Zhang, X (2006) Public clients' best value perspectives of public private partnerships in infrastructure development. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(2), pp. 107-114. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The multiple objectives of public clients in formulating partnerships with the private sector in infrastructure development and the radical realignment of risks, responsibilities, and awards among project participants in such partnerships necessitate a best value source selection (BVSS) methodology to choose the right private sector partner who assumes far more and much deeper risks than a mere contractor. One critical step in adopting the BVSS is to express the client's objectives in terms of best value contributing factors (BVCFs), against which alternative proposals are evaluated and consequently a sound and defensible contract award decision made. A set of 21 BVCFs in public private partnerships (PPPs) has been identified through literature review of BVCFs in different types of contracts, case studies of worldwide PPP practices, and interviews or correspondence with international PPP experts and experienced practitioners. The relative significance of these BVCFs is statistically analyzed based on a questionnaire survey of worldwide expert opinions. Results show that there is no statistical difference in the rating of these BVCFs between responses from academia and those from industry. Except for four BVCFs that are at a significance level between "fairly significant" and "significant" according to overall, academic, or industrial responses, all other BVCFs are at a significance level greater than "significant." These research outputs facilitate a BVSS process for PPPs in general.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contracts; financial management; infrastructure; partnerships; private sector; procurement; value engineering |
| Index terms: | academia, best value, public private partnership, public client, case study, financial management, partnership, private sector, practitioner, questionnaire, methodology, proposal, interview, survey, infrastructure development, research output, value engineering, literature review |
| Subjects: | infrastructure engineering, research methods, industry analysis, educational institutions, sociology, partnership management, practitioner, value management, data collection methods, economic analysis, contractual arrangements, data analysis and analytics, project planning, bidding, research products and data |
| Topics: | Education, Information Management, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Project Management, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Procurement, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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