Dispute Boards And Mega Projects: Lessons From The DRBF International Conference In Rome

At the DRBF International Conference held in Rome on May 14–15, 2026, leading construction and dispute resolution practitioners convened to examine many aspects of dispute boards as a dispute avoidance and resolution process on various projects throughout the world. I was asked to be part of a panel debating the following proposition: are dispute boards (DBs) fit for purpose on mega projects?

Framed as a structured debate around the motion “Dispute Boards Are Unfit for Mega Projects,” the session brought together experienced stakeholders from across the project lifecycle to test the limits of dispute boards in today’s most complex infrastructure environments. Our session leader and moderator, Paul Taggart, a long-time construction executive and experienced neutral, had conceived the idea for the session. My fellow debater on the antagonist side, arguing that the standard DB process is not the best fit for purpose on Mega Projects, was Marianne Ramey, an experienced and highly-respected expert on delay and disruption. The protagonist side was ably represented by two highly-experienced and respected DB practioners, Simon Longley and Graham Easton. It was truly an honor (and a pleasure) to serve on such a distinguished panel. In general, the debate touched on all of the points set out below:

The Unique Challenge of Mega Projects

Mega projects—generally defined as those exceeding USD 1 billion—present a set of characteristics that distinguish them from conventional construction projects. These include:

• Multiple interdependent contracts and interfaces
• Significant political, economic, and environmental exposure
• High public visibility and stakeholder scrutiny
• Complex and often imbalanced risk allocation structures

These factors create conditions in which disputes are more likely, more complex, and higher in value. They also introduce risks that originate outside the project’s contractual framework, including governance failures and external political pressures.

The Intended Role of Dispute Boards

Dispute boards were designed to address project disputes through real-time, embedded engagement. When implemented effectively, they provide:

• Early identification and resolution of issues
• Ongoing project oversight, including site visits and regular meetings
• Neutral, expert determination of disputes
• Rapid decisions intended to maintain project momentum

Modern practice emphasizes that dispute boards serve primarily as dispute avoidance mechanisms, with much of their work focused on informal guidance rather than formal rulings.

Evidence shared during the session indicated that projects with actively engaged boards can, in some instances, proceed with few or no formal disputes, underscoring the preventative value of early and consistent involvement.

Structural Challenges at Mega Project Scale

Despite their benefits, the session highlighted several recurring challenges that raise questions about the scalability of dispute boards.

Governance vs. Contractual Resolution

Dispute boards operate at the contractual level, while many of the root causes of mega project underperformance arise at the governance level—including unrealistic assumptions, weak oversight, and fragmented accountability.

Timing and Entrenchment

By the time disputes reach formal consideration, critical project decisions are often already entrenched. This limits the ability of dispute boards to meaningfully influence underlying project outcomes.

Procedural Formalization

Large, high-value disputes tend to drive DB processes toward increased formality, including:

• Greater involvement of legal counsel and technical experts
• Expanded evidentiary submissions
• Hearing formats resembling arbitration

This evolution can erode the efficiency and speed that distinguish dispute boards from traditional dispute resolution processes.

Limits of Informality

The informal nature of dispute boards—often a key advantage—can also present risks in complex disputes, including:

• Perceived inconsistencies in decision-making
• Concerns regarding procedural rigor
• Increased likelihood of challenges and escalation to arbitration or litigation

These pressures can undermine confidence in the process, particularly where the stakes are exceptionally high.

Why Dispute Boards Still Matter

Notwithstanding these challenges, the Rome discussion reinforced that dispute boards remain a critical component of effective dispute management when properly deployed.

Their effectiveness is strongest where:

• Boards are appointed early, ideally at project inception
• Parties actively engage in ongoing, informal dialogue
• Dispute avoidance is prioritized over formal adjudication
• Boards are integrated into the broader project governance framework

Importantly, many criticisms of dispute boards reflect an outdated view of their role as purely reactive adjudicators. In practice, modern DBs are increasingly proactive, embedded participants in project delivery.

The Mega Project Paradox

A notable theme emerging from the debate is the possibility that dispute boards may, in some cases, manage symptoms rather than resolve underlying causes.

By resolving disputes sufficiently to allow projects to continue, dispute boards may inadvertently enable projects with deeper governance or structural issues to persist longer than they otherwise would.

While not universally accepted, this perspective highlights an important limitation: dispute boards cannot substitute for sound project design, governance, and decision-making.

What Should Project Stakeholders Do Now?

The discussion in Rome makes clear that the relevant question is no longer whether to use dispute boards—but how to deploy them effectively on mega projects.

Stakeholders should consider the following:

• Start with governance, not dispute resolution. Establish clear decision-making authority, accountability structures, and risk ownership before implementing dispute mechanisms.
• Appoint dispute boards early—and use them proactively. Early engagement allows boards to identify and address issues before they escalate into formal disputes.
• Design dispute board procedures for scale. Mega projects may require hybrid approaches that preserve flexibility while incorporating appropriate procedural safeguards.
• Align risk allocation with project realities. Overly aggressive or imbalanced risk transfer increases the likelihood of disputes that no mechanism can efficiently resolve.
• Plan for escalation. Recognize that some disputes will move beyond the board process and ensure that escalation pathways are clear, efficient, and enforceable.

Conclusion

The Rome session underscored that dispute boards remain a valuable tool in the delivery of complex infrastructure projects. However, their effectiveness on mega projects depends less on their presence and more on how they are integrated within the broader project ecosystem. The parties should discuss the possibility of new and innovative DB structured such as the possible use of one DB member solely as a mediator.

For project owners, contractors, and counsel, the implication is clear: dispute boards should be deployed as part of a comprehensive strategy that prioritizes governance, realistic planning, and collaborative project execution.

When aligned with these fundamentals, dispute boards can play a meaningful role in navigating the complexity and risk inherent in today’s largest and most challenging projects.