In a sector where arbitration is often seen as the arena where a lawyer’s success is measured, Wuandy Magali Vargas Guevara defends the opposite view: a well-managed dispute is one that never reaches an award. This conviction stems not from theory, but from having simultaneously held all three positions involved in deciding the fate of a construction contract—arbitrator, adjudicator, and member of a Dispute Board—a combination of roles that allows her to intervene in the conflict while it is still avoidable, rather than simply reconstructing it afterward, based on the case file.
A Peruvian lawyer with over 20 years of experience in public infrastructure management and private legal operations, and founder and president of the JRD/DAB Association of Women Leaders in Construction, Vargas has made her dual perspective—technical and gender-based—a recognized authority, as noted by Leaders League Latin America in its “Arbitrators to Watch – Peru 2026” ranking. In this conversation, she explains why direct experience on construction sites is just as important as legal rigor when resolving infrastructure disputes, and what is needed for more women to occupy these same positions.
Few professionals simultaneously serve as arbitrator, adjudicator, and Dispute Board member. How did you develop these three roles, and at what point did you feel you needed all three to practice the profession as you understand it?
The consolidation of this triple profile is no coincidence; it is the result of a journey that began 20 years ago in the trenches of the public sector, in infrastructure management, legal management, and supply and logistics departments, and evolved in the private sector, assuming demanding roles such as Contract Manager and Head of Legal Operations. This blend taught me something fundamental: strictly legal analysis from behind a desk is insufficient when faced with the real challenges of a construction project. I needed to get my hands dirty. The integration of these roles allows me to go beyond the paperwork; awarding contracts and participating in Dispute Boards empowers me to prevent and mitigate conflicts on-site, while my arbitration work is enriched by a deep legal, technical, and operational empathy when resolving the final dispute. It is a path built step by step, and it confirms that technical and legal specialization in infrastructure remains fertile ground for those who decide to invest time in understanding it thoroughly.
This triple role allows you to intervene in all stages of the contractual dispute. What do you see from this position that you wouldn’t see if you were only in one role?
This comprehensive role provides a 360-degree view of the contract lifecycle, a game-changer. A traditional arbitrator often examines a dispute retrospectively, through a cold, inert documentary record. However, by moving from public administration to private legal management, and by now acting concurrently as an adjudicator and Dispute Board member, I can identify the technical and legal origins of disagreements in real time. This total immersion in the field equips me to properly interpret technical documentation with sound legal arguments, issuing decisions that harmonize regulatory rigor with the operational reality of the project. This holistic perspective is gained through years of direct experience, and my greatest motivation is to inspire more professionals to step outside the documentation and dare to experience infrastructure from the inside.
At what point in the life cycle of a public works contract is it actually decided whether a dispute will end in arbitration or be resolved earlier, before a Dispute Board?
The real turning point occurs during the actual execution of the project, driven by proactive contract management. Within our regulatory framework, the intervention of a Dispute Prevention and Resolution Board (DPRB) or a Dispute Board is the direct antidote to work stoppages. When these mechanisms exercise rigorous technical and legal monitoring, working alongside the resident engineer and the supervisor on-site, the vast majority of disagreements are resolved before escalating into larger disputes. Thus, arbitration recovers its original purpose: to be a last resort, reserved strictly for complex disagreements where all other preventative measures have been exhausted. Fostering this preventative culture requires professionals willing to lead from the outset; true success lies not in winning an arbitration, but in preventing it altogether so that the infrastructure fulfills its purpose and contributes to the country’s development.
Peru has progressively incorporated FIDIC and NEC standardized contracts in public works. Where do you find real friction between these international standards and the Peruvian State Procurement framework?
The main friction lies in the profound divergence of their guiding principles. International standards like FIDIC and NEC are structured on the foundations of collaboration, shared risk management, and early warning systems. When applied within the framework of the State Procurement Law, they clash with a markedly formalistic, rigid, and punitive system. Having been on both sides of the table, I intimately understand why this happens: public officials avoid making swift decisions for fear of audits, which often leads to the defunding or paralysis of projects. Closing this gap is a monumental challenge, but entirely possible. It requires training a new generation of bilingual officials and advisors, capable of mastering both the language of international collaboration and the rigor of local regulations. That is where we must focus our energy.
Of the types of disputes you handle—extensions of time, valuations, settlements, enforcement of guarantees—which most clearly reveals contractual management errors that could have been avoided from the contract’s design stage, and how does its interpretation change depending on the sector—sanitation, energy, health, transportation—in which it occurs?
Disputes related to deadline extensions, delays, and indirect cost overruns most clearly demonstrate the deficiencies that arise during the technical design and planning phases of a project. As Head of Legal Operations, I observed that the nature of these failures varies substantially depending on the sector: in sanitation projects, friction commonly arises from unmapped underground utilities; in road infrastructure, from the historical difficulties in acquiring land; and in the healthcare sector, from the extreme complexity of integrating biomedical equipment. A deficient risk matrix from the contract structuring stage invariably translates into severe disputes during construction. Learning to identify and mitigate these patterns in a timely manner is a fascinating skill; it not only optimizes resources but also saves projects that transform lives. We need professionals to be passionate about safeguarding contracts from their inception.
A construction company or consortium facing a contractual dispute can turn to various professionals: litigation lawyers, arbitration firms, technical consultants. What does a client gain by working with someone who simultaneously acts as an arbitrator, adjudicator, and contract management advisor, that they wouldn’t obtain by hiring these services separately?
The fundamental value lies in providing an invincible and cohesive legal and technical strategy. A professional with this hybrid profile breaks down traditional silos; they possess the ability to translate field issues into the most rigorous legal language and vice versa, avoiding the strategic fragmentation that often occurs when hiring isolated consultants. By integrating the perspective of public administration, the legal management of private operations, and my experience as an adjudicator and arbitrator, I guarantee that the advice is decisive and that claims are documented from day one with the evidentiary standard that arbitration tribunals will demand. The client not only obtains legal defense but also a strategic ally who understands why the concrete wasn’t poured yesterday and how to fix it today, always ensuring the project’s viability. Building this hybrid profile is not a privilege reserved for a select few; it is, above all, a commitment to continuous learning that any professional dedicated to infrastructure can undertake.
You founded and chair the JRD/DAB Women Leaders Association. What led you to create this space, and what barriers do you still see today preventing more women from serving as arbitrators or adjudicators in infrastructure disputes?
The founding of this Association stemmed from an unwavering conviction: women’s talent in infrastructure is exceptional and needs strong platforms to showcase it. While there are outstanding professionals in contract administration, unconscious bias in a historically male-dominated sector remains a significant barrier to becoming a JPRD Adjudicator and a member of a Dispute Board. Our purpose is to eradicate these biases, demonstrating in the field and with academic rigor that technical and legal authority is independent of gender. Every time a colleague puts on her hard hat, goes down to the construction site, and leads a complex panel, she lights a beacon for younger women. I share my journey with complete dedication to send a clear message: don’t ask permission to occupy these leadership positions. Prepare yourselves to the fullest and take the place that, by merit, belongs to you.
You have been recognized as an “Arbitrator to Watch” by Leaders League for 2026. Where do you see the role of the arbitrator-adjudicator in Ibero-American infrastructure projects evolving in the coming years?
Being recognized in the “Arbitrators to Watch – Peru 2026” category by Leaders League is an immense honor that validates a lifelong commitment: hybrid and technical specialization is the right path. In Latin America, the role of the arbitrator and adjudicator is undergoing a spectacular revolution. We are evolving toward highly sophisticated profiles that are not limited to retrospective legal analysis, but fully understand the financial, technical, and operational engineering of megaprojects. This trend demands that we be translators of complex realities, harmonizing agile international standards with the Latin American regulatory labyrinth, always prioritizing the viability of the infrastructure and the public purpose of the project. It is an exciting stage that requires constant preparation and a great deal of field discipline, but it is wide open to all those brave enough to transform the infrastructure of our region.
Wuandy Vargas describes the friction between FIDIC, NEC, and the State Procurement Law as a language problem: two systems that demand agile and auditable decisions, respectively, and that are currently competing for the same projects. Resolving this issue, she says, depends on training officials and advisors capable of navigating both systems. This same requirement permeates her work leading the Association of Women Leaders in Construction JRD/DAB: the authority to award and arbitrate is earned in the field, and expanding access to that field determines how many professionals will be prepared to embrace this dual language in the next decade. Infrastructure arbitration in Latin America, according to her interpretation, hinges on how many professionals can master the technical aspects, the regulations, and the operational aspects of a project simultaneously.
