Purpose This study aims to conduct the first empirical analysis of the effectiveness of the New York City Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB) since its establishment in September 1990. The CDRB serves as the final adjudicator of contract disputes between city agencies and contractors under the city’s administrative procedures. Design/methodology/approach This study assesses the effectiveness of the CDRB process by coding all publicly available CDRB decisions based on various criteria, including decision date, respondent agency, size of the claim, status of the case as a construction or nonconstruction dispute, outcome of the case, reason for dismissal (if applicable), whether there were dissents or concurrences and appellate history of the decision. Findings This study found that after September 1999, 85.94% of CDRB decisions resulted in claims being denied on their merits or procedurally dismissed, while 4.42% were granted in full, and 21.2% of CDRB decisions were appealed to state court as Article 78 proceedings, with the CDRB’s decision affirmed in 79% of cases decided on their merits. Social implications This study provides new insights into the efficacy of administrative tribunals, like the CDRB, in the administration of public contracts. Originality/value This study is the first to provide an empirical analysis of the CDRB’s effectiveness since its inception in 1990. This study’s findings highlight the CDRB’s potential to serve as a benchmark for other jurisdictions seeking to establish or improve similar dispute resolution mechanisms.
Daniel Iskhakov (Wed,) studied this question.