction and engineering management experience, and more than 20 years of teaching experience—provide a distinctive foundation for addressing complex controversies across industries.

Understand the Dispute Resolution

Construction dispute resolution is the process of resolving disagreements between owners, contractors, architects, engineers, subcontractors, suppliers, consultants, and other project participants. Disputes may involve contract interpretation, scope of work, payment, construction delays, defective work, design responsibility, change orders, differing site conditions, cost overruns, extensions of time, or other contractual obligations.

The purpose of dispute resolution is not simply to decide who is right. A strong process should resolve the actual problem, control cost and delay, protect project relationships, and allow the work to continue whenever possible. Construction disputes can be handled through negotiation, mediation, adjudication, expert determination, dispute boards, arbitration, or litigation, depending on the contract and circumstances.

The best approach is usually early and structured resolution. Parties should first identify the disputed issue, review the contract, establish the facts, preserve evidence, understand the financial and schedule impact, and determine what outcome is realistically achievable. A dispute that is addressed early generally provides more opportunities for commercial settlement than one that has already developed into an expensive formal proceeding.

Review the Project & Contract

Before selecting a dispute resolution method, Arthur T. House should carefully review the construction contract and project records. The contract normally determines what procedures must be followed before a party can proceed to mediation, adjudication, arbitration, or litigation.

Review the scope of work, drawings, specifications, general conditions, supplementary conditions, payment provisions, change-order procedures, notice requirements, delay clauses, extension-of-time provisions, differing-site-condition clauses, design responsibilities, warranty obligations, indemnity provisions, and dispute-resolution clauses. Also review subcontracts, purchase orders, approved changes, meeting minutes, RFIs, submittals, schedules, invoices, photographs, inspection reports, and correspondence.

Documentation is especially important because a successful construction claim normally requires more than proving that something went wrong. The party must be able to establish entitlement, causation, and the amount or time impact being claimed. Contemporary construction dispute practice places strong importance on contemporaneous records that connect project events with contractual rights and actual impacts.

The review should answer five basic questions:

What happened? What does the contract require? Who was responsible? What damage or delay resulted? What remedy is available?

Do not assume that the party who appears responsible is automatically legally responsible. Review the contract, notices, project records, causation, mitigation efforts, and actual damages before reaching a conclusion.

Prepare for Dispute Resolution

Effective construction dispute management begins with preparation. Arthur T. House should establish a clear process for identifying, documenting, evaluating, and escalating disputes.

First, define the dispute precisely. Avoid broad statements such as “the contractor caused delays.” Identify the specific event, relevant contract provision, affected activity, period of delay, financial impact, and supporting evidence.

Second, create a dispute file containing the contract provision, chronology, correspondence, notices, photographs, schedules, cost records, technical reports, expert opinions, meeting minutes, and other relevant evidence. A clear chronology is particularly useful because it shows what happened, when it happened, who knew about it, and what actions were taken.

Third, determine the appropriate dispute resolution mechanism. Negotiation is usually the first opportunity for direct settlement. Mediation uses a neutral third party to help the parties reach their own agreement. Adjudication can provide a relatively rapid decision for certain construction disputes. Arbitration places the dispute before an arbitrator or tribunal for a decision, generally under the applicable contractual or institutional rules. Litigation involves the courts and may be appropriate where court authority or particular remedies are required.

For major or complex projects, a dispute board can be especially valuable. A standing board can understand the project through meetings and site involvement and can help address emerging disagreements before they become larger disputes. Depending on the contractual structure, a board may provide recommendations or binding decisions.

Explore Solutions Together

Before moving immediately to arbitration or litigation, the parties should explore practical solutions. The objective is to determine whether the dispute can be resolved without unnecessarily damaging the project or the business relationship.

Start with the facts rather than accusations. Identify what both parties agree on and isolate the issues that remain disputed. Then consider the interests behind each position.

An owner may be concerned about cost certainty, while a contractor may be concerned about recovering additional costs caused by a change. Understanding these interests can create settlement options that are not obvious from the original positions.

For a construction delay, possible solutions may include resequencing work, revising milestones, adding resources, accelerating design, approving alternative materials, or sharing reasonable mitigation costs where contractually appropriate.

For a payment dispute, possible solutions may include paying undisputed amounts, reconciling invoices, agreeing on a payment schedule, or settling part of the disputed amount while preserving a defined issue for further determination.

For a quality dispute, solutions may include repair, replacement, additional testing, independent inspection, corrective work, or additional warranty protection.

Mediation can be particularly useful when the parties need a business solution rather than simply a legal judgment. A mediator can help identify the real issues, test assumptions, improve communication, and explore settlement options while leaving the final decision with the parties.

Reach a Practical Resolution Professional Service

A successful construction dispute resolution should produce a result that is clear, implementable, and properly documented. The final agreement or decision should identify the disputed issue, agreed facts, responsibilities, payment obligations, schedule consequences, corrective actions, deadlines, and verification requirements.

Where the parties reach a settlement, record exactly what has been resolved and what remains unresolved. Avoid vague agreements such as “the contractor will correct the issue.” Instead, specify what work will be performed, by whom, according to what standard, by what deadline, and how completion will be confirmed.

The parties should also address the root cause. If disputes repeatedly arise from unanswered RFIs, unclear change orders, late approvals, or poor schedule communication, the project should correct those processes rather than simply resolving each individual dispute.

A practical construction dispute resolution pathway is:

Identify → Document → Negotiate → Mediate → Adjudicate/Use a Dispute Board → Arbitrate → Litigate if Necessary

The correct sequence depends on the contract, jurisdiction, dispute type, urgency, value, and desired remedy. Clear contractual dispute-resolution clauses are therefore critical because they establish the pathway the parties are expected to follow.

For Arthur T. House, the strongest strategy is to combine contract administration, construction claims management, accurate documentation, causation analysis, negotiation, mediation, dispute boards, ADR, arbitration, and appropriate legal support. Resolve the dispute fairly, efficiently, and practically while protecting the project, the evidence, the commercial interests, and the working relationship wherever possible.