Simon, L; Jefferies, M; Davis, P and Newaz, M T (2020) Developing a theoretical success factor framework for the tendering phase of social infrastructure PPPs. International Journal of Construction Management, 20(6), pp. 613-627. ISSN 1562-3599
Abstract
Australia’s population is expected to grow from 24.6 million to 36.4 million inhabitants from 2017 to 2047. This is a challenge for providers of social infrastructure and requires an increase in the funding sources of both the public and private sectors. Simplifying private sector investment in Australia’s infrastructure networks is essential. Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) allow the private sector to provide public infrastructure and any related services as well as opportunities for private investment or financing. The tendering phase of PPP projects is complex, long in duration and expensive and can have a negative impact on competition and Value for Money (VfM). This research summarizes a comprehensive literature review, including 67 references dated from 2003 to 2019, in order to identify, understand and classify the factors influencing the tendering process of social infrastructure PPPs. A theoretical success framework perceived through the lens of 'organization, process and people' is developed and focuses on the tendering phase. In each area, some factors have been identified that will enhance the possibility of a successful project tendering phase. The framework aims at decreasing complexity, length and cost of this key phase of the PPP life cycle and subsequently increase the overall project VfM.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Australia; public-private partnerships; social infrastructure; success framework; tendering |
| Index terms: | complexity, value-for-money, financing, population, competition, literature review, success factor, duration, public private partnership, private investment, funding, partnership, private sector, life cycle, Australia, tendering process, public infrastructure |
| Subjects: | project controls, market analysis, partnership management, demography, systems engineering, industry analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, tendering, evaluation, Geography, health monitoring assessment and metrics, economic analysis, data analysis and analytics, contractual arrangements, value management |
| Topics: | Time Control, Value Management, Urban Studies, Procurement, Stakeholder Management, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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