A disputed change order can leave a contractor managing two jobs at once: completing the project and arguing about who should pay for the disruption. Construction dispute resolution through mediation gives the parties a structured opportunity to negotiate a settlement while retaining responsibility for the decision.
For ABC Carolinas members, the practical question is whether the team can arrive with a documented position, realistic options and someone authorized to make a deal. Construction Executive’s guide to construction mediation treats that preparation as a business decision. Its central considerations include contract requirements, timing, project records, mediator experience, settlement authority, and terms that address the work still ahead. Mediation offers an opportunity to negotiate; it does not guarantee an agreement.
A neutral mediator helps the parties discuss the dispute and explore possible agreements. The mediator does not decide the case. The American Bar Association’s explanation of dispute resolution distinguishes that role from an arbitrator’s authority to decide a dispute. Any resulting settlement needs appropriate documentation and legal review.
Before requesting a session, write down the unresolved decision. “We disagree about the project” is too broad. “We need to resolve responsibility for a disputed change and agree how the remaining work will proceed” gives the team something concrete to prepare.
Consider using three columns in the internal preparation memo: agreed facts, disputed facts, and missing evidence. Assign an owner to each missing record. This is a suggested management exercise, not a legal filing or a substitute for the contract’s claim procedures.
The Construction Executive guide emphasizes a timing balance: parties need enough information to evaluate their exposure, but waiting while dispute costs accumulate can reduce settlement value. It also cautions against arriving without clear authority or presenting a position that ignores weaknesses in the evidence.
Ask the project manager and counsel to identify what prevents a meaningful discussion today. Is the delay analysis incomplete? Is the disputed cost calculation missing supporting invoices? Does an insurer or another project participant need to be involved for a workable agreement? Address the specific gap rather than assuming that scheduling a mediation will resolve it.
Do not assume that settlement discussions extend a notice, filing, or other deadline. Have counsel identify the applicable requirements and any steps needed to preserve the company’s position.
A contractor working across the Carolinas should not reuse one public-project dispute procedure without checking its applicability.
For public construction covered by North Carolina G.S. 143-128(f1), the statute directs a public entity to use the State Building Commission’s dispute process or adopt an alternative that includes mediation. It also permits a contractual mediation precondition to litigation. Confirm the project’s governing process and contract rather than treating this provision as a rule for every construction dispute.
For controversies covered by South Carolina Code Section 11-35-4230, the procurement code establishes an administrative resolution process and requires an attempt at settlement by mutual agreement before administrative review. That statutory settlement effort should not be described as a universal requirement for private mediation. Counsel should confirm coverage, deadlines, and the correct route for the particular contract.
Organize the material around the disputed issues. A useful preparation file may include the agreement and amendments, notices, relevant change orders, schedule records, cost support and selected field correspondence. Connect each claimed amount to the record that explains it. Avoid giving the mediator an unexplained document dump.
Use ABC Carolinas’ construction risk management playbook as adjacent reading on the wider management context. For this session, keep the focus on the facts and decisions needed to negotiate the specific dispute.
As a suggested internal worksheet, assign these responsibilities before the meeting:
Discuss a prospective mediator’s relevant construction experience, availability, conflicts, and approach with counsel. Agree on how necessary technical participants will contribute without turning every project disagreement into a separate presentation.
A settlement discussion can include operational terms as well as money. The Construction Executive guide highlights payment arrangements, completion obligations, corrective work, and other commitments, then carefully documents what the parties have actually agreed.
For an illustrative exercise, imagine a dispute involving an unpaid change and unfinished corrective work. Before recommending an offer, have the team explain who would perform each remaining task, what would count as completion, when payment would become due, and which issues would remain unresolved. These are questions for negotiation and counsel’s review, not proposed contract terms or a prediction about an actual member project.
If no agreement is reached, assess the next step under the contract with counsel. ABC Carolinas’ construction arbitration guidance provides related background; arbitration is a different process from a facilitated settlement negotiation.
Choose one active disagreement and prepare a short internal decision memo: the issue, strongest supporting record, most important weakness, missing information, and person who can authorize a resolution. Use it to decide whether mediation is ready to be proposed or whether a specific preparation task comes first.
For a Carolinas contractor, that is a useful operational goal: arrive able to explain the dispute, evaluate alternatives, and make an informed decision. This article provides general business education. Obtain project-specific legal advice on deadlines, procedure, and settlement terms.
