COMITÊ DE RESOLUÇÃO DE DISPUTAS (DISPUTE BOARD) COMO INSTRUMENTO DE GESTÃO DE CONFLITOS NOS CONTRATOS DE CONSTRUÇÃO E INFRAESTRUTURA

Abstract

The construction sector is characterized by high technical, economic, and social complexity, bringing together multiple stakeholders and external factors that make infrastructure contracts particularly prone to disputes. Historical evolution shows that, from the post-World War II period onwards, the increase in contractual complexity, combined with variables such as economic crises, exchange rate fluctuations, regulatory demands, and climatic conditions, significantly expanded the potential for conflicts, often resulting in delays, cost overruns, and project suspensions. In this context, Dispute Boards emerge as contractual governance instruments aimed at preventing and swiftly resolving controversies, ensuring the continuity of contractual execution while reducing the need for escalation to arbitration or the Judiciary. Empirical evidence and landmark cases, such as the Eisenhower Tunnel, El Cajón, Eurotunnel, and the Yellow Line of the São Paulo Metro, confirm their effectiveness in promoting cooperation between the parties, improving predictability of deadlines and costs, and mitigating litigation. In addition to proportionally lower costs compared to arbitration, Brazil has witnessed the institutional strengthening of the mechanism, with regulatory advances, jurisprudential recognition, and specific rules established by leading arbitral chambers, consolidating its economic and legal feasibility. The analysis developed allows the conclusion that Dispute Boards constitute effective instruments for resolving conflicts in construction and infrastructure contracts, as they combine procedural efficiency, risk reduction, and the preservation of the social purpose of projects, although their effectiveness depends on adequate contractual design and their preventive use.