Construction procurement routes: Re-defining the contours of construction procurement

Tookey, J E; Murray, M; Hardcastle, C and Langford, D (2001) Construction procurement routes: Re-defining the contours of construction procurement. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 8(1), pp. 20-30. ISSN 0969-9988

Abstract

Today there are a number of different types of procurement routes available for clients to choose from. Each different type of procurement (traditional, design and build, management, etc.) has its own proponents and inherent strengths and weaknesses. Selection of optimal procurement systems is difficult, because even experienced clients cannot know all the potential benefits or risks for each system. Procurement is, therefore, a succession of calculated risks'. Industry and academia have focussed research on reducing procurement risk through better procurement-system selection methods. Current research considers procurement as a set of rationalistic decisions within a closed environment, aiming to produce generic, prescriptive rules for clients and advisers to use to select the best' procurement route for their project. This paper seeks to identify whether prescriptive procurement guidance was adhered to on a set of case study projects. It was found that clients usually selected appropriate procurement systems, and where an inappropriate system was selected, alterations were made in contract form to incorporate aspects of the best' procurement route.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: client objectives; procurement route selection
Index terms: selection method, design and build, case study, procurement system, academia, construction procurement
Subjects: educational institutions, tendering, contractual arrangements, data collection methods
Topics: Research Practice, Procurement, Education
Descriptive scope: 3 PCE

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