Tiong, R L K (1995) Impact of financial package versus technical solution in a BOT tender. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 121(3), pp. 304-311. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The two main components in the tender of a privatized infrastructure project let under the build-operate-transfer (BOT) contractual arrangement are the technical design and the financial package. This paper examines the impact of a financial package when assessed against the technical design during the selection process. It is concluded that the ability to provide an attractive financial package is critical under the conditions when (1) the project is technically certain; (2) the tolls to be charged are of government's main concern; (3) competition is keen; and (4) the project viability and financing are uncertain. However, promoters must not underestimate the importance of an innovative technical solution as it could make an attractive financial package possible. The role of an innovative technical solution was never in question in the cases studied in spite of the great importance attached to the financial package by the governments.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | infrastructure project, package, promoter, toll, competition, financing, build-operate-transfer |
| Subjects: | transportation engineering, market analysis, contractual arrangements, infrastructure and transport systems, economic analysis, sociology |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Research Practice, Stakeholder 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