Borg, L and Lind, H (2014) Framework for structuring procurement contracts. Construction Economics and Building, 14(4), pp. 71-84. ISSN 2204-9029
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to propose a new framework for structuring contract types and payment methods. Concerning procurement contracts, the first important new feature of this framework is a stepwise structure with three main steps in the contract design: (1) what will be procured—should the contract only include construction, or should it include both construction and operation/maintenance (2) who will do the detailed design of the premise and (3) how many contractors will the client use? The second important new feature of this framework is that both step 2 and step 3 include a continuum of alternatives. Concerning payment methods, the new framework is primarily based on how the specific risks of the project are shared. These frameworks can be useful for policy formulation in that they can help to avoid some problematic ways of formulating policies. Lena Borg and Hans Lind.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction sector; contract; infrastructure projects; procurement |
| Index terms: | construction sector, infrastructure project, procurement contract |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Procurement |
| 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