The Dispute That Was Costing $4,000 a Day and How It Got Resolved

Four thousand dollars a day.

That is what the stalemate was costing.

A client had signed a lease on a warehouse. He had hired his own general contractor. The work was underway and then somewhere in the middle of it communication broke down completely. The GC stopped moving. The client stopped trusting. Both of them dug in and neither was willing to make the first move toward resolution.

The warehouse sat empty. The lease clock ran. Four thousand dollars a day in lost revenue while two people who both wanted the same outcome refused to get there together.

That is when the call came in.

What Was Actually Happening

The first thing to understand about most construction disputes is that they are rarely about construction.

The GC in this situation had performed well. He had actually provided more than what was agreed in the original scope and had done so willingly. He was a professional who took pride in his work and wanted to finish the job.

But as the project went on the client questioned every decision. Argued against responses that were correct. Second guessed calls that did not need to be second guessed. The GC is an expert at what he does. Being treated like he was not an expert at what he does wore on him until he reached a point where he felt genuinely disrespected.

At that point every small change became a formal change order. Every question became a negotiation. Every interaction became an opportunity to reestablish that his work and his judgment had value. Not because he was being difficult. Because he was human and he had been made to feel that his expertise did not matter.

The client meanwhile was not trying to be disrespectful. He was anxious. The lease was running. The pressure was real. He did not know how to manage the anxiety so he managed the contractor instead. Which made everything worse.

Two people. Both wanted the project finished. Both losing because of it. Neither one understanding what the other was actually experiencing.

How It Got Resolved

The key was talking to each of them separately before bringing them together.

Not a joint meeting where both parties defend their position in front of each other. Separate conversations where each person could say what was actually going on without the other one in the room to react to it.

The GC needed to know that his work was recognized and appreciated. That the client's behavior was coming from anxiety not from genuine disrespect. That the client understood he had gone above and beyond and that it was valued.

The client needed to understand that his questioning had landed differently than he intended. That the GC was not the obstacle. That the GC wanted to finish as badly as he did and was being prevented from doing so by a dynamic that the client had more control over than he realized.

Once each of them understood what the other was actually experiencing the stalemate dissolved. Not immediately. But quickly. Because there was never actually a real dispute. There was a communication failure that had calcified into a standoff and once both parties could see it clearly neither of them wanted to maintain it.

They finished the project a few days past the original schedule. Both got what they wanted when they started. The daily bleed stopped.

What This Actually Cost

The few days of delay past the original schedule were the cost of the stalemate period. The resolution itself was fast once both parties were willing to see each other's perspective.

Compare that to the alternative. A formal dispute. Lawyers. Potentially litigation. A project that never gets finished or gets finished by a different contractor at a higher cost with a longer delay. The lease continuing to run through all of it.

The four thousand dollar daily cost was real. The cost of letting the stalemate continue to a legal conclusion would have been multiples of that.

What Most People Miss About Construction Disputes

Most construction disputes are not about money or scope or workmanship. Those things are the surface issue. Underneath almost every serious construction dispute is a relationship that broke down and two people who do not know how to repair it while the project is still in progress.

The GC feels disrespected. The client feels ignored. The project manager feels caught in the middle. The lawyer feels like the only option.

Someone who understands construction and understands people can often resolve in days what lawyers would take months to litigate at a cost that dwarfs the original dispute.

That is not a pitch for consulting. That is just what happened in this situation and what happens in more situations than most investors realize before they find themselves in one.

The Summary

Before a construction dispute becomes a legal dispute ask whether the problem is actually about construction.

If both parties still want the same outcome and the only thing standing between them and that outcome is a communication breakdown the solution is not a lawyer. It is someone who can help both parties understand what the other is actually experiencing.

The warehouse opened. The project finished. The client got his revenue. The GC got paid and got his equipment off the site.

Four thousand dollars a day stopped because two people finally understood each other.

That is all it took.

Have a project that has hit a wall or a contractor relationship that has broken down? This is exactly the kind of situation worth a conversation before it gets to lawyers.
Schedule a call at calendly.com/jeph-reit