Ng, S T and Wong, Y M W (2007) Payment and audit mechanisms for non private-funded PPP-based infrastructure maintenance projects. Construction Management and Economics, 25(9), pp. 915-923. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
The introduction of a non private-funded public-private partnerships (PPP) approach to the maintenance and operation of infrastructure facilities necessitates an equitable performance standard, a sensible penalty mechanism and a credible auditing system. Yet, with limited research on this type of scheme, it is not clear whether the payment and audit mechanisms can adequately gauge the performance of private partners and truly reflect the quality of service provided in their payment. The question is whether the reliability of the payment reduction and auditing mechanisms pertinent to the non-private funded PPP infrastructure maintenance can be systematically verified. With reference to a case study in Hong Kong, field data have been collected and tested according to the sensitivity analysis and level of confidence. The results indicate that the level of payment reduction due to poor performance is fair and the audit frequency is adequate to reflect the overall performance of the service provider. The approaches adopted in this research should provide an objective basis for public and private partners to formulate a mutually acceptable and effective mechanism for non private-funded PPP infrastructure maintenance contracts.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | auditing; infrastructure facilities; maintenance; performance-based payment; public-private partnerships |
| Index terms: | Hong Kong, penalty, audit, performance-based, maintenance contract, sensitivity analysis, partnership, case study, quality of service |
| Subjects: | partnership management, Geography, public and environmental health, maintenance engineering, data collection methods, performance measurement, environmental hazards, regulatory law |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Sustainability, Health and Safety, Quality Management, Geographical Context, Business Strategy, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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