Jin, H; Chan, M and Bai, Y (2025) Joint optimization of critical concession parameters for sustainable PPP contracts. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 151(6): 04025051, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
To fully leverage the advantages of the public-private partnership (PPP) model in delivering sustainable infrastructures, the values of critical concession parameters need to be determined. Traditional determination methods overlook the sustainability benefits of the projects, which hinders their application on sustainable infrastructures financed as PPPs. This research enriches the risk allocation scenarios by quantifying the sustainability benefits and develops a multiparameter joint determination method according to fair-risk allocation and game equilibrium principles. This research presents an innovative concept of value-for-money risk and highlights the fact that for sustainable PPP contracts, the concession parameters should be determined for reasonably shared value-for-money risks instead of revenue risks. Project JZ is created as a numerical example to verify the applicability of the proposed method. The result shows that the proposed method can determine the optimal values of concession period, concession price, and minimum revenue guarantee (MRG), which contribute to a win-win outcome in achieving the goals of financial and sustainability benefits for both public and private parties. The data analysis reveals that achieving the equilibrium risk-sharing ratio for value-for-money risks requires a shorter concession period or a decreased MRG level than revenue risks. Also, higher concession prices correlate with shorter concession periods and increased MRG levels.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | concession parameters; public-private partnership; risk sharing; sustainable infrastructure |
| Index terms: | risk allocation, partnership, concession period, value-for-money, revenue, data analysis, guarantee, shared value |
| Subjects: | economic analysis, evaluation, financial risk, data analysis and analytics, equitable outcomes, partnership management, contract structure |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Value Management, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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