Tiong, R L K (1995) Competitive advantage of equity in BOT tender. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 121(3), pp. 282-289. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper is concerned with the role of equity and level of equity investment required in a build-operate-transfer (BOT) tender. In times of decreasing ability to raise public funds for infrastructure projects, the BOT concept has been used increasingly by governments to implement privately financed projects such as toll roads and private power plants. This paper shows that high level of equity is necessary in BOT tender if it is specified in the request for proposal, the competition is keen, and financing for the project is uncertain. Governments are often concerned about the high financial charges that may overburden the cash flows of the project and which may subsequently affect the efficient running of the project. It may also be concerned about the availability of debt financing. Governments therefore view high equity as important and necessary. The threshold equity level proposed by the promoters must therefore be high-typically between 20% and 30%- for them to be short-listed and to proceed to the final round of negotiation when the selection will be made. Otherwise they will be dropped from further consideration.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | power plant, financing, build-operate-transfer, competitive advantage, competition, cash flow, proposal, debt financing, toll, infrastructure project, negotiation, promoter |
| Subjects: | project planning, market analysis, conflict resolution, transportation engineering, financial risk, financial management, contractual arrangements, infrastructure and transport systems, sociology, economic analysis |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Project Management, Cost Management, Procurement, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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