Traditional procurement is used for most state procurement of civil works, buildings, plant and information technology. It provides the benchmark against which other procurement methods are measured and the first step in this study was to identify standard quantitative evaluation criteria. As traditional procurement is mainly concerned only with the delivery of assets, most performance measures concern the timeliness and cost of delivery and these are mainly applied (ex ante) at commissioning. Tender evaluation criteria may take into account the qualitative aspects of bids such as the bidder's credit strength, expertise and track record. However, these values are generally subordinated to price and few traditionally procured projects are evaluated again during their service life. It is not common in government to determine whether or not the ex post services being produced by the asset meet the requirements of either the state or users. The first step in this study was to identify the documented procurement outcomes for each procurement method based on quantitative measures - delivery on time and within budget. Where available, the results of ex-post surveys of managers and service users were included.
The second step was to identify qualitative procurement outcomes using four widely accepted benchmarks used in the literature:
● The concept of value for money
● The effectiveness of incentives
● User and service outcomes
● Process management (level of design and delivery complexity, cost of delivery and project management and the extent to which the principal and contractor were in an adversarial relationship).
The comparative procurement methodology involved a comparison of quantitative and qualitative outcomes. The evidence was sourced from the procurement outcomes of 124 economic and social infrastructure projects commissioned by governments or state agencies in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. This review also informed the selection of category weightings. The data included a number of independent review agencies including the National Audit Office and Audit Commission, State Government Audit Commissions and a series of reports prepared by Mott McDonald (2002), Allen Consulting (2007), the House of Commons (U.K.) (1993, 1994), Serco Institute (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007), the BCI (2007), KPMG (2006, 2007).19951 and Fitzgerald (2004). Additional data was sourced from the annual and special reports commissioned by a number of committees, inquiries and government departments, and surveys conducted by governments, their agencies and industry associations.