Carbonara, N; Costantino, N and Pellegrino, R (2015) A model for designing the tendering process in public-private partnerships. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law, 168(3), pp. 146-156. ISSN 17514304
Abstract
The present study aimed to develop a decision model for choosing the tendering procedure in public-private partnerships that minimises the transaction costs borne by the public sector. With this aim, a baseline conceptual model that relates the level of transaction costs and the information managed during the tendering process and identifies the tendering procedure that minimises the transaction costs has been developed. The application of the proposed conceptual model to contexts characterised by different values of project size, project complexity and number of bidders reveals that the choice of the tendering procedure is strongly affected by these factors. The approach developed provides a new conceptual tool to support the contracting authority in the design and choice of the tendering procedures in public-private partnerships.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | private finance initiatives; public-private partnerships; tendering |
| Index terms: | number of bidders, transaction cost, private finance initiative, project complexity, tendering process, partnership, public sector |
| Subjects: | contractual arrangements, bidding, financial analysis, organizational theory, tendering, administrative law, partnership management |
| Topics: | Procurement, Project Management, Legal Issues, Stakeholder Management, Cost 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