SRQ780 Strategic Construction Procurement Assignments © Deakin University Trimester 1, 2017 SRQ780 - STRATEGIC CONSTRUCTION PROCUREMENT School of Architecture and Built Environment Trimester 1 – 2017 Unit Chair and Lecturer: Dr Nilupa Udawatta Tutor: Samer Skaik SRQ780 - Assignments GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS 1. This document is to be read in conjunction with the Unit Guide for this unit. 2. It is the responsibility of each student to confirm submission requirements including dates, time, and format. 3. Extension or Special Consideration may be considered for late submission. It is the responsibility of each student to understand Deakin regulations regarding late submission and Special Consideration for assessment. You do not require Special Consideration for an assignment extension. However, you must request an extension prior to the submission time. 4. You will be required to complete Assignment 1 and Assignment 2 on an individual basis. 5. All assignments, unless otherwise noted, must be submitted electronically through CloudDeakin. Assignments submitted in any other way will not be marked. 6. Unless otherwise stated, all assignments submitted through CloudDeakin must be in Portable Document Format (pdf). 7. You may refer to publications, but you must write in your own “voice” and cite the references using the Author-Date (Harvard) system. It is essential for you to fully understand what you write and to be able to verify your source if you are requested to do so later on. The library provides workshops and advice on citations and referencing. 8. The University regards plagiarism as an extremely serious academic offence. Submission through CloudDeakin includes your declaration that the work submitted is entirely your own. Please make full use of the ‘Check Your Work’ folder in the Dropbox tab on CloudDeakin. 9. If you are not clear about the requirements of the assignments, please seek your lecturer’s/tutor’s help as soon as possible. 10. Before starting your assignment, please read the University document, Study Support at http://www.deakin.edu.au/students/study-support. SRQ780 Strategic Construction Procurement Assignments © Deakin University Trimester 1, 2017 ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE No Deliverable Mark (%) Format Submission Date Description 1 A Critical Review 40 Individual Wednesday, 29 March 2017 by 3.00pm Written Report 2 A Critical Analysis 60 Individual Wednesday, 24 May 2017 by 3.00pm Written Report 100 SRQ780 Strategic Construction Procurement Assignments © Deakin University Trimester 1, 2017 ASSIGNMENT 1 A Critical Review 40 Marks PURPOSE OF ASSIGNMENT 1 The purpose of this assignment is to enable you to: • Understand the theory and principles of innovative project procurement strategies and impact on the construction supply chain. • Examine contemporary international practice in relation to procurement strategies including relational contracting, strategic project alliance and public-private partnerships within complex multinational project team environments. ASSIGNMENT TASK Assignment 1 (Critical Review Report) comprises a review four of the readings (See the unit site for readings). Students are encouraged to start each review on a new page. The total length of all of the reviews should be no longer than 1200 words and should cover the following items;  Purpose: Aim or objective of the paper  Method: Design or methodological approach used in the paper  Findings: A review of the main outcomes of the paper  Implications: Practical outcomes or impacts that paper makes  Critical appraisal: Evaluate the quality of the paper considering the coverage, writing style, methods, results and conclusions of the paper Choose only four (4) papers from the list below;  Ke, Y, Davis, P & Jefferies, M 2016, ‘A conceptual model of psychological contracts in construction projects’, Construction Economics and Building , vol.16, no. 3, pp.20-37.  Naoum, S.G & Egbu, C 2016, ‘Modern selection criteria for procurement methods in construction: A state-of-the-art literature review and a survey’, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business , vol. 9, no. 2, pp.309-336.  Oo, B.L, Ling, F.Y.Y & Soo, A 2015, ‘Construction procurement: modelling bidders’ learning in recurrent bidding’, Construction Economics and Building , vol. 15, no.4, pp.16-29.  Sanchez, A.X, Lehtiranta, L, Hampson, K.D & Kenley, R 2014, ‘Evaluation framework for green procurement in road construction’, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment , vol. 3, no. 2, pp.153169.  Staples, W & Dalrymple, J 2015, ‘Construction Procurement and State Government Strategy: Aligned or Disconnected?’, Australian Journal of Public Administration , vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 222-235.  Walker, D.H & Lloyd-Walker, B.M 2016, ‘Understanding the motivation and context for alliancing in the Australian construction industry’, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business , vol. 9, no. 1, pp.74-93.  Walker, D.H.T & Lloyd-Walker, B.M 2014, ‘The ambience of a project alliance in Australia’, Engineering Project Organization Journal , vol. 4, no. 1, pp.2-16. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION This is an assignment that is to be submitted and marked as an individual. The assignment must be submitted as a cohesive review. It requires an executive summary, table of contents and conclusions. FORMAT OF ASSIGNMENT This assignment should be presented as a single pdf document in whatever format you believe is appropriate. The submission is a critical review report of approximately 1,200 words exclusive of diagrams, photos, tables and references. SRQ780 Strategic Construction Procurement Assignments © Deakin University Trimester 1, 2017 ASSESSMENT SUBMISSION Submission of the critical review is required on Wednesday, 29 March 2017 by 3.00pm through CloudDeakin. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA A detailed rubric is provided on the next page. SRQ780 Strategic Construction Procurement Assignments © Deakin University Trimester 1, 2017 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA HD D C P N Total An outstanding or exceptional review demonstrating high level research and critical analysis showing you understand the review process. A quality report demonstrating high level research and critical analysis showing you understand the review process. A quality report demonstrating a good level of research and critical analysis showing you understand the review process. A report demonstrating basic research and critical analysis showing you have some understanding of the review process. A report demonstrating inadequate research and lack of critical analysis. While it identifies and explains a limited understanding of the review process the discussion is inadequate. 90 Report is well formatted to workplace standard, and appropriate to information, minimal or no spelling or grammatical errors. Correctly referenced. Report is formatted to workplace standard and appropriate to information. Some spelling or grammatical errors. Correctly referenced. Report is formatted to workplace standard, some spelling or grammatical errors. Referencing may or may not be correct. Report is adequately formatted and contains errors, and may include errors in referencing. Report is not formatted to workplace standard. 10 Total marks available 100 SRQ780 Strategic Construction Procurement Assignments © Deakin University Trimester 1, 2017 ASSIGNMENT 2 A Critical Analysis 60 Marks PURPOSE OF ASSIGNMENT 2 The purpose of this assignment is to enable you to: • Understand the theory and principles of innovative project procurement strategies and impact on the construction supply chain. • Examine contemporary international practice in relation to procurement strategies including relational contracting, strategic project alliance and public-private partnerships within complex multinational project team environments. • Apply a strategic procurement strategic analysis and develop a framework for a complex large case study project. ASSIGNMENT TASK Based on your study in Strategic Construction Procurement so far, you are required to submit a critical analysis report on a large complex construction project case study. The detailed information for the case study project (Federation Square Project) is provided in the Case Study description below. There are various procurement methods that may be used for project procurement, including but not limited to, traditional, design & construct, early contractor involvement (ECI), Alliancing, and Public Private Partnerships (PPP), etc.. Imagine that you are appointed as the project procurement manager, and you are going to tendering in this project. Please analyse and explain in detail which procurement method is the most effective for this project. Furthermore, please provide your explanation about how your recommended procurement method would improve performance in this case. Case Study Description Federation Square Project Federation Square, located north of the Princes Bridge and bounded by Flinders Street and the Yarra River, provides Melbourne with a space for cultural and civil celebration. Notoriously expensive and delayed (to the tune of approximately $345 million and 26 months delayed), the problems of this project were ultimately fuelled by the administrative and construction chaos associated and compounded by the project’s inability to develop an adequate brief at the outset of the project. The story of Federation Square is a prime example of how mega-projects can go drastically awry. In March 1996, prior to the international design competition, an initial budget of $128 million based on available funding, was proposed collaboratively by the State Government and The Melbourne City Council. An additional payment was secured from the Federal Fund on the premise that work would be completed in time for the Centenary of Federation (May, 2001). This indicative budget was set for the purpose of the design brief (competition) and was based upon areas for the identified requirement for standard finishes, rather than actual design concepts. In July 1997, LAB + Bates Smart were awarded the right to design the project, a decision which proved to be a source of much of the project’s successes and failings. From the outset the $128 million financial parameter was seen to be unrealistic. The winning design was officially estimated in September 1997 to be $267 million, substantially exceeding the original estimate, thereby placing the project in negative financial territory. Eager to complete the project by the Centenary of Federation, the decision to fast-track was a political measure that led to the construction of the $14 million deck substructure (Stage 2) before finalisation SRQ780 Strategic Construction Procurement Assignments © Deakin University Trimester 1, 2017 of superstructure scope and detailed design work. Despite complex construction and working conditions, the deck was delivered by Leighton Contractors on time and on budget. The crux of fast-tracking was exposed as it became more evident that the overall program was fundamentally driven by the capacity of the design team to produce documentation. The inherent complexity of the design from the outset should have discouraged the government’s decision to fasttrack. This, coupled with countless design revisions and political intervention, only aggravated an already sensitive project. Another outcome of fast-tracking was the appointment of Multiplex in the absence of a competitive tendering process. Therefore in June 1999, eleven months after works had commenced on site, Multiplex put forward a claim of $19.1 million to the Government for delays and damages caused by the absence of a formal contractual agreement. In November 1997, a pre-qualification process was conducted to access the best potential contractors to develop the square. In late 1999 Multiplex Constructions entered into a lump sum, fixed fee contract to construct Federation Square by the then Victorian Government Office of Major Projects acting on behalf of the State Government. Under this agreement the Architect was to be novated by the Managing Contractor. The Managing Contractor, Multiplex, was to assume the risk of omissions, discrepancies and ambiguities in the design and documentation of the works. However during 2001 the Managing Contractor’s arrangement was altered to a ‘Construction Management’ arrangement, in consideration of the complexity of the contract including:  Ever-changing and incomplete design and subsequent documentation;  Reluctance by Office of Major Projects to compromise architecture and risk allocation for design to Multiplex;  Recent disputes over fee arrangements for additional cost incurred due to increased project scope and delays in the construction project  Ongoing development of the design continuing through the tender period therefore making it difficult for tenderers to define scope, risk and time required for constructability issues However, there were many other procurement choices that could have been used to deliver the project. Based on your study in Strategic Construction Procurement, you are required to submit a critical analysis report on the Federation Square project. Imagine that you are appointed as the project procurement manager, and you are to provide advice about the best procurement process that addresses the above issues. Please analyse, explain and justify in detail which procurement method is the most effective for this project. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION This is an assignment that is to be submitted and marked as an individual. The assignment must be submitted as a cohesive critical analysis. It requires an executive summary and table of contents. FORMAT OF ASSIGNMENT This assignment should be presented as a single pdf document in whatever format you believe is appropriate. The submission is a critical analysis of approximately 3,000 - 3,500 words exclusive of diagrams, photos, tables and references. ASSESSMENT SUBMISSION Submission of the research report is required on Wednesday, 24 May 2017 by 3.00pm through CloudDeakin. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA A detailed rubric is provided on the next page. SRQ780 Strategic Construction Procurement Assignments © Deakin University Trimester 1, 2017 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA HD D C P N Total An excellent application of theories and/or concepts dealt within the unit to the given case study. A very good application of theories and/or concepts dealt within the unit to the given case study. A good application of theories and/or concepts dealt within the unit to the given case study. A satisfactory application of theories and/or concepts dealt within the unit to the given case study. Inadequate application of theories and/or concepts dealt within the unit to the given case study. 30 An excellent use of information (including evidence and examples) to support the arguments. A very good use of information (including evidence and examples) to support the arguments. A good use of information (including evidence and examples) to support the arguments. A satisfactory use of information (including evidence and examples) to support the arguments. Inadequate use of information (including evidence and examples) to support the arguments. 20 An excellent advice on the procurement process that addresses the issues highlighted in the case study. A very good advice on the procurement process that addresses the issues highlighted in the case study. A good advice on the procurement process that addresses the issues highlighted in the case study. A satisfactory advice on the procurement process that addresses the issues highlighted in the case study. Inadequate advice on the procurement process that addresses the issues highlighted in the case study. 30 An excellent structure and organisation of the report. A very good structure and organisation of the report. A good structure and organisation of the report. A satisfactory structure and organisation of the report. Inadequate structure and organisation of the report. 10 Report is well formatted to workplace standard, and appropriate to information, minimal or no spelling or grammatical errors. Correctly referenced. Report is formatted to workplace standard and appropriate to information. Some spelling or grammatical errors. Correctly referenced. Report is formatted to workplace standard, some spelling or grammatical errors. Referencing may or may not be correct. Report is adequately formatted and contains errors, and may include errors in referencing. Report is not formatted to workplace standard. 10 Total available marks 100