View source for Collaborative Tendering

==Analysis==

The aim of this chapter is to identify some examples of tendering in different parts of the world and their different levels of collaboration. This article will work towards a 'guideline' for best practices in Collaborative tendering, based on literary and case studies. This article emphasizes the need for increased collaboration, ''Increasingly, complex and extensive civil engineering and construction projects resemble megaprojects, as they too set up an integrated project organization combining different organization skills, designs and constructs''<ref>['' Marrewijk, Alfons van; Clegg, Stewart R.; Pitsis, Tyrone S.; Veenswijk, Marcel, 2007'' ] ''Managing public-private megaprojects: Paradoxes, complexity and project design'' </ref>. Another article adds to the complexity of requirement for modern contracts as companies have to prove they have a positive effect on the communities in which they build. <ref>[ ''Loosemore, Martin, 2015'' ] ''Social procurement in UK construction projects'' </ref> With these megaprojects, different levels of cooperation can be distinguished.


Collaboration on a program level, structural partnership (e.g. olympic games), partnership surpassing project basis, raises the question, what factors are crucial for long term (program level) collaboration<ref>[ ''Beach, R.; Webster, M.; Campbell, K.M., 2005'' ] ''An evaluation of partnership development in the construction industry'' </ref>Because the amount of collaboration between competitors is limited, clear guidelines have to be established before even starting on the tender. As each of the companies have their own interest as a priority, long term collaboration is a difficult subject. The key to solving this will be clear communication between the involved parties. Different levels of partnership have been defined while reflecting on pilot projects in Germany<ref name="Germany">[ ''Spang, Konrad; Riemann, Stefan, 2014'' ] ''Partnering in infrastructure projects in Germany'' </ref>

-First generation partnering, project partnering

-Second generation partnering, strategic partnering

-Third generation partnering, System partnering

As trust and communication are key in these collaborations, it depends heavily on the company which type of partnering they choose. In Mega Structure projects, strategic partnering is more beneficial as companies can divide their resources over a number of project in the program. Allocating resources is easier and cheaper due to shared risk and multiple projects. Therefore it is often possible to either offer extra services or a better price while collaborating in these strategic partnerships.

The next chapter will look into different collaborative tendering projects.



====Collaborative Tendering, a Global Introduction====

A recent study described partnering as the following: ''Partnering is defined as a collaborative procurement form, focusing on integration of the project design and delivery by weighting collaboration and coordination between involved parties''<ref>[ ''Hosseini, Ali; Wondimu, Paulos Abebe; Bellini, Alesia; Tune, Henrik; Haugseth, Nikolai; Anderson, Bjorn; Laedre, Ola, 2016'' ] ''Project partnering in Norwegian construction industry'' </ref>. Hasanzadeh et al brings up the problems that develop with collaborative tendering like Difficulty in Resolving claims, Cost overruns, Litigation and a Win-Lose Climate''<ref name="IranTender">[ ''Hasanzadeh, Sogand Mohammad; Hosseinalipour, Mujtaba; Hafezi, Mohammad Reza; 2014'' ] ''Collaborate procurement in construction projects performance measures, Case Study: Partnering in Iranian construction industry'' </ref>.  
Furthermore, the study suggests that key success factors rely on a strategic, organizational and cultural match.

This article concludess that after the introduction of pilot projects in Germany, the following benefits are showing<ref name="Germany">[ ''Spang, Konrad; Riemann, Stefan, 2014'' ] </ref>

-Less adversarial relationships between companies

-Increased customer satisfaction and better understanding of each other

-Improved timescales, quality and reduced costs

-Risk sharing


During Mega projects in international collaborative tendering is becoming more popular. An excellent example is the the Suez canal. Issued in 2014, the project had to be finished within one year. Due to the enormous amount of resources needed a consortium of the already ''biggest dredging companies'' in the world was needed to pull together the amount of machinery. In order to keep all parties satisfied, the 1.5 billion contract was split equally between the contractors. In this case, all foreign contractors performed the same amount of work and received an equal share of this money <ref>[ ''Bemmelen, Bas van; Dhont, Wim; Eid, Osama Farouk; Nagel, Menno; Willems, Kenneth, 2016'' ] ''Challenge in logistics: New Suez Canal Project'' </ref>. The size and limited timeframe of this project 'forced' the market into a collaborative tender process.


Another example of a project with a collaborative tender is the project to build a tunnel connecting Germany and Denmark, the Fehmarn Belt Link. Apart from the management consortium, the project was split into four different construction projects, each with their own specialized consortium, with a value close to four billion euros<ref>[ ''Construction News, 2017'' ] ''Germany-Denmark tunnel sees innovations run deep, https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/markets/special-reports/germany-denmark-tunnel-sees-innovations-run-deep/10017906.article'' </ref>.
Due to the complexity of the project, the mixture of wet infrastructure work, dredging and concrete technology different partners were involved in the tender to make the most competitive bid. 



This article has done a research on collaborative tendering in Iran<ref name="IranTender">[ ''Hasanzadeh, Sogand Mohammad; Hosseinalipour, Mujtaba; Hafezi, Mohammad Reza; 2014'' ] ''Collaborate procurement in construction projects performance measures, Case Study: Partnering in Iranian construction industry'' </ref>. The research concludes that there is a positive trend in collaborative partnering. According to the interviewed companies, the main motivations for collaboration were Improvement in quality, Reduction in costs, Opportunities in gaining market advantages, Knowledge sharing and innovation, and a shared risk between the partners in the consortium. However, they also argue that an enlarged project organization, differences in company culture and mainly a lack of experience in collaborative projects can be a challenge. For example, risks and benefits are not being shared equally as a result of a win-lose attitude. It therefore suggests a shift towards a win-win attitude by informing the involved parties by involving them in training. 

These international examples show that although not always with complete success, benefits of collaborative tendering are starting to show due to more experienced companies.

====Collaborative Tendering in the Netherlands====

Collaborative Tendering is becoming a more common phenomenon in the Netherlands. Especially in the context of the new procurement laws from the EU that were implemented in 2013 <ref>[''European Commission, 2016''] ''Public procurement-Study on administrative capacity in the EU, The Netherlands Country Profile'' </ref>. Over the last decade, collaborative tendering has become increasingly popular due to the advantages it brings in large infrastructure projects. The first push however was the implementation of Design & Build (& Maintain) Contracts. The new contracts rely on the contractor to take more tasks, instead of having a third party check constantly if the works are being implemented properly, it is now up to the contractor to prove that they have fullfilled all project requirements. For example, with the Maasvlakte 2, the consortium PUMA recalls the following: ‘’During tender Stage PUMA has spent more than two years on design. The Design, Construct & Maintenance responsibility gives PUMA a certain amount of latitude in how it carries out the project’’<ref>[''Boskalis, 2013''] '' Project Sheet Maasvlakte 2, The Netherlands. The largest dutch hydraulic engineering project since the Delta works.'' </ref>. This introduces a new way of management, which forces the contractor to rethink their strategy to make money during a project. Instead of focussing on implementing the contract aimed at a more short term aim, in order to pass the ‘test or check’ by a consultant, they have to provide a long term plan to ensure quality. By forcing the contractor into securing Long term quality instead of a short term quality check they will not only have to change there implementation method, but also the aspects on which they assess their project.



This increased complexity in deliverables and increased demand on the resources of the contractor have been a incentive to collaborate on these projects. By doing so, sharing not only knowledge but also resources. This mitigates the risk of having a high initial investment even though they are not being awarded the contract. Another incentive for collaborative tendering is the introduction of sustainable scoring into the procurement procedure. This allows the client to assess on sustainability, but also the company to come up with a perhaps more expensive approach that would score higher on sustainability. Collaboration, and combining expertise, is in these situation an advantage in the bidding process. The method of assessing the sustainability is called the MEAT method (EMVI in the Netherlands). Different strategies and scoring methods are used, however, the guidelines for the sustainability part are based on the ISO 20400 requirements. ''By implementing ISO20400, your organization will contribute positively to society and the economy through making sustainable purchasing decisions and encouraging suppliers and other stakeholders to do the same''<ref>[''ISO, 2017''] ''ISO 20400, Sustainable procurement'' </ref>. 



In recent years there has been a client driven push from Rijkswaterstaat for the implementation and pushing collaboration with DBFM - contracts<ref>[''Rijksoverheid''] ''Wat is DBFM of DBMFO?, https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/publiek-private-samenwerking-pps-bij-het-rijk/wat-is-dbfmo-of-dbfmo'' </ref>. This is the latest development in the Public-Private Partnership projects. Rijkswaterstaat defines it as the following:  ‘’A company or consortium takes -within the preconditions and limits- the responsibility for the entire project. Depending on the contract, the consortium is after the design, construction and financing around 20 or 30 years responsible for maintenance<ref name="Rijkswaterstaat">[''Rijkswaterstaat''] ''DBFM Rijkswaterstaat, https://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/zakelijk/zakendoen-met-rijkswaterstaat/werkwijzen/werkwijze-in-gww/contracten-gww/dbfm.aspx'' </ref>.  This puts an increased effort on the companies knowledge and resources, making a consortium the most logical approach. First example being the Tweede Coentunnel in 2005<ref name="Rijkswaterstaat">[''Rijkswaterstaat''] ''DBFM Rijkswaterstaat, https://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/zakelijk/zakendoen-met-rijkswaterstaat/werkwijzen/werkwijze-in-gww/contracten-gww/dbfm.aspx'' </ref>. These are usually big infrastructure projects where a consortium of partners is responsible for the full process of the project. Since then, Rijkswaterstaat has been pushing for more collaborative based project work. Some successes include the tender for the IJmuiden harbour lock , while some projects like the A15 road expansion contractors had difficulties adjusting to this new way of working, having large financial consequences for the consortium. Because contractors are getting more familiar in working in these consortiums, the risk of mistakes in assessing these contracts becomes smaller. 



A success story of these new collaborative approaches is the new Ijmuiden harbour lock. Issued by Rijkswaterstaat, the consortium was responsible for the Design, Construction, Finance and Maintenance for a period of 26 years. The bid was under the expected price due to smart implementation and design<ref>[''BAM, 2015''] ''Uitgekiend ontwerp zeesluis Ijmuiden, http://www.bam.com/nl/blog/uitgekiend-ontwerp-zeesluis-ijmuiden'' </ref>. Due to the experience of the partnering companies. Contract for approximately 500 million euro with a reserved budget of 819 million euro. A consortium of BAM,Volkerwessels and DIF. Due to the collaboration, good contact with the client (rijkswaterstaat), and technically innovative design integrating the new lock with the coastal defence the actual bid, after a long and extensive tender period, was lower than anticipated<ref>[''Cobouw, 2015''] ''Inschrijfprijs Zeesluis IJmuiden verraste ons, https://www.cobouw.nl/infra/nieuws/2015/10/inschrijfprijs-zeesluis-ijmuiden-verraste-ons-101169207'' </ref>.



Where in the Ijmuiden project the consortium made use of their opportunities during the tender phase to communicate and collaborate closely with the client, during the A15 road expansion project the contractor held on to traditional tactics, not realizing the extent of their responsibilities for the errors in the design. The consequences for this company, Ballast Nedam, are so far reaching that they did win any tenders in 2015 issued by Rijkswaterstaat<ref>[''Cobouw, 2016''] ''Ballast Nedam krijgt niets gegund van Rijkswaterstaat, https://www.cobouw.nl/infra/nieuws/2016/3/ballast-nedam-krijgt-niets-gegund-van-rijkswaterstaat-101122280'' </ref>, and have balanced on the edge of bankruptcy for the past years<ref>[''Volkskrant, 2015''] ''Bouwbedrijf Ballast Nedam bijna bankroet, https://www.volkskrant.nl/economie/bouwbedrijf-ballast-nedam-bijna-bankroet~a3980217/'' </ref> .


After reviewing these cases in the context of collaborative Tendering, it is clear that there are some limitations involved during the collaborative process, which will be discussed in the last chapter.