A Qualitative Analysis of Administrative Transparency Requirements in Government Construction Contracts with Emphasis on the Jurisprudence of the Administrative Court of Justice and Data-Driven Governance
Keywords:
Administrative Transparency, Government Construction Contracts, Administrative Court of Justice, Public Procurement, Data, Driven Governance, Administrative Law, AccountabilityAbstract
This article examines the requirements of administrative transparency in government construction contracts by integrating administrative law, public procurement theory, judicial review, accountability, and data-driven governance. Government construction contracts are among the most sensitive areas of public administration because they involve extensive public expenditure, technical complexity, administrative discretion, long-term execution, and high risks of opacity, inefficiency, and corruption. The study adopts a qualitative analytical approach to explain how transparency should operate across the contractual lifecycle, including project justification, procurement, contractor selection, contract formation, execution monitoring, modification, payment, dispute management, and post-completion evaluation. The findings indicate that administrative transparency is not limited to disclosure of information; rather, it includes legal clarity, procedural fairness, reasoned decision-making, financial traceability, evidentiary preservation, data usability, and accountability mechanisms. The jurisprudence of the Administrative Court of Justice is significant because it can transform transparency from an administrative recommendation into a legally enforceable obligation by requiring public authorities to justify decisions, preserve records, respect procedural equality, and limit arbitrary discretion. The article further argues that data-driven governance can strengthen transparency through digital procurement platforms, integrated contract databases, real-time monitoring, open data systems, audit trails, and predictive risk analysis. However, digitalization must remain subject to legality, explainability, human oversight, data quality, cybersecurity, and judicial review. The article concludes that an effective transparency framework for government construction contracts requires the integration of legal standards, institutional accountability, digital infrastructure, and public oversight. Such a framework can reduce corruption risks, improve project performance, strengthen contractor confidence, support judicial supervision, and enhance public trust in the administration of public construction projects.
Downloads
References
1. Arrowsmith S. The Law of Public and Utilities Procurement: Regulation in the EU and UK. London: Sweet & Maxwell; 2014.
2. Flyvbjerg B. What You Should Know About Megaprojects and Why. Project Management Journal. 2014;45(2):6-19.
3. Flyvbjerg B, Holm MS, Buhl S. Underestimating Costs in Public Works Projects: Error or Lie? Journal of the American Planning Association. 2002;68(3):279-95.
4. Craig P. Administrative Law. London: Sweet & Maxwell; 2021.
5. Cane P. Administrative Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011.
6. Bovens M, Goodin RE, Schillemans T. The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014.
7. Rose-Ackerman S, Palifka BJ. Corruption and Government: Causes, Consequences, and Reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2016.
8. Schuck PH. Why Government Fails So Often: And How It Can Do Better. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2018.
9. Harlow C, Rawlings R. Law and Administration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009.
10. Mashaw JL. Reasoned Administration and Democratic Legitimacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2018.
11. Hood C, Heald D. Transparency: The Key to Better Governance? Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.
12. Meijer A. Understanding the Complex Dynamics of Transparency. Public Administration Review. 2013;73(3):429-39.
13. Grimmelikhuijsen S. Linking Transparency, Knowledge and Citizen Trust in Government. International Review of Administrative Sciences. 2012;78(1):50-73.
14. Mergel I, Edelmann N, Haug N. Defining Digital Transformation: Results from Expert Interviews. Government Information Quarterly. 2019;36(4).
15. Criado JI, Gil-Garcia JR. Creating Public Value Through Smart Technologies and Strategies. International Journal of Public Sector Management. 2019;32(5):438-50.
16. Janssen M, Kuk G. The Challenges and Limits of Big Data Algorithms in Technocratic Governance. Government Information Quarterly. 2016;33(3):371-7.
17. Wirtz BW, Weyerer JC, Geyer C. Artificial Intelligence and the Public Sector: Applications and Challenges. International Journal of Public Administration. 2019;42(7):596-615.
18. Thai KV. International Handbook of Public Procurement. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2009.
19. De Fine Licht J. Policy Area as a Potential Moderator of Transparency Effects. Public Administration Review. 2014;74(3):361-71.
20. Janssen M, Charalabidis Y, Zuiderwijk A. Benefits, Adoption Barriers and Myths of Open Data and Open Government. Information Systems Management. 2012;29(4):258-68.
21. Zuiderwijk A, Janssen M. Open Data Policies, Their Implementation and Impact. Government Information Quarterly. 2014;31(1):17-29.
22. Kitchin R. The Real-Time City? Big Data and Smart Urbanism. GeoJournal. 2014;79:1-14.
23. Bertot JC, Jaeger PT, Grimes JM. Using ICTs to Create a Culture of Transparency: E-government and Social Media as Openness and Anti-corruption Tools for Societies. Government Information Quarterly. 2010;27(3):264-71.
24. Oecd. Government at a Glance 2017. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2017.
Downloads
Published
Submitted
Revised
Accepted
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Mohammad Reza Jalali

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.