Tiong, R L K (1996) CSFs in competitive tendering and negotiation model for BOT projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 122(3), pp. 205-211. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The build-operate-transfer (BOT) model of project development is implemented through the award of a concession to a private sector consortium for the financing, building, and operating of infrastructure projects. Project promoters must, however, realize that the process of winning a major BOT contract in a competitive tender is full of uncertainties and risks. This paper shows that the financial and technical strength of the consortium is regarded as the most important critical success factor in a BOT tender. It also presents the competitive tendering and negotiation model for BOT promoters involved in tendering BOT projects. BOT promoters must give special and continued attention to the model in order to develop a superior proposal that will increase their chances of securing a profitable BOT contract.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | proposal, competitive tendering, critical success factor, financing, promoter, consortium, private sector, build-operate-transfer, project development, infrastructure project, negotiation |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, partnership management, conflict resolution, sociology, tendering, project planning, contractual arrangements, project delivery, economic analysis, control systems |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Procurement, Business Strategy, Project Management, 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