The Netherlands is facing a major infrastructure challenge. Many bridges, tunnels, dykes and roads are reaching the end of their life cycle and are in urgent need of replacement or renovation. At the same time, budgets are under pressure, maintenance has been deferred, contractor capacity is limited and projects are becoming more complex. These developments put pressure on traditional procurement models, especially when contractors must submit a fixed price while important risks and uncertainties are not yet fully known.

The two-stage approach has been introduced as a possible response. In this approach, the contractor is involved earlier in the project. During phase 1, the client and contractor jointly develop the design, identify and manage risks, prepare the planning and work towards a more reliable cost estimate. The final price is agreed only at the end of phase 1, when the project is better understood. After a positive go/no-go decision, the project enters phase 2, the execution phase. The approach aims to improve predictability, risk management and collaboration. However, it also weakens the client’s position, because the contractor gains more influence over the design, risks, planning and price formation.

This research examines how clients can structure a two-stage approach during the preparation and design phase in order to achieve the project goals: delivering the required scope within the agreed time and budget. The research is conducted from the client’s perspective and combines literature research, desk research and case study analysis. Three Dutch infrastructure projects were analysed: A27 Houten–Hooipolder North, A27 Houten–Hooipolder South and the Neder-Betuwe dyke reinforcement project.

The theoretical foundation is based on principal-agent theory and stewardship theory. The two-stage approach contains elements of both: it depends on trust, openness and collaboration, but also creates situations in which interests may diverge, especially when price, risk allocation and the go/no-go decision are discussed.

The main finding is that the two-stage approach can create value, but also introduces new control risks for the client. Early contractor involvement can improve the design, make risks visible earlier and support more realistic pricing. However, the client may lose control over time, budget and scope due to information asymmetry and the lock-in effect. As the contractor gains more project-specific knowledge during phase 1, switching to another contractor becomes increasingly difficult.

The case studies show that collaboration alone is not sufficient. Measures such as open-book arrangements, shared risk registers, baselines, external reviews and go/no-go moments only support client control when combined with clear agreements, sufficient client-side expertise, transparent information, genuine exit strategies and real decision-making power.

In conclusion, the two-stage approach is not a universal solution and should therefore be applied only selectively. It can improve risk management, pricing and execution, but only when the client is able to organise and fulfil its own role effectively. Ultimately, delivering the required scope within the agreed time and budget requires both collaboration and control.
... Read more