O Dispute Board como alternativa consensual à resolução de conflitos em contratos de obras públicas

Abstract

The suspension of public works in Brazil is a recurring problem that causes losses to public funds and undermines the effectiveness of public policies, leading to frequent judicialization of contractual disputes. Given the limitations of traditional management methods, this article examines the adoption of Dispute Prevention and Resolution Committees (Dispute Boards), as provided for in Law No. 14,133/2021, as consensual mechanisms for dispute prevention in administrative contracts. The research addresses whether the application of this extrajudicial method constitutes a viable alternative to avoiding contract termination in public works contracts, considering that agreements with contractors require negotiation, which may conflict with the principle of the unavailability of the public interest. The hypothesis advanced is that the use of Dispute Boards does not violate the administrative legal regime; rather, it promotes administrative efficiency by enabling the prevention and mitigation of conflicts and fostering the continuity of contractual performance. The study adopts a qualitative approach, employing a deductive method and bibliographical and documentary analysis, with particular emphasis on current legislation and decisions issued by oversight bodies. The theoretical framework is based on the ideas of Igor Gimenes Alvarenga Domingues (2022), who conceptualizes Dispute Boards as a hybrid mechanism of contractual governance designed to address high levels of litigation and the recurring suspension of projects, especially in public works contracts.