Collaborative Tendering

Summary

In recent years projects have become more complex in order to meet the societal demands. Big infrastructural projects require such specific knowledge and skillsets that individual companies, whether consultancy or contractors, are finding it increasingly difficult to fullfill all the requested requirements. Either on the aspect of technical/operational knowledge, or just the not having enough capacity (manpower) to fullfill the required work. In order to secure all the requirements in these complex contracts companies have been producing extensive tender proposals. These require a big initial investment, are labour intensive and require a vast and permanently available knowledge network in the company. All competitors are forced into producing this initial effort, however, only one can win the project.

Therefore it is becoming a more common phenomenon that companies collaborate on writing tenders for 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. Because companies have different areas of expertise, collaboration will not only be beneficial for the project, but will also encourage cross pollination between the companies in terms of knowledge. It also mitigates risks during the project. As resources are shared, the companies have reduced the amount of their resources on an individual project. In case something unforeseen happens during the project, they have to relocate or idle a smaller amount of their resources, therefore decreasing the costs risk.

Of course, each partner has to secure their own interest in these projects. 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, there will likely be conflicts. The key to solving or preventing this will be clear communication between the involved parties.

This article will discuss some of the benefits of the Collaborative Tendering from a Project and Program perspective, while at the same time critically reflect on some of the pitfalls of these collaborations. Project examples will be used to illustrate the literature statements, as Collaborative Tendering is a relatively new concept.

Introduction

As stated in the abstract, Tenders are becoming more extensive as a response to an increase in project and contract complexity.(Reference:missing) In order to illustrate more on the background there will be an overview of the most used tender types. These are Open Tendering, Selective Tendering and Negotiative Tenders In an Open tender any contractor is allowed to write their bid. However, due to high uncertainty for the bidding company, most bids are higher and not as accurate in order to save resources. Selective tendering introduces the concept of a pre-qualification. This means that companies have to prove themselves eligble for the contracts in terms of experience, financial situation and have the resources in order to fullfill the deliverables. Negotiated tenders, where a company just submits there price, are usually aim at specialized works or small extensions of existing contracts. Selective tendering will be the type of tender where the rest of this article will refer to. Collaborative tendering is a response to the increase in complexity in big contracts. Since Selective tendering is used in big contracts for big infrastructural projects, this type of tendering will be referred to in further discussion.

Before going more into the collaboration aspects, there will be a small introduction into procurement processes. With a distinctive focus on EU procurement strategies. EU procurement regulation starts acting at projects over 1.86 million euros (Check + reference!). Since these are the projects suitable for collaborative tendering these regulations will be the most relevant. Procurements regulations aims at a equal, fair chance for companies to acquire contracts. Or, This legal framework is designed to ensure that contracts are awarded transparently, without discrimination on ground of nationality, and that all potential bidders are treated equally

A good example for these new procurement procedures is a design-build contract. In general terms, with this type of procurement, one party is responsible for the design and implementation of a project. In order to secure all the requirements in these complex contracts companies have been producing extensive tender proposals. These require a big initial investment, are labour intensive and require a vast and permanently available knowledge network in the company. In these situations, a most economically advantageous tender (MEAT) is common. This is because in a economically most advantageous tender the criteria is not only the price, but a quality-to-price method is used. This results in a more extensive, detailed and complex tender bid. This further confirms the trend that tenders are becoming more complex and collaboration might be mutually benificial.

Therefore it is becoming a more common phenomenon that companies collaborate on writing tenders for 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. Because companies have different areas of expertise, collaboration will not only be beneficial for the project, but will also encourage cross pollination between the companies in terms of knowledge. It also mitigates risks during the project. As resources are shared, the companies have reduced the amount of their resources on an individual project. In case something unforeseen happens during the project, they have to relocate or idle a smaller amount of their resources, therefore decreasing the costs risk.

Collaborative Tendering usually has the aim at a joint venture, or joint organisation, from a program perspective. These are an array of projects under the same integrated plan, e.g. London Olympics, Dutch Delta Plan. In the construction sector, partnering between companies is increasingly becoming a priority at construction companies. According to this recent paper however, results differ at each project on different levels. According to this article, it is not uncommon that collaboration is limited to a project basis, and after the project does not expand to a strategic level.

This article will work towards a 'guideline' for best practices in Collaborative tendering, based on literary and case studies.

Analysis

(In Progress, literature missing)

Alinea 1: Introduction to the comparison

The aim of this chapter is to identify some of the resemblances between tendering in different parts of the world and their effect on collaboration. This article will work towards a 'guideline' for best practices in Collaborative tendering, based on literary and case studies. (Walker&Flyvbjerg; Reference missing), has already established these parameters in an attempt to identify the similarities and contradictions between Australian and British tendering procedures, and the effect it has on collaboration between different contractors. .... emphasizes the need for increased colaboration, 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. Loosemore, Martin, 2015, 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. With these megaprojects, different levels of cooperation can be distinguished.

Alinea 2: Involve P/P/P management

Collaboration on a program level, structural partnership -e.g. olympic games, partnership surpassing project basis, which raises the question, what factors are crucial for long term (program level) collaboration (Reference: An evaluation of partnership development in the construction industry) 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 -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 or even system partnering (portfolio?)?! Check! 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.

Alinea 3: Build up to Assessment

The aim is to first establish the parameters on which to assess the differences (Base on literature )

Collaborative Tendering, an Overview

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.

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. Furthermore, the study suggests that key success factors rely on a strategic, organizational and cultural match.

...concludess that after the introduction of pilot projects in Germany, the following benefits are showing -Less adversarial relationships between companies -Increased customer satisfaction and better understanding of each other -Improved timescales, quality and reduced costs -Risk sharing

Norway example

Introduce the Iran example -Short Overview -Outline differences -Add some project cases -Bridge towards

Use the following articles to illustrate: collaborative procurement in germany, collaborative procurement in norway, comparison of mega projects between australia and environ project europe -mention criteria -show some examples of where it worked, and where it didnt (eg, australia,sydney became much more complex than necessary)

-Suez canal - Shortage of resources, sharing -Panama canal - Shortage of knowledge, sharing -Tunnel Germany -Denmark - Shortage of knowledge, sharing

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 . Over the last decade, collaborative procurement has become increasinly popular due t the advantages it can bring. 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. 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(reference Pianoo!!).

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 this is called the MEAT method (EMVI in the Netherlands) and will provide . 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.

-A small History -Sustainability scoring (EMVI Related scoring)/MEAT -Some Notable Projects, related to Project/Program/Portfolio Collaborations -ISO 20400

-Mention that it is very normal for dutch companies to collaboratively tender abroad in consortsiums, e.g. Mekong Deltaplan, Garuda plan

Findings

-Discuss similarities first. After that, make an assessment of some of the differences abd outline case study differences After reviewing the cases it becomes clear that

4. Limitations (Bridge to next chapter)

After reviewing these cases in the context of collaborative Tendering, it is clear that there are some obvious and some surprising limitations involved during the short and long term collaborative process

To Polder or not to Polder

Use case studies to illustrate Lessons from the Industry -Suez Canal (new one) -Sea Wall Jakarta -Tunnel Denmark-germany

There are enough examples of collaborative tendering on both sides of the story. Although there are different opinions in literature, in recent years the obvious advantages of partnerships in the tendering process have started to emerge. There are of course some limitations to this method. The main limitation being the collaborating parties. If there is not mutual trust, or if one of the parties seeks to take advantage of the other party to create a win-lose situation, the collaborative process will have little benefits. In this case it is very unlikely to exceed a project-based collaboration.