Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

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

By Michael Regan

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

Topics: adversarial contracting, public project procurement, collaboration, Urban, Community and Regional Planning
Publisher: ePublications@bond
Year: 2012
OAI identifier: oai:epublications.bond.edu.au:sustainable_development-1139
Download PDF:
Sorry, we are unable to provide the full text but you may find it at the following location(s):
  • http://epublications.bond.edu.... (external link)
  • http://epublications.bond.edu.... (external link)
  • Suggested articles


    To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.