Analyzing Performance and Patterns of Construction Dispute and Arbitration under Nepal’s Public Procurement System

Nepal’s public construction sector faces persistent disputes that threaten infrastructure delivery, yet systematic empirical evidence on dispute causes and arbitration effectiveness remains limited. The Nepal Council of Arbitration (NEPCA) administers major arbitration cases arising from public construction contracts, but comprehensive patterns of causation, resolution efficiency, and comparative performance remain underexplored. This study analyzes dispute patterns and arbitration performance under Nepal’s public procurement system to identify dominant causes, evaluate resolution efficiency, and benchmark against international standards. Sixty public construction disputes decided by NEPCA between 2023 and 2024 were examined using semiautomated text classification, coding 130 individual causes into seven categories. Delay-related and payment-related disputes were most prevalent, with 56.7% of cases involving multiple causes. The mean resolution period was 442 days, and the award acceptance rate was 76.7%. Statistical analysis found no significant association between contract value and resolution duration, indicating that institutional capacity rather than project scale determines arbitration efficiency. While arbitration outcomes are generally credible, performance remains constrained by procedural and institutional bottlenecks. Enhancing digital contract administration, transparent verification processes, and institutional capacity rather than imposing stricter statutory timelines can improve resolution efficiency and strengthen dispute resilience in Nepal’s public construction sector.