I. Introduction

The site visit is a vital tool in construction arbitration but it is not

used enough.

Attorneys are trained to use the written and spoken word, while

architects, engineers, contractors and construction managers rely on visual

cues. Their differences affect the way they each approach arbitration. In

construction disputes, litigating attorneys document their positions through

the testimony of the disputing parties and their witnesses. They create a

record with the contractor’s estimated costs, or actual invoices,

correspondence, minutes of job meetings, punch lists, change orders and

canceled checks. They also may refer to the construction plans, photos of

the site and possibly even a view of a video of the project.

For arbitrators who are construction professionals but not attorneys,

the construction documents and related materials are the means by which

the structure is built, but the structure itself is the ultimate reality.

Accordingly, construction professionals will not limit the evidence they

want to see to the project drawings, documents, photos and videos. They

will also want to view the conditions at the project site before rendering a

decision on the merits, which could involve whether there was shoddy

workmanship, construction defects, a structural failure, unfinished work,

installation of damaged materials, or an unsafe work environment.

Construction professionals instinctively know how important it is to see

the site in order to reach an informed decision on the issues.