Johnson, T R; Feng, P; Sitzabee, W and Jernigan, M (2013) Federal acquisition regulation applied to alliancing contract practices. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(5), pp. 480-487. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The U.S. federal construction sector led the development of partnering as a project-delivery method and continues to use it as standard practice. Alliancing has since emerged as an evolution of the partnering method and offers substantial advantages over partnering, but it also poses more difficulties with federal acquisition regulations. This research aims to determine if an alliancing contract can be effectively utilized in federal construction and, if so, to create a framework under which federal agencies can utilize the advantages of alliance contracts within existing regulations. A commercially available standard form alliancing contract was selected for analysis against the Federal Acquisition Regulation. Key practices that characterize the alliancing method were identified. Utilizing a panel of federal contracting experts, qualitative data were gathered to analyze which of these key practices do or do not comply with federal regulations, why certain practices do not comply, and how those practices could achieve compliance. The results show that most alliancing key practices can be utilized in a federal construction project. Although other practices cannot be used effectively under current regulations, these limitations do not significantly hinder the use of a comprehensive and effective federal alliancing contract.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction management; contract management; contracts; federal project policy; government; military engineering |
| Index terms: | agency, construction sector, regulation, evolution, construction project, contract management, compliance, military engineering, acquisition, delivery method, partnering, alliancing |
| Subjects: | sociology, delivery method, partnership management, political science, industry analysis, infrastructure engineering, contract management, health safety and environment, production management, environmental science, contractual arrangements, business |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Governance, Sustainability, Procurement, Stakeholder Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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