By Paul Emanuelli

This article is an excerpt from The Art of Tendering: A Global Due Diligence Guide, which is available for purchase.

When it comes to public procurement, major construction projects are one of the highest risk areas for bid disputes, cost overruns, and performance delays. Based on Canadian construction industry practices derived from global standards, this article will provide guidelines to help public sector owners plan their construction projects by considering project complexity, contract management burdens, and incentives for design innovation, cost savings, and timely completion. The main concepts can also be applied beyond construction projects to help project teams determine the appropriate contract format for their initiative.

This article will highlight the key factors for selecting between the stipulated price, cost-plus, unit price, construction management, design-build, and integrated project delivery models, along with recommendations for aligning those different contract models with the appropriate front-end tendering format. While focusing on Canadian construction industry practices, this article offers planning guidelines useful for all major project teams who want to meet their objectives on time, on budget, and by the rules.

Factors

At the outset of the solicitation document drafting process, the project teams should consider the following factors when selecting the appropriate contract format for a specific construction project:

  1. pricing structures;
  2. project complexity and overall design responsibility;
  3. the owner’s contract management burden; and
  4. contractor incentives for design innovation, cost savings, and timely project completion.

Menu of Options

The nine broadly recognized construction contract formats that are potentially available to project teams for use in their specific projects include:

  1. Stipulated Price Contract (CCDC 2 – 2008)
  2. Master Agreement Between Owner and Contractor (CCDC 2MA – 2016)
  3. Cost-Plus Contract (CCDC 3 – 2016)
  4. Unit Price Contract (CCDC 4 – 2011)
  5. Construction Management Contract for Services (CCDC 5A – 2010)
  6. Construction Management Contract for Services and Construction (CCDC 5B – 2010)
  7. Design-Build Stipulated Price Contract (CCDC 14 – 2013)
  8. Standard Form Multi-Party Agreement for Integrated Project Delivery (AIA C191 – 2009)
  9. Public-Private Partnership (“P3”)

Figure 15 – Selected Construction Contract Formats

This following section will summarize the main features, along with an overview of factors that can assist project teams in selecting the appropriate contract format for their construction projects.

Interpretations

Reference in this article to contracting documents with a “CCDC” designation means Canadian Construction Documents Committee, the national joint committee that was formed in 1974 and that creates and maintains the CCDC contract document structures referred to below. The CCDC includes representation from across the Canadian construction industry, including the Association of Consulting Engineering Companies – Canada, the Canadian Construction Association, Construction Specifications Canada, and the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada.

Reference in this article to contract documents with an “ACEC” designation refers to documents created by the Association of Consulting Engineering Companies – Canada, which, in addition to participating in the creation of CCDC documents for owners, builders, and trades, also creates model documents for use between owners and consulting engineers.

Reference in this article to contract documents with the “RAIC” designation refers to documents created by the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada, which, in addition to participating in the creation of the CCDC documents for owners, builders, and trades, also creates model documents for use between owners and architects.

Reference in this article to documents with a “CCA” designation refers to documents created by the Canadian Construction Association which, in addition to participating in the creation of the CCDC documents for owners, builders, and trades, also creates model documents for use between general contractors and trade subcontractors.

Reference in this article to documents with an “AIA” designation refers to documents created by The American Institute of Architects, whose Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) contract format is referred to in this article. The CCDC version of this model, the CCDC 30 – 2018, was also released in 2018.

It should be noted that when owners use any industry standard contract formats, they should be used in conjunction with specifically tailored supplementary terms and conditions prepared with the advice and assistance of qualified legal counsel to address the legal and business requirements of the specific owner.

Stipulated Price Contract (CCDC 2 – 2008)

Figure 16 – Stipulated Price Contract (CCDC 2 – 2008)

The Stipulated Price Contract (CCDC 2 – 2008) model is the traditional default construction industry standard format for typical design-bid-build tendering and contracting processes. In this format, the owner first retains the owner’s design consultant (an architect or engineer), who then prepares the project specifications for the subsequent tender call. Construction contractors bid on the pre-designed project and the Stipulated Price Contract (CCDC 2 – 2008) is typically awarded on a low-bid basis by the owner.

The general contractor who is awarded this contract will in turn award subcontracts to the various trades (using, for example, the Stipulated Price Subcontract (CCA 1 – 2008)) that the general contractor as builder will manage and assume responsibility over during construction.

The Stipulated Price Contract (CCDC 2 – 2008) format is used by the owner in conjunction with a separate consulting contract (either the owner’s standard consulting agreement for engineers, or industry standard models such as ACEC 31 – 2010 for engineers, or RAIC 6 – 2017 for architects), under which the services of the owner’s design consultants and sub-consultants are retained to provide project design services and contract administration services during the construction phase to the owner.

Those parallel design consulting contracts should clearly specify the respective roles of the engineers and architects retained by the owner to assist with preparing project designs and to oversee construction on behalf of the owner.

The owner typically uses the Stipulated Price Contract (CCDC 2 – 2008) format in conjunction with an Invitation to Tender (ITT) or Low-Bid Request for Quotations (RFQ) tendering format, where price is the only contract award criterion. That tendering process may also be combined with a prior Prequalification process to screen potential bidders who are then invited to the subsequent bidding process. While less common in construction tendering, the Prequalification and invitational tendering steps can also be combined in a single High-Score Request for Quotations (RFQ) or Request for Proposals (RFP) format that considers both price and non-price criteria in a single tendering process.

The Stipulated Price Contract (CCDC 2 – 2008) format should be used in the following conditions:

  • where the construction project is relatively simple;
  • where there would be little innovation advantage gained in design improvements by including the builder in the design discussions;
  • where there is a relatively small risk of dispute between the designer and builder, or related cost overruns or delays, that could otherwise be mitigated by involving the builder in the design discussions; and
  • where time permits the project design to be completed prior to tendering the construction contract and commencing construction.

Master Agreement Between Owner and Contractor (CCDC 2MA – 2016)

The Master Agreement Between Owner and Contractor (CCDC 2MA – 2016) model was developed for use by owners in ongoing construction or maintenance programs. This format enables parties to enter into specific work arrangements based on master standing terms and conditions so that the parties can avoid renegotiating those general terms and conditions for each work order. As with the stipulated sum model (Stipulated Price Contract (CCDC 2 – 2008), the owner should retain parallel design consulting services to develop specifications for the various work assignments.

For trade treaty compliance purposes, the use of this format is most suitable in conjunction with a prior Prequalification process, specifically a Request for Supplier Qualifications (RFSQ) – Framework Agreement, that sets out the work assignment process for a roster of multiple contractors who are then eligible for downstream work orders under the master agreement. Pricing for these types of contracts can then be established through downstream invitational tendering processes on a stipulated price basis.

These master agreement rosters should be established for a pre-defined period or with refresh procedures to allow new contractors onto the roster, and should be accompanied by prequalification framework rules that set a maximum contract value for any specific work assignment so that any work assignments that exceed the ceiling value can be awarded pursuant to a separate, publicly posted tendering process.

The Master Agreement Between Owner and Contractor (CCDC 2MA – 2016) format should be used in the following conditions:

  • where the owner anticipates that a high number of similar and relatively low-value construction projects will be required over a period of multiple years;
  • where the owner wants to avoid the unnecessary duplication and delay associated with multiple separate tendering processes to award that work; and
  • where the owner prefers to administer multiple, simplified invitational tendering processes for the award of those relatively low-value construction projects.

Cost-Plus Contract (CCDC 3 – 2016)

The Cost-Plus Contract (CCDC3 – 2016) model is used where the work will be performed by the contractor on an actual-cost basis, plus a percentage or fixed fee that is applied above the actual costs to pay the contractor for its work on the project. An acceptable mark-up for the contractor’s overhead and profit typically ranges between 10-25% depending on the size of the project, with smaller projects attracting a higher percentage than larger projects. In this model, the contractor is expected to perform in an economical manner to keep costs under control and must maintain auditable records to substantiate project expenses.

This format is used in situations where the project must begin before final designs are completed, which prevents the contractor from providing an accurate stipulated sum for the project; however, to safeguard against uncontrolled cost overruns, this format should be used with a guaranteed maximum price.

In these situations, a tendered contract award would more likely consider non-price factors, such as skill and experience, since accurate price quotes cannot be obtained prior to contract award due to incomplete designs. This contract format would most appropriately be tendered using the RFP format that allows the owner to evaluate the skill and experience of competing contractors.

The Cost-Plus Contract (CCDC 3 – 2016) format should be used in the following conditions:

  • where, due to timing factors, the owner is unable to finish project designs and obtain accurate stipulated sum pricing prior to the commencement of work; or
  • where due to project complexities it is not possible for the owner to obtain sufficiently accurate and precise specifications for a project, or for certain parts of a project, and construction for that project, or parts of that project, must therefore be administered using a cost-plus pricing arrangement.

Unit Price Contract (CCDC 4 – 2011)

The Unit Price Contract (CCDC 4 – 2011) format is used in situations where rates for work or commodities are certain but quantities are uncertain. Under this format, the contractor is required to perform the work for a fixed amount specified for each unit of work. The total contract price is calculated by adding together the unit prices. Fees are charged per unit of work performed for services, such as the supply or removal of rock or ad hoc hourly light repair services.

Since volumes may be unknown at the time of contract award, the parties should include price adjustment formulas to deal with unit price variations in situations where the volume of work varies significantly from the pre-award volume estimates.

To comply with open tendering requirements under the trade treaties and to comply with value-for-money controls, a maximum ceiling price should also be established at the time of contract award. Like the Stipulated Sum Contract (CCDC 2 – 2008) format, these contracts are typically tendered using a low-bid ITT or RFQ format, where the low bid amount is determined by the unit price. However, calculating low bid amounts can be a complex exercise in these circumstances if the contract contemplates multiple categories of unit prices with unknown quantities.

The Unit Price Contract (CCDC 4 – 2011) format should be used in the following conditions:

  • where the overall project quantities cannot be estimated with sufficient accuracy at the time of contract award to obtain contractor quotes on a stipulated sum basis;
  • where unit prices can be obtained to form the basis for calculating total costs;
  • where clear unit price adjustment formulas can be incorporated to address circumstances where volumes fall outside of the estimated volume range established at the outset of the contract;
  • where the contract requirements are relatively simple so that a low bid can be established through a tendering process by relying on unit prices rather than a total stipulated sum; and
  • where the owner can establish a reasonable maximum ceiling price to protect against cost overruns.

Construction Management Contract for Services (CCDC 5A – 2010)

Figure 17 – Construction Management Contract for Services (CCDC 5A – 2010)

The Construction Management Contract for Services (CCDC 5A – 2010) format is entered into by the owner and construction manager and is used in conjunction with the Stipulated Price Contract for Trade Contractors on Construction Management Projects (CCDC 17 – 2010) and in conjunction with a separate, parallel design consulting contract under which the services of the owner’s consultant are retained to provide project design services and contract administration services (either the owner’s standard consulting agreement for engineers, or industry standard models such as the ACEC 31 – 2010 for engineers or RAIC 6 – 2017 for architects).

However, under the Construction Management Contract for Services (CCDC 5A – 2010) format, the traditional design services provided by the consultant to the owner are supplemented by the construction manager, who also provides input to the owner on the ongoing design development with a view to then managing the construction on behalf of the owner during the build stage.

In these contracts, the construction manager acts as a limited agent for the owner, providing advisory services and administering and overseeing the contracts between the owner and trade contractors. This model, which is referred to as the “owner at risk” format, requires a careful definition of the scope of the construction manager’s specific responsibilities relative to the traditional design and project oversight work performed by the design consultant.

This process allows for construction to begin before all designs are completed, with work put to tender to commence construction on a phase-by-phase basis using the Stipulated Price Contract for Trade Contractors on Construction Management Project (CCDC 17 – 2010) format, where multiple contracts are awarded by the owner to the different trades through multiple downstream tendering processes by which the overall project is designed, bid, and then built in stages.

Like the Cost-Plus Contract (CCDC 3 – 2016), a tendered contract award for the Construction Management Contract for Services (CCDC 5A – 2010) would more likely consider non-price factors, such as skill and experience, since accurate price quotes cannot be obtained prior to contract award due to incomplete designs. This contract format would most appropriately be tendered using an RFP format that allows the owner to evaluate the skill and experience factors before selecting a construction manager. To safeguard against uncontrolled cost overruns, this format should be used with a guaranteed maximum price.

Contracts to the various trades using the Stipulated Price Contract for Trade Contractors on Construction Management Projects (CCDC 17 – 2010) format should then be awarded based on multiple ITT or Low-Bid RFQ processes for the various components of the project, which can then be entered into between the owner and various trades on a stipulated sum basis (assuming there is sufficient certainty in the specific design component), while the construction manager and design consultant are paid either a fixed amount, a percentage on a cost-plus basis, or an amount based on hourly or per diem rates.

The Construction Management Contract for Services (CCDC 5A – 2010) format should be used in the following conditions:

  • where due to timing factors the owner is unable to finish project designs and obtain accurate stipulated sum pricing prior to the commencement of work;
  • where there would be an innovation advantage gained in design improvements by including the builder in the design discussions in the role of construction manager;
  • where due to project complexities there is a greater risk of dispute between the designer and builder, and related cost overruns or delays that could be mitigated by involving the builder as contract manager in the design discussions;
  • where the owner can establish a reasonable maximum ceiling price to protect against cost overruns; and
  • where the owner has in-house expertise, or is prepared to retain external advisors, to assume the additional risk and contract administration burden that is typically assumed by the general contractor manager, including the direct management and oversight of the trades.

Construction Management Contract for Services and Construction (CCDC 5B – 2010)

Figure 18 – Construction Management Contract for Services and Construction (CCDC 5B – 2010)

The Construction Management Contract for Services and Construction (CCDC 5B – 2010) is used in similar circumstances as the Construction Management Contract for Services (CCDC 5A – 2010), with the construction manager providing design input to the owner and design consultant while the project is built in stages as the different design components are finalized. However, unlike the “owner at risk” Construction Management Contract for Services (CCDC 5A – 2010), which sees the owner directly contracting with the trades using the Stipulated Price Contract for Trade Contractors on Construction Management Project (CCDC 17 – 2010) format, this model is referred to as the “construction manager at risk” model, since the construction manager assumes a more traditional role similar to the general contractor under the Stipulated Price Contract (CCDC 2 – 2008) model by taking direct contractual responsibility for the performance of the trades through traditional stipulated sum subcontracts (such as the Stipulated Price Subcontract CCA 1 – 2008) with the trades.

As with the Construction Management Contract for Services (CCDC 5A – 2010), the default pricing structure for the Construction Management Contract for Services and Construction (CCDC 5B – 2010) contract format is cost-plus. To protect the owner, the parties should establish a guaranteed maximum price. To incent timely and cost-effective performance, they should also establish a formula to distribute cost-savings across the project team as appropriate.

Under this format, the parties can agree to change the pricing structure to a stipulated price contract during the performance of the contract; however, in practice, this is unlikely to occur until a sufficient certainty is obtained on overall project scope and price.

Therefore, while the manager is at greater risk contractually in assuming direct responsibility for the performance of the subcontractors when compared to the Construction Management Contract for Services (CCDC 5A – 2010), the owner remains at risk for the inherent cost and time uncertainties associated with this model while the project is designed, tendered, and priced in phases.

Like the Construction Management Contract for Services (CCDC 5A – 2010), this model enables construction to begin and proceed in stages prior to the completion of all designs, as phases are designed, bid, and built in stages, but places less contract administration burden and risk on the owner.

The Construction Management Contract for Services and Construction (CCDC 5B – 2010) format should be used in the following conditions:

  • where due to timing factors the owner is unable to finish project designs and obtain accurate stipulated sum pricing prior to the commencement of work;
  • where there would be an innovation advantage gained in design improvements by including the builder in the design discussions in the role of construction manager;
  • where due to project complexities there is a greater risk of dispute between the designer and builder, as well as related cost overruns or delays that could be mitigated by involving the builder as contract manager in the design discussions;
  • where the owner can establish a reasonable maximum ceiling price to protect against cost overruns; and
  • where the owner is not prepared to assume the additional risk and contract administration burden associated with directly managing the trades and would prefer to shift those contractual obligations to a more traditional approach, where the construction manager assumes a role similar to the general contractor and directly contracts with the trades.

Design-Build Stipulated Price Contract (CCDC 14 – 2013)

Figure 19 – Design-Build Stipulated Price Contract (CCDC 14 – 2013)

The Design-Build Stipulated Price Contract (CCDC 14 – 2013) format consolidates the traditionally separate roles of the design consultant and the builder under a single contract with the owner, who contracts directly with a design-builder responsible for both project design and construction. This format allows for the commencement of construction before the design is completed. Under this format, a construction firm typically assumes the role of the design-builder and then retains a design consultant using the Design Services Contract between Design-Builder and Consultant (CCDC 15 – 2013).

When compared to the traditional Stipulated Price Contract (CCDC 2 – 2008), which requires the owner to manage both contractors separately, the consolidation of the design consultant and builder role under one design-build contract reduces the risk of dispute and disagreement between the design consultant and the builder during construction; however, this approach also removes a level of checks-and-balances between those two roles since the design consultant no longer contracts independently and directly with the owner.

The Design-Build Stipulated Sum Contract (CCDC 14 – 2013) format is therefore only appropriate for more sophisticated owners who can rely on in-house expertise or can retain separate external consultants to advise the owner in its oversight of the design-builder, and who can work with the owner to create the functional, qualitative, and other project requirements necessary to provide clarity and overall cost certainty for the creation of the design-build contract with the design-builder.

Having separate qualified advice available to the owner is particularly important where the owner does not want to rely on the design-builder’s design subcontractor as the payment certifier under the contract, and instead performs that role directly or through a separately retained contractor.

Pricing for these contracts is typically stipulated sum, which means that the owner should establish a maximum price for the work as part of the tendering process that selects a design-builder, to ensure that the overall parameters of the contract requirements are adequately defined. A maximum ceiling price should be established as part of the contract award since the ultimate designs should be engineered to fall within those cost constraints. The obligation to stay within that overall project budget envelope should be built into the design-build contract between the owner and design-builder.

The Design-Build Stipulated Price Contract (CCDC 14 – 2013) format should be used in the following conditions:

  • where, due to timing factors, the owner is unable to finish project designs and obtain accurate stipulated sum pricing prior to the commencement of work;
  • where there would be an innovation advantage gained in design improvements by including the builder in the design discussions in the role of a construction manager;
  • where, due to project complexities, there is a greater risk of dispute between the designer and builder and of related cost overruns or delays, which could be mitigated by involving the builder as design-builder in the design discussions;
  • where the owner has in-house resources or can retain external advisors to assist in defining the overall contract requirements for the design-build contract and assist in managing the design-builder during the project;
  • where the owner can establish a reasonable maximum ceiling price to protect against cost overruns; and
  • where the owner is not prepared to assume the additional risk and contract administration burden associated with directly managing the design consultant and trades and would prefer to shift those contractual obligations to a design-builder under a single contract.

Standard Form Multi-Party Agreement for Integrated Project Delivery Document (AIA C191 – 2009)

Figure 20 – Standard Form Multi-Party Agreement for Integrated Project Delivery (AIA C191 – 2009)

The Standard Form Multi-Party Agreement for Integrated Project Delivery Document (AIA C191 – 2009) (referred to as IPD (AIA C191 – 2009)) consolidates the overall responsibility for managing the design and build stages of the project with the owner. The owner contracts separately with the design consultant, builder, and trades at the outset of the project so that they can all participate as an integrated project team in the design and build stages of the project under a single multi-party, multi-staged contract.

This format includes the collaborative design element similar to the Construction Management Contract for Services (CCDC 5A – 2010), the Construction Management Contract for Services and Construction (CCDC 5B – 2010), and the Design-Build Stipulated Price Contract (CCDC 14 – 2013) formats, since the design stage includes input from the builder; however, this approach expands that collaborative element by also incorporating input from the trades in those design discussions. This format also establishes a direct contractual relationship between the different trades, along with all other parties and the owner.

Like the other collaborative design formats, a tendered contract award under the IPD (AIA C191 – 2009) format would consider non-price factors, such as skill and experience, since accurate price quotes cannot be obtained prior to contract award due to incomplete designs. Furthermore, this contract model would most appropriately be tendered using an RFP format that allows the owner to evaluate the skill and experience of the proposed project consortium, along with their proposed approach to overall project governance, before selecting the right team.

To safeguard against cost overruns, this format should be used with a guaranteed maximum price that is established through the RFP process. While the IPD (AIA C191 – 2009) shares certain similarities with the other collaborative design formats, it also shares similarities with the Stipulated Price Contract (CCDC 2 – 2008) since it incorporates a clear division between the design and build stage of the project.

While one integrated team works with the owner throughout the design and build stages, the design must be completed by the team and approved by the owner during a design verification stage prior to the commencement of any work. This provides a more effective off-ramp for the owner, who can terminate the contract during the design stage, buy out the design work by paying the other parties on a time-based fee-for-services basis, and then seek other options for finalizing remaining design work and for project construction.

This aspect of the IPD (AIA C191 – 2009) model provides the owner with greater leverage and control over design decisions since they must be finalized prior to any commitment to build.

Like the other models that include the builder in the design discussions, the IPD (AIA C191 – 2009) model reduces the risk of disagreement between the various contractors on design details during the build stage; however, it also places heightened risks and responsibilities on the owner to manage the multiple contracts directly.

If used properly, this approach provides greater incentives for design innovation and greater mitigation against time and cost overruns, since performance incentives are built into the contract at the outset to keep the overall project team incented to outperform the mutually agreed-upon time and price benchmarks that were established as part of the design verification stage.

Like the Cost-Plus Contract (CCDC 3 – 2016) model, the IPD (AIA C191 – 2009) model also assumes a high level of price transparency and owner audit rights to better ensure that the parties are optimizing cost effectiveness during project construction. The IPD (AIA C191 – 2009) format should be used in the following conditions:

  • where the construction project is relatively complex when compared to more typical projects that traditionally use the design-bid-build approach and the Stipulated Price Contract (CCDC 2 – 2008) format;
  • where there would be an innovation advantage gained in project design by including the builder and trades in design discussions;
  • where due to project complexities there is a greater risk of dispute between the designer and builder and of related cost overruns or delays, which could be mitigated by involving the builder in the design discussions;
  • where time permits the project design to be completed prior to commencing construction;
  • where the owner is prepared to assume the additional risk and contract administration burdens associated with directly managing the design consultant, builder, and trades;
  • where the owner can establish a reasonable maximum ceiling price to protect against cost overruns; and
  • where the owner has sufficient internal resources, or can retain external advisors, to define the overall contract requirements and manage the project team.

Public-Private Partnership (P3)

The Public-Private Partnership, or P3 contract model builds on the traditional design-build format while also introducing a financing element into the project. In this format, the P3 design-build consortium, instead of the owner, typically provides the construction financing for the project and then recoups its investment and profit through various payment streams that can include future installment payments from the owner, direct user fees, or various combinations thereof.

This contracting model is typically reserved for the most complex and costly infrastructure projects. While this approach includes a design-build-finance format, where the infrastructure is turned over to the owner at the completion of construction, it can also be used in a more expanded approach using a design-build-finance-maintain-operate model that sees control over ongoing operations remain with the project consortium, or in an even more expanded design-build-finance-own-maintain-operate-transfer model, where ongoing ownership and control are kept by the project consortium for a defined time period before reverting back to the original owner or new owner.

The P3 contracting model can also be narrowed to focus on construction projects based on prior designs with build-finance or build-finance-maintain variations. Given these multiple variations, the P3 contracting approach includes no single industry standard contracting model. Establishing the appropriate project-specific contract format is therefore a costly, labour-intensive, and lengthy process.

The transaction costs for administrating, awarding, and managing these contracts is cost-prohibitive for all but the largest construction projects, resulting in well-documented public audit reviews when this approach has been used for public sector projects, with significant public criticism raised from a transparency and value-for-money perspective.

Furthermore, the use of the P3 model also dilutes the owner’s control over design and construction decisions and offers fewer practical opportunities for project off-ramps. That said, this model has resulted in fewer cost overruns or project delays since greater overall control is placed with the project consortium; however, some critics of this approach have maintained that the avoidance of cost overruns and delays can also be attributed to the fact that, when compared to traditionally run projects, the design consortium builds a greater risk premium into its costing and longer timeframes for project completion before taking responsibility for the project.

This format should therefore only be considered as a last resort for high-cost major infrastructure projects, where the owner cannot self-finance the construction of its project. The P3 format should be used in the following conditions:

  • where the construction project is urgently required, highly complex, and costly, and the owner does not have available funding to self-finance the project using any other construction contracting model;
  • where the owner can establish a reasonable maximum ceiling price to protect against cost overruns; and
  • where the owner has sufficient internal resources, or can retain external advisors, to define the overall contract requirements, set value-for-money and transparency standards, and administer the owner’s role vis-à-vis the project consortium.

Future Considerations

When embarking on a major initiative, project teams should carefully weigh their options with reference to all available contracting models. When using industry standard contract formats, project teams should also integrate professionally tailored supplementary provisions into their final contract documents to properly address the owner’s interests.