Paulos Abebe Wondimu

Best Value Procurement (BVP) in a Mega Infrastructure Project

The Norwegian Government recently established a new public company called New Roads with the aim to create more value for money within road investment. To meet government expectations, New Roads has started to use Best Value Procurement (BVP) in mega infrastructure projects. BVP emphasizes contractor selection and risk management from the beginning of the project to add value and reduce waste in all project phases. The purpose of this research is to explore the experience of client and vendor personnel with the implementation of BVP so recommendations can be given for future application. In addition to a literature review, one of the first BVP projects was studied through 11 in-depth semi-structured interviews with key informants. Both client and vendor applauded the approach. Three significant shared positive experiences with the method were found: better risk management, realistic performance expectations, and efficient procurement procedure. BVP is one of several approaches that can be used to award contracts based on qualification rather than price. In addition, the method brings risk management to the beginning of the project.

A Comparison of Competitive Dialogue and Best Value Procurement

Competitive Dialogue (CD) and Best Value Procurement (BVP) are two different approaches to early contractor involvement (ECI) in public projects. However, it is not clear which approach is best suited for what kind of project situations, and which is better for implementing lean in public procurement. The purpose of this paper is to explore the similarities and differences of these approaches to develop recommendations for how to match approach with project situations. In addition to literature study, two large infrastructure projects were studied through 12 in-depth semi-structured interviews and review of documents. The findings from this study indicate that the two approaches have several similarities; e.g., both give a better result when they are used together with a design-build contract than design-bid-build contract, and they give clients possibilities to meet suppliers and clarify projects before contract signing. However, they also have a number of differences such as the number of competitors that develop a project and a supplier selection premises varies. The study concludes that BVP is a moreeffective procurement process than CD as regards procurement phase. However, CD gives more room for the clients to influence supplier solutions than BVP.

Motives for the Use of Competitive Dialogue

Competitive dialogue (CD) is a seldom-practised procurement procedure in Norway. The Norwegian Public Roads Administration (NPRA) plans to use it in complex and mega infrastructure project in the future. This study investigates how CD has contributed to the implementation of lean in the public sector by answering the following two research questions: What are the motives for using CD?; and How was the CD carried out (timeline, main activities etc.)? With a supporting literature study, four cases were studied by conducting a document study and semi-structured in-depth interviewees with eight key informants. Several motives why CD has been used in the target projects were identified. However, none the identified motives were to directly implement lean. Furthermore, eleven major activities of CD and two project implementation models that have used CD were identified in the case projects. The motives behind implementing CD are found to be comparable to the motives for implementing lean construction principles. In addition, the dialogue phase is found to be at the core of the process and could contribute to reducing significant waste. The findings provide a contribution of how CD can be used to implement lean in public procurement.