Contractor Dispute & Claim Resolution Process

Overview

The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the Colorado Contractors’ Association (CCA) jointly developed a Dispute and Claim Resolution Process that provides the foundation to resolve issues at the lowest level on a project. When an issue cannot be resolved within the contract at the project level, it then becomes a Dispute. When the dispute cannot be resolved within the contract at the project level, it shall be presented to the Dispute Review Board (DRB). If CDOT and the Contractor are unable to resolve the dispute after a DRB provides a recommendation, the dispute escalates to a Claim.

Dispute Resolution Process (DRP) Final Report - The objective of this research project was to conduct a detailed review of Colorado’s Dispute Resolution Process (DRP) and provide suggestions for improvement to the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) DRP.

CDOT Form 1318 Dispute and Claim Status Report - Use this form to track the dispute resolution process on your project.

CDOT Form 1378 Contractor Selection of Litigation or Arbitration - This form is no longer required for contracts using the CDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction 2023 or newer since arbitration has been removed.

CDOT Form 1379 Dispute Review Board Three Party Agreement - If required by the contract, use this form in collaboration with the CDOT Resident Engineer and notify the Construction Area Engineer to execute a Dispute Resolution Board.

CDOT Form 1380 Contactor's Claim Certification - Use for contractor's and subcontractor's claims.

Dispute Review Board (DRB)

CDOT maintains a list of approved DRB Candidates on this webpage who are experienced in highway construction processes and the interpretation of contract documents. This webpage also includes the CDOT DRB Candidate Solicitation Form, the CDOT DRB Code of Ethics and Nominee Disclosure Guidelines, the CDOT DRB Nominee Disclosure Form, and past DRB Recommendations, as seen below. 

Dispute Review Board Candidate Approval

Interested candidates should review the CDOT DRB Code of Ethics and Nominee Disclosure Guidelines, the CDOT Standard Specifications (SS) for Road and Bridge Construction subsections 105.22 - Dispute Resolution, 105.23 - Dispute Review Board, and 105.24 - Claims for Unresolved Disputes, and the CDOT Form 1379, Dispute Review Board Three Party Agreement. The compensation details for a DRB member are included in the CDOT SS subsection 105.23 (m) - Cost and Payments.

When applying, the interested candidate should complete the CDOT DRB Candidate Solicitation Form electronically and email the completed form to [email protected]. In the email subject line, include the Candidate’s name and "DRB Candidate Selection." Please do not include any other attachments to the email.

After CDOT and the Colorado Contractors Association (CCA) review the candidate’s CDOT DRB Candidate Solicitation Form, the candidate will be notified by email if they are approved or not. If approved, the Candidate’s information and their CDOT DRB Candidate Solicitation Form will be made available to the public on the List of Dispute Review Board Candidates, as seen below.

List of Dispute Review Board Candidates 

The process for selecting DRB members is outlined in the CDOT SS subsection 105.23 (b) - Formation of Dispute Review Board.

The CDOT Project Engineer and the Contractor project staff should contact their selected DRB member to determine their availability and disclosures. The DRB member will review the CDOT DRB Code of Ethics and Nominee Disclosure Guidelines, then complete the CDOT DRB Nominee Disclosure Form, and return it to the party that contacted them. Once the DRB has three (3) members, the CDOT and Contractor selected DRB members should contact the third member to determine their availability and disclosures.

Once CDOT and the Contractor have agreed on the DRB, the Project Engineer will prepare the CDOT Form 1379, Dispute Review Board Three Party Agreement for signatures and distribution. The completed CDOT DRB Nominee Disclosure Form for each member must be attached when routing the CDOT Form 1379 for signaturesThe DRB members must sign the CDOT Form 1379 first, followed by the Contractor, and finally the CDOT Chief Engineer will sign last.

DRB members may not perform work or submit invoices until the CDOT Form 1379 is fully executed. The process for DRB member reimbursement is outlined in the CDOT SS subsection 105.23 (m) - Cost and Payments and the CDOT Form 1379, Dispute Review Board Three Party Agreement.

For information only.

Name Employer City State Phone Number Email Address

Ed Archuleta

Self-Employed Escalante Construction Management and Engineering, Inc.

Mancos

CO

970-759-5320

[email protected]

George Baffoe

HNTB/ Baffoe ADR

Greensboro

NC

347-724-8600

[email protected]

Edward R. Ballard

HCIC2, LLC

Carlsbad

CA

619- 253-0915

[email protected]

Mari Bochanis

Retired Self-Consultant

Henderson

NV

702- 335-6022

[email protected]

William P. Caldwell

Wiss, Janney Elstner Assoc., Inc.

Platteville

CO

303-883-8130

[email protected]

Tom Deines

TNT Consulting TN LLC

Chattanooga

TN

541-285-4113

[email protected]

Kurt L. Dettman

D/B/A Constructive Dispute Resolutions

Hingham

MA

781-985-2944

[email protected]

L.G. Duncan

Self-Employed

Greeley

CO

970-301-1125

l[email protected]

Paul Eskew

Q Works, Inc.

Norcross

GA

404-408-0151

[email protected]

Ken Fredrickson

Dialed-In Partners

San Pedro

CA

310-781-0181

[email protected]

Richard Fullerton

Self-Employed

Denver

CO

303-229-8668

[email protected]

Leonard "Lee" Gelman

Self-Employed

Denver

CO

303-893-3107

[email protected]

Curtis Gemaehlich

Atlas Technical Consultants

Denver

CO

303-944-6332

[email protected]

Daniel Gross

Woods Aitken LLP

Denver

CO

303-606-6720

[email protected]

Mohamed Hegab

California State University

Irvine

CA

818-441-1055

[email protected]

Lynn Larsen

Larsen Analytics LLC

North Salt Lake

UT

801-541-9155

[email protected]

Giselle Leonardo

Giselle Leonardo P.A. Independent Arbitrator

Fort Lauderdale

FL

954-728-9026

[email protected]

Doug Lollar

Lollar Engineering LLC

Colorado Springs

CO

719-659-8201

[email protected]

Beth Brown Ornstein

Colorado Mediation Center, LLC

Boulder

CO

303-415-2042

[email protected]

Kriston K. Pelz

Sequoia Consultants

Bakersfield

CA

619-246-5951

[email protected]

Farid Saddik

Self-Employed

Walnut Creek

CA

925-348-0177

[email protected]

Code of Ethics

For the Dispute Review Board to be successful it is essential that all Board members are trusted implicitly by the contracting parties. To this end, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the Colorado Contractors’ Association (CCA) have established a Code of Ethics, which sets forth the key elements of the behaviors to which all Board members must subscribe in order for the Dispute Review Board process to function effectively. The four Fundamental Canons of the Code of Ethics are:

Canon 1 – Conflict of Interest and Disclosure
Board members must avoid the appearance of, or any actual, conflict of interest during the term of the Dispute Board. Board members must disclose, before their appointment, any interest, past or present relationship, or association that could reasonably be considered by a contracting party as likely to affect that member’s independence or impartiality. If, during the term of a Dispute Board, a Board member becomes aware of any fact or circumstance that might reasonably be considered by a contracting party as likely to affect that Board member’s independence or impartiality, the Board member must inform the other Board members and disclose the matter to the contracting parties.

Canon 2 – Confidentiality
Board members must ensure that information acquired during the term of the Dispute Board remains confidential and must not be disclosed unless such information is already in the public domain. Any such confidential information may only be disclosed if approved by the contracting parties or if compelled by law. Board members must not use such confidential information for any purpose beyond the activities of the Dispute Board.

Canon 3 – Board Conduct and Communications
Board members must conduct all Board activities in an expeditious, diligent, orderly, and impartial manner. Board members must act honestly, with integrity and without bias. There must be no unilateral communications as between a Board member and a contracting party, except as permitted under the Dispute Board operating procedures.

Canon 4 – Board Procedures
All Board meetings and hearings must be conducted in accordance with the applicable contract provisions and operating procedures, in a manner that provides procedural fairness to the contracting parties. Dispute Board recommendations and decisions must be made expeditiously on the basis of the provisions of the contract, the applicable law and the information, facts and circumstances submitted by the contracting parties. 

Nominee Disclosure Guidelines
An essential element in the DRB process is that each contracting party be completely satisfied with every Board member. Both parties must carefully investigate nominees to ensure that each nominee is experienced and technically qualified. More importantly, each party must be satisfied that the nominees are impartial and have no conflicts of interest and that the appointment of a member cannot be even remotely perceived as a possible conflict to anyone who is not affiliated with the project.

If either party is uncomfortable with a nominee, it not only has the right to reject that nominee, but it must also reject that nominee, or the DRB process may not be effective.

Because of the importance of Board member impartiality and the serious consequences that conflicts of interest have on this dispute resolution process, all current and past relationships between prospective Board members and the parties involved in the contract must be fully disclosed and understood. In addition, potential Board members must recognize that there will be restrictions on their future relationship with the parties.

Relationships that could affect the perception of Board member impartiality include direct employment, consulting assignments, financial ties, close personal or professional relationships, and service on other DRBs with any party involved in the contract.
Definitions:
Party directly involved: The contracting parties: the owner, the contractor, and all joint-venture partners.
Party indirectly involved: The construction manager, subcontractors of any tier, suppliers, designers, architects, other professional service firms, or consultants to any party.
Financial ties: Ownership interest, loans, receivables, or payables, etc.
Prohibited: Service as a DRB member should not be allowed.
Disclose: A written statement to both parties setting forth all the facts.
Written permission: Written acknowledgement that both parties are aware of the disclosed facts and agree that they do not preclude participation as a DRB member.

The following guidelines are recommended:
  1. Direct Employment
    1. Current employees of any of the parties directly or indirectly involved must be prohibited from serving as Board members for the project.
    2. It is not recommended that past employees of either party serve as Board members. However, if a prospective Board member is a past employee of one of the parties directly involved, then, in addition to disclosure, permission from the other party must be obtained before agreeing to serve on the DRB.
    3. If a prospective Board member is a past employee of one of the parties indirectly involved, this must be disclosed to both parties prior to appointment to the DRB.
    4. Discussions concerning future employment of a Board member by a party directly or indirectly involved are prohibited throughout the life of the DRB.
  2. Consulting Assignments
    1. Individuals who are employed in a consulting capacity by any of the parties directly involved must be prohibited from serving as Board members for the project.
    2. Individuals currently employed as a consultant by one of the parties indirectly involved must, in addition to disclosure, obtain permission from both contracting parties before agreeing to serve on the DRB.
    3. Previous employment as a consultant by any party directly or indirectly involved must be disclosed prior to appointment.
    4. Discussions with a Board member about future consulting work with one of the parties directly involved is prohibited.
    5. Board members should obtain permission from both parties prior to agreeing on future consulting for parties indirectly involved.
  3. Financial Ties
    1. Individuals with current financial ties to any of the parties directly involved must be prohibited from serving as Board members for the project.
    2. Individuals with current financial ties to any of the parties indirectly involved must disclose such relationships prior to appointment.
    3. Previous financial ties with any party directly or indirectly involved must be disclosed prior to appointment to the DRB.
    4. During the course of the project, the establishment of financial ties or discussions about future such financial ties with any party directly involved is prohibited.
    5. Obtain permission from both contracting parties before discussing future financial ties with any party indirectly involved in the project.
  4. Close Personal or Professional Relationships
    1. Close personal or professional relationships that could give rise to the perception of bias with a key member of any party directly or indirectly involved must be disclosed and such relationship completely understood and accepted by the parties prior to appointment to the DRB.
    2. The establishment of close personal or professional relationships with a key member of the parties directly or indirectly involved during the course of the project must be avoided. In the event that such relationships develop, Board members must disclose the nature of the relationships to both parties and offer his/her resignation if warranted.
  5. Services as a DRB member on another contract involving one or more of the parties
    1. Candidates must disclose all past and current service as a Board member on projects where any of the parties directly or indirectly involved were also involved. Describe the role of the involved parties on the other project.
    2. In addition to disclosure, obtain permission from each contracting party before agreeing to serve on another DRB for a contract in which one of the contracting parties is directly involved. If one of the contracting parties is indirectly involved on the other contract, this must be disclosed along with a description of their role on the other contract.
    3. Before agreeing to serve on another DRB for a contract in which a party indirectly involved is involved on both projects, disclose this relationship to both contracting parties and obtain permission whenever the role of the indirectly involved party is significant.

These guidelines are summarized in the following table where “past” is any time prior to execution of the Dispute Review Board Three Party Agreement on this project, “current” is anytime during the life of the project, and “future” is any time after termination of the DRB on the contract.

Dispute Review Board Nominee Disclosure Guidelines Summary Table
This table is a visual representation of the recommended guidelines list above: 1. Direct Employment, 2. Consulting Assignments, 3. Financial Ties, 4. Close Personal or Professional Relationships, and 5. Services as a DRB member on another contract involving one or more of the parties. For more information, return to the section titled "The following guidelines are recommended."

In addition, potential Board members must not have had any prior substantial involvement in the project, in the judgment of either party, nor may they have any financial interest in the contract or project, other than service as a Board member.

The repeated selection of the same individual by either (1) a particular owner or contractor, or (2) only owners or only contractors can lead to the perception of bias. While individuals in these categories may be completely impartial and neutral, it is the perception of bias that is the concern. The important point is that both parties should avoid selecting Board members that may engender the perception of bias.

It is difficult to envision a specification that addresses all possibilities of perceived bias. However, the parties are in control of this situation and each party must remember that the other party needs to feel comfortable with every Board member if they are going to trust these individuals to recommend acceptable resolutions of their disputes.

Nominees of either party or, in the case of a three-member Board, the third nominee made by the party nominees shall complete the CDOT DRB Nominee Disclosure Form and submit it to the party who nominated them.

For information only.

To request previous Dispute Review Board (DRB) Recommendations, please contact: [email protected]

Region Project Number
and Description
Subaccount
Specification and Description

 Accepted/Rejected/   Partial Acceptance

Delivery Date

1

NHPP_0703-445

Widening WB lanes on I-70 between M.P. 243 & Exit 232

21893
  • Work Area Restrictions
  • Mandated Phasing
  • Median Barrier
Rejected by Contractor 2021
1

NHPP 0703-435

480V Motor Control Center replacement

Eisenhower and Johnson Memorial Tunnel on I-70

21223R

 613.12 - Wiring payment

 Accepted 2021
1

IM 0253-234

Dispute No. 3 - North I-25 Segment 3 Express Lanes Project 

19626 

CDOT Impacts to the Planned Earthwork

Accepted 2020
1

IM 0253-234

Dispute  No. 2 - 1-25 Managed Lanes, Segment 3

19626

108.03

 

Rejected by CDOT 2018
1

IM 0253-234 

I-25 Express Lanes 120th - SH 7  

19626 102.04 Interpretation of Plans and Specification Accepted 2018
1

IM070-222

I-70 over Havana Bridge Replacement

19339

Design/Build 

Maintenance issue

Accepted 2018
1

IM070-222

I-70 Havana Bridge Replacement 

19339 105.03 Conformity to the Contract Accepted 2018
1

NHPP 4701-124

Segment 4/5

18999 108.08 Failure to Complete Work on Time Accepted 2018
1

NHPP 4701-124

I-25/C-470 Interchange Design

18999 105.22(b) - Request for Equitable Adjustment Accepted 2018
1

IM2254-076 

I-225 Parker to Mississippi Reconstruction

17083 Multiple Items Accepted 2015
1

STA 177A-077

SH 177 University Concrete Repair

17734 108.09 - Failure to Complete Work on Time Accepted 2012
1

ESI 0852-095

US-85 Titan to Cook Ranch

14976 108.03 - Schedule Liquidated Damages Rejected by Contractor 2012
1

ESI 0852-095

US-85 Titan to Cook Ranch

14976 107.25 - Water Quality Control Liquidated Damages Rejected by Contractor 2011
1

ESI 0852-095

US-85 Titan to Cook Ranch

14976 203 - Excavation and Embankment. Differing Site Conditions Rejected by Contractor 2011
1

C 0252-390

I-25 Frontage Road Douglas County

16025 412-13 - PCCP Joints and Dowel Placements Accepted 2010
1

STA 0404-044

Colfax, 6th Ave. at I-70

15821R

109.06 - Partial Payment AC and Fuel Cost Adjustments

Accepted  2009
2

STM 1151-038

SH 115 M.P. 27.71 to M.P. 38.94

22903

400 Pavement: Concerning Quantity Overrun of Thin Bonded Overlay (Polyester Concrete)

Accepted 2025
2

STM 1151-038

SH 115 M.P. 27.71 to M.P. 38.94

22903 104.03 Extra Work: Project Delay Due to Soft Spot Repair Accepted 2025
2

STM 1151-038

SH 115 M.P. 27.71 to M.P. 38.94

22903

104.03 Extra Work: Separate and Threshold Dispute Regarding Asphalt Quantity form Payment

Accepted 2025
2

FBR 025A-019

Project I-25 Ilex Design Build - Pueblo, CO

  19205 Iron Phoenix Bridge delay Rejected by Contractor 2019
2

FSA 0503-081

US 50 McCulloch Blvd. to Wills. Blvd.

Quantum
19751 630 - Construction Zone Traffic Control - Night Time Accepted 2017
2

I 025A-016

I-25 Widening North of Colorado Springs

18842 Revision of Section 403 – Hot Mix Asphalt  Rejected by CDOT 2015
2

FBR 3501-013

SH 350 Bridge Replacement

18208 104.02 - Differing Site Conditions, Suspensions of Work, and Significant Changes in the Character of Work Accepted 2014
2

BR 0252-422

I-25/US 24 Bridge Repairs

18955 630 - Construction Zone Traffic Control Accepted 2014
2

FBR 096A-039

SH 96 Bridges

17668 203 - Excavation and Embankment Accepted 2013
2

FBR 096A-039

SH 96 Bridges

17668 625 - Construction Surveying Accepted 2013
2

FBR 096A-039

SH 96 Bridges

17668 625 - Construction Surveying Accepted 2013
2

FBR 096A-039

SH 96 Bridges

17668 625 - Construction Surveying Accepted 2013
2

NH 0505-046

US 50 Hasty to McClave Jct

18242 108.03 - Schedule Liquidated Damages Accepted 2013
2

FBR C160-008

NB I-25 AT Missouri Creek

18115 108.09 - Failure to Complete Work on Time Rejected by Contractor 2012
2

C 021A-001

Improvements at Powers and Dublin

17604 403 - Hot Mix Asphalt Rejected by Contractor 2011
2

NH 016A -039

SH 16 / US 85

15915 206 - Excavation and Backfill for Structures Accepted 2010

3

C 5502-097

US 550 Otter Road to R3/R5 Line

22020

Eleven (11) Various Disputes

Accepted  2025

3

STA 0131-063

19470

108.03 Schedule

Accepted 2018
3

HB 135 A-024

SH-135 Crested Butte South

16446 700 - Materials Details Accepted 2010
3

SHE 0702-267

I-70 W. of Vail Wildlife Fence

15903R 203 - Excavating and Embankment.  Differing Site Conditions Accepted 2009
4

STA2873-1

US 287: SH 1 to LaPorte Bypass

12372 108.08 Failure to Complete Work on Time: Liquidated Damages Accepted 2025
4

STA 2873-100 

US 287 - SH 1 to LaPorte Bypass

12372 108.08 & 108.09 Rejected by Contractor 2020
4

BR 0361-117

US 36 Culvert Repair

20610 109.04 Compensation for Changes & 109.10 Compensation for Compensable Delays Accepted 2018
4

FBR 0142-055

SH 14 Bridge over Poudre River

(MP 135.909)

18085 104.02 - Differing Site Conditions Accepted 2016
4

STA 0072-010

Reconstruction Cherryvale Road to 75th Street. Quantum

11873 104.02 - Differing Site Conditions, Suspension of Work (Utilities)

Accepted

2014

4

STA 0072-010

Reconstruction SH 7 from Cherryvale Road to 75th Street

11873 403 - Hot Mix Asphalt Accepted 2013
4

STA 0072-010

Reconstruction Cherryvale Road to 75th Street

11873 104.02 - Differing Site Conditions, Suspension of Work Rejected by Contractor 2013
4

STA 0072-010

Reconstruction Cherryvale Road to 75th Street

11873 108.09 - Failure to Complete Work on Time Rejected portion by Contractor 2013
4

STA 0072-010

Reconstruction Cherryvale Road to 75th Street

11873 104.02 - Differing Site Conditions, Suspension of Work Accepted 2013
4

STA 0661-011

SH 66 Overlay Lyons to SH 287

16214 202.09 (rev.) Change condition regarding depth of removal of asphalt (planing) Rejected by Contractor 2012
4

STA 0661-011

SH 66-US 36 to SH 287

16214 412 Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Accepted 2010
4

STA 0661-011 

SH 66 - US 36 to SH 287

16214 105.07 Conformity to Roadway Smoothness Criteria Accepted 2010
4

IM 0253-160

I-25 Reconstruction

12623 504 - Cribbing Plan or Spec Differing Interpretations Accepted 2009
4

IM 0253-160

I-25 Reconstruction

12623 601 - Structural Concrete Plan or Spec Differing Interpretations Accepted 2009
4

IM 0253-160

I-25 Reconstruction

 12623  403 - Hot Mix Asphalt Materials Changes/Out of Spec.  Accepted 2009
4

IM 0253-160

I-25 Reconstruction

12623 208 - Erosion Control Plan or Spec Differing Interpretations Accepted 2009
4

IM 0253-160

I-25 Reconstruction

12623 603 - Culverts and Sewers Plan or Spec Differing Interpretations Accepted 2009
5

STR R500-171

Structure K-01-A, Bents 1 & 5

20706R 518 -  Waterstops and Expansion Joints Accepted 2025
5

BR 184A-003

Priority Culvert SH 184

19780 104.02 - Differing Site Conditions Rejected by CDOT 2015
5

NH 1601-062

Reconstruction US 160, Cortez

18290 104.02 - Differing Site Conditions Accepted 2014
5

STA 017A-010

SH 17 Reconstruction

15176 105.05 - Conform to the Cost of Hot Mix Asphalt Accepted 2010
5

NH 1602-114

US 160 4th Lane

16042 105.03 - Conformity to the Contract Plan or Spec Differing Interpretations Accepted 2008

Project First on Construction Projects - Project First formalizes the partnering process to proactively identify and manage risks to CDOT, Contractors, the traveling public, business owners and many others through collaboration. The ultimate goal is to manage project risks and foster collaboration and communication on the project.