https://doi.org/10.24928/2024/0131

Traditional Tender Versus Early Contractor Involvement (ECI): A Comparative Analysis of Work Hours

Lachlan Saunders¹, Kasun Wijayaratna² & Cecilia G. da Rocha³

¹Alumnus, Faculty of Engineering & IT, University of Technology Sydney (UTS), Australia, [email protected]
²2Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Engineering & IT, University of Technology Sydney (UTS), Australia, [email protected] ORCID 0000-0002-4604-7256
³Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Engineering & IT, University of Technology Sydney (UTS), Australia, [email protected] ORCID 0000-0001-6764-1724

Abstract

The strategy of Early Contractor Involvement (ECI), wherein contractors participate in a project’s design and planning stages, is seen as an effective approach to address inefficiencies and complex interpersonal dynamics of construction projects. These challenges arise from contracting and procurement systems that do not promote collaboration, leading to delays and increased costs. Tendering, marked by competition and unpredictability, mirrors the industry’s fragmentation and waste. Contractors face issues such as scope ambiguity, flawed documentation, market volatility, strict deadlines, and probity. This paper conducts a comparative analysis of two infrastructure projects in Australia, involving a tier 1 Contractor. Each project underwent both a traditional tender and ECI, facilitating comparisons. The results indicate that ECI tends to extend the time and resources utilized by contractors, with Project 1 and Project 2 experiencing increases of 12 weeks and 10 weeks, respectively, along with additional work hours and personnel. Despite ECI increasing time and resources, it improves the tendering process by enhancing certainty, focus, and communication.

Keywords

Files

Reference

Saunders, L. , Wijayaratna, K. & da Rocha, C. G. 2024. Traditional Tender Versus Early Contractor Involvement (ECI): A Comparative Analysis of Work Hours, Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC 32) , 108-118. doi.org/10.24928/2024/0131

Download: BibTeX | RIS Format