Ahadzi, M and Bowles, G (2004) Public-private partnerships and contract negotiations: An empirical study. Construction Management and Economics, 22(9), pp. 967-978. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Despite the increasing popularity in the use of the public-private partnership concept as a procurement strategy, there have been reported cases of problems associated with the initial stages of the process in terms of unduly high bidding costs and pre-contract time overruns due mainly to the protracted nature of the negotiations. Empirical research conducted in the UK has focused on the extent of these pre-contract time and cost overruns. The key attributes of both the private sector consortia and the public sector organizations that have significant bearing on the efficiency of the pre-contract processes are: the nature and strength of the consortium, the quality of the technical proposals they produce for the bid, and the quality of their financial proposals. For the public sector organizations they are the organizational capabilities and technical capabilities. The financial capabilities of the public sector are ranked lowest in influencing the procurement process. Whilst there was broad agreement on the ranking of importance for the various descriptive attributes, differences between the two sectors are revealed relating to risk, previous experience, evaluation criteria in the bidding documents and effect of public opinion. A better understanding of what is important to each party in the negotiations is an important step in improving the PPP process.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | consortium; negotiation; procurement; public sector; public-private partnerships |
| Index terms: | documents, bidding, organizational capability, procurement process, proposal, key attribute, public sector organization, empirical study, negotiation, time overrun, consortium, efficiency, public sector, procurement strategy, contract negotiation, cost overrun, private sector, partnership |
| Subjects: | professional development, contract management, research methods, performance management, administrative law, industry analysis, sociology, partnership management, project controls, conflict resolution, risk assessment, financial and cost management, bidding, project planning, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Time Control, Contract Administration, Legal Issues, Quality Management, Stakeholder Management, Risk Management, Procurement, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Project Management, Research Practice, Information Management |
| 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