Jefferies, M and Chen, S E (2004) Identifying risk factors of boot procurement: A case study of stadium Australia. Construction Economics and Building, 4(1), pp. 11-20. ISSN 2204-9029
Abstract
Private sector input into the procurement of public works and services is continuing to increase. This has partly arisen out of a requirement for infrastructure development to be undertaken at a rate that maintains and allows growth. This has become a major challange for the construction industry that cannot be met by government alone. The emergence of Build-Own-Operate-Transfer (BOOT) schemes as a response to this challange provides a means for developing the infrastructure of a country without directly impacting on the governments budgetary constraints. The concepts of BOOT are without doubt extremely complex arrangements, which bring to the construction sector risks not experienced previously. Many of the infrastructure partnerships between public and private sector in the pastare yet to provide evidence of successful completion, since few of the concession periods have expired. This paper provides an identified list of risk factors to a case study of Stadium Australia. The most significant risk associated with Stadium Australia include the bidding process, the high level of public scrutiny, post-Olympic Games facility revenue and the complicated nature of the consortium structure.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | case study; infrastructure; risk factors; Stadium Australia; sustainable procurement; build-own-operate-transfer |
| Index terms: | risk factor, case study, evidence, concession period, public work, consortium, Australia, revenue, infrastructure development, emergence, bidding, construction industry, Olympic Games, private sector, build-own-operate-transfer, partnership, construction sector |
| Subjects: | bidding, industry analysis, contractual arrangements, environmental hazards, economic analysis, systems engineering, partnership management, sociology, Geography, infrastructure engineering, evaluation and assessment methods, data collection methods, contract structure |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Sustainability, Procurement, Stakeholder Management, Urban Studies |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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