Lœdre, O; Austeng, K; Haugen, T I and Klakegg, O J (2006) Procurement routes in public building and construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(7), pp. 689-696. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper deals with procurement routes in public building and construction projects in Norway. Seen from a practical point of view, as well as from a theoretical one, it is important to improve methods for selection of procurement procedure, contract model, and compensation formats. The paper objective is to find out if public owners select a procurement route according to recommended practice. The sources are literature, support material for two software tools for selection of the procurement route, and documentation from 22 public building and construction projects in Norway. According to the literature and the support material for the two software tools, the answer to what is the proper procurement route will depend on the characteristics of each project. The documentation study implies that public owners continue to select the same procurement route as they are in the habit of. They do not consider what procurement route suits each single project, and therefore they do not select the route according to recommended practice. The paper calls for innovation and better supported selection of the procurement route in public building and construction projects.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | buildings; public; compensation; contractors; contracts; design; pricing |
| Index terms: | habit, public building, compensation, Norway, documentation, construction project, public owner, pricing |
| Subjects: | dispute resolution, health behaviours and lifestyles, construction type, sociology, economic analysis, professional development, production management, Geography |
| Topics: | Construction Technology, Information Management, Geographical Context, Project Management, Stakeholder Management, Legal Issues, Business Strategy, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here