Zhang, X Q; Kumaraswamy, M M; Zheng, W and Palaneeswaran, E (2002) Concessionaire selection for build-operate-transfer tunnel projects in Hong Kong. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 128(2), pp. 155-163. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
A significant realignment of risks between project participants is a fundamental facet of the new procurement paradigm of BOT (build-operate- transfer). A BOT concessionaire assumes far more and deeper risks than a contractor. One critical contributor to the success of a BOT project is the selection of an appropriate concessionaire who has the necessary capacity to provide the best overall deal throughout the build-operate-transfer process. However, various BOT-type procurement protocols are not yet proven and are still being tried and tested. Many countries are at the lower ends of their learning curves. Therefore, there is a need to benchmark the best practices that have been emerging. The Hong Kong government has developed a well-structured concessionaire selection framework supported by the Kepner-Tregoe decision analysis technique. This paper analyzes and draws experiences and lessons from this concessionaire selection practice. Current concessionaire selection practices worldwide are also discussed with a view to improve the procurement process of regions lacking in such experiences or expertise.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | build/operate/transfer; Hong Kong; tunnel construction |
| Index terms: | build-operate-transfer, tunnel construction, Hong Kong, paradigm, best practice, procurement process, tunnel, decision analysis, concessionaire |
| Subjects: | civil engineering, education and knowledge transfer, contract type, contractual arrangements, decision analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, Geography, business |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Risk Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Procurement, Geographical Context |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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