Nyagormey, J J; Baiden, B K; Nani, G and Adinyira, E (2020) Review on criteria for evaluating unsolicited public-private partnership PPP proposals from 2004 to 2018. International Journal of Construction Management, 22(12), pp. 2243-2257. ISSN 1562-3599
Abstract
Unsolicited projects (USPs) in public–private partnership (PPP) projects need careful assessment and evaluation prior to implementation. Although interests in reviewing general trends in managing Unsolicited projects of PPP is drawing attentions, there is a lack of a systematic review of PPP literature on critical criteria for evaluating USPs worldwide. This paper aims to address this gap by methodically conducting an in-depth review through a three-stage systematic process. A systematic desktop search was conducted, followed by the selection of related papers on USPs. A list of 27 criteria for evaluating USPs was identified from 46 selected papers drawn from some selected top tier academic journals from 2004 to 2018 (years inclusive). The finding shows an increase in criteria since 2005 for USPs evaluation. Most identified criteria within the time frame of 2004 to 2018 are outstanding innovative proposal, optimal value for money, appropriate risk allocation mechanism, financial capabilities of proponent, Professional and technical capabilities of proposers, accountability and transparency, intellectual property conditions and competitive bidding procurement among others. This provides an overview of evaluation criteria for USPs. The checklist of criteria for evaluating USPs could be adopted for further empirical studies.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | evaluation criteria; public private partnership; solicited proposals; unsolicited proposals |
| Index terms: | public private partnership, transparency, partnership, drawing, systematic literature review, journal, value-for-money, proposal, accountability, competitive bidding, risk allocation, intellectual property, empirical study, implementation |
| Subjects: | liability law, contractual arrangements, research dissemination and communication, research evaluation and metrics, bidding, technical documentation, partnership management, evaluation, professional development, intellectual property, financial risk, research methods, project planning |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Design Practice, Value Management, Procurement, Information Management, Project Management, Research Practice, Cost Management, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here