Almarri, K and Boussabaine, H (2021) Re-evaluating the risk costing agenda in PPP projects. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 11(1), pp. 22-37. ISSN 2044-124X
Abstract
The level at which risk is priced and the magnitude of risks transferred to the private sector will have a significant impact on the cost of the public-private partnership (PPP) deals as well as on the value for money analysis and on the section of the optimum investment options. The price of risk associated with PPP schemes is complex, dynamic and continuous throughout the concession agreement. Risk allocation needs to be re-evaluated to ensure the optimum outcome of the PPP contract. This paper provides a coherent theoretical framework for dealing with scenarios of potential gain and loss from retaining or transferring risks. The outcome indicates that using the proposed framework will provide innovative ways of deriving risk prices in PPP projects using several risk determinants strategies. In costing risks, analysts have to take into consideration the balance between the cost of risk transfer and the cost of losses if risk is retained. This paper contributes to the PPP literature and practice by proposing a framework which is consistent with a risk allocation approach in PPP projects, where the key proposition is that risk pricing can overload project debt leading to loss of value.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | risk management; value for money; Monte Carlo simulation; cost analysis; net present value; fair value; private sector; revenue sharing; game theory; prices; capital assets; public sector |
| Index terms: | game theory, revenue, public sector, net present value, Monte Carlo simulation, strategy, private sector, partnership, pricing, fair value, cost analysis, option, value-for-money, determinant, costing, risk allocation, capital assets, risk management, risk costing |
| Subjects: | risk assessment, modelling and simulation, financial and cost management, decision models, economic analysis, accounting and finance, management, evaluation, financial risk, asset management, decision analysis, partnership management, administrative law, industry analysis |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Value Management, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Research Practice, Risk Management, 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