| Popis: |
This paper examines alternative project delivery schemes which have become widely implemented in the infrastructure market. Despite this wide spread implementation, the authors present the contrarian view that while in some, if not many, instances alternative project delivery is beneficial, there are circumstances in which traditional project delivery is still the preferred mechanism to bring infrastructure projects to market. Just because something is new, trendy, and even widely used does not make it the best choice for all parties. The need to find creative ways to deliver infrastructure projects to the market has been a catalyst for alternative project delivery. Infrastructure assets are in need of repair or replacement. At the same time owners are financially strapped and struggling to fund the necessary work. These and other factors discussed have fueled delivery schemes such as Public-Private Partnerships (P3s). This paper explores the question presented in Part I (whether alternative delivery mechanisms are a one-size-fits all) by introducing the reasons why market participants have turned to alternative project delivery. Part II examines the characteristics of several of these alternatives (e.g., P3s, Design-Build, etc…). Part III discusses factors that must be considered to determine whether alternative project delivery is appropriate. Part IV concludes by arguing that while alternative project delivery can be a tremendous tool, if the project is not an appropriate fit it can be problematic. |
