Federal Acquisition Regulation Applied to Alliancing Contract Practices
Publication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 139, Issue 5
Abstract
The U.S. federal construction sector led the development of partnering as a project-delivery method and continues to use it as standard practice. Alliancing has since emerged as an evolution of the partnering method and offers substantial advantages over partnering, but it also poses more difficulties with federal acquisition regulations. This research aims to determine if an alliancing contract can be effectively utilized in federal construction and, if so, to create a framework under which federal agencies can utilize the advantages of alliance contracts within existing regulations. A commercially available standard form alliancing contract was selected for analysis against the Federal Acquisition Regulation. Key practices that characterize the alliancing method were identified. Utilizing a panel of federal contracting experts, qualitative data were gathered to analyze which of these key practices do or do not comply with federal regulations, why certain practices do not comply, and how those practices could achieve compliance. The results show that most alliancing key practices can be utilized in a federal construction project. Although other practices cannot be used effectively under current regulations, these limitations do not significantly hinder the use of a comprehensive and effective federal alliancing contract.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
The writers would like to thank the excellent contract review participants and the Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment for their invaluable contribution to this work.
The views expressed in this article are those of the writers and do not reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Air Force, Department of Defense, the U.S. Government, or the Air Force Institute of Technology.
References
Chan, A. P., Chan, D. W., and Yeung, J. F. (2010). Relational contracting for construction excellence, Spon Press, New York.
ConsensusDOCS. (2007). ConsensusDOCS 300: Standard form of tri-party agreement for collaborative project delivery, ConsensusDOCS LLC, Arlington, VA.
ConsensusDOCS. (2010). “About ConsensusDOCS.” 〈http://consensusdocs.org/about/〉 (Oct. 27, 2010).
Dept. of the Air Force. (2006). “Associate contractor agreements.”, Department of Defense, Washington, DC.
Dept. of Treasury, and Finance. (2009). “Project alliancing.” State Government of Victoria, Australia 〈http://www.dtf.vic.gov.au/CA25713E0002EF43/pages/project-alliancing〉 (Feb. 15, 2010).
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). (2005). 〈https://www.acquisition.gov/far/current/pdf/FAR.pdf〉 (Feb. 17, 2011).
Gannon, T. W. (2011). “Understanding schedule forecasting shortfalls in federal design-build facility procurement.” M.S. thesis, AFIT/GEM/ENV/11M-02, Air Force Institute of Technology (AU), Wright-Patterson AFB, Dayton, OH.
Gerard, J. (1995). “Construction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 121(3), 319–328.
Naoum, S. (2003). “An overview into the concept of partnering.” Int. J. Project Manage., 21(1), 71–76.
NEC. (2010). “What is the NEC?” 〈http://www.neccontract.com/about/index.asp〉 (Oct. 27, 2010).
Perlberg, B. M. (2009). Contracting for integrated project delivery: ConsensusDOCS, Victor O. Schinnerer and Co., Inc, Chevy Chase, MD.
Post, N. M. (2010). “Integrated-project-delivery boosters ignore many flashing red lights.” Engineering news record, 〈ENR.com〉 (May 5, 2010).
SAF/AQCS (Deputy Assistant Secretary for Contracting, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition). (1998). Air force indemnification guide for unusually hazardous or nuclear risks revision A, Pentagon, Washington, DC.
Sakal, M. W. (2005). “Project alliancing: A relational contracting mechanism for dynamic projects.” Lean Constr. J., 2(1), 67–79.
Sanders, S. R., and Moore, M. M. (1992). “Perceptions of partnering in the public sector.” Project Manage. J., 23(4), 13–19.
Schroer, C. R. (1994). “Corps of engineer’s perspective on partnering.” The use of partnering in the facilities design process: Summary of a symposium, Federal Construction Council, ed., National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Secretary of the Navy. (2007). “Use of binding arbitration for contract controversies.”, U.S. Dept. of the Navy, Washington, DC.
Suhr, Jim. (1999). The choosing by advantages decision making system, Quorum Books, Westport, CT.
The American Institute of Architects (AIA). (2009). “Standard form multi-party agreement for integrated project delivery.”, Washington, DC.
The American Institute of Architects (AIA). (2010a). “Integrated project deliver: Case studies.” AIA California Council, Sacramento, CA.
The American Institute of Architects (AIA). (2010b). “History of AIA contract documents.” 〈http://www.aia.org/contractdocs/AIAS076671〉 (Oct. 27, 2010).
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2010). “Partnering: A tool for USACE, engineering, construction, and operations.”, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, VA.
Walker, D. H. T., Hampson, K., and Peters, R. (2002). “Project alliancing vs project partnering: A case study of the Australian National Museum project.” Supply Chain Manage., 7(2), 83–91.
Weston, D., and Gibson, G. (1993). “Partnering project performance in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.” J. Manage. Eng., 9(4), 331–344.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research design and methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Oct 24, 2011
Accepted: Jul 24, 2012
Published online: Jul 27, 2012
Published ahead of production: Jul 28, 2012
Published in print: May 1, 2013
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.