Publication Search (Special Series Reports)

1990-ADR-W-01

ADR Round Table: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (South Atlantic Division, Corporate Contractors, and Law Firms), Working Paper #1, Alternative Dispute Resolution Series

There were two main purposes for the ADR Round Table. First was the desire to promote ADR by giving participants the opportunity to learn more about this developing field and the Corps of Engineers' program to promote ADR. Second, the Round Table offered the opportunity for a dialogue among those directly involved in business relationships which have become entangled in the modern-day web of litigation. In the spirit of cooperation which underlies successful ADR efforts, it was hoped that a genuine exchange a perceptions could occur, including obstacles to ADR and opportunities for promoting greater use of ADR procedures to resolve disputes. Keywords: Promote ADR, Obstacles, Opportunities, Awareness incentives, Communication, Early action benefits suggestions. (sdw)
Charles L Lancaster
Mar1990

NTIS: AD-A223703

1
Total Volumes: 1

Pages: 17

1990-ADR-W-01    

Download
(pdf, 874 KB) 

1992-ADR-C-08

Basset Creek Water Management Commission: Case Study #8, Alternative Dispute Resolution

This case study is one in a series of case studies describing applications of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The case study is part of a Corps program to encourage its managers to develop and utilize new ways of resolving disputes. These case studies are a means of providing Corps managers with examples of how other managers have employed ADR techniques. The information in this case study is designed to stimulate innovation by Corps managers in the use of ADR techniques. Case study, alternative dispute resolution, claims, pros and cons of ADR, decision to use ADR, ADR procedure, settlement, negotiations, evaluation.
Eileen Babbitt ;David Hoffer ;Lawrence E Susskind
Jan1992

NTIS: ADA253382

1
Total Volumes: 1

Pages: 15

1992-ADR-C-08    

Download
(pdf, 860 KB) 

1989-ADR-C-04

Bechtel National, Inc.; Alternative Dispute Resolution Series Case Study #4

On April 6-10, 1988, Bechtel National Inc. and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Omaha District, used a mini-trial to settle a complex series of claims for $3.7 million. The case consisted of seven separate claims, including those of major subcontractors, totalling, at the time of the mini-trial, $21.2 million including interest. Originally filed in the fall of 1986, the claims arose from modifications and impacts due to incomplete design plans for construction for the Consolidated Space Operations Center (CSOC) in Colorado. The main points illustrated by this case are: (1) The advantages and disadvantages of subcontractor participation in mini-trials; (2) strategies for managing complex technical information in settlement negotiations; (3) strategies for using working groups to develop components of a settlement agreement; (4) advantages and disadvantages of using decision-makers who are outside the emotional entanglement of the dispute; and (5) opportunities to use neutrals to provide various services. (SDW)
Eileen Babbitt ;Susan L Podziba ;Lawrence E Susskind
Aug1989

NTIS: AD-A224818

1
Total Volumes: 1

Pages: 20

1989-ADR-C-04    

Download
(pdf, 1.1 MB) 

1992-ADR-C-07

Brutoco Engineering and Construction, Inc.: Case Study #7, Alternative Dispute Resolution Series

This case study is one in a series of case studies describing applications of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The case study is part of a Corps program to encourage its managers to develop and utilize new ways of resolving disputes. These case studies are a means of providing Corps managers with examples of how other managers have employed ADR techniques. The information in this case study is designed to stimulate innovation by Corps managers in the use of ADR techniques. Major issues, positions of each side, pro and cons of the Corps and the contractor, settlement negotiations, process evaluation.
Eileen Babbitt ;David Hoffer ;Lawrence E Susskind
Jan1992

NTIS: ADA253379

1
Total Volumes: 1

Pages: 15

1992-ADR-C-07    

Download
(pdf, 803 KB) 

1997-ADR-C-14

(A)Case Study in Dispute Resolution System Design: The Corps of Engineers Early Resolution Program (CEERP) for Allegations of Discrimination

This report describes how The Corps of Engineers Early Resolution Program (CEERP) for Allegations of Discrimination works, and how it was evaluated. It is intended to provide a one-stop description of the program for other agencies, as well as inform people throughout the Corps about the CEERP story. The CEERP project has been remarkably successful in resolving problems early and at the local level. This success has generated considerable interest on the part of other agencies, both within the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, and in other federal departments and agencies.
Creighton and Creighton, Inc.
May1997

NTIS: AD-A328249

1
Total Volumes: 1

Pages: 57

1997-ADR-C-14    

Download
(pdf, 1.8 MB) 

1996-ADR-W-06

Conflict Resolution, Collaboration and Management in International Water Resource Issues: Working Paper #6, Alternative Dispute Resolution Series

My objectives for this paper are to link water resources institution building to theory and process of conflict resolution and collaboration; To do this, I will use concepts from three fields; water resources management; Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), and; international relations. Social scientists say that institutions are routinized patterns of behavior creating stable expectations over time. These patterns are driven by values which over time are often latent and unexamined. Water resources institutions are being transformed by a profound changes in values. Bringing new values and their attendant claims to bear on water institutions means a long term shift in patterns of behavior of water resources managers. However, by focusing on the nation state, rich experience of building water institutions is often missed because much of it has fallen within and not among nation states. Actually, what were once regional intrastate issues can become international. We have only to look at Central Asia. Therefor I choose to use the word interjurisdictional to cast a broad net to capture such water resources institution building experiences.
Jerome Delli Priscoli , PhD
May1996

NTIS: AD-A316931

1
Total Volumes: 1

Pages: 50

1996-ADR-W-06    

Download
(pdf, 2.6 MB) 

1991-ADR-C-06

Corps of Engineers Uses Mediation to Settle Hydropower Dispute: Case Study #6, Alternative Dispute Resolution Series

This case study analyzes the process and other factors which led to the successful outcome. The article is written from the perspective of the mediator, Christopher Moore, a Partner at cDR Associates in Boulder, Colorado. In preparing this case study the mediator consulted most of the key parties to gain their perceptions and understanding of the events which led to the settlement. However, the mediator bears sole responsibility for the interpretation of the mediation that is presented here. Selection of mediation, premediation preparation, joint meetings, interim meetings, meeting reaching agreement and ratification, summary and conclusions.
Christopher W Moore
Sep1991

NTIS: AD-A255461

1
Total Volumes: 1

Pages: 17

1991-ADR-C-06    

Download
(pdf, 1.4 MB) 

1995-ADR-P-06

Deciding Whether or Not to Partner Small Projects: A Guide for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Managers: Pamphlet #6, Alternative Dispute Resolution Series

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) began using Partnering, a process that seeks to promote dispute prevention, in construction contracts in 1990. Initially, Partnering was used primarily in large projects. As of early 1992, COE policy is to develop, promote, and practice Partnering on all contracts (Commanders Policy Memorandum #16 on Partnering, February 18, 1992). The use of Partnering in small projects, defined as under $3 million for the purposes of this study, varies greatly among districts. Managers of some districts Partner all small projects; others have chosen not to expend resources for small projects Partnering at all. This guide is for managers who must decide whether or not to Partner a particular small project. It is written as a deliberative tool to foster thought. The tool will not provide you with a definitive answer to the question of whether or not to partner, but rather will offer guidelines and raise key issues to inform your decision. The guide is divided into two sections. Section 1: The Decision to Partner is a how-and-when-to-Partner small projects primer. Section II: Illustrative Case Summaries provides additional information about when and why COE managers have Partnered, or not Partnered, small projects. Section 1 includes a description of Partnering, the 'Should I Partner?' tool and an 'If You Decide to Partner' segment. The 'Should I Partner?' tool includes statements to consider relative to a particular small project in the categories of complexity, coordination, and experience. 'The Should I Partner?' -- Annotated segment links the case summaries to the decision points of the tool. 'If You Decide to Partner', describes key decisions to implement Partnering, including the use of an internal or external facilitator, the length of the Partnering workshop, and the frequency of Partnering meetings. If you do decide to Partner, this
Susan L Podziba
Aug1995

NTIS: AD-A304288

1
Total Volumes: 1

Pages: 64

1995-ADR-P-06    

Download
(pdf, 563 KB) 

1990-ADR-W-04

Environmental Ends and Engineering Means: Becoming Environmental Engineers for the Nation and the World: Alternative Dispute Resolution Series Working Paper #4

Humanity is moving toward a new consciousness of Earth and nature. The consciousness has been stimulated by often confusing and bitter dabates among the engineering and environmental communities. Unfortunately, such experience has left a stronger impression of adversarial rather than cooperative relationships. This impression is and will change. At the bottom line, the public engineering community share interests with with the environmental community that are far deeper than the often held adversarial positions they frequently defend. Public service engineers, the environmental community and the public(s), need credible government agents as instruments to achieve environmental goals. If government is viewed as incompetent, inefficient or untrustworthy, both the environmental communityand the public engineers will suffer. In short, the environmental community and the engineers need one another. To reach environmental ends, the world needs engineering means. To employ engineering means requires justification in terms of environmental ends.
Jerome Delli Priscoli , PhD
May1991

NTIS: AD-A240798

1
Total Volumes: 1

Pages: 14

1990-ADR-W-04    

Download
(pdf, 1.0 MB) 

1994-ADR-C-12

Fort Drum Disputes Review Panel - A Case Study in the Alternative Dispute Resolution Series

This study describes the use of a non-binding neutral panel, a disputes review panel, to help resolve claims arising under a construction contract of more than $530,000,000. The panel heard presentations and issued non-binding written recommendations on the merits (not quantum) of 37 claims. This study points out the successful use of an alternative dispute resolution technique to resolve a large number of claims on a major construction project near the end of the construction period. Disputes Review board, Dispute review panel, Construction claims, Neutral advisor, Alternative dispute resolution, ADR.
Lawrence E Susskind ;John G Wofford
Feb1994

NTIS: AD-A281243

1
Total Volumes: 1

Pages: 26

1994-ADR-C-12    

Download
(pdf, 142 KB) 

1992-ADR-C-09

General Roofing Company: Case Study #9, Alternative Dispute Resolution Series

This case study is one in a series of case studies describing applications of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The case study is part of a Corps program to encourage its managers to develop and utilize new ways of resolving disputes. These case studies are a means of providing Corps managers with examples of how other managers have employed ADR techniques. The information in this case study is designed to stimulate innovation by Corps managers in the use of ADR techniques. Case study, Alternative dispute resolution, Claims, Pros and cons of ADR, Decision to use ADR, ADR procedure, Settlement negotiations evaluation.
Eileen Babbitt ;David Hoffer ;Lawrence E Susskind
Jan1992

NTIS: ADA252981

1
Total Volumes: 1

Pages: 17

1992-ADR-C-09    

Download
(pdf, 1.0 MB) 

1990-ADR-W-03

Getting to the Table: A Guide for Senior Managers; Working Paper #3, Alternative Dispute Resolution Series

The purpose of this guide is to offer a four-step process for designing a forum to help you get to the table. Mini-case studies which represent composites of actual conflicts involving the Corps are presented throughout. A variety of approaches are suggested for overcoming the obstacles you are likely to encounter. This guide focuses on both public disputes and contractual disputes that occur in construction projects, the emphasis is on public disputes. Joint decision-making forums, four-step method, agency strategy, designing and building the forum, public disputes sample protocols.
James H Laue ;John S Murray ;William R Potapchuk
Oct1990

NTIS: AD-A255326

1
Total Volumes: 1

Pages: 61

1990-ADR-W-03    

Download
(pdf, 3.3 MB) 

1989-ADR-C-05

Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.; Alternative Dispute Resolution Series Case Study #5

The Phoenix-Goodyear Airport (PGA) Superfund site is located approximately 17 miles west of Phoenix, Arizona. The southern half of the site consists of adjoining properties: the Phoenix-Goodyear Airport, formerly the Litchfield Park Naval Air Facility, now owned and operated by the City of Phoenix; and the Loral Corporation plant on land owned until 1986 by Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company through a then subsidiary, Goodyear Aerospace Corporation. The adjoining Navy and Goodyear facilities had been established during World War II to modify, repair and service Navy aircraft. After the War, Goodyear left the site and the Navy stayed on to preserve decommissioned military aircraft. When the Korean War broke out, Goodyear returned to its former site and manufactured airplane parts, largely under government contract, until the facility was sold in 1986. The Navy operated its facility until 1968, when it was transferred to the City of Phoenix. In 1981, Goodyear and the Arizona Department of Health Services discovered volatile organic compounds (VOC), principally trichloroethylene (TCE), in the groundwater and soils at the PGA/Litchfield site. (TCE is a human carcinogen.) EPA added the site to the Superfund National Priorities List in 1983. From 1983-1987, EPA conducted a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at the site. Following the Study, Special Notice Letters were delivered to the Department of Defense and the Goodyear Corporation identifying them as Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) in the cleanup of the site. (sdw)
Eileen Babbitt ;Richard C Collins ;Susan L Podziba ;Lawrence E Susskind
Aug1989

NTIS: AD-A224788

1
Total Volumes: 1

Pages: 37

1989-ADR-C-05    

Download
(pdf, 2.0 MB) 

1989-ADR-C-02

Granite Construction Company: Alternative Dispute Resolution Series Case Study #2

This case study is one in a series of case studies describing applications of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The case study is part of a Corps program to encourage its managers to develop and utilize new ways of resolving disputes. These case studies are a means of providing Corps managers with examples of how other manages have employed ADR techniques. The information in this case study is designed to stimulate innovation by Corps managers in the use of ADR techniques.
Eileen Babbitt ;Susan L. Podziba ;Lawrence E. Susskind
Aug1989

NTIS: AD-A225177

1
Total Volumes: 1

Pages: 13

1989-ADR-C-02    

Download
(pdf, 705 KB) 

1989-ADR-P-02

(A)Guide for Senior Managers

Alternative Dispute Resolution Series Working Paper 1
James H Laue ;John S Murray ;William R Potapchuk
Sep1990

NTIS: 

1
Total Volumes: 1

Pages: 59

1989-ADR-P-02    

Download
(pdf, 2.9 MB) 

1994-ADR-C-11

(The)J6 Partnering Case Study - (J6 Large Rocket Test Facility): Case Study #11, Alternative Dispute Resolution Series

This case study describes the use of a disputes prevention process, Partnering, on a large (in excess of $150,000,000) construction project. This study describes the whole process from finalizing the contract and decision to use Partnering to the participants' assessments of Partnering. This study provides an example of 'how to' accomplish Partnering for a large construction project. Partnering, Facilitation, Disputes prevention, Construction claims, Alternative Dispute Resolution ADR.
Charles L Lancaster
February1994

NTIS: AD-A281242

1
Total Volumes: 1

Pages: 36

1994-ADR-C-11    

Download
(pdf, 2.0 MB) 

1991-ADR-P-03

Mediation: Pamphlet #3, Alternative Dispute Resolution Series

This pamphlet describes mediation, one of a number of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) techniques which the U.S Army Corps of Engineers is using in an effort to reduce the number of disputes requiring litigation. The pamphlet describes what the technique is, how it has been used, and provides guidance on how to participate in the mediation process.
Christopher W Moore
May2010

NTIS: 

1
Total Volumes: 1

Pages: 36

1991-ADR-P-03    

Download
(pdf, 142 KB) 

1989-ADR-P-01

(The)Mini-Trial: Alternative Dispute Resolution, Pamphlet 1

This pamphlet describes the mini-trial, one of a number of alternative dispute resolution techniques which the US Army Corps of Engineers is using in an effort to reduce the number of disputes requiring litigation. The pamphlet describes what the technique is, how it has been used, and then provides guidance on how to go about conducting the mini-trial process. What is a Mini-Trial? First of all, a mini-trial isn't a trial. There's no judge nor lengthy procedures. Decisions are reached quickly and made by managers who have managerial and, often, technical skills, not by third parties such as judges. In fact, the mini-trial is a structured form of negotiated settlement. All parties enter into a mini-trial voluntarily, and any party can drop out when it wants to. A mini-trial is successful when there is a mutual agreement. (kr)
Frank Carr ;James L Creighton , PhD;Lester Edelman
Apr1989

NTIS: AD-A224260

1
Total Volumes: 1

Pages: 28

1989-ADR-P-01    

Download
(pdf, 1.9 MB) 

1990-ADR-P-02

Non-Binding Arbitration; Alternative Dispute Resolution Series, Pamphlet 2

This pamphlet describe 'non-binding Arbitration', a private dispute resolution process in which a dispute is submitted to an impartial and neutral person or panel who provides a written, non-binding opinion used as a guide for negotiations towards a settlement. Non-binding arbitration is one of a number of alternative dispute resolution techniques which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is using in an effort to reduce the number of disputes requiring litigation. negotiating final agreement, format of presentation.
Frank Carr ;James L Creighton , PhD;Lester Edelman ;Charles L Lancaster
May2010

NTIS: 

1
Total Volumes: 1

Pages: 36

1990-ADR-P-02    

Download
(pdf, 152 KB) 

1989-ADR-C-03

Olson Mechanical and Heavy Rigging, Inc.; Alternative Dispute Resolution Series Case Study #3

In November of 1987, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District, and Olson Mechanical and Heavy Rigging, Inc. reached a $57,000 settlement, on an original claim of $185,000 ($224,000 including interest), with the use of a non-binding arbitration panel. The claim arose from a contract to reconstruct a fish ladder at the Dalles Lock and Dam during which Olson claimed differing site conditions based on an increased amount of water and ice in the project work area. The main points illustrated by this case are: (1) ADR use at the district level; (2) ways to win technical staff support for ADR; (3) The dynamics of a three-member arbitration panel; and (4) the need for a precedent regarding ADR and the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Eileen Babbitt ;Susan L Podziba ;Lawrence E Susskind
Aug1989

NTIS: AD-A225360

1
Total Volumes: 1

Pages: 13

1989-ADR-C-03    

Download
(pdf, 868 KB) 

1996-ADR-W-09

(An)Organizational Assessment of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Regard to Public Involvement Practices and Challenges

This study examines the experience and opinions of Corps personnel regarding public involvement. The aim of the study was to determine how influential Corps personnel viewed the Corps experience, present capacity, and future challenges concerning public involvement. To obtain a cross section of opinion, 11 district offices in different parts of the country were visited.
Stuart Langton
Sep1996

NTIS: AD-A323533

1
Total Volumes: 1

Pages: 134

1996-ADR-W-09    

Download
(pdf, 8.0 MB) 

1996-ADR-P-05

Overview of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): A Handbook for Corps Managers: Pamphlet #5, Alternative Dispute Resolution Series

This guide provides an overview of the basic concepts behind alternative dispute resolution (ADR). It describes the range of ADR techniques available to managers in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, from dispute prevention processes (e.g. Partnering), to unassisted procedures (information exchanges meetings, interest-based negotiation), to third-party assistance (facilitation, mediation, fact-finding, mini-trial, disputes review board, and non-binding arbitration), and third-party decision making. The document defines ADR and its benefits and illustrates through case studies how the Corps has used ADR techniques. The guide also provides a framework for choosing an ADR technique. In addition, it includes policy and legal mandates for the use of ADR, a glossary or terms, list of resources, and a lengthy bibliography of ADR references.
Donna B Ayres ;Frank Carr ;James L Creighton , PhD;Jerome Delli Priscoli , PhD;Lester Edelman ;Trudie Wetherall
Jul1996

NTIS: AD-A319337

1
Total Volumes: 1

Pages: 71

1996-ADR-P-05    

Download
(pdf, 3.5 MB) 

1998-ADR-P-07

Partnering Guide for Civil Missions: Pamphlet #7, Alternative Dispute Resolution Series

This guide describes partnering and how it can be used in Civil Works programs. The guide also is meant to encourage new and creative application of partnering to Civil Works programs. It will also serve as an introduction to partnering for other agencies, local sponsors, groups, or individuals who are considering entering into a partnering relationship with the Corps.

Apr1998

NTIS: AD-349335/PAA

1
Total Volumes: 1

Pages: 94

1998-ADR-P-07    

Download
(pdf, 4.5 MB) 

1996-ADR-W-08

Partnering, Consensus Building, and Alternative Dispute Resolution: Current Uses and Opportunities in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

This working paper is one in a series of working papers describing techniques for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). This series is part of a Corps program to encourage its managers to develop and utilize new ways of resolving disputes. ADR techniques may be used to prevent disputes, resolve them at earlier stages, or settle them prior to formal litigation. ADR is a new field, and additional techniques are being developed all the time. These working papers are a means of providing Corps managers with up to-date information on the latest techniques. The information in this working paper is designed to provide a starting point for innovation by Corps managers in the use of ADR techniques. Other case studies and ADR working papers are available to assist managers.
Patrick Field ;Antonia Handler Chayes ;Sarah McKearnan ;Lawrence E Susskind
May1996

NTIS: AD-A319278

1
Total Volumes: 1

Pages: 134

1996-ADR-W-08    

Download
(pdf, 8.3 MB) 

1991-ADR-P-04

Partnering: Pamphlet 4, Alternative Dispute Resolution Series

This pamphlet describes the concepts and implementation of an innovative new program, Partnering, designed to create a positive, disputes-prevention atmosphere during contract performance. Partnering uses team-building activities to help define common goals, improve communication, and foster a problem-solving attitude among a group of individuals who must work together throughout contract performance. While Partnering can be used to improve all kinds of working relationships within the Corps of Engineering, this pamphlet will concentrate on owner/ contractor relations in construction contracts.
Frank Carr ;Lester Edelman ;Charles L Lancaster
May2010

NTIS: 

1
Total Volumes: 1

Pages: 53

1991-ADR-P-04    

Download
(pdf, 717 KB) 

1994-ADR-W-05

Partnership Councils: Building Successful Labor Management Relationships - Working Paper#5, Alternative Dispute Resolution Series

This paper is designed to assist organizations in establishing Partnership Councils. Creating a successful Partnership Council is a collaborative endeavor that involves labor and management focusing on their common interests. This pamphlet is intended to be a blueprint for all partners to use in establishing a new labor-management partnership for their organization.
Frank Carr ;Anne Marie Chapman ;Buck Norton
Oct1994

NTIS: AD-A295928

1
Total Volumes: 1

Pages: 23

1994-ADR-W-05    

Download
(pdf, 173 KB) 

1990-ADR-W-02

Public Involvement; Conflict Management; and Dispute Resolution in Water Resources and Environmental Decision Making: Working Paper #2, Alternative Dispute Resolution Series

This paper first discusses reasons and goals for doing Public Involvement and Conflict Management in Water Resources and Environment Decision Making. It outlines six concepts: (1) levels of conflict; (2) designing values; (3) visibly isolating extremes; (4) negotiating an interest rather then position; (5) achieving durable settlement; and (6) choosing appropriate techniques. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of how the concepts and techniques have been applied in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Jerome Delli Priscoli , PhD
Mar1990

NTIS: ADA230879

1
Total Volumes: 1

Pages: 18

1990-ADR-W-02    

Download
(pdf, 1.2 MB) 

1996-ADR-W-07

Public Participation in Designing Our Environmental Future: Working Paper #7, Alternative Dispte Resolution Series

A new democratic spirit and a new ecological spirit are two of the most powerful transformational forces in today's world. The interaction between these forces is driving much change in industrialized, reindustrializing, and even third world countries. The democratic spirit calls us to individual freedom, empowerment and transformation. The ecological spirit calls us to a new collective consciousness, collective restraint and a new relationship with nature. But will these forces work to bring people together or to create more adversarial relations? Both spirits confront us with a complexity at a time when increasingly we are mesmerized by 60-second sound bites. Both spirits confront us with new responsibilities to understand and accept uncertainty at a time when we in the industrialized world seem constantly to seek a risk- free environment. At a time when people complain about government and bureaucracy, it seems that both spirits confront us with dependence on technical experience and the concomitant increases in bureaucracy and regulation. Both spirits call us to anticipate and to employ long term vision. At the same time, we seem to be inextricably pushed by rapid rates of change into a short- term focus. In North America, we have been adapting traditional democratic institutions to the often conflicting challenges presented by these forces. Here in Central and Eastern Europe, you are responding to similar challenges while also experiencing a revolution in decision making institutions.
Jerome Delli Priscoli , PhD
May1996

NTIS: AD-A317186

1
Total Volumes: 1

Pages: 29

1996-ADR-W-07    

Download
(pdf, 1.5 MB) 

1994-ADR-C-10

Small Projects Partnering: The Drayton Hall Steam Bank Protection Project Charleston County, South Carolina

Describes Partnering, a disputes prevention mechanism, for a small construction project using the Drayton Hall streambank protection project as an illustration. This case study provides examples of the kinds of issues that were raised by the parties and that developed during the project. This study assesses the value of Partnering in small projects and illustrates how Partnering can contribute to the success of a small project especially when there has been limited experience with the USACE contract administration, when one or all parties have hidden concerns, and there is a need to build relationships among the parties to the project. Partnering, Disputes prevention, Facilitator, Construction claims, Alternative Dispute Resolution ADR.
Susan L Podziba
Jan1994

NTIS: AD-A281241

1
Total Volumes: 1

Pages: 20

1994-ADR-C-10    

Download
(pdf, 162 KB) 

1989-ADR-C-01

Tenn Tom Constructors, Inc.; Alternative Dispute Resolution Series Case Study #1

On June 28, 1985, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ohio River Division, and Tenn Tom Constructors, Inc., a joint venture headed by Morrison Knudsen, Inc. used a mini-trial to settle a $55.6 million (including interest) claim for $17.25 million. The claim was originally filed in 1979 charging differing site conditions, i.e. increased moisture in the soil, during a project that required the removal and disposal of ninety-five million cubic yards of earth. This case highlights 1) important role played by decision-makers on both sides; 2) the role of attorneys as presenters/ advisors; 3) the impact of organizational pressures on decision-makers regarding settlement decisions; and 4) the impact of district/division relationships on decisions reached in mini-trials. (SDW)
Eileen Babbitt ;Susan L Podziba ;Lawrence E Susskind
Aug1989

NTIS: AD-A224807

1
Total Volumes: 1

Pages: 14

1989-ADR-C-01    

Download
(pdf, 785 KB) 

1995-ADR-C-13

Use of a Facilitated Task Force to Develop a General Permit in Colorado (not available for distribution): Case Study #13, Alternative Dispute Resolution Series

In this case, a facilitated task force was used to try to develop a consensus on the terms of a 404 General Permit covering stream modifications in EL Paso and Teller Counties, Colorado. Participants in the task force included Federal, State, county and city agencies; developers; and local citizen representatives, including environmentalists. The author served as facilitator for the task force. Although the task force met periodically for nearly a year and drafted permit language, the draft language was opposed by the City of Colorado Springs and developers. Nevertheless, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) issued a General Permit using the language that had been developed. No lawsuits were filed against the permit. Subsequently, the City of Colorado Springs has proposed to revise its basin-wide planning process, using citizen input. Several members of the original task force are now serving as part of the City's Citizen Advisory Committee.
Merle S Lefkoff
Aug1995

NTIS: ADA304363

1
Total Volumes: 1

Pages: 19

1995-ADR-C-13    

Download
(pdf, 1.0 MB) 

1989-ADR-R-01

Using ADR in The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: A Framework for Decision-Making (no longer available)

This research report is one in a series of reports describing applications of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The preliminary ADR framework derived from these cases is intended as a tool for Corps managers to use in evaluating the potential benefits of using ADR techniques before conflicts arise as well as after they develop.
Eileen Babbitt ;Susan L. Podziba ;Lawrence E. Susskind
Aug1989

NTIS: 

1
Total Volumes: 1

Pages: 94

1989-ADR-R-01    

Download
(pdf, 5.2 MB)