Comparative procurement methodology analysis in Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A comparative review of procurement methods was undertaken for the purpose of objectively<br/>determining the relative strengths and weaknesses of the principal methods for the state procurement<br/>of economic and social infrastructures. The study concerned procurement alternatives commonly used<br/>with large or complex projects and available to government, including:<br/><br/>o In-house provision using a state agency or works department<br/>o Traditional procurement<br/>o Outsourcing<br/>o Build own operate and related forms of asset procurement<br/>o Alliance contracting<br/>o Public private partnerships.<br/><br/>Around 90% of state procurement in the late 1980s was traditional which employs a comprehensive<br/>input specification, a lowest price tender selection process, separation of the design and construction<br/>components of the project and an adversarial approach to contractual relationships. The main<br/>measurement methods were delivery on time and within budget.<br/><br/>As traditional procurement is mainly concerned only with the delivery of assets, most performance<br/>measures concern the timeliness and cost of delivery and these are mainly applied at commissioning.<br/>Tender evaluation criteria may take into account the qualitative aspects of bids such as the bidder's<br/>credit strength, expertise and track record. However, these values are generally subordinated to price<br/>and few traditionally procured projects are evaluated again during their service life.<br/><br/>The development of a comparative procurement methodology involved a comparison of quantitative<br/>and qualitative outcomes. The evidence was sourced from the procurement outcomes of 124<br/>economic and social infrastructure projects commissioned by governments or state agencies in<br/>Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.<br/>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".