Akintoye, A; Hardcastle, C; Beck, M; Chinyio, E and Asenova, D (2003) Achieving best value in private finance initiative project procurement. Construction Management and Economics, 21(5), pp. 461-470. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
The wherewithal of achieving best value in private finance initiative (PFI) projects and the associated problems therein are documented. In the UK, PFI has offered a solution to the problem of securing necessary investment at a time of severe public expenditure restraint. In PFI schemes, the public sector clients must secure value for money, while the private sector service providers must genuinely assume responsibility for project risks. A broad-based investigation into PFI risk management informs the discussion in this paper. It is based on 68 interviews with PFI participants and a case study of eight PFI projects. The research participants comprised of contractors, financial institutions, public sector clients, consultants and facilities management organizations. The qualitative software Atlas.ti was used to analyse the textual data generated. The analysis showed that the achievement of best value requirements through PFI should hinge on: detailed risk analysis and appropriate risk allocation, drive for faster project completion, curtailment in project cost escalation, encouragement of innovation in project development, and maintenance cost being adequately accounted for. Factors that continue to challenge the achievement of best value are: high cost of the PFI procurement process, lengthy and complex negotiations, difficulty in specifying the quality of service, pricing of facility management services, potential conflicts of interests among those involved in the procurement, and the public sector clients' inability to manage consultants.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | best value; facilities management; financial institution; procurement; qualitative research; risk allocation; risk management; value for money |
| Index terms: | public-sector client, risk allocation, negotiation, qualitative research, project procurement, best value, interview, public expenditure, procurement process, case study, management service, risk analysis, quality of service, private sector, risk management, project cost, investigation, pricing, maintenance cost, encouragement, facilities management, conflicts of interest, project development, private finance initiative, value-for-money |
| Subjects: | bidding, sociology, economic analysis, economics, industry analysis, conflict resolution, public and environmental health, financial management, professional ethics, financial risk, data collection methods, professional development, evaluation, research design and methodology, contractual arrangements, management, risk assessment, political science, project delivery, environmental hazards |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Sustainability, Stakeholder Management, Procurement, Project Management, Value Management, Health and Safety, Legal Issues, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Human Resources, Cost Management, Governance, Information Management |
| 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