Foreword |
|
xiii | |
Preface |
|
xv | |
|
|
1 | (5) |
|
Procurement strategy: a literature review |
|
|
6 | (25) |
|
|
6 | (3) |
|
Procurement strategy selection models |
|
|
9 | (1) |
|
Team relationships, supply chain management and communication and their effect on project performance |
|
|
10 | (3) |
|
Teamwork and team performance |
|
|
10 | (1) |
|
Partnering and multicultural teams |
|
|
11 | (1) |
|
|
12 | (1) |
|
The role of the client in the procurement process |
|
|
13 | (1) |
|
The interrelationship between the various components of the overall procurement approach: strategic procurement management |
|
|
14 | (1) |
|
Legal and contractual issues, including public sector procurement legislation, and their effect on project performance |
|
|
14 | (3) |
|
Legal and contractual issues in procurement |
|
|
14 | (2) |
|
Public sector procurement law |
|
|
16 | (1) |
|
International procurement comparisons and the impact of cultural differences |
|
|
17 | (1) |
|
Risk allocation and reward |
|
|
18 | (1) |
|
Bid evaluation techniques |
|
|
19 | (2) |
|
Environmental and sustainability issues and the procurement of construction work |
|
|
21 | (1) |
|
|
22 | (9) |
|
Principles of strategic procurement |
|
|
31 | (12) |
|
|
31 | (1) |
|
Procurement: a review of theory and practice |
|
|
32 | (1) |
|
A strategic approach to procurement |
|
|
33 | (8) |
|
Components of the procurement process |
|
|
34 | (7) |
|
|
41 | (2) |
|
|
43 | (26) |
|
Introduction: why should public sector projects be different? |
|
|
43 | (1) |
|
What constitutes the public sector? |
|
|
44 | (9) |
|
|
45 | (5) |
|
|
50 | (2) |
|
The National Health Service (NHS) |
|
|
52 | (1) |
|
Procurement rules: European Community principles and procedures |
|
|
53 | (16) |
|
Non-discrimination and transparency: the role of the EU |
|
|
53 | (1) |
|
|
54 | (3) |
|
|
57 | (4) |
|
|
61 | (2) |
|
|
63 | (1) |
|
Sustainability and environmental issues |
|
|
64 | (1) |
|
|
65 | (1) |
|
|
66 | (1) |
|
Enforcement of EU Directives |
|
|
67 | (2) |
|
|
69 | (10) |
|
|
69 | (1) |
|
|
69 | (1) |
|
|
70 | (2) |
|
|
72 | (1) |
|
|
73 | (1) |
|
|
73 | (1) |
|
|
74 | (1) |
|
Prioritisation of objectives |
|
|
74 | (2) |
|
|
76 | (3) |
|
Briefing and the design process |
|
|
79 | (16) |
|
|
79 | (1) |
|
Project briefing: an overview |
|
|
79 | (2) |
|
Types of construction client |
|
|
81 | (3) |
|
|
83 | (1) |
|
|
83 | (1) |
|
|
83 | (1) |
|
Likelihood of post-contract client changes |
|
|
84 | (1) |
|
Degree of accountability required |
|
|
84 | (1) |
|
The briefing process: an historical perspective |
|
|
84 | (2) |
|
Developing the project brief |
|
|
86 | (1) |
|
The project execution plan (PEP) |
|
|
87 | (3) |
|
What issues does the PEP need to address? |
|
|
87 | (2) |
|
When should it be prepared? |
|
|
89 | (1) |
|
|
89 | (1) |
|
|
90 | (1) |
|
Project briefing: the case of hospitals |
|
|
90 | (2) |
|
Critical factors for success in the briefing process |
|
|
92 | (3) |
|
|
95 | (25) |
|
|
95 | (5) |
|
|
100 | (2) |
|
|
102 | (1) |
|
Selecting a procurement strategy |
|
|
103 | (2) |
|
Factors to be considered in selecting a procurement strategy |
|
|
105 | (3) |
|
Factors outside the control of the project team |
|
|
105 | (1) |
|
|
106 | (1) |
|
|
106 | (1) |
|
|
106 | (1) |
|
|
106 | (1) |
|
|
107 | (1) |
|
|
108 | (1) |
|
|
108 | (1) |
|
Procurement strategies: a review |
|
|
108 | (12) |
|
Design-bid-build (also known as `traditional') |
|
|
108 | (3) |
|
Measurement (remeasurement or measure and value) |
|
|
111 | (1) |
|
|
112 | (2) |
|
|
114 | (1) |
|
|
115 | (1) |
|
|
116 | (4) |
|
|
120 | (10) |
|
|
120 | (1) |
|
|
121 | (3) |
|
|
124 | (6) |
|
|
125 | (1) |
|
Production of the tender list |
|
|
126 | (1) |
|
|
127 | (1) |
|
|
128 | (1) |
|
|
129 | (1) |
|
|
129 | (1) |
|
Managing the procurement process |
|
|
130 | (18) |
|
|
130 | (3) |
|
Developing the project execution plan |
|
|
132 | (1) |
|
Identifying the project team |
|
|
132 | (1) |
|
Implementing the procurement strategy |
|
|
133 | (1) |
|
|
133 | (1) |
|
|
133 | (1) |
|
|
134 | (1) |
|
Temporary organisational structure |
|
|
135 | (1) |
|
|
135 | (1) |
|
|
135 | (1) |
|
|
136 | (2) |
|
|
138 | (1) |
|
|
139 | (2) |
|
|
141 | (3) |
|
|
144 | (1) |
|
|
145 | (1) |
|
|
146 | (1) |
|
|
146 | (1) |
|
|
146 | (2) |
|
|
148 | (9) |
|
|
148 | (2) |
|
|
150 | (1) |
|
Managing value: value management and value engineering |
|
|
151 | (6) |
|
|
152 | (2) |
|
|
154 | (3) |
|
|
157 | (13) |
|
The need for risk management |
|
|
157 | (1) |
|
|
158 | (1) |
|
Risk management strategies |
|
|
158 | (1) |
|
|
158 | (4) |
|
|
159 | (1) |
|
|
159 | (1) |
|
|
159 | (1) |
|
|
159 | (2) |
|
|
161 | (1) |
|
|
161 | (1) |
|
Analysis, involving quantification of the risk effects and prioritisation |
|
|
162 | (5) |
|
|
162 | (1) |
|
|
163 | (4) |
|
Choice of an acceptable risk management strategy |
|
|
167 | (2) |
|
|
167 | (1) |
|
|
167 | (1) |
|
|
167 | (1) |
|
|
167 | (1) |
|
|
168 | (1) |
|
|
168 | (1) |
|
Risk monitoring and control |
|
|
169 | (1) |
|
Partnering culture and the management of relationships |
|
|
170 | (26) |
|
|
170 | (1) |
|
Collaborative procurement: an overview |
|
|
170 | (1) |
|
The Latham review and subsequent developments |
|
|
170 | (1) |
|
The rise of collaborative approaches to procurement |
|
|
171 | (1) |
|
Collaborative approaches to construction work |
|
|
172 | (1) |
|
|
172 | (1) |
|
|
173 | (4) |
|
The JCT forms of contract including the Standard Form of Building Contract |
|
|
173 | (1) |
|
|
173 | (1) |
|
The New Engineering Contract (NEC) Engineering and Construction Contract (ECC) Edition 3 |
|
|
174 | (1) |
|
The ACA Project Partnering Contract (PPC 2000) |
|
|
174 | (1) |
|
Perform 21 Public Sector Partnering Contract |
|
|
175 | (1) |
|
|
175 | (2) |
|
What advantages does partnering bring? |
|
|
177 | (1) |
|
Managing a successful partnering arrangement |
|
|
177 | (1) |
|
The role of the workshop facilitator |
|
|
177 | (2) |
|
|
178 | (1) |
|
|
179 | (1) |
|
The management of relationships |
|
|
180 | (1) |
|
|
180 | (1) |
|
Establishing the `cultural fit' |
|
|
181 | (3) |
|
|
181 | (1) |
|
|
182 | (1) |
|
|
183 | (1) |
|
|
183 | (1) |
|
|
184 | (1) |
|
|
185 | (2) |
|
|
187 | (2) |
|
Maintenance of the relationship |
|
|
189 | (1) |
|
|
190 | (4) |
|
|
192 | (1) |
|
|
192 | (1) |
|
|
193 | (1) |
|
The collaborative approach |
|
|
194 | (1) |
|
|
194 | (2) |
|
Privately financed public sector projects (PFI and PPP) |
|
|
196 | (15) |
|
|
196 | (1) |
|
|
196 | (4) |
|
Modern models for privatisation |
|
|
200 | (11) |
|
|
200 | (1) |
|
Participative privately financed techniques |
|
|
201 | (1) |
|
Corporatisation and the use of semi-private (i.e. mixed) companies |
|
|
201 | (2) |
|
|
203 | (1) |
|
The leasing model or build-lease-transfer (BLT) |
|
|
203 | (1) |
|
|
204 | (1) |
|
|
205 | (1) |
|
|
205 | (6) |
|
Public private partnerships (PPPs) and the UK Private Finance Initiative (PFI) |
|
|
211 | (22) |
|
|
211 | (1) |
|
The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) |
|
|
211 | (19) |
|
|
213 | (1) |
|
|
214 | (1) |
|
|
214 | (3) |
|
|
217 | (1) |
|
|
218 | (1) |
|
|
218 | (1) |
|
Current problems and solutions |
|
|
219 | (11) |
|
|
230 | (3) |
|
Construction procurement: Europe and China |
|
|
233 | (17) |
|
|
233 | (1) |
|
|
234 | (12) |
|
|
234 | (7) |
|
The northern European approach |
|
|
241 | (2) |
|
The Mediterranean approach |
|
|
243 | (3) |
|
The People's Republic of China and the Hong Kong Special Autonomous Region (HKSAR) |
|
|
246 | (4) |
|
The Chinese construction industry |
|
|
247 | (1) |
|
The external construction industry |
|
|
247 | (1) |
|
The indigenous construction industry |
|
|
248 | (1) |
|
The construction professions |
|
|
248 | (1) |
|
|
249 | (1) |
|
US delivery processes critically reviewed |
|
|
250 | (20) |
|
|
250 | (1) |
|
|
251 | (2) |
|
Best interest of the client vs best interest of the contractor |
|
|
252 | (1) |
|
The design and build process |
|
|
253 | (2) |
|
|
255 | (1) |
|
|
256 | (2) |
|
Construction management at risk |
|
|
258 | (1) |
|
Indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) |
|
|
259 | (1) |
|
Job order contracting (JOC) |
|
|
260 | (1) |
|
Time and materials contracting |
|
|
260 | (1) |
|
|
261 | (1) |
|
|
261 | (1) |
|
Performance Information Procurement System (PIPS) |
|
|
262 | (1) |
|
Comparison of procurement processes |
|
|
262 | (4) |
|
|
266 | (1) |
|
|
267 | (3) |
|
Performance Information Procurement System (PIPS) |
|
|
270 | (23) |
|
|
270 | (2) |
|
Set-up and training phase |
|
|
272 | (1) |
|
|
273 | (1) |
|
Client or client policies |
|
|
273 | (1) |
|
Selection of performance criteria |
|
|
274 | (1) |
|
Bidding phase and past performance information phase |
|
|
275 | (1) |
|
Request for proposal (RFP) |
|
|
276 | (1) |
|
|
276 | (4) |
|
|
280 | (1) |
|
Past performance information (PPI) |
|
|
280 | (1) |
|
Identification of past performance references |
|
|
281 | (2) |
|
|
283 | (1) |
|
Rating the past performance of contractors |
|
|
284 | (1) |
|
|
284 | (1) |
|
Capability to perform the required construction |
|
|
285 | (1) |
|
|
285 | (1) |
|
Value added features by critical subcontractors |
|
|
286 | (1) |
|
|
286 | (1) |
|
|
287 | (2) |
|
|
289 | (1) |
|
|
290 | (1) |
|
|
290 | (1) |
|
Updating performance information |
|
|
291 | (1) |
|
|
291 | (2) |
|
|
293 | (3) |
|
Appendix: PIPS case studies |
|
|
296 | (31) |
|
Case study no. 1: United Airlines |
|
|
296 | (3) |
|
|
296 | (1) |
|
|
296 | (1) |
|
|
297 | (1) |
|
High quality roofing and flooring |
|
|
298 | (1) |
|
|
298 | (1) |
|
Case study no. 2: the State of Utah |
|
|
299 | (12) |
|
|
299 | (1) |
|
The State of Utah construction environment |
|
|
300 | (1) |
|
The University of Utah housing project (2000 Winter Olympic village housing) |
|
|
300 | (1) |
|
|
301 | (1) |
|
Performance data collection |
|
|
302 | (1) |
|
|
303 | (2) |
|
Construction of the University of Utah housing |
|
|
305 | (1) |
|
Analysis of the PIPS implementation |
|
|
306 | (1) |
|
Overview of the State of Utah PIPS tests |
|
|
307 | (1) |
|
|
308 | (1) |
|
Value-based selection process |
|
|
309 | (1) |
|
Comments by the State of Utah participants |
|
|
310 | (1) |
|
|
310 | (1) |
|
Case study no. 3: University of Hawaii |
|
|
311 | (6) |
|
|
311 | (1) |
|
Implementation of PIPS by the UH |
|
|
312 | (1) |
|
|
313 | (1) |
|
|
314 | (2) |
|
|
316 | (1) |
|
Case study no. 4: the State of Georgia |
|
|
317 | (10) |
|
|
317 | (1) |
|
Project 1: Environmental Science and Technology (ES&T) Building (Georgia Institute of Technology) |
|
|
318 | (2) |
|
Project 2: Occupational Technology Building (Savannah Technical Institute) |
|
|
320 | (5) |
|
Comparison with other low-bid projects |
|
|
325 | (1) |
|
|
326 | (1) |
Index |
|
327 | |