Xiong, W and Zhang, X (2016) The real option value of renegotiation in public-private partnerships. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142(8): 4016021, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Public-private partnerships (PPP) are contracts with a long-lasting period, huge relationship-specific investment, and great uncertainties. In many PPP projects, it is difficult or even impossible to write a complete contract that specifies all contingencies, so a renegotiation-allowed contract could be better than a renegotiation-proof one. Under a renegotiation-allowed PPP agreement, renegotiations can significantly influence the interests of both the private party and the government, so they have to evaluate the benefit and cost of renegotiations ex ante and consider them in the tender price. This study considers renegotiations as real options that are embodied to provide flexibilities for PPP contracts, and develops a model to capture the value of renegotiation based on real option theory. The model is proposed in three steps, including modeling underlying risk, bargaining renegotiation payoffs, and determining real option value. An illustration case is presented to demonstrate the applicability of the model. The case study shows that if a renegotiation-allowed contract is used, then (1) contractor-led renegotiation is very likely to occur, especially at the early stage of concession while government-led renegotiation is less likely to occur, and if any, it should occur at the middle stage of concession; (2) one party could use opportunistic renegotiation to hold the other party up and ask for excessive compensation, so renegotiations must be regulated; and (3) renegotiation in a PPP project may have a huge real option value, and the higher the uncertainty, the higher the renegotiation value.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contracting; public-private partnerships; real options; renegotiation |
| Index terms: | tender price, bargaining, real option, modelling, compensation, case study, partnership |
| Subjects: | economics, tendering, partnership management, dispute resolution, data collection methods, economic analysis, analytical methods |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Procurement, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Legal Issues, Supply Chain Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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