Another issue that distinguishes the different practices is the type of "Contractor Selection Criteria" used in the tendering procedures. A major portion of the "Anglo-Saxon" countries apply more of a Quality-based selection criterion, with the main exception of VicRoads in Victoria, Australia using the lowest price. On the other hand, there is a split in the northern countries, with British Columbia, Estonia, and Finland using more quality-based criteria, while Alberta, Norway, Ontario, and Sweden using basically the lowest price system. As mentioned earlier, historical traditions or practical considerations may play an important reason, especially if the contracts integrate routine and periodic maintenance. In such circumstances quality requirements, competence and know-how are considered more important aspects as compared to the price, because it is essential to determine the service providers' capability. Even in the USA, more quality based criteria are used in these integrated contracts. These are discussed further in the "Contractor Selection Criteria" section of this report.
However, the "Leadership Model" uses 100% quality criteria for selecting the winner of the tender. Only England's Highways Agency has used the "Leader-ship Model" (E-MAC), and it is too early to determine the effectiveness of this model as it is a unique form for maintenance contracting practice. It would be valuable to study the results and determine if it is worthy of implementation. It is safe to predict that the "Leadership Model" probably will be used in other Anglo-Saxon countries, as this has been the trend to copy practices from one another, and even New Zealand and Western Australia are contemplating testing the model.
| IN-HOUSE | OUT SOURCED | ACTIVITIES INCLUDED | CONTRACT TYPE | CONTRACT DURATION | CONTRACTOR SELECTION CRITERIA | AREA OR CORRIDOR CONTRACTS | QUOTED SAVINGS | COMMENTS | |
| Alberta, Canada | X | Routine Maintenance | Unit Hybrid | 5, 6&7 Years | 95% Price 5% Past Performance | 30 Areas | 25% | Winter Maintenance Standby receives about 35% Lump Sum Payment | |
| British Columbia Canada | X | Routine Maintenance | Lump Sum | 10 Years | 60% Price 40% Other | 28 Areas | 10% | Line Marking & Lighting are not included. A single contractor can only win 4 area contracts | |
| Ontario, Canada | X | Routine Maintenance | Hybrid (Lump Sum & Unit Prices) | 7-9 Years | 95% Price 5% Other | 48 Areas | 12% | 16 Performance-Based Area Contracts Remainder - "Maintenance Outsourced" by the "Salesman Model" | |
| Estonia | X | X | Routine Maintenance | Hybrid | 5 Years New-7 Years | 75% Price 25% Other | 16 Areas | Up to 20% | Own In-house forces compete against private contractors. 63% of Maintenance is tendered |
| Norway | X | Routine Maintenance | Hybrid | 4 Years | Lowest Price Conforming Tender | 107 Areas | 20-30% | Client maintains most inspection | |
| Sweden | X | Routine Maintenance | Hybrid | 3-6 Years | 98% Price 2% Other | 136 Areas | 20-30% | New Winter Maintenance Payment Scheme based upon actual weather conditions | |
| Finland | X | Routine Maintenance | Hybrid & Lump Sum | 3, 5 & 7 Years | 75% Price 25% Other | 85 Areas | Over 30% | Now separate contracts for line marking, resurfacing, & bridges are Long-term duration | |
| Holland | X | Different Activities | Lump Sum | 1-3 | 100% Price | Many Areas | 30-40% | Future - Investigating MAC model from England and will adapt to Holland Situation | |
| Australia (VIC- Roads) | X | X | Routine Maintenance | Lump Sum | 2-3+1+1 Years | 100% Price | About 50% of Network | Some | Competition between In-House Forces and Private Sector. Still quite input based. |
| Australia Western, Australia | X | Basically All | Lump Sum | 10 Years | 50% Price 50% Other | 8 Areas | 20% | ||
| England | X | Basically All | Lump Sum (Unit Price For Undefined) | 5 + 2 Years | 25% Price/ 75% Other E-MACis100% Quality (Target Price) | 14 Areas | Over 10% | Includes up to £500k worth of periodic maintenance (bridges or resurfacing). E-MAC is similar to the "Alliance Model" | |
| New Zealand | X | Routine Routine Plus ALL | Unit Price Hybrid Lump Sum | 3+1 Years 3+1 +1 Years 10 Years | Low Bid Weighted Avg. QPTO | 24 Areas | 10-15% | Still using about 50% Traditional Maintenance Contracts. Very small staff. | |
| USA (NCDOT) | X | X | Activity Based | Unit Price | 1 Year | 100% Price | Corridor | Unknown | Outsource those activities that are more efficiently done by contractor or balancing work |
| USA (MDSHA) | X | X | Activity Based | Unit Price | 1 Year | 100% Price | Corridor | Unknown | |
| USA (MNDOT) | X | X | Activity Based | Unit Price | 1 Year | 100% Price | Corridor | Unknown | |
| USA (DDOT) | X | X | Basically All | Lump Sum | 5 Years | 50% Price 50% Other | Corridor | Unknown | Does not include major bridge rehabilitation |
| USA (VDOT) | X | X | Basically All Proposed | Lump Sum Lump Sum | 5 Years (New) 3+3+3 | 50% Price -50% Other 100% Price | Corridor | 10-15% | Still basically in-house. Only 1 integrated contract (VMS). New contracts planned for routine maintenance 3+3+3 years, with low bid |
| USA (FDOT) | X | X | 40% Routine Maintenance 40% Salesman | Lump Sum Unit Priced | 7+7 Years Yearly | 40% Price 60% Other 100% Price | Corridor | 20% | Goal is to Achieve 80% Outsourced. Using a Maintenance Rating Program (MRP) to measure performance. 10 Year Rest Area Contract |
Table 12 Summary of Maintenance Contracts