Binding Arbitration and the Summary Trial with Binding Decision: A Comparison of the Two Methods in Resolving Disputes
Abstract
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) encompasses a broad range of binding and non-binding techniques to resolve controversies without litigation. Congressional Legislation and Executive orders since 1990 have emphasized the need to use ADR. The intent was to stop the rapid growth of claims against the Government and to authorize and encourage agencies to seek methods other than litigation in order to promote prompt settlement of claims. Using ADR can potentially save a great deal of time and money by providing more options to resolve disputes. It allows us to become more similar to the civilian community, enhances our relationship with business and promotes competition. The objective of this research is to determine if binding arbitration should be a viable means of resolving conflict within the Department of Defense (DoD). The thesis provides a legislative background of ADR, and briefly discusses various techniques of the ADR process. Binding arbitration is compared to the Summary Trial With Binding Decision, a form of ADR available at the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA). The advantages, disadvantages and differences are then analyzed. This study concludes that DoD should take advantage of the benefits that binding arbitration offers.
Document Details
- Document Type
- Technical Report
- Publication Date
- Jun 01, 2002
- Accession Number
- ADA406062
Entities
People
- John D. Van Gorp
Organizations
- Naval Postgraduate School