Advertisement

A Bayesian Network Framework for Comparing Project Delivery Methods

  • Deepak K. SharmaEmail author
  • Phoolendra K. Mishra
  • Rajnish Lekhi
Research paper
  • 34 Downloads

Abstract

Public–Private Partnerships (PPPs) are innovative and evolving project delivery methods that have enabled public entities, such as local, state, and federal government agencies to pursue projects that were otherwise infeasible. Value for Money (VfM) is commonly used as a tool to evaluate PPP project delivery with traditional project delivery. In this work, a BN framework is presented for supplementing VfM analysis that allows for the combination of the quantitative and qualitative components of project delivery. The framework includes steps to develop BNs, analyze network scenarios and interpret the results. The proposed BN framework reduces the subjectivity and bias inherent in VfM assessment. It, therefore, has the potential to supplement the decision-making process. We demonstrate the application of the proposed framework to California’s Presidio Parkway Project as a case study. The results corroborate the findings from the VfM assessment and conclude that for the Presidio Parkway project, design–build–finance–operate–maintain is a better method than the traditional design–bid–build project delivery method.

Keywords

Public–private partnerships Value for money Bayesian networks Public sector procurement 

References

  1. 1.
    Saha D, Hong SH, Shao A, Modi A, Zemlytska I (2018) Private participation in infrastructure (PPI) annual report—2017. World Bank Group, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Engel E, Fischer R, Galetovic A (2011) Public private partnership to revamp U.S. infrastructure. The Hamilton Project. Brookings, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    PwC (2016) Public private partnerships in the US: the state of the market and the road ahead. PricewaterhouseCoopers, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cui C, Liu Y, Hope A, Wang J (2018) Review of studies on the public–private partnerships (PPP) for infrastructure projects. Int J Proj Manag.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.03.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kwak YH, Chih Y, Ibbs CW (2009) Towards a comprehensive understanding of public private partnerships for infrastructure development. Calif Manag Rev.  https://doi.org/10.2307/41166480 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Perez B, Giordano R, Woodhouse M, Thompson J (2016) Report on highway public–private partnership concessions in the United States. FHWA, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    FDOT (2009) I-595 corridor roadway improvements—value for money. FDOT, TallahasseeGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Arup/PB Joint Venture (2010) Analysis of the delivery options for the presidio parkway project. The San Francisco Transportation Authority San Francisco, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Economic Development Research Group (2016) Failure to act: closing the infrastructure investment gap for America’s economic future. American Society of Civil Engineers, RestonGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frank J, Martinez-Vazquez J (2015) Decentralization and infrastructure in the global economy: from gaps to solutions. Routledge, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mallett W (2017) Public private partnerships (P3 s) in transportation. National Academy of Sciences, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grimsey D, Lewis MK (2005) Are Public Private Partnerships value for money?: Evaluating alternative approaches and comparing academic and practitioner views. Account Forum.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2005.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    FHWA (2013) Guidebook for value for money assessment. Federal Highway Administration, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tsukada S (2015) Adoption of shadow bid pricing for enhanced application of “value for money” methodology to PPP programs. Public Works Manag Policy.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1087724X14563720 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ortiz IN, Buxbaum JN, Little R (2008) Protecting the public interest: role of long-term concession agreements for providing transportation infrastructure. Transp Res Rec.  https://doi.org/10.3141/2079-12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Visconti RM, Monda B, Giorgino M (2014) Improving value for money in Italian project finance. Manag Finance.  https://doi.org/10.1108/mf-07-2013-0171 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Takim R, Ismail K, Nawawi AH, Jaafar A (2009) The Malaysian private finance initiative and value for money. Asian Soc Sci.  https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v5n3p103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sarmento J (2010) Do public–private partnerships create value for money for the public sector? The Portuguese experience. OECD J Budg.  https://doi.org/10.1787/budget-10-5km8xx3fgws CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pitt M, Collins N, Walls A (2006) The private finance initiative and value for money. J Prop Invest Finance.  https://doi.org/10.1108/14635780610674534 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Garvin MJ (2010) Enabling development of the transportation public–private partnership market in the United States. J Constr Eng Manag.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000122 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    DeCorla-Souza P, Verdouw W (2018) Public–private partnership value for money assessment usingP3-VALUE 2.1. Federal Highwya Administration, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Garg S, Garg S (2017) Rethinking public–private partnerships: an unbundling approach. Transp Res Procedia.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.241 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Martin H (2013) Value-for-money analysis - Practices and challenges: how governments choose when to use PPP to deliver public infrastructure and services. World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chan C, Forwood D, Roper H, Sayers C (2009) Public infrastructure financing: an international perspective. Productivity Commission, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Harder PD, Davis BJ (2014) How Florida paved the way for availability payments in the US. World highways, vol 23. Route One Publishing Ltd, KentGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Allison B (2010) A look at 2009’s major US P3 transactions. Infra Insight Blog. Nossaman LLP, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Parker JA (2009) Port of Miami tunnel availability pay, new ground for PPPs. Westfield, NJGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    National Audit Office (2013) Review of the VFM assessment process for PFI. The Stationery Office London, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Saaty TL (2006) The analytic network process. In: Hillier FS (ed) International series in operations research and management science, vol 195. Springer, Boston.  https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-33987-6_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tanaka DF, Ishida H, Tsutsumi M, Okamoto N (2005) Private finance for road projects in developing countries: improving transparency through VFM risk assessment. J East Asia Soc Transp Stud.  https://doi.org/10.11175/easts.6.3899 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mouraviev N, Kakabadse N (2014) Impact of externalities on sustainable development: evidence from public–private partnerships in Kazakhstan and Russia. Corp Gov.  https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-03-2014-0037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sobhiyah MH, Bemanian MR, Kashtiban YK (2009) Increasing VFM in PPP power station projects—case study: Rudeshur gas turbine power station. Int J Proj Manag.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.07.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Martins J, Marques RC, Cruz CO (2014) Maximizing the value for money of PPP arrangements through flexibility: an application to airports. J Air Transp Manag.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2014.04.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fukuda Y (2019) Private finance initiative in incomplete contracts: theory and evidence from Japan. Jpn World Econ.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japwor.2019.04.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cruz CO, Sarmento JM (2018) The price of project finance loans for highways. Res Transp Econ.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2017.09.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tsamboulas D, Verma A, Moraiti P (2013) Transport infrastructure provision and operations: Why should governments choose private–public partnership? Res Transp Econ.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2012.05.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chen Z, Daito N, Gifford JL (2017) Socioeconomic impacts of transportation public–private partnerships: a dynamic CGE assessment. Transp Policy.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.05.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    DeCorla-Souza P, Farajian M (2017) Evaluation of a nontraditional approach to fund, finance, and manage metropolitan freeways. Transp Res Rec.  https://doi.org/10.3141/2670-05 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    DeCorla-Souza P, Lee D, Timothy D, Mayer J (2013) Comparing public–private partnerships with conventional procurement: Incorporating considerations from benefit–cost analysis. Transp Res Rec.  https://doi.org/10.3141/2346-04 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Røed W, Mosleh A, Vinnem JE, Aven T (2009) On the use of the hybrid causal logic method in offshore risk analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2008.04.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cruz CO, Marques RC (2012) Using probabilistic methods to estimate the public sector comparator. Comput Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8667.2012.00771.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sharma DK, Mishra PK (2016) Supplementing value for money (VfM) analysis with Bayesian networks. In: Transportation research board 95th annual meeting, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Xie J, Ng TS (2013) Multiobjective Bayesian network model for public–private partnership decision support. J Constr Eng Manag.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000695 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bickel PJ, Lehmann EL (2012) Frequentist interpretation of probability. In: Selected works of E. L. Lehmann. Springer, Boston.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1412-4_92 Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Vallverdú J (2008) The false dilemma: Bayesian vs. frequentist. E-Logos: Electron J Philos. https://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0486
  46. 46.
    Koller D, Friedman N (2009) Probabilistic graphical models: principles and techniques. MIT Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Fenton N, Neil M (2012) Risk assessment and decision analysis with Bayesian networks. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Marcot BG, Steventon JD, Sutherland GD, McCann RK (2006) Guidelines for developing and updating Bayesian belief networks applied to ecological modeling and conservation. Can J For Res 36(12):3063–3074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    National Research Council (1991) Improving information for social policy decisions—the uses of microsimulation modeling. National Academies Press, Washington DC.  https://doi.org/10.17226/1835 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Monk AH, Levitt RE, Garvin M, South A, Carollo G (2012) Public–private partnerships for infrastructure delivery.  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2149313
  51. 51.
    Na R, Lin S, Shen Z, Gu L (2016) Case study of quantifying energy loss through ceiling-attic recessed lighting fixtures through 3D numerical simulation. J Archit Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000226 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Love PE, Holt GD, Li H (2002) Triangulation in construction management research. Eng Constr Archit Manag.  https://doi.org/10.1108/eb021224 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Regens JL, Mould N, Jensen CJ, Graves MA, Edger DN (2015) Probabilistic graphical modeling of terrorism threat recognition using Bayesian networks and Monte Carlo simulation. J Cognit Eng Decis Mak.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343415592730 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ames DP, Neilson BT, Stevens DK, Lall U (2005) Using Bayesian networks to model watershed management decisions: an East Canyon Creek case study. J Hydroinform.  https://doi.org/10.2166/hydro.2005.0023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Garthwaite PH, Kadane JB, O’Hagan A (2005) Statistical methods for eliciting probability distributions. J Am Stat Assoc.  https://doi.org/10.1198/016214505000000105 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hora SC (1992) Acquisition of expert judgment: examples from risk assessment. J Energy Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9402(1992)118:2(136) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Mauter MS, Palmer VR (2014) Expert elicitation of trends in Marcellus oil and gas wastewater management. J Environ Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)ee.1943-7870.0000811 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Oakley J (2010) Eliciting univariate probability distributions. In: Böcker K (ed) Rethinking risk measurement and reporting, vol 1. Risk Books, London, pp 155–178Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Wang H, Druzdzel MJ (2000) User interface tools for navigation in conditional probability tables and elicitation of probabilities in Bayesian networks. In: Proceedings of the sixteenth conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence, Stanford, California, US. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., pp 617–625Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Scott S (2006) Best-value procurement methods for highway construction projects. Transp Res Board.  https://doi.org/10.17226/13982 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Tran D, Molenaar KR, Gransberg DD (2016) Implementing best-value procurement for design–bid–build highway projects. Transp Res Rec.  https://doi.org/10.3141/2573-04 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Abudayyeh O, Zidan SJ, Yehia S, Randolph D (2007) Hybrid prequalification-based, innovative contracting model using AHP. J Manag Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2007)23:2(88) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Safa M, Yee M-H, Rayside D, Haas CT (2016) Optimizing contractor selection for construction packages in capital projects. J Comput Civ Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000555 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Iran University of Science and Technology 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringCalifornia State University FullertonFullertonUSA
  2. 2.Westcliff UniversityIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations