Alliancing and Collaborative Contracting
5 minutes
5 Questions
In the PMI-CP framework, Alliancing and Collaborative Contracting are relationship-based delivery methods that replace adversarial, risk-transfer models with shared goals, shared risk, and integrated teams across the contract lifecycle. In a project alliance, the owner and key non-owner participants (designers, contractors, major suppliers) sign a single multiparty agreement and act as one virtual organization. Governance usually runs through an Alliance Leadership Team, which makes unanimous strategic decisions, and an Alliance Management Team, which delivers the work day to day. The alliance follows a 'no-blame, no-dispute' principle: parties generally waive the right to litigate one another except for wilful default, so problems are solved jointly instead of being argued over through claims. The commercial model typically has three limbs. Limb 1 reimburses direct project costs on an open-book, audited basis. Limb 2 pays a fee for corporate overhead and profit. Limb 3 is a painshare/gainshare mechanism measured against a jointly developed Target Outturn Cost and non-cost KPIs such as safety, quality, schedule, and community outcomes. This aligns everyone's commercial interests with project success, so 'best for project' decisions become 'best for each party.' Collaborative contracting is the broader family. It includes Integrated Project Delivery, Early Contractor Involvement, partnering charters, and standard forms such as NEC4 Alliance, PPC2000, and FAC-1. Across the lifecycle, the method changes how each phase works. Procurement selects partners on capability, culture, and behaviour rather than lowest price. Development builds the target cost together. Execution relies on transparency, joint risk registers, and continuous improvement. Closeout calculates the gainshare and captures lessons learned. A PMI-CP should recommend these models for complex, uncertain, or innovative projects where risks cannot be reliably priced or transferred. Key success factors include a mature owner organization, strong leadership commitment, cultural alignment workshops, and robust KPIs. Common risks include complacency, weak cost discipline, and the high effort needed to sustain collaborative behaviours.
Alliancing and Collaborative Contracting: A Complete Guide for the PMI-CP Exam
Introduction
Alliancing and collaborative contracting are delivery approaches that move away from the traditional adversarial relationship between owner and contractor. They build a relationship based on shared risk, shared reward, trust and joint decision-making. For the PMI Construction Professional (PMI-CP) exam, you need to recognise when these models fit, how they are structured commercially, and how a project leader behaves inside them.
Why Alliancing and Collaborative Contracting Is Important
Traditional delivery methods such as Design-Bid-Build and lump-sum contracts push risk down the supply chain. In complex projects this often leads to claims, disputes, cost overruns and poor relationships. Collaborative models matter for several reasons:
• Better handling of uncertainty: When scope, risk or technical conditions are unclear, allocating risk to one party is costly or impossible. Sharing it works better. Examples include brownfield upgrades, rail and utility works, and emergency recovery projects.
• Fewer disputes: A no-blame, no-dispute culture lowers litigation and claims-management costs.
• Aligned incentives: Every party wins or loses together, so behaviour shifts toward the best outcome for the project rather than self-protection.
• Innovation and value: Early contractor and supplier involvement brings constructability, scheduling and cost insight into design.
• Stakeholder and public value: Public owners use alliances to achieve wider outcomes such as community, environmental and safety goals, not just cost and time.
• Industry trend: Integrated Project Delivery (IPD), project alliancing, partnering and early contractor involvement (ECI) are growing worldwide. PMI-CP expects you to understand them alongside traditional methods.
What It Is: Key Definitions
• Collaborative contracting: An umbrella term for contracting approaches that encourage cooperation, transparency and shared objectives. It covers a spectrum from light-touch partnering to fully integrated alliances.
• Partnering: Usually a non-binding or semi-binding charter added on top of a conventional contract. Parties agree on shared goals, communication protocols and issue-resolution processes. The underlying risk allocation stays traditional.
• Project alliancing: Owner and non-owner participants (designers, constructors, sometimes key suppliers) sign a single multi-party agreement. They form an integrated team and share the risk of delivering the project. Key traits include:
1. A single alliance agreement signed by all participants.
2. Collective sharing of project risks and outcomes ('we all win or we all lose').
3. A no-blame, no-dispute clause, so parties generally give up the right to sue each other except for wilful default.
4. Unanimous decision-making on key project matters by an Alliance Leadership Team (ALT).
5. Open-book accounting with full cost transparency.
6. A painshare/gainshare commercial framework.
• Integrated Project Delivery (IPD): A North American model, promoted by AIA and others, that is very similar to alliancing. It uses a multi-party agreement, early involvement of key participants, shared risk and reward, jointly developed targets and collaborative tools such as BIM and Lean (Last Planner System, target value design).
• Early Contractor Involvement (ECI): The contractor joins during design to give input before a price is fixed. It is often a stepping stone toward a target cost or alliance.
• Framework agreements and enterprise alliances: Long-term, multi-project collaborative arrangements, for example in water utilities and highways programmes.
How It Works
1. Selection of participants
Participants are chosen mainly on non-price criteria: capability, culture, collaborative behaviour, track record and team chemistry. Workshops and interviews are common. Some 'competitive alliance' models also compare price-related elements, such as fee or early estimates.
2. The commercial model (three-limb model)
Most alliances use a three-limb payment structure:
• Limb 1 – Reimbursable direct costs: The actual project costs, paid on an open-book basis and audited.
• Limb 2 – Fee: Corporate overhead plus normal profit, usually a fixed percentage or lump sum, agreed before the project starts.
• Limb 3 – Painshare/gainshare: Outcomes are measured against a jointly developed Target Outturn Cost (TOC) and against Key Result Areas (KRAs) such as safety, schedule, quality, environment and community. Underruns are shared as gain. Overruns are shared as pain, usually capped at the non-owner participants' fee, so their direct costs are still reimbursed.
3. Governance structure
• Alliance Leadership Team (ALT): Senior representatives from each participant. It sets strategy, decides unanimously and resolves issues.
• Alliance Manager / Alliance Management Team (AMT): Runs day-to-day delivery as an integrated team.
• Integrated Project Team: Staff from all organisations work together, often co-located, under a 'best for project' principle rather than serving their employer's interests.
4. Phases of an alliance
• Selection and formation: Choose participants and build the relationship.
• Interim / Project Development Phase (PDP or TOC phase): The team develops design, scope, risks and the target cost. The owner may engage an independent estimator to validate the TOC.
• Delivery / implementation phase: Construction proceeds under the agreed TOC and KRAs.
• Close-out: Final cost and performance are measured, painshare/gainshare is calculated and lessons learned are captured.
5. Behavioural foundations
Alliances depend on trust, transparency, open communication, collective accountability, a 'no-blame' culture and joint problem-solving. Relationship health is monitored through regular surveys, workshops and coaching. Commitments are written into an alliance charter covering vision, values and behaviours.
6. Risk management
Most risks are shared collectively rather than allocated. A few may sit outside the alliance and stay with the owner, such as major scope changes requested by the owner, force majeure in some cases, or certain regulatory changes. A joint risk register and a contingency built into the TOC are typical.
Advantages and Disadvantages
Advantages:
• Suits complex, high-risk or poorly defined projects.
• Allows early start and overlapping of design and construction.
• Reduces disputes and claims.
• Encourages innovation and value engineering.
• Gives the owner more influence and visibility (open book).
• Can deliver non-cost outcomes, such as community and environmental results.
Disadvantages:
• Less cost certainty for the owner at the outset.
• Needs a heavy commitment of senior management time from the owner and participants.
• Requires mature, collaborative organisations; culture failure undermines the model.
• Higher transaction and setup costs (workshops, auditing, governance).
• Possible complacency or inflated targets without independent checks.
• Weaker legal remedies because of the no-dispute clause.
• Public agencies may struggle to show value for money.
When to Use (and When Not to)
Use alliancing or collaborative contracting when:
• Scope is uncertain.
• Risks are complex or unpredictable.
• Stakeholder interfaces are intense (for example, working within a live operating railway).
• Schedule pressure needs an early start.
• Innovation is needed.
• The owner can be actively involved.
Avoid it when:
• Scope is well defined and low risk; lump sum or Design-Bid-Build is more efficient.
• The owner wants maximum price certainty and minimal involvement.
• Participants lack collaborative maturity.
Comparison With Other Delivery Methods
• Design-Bid-Build: Sequential and price-driven, with risk sitting with the party that controls it. It is often adversarial.
• Design-Build: Single-point responsibility, with risk largely transferred to the design-builder.
• CM at Risk / GMP: Early contractor input with a guaranteed maximum price. More collaborative, but risk is still allocated.
• Target cost contracts (for example NEC4 Option C/D): Pain/gain sharing between two parties within a bilateral contract. These are collaborative but not full alliances.
• Alliancing / IPD: A multi-party agreement with collective risk, unanimous decisions, no-blame and open book. This is the most collaborative end of the spectrum.
Exam Tips: Answering Questions on Alliancing and Collaborative Contracting
1. Look for trigger words. Phrases such as 'high uncertainty', 'complex interfaces', 'scope not fully defined', 'shared risk', 'trust', 'early involvement', 'multi-party agreement', 'no-blame' or 'best for project' usually point to an alliance, IPD or collaborative answer.
2. Match the method to the scenario. If the question stresses price certainty and a well-defined scope, an alliance is usually the wrong answer. If it stresses innovation, uncertainty and relationships, collaborative contracting is likely right.
3. Know the three-limb model. Limb 1 costs are reimbursed, the Limb 2 fee covers overhead and profit, and Limb 3 is painshare/gainshare. Expect questions on what is at risk: typically the fee (profit), not the reimbursable costs.
4. Remember the governance roles. The ALT makes unanimous strategic decisions, and the Alliance Manager leads daily delivery. In a decision-making scenario, choose the answer where the issue is resolved jointly through governance, not by one party acting alone.
5. Choose collaborative behaviours. In situational questions, the best answer usually involves open communication, joint problem-solving, transparency and escalation through the alliance governance. Avoid answers involving blame, issuing claims or formal notices, or withholding information.
6. Distinguish partnering from alliancing. Partnering adds a charter on top of a traditional contract and keeps risk allocation unchanged. Alliancing changes the contract itself into a multi-party, shared-risk agreement.
7. Distinguish target cost from alliance. A bilateral target cost contract shares pain and gain but is not a full alliance unless it has a multi-party agreement, collective risk and no-blame provisions.
8. Watch for the target cost development phase. Questions may ask how the owner ensures value for money. Good answers include independent estimators, benchmarking, open-book audits and a validated TOC.
9. Know where selection weight falls. Selection weighs capability, culture and behaviours more heavily than lowest price. If an answer suggests choosing a partner purely on lowest bid for an alliance, it is usually wrong.
10. Consider the owner's role. In alliances the owner is an active participant and team member, not a remote client. Answers showing owner engagement and shared accountability are often correct.
11. Identify the disadvantages. Be ready to name reduced cost certainty, heavy resource commitment and reliance on culture as limitations, especially in 'which is a risk of this approach' questions.
12. Use process thinking. When the alliance faces a cost overrun, the right response is joint analysis, a recovery plan and applying the agreed painshare mechanism. It is not a change order or claim against another participant, unless the cause is an excluded owner-scope change.
13. Link to Lean and BIM. IPD questions may refer to target value design, the Last Planner System, co-location and shared BIM models as enablers of collaboration.
14. Eliminate extreme answers. Options such as 'terminate the participant immediately' or 'refer the dispute to litigation' rarely fit an alliance context.
Sample Question Walkthrough
Scenario: An owner must upgrade a busy rail corridor while it stays operational. The scope is unclear, many stakeholders are involved, and the owner wants innovation. Which delivery approach is most appropriate?
Reasoning: High uncertainty, complex interfaces and a desire for innovation and shared problem-solving all point to a collaborative model. Lump sum would force contractors to price in heavy contingencies and lead to disputes. Answer: Project alliancing (or IPD).
Scenario: During delivery, the alliance discovers unexpected ground conditions that increase cost. What should the project manager do first?
Reasoning: In an alliance, ground risk is usually shared. The right step is to raise it transparently with the integrated team and the ALT, assess the impacts together and develop a joint solution. Issuing a claim to the owner is not the first step.
Key Takeaways
• Alliancing and collaborative contracting align all parties through shared risk and reward.
• The core features are a multi-party agreement, no-blame/no-dispute provisions, unanimous ALT decisions, open-book accounting and a three-limb commercial model built around a Target Outturn Cost.
• These models suit complex, uncertain projects but trade off early cost certainty and need strong owner involvement and cultural maturity.
• In the exam, favour answers that show collaboration, transparency, joint governance and value-for-money safeguards, and match the delivery method to the project's risk and certainty profile.
Alliancing and collaborative contracting are delivery approaches that move away from the traditional adversarial relationship between owner and contractor. They build a relationship based on shared risk, shared reward, trust and joint decision-making. For the PMI Construction Professional (PMI-CP) exam, you need to recognise when these models fit, how they are structured commercially, and how a project leader behaves inside them.
Why Alliancing and Collaborative Contracting Is Important
Traditional delivery methods such as Design-Bid-Build and lump-sum contracts push risk down the supply chain. In complex projects this often leads to claims, disputes, cost overruns and poor relationships. Collaborative models matter for several reasons:
• Better handling of uncertainty: When scope, risk or technical conditions are unclear, allocating risk to one party is costly or impossible. Sharing it works better. Examples include brownfield upgrades, rail and utility works, and emergency recovery projects.
• Fewer disputes: A no-blame, no-dispute culture lowers litigation and claims-management costs.
• Aligned incentives: Every party wins or loses together, so behaviour shifts toward the best outcome for the project rather than self-protection.
• Innovation and value: Early contractor and supplier involvement brings constructability, scheduling and cost insight into design.
• Stakeholder and public value: Public owners use alliances to achieve wider outcomes such as community, environmental and safety goals, not just cost and time.
• Industry trend: Integrated Project Delivery (IPD), project alliancing, partnering and early contractor involvement (ECI) are growing worldwide. PMI-CP expects you to understand them alongside traditional methods.
What It Is: Key Definitions
• Collaborative contracting: An umbrella term for contracting approaches that encourage cooperation, transparency and shared objectives. It covers a spectrum from light-touch partnering to fully integrated alliances.
• Partnering: Usually a non-binding or semi-binding charter added on top of a conventional contract. Parties agree on shared goals, communication protocols and issue-resolution processes. The underlying risk allocation stays traditional.
• Project alliancing: Owner and non-owner participants (designers, constructors, sometimes key suppliers) sign a single multi-party agreement. They form an integrated team and share the risk of delivering the project. Key traits include:
1. A single alliance agreement signed by all participants.
2. Collective sharing of project risks and outcomes ('we all win or we all lose').
3. A no-blame, no-dispute clause, so parties generally give up the right to sue each other except for wilful default.
4. Unanimous decision-making on key project matters by an Alliance Leadership Team (ALT).
5. Open-book accounting with full cost transparency.
6. A painshare/gainshare commercial framework.
• Integrated Project Delivery (IPD): A North American model, promoted by AIA and others, that is very similar to alliancing. It uses a multi-party agreement, early involvement of key participants, shared risk and reward, jointly developed targets and collaborative tools such as BIM and Lean (Last Planner System, target value design).
• Early Contractor Involvement (ECI): The contractor joins during design to give input before a price is fixed. It is often a stepping stone toward a target cost or alliance.
• Framework agreements and enterprise alliances: Long-term, multi-project collaborative arrangements, for example in water utilities and highways programmes.
How It Works
1. Selection of participants
Participants are chosen mainly on non-price criteria: capability, culture, collaborative behaviour, track record and team chemistry. Workshops and interviews are common. Some 'competitive alliance' models also compare price-related elements, such as fee or early estimates.
2. The commercial model (three-limb model)
Most alliances use a three-limb payment structure:
• Limb 1 – Reimbursable direct costs: The actual project costs, paid on an open-book basis and audited.
• Limb 2 – Fee: Corporate overhead plus normal profit, usually a fixed percentage or lump sum, agreed before the project starts.
• Limb 3 – Painshare/gainshare: Outcomes are measured against a jointly developed Target Outturn Cost (TOC) and against Key Result Areas (KRAs) such as safety, schedule, quality, environment and community. Underruns are shared as gain. Overruns are shared as pain, usually capped at the non-owner participants' fee, so their direct costs are still reimbursed.
3. Governance structure
• Alliance Leadership Team (ALT): Senior representatives from each participant. It sets strategy, decides unanimously and resolves issues.
• Alliance Manager / Alliance Management Team (AMT): Runs day-to-day delivery as an integrated team.
• Integrated Project Team: Staff from all organisations work together, often co-located, under a 'best for project' principle rather than serving their employer's interests.
4. Phases of an alliance
• Selection and formation: Choose participants and build the relationship.
• Interim / Project Development Phase (PDP or TOC phase): The team develops design, scope, risks and the target cost. The owner may engage an independent estimator to validate the TOC.
• Delivery / implementation phase: Construction proceeds under the agreed TOC and KRAs.
• Close-out: Final cost and performance are measured, painshare/gainshare is calculated and lessons learned are captured.
5. Behavioural foundations
Alliances depend on trust, transparency, open communication, collective accountability, a 'no-blame' culture and joint problem-solving. Relationship health is monitored through regular surveys, workshops and coaching. Commitments are written into an alliance charter covering vision, values and behaviours.
6. Risk management
Most risks are shared collectively rather than allocated. A few may sit outside the alliance and stay with the owner, such as major scope changes requested by the owner, force majeure in some cases, or certain regulatory changes. A joint risk register and a contingency built into the TOC are typical.
Advantages and Disadvantages
Advantages:
• Suits complex, high-risk or poorly defined projects.
• Allows early start and overlapping of design and construction.
• Reduces disputes and claims.
• Encourages innovation and value engineering.
• Gives the owner more influence and visibility (open book).
• Can deliver non-cost outcomes, such as community and environmental results.
Disadvantages:
• Less cost certainty for the owner at the outset.
• Needs a heavy commitment of senior management time from the owner and participants.
• Requires mature, collaborative organisations; culture failure undermines the model.
• Higher transaction and setup costs (workshops, auditing, governance).
• Possible complacency or inflated targets without independent checks.
• Weaker legal remedies because of the no-dispute clause.
• Public agencies may struggle to show value for money.
When to Use (and When Not to)
Use alliancing or collaborative contracting when:
• Scope is uncertain.
• Risks are complex or unpredictable.
• Stakeholder interfaces are intense (for example, working within a live operating railway).
• Schedule pressure needs an early start.
• Innovation is needed.
• The owner can be actively involved.
Avoid it when:
• Scope is well defined and low risk; lump sum or Design-Bid-Build is more efficient.
• The owner wants maximum price certainty and minimal involvement.
• Participants lack collaborative maturity.
Comparison With Other Delivery Methods
• Design-Bid-Build: Sequential and price-driven, with risk sitting with the party that controls it. It is often adversarial.
• Design-Build: Single-point responsibility, with risk largely transferred to the design-builder.
• CM at Risk / GMP: Early contractor input with a guaranteed maximum price. More collaborative, but risk is still allocated.
• Target cost contracts (for example NEC4 Option C/D): Pain/gain sharing between two parties within a bilateral contract. These are collaborative but not full alliances.
• Alliancing / IPD: A multi-party agreement with collective risk, unanimous decisions, no-blame and open book. This is the most collaborative end of the spectrum.
Exam Tips: Answering Questions on Alliancing and Collaborative Contracting
1. Look for trigger words. Phrases such as 'high uncertainty', 'complex interfaces', 'scope not fully defined', 'shared risk', 'trust', 'early involvement', 'multi-party agreement', 'no-blame' or 'best for project' usually point to an alliance, IPD or collaborative answer.
2. Match the method to the scenario. If the question stresses price certainty and a well-defined scope, an alliance is usually the wrong answer. If it stresses innovation, uncertainty and relationships, collaborative contracting is likely right.
3. Know the three-limb model. Limb 1 costs are reimbursed, the Limb 2 fee covers overhead and profit, and Limb 3 is painshare/gainshare. Expect questions on what is at risk: typically the fee (profit), not the reimbursable costs.
4. Remember the governance roles. The ALT makes unanimous strategic decisions, and the Alliance Manager leads daily delivery. In a decision-making scenario, choose the answer where the issue is resolved jointly through governance, not by one party acting alone.
5. Choose collaborative behaviours. In situational questions, the best answer usually involves open communication, joint problem-solving, transparency and escalation through the alliance governance. Avoid answers involving blame, issuing claims or formal notices, or withholding information.
6. Distinguish partnering from alliancing. Partnering adds a charter on top of a traditional contract and keeps risk allocation unchanged. Alliancing changes the contract itself into a multi-party, shared-risk agreement.
7. Distinguish target cost from alliance. A bilateral target cost contract shares pain and gain but is not a full alliance unless it has a multi-party agreement, collective risk and no-blame provisions.
8. Watch for the target cost development phase. Questions may ask how the owner ensures value for money. Good answers include independent estimators, benchmarking, open-book audits and a validated TOC.
9. Know where selection weight falls. Selection weighs capability, culture and behaviours more heavily than lowest price. If an answer suggests choosing a partner purely on lowest bid for an alliance, it is usually wrong.
10. Consider the owner's role. In alliances the owner is an active participant and team member, not a remote client. Answers showing owner engagement and shared accountability are often correct.
11. Identify the disadvantages. Be ready to name reduced cost certainty, heavy resource commitment and reliance on culture as limitations, especially in 'which is a risk of this approach' questions.
12. Use process thinking. When the alliance faces a cost overrun, the right response is joint analysis, a recovery plan and applying the agreed painshare mechanism. It is not a change order or claim against another participant, unless the cause is an excluded owner-scope change.
13. Link to Lean and BIM. IPD questions may refer to target value design, the Last Planner System, co-location and shared BIM models as enablers of collaboration.
14. Eliminate extreme answers. Options such as 'terminate the participant immediately' or 'refer the dispute to litigation' rarely fit an alliance context.
Sample Question Walkthrough
Scenario: An owner must upgrade a busy rail corridor while it stays operational. The scope is unclear, many stakeholders are involved, and the owner wants innovation. Which delivery approach is most appropriate?
Reasoning: High uncertainty, complex interfaces and a desire for innovation and shared problem-solving all point to a collaborative model. Lump sum would force contractors to price in heavy contingencies and lead to disputes. Answer: Project alliancing (or IPD).
Scenario: During delivery, the alliance discovers unexpected ground conditions that increase cost. What should the project manager do first?
Reasoning: In an alliance, ground risk is usually shared. The right step is to raise it transparently with the integrated team and the ALT, assess the impacts together and develop a joint solution. Issuing a claim to the owner is not the first step.
Key Takeaways
• Alliancing and collaborative contracting align all parties through shared risk and reward.
• The core features are a multi-party agreement, no-blame/no-dispute provisions, unanimous ALT decisions, open-book accounting and a three-limb commercial model built around a Target Outturn Cost.
• These models suit complex, uncertain projects but trade off early cost certainty and need strong owner involvement and cultural maturity.
• In the exam, favour answers that show collaboration, transparency, joint governance and value-for-money safeguards, and match the delivery method to the project's risk and certainty profile.
Test mode:
PMI-CP - Alliancing and Collaborative Contracting Example Questions
Test your knowledge of Alliancing and Collaborative Contracting
Question 1
A project alliance uses a three-limb compensation model. Limb 1 reimburses actual direct project costs at cost. Limb 2 is a fee covering corporate overhead and normal profit. Limb 3 shares gain or pain against the target outturn cost. During the agreed open-book audit, the alliance manager finds that the contractor's Limb 1 invoices add a 6% head-office overhead loading to its site labour costs. Which approach BEST addresses this finding?
Question 2
A pure project alliance reimburses actual costs under Limb 1. It pays each participant's corporate overhead and profit as a fixed Limb 2 fee. The contractor participant proposes to award a large piling package to its own subsidiary at the subsidiary's standard rates, and those rates include margin. The owner's representative on the Alliance Leadership Team asks how the alliance should handle the proposal. Which approach BEST fits the alliance arrangement?
Question 3
In a pure project alliance, the alliance leadership team (ALT) appoints key personnel and may require their replacement. Claims between participants are waived except for wilful default. Three months into delivery, the contractor's construction manager keeps blaming design staff in meetings and holds back look-ahead schedules. Coaching by the alliance manager has not changed this behaviour. Which response BEST fits the alliance arrangement?
Unlock Premium Access
PMI Construction Professional (PMI-CP)
- Access to ALL Certifications: Study for any certification on our platform with one subscription
- 2667 Superior-grade PMI Construction Professional (PMI-CP) practice questions
- Unlimited practice tests across all certifications
- Detailed explanations for every question
- PMI-CP: 5 full exams plus all other certification exams
- 30-Day Money-Back Guarantee: Full refund within 30 days if unsatisfied
- Risk-Free: 7-day free trial with all premium features!
More Alliancing and Collaborative Contracting questions
15 questions (total)
Other Contract Lifecycle and Delivery Methods concepts
Advising Leadership on Delivery Method SelectionClauses on Changes, Delays and Extensions of TimeCommunication Gaps from Contractual ArrangementsConstruction Management at Risk and Agency CMContract Administration During ExecutionContract Award and MobilizationContract Close-Out and Final AccountDesign-Bid-Build DeliveryDesign-Build and EPC DeliveryGuaranteed Maximum Price and Target CostKey Contract Clauses: Scope, Time and PaymentLean Integrated Project DeliveryLiquidated Damages, Indemnity and Liability ClausesLump Sum, Unit Price and Cost-Reimbursable PricingMulti-Party Agreements and Shared Risk and RewardProcurement and Tendering StrategyPublic-Private Partnerships and ConcessionsRisk Apportionment Across Delivery MethodsRoles and Responsibilities by Contract StructureStandard Forms of Construction ContractSubcontracting and Supply Chain ContractsSupporting Leadership Through the Contract LifecycleTermination, Suspension and Force MajeureThe Contract Lifecycle from Discovery to Close-OutThe Integrated Form of Agreement (IFOA)