The construction industry has a bad image. There seems a lack of quality in construction works at the time of delivery, and estimates of time and costs seem to be exceeded structurally, especially in public projects. Partially, this has to do with the increased complexity of construction projects. Therefore, procuring agencies and contractors feel the need to discuss all aspects of the project before closing a contract. Changes in pre-contractual negotiations were to decrease post-contractual renegotiations and to improve mutual commitment. With the Competitive Dialogue procedure, a public procurement method that was introduced in 2004, this need was met. Yet, the procedure is not proven effective. This dissertation addresses the question how inter-organisational negotiations and commitments are interrelated, and what the effect is of using the competitive dialogue procedure. Based on a survey, a multiple-case study and an in-depth single case study, the author shows that understanding is the most important determinant for the development of negotiations and commitments in inter-organisational projects. Investment in creation of mutual understanding in early stages of project negotiations is likely to prevent renegotiations in later stages. The competitive dialogue could have a positive influence on the creation of mutual understanding, yet the research shows how several mechanisms of the procedure are currently counterproductive in realising that. The author proposes several measures to realise a more effective use of the competitive dialogue procedure.
|Award date||22 Jun 2012|
|Place of Publication||Enschede, the Netherlands|
|Publication status||Published - 22 Jun 2012|