PhD Final Thesis April 2013.pdf - Anglia Ruskin Research Online

Thesis Keith Gale 2013supplier). A close and longer term relationship between participants is considered tonegate any increase in tender prices due to reduced competition.H4: There is no significant difference between engagement transaction costs offramework agreements and traditional tendering methods.H5: There is no significant difference between performance monitoringtransaction costs of framework agreements and traditional tendering methodsBoth hypotheses are considered together as each arises from similar contextualpositions. Although Hillebrandt and Hughes (2000) concluded that ‘there is verylittle information either on the costs of different methods of procurement or thebenefits derived from them,’ other studies into performance monitoring either feltthat such costs were marginal or difficult to quantify as a separate entity. TheGovernment Construction Strategy (Cabinet Office, 2011) recognised both effectiveand ineffective arrangements and Hypotheses H4 and H5 therefore took a neutralstance. Results of hypothesis H5 followed the proposition suggested by the limitedpublished literature but H4 indicates that engagement transaction costs with the casestudy framework arrangements are more effective than with discrete projects. Theuse of standardisation procedures and documentation arising through application offramework control systems is an area stated by participants in the qualitativeinterviews (see Chapter 10, paragraph 10.8.2 regarding mechanisms), for causationof such efficiencies.193