978-1-4577-1884-7/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE

Barriers to the use of Public-Private Partnerships for provision of Public Infrastructure in Developing

countries: A review

Abstract—Public private partnerships ( PPP) or Private Finance Initiatives (PFI) are the new age procurement strategy used by many governments across the world to provide the much needed world-class public services for their citizenry. The strategy emanated from the UK in 1992 and has spread across the entire globe though in varying degrees. Developing countries are still trying to find their feet under this procurement strategy, the reasons for this lethargy stems from a number of factors which though within the purview of these countries but has continued to elude them. Public private partnerships adoption is meant to curb sovereign debt burden, increase Value for Money (VFM) of constructed assets, manage the risks of time and cost overruns, improve the quality of the final product, improve efficiency of public services, assist in public sector reforms under the New Public Management (NPM), reduce project life-cycle costs, promote local economic growth, strengthen national infrastructure, hasten development and create a private sector-led economy. The above benefits are indeed novel however achieving them using this procurement strategy requires the fulfillment of a number of conditions; therefore it is the aim of this paper to highlight the barriers and conditions that must be met for this procurement strategy to thrive in developing countries

Keywords- PPP/PFI; Barriers; Public Sector; Private Sector; Procurement Strategy

I. INTRODUCTION

ublic private partnerships are the new age procurement strategy used by many governments across the world to provide the much needed world-class public services for

their citizenry. The move to PPP/PFI is now a worldwide movement where there are marked differences in terms of levels of development and overall emphasis, all of which are in need of analysis and comparison [1], this move is not limited to poor countries only as the concept of PPP/PFI emanated from the UK, which cannot be termed a poor country nor a developing country by any standard. The adoption of PPP/PFI as the preferred procurement method in this era has to do with a number of factors which include Value for Money (VFM), time overruns, Quality of final products, efficiency of services, reforms in governments to improve effectiveness, creating a

private sector-led economic policy, hasten development, “reduce project life-cycle costs, promote local economic growth and strengthening national infrastructure” [2]. Public-Private Partnerships are one form of this policy of liberalisation 1 in the way public services are produced and delivered to the public. PPPs open up the possibilities for the provision of public services, not only to come exclusively from organisations owned and controlled by the public sector but also from both public and private sectors in partnerships”[1], aforeign state-owned company is considered a private entity [3]

The lack of world class efficient infrastructure in developing countries is one of the major reasons why Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) are scarce in developing countries in Africa, as “it is generally known that endowment for infrastructures is one of the most important conditions for economic growth in any country” [4], This pre-condition for economic growth has been recognised by developing countries in East Asia, hence their heavy investments in infrastructural developments. In Nigeria for instance, [5] tried to assess the critical success factors of PPPs in infrastructure development in developing economy with specific reference to Nigeria and found that legislation, cost-benefit analysis and creating the right environment were very important for the success of PPP projects in Nigeria. The intentions of this paper review is to isolate the barriers to the use of PPP/PFI in the provision of public services and suggest measures which could be taken to overcome these barriers in developing economies so that the much needed economic growth can be given a sound foundation to thrive.

The rest of the paper is structured as follows, reasons for adopting PPP/PFI in section two, while section three deals with investments in PPP/PFI, the barriers to PPP/PFI in section four, some suggestions on how to overcome these barriers in section five, and finally section six concludes.

II. THE REASONS FOR PPP/PFI The “rationale for the introduction of the PFI in 1992

by the conservative government in the UK was to reduce the public borrowing requirement by the use of private funding

1 This work was made possible by the Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS Graduate Assistance Fund Scheme

P

Abdullahi Ahmed Umar, Arazi Idrus, Mohd Faris Khamidi

Department Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Bandar Seri Iskandar, 31750 Tronoh, Perak Darul Ridzuan, Malaysia

E-mail: abdulproject@yahoo.com

and also reduce the risks of time and budget overruns” [6], and these are achievable using this procurement approach. The provision of world class public infrastructure is a pre-requisite for the development and economic growth of any nation. “One of the key objectives of restructuring any state industry should be to raise productive efficiency, reduce costs and thus improve financial performance”[7]. Some countries have tried privatization, however, the loss of control by the government over these privatized entities has resulted in higher tariffs and loss of employment due to the efficiency introduced by the private sector and has subsequently resulted in a lot of uproar on the part of the citizens. Commenting further on privatisation, [8] observed that “total privatization of public infrastructure facilities that have provided services to the public at prices heavily subsidized by the governments was considered politically controversial. Further, the governments were hesitant to subject certain facilities to total privatization due to reasons such as interest of national security. Thus, PPP became the popular option”. It is against this backdrop that Public-private partnerships came into being to restore the loss of control which had made the government unable to cushion the harsh effects of privatized entities on their citizens. The use of PPP/PFI has become necessary owing to the various risks that have bedeviled the traditional procurement process they include the twin construction risks of “time and cost overruns” [9]. Some like the UK, use this procurement strategy due in part to shrinking revenue while others use it to transfer risks, “the main risks transferred are in construction delay, cost overrun, design problems which are not to do with changing the scope, some planning risks and even some occupancy risks which are controllable” [6].

Table 1: Savings from PFI

Previous experience(Mordernizing

construction 1999)

PFI Experience(2002 NAO Census)

Construction projects where cost to the public exceeds price agreed at contract

73% 22%

Construction projectsdelivered late to

public sector

70% 24%

Source: (NAO, 2003) cited in [10]

III. INVESTMENTS IN PPP/PFI In Malaysia, under the tenth Malaysian Plan, the

government intends to execute 52 High Impact Projects (HIP) worth about RM 63 billion naira using PPP/PFI (10th

Malaysian Plan), while in Taiwan, as of 2008 after the PPP Act was passed, private investment in Public services stood at nearly 382 billion NT dollars (about US$ 11.5 billion)” [11].“A joint Asian Development Bank, Japan Bank for International Co-operation and World Bank estimate is that

East Asia alone has infrastructure needs totalling US$200 billion a year over the next five years. Around two-thirds of this expenditure needs to be new investment, with the balance on upkeep of existing assets”[12]. The same situation is experienced in developed economies of the UK and Europe where the concept emanated from initially, and as estimated by [13] more than one thousand public-private partnership (PPP) contracts have been signed in the EU over the past 15 years, representing a capital value of almost 200 billion euro. Fixed capital formation through PPP projects has become big enough to have macroeconomic and systemic significance in anumber of countries, including Portugal and Spain in addition to the UK”. In Australia, some $A17 billion in commitments to investment in PFP projects has been made by different Australian states [14] cited in [15] while in the UK, “the total investment in Public Private Partnerships (PPP) and Private Finance Initiative (PFI) in 2005-06 was approximately £6 billion representing 12 percent of the total private involvement in public services” [16] cited in [17]

:

IV. THE BARRIERS TO PPP/PFI

There are a number of reasons PPP/PFI are unable to thrive in developing countries outside the general inability to raise finance and the technological difference between developed and developing countries. These barriers include but not limited to the following:

1) political stability

The use of PPPs require the co-operation of the host government and political stability for success, this is because most of the consortium involved are usually foreign companies whose finance will be at risk should there be instability in the country where the venture is located. As has been observed by [18] “a new government always wants to impress its constituents by seeing contracts signed by the previous government as targets for attack. This kind of political atmosphere has incurred extra risks to the BOT investors whose agreements usually span 30 years”, Writing about Thailand and the experiences of political instability in that country, [19] observed that “the average length of the last seven Thai governments lasted for about one year. In addition, each Thai government was a fragile coalition of sometimes more than five political parties, each with its own agenda”. Concluding, [18] observed that as the “political situation in developing countries is rather unstable; it is more common to have more frequent changes of government. If the new government is unwilling or unable to meet the contractual obligations, the franchisees (private supplier) will fall into difficulties”.

2) Strong financial institutions

It is the dream of every government to effect development by providing the basic public services especially good roads, for

the population which will in turn encourage investors to come in. However, investments in roadwork require tremendous amount of money, for which it is unrealistic to rely on the government budget to fund. This paucity in government funding power requires being substituted therefore with a strong and ready financial institution to effectively drive the use of PPP/PFI projects as the consortium would require them in their transactions. In China for instance, [20] affirmed that it “is foreign firms or international financial institutions rather than domestic institutions that have been involved in PPP projects”. [21], the consortium on the other hand “also needs to have its own equity to shore up its lending ability with the banks and other financial institutions; they may also access pension funds or hedge funds in the host country. However the consortium should agree on the currency on which its investments should be based due to the fluctuations in exchange rates in the global market. Most consortia, being foreign in their country of operation, prefer the use of the US dollars in their transaction”.

Figure 1: PPP Pentagram Source: Tusk Advisory, 2011

3) Government policy on Infrastructure

Figure 1 above was developed by Tusk Advisory to explain the pre-requisite to success in PPP/PFI infrastructure provision, as can be seen Political courage and legislative leadership comes first as the most important factor for PPP/PFI success. The government policy that “creates stability and credibility and removes much of the uncertainty in the operating environment may be more important to stimulating investment than tax incentives or interest rate policy” [22]. It is the governement policy on infrastructure that encourages the private sector to invest risk money in such public serivec provision. [21] Government support in PPP contracts can take on many forms, from providing a capital subsidy in the form of one-time grant, to jointly sharing some portion of the capital investment. In some other cases, the government might support the project by providing revenue subsidies that include

tax breaks or provide guaranteed annual revenues for a fixed period of time. Government policy could also be in the form of deferred payment of the concession fees by the private sector supplier. Improving and encouraging private sector participation in development requires the right policies to be put in place to give them the confidence to invest risk money however, the problem is achieving the proper balance between private markets and public policy [23], such that the general public is protected and the government is not criticised as being insensitive

4) An efficient construction industry

The success of PPP/PFI depends to a large extent on an efficient construction industry; this is because the inefficiencies in the construction industry were among some of the reasons for the evolution of this strategy. To understand the involvement of the construction industry, [24] “it is useful to keep in mind that most public services (water management, waste disposal services, sanitation, public transportation, prison management) involve a complex array of tasks. Those activities necessitate indeed, first, to build infrastructures and, second, to operate these assets as efficiently as possible”. This was further supported by [18] who observed that “since most BOT projects need a strong and technically competent construction consortium, which can guarantee a timely delivery of the project. In Hong Kong, most BOT projects were constructed by strong, overseas construction consortiums. They have the know-how and resources to complete the project on time and according to the quality standards”. While the UK (HM Treasury, 2000) observed that PPP/PFI will help enhance the construction industry “by bringing in new investment and improved management; and will provide a major boost to the construction industry”, this boost will require the construction industry to evolve innovative ways of delivering these projects timely, at agreed costs, to stated quality standards devoid of defects thereby increasing profitability in the process.

5) Effective and respectable judiciary

PPP/PFI are usually large and complex, “these Mega-projects clearly bring together, under various contractual arrangement, differing and competing partners, interests, values and modes of rationality (ways of doing and thinking) [25] which creates conflicts”, though these conflicts are not alien to the construction industry. In the past, the construction industry has tried to introduce contractual safeguards to protect both parties in a contract, but “while these contractual arrangements therefore seek to address the many interests which are at stake in complex megaprojects, they do not fully capture the complexity of the multiple, fragmented subcultures at work in a project culture” [26]. Therefore, “to forestall these, an equitable legal system can assure investors that any disputes can be resolved quickly through litigation and make sure that both parties will respect the contract [18].

6) Corruption in government

In early years , “a perception of the state as a benevolent supporter of development held sway, at least implicitly, but the record of corruption, poor governance and state capture by vested interests in so many developing countries over the past few decades has made this view untenable”[23]. The issues of corruption is one area where most developing countries have often failed, “there has been much concern about incompetent and unqualified civil servants, cumbersome bureaucratic procedures, excessive caution and resistance to innovation and change, inter-ministerial, personal and departmental rivalries, lack of commitment to national goals as opposed to regional,departmental, or simply private objectives on the part of political leaders and government bureaucrats; and in accordance with this lack of national as opposed to personal interests, the political and bureaucratic corruption that is pervasive in many governments” [27] cited in [23]. Therefore [18] “an uncorrupted government is the key factor in the success of BOT”.

7) Absence of a clear contract

PPP/PFI “imposes a new and more complex procurement process on the public sector, it is part tendering and part contract negotiation among public bodies, private sector consortia and their advisers”[28], hence “Public concerns are a much more decisive factor for PPPs” [29] . Therefore It is easier to agree if the facts are clear and verifiable [30]. In PPP projects what the government does is to specify the output requirement unlike in the traditional method of public procurement where the public sector specifies all the inputs including the workmanship requirements, the “long term nature of PFI contracts requires a clear procurement policy with provision for changes, resolving disputes, risk management, contract pricing, performance incentives and exit strategies [31]. It is known that there is not a set formula or an absolute fool-proof technique in crafting a successful PPP, each of above Key Success Factor (KSF) is involved in varying degrees for every PPP” [32].

8) Lack of expertise/ professionals in the new strategy

The use of this procurement strategy is not new as has been pointed out by many researchers yet the knowledge of the entire process is still being developed in spite of the large use of PPP/PFI. “Despite the increasing use of PFI and other PPP schemes in the UK, there are still aspects of PPP/PFI which are not clear to all of the participants” [28]. The country is not alone though, in Hong Kong, most BOT projects were constructed by strong, overseas construction consortiums. They have the know-how and resources to complete the project on time and according to the quality standards [18].Writing further on the inadequate PPP/PFI knowledge, [28]

observed that “Financing, operating, maintaining and investing in a long-term asset are not familiar activities to construction contractors”, this was further affirmed by [33]when it observed that “managers are often not adequately skilled at driving PFI projects forward”. Concluding, [10] opined that “winning a PPP/PFI work is not simply about demonstrating familiarity with the 14-stage procurement process-it goes deeper than that. It involves detailed sector knowledge (health, education etc) as well as knowledge of financing, risk, EU legislation and developing innovative ways to provide and deliver public services”. To further illustrate this shortage in complete knowledge of the workings of the PFI procurement strategy, [34] affirmed that “The nature of PPP/PFI, with its emphasis on complex, large scale long term projects and substantial elements of risk transfer, means that a mature and sufficient private sector market has not yet been established, at least in the UK. Despite the capacity to form project consortia, there are comparatively few private sector organisations, with sufficient confidence in their own ability to make them successful, capable of taking on such projects. In turn, this restricted participation has resulted in fewer schemes reaching the contract stage” thereby creating a situation where “Currently, it is likely that too many scheme proposals are chasing too few private players [34].

9) High participation costs

In submitting a proposal for PPP projects, the consortium intending to bid for the project has to undertake its own private feasibility study to identify what needs to be done, the risks involved , the risks it can manage and those it would want the public sector to retain and all these involve extensive research and transaction costs. The intending consortium will need to form an SPV, negotiate the terms of the joint venture with all firms within the consortium, make arrangements for financing and agree a suitable interest rate with the prime lenders before submitting its proposal, all these exercise require spending monies without a guarantee that the consortium may win the concession contract hence the reluctance of many contractors to participate in PPP/PFI projects bidding. In the UK, [6] “compensation is now being recommended where work is required in the detailed design stages of several bidders” so that it would encourage contractors to submit proposals when next they are called upon, however, all firms do not undertake the preparation of proposals in the same manner hence, their costs cannot be the same for all the firms. The problem this creates is that some firms could be under reimbursed while others could be over reimbursed. “Other costs associated with PPP/PFI bids include the cost of assembling and setting up a consortium, and the cost of investing equity in the corresponding business entity that is created” [35] and all this evolve due to the nature of PPP/PFI.

10) Reduced Employment in the public sector

In order for PPPs to perform very well and achieve the government’s objectives, there is a need for reforms in the public sector and the evolution of appropriate policy guidelines. The reforms that may occur could lead to a reduction in the staff of the public works department who may not be very happy since the PPP/PFI option will render them jobless hence they will seek every avenue available to scuttle any move that would bring their employment to a halt even though the PPP/PFI option is in the best interest of the state, this notion was further corroborated by [23] who observed that “Government failures may also occur in the many cases in which politicians, bureaucrat, and the individuals or groups who influence them give priority to their own private interests rather than the public interest”. “In the 1930s, government in the US was seen as the answer to most societal problems, particularly market failure. The size of government increased in direct proportion to the number of societal problems needing to be addressed” [36] and consequently “the federal government spends over $66,000 per second every second of the year. Some administrative departments and agencies have over 100,000 employees. The Department of Defence has at times employed more than a million civilians” [37]. However with the New Public Management (NPM) which is leading to downsizing of the public service, there is growing fear among public servants who are afraid to lose their jobs , hence a resistance to any reform that would render them redundant, especially those within the infrastructure ministries and agencies. “Many governments face difficult decisions as they try to balance budgets whilst continuing to invest in infrastructure. Prioritization of infrastructure development is critical to maintain economic growth and address the needs arising from a growing global population” [30] and “Development participation has been shown to make projects work better. The deeper problem is that genuine participation is often not in the interest of national or local government officials and other elites [23].

V. SUGGESTIONS ON HOW TO OVERCOME THE BARRIERS

The barriers to PPP/PFI in developing countries are fundamental problems; this is because they exist for other types of procurement types with the exception of a few. Generally PPP/PFI thrives in matured environments were laws are obeyed by everyone not like in developing countries where the elites are usually above the law. The suggestions that will follow shall be arranged here according to how the various barriers were listed above.

To overcome the barriers to PPP/PFI, the following is required

� Governments in developing countries should ensure political stability to participatory democracy

� Governments should boost the confidence of foreign banks by providing guarantees through third party

bilateral relations to International financial institutions or pay unitary charges through Escrow accounts in a third party country.

� A clear procurement policy with provision for changes, resolving disputes, risk management, price review mechanism, exit strategies and performance benchmarks.

� Foreign construction companies should be made to partner local construction firms before they can bid for PPP/PFI projects.

� They should have a clear list of projects they intend to let on PPP/PFI so investors are free to chose and submit proposals for those they are interested undertaking.

� The governments should develop enough political will to fight corruption and also seek the co-operation of the powerful elite within its borders

� Most countries in Africa are usually a loose assembly of different ethnic groups, hence government should de-politicise the provision of public services to include all groups based on an equitable project selection framework.

� The creation of an Independent Arbitration panel whose rulings will be obeyed by both the government and the private sector is also a pre-requisite.

� The training and motivation of civil servants, including staff transfer agreements to the private providers should be pursued.

� And finally, the government should learn to adequately explain and educate the population on its policies and the underlying assumptions behind them in order to get public support which is very vital for PPP/PFI projects.

VI. CONCLUSIONS

. PPP/PFI procurement strategy has become the toast of most governments across the globe for the provision of public sector infrastructures to manage the risks of time and cost overruns, technological obsolescence, reduction in public sector debt. Developing countries have not been able to take advantage of this strategy which has a lot to offer in terms of making more money available for them to spend on other pressing social issues. Looking at the few barriers listed above, they don’t seem to be difficult to overcome, however they all require strong political will on the part of the government and the evolution of investor-friendly infrastructure policies. Another thing the government should do is to build a ‘pipeline’ of projects which it intends for PPP/PFI, this has the effect of allowing uninvited contractors assess these and chose those for which they have comparative advantage in providing. when the few guidance provided above are adopted, developing

countries will witness a huge influx of foreign capital, technology and aid that they can use to provide the much needed infrastructure to enhance economic development and well-being. Following these guidance will help build the reputation of these countries and encourage investors, as [38] said of reputation, “one of the key assets of any individual or company is also a wealth that is difficult to quantify. It is the asset of ‘reputation’. The implication for policy makers is that, with a better understanding of these constraints they would be better placed to change the current state of infrastructure shortages in their constituencies.

REFERENCES

[1]. Broadbent, J., & Laughlin, R. (2003). Public-Private Partnerships: An Introduction. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 16 (3) , 332-341.

[2]. Pribadi, K., & Pangeran, M. H. (2010). Assessing Readiness of Public Sector Risk Management for PPP in Infrastructure Development in Indonesia. Second International Conference on Construction in Developing Countries(ICCIDC-II): "Advancing and Integrating Construction Education, Research & Practice", (pp. 217-280). Cairo.

[3]. Roger, N. (1999). Recent Trends in Private Participation in Infrastructure. World Bank: World Bank.

[4]. Benito, B., Montesinos, V., & Bastida, F. (2008). An example of Creative Accounting in Public Sector: The Private Financing of Infrastructures in Spain. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 19 , 963-986.

[5]. Babalola, J., & Odunowo, O. (2010). Assesment of Critical Success Factors of Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) on Infrastructure Development in Developing Economy. Second International Conference on Construction in Developing Countries(ICCIDC-II) "Advancing and Integrating Construction Education, Research & Practice", (pp. 623-628). Cairo.

[6]. Fewings, P. (2005). Construction Project Management: An Integrated Approach. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.

[7]. Andrews-Speed, P., & Dow, S. (2000). Reform of China's Electric Power Industry challenges facing the Government. Energy Policy, 28 , 335-347.

[8]. Gunawansa, A. (2010). Is there a need for Public Private Partnerships Projects in Singapore? The Construction, Building and Real Estate Research Conference of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Paris, France: RICS.

[9]. Raftery, J. (1994). Risk Analysis in Project Management. London: E & FN Spon.

[10]. Cartlidge, D. (2004). Procurement of Built Assets.Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

[11]. PCC. (2009). Public Participation in Infrastructure Projects. Retrieved January 15/01/2011, 2011, from

I-Taiwan: http://www.ppp2.pcc.gov.tw/pcc_2010/en/Main.aspx

[12]. Siang, L. Y. (2008). Private Finance Initiatives-Infrastructure and utilities Development. The Ingenieur Journal, 36 , 6-9.

[13]. Blanc-Brude, F., Goldsmith, H., & Välilä, T. (2009). A Comparison of Construction Contract Prices for Traditionally Procured Roads and Public–Private Partnerships. Review of Industrial Organisations, 35 ,19-40.

[14]. AusCID. (2002). PFP Projects. Sydney: Australian Council for Infrastructure Development.

[15]. English, L. M., & Guthrie, J. (2003). Driving Privately Financed Projects in Australia: What makes them tick? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 16 (3) , 493-511.

[16]. HM Treasury. (2006). Strengthening Long Term Partnerships. London: HM Treasury.

[17]. NAO. (2008). Protecting Staff in PPP/PFI Deals.London: National Audit Office.

[18]. Tam, C. (1999). Build-Operate-Transfer model for Infrastructure Developments in Asia: Reasons for Successes and Failures. International Journal of Project Management, 17 (6) , 377-382.

[19]. Ogunlana, S. (1997). Build-Operate-Transfer Procurement Traps: Examples from Transportation Project in Thailand. Proceedings of the CIB W92 Symposium on Procurement. Montreal.

[20]. Lou, J., Gale, A., & He, X. (2001). Investing in the Chinese construction industry via Joint Ventures. Building Research and Information, 32 (2) , 277-285.

[21]. Takashima, R., Yagi, K., & Takamori, H. (2010). Government Guarantees and Risk Sharing in Public-Private Partnerships. Review of Financial Economics, 19 , 78-83.

[22]. Dixit, A. (1992). Investment and Hysteresis. Journal of Economic Perspectives , 107-132.

[23]. Todaro, M., & Smith, S. (2009). Economic Development. New York: Addison-Wesley.

[24]. Martimort, D., & Pouyet, J. (2008). To Build or Not To Build: Normative and Positive theories of Public-Private Partnerships. International Journal of Industrial Organisations, 26 , 393-411.

[25]. Marrewijk, A., Clegg, S., Pitsis, T., & Veenswijk, M. (2008). Managing Public-Private Partnerships: Paradoxes, Complexities, and Project Design. International Journal of Project Management, 26 ,591-600.

[26]. Kendra, K., & Taplin, T. (2004). Project Success: A Cultural Framework. Project Management Journal, 35 (1) , 30-45.

[27]. Alam, M. (1990). Some Economic Cost of Corruption in LDCs. Journal of Development Studies, 27 (1) , 89-97.

[28]. Li, B., Akintoye, A., Edwards, P., & Hardcastle, C. (2005). Perceptions of Positive and Negative factors influencing the attractiveness of PPP/PFI

Procurement for Construction Projects in the UK: Findings from a questionnaire survey. Engineeering, Construction and Architectural Management, 12 (2) ,125-148.

[29]. El-Gohary, N. M., Osman, H., & El-Diraby, T. (2006). Stakeholder Management for Public Private Partnerships. International Journal of Project Management, 24 , 595-604.

[30]. KPMG. (2010). The Changing Face of Infrastructure: Public sector perspectives. The UK: KPMG International.

[31]. Parker, D., & Hartley, K. (2003). Transaction costs, Relational Contracting and Public Private Partnerships: A case study of UK Defence. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 9 , 97-108.

[32]. Yang, J., Yang, C., & Kao, C. (2010). Evaluating schedule delay causes for Private Participating Public construction works under the Build-Operate-Transfer model. International Journal of Project Management, 28 , 569-579.

[33]. RICS Project Management Forum. ( 2003). PFI and the Skills of a Manager. UK: RICS.

[34]. Public Services Privatisation Research Unit. (2000). Private Finance Initiative: Dangers, Realities and Alternatives. London: UNISON.

[35]. Ezulike, E., Perry, J., & Hawash, K. (1997). The Barriers to Entry into the PFI Market. Egineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 4 (3) ,179-193.

[36]. Lawther, W. C., & Martin, L. L. (2005). Innovative Practices in Public Procurement Partnerships: The Case of the United States. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 11 , 212-220.

[37]. Rosenbloom, D. H., & Kravchuk, R. S. (2005). Public Administration:Understanding management, Politics, and Law in the Public Sector, 6th Edition.New York: McGraw-Hill Inc

[38]. Chong, Y. Y., & Brown, E. (2000). Managing Project Risk. Britain: Prentice Hall.

.