Kevin Muiruri, Ahmed Abdel Aziz
Abstract Public-private partnerships (P3s) in North America are governed by complex, long-term contracts that can increase the risk of disputes. Traditional litigation is often costly and disruptive, making alternative dispute resolution (ADR) essential for maintaining project continuity. This paper examines the contractual ADR provisions in Canadian and United States (US) highway P3 agreements to analyze how multitiered dispute resolution processes are structured and used. Using a qualitative method, including document analysis and cross-case comparison, the study explores the sequence of negotiation, mediation, dispute review boards (DRBs), and arbitration as methods for resolving contractual conflicts. The cross-country comparison shows how jurisdictional tools influence contract design. The findings reveal that Canada’s adjudication and arbitration promote swift, confidential decisions, while the US system varies from administrative reviews in Texas to court and arbitration in Puerto Rico. Both countries emphasize the importance of clear time limits and preselecting neutrals. This paper introduces the trans-North American hybrid ADR model (TNA-HADR), a hybrid, time-limited specialized model that combines the most effective features identified, advancing the legal and contractual discussion on dispute resolution design in major infrastructure projects.