Framework for Objectively Determining Best Practices for Alternative Contracting Methods. Issue 1 (2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Gransberg, Douglas D.; Scheepbouwer, Eric; Lopez del Puerto, Carla
• Is Part Of: Transportation research record. Volume 2630:Issue 1(2017)
• Page Start: 51
• Page End: 58
• Publication Date: 2017
• Subjects: Transportation -- Periodicals; Roads; Transport -- Périodiques; Routes -- Périodiques; Routes -- Conception et construction -- Périodiques; Roads; Transportation; 388.05
• DOI: 10.3141/2630-07
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0361-1981

Abstract

Alternative contracting method (ACM) usage has grown to the point where the industry has sufficient experience to provide a definitive set of best practices both to promote consistency in the nation's procurement system and to leverage the lessons learned by early ACM adopters. The barrier to achieving this goal is that there is no uniform agreement on the definition of what constitutes a best practice. Both an objective definition and a framework for identifying and analyzing ACM practices are proposed that have been found to be effective by peer-reviewed research to determine whether a given practice deserves to be termed as a best practice. The framework is based on a series of indexes that are used to rank candidate practices in order of their importance and their effectiveness. The 24 ACM practices evaluated were identified from six NCHRP Synthesis reports on ACM topics. It was found that only four of the 24 candidates met the objective criteria to be termed a best practice. These candidates were formalizing and institutionalizing agency ACM procedures, using two-step best-value award procedures, appointing an agency ACM champion, and offering stipends for unsuccessful competitors.