Authors: Trevor Byrne; John P.T. Mo
Addresses: BAE Systems Australia, Taranaki Road, Edinburgh Parks, South Australia, Australia ' School of Aerospace, Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, RMIT University, P.O. Box 71, Bundoora, Melbourne, Vic 3083, Australia
Abstract: A recent trend around the world among the owners of complex engineering systems such as aircraft or oil refinery is to include consideration for the sustainment of the system. The goal is to attain desired capability levels that can be measured as a performance outcome of systems in-service. There are two parts in the contractual framework: system acquisition and sustainment (in-service support). The sustainment agreement imposes significant risks because the revenue is now tied with the actual system performance which can be out of the control of the service provider. There are a lot of uncertainties in the performance-based contracting environment and questions have to be asked by both sides of the contract. The manufacturers should ask whether it is beneficial for them to take on the risks to be committed. The asset owner should ask whether the contractor has given sufficient evidence that they can meet the stringent performance-based contracting environment. This paper attempts to answer these questions by exploring from experience and people involved in performance-based contracts the concept and value for money to the contracting parties.
Keywords: performance-based contracting; PBC; sustainment; product life cycle; value for money; complex engineering systems; performance-based contracts.
International Journal of Agile Systems and Management, 2015 Vol.8 No.3/4, pp.305 - 331
Received: 18 Nov 2014
Accepted: 28 May 2015
Published online: 11 Dec 2015 *