Comparative procurement methodology analysis in Australia

Peter Love, Jim Smith, Michael Regan

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contributionResearchpeer-review

Abstract

A comparative review of procurement methods was undertaken for the purpose of objectively
determining the relative strengths and weaknesses of the principal methods for the state procurement
of economic and social infrastructures. The study concerned procurement alternatives commonly used
with large or complex projects and available to government, including:

o In-house provision using a state agency or works department
o Traditional procurement
o Outsourcing
o Build own operate and related forms of asset procurement
o Alliance contracting
o Public private partnerships.

Around 90% of state procurement in the late 1980s was traditional which employs a comprehensive
input specification, a lowest price tender selection process, separation of the design and construction
components of the project and an adversarial approach to contractual relationships. The main
measurement methods were delivery on time and within budget.

As traditional procurement is mainly concerned only with the delivery of assets, most performance
measures concern the timeliness and cost of delivery and these are mainly applied at commissioning.
Tender evaluation criteria may take into account the qualitative aspects of bids such as the bidder's
credit strength, expertise and track record. However, these values are generally subordinated to price
and few traditionally procured projects are evaluated again during their service life.

The development of a comparative procurement methodology involved a comparison of quantitative
and qualitative outcomes. The evidence was sourced from the procurement outcomes of 124
economic and social infrastructure projects commissioned by governments or state agencies in
Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationProceedings W092 - Special track: Procurement systems
Subtitle of host publication18th CIB World Building Congress
EditorsP. Barrett, D. Amaratunga, R. Haigh, K. Keraminiyage, C. Pathirage
Place of PublicationRotterdam
PublisherCIB Publications
Pages37-48
Number of pages12
Publication statusPublished - 2010
EventCIB World Building Congress: Building a Better World - The Lowry, Salford Quays, United Kingdom
Duration: 10 May 201013 May 2010
Conference number: 18th
http://www.salford.ac.uk/built-environment/research/research-centres/disaster-resilience/conferences/cib-world-congress-2010-building-a-better-world

Conference

ConferenceCIB World Building Congress
CountryUnited Kingdom
CitySalford Quays
Period10/05/1013/05/10
Internet address

Fingerprint

social infrastructure
methodology
assets
public private partnership
New Zealand
budget
expertise
Canada
costs
evaluation
evidence
economics
Values
time

Cite this

Love, P., Smith, J., & Regan, M. (2010). Comparative procurement methodology analysis in Australia. In P. Barrett, D. Amaratunga, R. Haigh, K. Keraminiyage, & C. Pathirage (Eds.), Proceedings W092 - Special track: Procurement systems: 18th CIB World Building Congress (pp. 37-48). Rotterdam: CIB Publications.
Love, Peter ; Smith, Jim ; Regan, Michael. / Comparative procurement methodology analysis in Australia. Proceedings W092 - Special track: Procurement systems: 18th CIB World Building Congress. editor / P. Barrett ; D. Amaratunga ; R. Haigh ; K. Keraminiyage ; C. Pathirage. Rotterdam : CIB Publications, 2010. pp. 37-48
@inproceedings{e96fff05c76246a2974c425a677f1fa7,
title = "Comparative procurement methodology analysis in Australia",
abstract = "A comparative review of procurement methods was undertaken for the purpose of objectivelydetermining the relative strengths and weaknesses of the principal methods for the state procurementof economic and social infrastructures. The study concerned procurement alternatives commonly usedwith large or complex projects and available to government, including:o In-house provision using a state agency or works departmento Traditional procuremento Outsourcingo Build own operate and related forms of asset procuremento Alliance contractingo Public private partnerships.Around 90{\%} of state procurement in the late 1980s was traditional which employs a comprehensiveinput specification, a lowest price tender selection process, separation of the design and constructioncomponents of the project and an adversarial approach to contractual relationships. The mainmeasurement methods were delivery on time and within budget.As traditional procurement is mainly concerned only with the delivery of assets, most performancemeasures concern the timeliness and cost of delivery and these are mainly applied at commissioning.Tender evaluation criteria may take into account the qualitative aspects of bids such as the bidder'scredit strength, expertise and track record. However, these values are generally subordinated to priceand few traditionally procured projects are evaluated again during their service life.The development of a comparative procurement methodology involved a comparison of quantitativeand qualitative outcomes. The evidence was sourced from the procurement outcomes of 124economic and social infrastructure projects commissioned by governments or state agencies inAustralia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.",
author = "Peter Love and Jim Smith and Michael Regan",
year = "2010",
language = "English",
pages = "37--48",
editor = "P. Barrett and D. Amaratunga and R. Haigh and K. Keraminiyage and C. Pathirage",
booktitle = "Proceedings W092 - Special track: Procurement systems",
publisher = "CIB Publications",

}

Love, P, Smith, J & Regan, M 2010, Comparative procurement methodology analysis in Australia. in P Barrett, D Amaratunga, R Haigh, K Keraminiyage & C Pathirage (eds), Proceedings W092 - Special track: Procurement systems: 18th CIB World Building Congress. CIB Publications, Rotterdam, pp. 37-48, CIB World Building Congress, Salford Quays, United Kingdom, 10/05/10.

Comparative procurement methodology analysis in Australia. / Love, Peter; Smith, Jim ; Regan, Michael.

Proceedings W092 - Special track: Procurement systems: 18th CIB World Building Congress. ed. / P. Barrett; D. Amaratunga; R. Haigh; K. Keraminiyage; C. Pathirage. Rotterdam : CIB Publications, 2010. p. 37-48.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contributionResearchpeer-review

TY - GEN

T1 - Comparative procurement methodology analysis in Australia

AU - Love, Peter

AU - Smith, Jim

AU - Regan, Michael

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - A comparative review of procurement methods was undertaken for the purpose of objectivelydetermining the relative strengths and weaknesses of the principal methods for the state procurementof economic and social infrastructures. The study concerned procurement alternatives commonly usedwith large or complex projects and available to government, including:o In-house provision using a state agency or works departmento Traditional procuremento Outsourcingo Build own operate and related forms of asset procuremento Alliance contractingo Public private partnerships.Around 90% of state procurement in the late 1980s was traditional which employs a comprehensiveinput specification, a lowest price tender selection process, separation of the design and constructioncomponents of the project and an adversarial approach to contractual relationships. The mainmeasurement methods were delivery on time and within budget.As traditional procurement is mainly concerned only with the delivery of assets, most performancemeasures concern the timeliness and cost of delivery and these are mainly applied at commissioning.Tender evaluation criteria may take into account the qualitative aspects of bids such as the bidder'scredit strength, expertise and track record. However, these values are generally subordinated to priceand few traditionally procured projects are evaluated again during their service life.The development of a comparative procurement methodology involved a comparison of quantitativeand qualitative outcomes. The evidence was sourced from the procurement outcomes of 124economic and social infrastructure projects commissioned by governments or state agencies inAustralia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

AB - A comparative review of procurement methods was undertaken for the purpose of objectivelydetermining the relative strengths and weaknesses of the principal methods for the state procurementof economic and social infrastructures. The study concerned procurement alternatives commonly usedwith large or complex projects and available to government, including:o In-house provision using a state agency or works departmento Traditional procuremento Outsourcingo Build own operate and related forms of asset procuremento Alliance contractingo Public private partnerships.Around 90% of state procurement in the late 1980s was traditional which employs a comprehensiveinput specification, a lowest price tender selection process, separation of the design and constructioncomponents of the project and an adversarial approach to contractual relationships. The mainmeasurement methods were delivery on time and within budget.As traditional procurement is mainly concerned only with the delivery of assets, most performancemeasures concern the timeliness and cost of delivery and these are mainly applied at commissioning.Tender evaluation criteria may take into account the qualitative aspects of bids such as the bidder'scredit strength, expertise and track record. However, these values are generally subordinated to priceand few traditionally procured projects are evaluated again during their service life.The development of a comparative procurement methodology involved a comparison of quantitativeand qualitative outcomes. The evidence was sourced from the procurement outcomes of 124economic and social infrastructure projects commissioned by governments or state agencies inAustralia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

UR - http://www.cibworld.nl/site/databases/publications.html

M3 - Conference contribution

SP - 37

EP - 48

BT - Proceedings W092 - Special track: Procurement systems

A2 - Barrett, P.

A2 - Amaratunga, D.

A2 - Haigh, R.

A2 - Keraminiyage, K.

A2 - Pathirage, C.

PB - CIB Publications

CY - Rotterdam

ER -

Love P, Smith J, Regan M. Comparative procurement methodology analysis in Australia. In Barrett P, Amaratunga D, Haigh R, Keraminiyage K, Pathirage C, editors, Proceedings W092 - Special track: Procurement systems: 18th CIB World Building Congress. Rotterdam: CIB Publications. 2010. p. 37-48