At federal, state, and line agency level there exists a plethora of procurement strategies, guidelines and supplementary documents which provide information on determining how best to procure a project. This includes, amongst other things, determining the optimum delivery method (alliance, D&C, PPP etc).
While there are some similarities within and across states, with each emphasising the need for a procurement strategy, there are also many differences. For example:
• Assorted terminology and definitions (i.e. DCT, TOC, TCE, ALT, PAB).
• A diversity of steps to be followed during the procurement strategy.
• Different project values noting when an alliance could be considered (lower limits range between $5-50 million).
• Different processes within and across procurement strategy documents.
• Contradictory information within documents.
• Some states and line agencies note the different approaches (price and non-price competition) to selecting NOPs, some do not.
In relation to the approach to selecting NOPs, there is a lack of in-depth analysis within the guidelines clarifying which approach provides the best VfM outcome, nor does there appear to be a clear link to the primacy of satisfying the business case objectives.
Although most guidelines note the type of project characteristics that would best suit alliancing (i.e. complex unpredictable risks, tight timeframes etc), there is little information, particularly evidenced and quantified commercial advice, provided for decision makers on why alliancing is suited to these characteristics and how these characteristics can be compared against other delivery methods.