Search

In deciding whether an infrastructure project should be delivered using traditional procurement or a public-private partnership (PPP), the public sector estimates the project's value for money (VFM), which serves as the principal justification for adopting PPP. It is well known that VFM arises primarily from risk transfer, that is, the risk of (for example) potential cost overruns is transferred from the public sector to the private sector under PPP, thereby creating cost savings to the public sector. Using a unique source of PPP data, Infrastructure Ontario, Canada, this paper investigates an issue not examined systematically and quantitatively in the literature: how the contribution to VFM arising from risk transfer varies from project type to project type, and why. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite efforts to improve public procurement policies and guidelines in Nigeria, infrastructure delivery experiences several challenges that have hampered economic development, resulting in public infrastructure deficiency of value for money. Identifying drivers of value for money in public infrastructure procurement in Owerri, Imo State, Nigeria, is the aim of this study. The mixedmethod research design was adopted for this study. Purposeful and snowball sampling techniques were utilized to determine the study respondents. Data collection was implemented using a survey questionnaire. From the systemic literature review, 14 drivers were identified. The dependability of the research instrument was conducted using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test of adequacy and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity. The data obtained from this study was subjected to descriptive statistics and factor analysis. The study findings identified public sector technical innovation and transfer, products and services meeting users' demand, efficient risk allocation, low project life cycle cost, and complementary advantages of public-private partnership as the most significant drivers of value for money in public infrastructure procurement. This study justifies an evident need to highlight and incorporate value-for-money drivers toward efficient and sustainable public infrastructure delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Public-private partnerships (PPPs) have emerged as a strategic tool for enhancing the economic growth of International Airport infrastructure and service delivery markets in Cyprus. Although different types of PPPs exist worldwide and are likely to influence how road projects are implemented, this has not been fully researched in Cyprus. This study investigates how various aspects of PPPs can influence the implementation of International Airport infrastructure development in the Republic of Cyprus. It combined qualitative and quantitative approaches using a cross-sectional design. Secondary data was complimented with primary data collected from 63 purposively sampled respondents. The study established that PPP international airport projects in Cyprus have particularly utilised the Build, operate, transfer (BOT) model. As the existing publicly owned airports were not considered to be financially viable or sustainable at the beginning of the century, it became evident that these government functions could not be socio-economically or otherwise justified. For this reason, the involvement of the private sector in the operation of publicly owned and administered airports was fully endorsed by both the government and the local society at large. The form of private participation to be selected rightly depended on the risk/decision making power that the government apparatus was prepared to transfer to the private sector and the financial viability of the airport as a sustainable business. To have defensible, sustainable, and resilient Airport BOT Projects in Cyprus, the regulatory model of frameworks should be changed into a community model to develop sustainable projects, as opposed to the market or statist model that favours or prioritise private partners and government interests respectively. Though it may seem difficult to create a line of responsibility, it is possible to set an established way to collaborate and cooperate on particular BOT contract projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Value for money poses the question, "What is good resource use?" It is often answered with a narrow economic analysis that does not adequately address what diverse people value. We suggest new principles and methods that may help evaluators answer the question better. First, we define value for money, which sits at the intersection of evaluation and economics. Next, we make the case for a holistic assessment of value for money that evaluators can conduct with tools they already have, like rubrics. We introduce three principles that further align value for money with evaluation: value depends on the credibility of estimates; things do not have value, people place value on things; and people value the same things differently. Together, they suggest evaluators should arrive at multiple, possibly conflicting conclusions that represent diverse value perspectives. We demonstrate how this may be done using a value-for-money rubric to improve resource allocation for impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]