Alliance Agreement Australia

Section 2.1 of the AAA AAP specifies in the same way that participants are required to avoid litigation in order to complete the project and must be aware as soon as possible of disputes or disagreements when they arise and if they cannot be resolved by Alliance`s management team in order to increase it in order to resolve it at ALAT. ALAT has the power to resolve the dispute and its decision is final and binding. The ALAT can determine what steps it deems necessary to reach a unanimous resolution of the disagreement, including the launch of the support of a mediator or advisor. The terms “project owner” and “owner participant” are used throughout the AAP to refer to the role in which this entity operates. It is important that the owner of the project, when acting as a “client for the performance of the works,” is not subject to the obligations of the Alliance Charter, the objectives of the alliance or the obligation of faithful faith (hereafter collectively referred to as “alliance commitments”). This means that the project owner can act in his or her own interests – which may not be in the Alliance`s interests – if the AAP allows it. Historically, most project alliance agreements (AAP) were bespoke instruments or, at least (in later years), based on documents that were initially custom instruments. In his 2007 article [3] Ian Briggs talked about the possibility of an Australian PAA standard and that a number of government agencies would standardize their own AAP. Article 5 of the NAAA provides that participants declare that they are prepared to do their best to avoid problems between them and to agree, if there is a problem, to try to resolve issues in good faith within the Alliance in a manner consistent with the principles of the alliance (the last place to resolve disputes being ALAT). It is alleged that a mechanism for resolving the blockages agreed in advance is important to allow the resolution of disputes at the ALAT level that cannot be resolved by mutual agreement. A preferred mechanism for resolving disputes in the context of an ALAT impasse is the so-called swing man process, in which an expert is appointed and each member of the alliance explains in writing how the dispute should be resolved. The expert must then decide, taking into account the principles of the alliance, which of the submissions he prefers. The expert should not impose his own separate solution.

The reason for the so-called “Swing Man” is that each party is prevented from proposing an extreme decision, lest the expert prefer the other submission. It is also recognized that the presence of an independent third party will facilitate the resolution of the impasse in which all parties can live, the least of which will minimize the lingering damage to Alliance relations. So, after years of choosing between different forms of custom AAP, project owners now have the choice between two standard AAPs for use in alliance projects. How do the two new standard form AAPs compare? What are their main characteristics and differences, and which of the two (if) should be preferred as the starting point for an AAP? It is still too early to assess the degree of use of one of the two AAPs and their relative (or otherwise) level of success in the implementation of projects under the alliance model. This is particularly the case with the current slowdown in construction activity. Despite this, the standardization of AAP is a positive step towards further growth in the use of project alliances as a model for project implementation in Australia.