Partnering, the favoured procurement route of government departments, came under fire in an NAO report on the drive to improve construction.
It said long-term partnering arrangements could exclude firms from competing for schemes let on a repeat basis. The report stated: "This is already becoming apparent on public sector PFI projects, where in some instances the barriers to entry are becoming so high that there is concern about competition being stifled."
Michael Whitehouse, NAO director of modernising government work, said the office supported partnering but added that the partner must be appointed through a competitive process.
Whitehouse also said the client and contractor must use open-book accounting for the benefits to contractor and client to be verified.
He said: "It must also be clear from the beginning what the approach is achieving."
Don Ward, chief executive of the Construction Industry Board, welcomed the report for highlighting the need to clarify partnering.
The NAO also called on the Movement for Innovation to tighten up controls on the innovations developed by demonstration projects.
The report said not all demonstration projects were "truly innovative".
Alan Crane, chairman of the Movement for Innovation, accepted that this was fair comment.
The plethora of bodies devoted to improving construction also came under fire for creating confusion in the industry.
Firms interviewed by the NAO did not know which body to ask for advice out of organisations such as the Movement for Innovation and Construction Best Practice Programme.
The NAO report broadly welcomed the moves within government department to save money through modernising initiatives such as partnering, prime contracting and DETR-funded organisations to promote improvements.
No comments yet