The alliance`s management team, including representatives from Network Rail and Balfour Beatty, reaffirmed the idea of the project as a new organization by renaming it F2A – First to Alliance – with its own logo and branded pens and mugs. As recently as March 2016, the Department of Transport, De Network Rail and South West Trains announced plans to invest more than £800 million in Waterloo Station and the surrounding rail network to increase passenger capacity. The investment will provide larger platforms, new tracks and signal tracks, more and improved facilities and a fleet of new trains. This program is managed by an alliance of rail networks, entrepreneurs and planners in a so-called “pure” alliance model supported by a complex incentive model. The heart of each alliance is the integrated management team, made up of representatives of the most important actors of the project. Within the framework of a pure alliance agreement, all important decisions are taken unanimously. Before comparing the approaches of the two PAAs, it is useful to briefly examine the context of each. The publication of the National Alliance Contracting Guidelines [7] follows a 2009 research study commissioned by the coffers of Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia. [8] The results of the study may not have been well received by government coffers. One of the main findings of the study is that, on average, Allianz`s projects saw an increase of 45-55% between the estimated cost of the business case and the actual cost of profits. Perhaps in response to this finding, the National Alliance Contracting Policy Principles, the Alliance`s Contracting Guide, and the NAAG PAA appear to be strongly influenced by the desire for value for money, and these documents take some approaches that may not align with the principles of a “pure alliance.” After many years of choosing between different forms of custom AAP, project owners now have the choice between two standard-shaped PAAs to use in alliance projects.

So how do the two new standard form PAAs compare? What are their main features and differences, and which of the two (if any) should be preferred as a starting point for a PAA? While the pure alliance is not suitable for all projects, Neil believes it will be more prevalent during the fifth control period (2014-2019). He hopes that it will also be extended to Network Rail`s customers, rail and freight operators, in infrastructure projects. The increasing demands placed on the NHS in the face of austerity measures have led to a greater need for integration and efficiency. The NHS Five Year Forward View, published in 2014, called on commissioners and healthcare providers to provide integrated patient care under alliance agreements. The hope was that increased cooperation between providers and contracting entities with a common commitment (and incentive) to act for the project rather than for individual organisations would foster mutual decision-making, accountability, expertise and, ultimately, the provision of better connected care. “Alliance work has already been established between Network Rail and its customers for operational activities such as our alliance with South West Trains, but expansion to investment projects represents another opportunity for collaboration,” he says. This was in the Asia-Pacific region, particularly in the construction industry in Australia and New Zealand, where the alliance has since been refined. For example, it was reported that the total value of alliance projects in the road, rail and water sectors in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia between 2004 and 2009 was $32 billion. Recent trends suggest that the transition to the alliance in the UK has gained momentum in both the private and public sectors, particularly in the rail and healthcare sectors. The NHS standard contract has recently been updated and is mandatory for commissioners for all health services except primary care. NHS England has published a draft model alliance agreement (available on request) that commissioners can use as a starting point to develop their own alliance agreements with suppliers.

This is to be used in conjunction with a number of healthcare and social services contracts, including the standard NHS contract. It allows commissioners to enter into a contract with a single prime contractor who shares the risks and benefits between them. The prime contractor assigns certain roles and responsibilities to other suppliers (and assigns the risk). The prime contractor remains accountable to the Commissioners for the delivery of the entire service and the coordination of its “supply chain” in order to advance its final delivery. Alliance models include pure alliances and early participation of entrepreneurs (ECIs). More and more companies are also using a hybrid model that combines traditional procurement with a collaborative approach to achieve high performance in terms of selected key result areas (KPIs) that are critical to overall success. Over the past two years, several projects across the network have been established in the form of alliances. The most advanced of these is the £250 million Stafford Area Improvements Programme (SAIP).

While the two PAAs differ on key aspects – particularly with respect to the level of control granted to the project owner under the NACG PAA – project owners now have a choice between two thoughtful and well-designed forms of PAA that they can use as a starting point for their alliance projects. (a) by participants with the prior written consent of the Project Owner (unless there is a real risk of personal injury or environmental damage in violation of the law – in which case no prior written consent of the Project Owner may be required); (b) at the request of the project leader (for any reason whatsoever); or (c) in cases where the project owner declares that pure alliance projects mainly concern individual employees who work and behave in new ways and place the objectives of the project above those of their employers. Although the two standard project alliance agreements differ in the level of control of the project owner and other important aspects, both are considered and well formulated. “The basic concept of pure alliance is collective legal responsibility, which means turning away from the traditional risk transfer approach of `the employer should do this and the entrepreneur should do that` and saying, `The alliance should do that.`” What distinguishes “pure” methods from more traditional methods of alliance and other collaborative contract models is that the parties agree to share the most risks and opportunities. .