Water collaborative delivery considerations

Shifting to collaborative delivery isn’t simply adopting a new contract, it requires organizational change, mindset shifts, and new ways of working. Implementing models like CMAR demands alignment across internal groups (legal, procurement, technical teams, councils) and an openness to rethink long established processes.

Participants reinforced that “change requires change” and success depends on teams embracing new behaviors, decision-making structures, and expectations.

For many municipalities and utilities, collaborative delivery models are still new territory. A strong theme from owner discussions was the need for expert advisory support, particularly during procurement development, preconstruction collaboration, pricing, decision-making processes, and risk structuring. 
Owners expressed concern about bringing their internal stakeholders along on the journey and ensuring everyone understands the model’s benefits and trade-offs before implementation, which in many instances benefit from professional external facilitation.

Contractors underscored the value of open dialogue around cost, price, and risk allocation. Collaborative delivery creates space for these conversations, enabling teams to reduce uncertainty and structure projects in ways that increase value for all parties. 

This transparency is also seen as a tool for attracting more builders to large water projects, especially in markets where available contractors can choose lower-risk opportunities. Simultaneously, many voiced that past traditional Design Bid Build projects that succeeded to deliver projected outcomes did so because of the collaborative ‘spirit’ developed and practiced amongst the partners. Therefore, to meet the never-before-seen aspirational infrastructure delivery targets ahead of us, the adoption of new contract mechanisms should not impede institutional knowledge and trust engendered through successful delivery of water infrastructure over decades by established industry partners. Transparent, honest discussion on roadblocks and opportunities for improvements, combined with flexibility and compromise for the greater good are crucial.

There was strong engagement and discussions around financial structures, such as guaranteed maximum price development, open- vs closed-book approaches, contingency handling, shared savings, and fee structures. 

Participants valued clear definitions and side-by-side comparisons, which helped demystify how different pricing strategies impact project risk, cost control, and transparency.

Many attendees expressed optimism about a growing “nucleus” of people across owners, consultants, contractors, and suppliers who want to improve how water projects are delivered.

At the same time, attendees highlighted opportunities to continue strengthening the tools available and ensuring global best practices (including Alliance contracting) are shared. Several organizations have carried out follow-on meetings with their peers to reflect on the themes discussed and are embracing recommended approaches. The general consensus of the participants is that they appreciated the opportunity to make a positive and tangible impact on how we deliver projects better for the communities we serve.

Attendees reinforced a sector-wide recognition that collaborative delivery is no longer emerging, it’s accelerating. Owners want clarity and support, contractors welcome transparent risk conversations, and all parties see the need to evolve how they work together.

The biggest message: Collaboration isn’t just a contract, it’s a culture shift. Organizations willing to embrace that shift are already seeing the benefits in project efficiency, cost control, and team satisfaction.