Ahadzi, M and Bowles, G (2001) The private finance initiative: The procurement process in perspective. In: Akintoye, A (ed.) Proceedings of 17th Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2001, Salford, UK.
Abstract
Since the introduction of the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) in 1992, the UK government has been attempting to procure infrastructure projects through private sector participation by way of public-private partnerships. This piece of work examines the key stages of the procurement process and looks at the extent to which the respective stages of the process up to financial close contribute to the risk burdens that confront the participants and how far the various institutional frameworks and policies have helped in minimizing these risk burdens. Based on evidence from the findings of a survey the research has demonstrated that it is at the tender evaluation and the negotiation stages that the risk burdens are exacerbated most. The conclusion drawn is that though the institutional frameworks and policies have helped to improve the process there is the need for further skills development.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | private finance initiative; procurement; risk; public private partnership |
| Index terms: | tender evaluation, negotiation, procurement process, infrastructure project, private sector participation, evidence, public private partnership, partnership, skills development, private finance initiative, survey |
| Subjects: | stakeholder participation, contractual arrangements, personnel development, evaluation and assessment methods, partnership management, tendering, infrastructure and transport systems, conflict resolution, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Human Resources, Procurement |
| 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