Currently there are a lot of contract types available for building projects. It is not always clear beforehand what type of contract a client should choose for his project. The goal of this study is to solve this problem by advising clients which type of contract to use for moveable bridge projects. Therefore, the following research question will be answered: How does the model look like that predicts which type of contract is best for a moveable bridge project? In order to answer this question, literature is studied and interviews are conducted to show which parameters and characteristics are of influence for this contract decision. This information is used to set up an initial model which advises what type of contract to use. This initial model is verified with the use of case projects in order to get the final model. Due to the wide range of building projects, this master thesis is focused on moveable bridges in the Netherlands only. Moveable bridges are multidisciplinary projects which makes the decision for a specific type of contract ambiguous. Making it the a perfect type of project to test the model. The literature and interviews highlighted eleven criteria that are of influence for the types of contracts incorporated in the model. The contract types that are included in this model are: RAW-bestek, Design & Build, Design, Build & Maintain and Turnkey. The decision to incorporate these four contract types is based on the fact to include traditional and integrated contracts. RAW-bestek is the traditional contract type that is common to use for moveable bridges in the Netherlands. The choice for an integrated contract form for moveable bridges is bigger. Therefore, integrated contracts with different ranges of integration are included. Starting with Design & Build as a conventional integrated contract form followed by Design, Build & Maintain as a more integrated contract form and Turnkey as totally integrated contract form. This initial model is verified with the use of four moveable bridge cases. For three of the case projects the model advised well. These projects went according plan and the advice from the model matched the contract that was actually used or the model highlighted the main headings for which the different incorporated contracts match the actually used contract. For example, case A used the contract type Engineer & Construct, this type of contract is not included in the model. The initial model showed exactly on which statements the Design, Build & Maintain contract and the RAW-bestek scored well for this case project. The statements on which they scored well are exactly the items for which an Engineer & Construct type of contract would be suited. If Engineer & Construct as a contract type would have been incorporated in the model, it would most likely be advised by the model. The verification of case B was not a match between the used type of contract and the advice from the initial model. The project did not went according to plan, but the advised type of contract would probably not have improved the situation. Several improvements are suggested based on comparison between this case and the other case projects. It is concluded that the model is functioning, based on the cases. However, it is recommended to extend the model with more types of contracts, such as the contract type Design & Construct, Engineer & Construct and Bouwteam. The second recommendation comes from the ambiguity concerning the benchmark score for the criterion complexity. The positive correlation between complexity and flexibility was stated in literature, meaning that when the complexity of the project increases the need for more flexibility also increases. However, other literature contradicted this; it was unclear which viewpoint should be preferred. Therefore, the decision was made to adopt the positive correlation for the initial model. After verifying this initial model, the benchmark scores for complexity were adjusted in order to be in line with the other literature. The advice from the initial model and the initial model adjusted for complexity were compared. However, based on this comparison no firm conclusion can be made about which viewpoint is preferred over the other concerning complexity. Therefore, it is recommended to further verify the model for the criterion of complexity. Furthermore, it is recommended to verify this model with more moveable bridges and cases for other types of projects in order to increase the validity, usability and applicability of the model.