Public infrastructure procurement: A comparative analysis of adversarial and non-adversarial contracting arrangments

Michael Regan

Research output: Working paperResearch

1 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Most public infrastructure is provided by traditional procurement methods generally based on quantitative selection techniques and adversarial contracting principles. International evidence suggests that this method of contracting is inefficient, is often delivered late, and is often over-budget. Further, the adversarial nature of these contracts means that disputes over variations, changes to specification or renegotiation may lead to lengthy and costly ex post negotiations or civil action. The introduction of alternative procurement methods (APM) in the early 1990s introduced a less adversarial contracting approach in which ownership (of decision-making) and responsibility for design and operation of the service-producing asset passed to the contractor with the state adopting a regulatory role. The contract is non-adversarial to the extent that the relationship between the contractor and the state is one of long-term relationship management. Evidence suggests that APM is achieving better time and cost performance than adversarial methods and contributing to improved service delivery and lower lifecycle costs.

This paper reviews the theoretical literature with a view to understanding the relationship of the parties in a non-adversarial project procurement contract. It finds that the principal and agent view of traditional procurement may not be the best way to understand collaborative contracts where the relationship can be characterised as purely transactional – the principal is a buyer of services and the contractor is the producer. The paper also reviews the empirical evidence and finds that the characteristics of non-adversarial contract models such as the output specification, qualitative selection criteria, the alignment of responsibility for service outcomes and residual control rights, incentives, life cycle costing and risk-weighted value for money measurements, are improving project delivery performance and service outcomes.
Original languageEnglish
Publication statusPublished - 2012

Fingerprint

Contracting
Comparative analysis
Public infrastructure
Procurement
Contractors
Responsibility
Selection criteria
Incentives
Costs
Service delivery
Empirical evidence
Assets
Value for money
Buyers
Project delivery
Delivery performance
Decision making
Dispute
Delivery services
Control rights

Cite this

@techreport{3a50b02c8fb642a2986bb5c587498ce0,
title = "Public infrastructure procurement: A comparative analysis of adversarial and non-adversarial contracting arrangments",
abstract = "Most public infrastructure is provided by traditional procurement methods generally based on quantitative selection techniques and adversarial contracting principles. International evidence suggests that this method of contracting is inefficient, is often delivered late, and is often over-budget. Further, the adversarial nature of these contracts means that disputes over variations, changes to specification or renegotiation may lead to lengthy and costly ex post negotiations or civil action. The introduction of alternative procurement methods (APM) in the early 1990s introduced a less adversarial contracting approach in which ownership (of decision-making) and responsibility for design and operation of the service-producing asset passed to the contractor with the state adopting a regulatory role. The contract is non-adversarial to the extent that the relationship between the contractor and the state is one of long-term relationship management. Evidence suggests that APM is achieving better time and cost performance than adversarial methods and contributing to improved service delivery and lower lifecycle costs. This paper reviews the theoretical literature with a view to understanding the relationship of the parties in a non-adversarial project procurement contract. It finds that the principal and agent view of traditional procurement may not be the best way to understand collaborative contracts where the relationship can be characterised as purely transactional – the principal is a buyer of services and the contractor is the producer. The paper also reviews the empirical evidence and finds that the characteristics of non-adversarial contract models such as the output specification, qualitative selection criteria, the alignment of responsibility for service outcomes and residual control rights, incentives, life cycle costing and risk-weighted value for money measurements, are improving project delivery performance and service outcomes.",
author = "Michael Regan",
year = "2012",
language = "English",
type = "WorkingPaper",

}

TY - UNPB

T1 - Public infrastructure procurement: A comparative analysis of adversarial and non-adversarial contracting arrangments

AU - Regan, Michael

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - Most public infrastructure is provided by traditional procurement methods generally based on quantitative selection techniques and adversarial contracting principles. International evidence suggests that this method of contracting is inefficient, is often delivered late, and is often over-budget. Further, the adversarial nature of these contracts means that disputes over variations, changes to specification or renegotiation may lead to lengthy and costly ex post negotiations or civil action. The introduction of alternative procurement methods (APM) in the early 1990s introduced a less adversarial contracting approach in which ownership (of decision-making) and responsibility for design and operation of the service-producing asset passed to the contractor with the state adopting a regulatory role. The contract is non-adversarial to the extent that the relationship between the contractor and the state is one of long-term relationship management. Evidence suggests that APM is achieving better time and cost performance than adversarial methods and contributing to improved service delivery and lower lifecycle costs. This paper reviews the theoretical literature with a view to understanding the relationship of the parties in a non-adversarial project procurement contract. It finds that the principal and agent view of traditional procurement may not be the best way to understand collaborative contracts where the relationship can be characterised as purely transactional – the principal is a buyer of services and the contractor is the producer. The paper also reviews the empirical evidence and finds that the characteristics of non-adversarial contract models such as the output specification, qualitative selection criteria, the alignment of responsibility for service outcomes and residual control rights, incentives, life cycle costing and risk-weighted value for money measurements, are improving project delivery performance and service outcomes.

AB - Most public infrastructure is provided by traditional procurement methods generally based on quantitative selection techniques and adversarial contracting principles. International evidence suggests that this method of contracting is inefficient, is often delivered late, and is often over-budget. Further, the adversarial nature of these contracts means that disputes over variations, changes to specification or renegotiation may lead to lengthy and costly ex post negotiations or civil action. The introduction of alternative procurement methods (APM) in the early 1990s introduced a less adversarial contracting approach in which ownership (of decision-making) and responsibility for design and operation of the service-producing asset passed to the contractor with the state adopting a regulatory role. The contract is non-adversarial to the extent that the relationship between the contractor and the state is one of long-term relationship management. Evidence suggests that APM is achieving better time and cost performance than adversarial methods and contributing to improved service delivery and lower lifecycle costs. This paper reviews the theoretical literature with a view to understanding the relationship of the parties in a non-adversarial project procurement contract. It finds that the principal and agent view of traditional procurement may not be the best way to understand collaborative contracts where the relationship can be characterised as purely transactional – the principal is a buyer of services and the contractor is the producer. The paper also reviews the empirical evidence and finds that the characteristics of non-adversarial contract models such as the output specification, qualitative selection criteria, the alignment of responsibility for service outcomes and residual control rights, incentives, life cycle costing and risk-weighted value for money measurements, are improving project delivery performance and service outcomes.

M3 - Working paper

BT - Public infrastructure procurement: A comparative analysis of adversarial and non-adversarial contracting arrangments

ER -