2006Unpublished venueRequires access

A System for Control of Performance Contracts

O P Resen-Fellie, Jeffrey R. Dahlen

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

The restructuring of the Norwegian Public Roads Administration in 2003 brought about lots of changes. All construction and maintenance works are put out on tender. This made it necessary to find methods to make sure that the requirements in the contracts were done according to the specifications. Since 1980 we have described standard requirements for maintenance of national roads. But until 2003 this description was directed towards in-house work. However, these descriptions are now being rephrased to make them more useful in the new performance contracts. A lot of effort has been exerted to get a useful system for monitoring these contracts. Several alternatives have been tested in the last two years. The purpose of this paper is to present the method now in use. Traditionally maintenance contracts describing quantities, time limits and unit prices have been common. But this requires extensive use of effort for control by the client. The motivation for introducing performance contracts is to promote a comprehensive approach to road maintenance. This will challenge the contractor to choose methods, materials and equipment most appropriate for his know-how. This will make it possible for the contractor to utilize his machinery and equipment on a wider basis. The road network in Norway is divided into 104 contracts with a total cost of 190 million Euro per year for maintenance and operations. It is therefore important to have a common follow-up system throughout the country. This makes it possible to compare different contracts and districts, and to trace changes over time. Comparisons between control done by the client and the contractor will show if there are differences in the assessment of the work done. The contractor is responsible to maintain contract requirements at all times, and therefore needs a control system of his own to make sure that this is achieved. It is essential for the client to check that this system works. Failure to fulfil the contract may lead to sanctions. For the covering abstract see ITRD E143097.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The restructuring of the Norwegian Public Roads Administration in 2003 brought about lots of changes. All construction and maintenance works are put out on tender. This made it necessary to find methods to make sure that the requirements in the contracts were done according to the specifications. Since 1980 we have described standard requirements for maintenance of national roads. But until 2003 this description was directed towards in-house work. However, these descriptions are now being rephrased to make them more useful in the new performance contracts. A lot of effort has been exerted to get a useful system for monitoring these contracts. Several alternatives have been tested in the last two years. The purpose of this paper is to present the method now in use. Traditionally maintenance contracts describing quantities, time limits and unit prices have been common. But this requires extensive use of effort for control by the client. The motivation for introducing performance contracts is to promote a comprehensive approach to road maintenance. This will challenge the contractor to choose methods, materials and equipment most appropriate for his know-how. This will make it possible for the contractor to utilize his machinery and equipment on a wider basis. The road network in Norway is divided into 104 contracts with a total cost of 190 million Euro per year for maintenance and operations. It is therefore important to have a common follow-up system throughout the country. This makes it possible to compare different contracts and districts, and to trace changes over time. Comparisons between control done by the client and the contractor will show if there are differences in the assessment of the work done. The contractor is responsible to maintain contract requirements at all times, and therefore needs a control system of his own to make sure that this is achieved. It is essential for the client to check that this system works. Failure to fulfil the contract may lead to sanctions. For the covering abstract see ITRD E143097.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The restructuring of the Norwegian Public Roads Administration in 2003 brought about lots of changes. All construction and maintenance works are put out on tender. This made it necessary to find methods to make sure that the requirements in the contracts were done according to the specifications. Since 1980 we have described standard requirements for maintenance of national roads. But until 2003 this description was directed towards in-house work. However, these descriptions are now being rephrased to make them more useful in the new performance contracts. A lot of effort has been exerted to get a useful system for monitoring these contracts. Several alternatives have been tested in the last two years. The purpose of this paper is to present the method now in use. Traditionally maintenance contracts describing quantities, time limits and unit prices have been common. But this requires extensive use of effort for control by the client. The motivation for introducing performance contracts is to promote a comprehensive approach to road maintenance. This will challenge the contractor to choose methods, materials and equipment most appropriate for his know-how. This will make it possible for the contractor to utilize his machinery and equipment on a wider basis. The road network in Norway is divided into 104 contracts with a total cost of 190 million Euro per year for maintenance and operations. It is therefore important to have a common follow-up system throughout the country. This makes it possible to compare different contracts and districts, and to trace changes over time. Comparisons between control done by the client and the contractor will show if there are differences in the assessment of the work done. The contractor is responsible to maintain contract requirements at all times, and therefore needs a control system of his own to make sure that this is achieved. It is essential for the client to check that this system works. Failure to fulfil the contract may lead to sanctions. For the covering abstract see ITRD E143097.

Key concepts: Control (management), Restructuring, Work (physics), TRACE (psycholinguistics), Unit (ring theory), Risk analysis (engineering), Preventive maintenance, Operations management

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
A System for Control of Performance Contracts — Research Paper | ScholarLens