The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/2044-124X.htm

Suitability
Suitability of of PPP
public-private-partnership procurement
method
procurement method for road
projects in Sri Lanka 199

G.K.M. Dabarera and B.A.K.S. Perera Received 13 February 2018

Revised 28 July 2018
Department of Building Economics, Faculty of Architecture, 2 December 2018
Accepted 18 January 2019
University of Moratuwa, Moratuwa, Sri Lanka, and
M.N.N. Rodrigo
School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics,
Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia

Abstract
Purpose – Governments of many developing countries that are unable to develop their infrastructure in
order to obtain financial resources prefer to establish public–private partnerships (PPPs) for providing the
much-required infrastructure. Time is thus opportune for Sri Lanka, which is also a developing country, to
make use of PPPs to develop its road network. The purpose of this paper is, therefore, to identify the PPP
models that suit road construction in Sri Lanka.
Design/methodology/approach – The study used a mixed approach. The characteristics of road
construction, procurement selection factors to be considered in road construction, and the different PPP
models that can be used for such procurements were identified through a comprehensive literature synthesis.
The findings were validated using expert interviews. A questionnaire survey identified the PPP models that
suit road construction in Sri Lanka. The most suitable model among them was identified by ranking the PPP
models using procurement selection factors.
Findings – Build–Own–Operate–Transfer was identified as the PPP model that best suits road construction
in Sri Lanka. However, investors may not find it attractive because of its high payback period, a result of the
low traffic volume in Sri Lanka. Therefore, a PPP model that involves road construction alone will not be
feasible in Sri Lanka. It will have to include the construction of other infrastructure as well.
Originality/value – The study identifies a PPP model that best suits the road construction projects in
Sri Lanka.
Keywords Sri Lanka, Public–private partnership (PPP), Road projects, Build–Own–Operate–Transfer (BOOT),
Overall suitability, Procurement selection factors
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
When the social and economic development of a country becomes rapid, there will be a
demand for investment on infrastructure (Izaguirre and Mirzagalyamova, 2008).
Governments of most developing countries face challenges when addressing the demands
made on their public infrastructure services and facilities (Babatunde et al., 2015). When
they find it difficult to self-finance these infrastructure projects, these governments prefer
public–private partnerships (PPPs) for providing the much-needed infrastructure facilities
( Jin and Doloi, 2008). Grimsey and Lewis (2002) have defined PPP as a long-term contractual
agreement between a public body and a private entity for production, management or
provision of public sector infrastructure facilities by the private entity. PPPs can be
prepared to suit the specific situations and circumstances encountered during the process
Built Environment Project and
(Efficiency Unit, 2008). Asset Management
According to the Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors (2009), many countries use PPPs to Vol. 9 No. 2, 2019
pp. 199-213
provide public facilities and services through partnerships established between their public © Emerald Publishing Limited
2044-124X
and private sectors although they still widely use the traditional approaches as well. DOI 10.1108/BEPAM-01-2018-0007
BEPAM Ibbs et al. (2009) have stated that during the last two decades, PPPs have become the main
9,2 mode of providing public facilities and services in both developed and developing countries.
Therefore, a comprehensive evaluation of the different types of available PPP models is
necessary to identify the model that best suits Sri Lanka.

1.1 Need for research on public–private partnership procurement in Sri Lanka

200 Public sector policy makers of developing countries find it increasingly difficult to meet
the growing demands made on infrastructure with the limited capital, labor and expertise
they have. Many countries have used PPPs extensively during the last two decades for
infrastructure development (Zhang et al., 2015). According to the World Bank,
investments made in new infrastructure and the maintenance of existing infrastructure
in developing countries during the period from 2005 to 2010 had amounted to as much as
$849m (Shediac et al., 2008).
There are past studies conducted on procuring large public works in various countries
using PPPs. These studies have mostly focused on the applicability and suitability of PPPs
in those countries (Mubin and Ghaffar, 2008; Shen et al., 1996; Farquharson and Yescombe,
2011; Ibbs et al., 2009; Zangoueinezhad and Azar, 2014; Li et al., 2005; Chan et al., 2009;
Henjewele et al., 2014; Tawiah and Russell, 2008; Eaton et al., 2007; Kakabadse et al., 2007).
However, there is a literature gap on determining the suitability of different PPP models as
procurement tools.
A comprehensive understanding of the applicability of these different PPP models to
procurement is necessary to achieve value for money in projects that use them. Despite the
fact that a PPP can deliver successfully mega projects such as those involving
expressways, the road construction industry in Sri Lanka still prefers the traditional
procurement system. Therefore, the aim of the research was to identify a PPP model that
will suit procurement in road construction in Sri Lanka. The objectives of the research
were to identify the procurement selection factors related to road projects; identify the
different PPP procurement models available; and propose the most suitable PPP model to
road construction in Sri Lanka.

2. Literature synthesis
2.1 Infrastructure development
Infrastructure of a country contributes in many ways to the sustained economic
development of that country (Sahoo and Dash, 2009). Kumaraswamy and Zhang (2001) have
stated that developing countries need to invest in infrastructure that can fulfill the basic
needs of their public. World Economic Forum (2012) is of the view that unless infrastructure
of a country is perfectly aligned with the economic, environmental, industrial and social
priorities of the country, it will be unlikely that the expected outcomes of the infrastructure
will be delivered efficiently and effectively. Low-income countries have limited public
resources for infrastructure development. The total financial commitments required for
infrastructure development by these countries could be reduced by improving the efficiency
of their public procurement processes (Estache and Iimi, 2008). Rajeh et al. (2014) have stated
that the procurement process adopted for a project is critical as it can affect the success of
that project, and that the selection of the most appropriate procurement system is a crucial
and a difficult step that has to be taken at the inception of the project.

2.2 Infrastructure development in Sri Lanka

With the ending of the three-decade long war and other conflicts, Sri Lanka started to
develop and its economy started to grow (United Nations, 2012). According to the Central
Bank of Sri Lanka, the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) in 2016 has invested 4.6 percent of
the country’s GDP in infrastructure of which 3.6 percent had been in economic Suitability
infrastructure and 1.0 percent in social infrastructure. However, over the period between of PPP
2012 and 2016, investments in economic infrastructure and social infrastructure had procurement
gradually decreased which is not a good sign for a developing country like Sri Lanka.
If Sri Lanka is to harness its full growth potential and attract foreign direct investments, method
it would have to continue with infrastructure development (Central Bank of Sri Lanka,
2016). PPPs will have to be used to attract private investments in infrastructure since the 201
tax-based funding presently in use will not be able to meet the infrastructure requirements
(Central Bank of Sri Lanka, 2016).

2.3 Public–private partnerships

There is no universal definition for PPP (Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors, 2009). The term
PPP, which does not have a legal meaning, can be used to define a wide variety of contractual
arrangements available for public and private sectors to work together (Farquharson and
Yescombe, 2011). Different countries use different models of PPPs. According to the
Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors (2009) and Efficiency Unit (2008), PPPs are now being
increasingly used to deliver high-quality public infrastructure services and facilities although
traditional procurement approaches are also still being used widely, even in major projects.

2.4 Public–private partnership models

Build–transfer (BT). In this model, the public sector transfers the design and build
responsibilities of a facility to a private partner to provide a service according to
predetermined requirements set out by the government which takes the responsibility for
operating and maintaining the facility (Adair et al., 2011).
Build–lease–transfer (BLT). This model is similar to build–transfer model, except that
after the completion of the facility, it will be leased to the private sector for a specific period
to provide a service after which the facility will be transferred back to the public sector at no
additional cost (Adair et al., 2011).
Build–transfer–operate (BTO). In this model, the private sector will be given the right to
operate an infrastructure facility for a certain period of time once it has been transferred to
the government (Mayer Brown JSM, 2009).
Build–operate–transfer (BOT). In this model, a private partner enters into a contract with the
government to build and operate an infrastructure project for a predetermined period and
transfer the ownership of the project to the government at the end of that period (Shen et al., 1996).
Build–own–operate–transfer (BOOT). In this model, the private sector is entitled to
finance, design, build and operate an infrastructure facility for a period specified in the
service contract (and to charge user fees) after which the ownership will be transferred back
to the public sector (Adair et al., 2011; Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors, 2009).
Build–own–operate (BOO). This model will operate similarly to the BOOT model except
that the private sector will own the facility in perpetuity (Hall et al., 2003).
Private finance initiatives (PFIs). PFI, in its purest form, is a design build finance and
operate system (Broadbent and Laughlin, 2003). The term also covers financially
freestanding projects in which a private sector supplier will design and build the
infrastructure facility and finance the project (Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors, 2009). It
will thereafter operate it and cover up the total project cost through charges collected direct
from the users of the facility.

2.5 PPPs in Sri Lanka and their levels of success and failure
According to the Medium-Term Development Policy Framework (2011–2016) of the GoSL,
the government will focus on getting the private sector involved in government-owned
BEPAM business ventures to improve their management and workmanship (Finance Commission of
9,2 Sri Lanka, 2017). It considers PPP as a successful and alternative funding method that can
considerably improve the national infrastructure. Because it does not have adequate funds,
both government and foreign, to provide economic infrastructure, the government is
compelled to seek private sector participation for financing the related projects (Finance
Commission of Sri Lanka, 2017). A considerable amount of government funds that would
202 otherwise have been utilized for infrastructure development have been spent on social
capital rather than on specifically targeted groups. This has slowed down the annual
growth rate of the country. There is no legislation on PPPs in Sri Lanka. PPPs have been
implemented in the country pursuant to 1998 Guidelines on private sector infrastructure
projects (BOO/BOT/BOOT) of the Guidelines on Government Tender Procedure Part II
(Revised Edition, 1997). According to USAID (2016), although the 1998 guidelines were to be
replaced by the Government Procurement Guidelines of 2007, the latter have so far had no
force and effect as they had not been published. The USAID report also discloses that
Sri Lanka has been implementing PPPs since 1990 and that 73 PPP projects with a total
investment of over $6bn have been implemented by 2014 in several sectors.
Like in most developing countries, PPPs have been implemented in the telecommunication
and energy sectors in accordance with their tendering processes which are outside the PPP
process. Adikari (2018) states that the heavy transaction costs in Sri Lanka hinder the
popularising of PPP in the country as a procurement method, whereas this fact has been
confirmed by Chan et al. (2009) as well. Appuhami and Perera (2016), Barlow et al. (2013) and
Rufin (2012) have disclosed that in Sri Lanka it is administratively difficult to arrange and
manage PPPs because of their complexity. USAID (2016) states that GoSL has failed to
consider the negative impacts and results of implementing PPPs. Sri Lanka would need
additional resources to establish a strong and enabling PPP environment and undertake PPPs
in its critical sectors (roads, water, waste, social services, etc.).

2.6 Procurement selection factors of infrastructure projects

A procurement system is a sourcing strategy for delivering projects that assigns specific
responsibilities and authority to people and organizations. The process of selecting a
procurement system involves the creation of a unique set of social relationships to
establish forms of power within a coalition of competing or cooperative interest groups
which are not mere contractual relationships (Love et al., 2011). The procurement system
selected will thus specify the extent of separation or collaboration allowed among the
parties involved in the project.
It is not clear how public resources including foreign aid can be used more efficiently,
especially when public procurement systems are fragile. On the other hand, the current
procurement prices of infrastructure may not be the lowest obtainable. Therefore, it is
necessary to reassess the procurement efficiency of infrastructure development and the
associated financial requirements before selecting a suitable procurement method.
Ratnasabapathy and Rameezdeen (2007) have stated that when there is no systematic
or realistic approach available to select the procurement system appropriate for a
building project, the identification of procurement selection factors and development of a
model suitable for a realistic selection process are essential to the efficacy and success of
the project.
Past studies have identified and categorized procurement selection factors that are
predominant in construction (Ratnasabapathy et al., 2006; Mathonsi and Thwala, 2012;
Qiang et al., 2015; Sivakumaran et al., 2015; Kumaraswamy and Dissanayaka, 2001). This
study used and validated the three procurement selection factors identified by
Ratnasabapathy et al. (2006) and Sivakumaran et al. (2015) as relevant to Sri Lanka:
client characteristics, project characteristics and external factors.
3. Research methodology Suitability
The study used a mixed approach which can reduce the weaknesses and problems of mono of PPP
methods, so that the validity and reliability of results of the study are enhanced and the procurement
triangulation of the studied phenomenon is enriched (Lund, 2012; Teddlie and Tashakkori,
2003; Johnson and LeBreton, 2004; Neuman, 2011). method
The study commenced with a literature synthesis to understand the theoretical
background of PPPs, unique characteristics of road construction, procurement selection 203
factors, different types of PPP procurements available in the road construction industry and
the use of PPPs in Sri Lanka. Ten semi-structured interviews were thereafter conducted
with industry practitioners who had more than 20 years of experience (of which more than
ten years were in PPP projects) to validate the relevance of the literature findings to
Sri Lanka (Table II) and to identify the state of PPPs in Sri Lanka. Du Toit and Mouton
(2013) have justified this approach of using interviews as it makes an exploratory and
rigorous examination of real-life contexts getting the interviewees to relate literature
findings to their own experiences. The data collected were analyzed using code-based
content analysis software, NVIVO 11.
A questionnaire survey was used to collect the primary data required for identifying a
PPP model suitable for road construction in Sri Lanka. Before conducting this survey, a pilot
survey was conducted among a group of four participants consisting of both academics and
industry practitioners. This pilot survey helped to improve the clarity and focus of the
questionnaire. Purposive sampling which had been widely used in the past PPP research
studies (Zou et al., 2014; Ameyaw and Chan, 2015) was employed to select the participants.
All the participants selected had more than five years of experience (Table I) and included
quantity surveyors, engineers, lecturers, etc. They were requested to rank each PPP model
and the procurement selection factors used in road construction in Sri Lanka, using a
five-point Likert scale.
The questionnaire which contained close-ended questions was hand delivered/e-mailed to
100 professionals working in different organizations and the response rate was 64 percent.

3.1 Data analysis methods

Mean rating (MR). As according to Fellows and Liu (2015), data analysis methods play a
significant role in research it was vital to select a proper data analysis technique for the
study. MR is considered as the most popular and well-known measure of central tendency of
a statistical distribution of a variable (Kothari, 2004). It was used to rank the importance of
the three types of procurement selection factors that were validated using the interviews.
The importance of these factors in road construction were ranked using a five-point Likert
scale in which 1 indicated “not important,” 2 “somewhat important,” 3 “moderately
important,” 4 “highly important” and 5 “very highly important.”
MR was also used to rank the suitability of the procurement selection factors identified
from the literature and interviews, to each PPP model, again using a five-point Likert scale
in which 1 indicated “not suitable,” 2 “somewhat suitable,” 3 “moderately suitable,” 4 “highly
suitable” and 5 “very highly suitable.”

Type of organization Years of experience

Profession Contractor Consultant Client 5–10 10–15 15–20 20–25 W25

Quantity surveyor 13 20 1 13 8 5 4 3 Table I.

Engineer 9 9 7 5 5 7 4 4 Details of the
Lecturer – – 5 2 3 – – – questionnaire
Total 22 29 13 22 15 12 8 7 respondents
BEPAM The following equation was used to calculate the MR:
9,2 P
w
MR ¼ ;
n
where MR, mean rating of a particular factor; w, weighting given to each factor by the
respondents, and n, total number of respondents.
204 Criterion suitability score (CSS). Rodrigo and Perera (2017), Ekanayake and Perera (2016)
and Kamarazaly (2007) have used CSS to evaluate the level of appropriateness of a PPP.
The study used CSS to evaluate the suitability of each PPP model as a procurement tool for
road construction in Sri Lanka.
The CSS of a subset can be computed using the following equation:
CSS ¼ MRi  MRj ;
where MRi, mean rating of the importance of the procurement selection factors related to
road construction and MRj, mean rating of the suitability of procurement selection factors
related to PPP procurement models.
Overall suitability score (OSS). The OSS used by Rodrigo and Perera (2017) indicates the
overall suitability of a PPP as a procurement tool. Ahamad et al. (2013) and Alaghbari et al.
(2007) have also used OSS to ascertain the level of their end results. OSS can be calculated
using the equation given below:
X
n
OSS ¼ CSS i :
i¼1

OSS rating bands. The minimum OSS that could be scored was 8 and the highest was 200.
The OSS values could therefore fall within a range of 192 (192/5 ¼ 38.4) (Sivakumaran et al.,
2015; Rodrigo and Perera, 2017). To make the analysis of OSS values easier, the OSS range
was split into five bands as indicated below (Ahamad et al., 2013; Alaghbari et al., 2007;
Ekanayake and Perera, 2016; Kamarazaly, 2007):
(1) OSS o46.40 (8 + 38.4) – not suitable.
(2) 46.41o OSSo84.80 (46.40 + 38.40) – mildly suitable.
(3) 84.81o OSSo123.20 (84.80 + 38.40) – moderately suitable.
(4) 123.21 oOSSo 161.60 (123.20 + 8.40) – highly suitable.
(5) 161.61 oOSS – very highly suitable.

4. Research findings and their analysis

4.1 Importance of procurement selection factors for road construction in Sri Lanka
During the questionnaire survey, the participants were requested to rank the procurement
selection factors related to road construction in Sri Lanka using a five-point Likert scale.
The information obtained from the survey was used to calculate the MR of each
procurement selection factor.
Table II presents the MRi values obtained for 13 client-related, 8 project-related and 7
external environment-related procurement selection factors for BOOT. The factor, “total
cost of the project, (C1)” with a MRi value of 4.30 is found to be the most significant
client-related procurement selection factor whereas “type of the road project (P1)” with a
MRi value of 4.33 is found to be the most significant project-related procurement selection
factor. The factor, “availability and incorporation of experienced (specialized) and educated
 Literature Interview
Suitability
No. Procurement selection factors findings findings MRj MRi CSS Ranking of PPP
procurement
Suitability of BOOT in relation to clients’ requirement-related procurement selection factors
C2 Low operational and maintenance cost | | 4.13 4.26 17.59 1 method
C7 Sharing of project risks among the contracting parties | | 4.20 4.15 17.43 2
C4 Covering-up of initial investment from minimum | | 4.11 4.15 17.06 3
payback period to minimize financial risks 205
C1 Total cost of the project | | 3.92 4.30 16.86 4
C12 Involvement of the private sector with expertise | 4.20 4.00 16.80 5
and technical and innovative capabilities
C11 Engagement of a team of professionals to prepare | 4.07 4.07 16.56 6
documents
C8 Inclusion of experts in the professional team | | 3.80 4.22 16.04 7
C6 Introduction of innovative designs, techniques and | | 3.73 4.22 15.74 8
managerial skills
C3 Minimizing of tendering costs and time | | 3.67 4.11 15.08 9
C13 Better configuration of facilities | 3.82 3.85 14.71 10
C5 Early completion of the project | | 3.42 4.19 14.33 11
C9 Enhancing the value for the money invested | 3.73 3.56 13.28 12
C10 Higher possibility of making changes to the clients’ | 1.67 3.52 5.88 13
requirements during project implementation
Suitability of BOOT in relation to project characteristics-related procurement selection factors
P1 Type of the road project | | 4.07 4.33 17.62 1
P2 Size of the project | | 3.94 4.00 15.76 2
P7 Type of funding agency involved with the project, | | 3.52 4.26 15.00 3
e.g., government body, international funding
agencies or banks, local banks, etc.
P4 Degree of complexity | | 3.95 3.74 14.77 4
P3 Total project cost | | 3.77 3.81 14.36 5
P6 Payment mechanism used for the project, e.g., lump | | 3.27 4.15 13.57 6
sum, measure and pay, cost reimbursement or
based on performance
P5 Degree of project flexibility | | 3.02 4.04 12.20 7
P8 Application of the construction method and the | | 3.30 3.56 11.75 8
degree of innovative technology involvement in
the project
Suitability of BOOT in relation to external environment-related procurement selection factors
E1 Degree to which the projects can get affected by | | 4.11 3.44 14.14 1
government policies on infrastructure development
and the financial situation of the country
E2 Degree to which legal and environmental issues | | 3.67 3.44 12.62 2
can get affected due to government policy changes
E6 Influence of the economic and political conditions | 3.46 3.56 12.32 3
of the country and vice versa
E3 Availability and incorporation of experienced | | 2.99 3.85 11.51 4
(specialized) and educated (skilled) contractors
E7 Degree to which the projects can get affected by | 3.24 3.30 10.69 5
institutional bodies handling environmental,
geological, reclamation matters etc.
E4 Availability of high quality, local and imported | | 2.87 3.33 9.56 6
materials Table II.
E5 Degree of influence exerted by external risk | | 2.66 3.48 9.26 7 Suitability of BOOT
factors (industrial actions, environmental issues, as per procurement
disasters, etc.) selection factors
BEPAM (skilled) contractors (E3),” with an MRi value of 3.85 is found to be the most significant
9,2 external environment-related procurement selection factor.

4.2 Suitability of BOOT as a PPP procurement tool for road construction in Sri Lanka
The suitability of each PPP model for procurement in road construction in Sri Lanka was
determined by getting the questionnaire survey respondents to rank procurement selection
206 factors based on their importance. The information obtained was used to calculate the MRj
of each procurement selection factor for each PPP model and the corresponding CSS was
calculated by multiplying MRi by MRj (suitability of procurement selection factors in terms
of each PPP model (MRj) × Importance of procurement selection factors related to road
projects (MRi)).
The OSS for each category was then calculated to identify the overall suitability of each
PPP model as a procurement tool for road projects in Sri Lanka. Table II presents MR and
CSS values of client-related, project-related and external environment-related procurement
selection factors along with their rankings for BOOT.
With a CSS of 17.59, “low operational and maintenance cost (C2)” becomes the most
significant client-related procurement selection factor while “type of the road project (P1)”
with a CSS of 17.62 becomes the most significant project-related procurement selection
factor related to road construction in the PPP Model BOOT. “Degree to which the projects
can get affected by government policies on infrastructure development and the financial
situation of the country (E1)” with a CSS of 14.14 becomes the most significant external
environment-related procurement selection factor.
The suitability of BOT, BOO, BTO, BLT and BT were also determined similarly and
Table III presents a summary of the overall findings.

4.3 PPP model most suitable for road construction projects in Sri Lanka
Using the information presented in Table III, the OSS for client’s requirements (OSS–CR),
project characteristics (OSS–PC) and external environment (OSS–EE) were derived for each
PPP model and the average OSS for each PPP model was calculated to determine its
suitability for road construction in Sri Lanka. Table IV presents the results.
The OSS of the client’s requirements was very much higher than the OSSs of other
categories probably because of the adverse effects that client-related factors can have on a
project. However, project-specific factors and external factors were not found to be of that
importance probably because project type and size will not be of importance to investors
who in general are well off financially. According to Table IV, BOOT with an average
suitability score of 130.83 is the most suitable PPP procurement model for road construction
in Sri Lanka. It has the highest ranking in relation to client’s requirements, project
characteristics and external environment. With its overall suitability band falling in the
range, 123.21–161.60, which corresponds to a “highly suitable” model, BOOT becomes the
PPP procurement model most suitable for road construction in Sri Lanka.
As can be seen from Table IV, BOT with an average suitability score of 129.75 is the
second most suitable PPP procurement model. It can be considered as “highly suitable” for
road construction in Sri Lanka as its OSS falls in the range, 123.21–161.60.
Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China and South Asia have successfully implemented
BOT/BOOT projects (Kumaraswamy and Morris, 2002). In Pakistan, BOT/BOOT projects
have been found to be suitable for the transportation sector of its mega cities (Mubin and
Ghaffar, 2008; Noor et al., 2012). Indonesia has used BOT in its toll road projects (Wibowo et al.,
2012). India too has adopted BOT in its national highway projects (Gupta et al., 2013).
Because of various bottlenecks that are encountered when mobilizing public funds and foreign
debt, developing countries have become more interested in implementing infrastructure
projects through BOT schemes (Kumaraswamy and Zhang, 2001). Efficiency Unit (2003)
 BOOT BOT BOO
Suitability
PCF MRj MRi CSS Rank MRj MRi CSS Rank MRj MRi CSS Rank of PPP
Suitability of PPP Models in respect of clients’ requirement-related procurement selection factors
procurement
C2 4.13 4.26 17.59 1 3.92 4.26 16.70 6 4.08 4.26 17.38 1 method
C7 4.20 4.15 17.43 2 4.13 4.15 17.14 2 3.95 4.15 16.39 3
C4 4.11 4.15 17.06 3 4.23 4.15 17.55 1 3.21 4.15 13.32 10
C1
C12
3.92
4.20
4.30
4.00
16.86
16.80
4
5
3.92
4.23
4.30
4.00
16.86
16.92
4
3
3.28
4.08
4.30
4.00
14.10
16.32
8
4
207
C11 4.07 4.07 16.56 6 4.11 4.07 16.73 5 4.04 4.07 16.44 2
C8 3.80 4.22 16.04 7 3.92 4.22 16.54 7 3.68 4.22 15.53 5
C6 3.73 4.22 15.74 8 3.61 4.22 15.23 8 3.58 4.22 15.11 6
C3 3.67 4.11 15.08 9 3.58 4.11 14.71 9 3.37 4.11 13.85 9
C13 3.82 3.85 14.71 10 3.80 3.85 14.63 10 3.86 3.85 14.86 7
C5 3.42 4.19 14.33 11 3.33 4.19 13.95 11 2.90 4.19 12.15 11
C9 3.73 3.56 13.28 12 3.83 3.56 13.63 12 3.39 3.56 12.07 12
C10 1.67 3.52 5.88 13 1.79 3.52 6.30 13 1.83 3.52 6.44 13
Suitability of PPP models in respect of project characteristics-related procurement selection factors
P1 4.07 4.33 17.62 1 3.98 4.33 17.23 1 3.58 4.33 15.50 1
P2 3.94 4.00 15.76 2 3.86 4.00 15.44 2 3.52 4.00 14.08 2
P7 3.52 4.26 15.00 3 3.52 4.26 15.00 3 3.18 4.26 13.55 4
P4 3.95 3.74 14.77 4 3.80 3.74 14.21 5 3.55 3.74 13.28 6
P3 3.77 3.81 14.36 5 3.73 3.81 14.21 4 3.52 3.81 13.41 5
P6 3.27 4.15 13.57 6 3.24 4.15 13.45 6 3.30 4.15 13.70 3
P5 3.02 4.04 12.20 7 3.06 4.04 12.36 7 2.72 4.04 10.99 7
P8 3.30 3.56 11.75 8 3.21 3.56 11.43 8 3.03 3.56 10.79 8
Suitability of PPP models in respect of external environment-related procurement selection factors
E1 4.11 3.44 14.14 1 4.04 3.44 13.90 1 3.37 3.44 11.59 1
E2 3.67 3.44 12.62 2 3.70 3.44 12.73 2 2.68 3.44 9.22 6
E6 3.46 3.56 12.32 3 3.30 3.56 11.75 3 2.72 3.56 9.68 4
E3 2.99 3.85 11.51 4 2.97 3.85 11.43 4 2.93 3.85 11.28 2
E7 3.24 3.30 10.69 5 3.12 3.30 10.30 5 2.99 3.30 9.87 3
E4 2.87 3.33 9.56 6 2.93 3.33 9.76 6 2.81 3.33 9.36 5
E5 2.66 3.48 9.26 7 2.63 3.48 9.15 7 2.44 3.48 8.49 7
BTO BT BLT
PCF MRj MRi CSS Rank MRj MRi CSS Rank MRj MRi CSS Rank
Suitability of PPP models in respect of clients’ requirement-related procurement selection factors
C2 3.24 4.26 13.81 10 1.98 4.26 8.41 13 2.66 4.26 11.32 12
C7 3.73 4.15 15.49 4 3.61 4.15 14.97 6 3.70 4.15 15.36 3
C4 3.46 4.15 14.35 6 3.43 4.15 14.21 8 3.06 4.15 12.69 10
C1 3.33 4.30 14.33 8 2.59 4.30 11.14 11 2.78 4.30 11.93 11
C12 4.08 4.00 16.30 1 4.29 4.00 17.17 1 3.92 4.00 15.67 1
C11 3.83 4.07 15.57 3 3.77 4.07 15.33 4 3.61 4.07 14.69 5
C8 3.73 4.22 15.75 2 3.92 4.22 16.53 2 3.70 4.22 15.61 2
C6 3.49 4.22 14.73 5 3.68 4.22 15.51 3 3.52 4.22 14.84 4
C3 3.30 4.11 13.56 11 3.46 4.11 14.21 9 3.49 4.11 14.35 6
C13 3.70 3.85 14.25 9 3.73 3.85 14.37 7 3.55 3.85 13.67 8
C5 3.43 4.19 14.35 7 3.61 4.19 15.12 5 3.30 4.19 13.83 7
C9 3.55 3.56 12.64 12 3.61 3.56 12.85 10 3.68 3.56 13.08 9
C10 2.90 3.52 10.21 13 3.06 3.52 10.77 12 2.01 3.52 7.07 13
Suitability of PPP models in respect of project characteristics-related procurement selection factors
P1 3.21 4.33 13.89 2 2.75 4.33 11.91 3 2.99 4.33 12.95 2 Table III.
P2 3.08 4.00 12.33 4 2.75 4.00 11.00 5 2.87 4.00 11.47 5 Suitability of PPP
models in relation
to procurement
(continued ) selection factors
BEPAM P7 3.30 4.26 14.06 1 3.15 4.26 13.42 1 3.30 4.26 14.06 1
9,2 P4 3.39 3.74 12.68 3 2.84 3.74 10.63 6 3.21 3.74 12.00 4
P3 2.97 3.81 11.30 7 2.66 3.81 10.13 7 2.75 3.81 10.48 7
P6 2.93 4.15 12.17 5 2.99 4.15 12.42 2 2.93 4.15 12.17 3
P5 2.84 4.04 11.48 6 2.81 4.04 11.35 4 2.78 4.04 11.21 6
P8 2.93 3.56 10.44 8 2.81 3.56 10.00 8 2.78 3.56 9.88 8

208 Suitability of PPP models in respect of external environment-related procurement selection factors
E1 3.24 3.44 11.15 3 2.66 3.44 9.14 6 3.15 3.44 10.84 3
E2 3.43 3.44 11.78 1 3.06 3.44 10.52 2 3.24 3.44 11.15 2
E6 2.87 3.56 10.21 4 2.66 3.56 9.46 4 2.68 3.56 9.55 5
E3 2.99 3.85 11.52 2 2.97 3.85 11.42 1 2.93 3.85 11.29 1
E7 2.97 3.30 9.79 6 2.84 3.30 9.38 5 2.81 3.30 9.27 6
E4 3.03 3.33 10.07 5 3.12 3.33 10.38 3 3.03 3.33 10.07 4
Table III. E5 2.66 3.48 9.25 7 2.59 3.48 9.02 7 2.59 3.48 9.02 7

PPP model OSS–CR OSS–PC OSS–EE Average–OSS Suitability ranking

Build–Own–Operate–Transfer (BOOT) 197.36 115.03 80.10 130.83 1

Build–Operate–Transfer (BOT) 196.91 113.33 79.01 129.75 2
Build–Own–Operate (BOO) 183.97 105.29 69.49 119.58 3
Table IV. Build–Transfer–Operate (BTO) 185.35 98.37 73.77 119.16 4
Average OSS values Build–Transfer (BT) 180.60 90.84 69.33 113.59 5
of the PPP models Build–Lease–Transfer (BLT) 174.11 94.22 71.19 113.17 6

and Shen et al. (1996) have also identified BOT as a suitable procurement approach as in these
projects the private sector partner who does not have the legal ownership of the infrastructure
facility has to transfer the operation of the facility to the government at the end of its contract
with the government. The literature thus validates the research findings.
Because of its political instability, Sri Lanka is considered as a high-risk country for
investments. Thus, projects implemented in the country require proper contractual
arrangements. For Sri Lanka, BOOT is found to be better than BOT since in BOOT projects
the ownership rests with the investor until he hands over the project to the public sector. Political
risks of these projects are considerably less, as the public sector controlled by the government
cannot have much influence over them which makes them suitable for a country like Sri Lanka.
Interviewees disclosed that PPP-based investments and beneficiary contributions could
be obtained for maintaining public assets. According to them, PPP has not been very
successful and popular among the stakeholders in Sri Lanka since the existing laws and
regulations discourage organizations from entering into agreements, particularly on the
alienation of lands. Re-negotiation of contracts, a common feature in PPP, creates problems
in government projects as the tender procedures of the GoSL do not encourage such
practices. According to the experts, Sri Lanka should follow countries like India, Pakistan
and South Africa, which have taken institutional measures to promote PPP as an alternative
financing mechanism, and also the USA, which is adopting this approach in its social
infrastructure sector, if it is to provide an efficient service to the country.

5. Conclusions and recommendations

This research was on identifying the suitability of different PPP models for road
construction in Sri Lanka. Many developing countries prefer PPPs for providing public
services. Through a PPP, the private sector agrees to provide a public service expecting a
return on its investment.
 The Central Bank of Sri Lanka (2016) places infrastructure development under the low Suitability
investment category. According to the PPP unit of Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka, which is still a of PPP
developing country, faces many difficulties in meeting the demand for infrastructure and procurement
the GoSL is not inclined to provide budgetary allocations for infrastructure development,
thus necessitating private sector involvement in infrastructure development. method
In the BOOT PPP procurement model, “total cost of the project,” a client-related factor, is
the most significant procurement selection factor while “type of the road project” is the most 209
significant project-related procurement selection factor and, “availability and incorporation
of experienced (specialized) and educated (skilled) contractors” the most significant external
environment-related procurement selection factor. BOOT is recognized as the most suitable
PPP procurement model for road construction in Sri Lanka in which private sector can
finance, design, build and operate the infrastructure facility for a specified period through a
service contract. The next most suitable PPP procurement model for Sri Lanka is BOT.
BOOT and BOT have also been identified in the past studies as being suitable for the
transportation sector. BOOT would be especially suitable when there is a large gap in
infrastructure financing by the government as is the case in Sri Lanka. BOOT and BOT are
also suited to projects that involve significant investments.
According to the traffic surveys carried out by the Road Development Authority of
Sri Lanka, the traffic volume of the country is considerably low. Generally, investment
decisions on projects are governed by the payback periods of the projects. The low traffic
volume in the country can cause the payback periods of the projects to get extended.
Therefore, it becomes absolutely necessary to increase the feasibility of a road project
even by modifying the original scope of the project. For example, the building of an
expressway along with an apartment complex will be more feasible than building the
expressway alone. Since PPP as a procurement method has so far not been successful and
popular in Sri Lanka, a mechanism has to be set in place to educate the people of the
country on the benefits of PPPs. Even though with the help of the World Bank, a PPP unit
has been set up under the Ministry of Finance, it is yet to be given authority to achieve
economic objectives while securing investments with the private sector engagement. In
addition, as confirmed during the expert interviews, the government needs to introduce a
new PPP Act, new PPP Regulations and new PPP Guidelines (to replace the 1998 PPP
Guidelines). Since investment plans create pathways for the PPP approach at national and
provincial levels, and as pointed out by the experts if PPPs are to be successful, there has
to be increased involvement on the part of the government by providing a suitable
and stable, political and economic climate, a well-defined legal environment and a freely
convertible currency.
The study reveals that it is important for a developed or developing country planning to
popularize PPP as a procurement method, to improve public interest and awareness of PPP,
establish effective communication between policy makers and decision makers, provide
government incentives, develop new rules and regulations to attract investors and make
necessary arrangements to avoid corruption and develop infrastructure and other facilities.
These findings would also be applicable to other countries with backgrounds similar to
Sri Lanka.

References
Adair, A., Berry, J., Gulati, M., Haran, M., Hutchison, N.E., Kashyap, A., McCord, M., McGreal, S.,
Oyedele, J. and Tiwari, P. (2011), The Future of Private Finance Initiative and Public Private
Partnership, RICS, London.
Adikari, W. (2018), “Potential mitigation strategies for higher transaction cost of PPP context”,
unpublished thesis (BSc), University of Moratuwa.
BEPAM Ahamad, M.H.S., Perera, B.A.K.S. and Illankoon, I.M.C.S. (2013), “In house versus outsourcing facilities
9,2 management: a framework for value added selection in Sri Lankan commercial buildings”, in
Senevirathne, L.D.I.P. and Sandanayake, Y.G. (Eds), Proceedings of the Second World
Construction Symposium on Planning, Designing and Building for Tomorrow, Ceylon Institute of
Builders, Colombo, pp. 298-306.
Alaghbari, W., Kadir, M.P.A., Salim, A. and Ernawati (2007), “The significance factors causing delay of
building construction projects in Malaysia”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural
210 Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 192-206, available at: www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.
1108/09699980710731308
Ameyaw, E.E. and Chan, A.P. (2015), “Risk ranking and analysis in PPP water supply infrastructure
projects: an international survey of industry experts”, Facilities, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 428-453.
Appuhami, R. and Perera, S. (2016), “Management controls for minimising risk in public private
partnerships in a developing country: evidence from Sri Lanka”, Journal of Accounting &
Organizational Change, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 408-431.
Babatunde, S.O., Perera, S., Udeaja, C. and Zhou, L. (2015), “Drivers for adopting public private
partnership for infrastructure projects in developing countries: an empirical assessment”, RICS
COBRA AUBEA, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), Sydney, available at: www.
rics.org/cobra (accessed July 13, 2017).
Barlow, J., Roehrich, J. and Wright, S. (2013), “Europe sees mixed results from public private partnerships
for building and managing health care facilities and services”, Health Affairs, Vol. 31 No. 1,
pp. 146-154.
Broadbent, J. and Laughlin, R. (2003), “Public private partnerships: an introduction”, Accounting,
Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 332-341.
Central Bank of Sri Lanka (2016), “CBSL Annual report 2016: economic infrastructure”, Central Bank of
Sri Lanka.
Chan, A.P., Lam, P.T., Chan, D.W., Cheung, E. and Ke, Y. (2009), “Potential obstacles to successful
implementation of public–private partnerships in Beijing and the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 30-40.
Du Toit, J.L. and Mouton, J. (2013), “A typology of designs for social research in the built environment”,
International Journal of Social Research Methodology, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 125-139.
Eaton, D., Akbiyikli, R., de Lemos, T., Gunnigan, L., Kutanis, R.O., Casensky, M., Ladra, J. and
El-Sawalhi, N. (2007), “An examination of the suitability of a UK PFI model within the Czech
Republic, the Republic of Ireland, Palestine (Gaza–West Bank), Portugal and Turkey”,
Construction Innovation, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 122-142.
Efficiency Unit (2008), An Introductory Guide to Public Private Partnerships (PPPs), 3rd ed., Efficiency Unit,
Hong Kong.
Ekanayake, E.M.K. and Perera, B.A.K.S. (2016), “Appropriate delay analysis techniques to analyse
delays in road construction projects in Sri Lanka”, Built Environment Project and Asset
Management, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 521-534.
Estache, A. and Iimi, A. (2008), Procurement Efficiency for Infrastructure Development and Financial
Needs Reassessed, World Bank Group, available at: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/
bitstream/handle/10986/6854/WPS4662.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Farquharson, E. and Yescombe, E.R. (2011), Defining Public-Private Partnerships. How to Engage with
the Private Sector in Public-Private Partnerships in Emerging Markets, The World Bank,
Washington, available at: https://doi.org/10.1596/9780821378632_CH02 (accessed May 22, 2017).
Fellows, R.F. and Liu, A.M.M. (2015), Research Methods for Construction, 4th ed., John Wiley & Sons,
New York, NY.
Finance Commission of Sri Lanka (2017), “Public–private partnership approach: theory and practice”,
available at: http://fincom.gov.lk/public-private-partnership-approach-theory-and-practice/
(accessed July 3, 2017).
Grimsey, D. and Lewis, M.K. (2002), “Evaluating the risks of public–private partnerships for Suitability
infrastructure projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 107-118. of PPP
Gupta, A.K., Trivedi, M.K. and Kansal, R. (2013), “Risk variation assessment of Indian road PPP projects”, procurement
International Journal of Science, Environment and Technology, Vol. 2 No. 5, pp. 1017-1026.
method
Hall, D., De La Motte, R. and Davies, S. (2003), “Terminology of public-private partnerships (PPPs)”,
Public Services International Research Unit, London.
Henjewele, C., Sun, M. and Fewings, P. (2014), “Comparative performance of healthcare and transport 211
PFI projects: empirical study on the influence of key factors”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 77-87.
Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors (2009), Practical Guide to Public Private Partnership (PPP) Projects,
Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors, Hong Kong.
Ibbs, C.W., Kwak, Y.H., Chih, Y. and Ibbs, C.W. (2009), “Towards a comprehensive understanding of
public private partnerships for infrastructure development”, California Management Review,
Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 51-79.
Izaguirre, A.K. and Mirzagalyamova, A. (2008), “Investment commitments in Europe and Central Asia
doubled in 2007”, available at: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/11001
(accessed August 19, 2017).
Jin, X.H. and Doloi, H. (2008), “Interpreting risk allocation mechanism in public–private partnership
projects: an empirical study in a transaction cost economics perspective”, Construction
Management and Economics, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 707-721.
Johnson, J.W. and LeBreton, J.M. (2004), “History and use of relative importance indices in
organizational research”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 7, pp. 238-257.
Kakabadse, N.K., Kakabadse, A.P. and Summers, N. (2007), “Effectiveness of private finance initiatives
(PFI): study of private financing for the provision of capital assets for schools”, Public Administration
and Development, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 49-61.
Kamarazaly, M.A. (2007), “A mature profession of quantity surveying in Sri Lanka”, unpublished
MPhil thesis, University of Messay, Wellington.
Kothari, C.R. (2004), Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques, 2nd ed., New Age International,
New Delhi.
Kumaraswamy, M.M. and Dissanayaka, S.M. (2001), “Developing a decision support system for
building project procurement”, Building and Environment, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 337-349.
Kumaraswamy, M.M. and Morris, D.A. (2002), “Build-operate-transfer-type procurement in Asian
megaprojects”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 93-102.
Kumaraswamy, M.M. and Zhang, X.Q. (2001), “Governmental role in BOT-led infrastructure
development”, International Journal of Project Management”, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 195-205.
Li, B., Akintoye, A., Edwards, P.J. and 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”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 125-148.
Love, P.E., Edwards, D.J., Irani, Z. and Sharif, A. (2011), “Participatory action research approach to
public sector procurement selection”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
Vol. 138 No. 3, pp. 311-322.
Lund, T. (2012), “Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches: some arguments for mixed
methods research”, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 155-165.
Mathonsi, M. and Thwala, W. (2012), “Selection of procurement systems in the South African
construction industry: an exploratory study”, African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 12
No. 10, pp. 13-26.
Mayer Brown JSM (2009), “New Decree on BOT, BTO and BT contracts (Decree No. 108/2009/ND-CP)”,
Mayer Brown Practices, available at: www.mayerbrown.com/publications/new-decree-on-bot-
bto-and-bt-contracts-12-09-2009/ (accessed January 29, 2018).
BEPAM Mubin, S. and Ghaffar, A. (2008), “BOT contracts: applicability in Pakistan for infrastructure
9,2 development”, Pakistan Journal of Engineering and Applied Science, Vol. 3, pp. 33-46.
Neuman, W.L. (2011), Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 7th ed.,
Pearson, Boston, MA.
Noor, M.A., Khalfan, M.M.A. and Maqsood, T. (2012), “Methods used to procure infrastructure projects
in Pakistan: an overview”, International Journal of Procurement Management, Vol. 5 No. 6,
212 pp. 733-752.
Qiang, M., Wen, Q., Jiang, H. and Yuan, S. (2015), “Factors governing construction project delivery selection:
a content analysis”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 33 No. 8, pp. 1780-1794.
Rajeh, M.A., Tookey, J. and Rotimi, J. (2014), “Procurement selection model: development of a
conceptual model based on transaction costs”, Australasian Journal of Construction Economics
and Building-Conference Series, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 56-63, available at: https://doi.org/10.5130/ajceb-
cs.v2i2.3889
Ratnasabapathy, S. and Rameezdeen, R. (2007), “A decision support system for the selection of best
procurement system in construction”, Built-Environment Sri Lanka, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 43-53.
Ratnasabapathy, S., Rameezdeen, R. and Gamage, I. (2006), “Macro level factors affecting the
construction procurement selection: a multi-criteria model”, The Joint International Conference
on Construction Culture, Innovation and Management (CCIM), pp. 581-591.
Rodrigo, M.N.N. and Perera, B.A.K.S. (2017), “Criteria for selecting nominated subcontractors in
commercial building construction”, Built Environment Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 39-47.
Rufin, C. (2012), “Between commonweal and competition: understanding the governance of
public–private partnerships”, Journal of Management, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 1634-1654.
Sahoo, P. and Dash, R.K. (2009), “Infrastructure development and economic growth in India”, Journal of
the Asia Pacific Economy, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 351-365.
Shediac, R., Abouchakra, R., Hammami, M. and Najjar, M.R. (2008), Public–Private Partnerships: A New
Catalyst for Economic Growth, Booz and Company.
Shen, L., Lee, R. and Zhang, Z. (1996), “Application of BOT system for infrastructure projects in China”,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 122 No. 4, pp. 319-332.
Sivakumaran, S., Perera, B.A.K.S. and Perera, K.T.P.K. (2015), “Construction management as a suitable
procurement method for hotel building construction in Sri Lanka”, Proceedings of the 19th
Pacific Association of Quantity Surveyors Congress, Pacific Association of Quantity Surveyors,
May 28-June 1.
Tawiah, P.A. and Russell, A.D. (2008), “Assessing infrastructure project innovation potential as a
function of procurement mode”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 173-186.
Teddlie, C. and Tashakkori, A. (2003), “Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in
the social and behavioral sciences”, in Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (Eds), Handbook of Mixed
Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 3-50.
United Nations (2012), “Country report for the third Asia Pacific Ministerial Conference on public
private partnership for infrastructure development. Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran”, available
at: www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/3-SriLanka-Country-report.pdf (accessed June 12, 2017).
USAID (2016), “Report on Sri Lanka’s current PPP environment and recommendations for future PPP
strategy”, AID-OAA-I-12-00039, USAID.
Wibowo, A., Permana, A., Kochendörfer, B., Kiong, R.T.L., Jacob, D. and Neunzehn, D. (2012),
“Modeling contingent liabilities arising from government guarantees in Indonesian BOT/PPP
toll roads”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 138 No. 12, pp. 1403-1410.
World Economic Forum (2012), “Strategic infrastructure-steps to prioritize and deliver infrastructure
effectively and efficiently”, available at: www.weforum.org (accessed May 3, 2017).
Zangoueinezhad, A. and Azar, A. (2014), “How public–private partnership projects impact infrastructure
industry for economic growth”, International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 41 No. 10, pp. 994-1010.
Zhang, S., Gao, Y., Feng, Z. and Sun, W. (2015), “PPP application in infrastructure development in Suitability
China: institutional analysis and implications”, International Journal of Project Management, of PPP
Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 497-509.
Zou, W., Kumaraswamy, M., Chung, J. and Wong, J. (2014), “Identifying the critical success factors for procurement
relationship management in PPP projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 32 method
No. 2, pp. 265-274.

Corresponding author 213

M.N.N. Rodrigo can be contacted at: navomail@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com