Several years ago, I wrote about the case for a more progressive approach to procurement in public-private partnerships.

For those outside the infrastructure and P3 world, procurement is simply the process public institutions use to select a development partner and establish how a project moves from concept to delivery. For many years, the most common model required teams to submit highly detailed proposals with firm pricing very early in the process.

The progressive model approaches that differently. Instead of asking teams to lock in price and delivery assumptions before the project has been fully defined, it allows the owner and development team to work together earlier to refine scope, understand risks, and develop the project before final commitments are made.

When I first wrote about this approach, it still felt like something the industry needed to be persuaded to consider. Many public owners were relying on procurement structures that required an enormous amount of effort from both the authority and the bidding teams before enough alignment had actually occurred. Teams were often being asked to price uncertainty rather than work through it.

Even then, it seemed likely the industry would gradually move in a different direction.

Today that shift is easier to see. Progressive procurement is no longer unusual in many parts of the market. It is not universal, and different owners still approach procurement in different ways, but the conversation has clearly evolved over the past decade.

Public institutions are paying much closer attention to how procurement is structured and how those early decisions shape the rest of the project.

Why the Shift Happened

The traditional committed-bid model developed in an environment where public owners were seeking as much certainty as possible as early as possible in the process.

On the surface, that approach made sense. A fixed price and defined delivery structure appear to provide clarity and reduce risk for the authority.

In practice, it often meant asking teams to commit to cost, schedule, and delivery assumptions before enough collaboration had taken place to fully understand the scope of the project. Design was still evolving, risks were still being identified, and key priorities were sometimes still being clarified. In that environment, teams were often forced to price uncertainty rather than work through it.

Sometimes the process still produced good outcomes. But as projects became more complex, the limitations of that structure became harder to ignore.

Owners began to recognize that pushing for precision too early could create challenges later in the project. If scope was still evolving or key inputs were unsettled, locking in assumptions at the procurement stage did not eliminate uncertainty. It simply moved it forward into later phases of the project.

That realization is one of the reasons progressive procurement models began to gain traction.

These structures allow the owner and development team to spend more time working through scope, risks, and priorities before final pricing and delivery commitments are established. Instead of requiring certainty before the project is fully understood, the process allows the team to develop that understanding together.

For many owners, that has proven to be a more practical way to approach increasingly complex projects.

What Progressive Procurement Improves

At its best, a progressive procurement structure improves a few important aspects of the process.

Alignment

Many projects run into difficulty because the owner, developer, designers, and advisors are not fully aligned on what the project is ultimately trying to accomplish. A progressive process creates more opportunity to work through those questions before major commitments are made. It gives the team time to refine scope, understand priorities, and make sure the project is heading in the right direction before assumptions become locked in.

Transparency

When the team is working through design, pricing, and risk allocation together, the owner gains a clearer understanding of how costs are developing and what tradeoffs are being considered. Difficult decisions still need to be made, but the reasoning behind those decisions is easier to see.

Long-Term Outcomes

Procurement should not be treated as a procedural step that simply needs to be completed before the real work begins. The structure of the procurement process shapes how the team forms, how decisions are made, and how risks are addressed. When those elements are handled well early in the project, the work that follows tends to move more smoothly.

That is ultimately the objective. A procurement process should help establish the conditions for a project that can perform well over the long term.

Where the Industry Still Gets Stuck

Even with the progress the industry has made, some familiar challenges remain. One of the most common is that institutions will often go to market before they have fully clarified what they want the project to achieve. Procurement is occasionally used as a way to define the project rather than execute a clearly defined vision.

That approach can create problems regardless of the procurement model being used. A progressive structure can create more room for collaboration, but it still works best when the owner has already established clear goals, priorities, and decision criteria. Without that foundation, the process can become difficult to manage as expectations shift and new questions emerge.

In our experience, the projects that move most smoothly are the ones where that early work has been done before procurement begins. When owners spend time up front defining what success looks like and exploring what is realistically achievable, the procurement process tends to be much more productive.

That early stage is also where an experienced development partner can often add the most value. Working through scope, feasibility, delivery strategy, and potential risks at the beginning of the process usually leads to better decisions and a more efficient path forward.

Another issue is that some teams have adopted the language of progressive procurement without fully embracing the discipline that makes the approach effective.

A progressive model is not simply a more flexible process. It still requires structure, accountability, and clear leadership. In some respects it requires even more discipline, because the added flexibility must be used deliberately.

When the process creates room for collaboration, that time should be used to resolve key questions, involve the right stakeholders, and establish a shared understanding of the project. Without that focus, the process can become less structured without actually improving the outcome.

What We’ve Learned in Practice

The Howard County Circuit Courthouse provides a useful example.

The project was procured through a traditional committed-bid process and represented the largest infrastructure project in the county’s history. Nine teams competed at the qualifications stage, and three were ultimately shortlisted. The proposal effort was substantial, and the county provided significant stipends to the unsuccessful teams simply to recognize the scale of work required to participate.

It was a demanding procurement in every respect.

The project ultimately delivered on time and on budget, actually one day early, despite the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. We are proud of that outcome. At the same time, the experience reinforced how demanding that type of procurement structure can be for everyone involved.

A committed-bid process at that scale requires an unusually high level of clarity and discipline from the beginning. The owner needs a very well defined project, and the bidding teams must make major assumptions early in the process.

In many ways, that project felt like the end of a particular era in procurement.

Today, many public owners recognize that there are often more effective ways to approach highly complex civic and infrastructure projects than requiring full pricing certainty before enough collaboration has taken place. That does not mean committed-bid models cannot work. But they are less frequently the right fit for the kinds of projects many institutions are pursuing today.

The shift reflects a more practical understanding of how complex projects actually come together.

Why This Matters Even More Now

The importance of procurement strategy is only increasing. The civic and infrastructure pipeline ahead is becoming more complex. Asset types are evolving, public needs are shifting, population growth is putting pressure on aging systems, and technology is changing how many facilities operate. Public leaders are being asked to solve larger problems in more visible environments, often with tighter financial and political constraints.

In that environment, procurement structures designed primarily to create the appearance of certainty at the earliest possible moment are becoming harder to justify.

A more useful question is how the procurement approach positions the project for success.

If the process makes it difficult for the owner and team to align around goals, adapt as the project develops, involve the right expertise, and make informed decisions as new information emerges, then the structure may be protecting the wrong priorities.

Where We Go From Here

The industry has made meaningful progress over the past decade. Public owners are approaching procurement more thoughtfully than they once did. Many institutions now recognize the difference between creating competition and creating long term value, and there is a growing understanding that early collaboration can strengthen a project rather than weaken the process.

At the same time, the work is not finished.

Procurement structures still need to evolve alongside the complexity of the projects being delivered. Owners benefit from spending more time defining their objectives before going to market, and project teams need to approach procurement with discipline, transparency, and a focus on building successful projects rather than simply winning pursuits.

The conversation around progressive procurement was never really about choosing one model over another as a matter of philosophy. It was about acknowledging that the structure of procurement influences how projects develop, how teams collaborate, and how decisions are made throughout delivery.

As civic and infrastructure projects continue to grow in complexity, that early stage of the process will only become more important. The way projects are procured will need to keep evolving alongside the projects themselves.