MNG93220 Project Procurement and Contract Management

Assessment Type: Report

Weight: 35% of the total unit assessment

Word limit: 1,500 words

INTRODUCTION:

The current body of procurement and contract management literature is theoretically diverse and draws from a wide range of underpinning disciplines. Relational forms of procurement, drawing from the collaboration, network and inter-organisational family of theories, are increasingly used within the project management community.

As we have seen so far, project procurement and contract management is a process which may involve four phases, and which may be broken down into steps:

Phase 1: Plan procurements

1. Identification of needs and development of a specification of the physical and performance characteristics of the required goods or services.
2. Identification of potential sources of supply (market search).
3. Qualification of potential suppliers and their goods or services.
4. Design of the request for proposal/quotation and the solicitation of bids.

Phase 2: Conduct procurements

5. Bid evaluation and supplier selection.
6. Negotiation of contractual terms and conditions with selected suppliers.

Phase 3: Control procurements

7. Monitoring of supplier performance and the management of ongoing supplier relationships.
8. Establishment of supply chain management (SCM) strategies, control systems and performance measurement systems.
9. Management of inventories of purchased parts, materials and supplies.
10. Recycling or disposal of unused materials and obsolete finished products (reverse logistics).

Phase 4: Close procurements

11. Negotiation and management of transition-out processes to enable contract closure.

ASSESSMENT AIM:

The aim of this report is to assess your ability to analyse, critique and apply at least one theory associated with collaboration, network and inter-organisational theories, and to provide insights about how this literature relates to the procurement and contract management process.

ASSESSMENT TASK:

Scope of Analysis Theory:

Review the literature list provided below, plus the PMBoK and other relevant literature, to gain an overview of how this ‘modern’ or ‘alternate’ approach operates within a project management context.

Analysis

The purpose of this assessment is to apply the theory to:

• Evaluate how the theory is relevant and useful for procurement and contract management processes.
• Identify the limitations of the theory to the procurement and contract management environment.
• Provide insights into why procurement and contract management strategies and processes vary in different situations (such as those described in weeks 1 – 3 of the Unit).
• Describe how the more recent literature differs from, or expands upon, Fleming’s chapter on Corporate Teaming (chapter 4).

It is important that you are logical and methodical in the approach to your analysis to ensure your evaluation and claims are influential.

SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

STRUCTURE

This report should be presented in an essay format, which is of a technical nature.

TASK	KEY SECTIONS	SECTION DESCRIPTION
	Cover Sheet with name and Student ID
	Table of Contents.
TASK 1	EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	Executive Summary – providing: A BRIEF overview of the report, and SALIENT RESULTS OF YOUR ANALYSIS.
	INTRODUCTION	Introduction – providing a brief description of: The broader context. The motivation and objectives of your report. How you are going to satisfy those objectives WHAT you are going to do, and HOW this will lead to the outcome). An overview of the logic and structure of your report.
TASK 2	BASIS FOR ANALYSIS	Overview or summary of the theory. Description of (relevant) procurement and contract management processes.
	ANALYSIS	Analysis of the procurement and contract management processes using the theory to predict how the factors described in the theory may influence decision making and/or outcomes associated with these processes, phases, and steps.
TASK 3	EVALUATION	Evaluation and prediction (causes and effects) of the most likely behaviours and/or outcomes that will occur based on the results of your analysis. [including brief, scenario examples to illustrate your findings would be beneficial].
TASK 4	DISCUSSION RESULTS	Results discussion Describe why your results are valid (and important!) Disclosure of any issues associated with your analysis that will limit the applicability of your findings. Disclosure of any issues that you detected in the course of your analysis that remain unresolved.
	CONCLUSION	Summary and Conclusions – providing: Summary of your key findings and their importance to understanding procurement and contract management processes, phases, and steps.
TASK 5	REFERENCING	Referencing Appendices (if necessary).

REFERENCING

The academic nature of this report prescribes the mandatory use of in-page citation and referencing in accordance with SCU Harvard Referencing Standards. Further information regarding SCU referencing standards are available at: http://libguides.scu.edu.au/harvard

WORD LIMIT

Students must comply with the word limit for this assessment. Penalties may be imposed for major breaches under or over the advertised word limit (1,500 +/-10% words).

Please note the word limit does not include:

• Student Cover Sheet
• Table of Contents
• In-text Tables
• In-text Figures and Diagrams
• Appendices

Therefore, students are strongly encouraged to use alternative presentation formats to manage their word count and improve the structure, readability, and clarity of their assessment.

Appendices are not directly assessable. However, students may wish to provide additional information to support their report.

LITERATURE LIST:

Note that the list below is not exhaustive. You are strongly encouraged to undertake wider research.

List

Note that you should bring your argument back to the PMBoK or other industry standards.

Networks and Inter-organisational relationships

Børve, S, Rolstadås, A, Andersen, B & Aarseth, W 2017, 'Defining project partnering', International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 666-99.

Cicmil, S & Marshall, D 2005, 'Insights into collaboration at the project level: complexity, social interaction and procurement mechanisms', Building Research & Information, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 523-35.

Ey, W, Zuo, J & Han, S 2014, 'Barriers and challenges of collaborative procurements: An exploratory study', International Journal of Construction Management, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 1-12.

Gil, N 2009, 'Developing Cooperative Project Client-Supplier Relationships: How Much to Expect from Relational Contracts?', California Management Review, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 144-69.

Ki Fiona Cheung, Y & Rowlinson, S 2011, 'Supply chain sustainability: a relationship management approach', International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 480-97.

Manu, E, Ankrah, N, Chinyio, E & Proverbs, D 2015, 'Trust influencing factors in main contractor and subcontractor relationships during projects', International Journal of Project Management, vol. 33, no. 7, pp. 1495-508.

Michiel Christiaan, B 2014, 'Project governance: "Schools of thought"', South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 22-32.

Pala, M, Ruikar, K, Doughty, N & Peters, C 2014, 'Contractor practices for managing extended supply chain tiers', Supply Chain Management, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 31-45.

Tennant, S & Fernie, S 2012, 'The commercial currency of construction framework agreements', Building Research & Information, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 209-20.

Walker, DHT, Hampson, K & Peters, R 2002, 'Project alliancing vs project partnering: a case study of the Australian National Museum Project', Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 83-91.

MNG93220 Project Procurement and Contract Management

Assessment 2

GRADING RUBRIC

	Scale 1 – 0.5 points	Scale 2 – 1.5 points	Scale 3 – 2.5 points	Scale 4 – 3.5 points	Scale 5 – 5 points
TASK 1 Executive Summary and Introduction 20%	Unsatisfactory or absent	Attempted, lacks relevance to the essay.	Attempted but lacks clarity or is verbose	Attempted, is relevant, succinct, and clear	Executive summary is sophisticated and insightful
TASK 2 Basis for Analysis and analysis 30%	Basis for analysis is unsatisfactory or absent. Analysis is illogical, inconsistent, and/or incomplete or absent.	Basis for analysis shows some relationship to the analysis and some inconsistencies are present. Analysis is logical. However, omissions, inconsistencies, and/or errors in assumptions are be present.	Basis for analysis is clearly related to the analysis and inconsistencies are present. Analysis is logical. However, omissions, minor inconsistencies, and/or errors in assumptions are be present.	Analysis is thorough and targeted to the analysis. Minor inconsistencies may be present. Analysis is logical, well-structured, and thorough. Minor inconsistencies or errors in assumptions may be present.	Analysis is thorough, well-researched, and well targeted to the analysis. Analysis is insightful, logical, wellstructured, and thorough.
TASK 3 Evaluation 20%	Evaluation is absent or lacks integration.	Evaluation is loosely integrated and include some features described in the section description. Inconsistencies and errors are present.	Evaluation is integrated, reasoned, and includes some features described in the section description. Some inconsistencies and errors are present.	Evaluation is tightly integrated, wellreasoned, and include most features described in the section description. Minor inconsistencies may be present.	Evaluation is tightly integrated, wellreasoned, and include all features described in the section description.
TASK 4 Discussion of Results Conclusion 15%	Discussion of results and/or conclusions are either absent or lack integration and fail to provide a clear, logical, and well-reasoned outcome to the analysis.	Discussion of results and conclusions are loosely integrated and include some features described in the section description. Inconsistencies and errors are present.	Discussion of results and conclusions are integrated, reasoned, and include some features described in the section description. Some inconsistencies and errors are present. Outcomes are logical and within expectation.	Discussion of results and conclusions are tightly integrated, wellreasoned, and include most features described in the section description. Minor inconsistencies may be present. Outcomes are logical and within expectation.	Discussion of results and conclusions are tightly integrated, wellreasoned, and include all features described in the section description. Outcomes are wellsupported, logical, interesting and provide a unique perspective.
TASK 5 Referencing 15%	Academic references absent or are not relevant (possible sham referencing).	Academic references are limited to the textbook and/ or PMBoK.	Three to five academic references present and relevant, and focus upon the Textbook, the PMBoK, and/or other academic quality literature, but are not well integrated into discussion.	Five or more academic references are present and relevant, and focus upon the Textbook, the PMBoK, and/or other academic quality literature, and contribute to the discussion/ analysis.	Ten or more academic references present and relevant, and focus upon the Textbook, the PMBoK, and/or other academic quality literature, and contribute significantly to the discussion/ analysis.