Efficiency Based Comparison of Project Delivery Methods
Efficiency Based Comparison of Project Delivery Methods
Public Private Partnerships (PPP) are the future of infrastructure project delivery. Majority of the PPPs have been successful except a few over the past decade. The reasons for their failure are well documented by researchers. The misconceptions about PPPs make it increasingly difficult to pursue projects using PPP delivery system. One of the root causes of the misconceptions is from the ambiguities arising from qualitative data and assessments. To overcome this issue, efficiency-based comparison of project delivery methods utilizing Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) for decision making is presented through this paper. Proposed approach uses qualitative ratings and harnesses the integral utility of the ratings obtained while conducting objective assessment of qualitative data. California’s Presidio Parkway Project is used for case study analysis and the data is varied to create three hypothetical scenarios to determine sensitivity of the model. Results from case study are consistent with actual project implementation and the sensitivity analyses result are found to be consistent.
 PBS News. Measuring up U.S. infrastructure against other countries. 2018. Downloaded from http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-index-2017-2018/competitiveness-rankings/#series=GCI.A.02 on 4/19/2019
 World Economic Forum 2017-2018 Data, Downloaded from http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-index-2017-2018/competitiveness-rankings/#series=GCI.A.02 on 4/19/2019
 McBride J. The State of U.S. Infrastructure. 2018. Downloaded from https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/state-us-infrastructure retrieved on 4/18/2019
 AGC. Construction Data. 2018. Retrieved from https://www.agc.org/learn/construction-data on 4/19/2019.
 ASCE. Infrastructure Report Card. 2017. ASCE.
 Deye A. U.S. Infrastructure PPPs: Ready for Takeoff? The World Bank Group. 2015. Retrieved from www.worldbank.org/en/news/opinion/2015/09/25/us-infrastructure-ppps-ready-for-takeoff on 4/13/2019.
 Kwak, Y. H., Chih, Y. Y., and Ibbs, C. W. Towards a Comprehensive Understanding of Public Private Partnerships for Infrastructure Development. Cal. Mgmt. Rev., 2009; 51(2), 51-78.
 Cui C., Liu Y., Hope A., and Wang J. Review of studies on the public–private partnerships (PPP) for infrastructure projects. Int. J of Proj. Mgmt. 2018; 36: 773–794
 World Bank. Public-Private Partnerships Laws / Concession Laws. World Bank Group, 2019. Downloaded from https://ppp.worldbank.org/public-private-partnership/legislation-regulation/laws/ppp-and-concession-laws on 4/23/19.
 Engel, E., Fischer, R. and Galetovic, A. Public Private Partnership to Revamp U.S. Infrastructure. The Hamilton Project, Brookings. 2011.
 PWC. Public-Private Partnerships in the Us: The State Of the Market and the Road Ahead. 2016. Downloaded from https://www.pwc.com/us/en/capital-projects-infrastructure/publications/assets/pwc-us-public-private-partnerships.pdf on 12/13/2018
 White House. Fact Sheet 2018 Budget: Infrastructure Initiative. 2018. retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/fact_sheets/2018%20Budget%20Fact%20Sheet_Infrastructure%20Initiative.pdf on 12/14/2018
 Buxbaum, J. N., and Ortiz I. N. Protecting the Public Interest: The Role of Long-Term Concession Agreements for Providing Transportation Infrastructure”. Keston Institute for Public Finance and Infrastructure Policy Research Paper Series. 2007.
 Garvin, M. Enabling Development of the Transportation Public-Private Partnership Market in the United States. J. Const. Engg & Mgmt., 2010; 136(4): 402-411.
 GAO. Highway Public-Private Partnerships: Securing Potential Benefits and Protecting the Public Interest Could Result from More Rigorous Up-Front Analysis”. US Government Accountability Office. GAO-08-1052T. 2008.
 BPC. Infrastructure Case Study: Long Beach Courthouse. Bipartisan Policy Center. N.d. Downloaded fromhttps://bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/BPC-Infrastructure-Long-Beach-Courthouse.pdf on 4/20/2019
 World Bank. Value-for-Money Analysis – Practices and Challenges: How Governments Choose When to Use PPP to Deliver Public Infrastructure and Service. Report from World Bank Global Round-Table, World Bank Institute and PPIAF, Washington DC, 2013.
 Ernst and Young Report. Public-Private Partnerships And The Global Infrastructure Challenge. 2015. Report downloaded from https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Health/%24FILE/EY_PPP_Thought_Leadership.pdf on 1/12/2019.
 Chan C., Forwood D., Roper H., and Sayers C. “Public Infrastructure Financing: An International Perspective”. Productivity Commission, Commonwealth of Australia, 2009. ISBN 978-1-74037-262-6.
 Leigland J., and Shugart C. Is the Public Sector Comparator Right for Developing Countries? Appraising Public-Private Projects in Infrastructure.” Note No. 4, PPIAF GridLines, World Bank. 2006
 Grimsey D. and Lewis M. Public Private Partnerships and Public Procurement. Agenda, 2007; 14(2): 171-188 (Retrieved 4/4/2015, from http://press.anu.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/14-2-A-7.pdf)
 Tsukada S. Adoption of Shadow Bid Pricing for Enhanced Application of “Value for Money” Methodology to PPP Programs. Pub. Wrks. Mgmt. & Pol. 2015;20(3):248-263.
 Morallos, D., Amekudzi, A., Ross, C. and Meyer M. Value for Money Analysis in U.S. Transportation Public Private Partnerships. Transp. Res. Rec. (TRR), J. of the Trans. Res. Board, 2009;2115:27-36.
 Infrastructure Australia. National Public Private Partnership Guidelines, Volume 2: Practitioners’ Guide. Commonwealth of Australia, 2016. ISBN: 978-1-925401-20-2
 HM Treasury. Value for Money Assessment Guidance. HM Treasury. 2006. ISBN -13: 978-1-84532-1-206-9.
 Innovative Program Delivery. Value for Money Assessment for Public-Private Partnerships: A Primer. Federal Highway Administration. 2012. Accessed Apr. 29, 2015.
 Partnerships British Columbia. Methodology for Quantitative Procurement Options Analysis - Discussion Paper. 2009. Partnerships British Columbia.
 Garg S., and Garg S. Rethinking Public-Private Partnerships: An Unbundling Approach. World Conference on Transport Research, Transportation Research Procedia. 2017; 25: 3789–3807.
 Ozbek M. E., Garza J. M., Triantis K. Data Envelopment Analysis as a Decision-Making Tool for Transportation Professionals. J. of Transp. Engg. 2009;135(11):822-831.
 Tatari O. and Kucukvar M. Eco-Efficiency of Construction Materials: Data Envelopment Analysis. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 2012;138(6):733-741
 Banker R. D., and Morey R. C. Use of Categorical Variables in Data Envelopment Analysis. Management Science. 1986;32(12):1613-1627
 Caltrans. Analysis of Delivery Options for the Presidio Parkway Project. CALTRANS. Report Prepared by Arup/Parsons Brinkenhoff Joint Venture. (2010a)
 Caltrans. Public Private Agreement – Volume II (Technical Requirements). Presidio Parkway Project, CALTRANS, Contract # 04-1637U4. 2010b
 Caltrans. Revised Project Proposal Report. 2010c. Retrieved from http://www.catc.ca.gov/programs/p3/doyle-drive/docs/Presidio_Prkwy_Prjct_Prpsl_Rprt_May4.pdf on 12/14/2018.
 Jahedi S. and Mendez F. On the Advantages and Disadvantages of Subjective Measures. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2013;98:97–114.
 Monk A. H. B., Levitt R. E., Garvin M., South A. and Carollo G. Public-Private Partnerships for Infrastructure Delivery. 2012. Downloaded from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2149313 on 12/14/2018
 Bolanos L., Transue M., Wheeler P., and Gifford J. L. U.S. Surface Transportation Public-Private Partnerships: Objectives and Evidence. 2017. Retrieved from http://p3policy.gmu.edu/index.php/research/white-papers/u-s-surface-transportation-public-private-partnerships-objectives-and-evidence/ on 11/26/2018.
 Allen R. and Thanassoulis E. Improving Envelopment in Data Envelopment Analysis. European Journal of Operational Research. 2004;154:363–379
 Kritikos M. N. A Full Ranking Methodology in Data Envelopment Analysis Based on A Set of Dummy Decision Making Units. Expert Systems With Applications. 2017;77:211–225
 Toloo, M., Barat, M., and Masoumzadeh A. Selective Measures in Data Envelopment Analysis. Annals of Operation Research, 2015;226:623-642.
 Scott. S., Molenaar K. R., Gransberg D. D., Smith N. C. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. NCHRP Report 561, 2006. ISSN 0077-5614, ISBN: 0-309-09858-0
 Tran, D., Molenaar, K.R., and Gransberg, D.D. Implementing Best-Value Procurement for Design-Bid-Build Highway Projects. Transportation Research Record, Journal of the Transportation Research Board, National Academies. 2016;2573:26-33.
 Abudayyeh O., Zidan S. J., Yehia S., and Randolph D. Hybrid Prequalification-Based, Innovative Contracting Model Using AHP. Journal of Management in Engg. 2007;23(2):88-96.
 Safa M., Yee M., Rayside D., and Haas C. T. Optimizing Contractor Selection for Construction Packages in Capital Projects. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering. 2016;30(5):04016002-1-12.
 Liu, J., Fong-Yuen, D., Lall, V. “Using data envelopment analysis to compare suppliers for supplier selection and performance improvement”, Supply Chain Management ; Bradford. 2000;5(3):1-10
 Cook W. D., and Seiford L. M. Data envelopment analysis (DEA) – Thirty years on. European Journal of Operational Research. 2009;192 (1):1-17.
 Banker R. D., and Natarajan R. Evaluating Contextual Variables Affecting Productivity Using Data Envelopment Analysis. Operations Research. 2008;56(1):48-58
 Ray S. C. Resource-Use Efficiency in Public Schools: A Study of Connecticut Data, Management Science. 1991;37(12):1620-1628
Copyright (c) 2019 International Journal of Innovative Technology and Interdisciplinary Sciences
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.