Mirzadeh, I and Birgisson, B (2016) Evaluation of highway projects under government support mechanisms based on an option-pricing framework. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142(4): 04015094, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Different features included in public-private partnership (PPP) highway projects such as limited liability of the leveraged firm and government support mechanisms [e.g., price adjustment clauses (PACs)] result in asymmetric project value payoff functions that cannot be properly assessed by traditional methods such as discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis. To overcome this issue, an option-pricing framework is developed that enables financial assessment of different types of road projects in the presence of different government support mechanisms. However, this paper focuses on evaluation of highway projects under the presence of PACs. By providing a framework for calculating the value of government support mechanisms and long-term material and energy contracts, this model can help road agencies and contractors with choosing effective hedging strategies.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | cost and schedule; option pricing; price adjustment clauses; public-private partnership road and highways |
| Index terms: | liability, discounted cash flow, strategy, agency, pricing, government support, partnership, presence, energy contract, highway construction, road project, option |
| Subjects: | government bodies, contract type, environmental science, economic analysis, infrastructure engineering, management, civil engineering, liability law, financial analysis, partnership management, decision analysis, sociology |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Governance, Sustainability, Stakeholder Management, Risk Management |
| 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