| dc.description.abstract | Projects consist of complex structures that require strategizing. As an important part of a project, strategic approaches of procurement may yield greater success, quality and value. This report focuses on the contracting strategy and public procurement practices in the Norwegian construction industry. In order to shed light on these practices and the reasons for them being as they are, this report aim to map out perceptions of these practices through the eyes of contractors and proprietors. Furthermore, due to the impressive claims of project success through Best Value Procurement (BVP), a comparison between that method and the contemporary practices is presented.
The study utilizes a qualitative approach which consist of a literature study whose output functions as the theoretical background and a case study where data is collected through semi-structured interviews and mapping of a figure fill-out form. The sample population consisted of five interviewees representing some of the largest contractors and public proprietors in Norway. Analysis of data was conducted in several steps utilizing multiple loops to ensure extraction of relevant information.
The results gave clear indications of a preference towards integrated contracting approaches, which there is little of in current practices The study indicated that most procurement strategies were habitual and separation based. Also, both contractors and proprietors recognized that there was an unbalanced relationship between the two, where contractors were pressured with small earnings.
Furthermore, both contractors and proprietors indicated the belief that awarding contracts based on multiple criteria would produce the highest quality end product. Also, the study found that the current Norwegian procurement practices and BVP are mostly dissimilar. However, indications were found showing that especially contractors wished for practices with similar philosophies as those of BVP. Still, the knowledge of BVP was found to be limited amongst study participants. | |
