From:  TBD by writer

To: John Smith, Secretary of Labor

Subject: Outcomes of Partnership in a Contract




Indianapolis city and Atlanta had a common water challenge. They formed a partnership to sign a contact with multi-national for-profit corporation so that the corporation could provide access to treated water to these cities. Indianapolis was a stable area in terms of the economy and as a result, it was able to finance the capital, and resources required to facilitate effective production and supply of treated water compared to Atlanta. However, they had signed a partnership agreement on terms of contribution to the project, but Atlanta was unable to offer what its requirements due to poor planning and water privatization. The savings made by Atlanta towards the project were relatively low, and it was unable to renew the contract which expired after five years leading to its withdrawal from the contract.




The two companies had a common goal of ensuring there was no water shortage in their cities by ensuring there was no water wastage. To achieve this, the cities formed a partnership to incorporate a multi-national for-profit corporation that aided in treatment of water. This ensured that waste water in the cities was recycled and used by the associates of the two cities. Since they had universal interest, the mayors of the two cities shared the responsibilities equally to accomplish the mission they had. The contracting corporation offered services according to the contributions of the two cities regardless of their partnership state. However, the city of Atlanta did not have adequate customer service, and this might have been the cause of its withdrawal as a result of unexpected outcomes from the contract.

The project of water treatment in these cities had competitive management. To achieve the mutual goal of these cities, they involved qualified personnel and individuals who had adequate knowledge and skills pertaining water conservation and management. Staffing involves manning of the structure of association through appropriate and effective collection and development of the workforce to efficiently accomplish their roles. The staffing of the Indianapolis city was well organized with all employees acting their part as expected by the managers. The roles of the manager in this city, the mayor, was participating in developing solicitation, and monitoring the progress of the project. He also ensured that the state property used in contract performance was well maintained. He kept the contract records, assigned responsibilities to employees and monitored their activities.

The manpower in this city was high rated with that of Atlanta city.

There was poor management in Atlanta city and their contribution towards the project was low. It had management did not play it roles like planning and supervising of the activities running in the project effectively.

To be able to engage in the contract that they signed with the contacting corporation, the two cities had to come to a consensus on their contributions. Indianapolis, under Mayor Stephan, contributed capital guaranteed to it to finance the contract. Atlanta agreed to raise the resources and some capital needed in making the project a success. This affected the contracting partnership since Atlanta was unable to continuously raise the required resources, and capital required to renew the contract and this led to unexpected negative outcomes that consequently facilitated to its withdrawal from the contract.

The stakeholders in the contract worked for personal interest instead of managing the project to achieve a mutual goal that would benefit the two cities equally. They had divided minds, and this contributed to the withdrawal of the Atlanta from the contract since the outcomes did not meet the expectation of the members involved. For best performance, it required that the stakeholders work in harmony and unity in managing the project. They should have same objectives when planning and making decisions for the contract.

The two cities had signed the partnership agreement forms that had regulations and rules governing the partnership. Since the cities had held a contract with the multi-national corporation for water treatment, the principles governing the cities prevented any of them from withdrawing from the contract. The documents filled gave guidelines of the expected contributions of each city and outlined the output benefits that these cities could accrue from the contract. However, there were customer complains due to the inadequacy of customer services as a result of unavailability of the required input from the Atlanta city, the city had to pull out of the contract.

The two cities had municipalities had subjected themselves to high risk of signing the contract with the multi-national for-profit corporation since the initial capital required for services to be rendered was relatively high. For example in Indianapolis city, the mayor Stephan goldsmith exerted a lot of pressure for implementation of that project. It was through his knowledge and skills on activity-based cost and assets management that he was able to join the partnership with Atlanta. There was uncertainty of the outcome since it was the first trial to these cities to engage in such contracts. After some years, one of the cities had to step down due to low outcomes.  The city had taken the risk with unpredictable benefits and this led to great loss to the municipality.

However, risks must be undertaken for prosperity in any project.

The managers, mayors, of the two cities did not work with trust and confidentiality in running the project. This contributed to poor planning, supervising and setting of unrealistic objectives that consequently led to poor performance to one of the cities. There was poor customer relation and services offered to them were of low quality since these was no consistent flow of water to the two cities. It was the responsibility of the two mayors to ensure that the employees worked in unity to achieve the mutual goal of the partnership and the contractor.




Blank, R. (2004). The Responsible Contract Manager. When Contracting Really Doesn’t Work: Atlanta’s Water Contract. Pages 187-200.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s