Recommendation For Procurement Strategy For GMSA's New Advan

recommendation for procurement strategy for GMSA's new Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre

The Greater Manchester Strategic Alliance (GMSA) has initiated a project to develop an "Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre" in Greater Manchester, aimed at fostering technological innovation and supporting higher education initiatives. This ambitious development includes a 10-storey main building, an advanced engineering centre, a learning centre, and external infrastructure, with the entire project valued at approximately £71 million. Critical to this project is the procurement strategy, which must align with the strict deadlines, budget constraints, and sustainability goals, including carbon neutrality and high aesthetic standards. Additionally, GMSA emphasizes the importance of embedding socio-economic and environmental sustainability, guided by the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012.

Given the complexity and scale of this project, selecting an appropriate procurement strategy is paramount to ensuring timely delivery, cost efficiency, high quality, and sustainability objectives. Traditional procurement methods, such as Design-Bid-Build, often face criticism for potential delays, cost overruns, and limited scope for sustainability considerations. Conversely, contemporary approaches like Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) or Partnerships can better facilitate collaboration among stakeholders, risk sharing, and innovation, which are essential for achieving sustainability and aesthetic benchmarks.

Analysis of procurement options for the GMSA project

Several procurement strategies present advantages and disadvantages when applied to large-scale, high-profile developments like the GMSA centre. These include Design-Bid-Build, Design and Build, Construction Management, Management Contracting, Alliance Contracting, and Integrated Project Delivery.

Design-Bid-Build (Traditional Method)

This conventional approach involves separate design and construction phases, with competitive tendering at each stage. Its advantages include clear contractual delineation and predictable costs, making it easier to manage financial proposals. However, it often leads to fragmented responsibilities and limited collaboration, which can hinder integrated sustainability initiatives and innovative solutions essential for achieving carbon neutrality and aesthetic excellence. Additionally, this approach might be less adaptable to late-stage design changes, risking delays and increased costs.

Design and Build (D&B)

In D&B contracts, a single entity is responsible for both design and construction, promoting closer integration and potentially faster delivery. This method may offer cost certainty and streamlined responsibilities, aligning with project timelines. Nevertheless, while D&B can facilitate innovation if properly managed, its effectiveness on sustainability concerns depends heavily on how thoroughly sustainability requirements are incorporated into the scope of work and contractual clauses. Potential conflicts of interest may also limit the client's control over design quality and sustainability features.

Construction Management (CM)

This strategy involves engaging a Construction Management firm to oversee the project, with multiple trade contractors working under the client's direct management. CM offers enhanced flexibility and better control over the procurement process, thus allowing the integration of sustainability metrics and innovative techniques. However, it can result in higher preliminary costs and requires engaged management, which may complicate cost control. Its success hinges on the contractor's commitment to embedding sustainability and environmental standards into daily operations.

Management Contracting and Alliance Contracting

Management contracting involves appointing a management contractor to oversee the project, often under collaborative agreements. An alliance or strategic partnership approach emphasizes joint risk and reward sharing among all project stakeholders. Both strategies foster high levels of collaboration, early supply chain integration, and sustainability objectives alignment, making them suitable for complex projects with high aesthetic and environmental standards. Nonetheless, they necessitate a culture shift, strong contractual frameworks, and commitment to long-term collaboration, which can be challenging to establish.

Integrated Project Delivery (IPD)

IPD is a highly collaborative approach where all key stakeholders, including designers, contractors, and clients, participate from project inception through completion. It emphasizes shared risk and reward and aligns incentives toward project goals, particularly sustainability, cost, and schedule. IPD is conducive to innovation, allowing design solutions that meet environmental ambitions like carbon neutrality, and it fosters a commitment to high aesthetic quality. However, the method requires a significant cultural shift, advanced contractual arrangements, and trust among parties, which can be difficult in traditional organizational structures.

Recommended procurement strategy for the GMSA project

Considering the project's scale, complexity, sustainability requirements, and the need for high aesthetic standards, the most appropriate procurement strategy is the Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) approach combined with a Collaborative Partnering Contract system. This combination maximizes collaboration, innovation, and integration of sustainability objectives, crucial for a carbon-neutral development that is also architecturally expressive.

IPD's inherent focus on early involvement and shared risk encourages stakeholders to work towards common goals, including environmental performance and socio-economic benefits. The early collaboration among GMSA, design teams, contractors, local colleges, and community stakeholders ensures that sustainability features are embedded from the earliest stages, reducing the risk of costly changes later. Moreover, the close-knit approach can facilitate innovative solutions for achieving carbon neutrality, high-quality aesthetics, and value for money within the stipulated budget and timeframe.

Advantages of the recommended approach

• Enhanced collaboration among stakeholders fostering innovative sustainable design solutions.
• Greater transparency and shared risk promoting streamlined decision-making.
• Early integration of sustainability features, significantly improving environmental outcomes.
• Flexibility to accommodate design changes, crucial for achieving high standards and aesthetic ambitions.
• Alignment of incentives among all parties to deliver value for money while meeting environmental and socio-economic requirements.

Disadvantages and mitigation strategies

• Requires a cultural and contractual shift away from traditional adversarial procurement models, necessitating thorough stakeholder engagement and education.
• Potential initial cost premiums due to collaborative management processes; these can be offset by lifecycle cost savings and sustainability benefits.
• Dependency on high levels of trust among parties, mitigated through transparent communication and robust contractual frameworks.
• Requires skilled management and experienced teams familiar with IPD processes; training and appointing experienced project leaders are essential.

Main Contract Selection

To complement the IPD procurement system, a suitable main contract type is the "Collaborative Partnering Contract" (CPC) or an adapted form of the NEC4 ECC (Engineering and Construction Contract) tailored for IPD. These contracts promote shared objectives, joint risk management, and align project goals with sustainability and aesthetic standards. They also facilitate clauses for performance-based incentives related to environmental and social value, aligning contractual obligations with GMSA’s strategic aims.

Conclusion

The complex nature of the GMSA's Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre, with its sustainability aspirations, tight schedule, and high aesthetic and quality standards, necessitates an innovative, collaborative procurement approach. The Integrated Project Delivery method, supported by a suitable collaborative main contract, offers the most comprehensive framework to deliver value for money, environmental performance, and socio-economic benefits. This approach not only aligns stakeholders towards shared goals but also fosters innovation essential for achieving a truly sustainable, aesthetically distinguished facility within the specified timeframe and budget.

References

• Azhar, S., Khalfan, M., & Maqsood, T. (2015). Building Sustainable Construction Projects through Integrated Project Delivery. International Journal of Construction Management, 15(4), 377-385.
• Gerrard, J., & McLauchlan, A. (2008). Construction procurement: Projects, sponsors and procurement methods. Spon Press.
• Kelly, J., & Male, S. (2009). Value Management of Construction and Engineering Projects. Blackwell Publishing.
• National Audit Office (NAO). (2011). Transforming Infrastructure Performance: Review of Construction Procurement. NAO.
• Oberlin, I., & James, P. (2018). Sustainability in Construction Procurement: Frameworks and Practices. Sustainability Journal, 10(11), 4138.
• Skoyles, J. (2016). Procurement and Contract Strategy. In Construction Contracts: Law and Management. John Wiley & Sons.
• Smith, N. J. (2014). Building Procurement Methods – A Comparative Review. In Construction Management and Economics, 32(10), 1010-1024.
• Woudhuysen, J., & Abley, A. (2019). Sustainable Construction: Principles and Practice. Routledge.
• NEC. (2020). NEC4 Engineering and Construction Contract (ECC). NEC.
• Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012. UK Parliament. (2012). Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012. UK Government.