Alliancing, as a project delivery model, has come a
long way since its beginnings in the North Sea oil &
gas industry, and its subsequent uptake in Australia in
the mid 1990s. Now, almost 20 years after the Wandoo
Alliance, Australia’s first alliance project, alliancing has
created for itself a place in the project delivery model
armoury of most procurers of significant works, both
public and (to a lesser extent) private. Between 2004
and 2009, the total value of alliance projects in the road,
rail and water sectors in New South Wales, Victoria,
Queensland and Western Australia was $32 billion.
This represented 29% of the total infrastructure spend
of $110 billion in the same sectors across the whole of
Before comparing the approaches of the two Project
Alliance Agreements (PAAs), it is useful to briefly examine
the contextual background to each. The publication of
the National Alliance Contracting Guidelines
a 2009 research study commissioned by the state
treasuries of Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland
and Western Australia. The findings of the study may
not have been well received by the state treasuries. One
of the key findings of the study was that on average,
alliance projects experienced an increase from business
case cost estimate to actual outturn cost in the order
of 45-55%. Perhaps in response to this finding, the
National Alliance Contracting Policy Principles (NACPP),
Guide to Alliance Contracting and the NACG PAA appear
to be heavily influenced by a desire to achieve value
for money (VFM), and these documents adopt certain
approaches which might not be considered to align with
the principles of a “pure alliance”.
This article examines and compares the treatment by
the two forms of key features common to the standard
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.
"Standard project alliance agreements,"
Public Infrastructure Bulletin: Vol. 1
, Article 2.
Available at: https://epublications.bond.edu.au/pib/vol1/iss9/2