FOUR IMPORTANT COMMON POINTS

The two case studies, even though they present different features - such as the differences in the procurement regulations of Denmark and France, and the different size of the two infrastructures - are marked by several analogies that it seems important to underline. The most relevant common points between the two cases appear to be the following ones. First, in both cases, the winning bid is characterised by an appropriate variation of the basic design, which was not considered a constraint the firms were forced to accept, but as an opportunity, a point of departure for their strategy. In particular, in the East bridge of the Storebælt, CMF introduced a new element that permitted the widening the span lengths; in the Grand Canal Maritime in Le Havre, again, the steelwork fabricator introduced an innovative element - the steel "V" pier - that became crucial in the whole design, bettering the performance of the infrastructure and allowing an overall cost reduction. Second, the two companies did not act just as a production firm, but as service companies as well; they did not limit themselves to the role of executor, but they focused on a strategy combining co-design activity with traditional industrial skills in manufacturing. If we consider their activity we cannot say they are just industrial producers. Both companies acted as industrial producers and as service providers. In other words, they acted at the same time as subcontractors and as consultants. The genesis of value relies heavily on the service activity: in fact, since the two companies showed they were able to propose an innovating, cost-reducing and quality increasing modification to the basic project they could become a subcontractor. The two firms play their strategies on two levels: a traditional one, linked to the industrial activity, that refers to the traditional role of the supplier subcontractor; and on a second one, in which the two companies play a consultant role: and it must be underlined that since they play this second role, they are allowed to play the first one. A third point that must be stressed: Cimolai and CMF played an independent role and they were not subordinate to a general contractor. The two companies submitted their bid as part of a consortium, in which they played the role of an independent partner. The analysis must then take into account that this independent role means that both companies do not necessarily need an interface between them and the client. And that breaks significantly with the traditional scheme general contractor/subcontractors, still largely dominant in the two firms domestic market, in which the latter never relate directly to the client. The last common point in the two case studies is represented by the procurement strategy of the public administrations, that have preferred to issue a tender with an "open design": that is to say that in both cases, for the tendering companies it was possible to associate to the traditional economic bid an alternative solution to the basic design. This element must be taken into account: the client did not limit itself to a specific demand for a certain good; instead, assuming a certain level of performance, the client set up a procurement strategy in which it admitted a modification of the basic project.