Boes H, D A (2013) Public procurement at local level in the Netherlands: Towards a better client-contractor cooperation in a competitive environment. In: Smith, S D and Ahiaga-Dagbui, D D (eds.) Proceedings of 29th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2013, Reading, UK.
Abstract
In the early 1990s, Dutch municipalities procured works mainly by invited tenders. The drive behind this policy was to maintain continuity of the relationship and cooperation between client and contractor(s). Towards the turn of the century the procurement policy moved to more public tendering. This was supposed to ensure more competitive pressure and to minimize suspicion over 'cosy' contacts between client and contractors. This 'more competition' policy was promoted even more after the exposure in 2001 of widespread collusion in the Dutch construction industry. For a number of years after this, client-contractor relationships remained distant and formal under the process of traditional contracting, open tendering and low cost selection. In 2009 representatives from the municipalities and contractors mutually expressed the wish to explore more integrated and cooperative contracts. These municipalities became participants in Pioneering[1] to start pilot projects focusing on relational contracting or partnering for design and execution. The assumption was that more cooperative problem-solving would lead to less conflict and greater added value. The first pilot project is finished and the results are promising, but there are also some lessons. The willingness to cooperate between client and contractor existed during design and execution phase. The cooperation produced better solutions than the initial client solutions. Also, the focus on cooperation produced a more open atmosphere between client and contractor. However, this atmosphere sometimes hampered a critical attitude and influenced the process efficiency negatively. The delivery of reliable information by the client was especially critical and held back due to the time constraints caused by other projects also being executed. The tendering for qualitative criteria only and no prices led to competitive discussion about the budget. The new procurement law implemented on the 1st April 2013 no longer allows this form of tendering. Furthermore, the cooperation intention in the execution phase was supported by traditional Design-Bid-Built) legislation. Therefore, extra costs were allocated according to the traditional client contractor framework. The future management of the process and further development of the cooperation concept into the execution phase both need attention.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | cooperation; municipality; procurement; project management |
| Index terms: | Netherlands, low cost, traditional contracting, collusion, efficiency, procurement policy, partnering, relational contracting, legislation, added value, cooperation, construction industry, exposure, project management, municipality, competition |
| Subjects: | Geography, project management theory and practice, public and environmental health, tendering, performance management, administrative law, industry analysis, partnership management, market analysis, bidding, legal systems, contractual arrangements, economic analysis, psychology, public policy |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Project Management, Geographical Context, Health and Safety, Procurement, Governance, Stakeholder Management, Quality Management, Legal Issues, Organizational Design |
| 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