Zakeri Afshar, A; Abbasianjahromi, H; Mirhosseini, S M and Ehsanifar, M (2025) Determining the range of negotiable prices for public–private partnership infrastructure projects: A simulation approach. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, 43(1), pp. 50-74. ISSN 2398-4708
Abstract
Purpose: This research aims to measure the public sector comparator (PSC) to reach public–private partnership (PPP) projects' negotiable price range for water and sewage companies in Iran. PSC measurement drives the public sector to make valid decisions about costs. Design/methodology/approach: Around 170 risks were primarily determined through studying numerous articles. Then, risk effects were specified by distributing questionnaires in two steps. The questionnaires are distributed among experts on PPP-related projects and the Monte Carlo simulation method is used for confidence factors of 70, 80 and 90%. PSC is measured based on these results to study cases of Sirjan's sewerage and sewage purification systems. Findings: 11 risks were identified as the main risks that are effective on PSC, and project implementation costs were specified based on the modeling. The corruption of the private and public sectors was identified as the most effective risk in this research. It can affect a project's cost up to 158% in the construction period and up to 134% in the operation period. Based on the obtained results, 63% of this risk's cost goes to the public sector. Originality/value: The originality of this research is the PSC measurement method and appointing the risk share of each private and public sector. The results of this research can be applied to all the infrastructure and PPP projects in Iran and other developing countries as a way for employers to estimate accurate negotiable price ranges.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | infrastructure; negotiation price; public sector comparator; public–private partnership; risk; risk simulation |
| Index terms: | developing country, measurement method, methodology, questionnaire, corruption, partnership, Monte Carlo simulation, public sector, infrastructure project, modelling, implementation, estimate, negotiation, sewage |
| Subjects: | research methods, development economics, professional ethics, waste management, analytical methods, contractual arrangements, partnership management, conflict resolution, administrative law, infrastructure and transport systems, data collection methods, modelling and simulation, financial and cost management |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Engineering Principles, Procurement, Sustainability, International Construction, Cost Management, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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