Comparison of Quebec’s Project Delivery Methods: Relational Contract Law and Differences in Contractual Language

Abstract

The province of Quebec, Canada, seeks to implement relational alternate project delivery methods to achieve sustainability and energy efficiency in public construction. However, the relational differences between the formal written parts of different delivery methods have yet to be analyzed and understood, as is the case with the relational aspects of contracts and the achievement of sustainable and energy-efficient infrastructure. Using a hermeneutic interpretation of Macneil’s relational contract norms and grounded theory, 26 contracts involving Quebec’s largest public client of vertical infrastructure and representing three different types of project delivery methods (design–bid–build (DBB), design–Build (DB), and construction manager–general contractor/integrated project delivery (CMGC/IPD)) were analyzed using NVivo. It was found that CMGC/IPD is the most relational project delivery method available to Quebec’s public clients, namely because of the public client’s active involvement in the realization process, the increasing complexity of roles, the multitude of common management structures, and the internalization of sustainability measures and conflict resolution. Furthermore, Quebec’s CMGC/IPD was found to be an IPD-ish delivery method, lacking the early involvement of the construction manager and the risk/reward sharing mechanisms necessary to achieve pure IPD status. The findings and theoretical considerations discussed here will help policymakers, contract drafters, and public clients interested in implementing relational contracting practices in public construction projects.

Building Information Modeling in Quebec’s Procurement for Public Infrastructure: A Case for Integrated Project Delivery

“…Furthermore, this paper is based on relevant literature regarding BIM, IPD, procurement processes and collaborative practices, which are thoroughly used in the "BIM-specific requirements" subsections of this paper. Finally, this paper represents the third part of a thesis, and thus follows two papers concentrated on a comparative law analysis and a content analysis of different project delivery methods in terms of contractual language (Jobidon et al 2018(Jobidon et al , 2019. The results from these papers helped shape the subsections of the current analysis, which address collaborative mechanisms in the tendering process, award criteria and prequalification of firms as well as risk-reward mechanisms.…”

“…These mechanisms include a digital collaboration platform as well as visual coordination, interference detection and integrated design workshops. These practices underpin the quality control process of the concept and serve as communication tools to support decision-making during design development and multidisciplinary workshops (Jobidon et al 2019).…”

“…Regardless of the model, these contracts are based on common principles of common governance, a no-blame culture and the development of a target cost enabling the sharing of profits or losses. IPD is designed to help public bodies achieve functional, environmental, and economic objectives through upstream design iterations involving all relevant stakeholders, decision-making driven by performance objectives, ongoing value management, effective and open communication and the maintenance of quality assurance throughout the process (Jobidon et al 2019). BIM benefits include faster and more effective processes, better design and production quality, controlled life-cycle costs and automated assembly, while IPD helps achieve better quality levels, shorter completion time, fewer change orders and lower costs (Azhar 2011;El Asmar et al 2013).…”

No-Blame Culture and the Effectiveness of Project-Based Design Teams in the Construction Industry: The Mediating Role of Teamwork

“…The design builder brings together the design and construction specialists from different firms in a joint cross-functional design team. This team needs to closely collaborate and align their activities (Jobidon et al 2019). DB is not considered a relational type contract, because the formal arrangement between the client and the design builder are not aimed at the alignment of project objectives and business goals and are not directed at creating a more collaborative atmosphere (Harper andMolenaar 2014, Jobidon et al 2019).…”

“…Therefore, emphasizing the type of project deliver method, while ignoring the actual level of collaboration, might explain the inconsistent results (Koolwijk et al 2018). Indeed, other 'less relational' integrated working arrangements (Jobidon et al 2019), such as Design-build, may also benefit from a no-blame culture. Therefore, irrespective of the integrated project delivery method used, integrated project teams may require an environment of a no-blame culture to become effective.…”