Shen, L Y; Bao, H J; Wu, Y Z and Lu, W S (2007) Using bargaining-game theory for negotiating concession period for BOT-type contract. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 133(5), pp. 385-392. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper extends the build-operate-transfer (BOT) concession model (BOTCcM) to a new method for identifying a concession period by using bargaining-game theory. Concession period is one of the most important decision variables in arranging a BOT-type contract, and there are few methodologies available for helping to determine the value of this variable. The BOTCcM presents an alternative method by which a group of concession period solutions are produced. Nevertheless, a typical weakness in using BOTCcM is that the model cannot recommend a specific time span for concessionary. This paper introduces a new method called BOT bargaining concession model (BOTBaC) to enable the identification of a specific concession period, which takes into account the bargaining behavior of the two parties concerned in engaging a BOT contract, namely, the investor and the government concerned. The application of BOTBaC is demonstrated through using an example case.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | benefit cost ratios; contract management; negotiations; project management |
| Index terms: | game theory, contract management, negotiating, methodology, concession period, investor, negotiation, project management, build-operate-transfer, bargaining |
| Subjects: | decision models, contractual arrangements, contract management, project management theory and practice, economics, research methods, contract structure, sociology, conflict resolution |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Project Management, Procurement, Stakeholder Management, Supply Chain Management, Contract Administration |
| 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