Understanding construction consortia: Theory, practice and opinions

Firms form consortia in order to win contracts. Once a project has been awarded to a consortium each member then concentrates on his or her own contract with the client. Therefore, consortia are marketing devices, which present the impression of teamworking, but the production process is just as fragmented as under conventional procurement methods. In this way, the consortium forms a barrier between the client and the actual construction production process. Firms form consortia, not as a simple development of normal ways of working, but because the circumstances for specific projects make it a necessary vehicle. These circumstances include projects that are too large or too complex to undertake alone or projects that require on-going services which cannot be provided by the individual firms inhouse. It is not a preferred way of working, because participants carry extra risk in the form of liability for the actions of their partners in the consortium. The behaviour of members of consortia is determined by their relative power, based on several factors, including financial commitment and ease of replacement. The level of supply chain visibility to the public sector client and to the industry is reduced by the existence of a consortium because the consortium forms an additional obstacle between the client and the firms undertaking the actual construction work. Supply chain visibility matters to the client who otherwise loses control over the process of construction or service provision, while remaining accountable for cost overruns. To overcome this separation there is a convincing argument in favour of adopting the approach put forward in the Project Partnering Contract 2000 (PPC2000) Agreement. Members of consortia do not necessarily go on to work in the same consortia again because members need to respond flexibly to opportunities as and when they arise. Decision-making processes within consortia tend to be on an ad hoc basis. Construction risk is taken by the contractor and the construction supply chain but the reputational risk is carried by all the firms associated with a consortium. There is a wide variation in the manner that consortia are formed, determined by the individual circumstances of each project; its requirements, size and complexity, and the attitude of individual project leaders. However, there are a number of close working relationships based on generic models of consortia-like arrangements for the purpose of building production, such as the Housing Corporation Guidance Notes and the PPC2000.

The impact of procurement method on costs of procurement

Collaborative working methods offer the hope of reduced waste, lower tendering costs and improved outputs. The costs of tendering may be influenced by the introduction of different working methods. Transaction cost economics appears to offer an analytical framework for studying the costs of tendering, but it is more to do with providing explanations at the institutional/industry level, not at the level of individual projects. Surveys and interviews were carried out with small samples in UK. The data show that that while tendering costs are not necessarily higher in collaborative working arrangements, there is no correlation between costs of tendering and the way the work is organized. Practitioners perceive that the benefits of working in collaborative procurement routes far outweigh the costs. Tendering practices can be improved to avoid waste, and the suggested improvements include restricting selective tendering lists to 23 bidders, letting bidders know who they are competing with, reimbursing tendering costs for aborted projects and ensuring that timely and comprehensive information is provided to bidders.

Standardization of procurement: National or international?

The ISO has issued a Draft International Standard on construction procurement and the British Standards Institute is drafting a standard based upon this for use in the UK. Three questions arise from these observations. First, what kind of consultation processes would be adequate to ensure that such a standard meets the requirements of an industry as diverse as construction? Second, why would an international standard be inappropriate for use in a country like UK? Third, what sort of issues should such a standard seek to cover? There are strong precedents for process standards, such as quality assurance, design management and workmanship on building sites. So the idea of a standard on procurement is not unusual. Moreover, there are many differences in tendering and procurement practice that are wasteful and even collusive or illegal. These issues are explored with a view to offering insights and suggestions for guidance based on the experiences in UK. The research method is first-hand observation of the drafting committee who are dealing with the British Standard. As an example to test and inform the standardization concept, six different standard guidance documents on tendering procedures are compared. This reveals a significant degree of diversity, and based on this, nine stages for implementing a tendering procedure are derived.

Comparative costs of the commercial process in different construction procurement methods

The commercial process in construction projects is an expensive and highly variable overhead. Collaborative working practices carry many benefits, which are widely disseminated, but little information is available about their costs. Transaction Cost Economics is a theoretical framework that seeks explanations for why there are firms and how the boundaries of firms are defined through the “make-or-buy” decision. However, it is not a framework that offers explanations for the relative costs of procuring construction projects in different ways. The idea that different methods of procurement will have characteristically different costs is tested by way of a survey. The relevance of transaction cost economics to the study of commercial costs in procurement is doubtful. The survey shows that collaborative working methods cost neither more nor less than traditional methods. But the benefits of collaboration mean that there is a great deal of enthusiasm for collaboration rather than competition.

A situation analysis of the food control systems in Arab Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries

Increased concerns over food safety have led to the adoption of international guidance on the key elements for national food control systems. This guidance had been used to conduct an initial assessment of the status of the food control systems in the countries belonging to the Gulf Cooperation Council. Our research has identified how the countries have been attempting to enhance their food control systems. Although the countries have different approaches to food control management, cooperation is leading to increased harmonization of legislation and food control practices. Progress is being made but there is evidence of some weakness where additional efforts may be needed. (c) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.