Wamuziri, S (2010) Alternative models for procurement of major infrastructure projects in Scotland. In: Egbu, C (ed.) Proceedings of 26th Annual ARCOM Conference, 6-8 September 2010, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
In the last decade in Scotland, a significant number of infrastructure projects have been delivered through the PFI/PPP procurement model. Although procurement through this approach has evolved through time and substantially matured, there remain some concerns over private sector returns, procurement lead times and affordability issues for the public sector. In the last few years, a number of variants on the PFI/PPP delivery model have been introduced to make use of standardized legal documentation. These variants include the Hub, the Non-Profit Distribution (NPD) model, Hybrid structures, NHS Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT), Building Schools for the Future (BSF), etc. It is partly because of concerns about PFI/PPP and its variants that the Scottish Government launched the Scottish Futures Trust (SFT). The Scottish Futures Trust would involve government agencies such as Local authorities working together to raise finance from the private sector through issuing of municipal bonds. The Scottish government asserts that PFI/PPP procurement was a costly mistake that leaves the Scottish taxpayer with crippling costs of borrowing. This paper outlines key features of the Hub and the Non-Profit Distribution principles. The Scottish government’s proposals for procurement of major infrastructure projects through the SFT are evaluated. Preliminary results of data collected through structured interviews on the attitudes towards the SFT model are analysed. It is concluded that the SFT model requires significant development before it gains the potential to delivery major infrastructure projects and services.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | non-profit distribution model; private finance; procurement; Scottish futures trust; value for money |
| Index terms: | non-profit, local authority, private sector, public sector, documentation, private finance, proposal, interview, government agency, infrastructure project, value-for-money, affordability, lead time, Scotland |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, organization, contractual arrangements, project planning, economic analysis, Geography, evaluation, professional development, infrastructure and transport systems, industry analysis, administrative law, project controls, sociology |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Procurement, Business Strategy, Information Management, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Time Control, Legal Issues, Value 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