Bidding Strategy for BOT Port Terminal Projects in India

Kulkarni, Nirupama; Prusty, Alok

doi:10.3905/jsf.12.4.90

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several authors, for example, point out that PAs tend to overestimate longterm traffic forecasts in view of obtaining higher investment volumes (Lam et al 2004). Analogously, private terminal operators involved in concession procedures may present overly optimistic long-term traffic expectations in order to outperform other bidders or to obtain favourable concession conditions (Trujillo et al 2002;Kulkarni and Prusty 2007;Cruz and Marques 2012). Other public actors involved in port forecasting include policymakers and regulators.…”

Section: Institutional Issues Affecting Traffic Forecasting Exercisesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting traffic forecasting by port authorities in the context of port planning and development

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper contributes to the extant debate on port planning and development by analysing current approaches and challenges for academics and port authorities with respect to traffic forecasting. First, we examine how academics approach traffic forecasting in ports based on an extensive literature review. Next, using a sample of 28 core ports in the European Union, we provide empirical evidence on traffic forecasting challenges for, and approaches by, port authorities. Our findings are discussed by focussing on five themes, i.e. formalized planning versus ad hoc investment decisions, the types and time horizons of port planning documents, forecasting methods and data sources, attitudes towards the disclosure of traffic forecasts and methods, and institutional issues affecting traffic forecasting exercises.

show abstract

Section: Institutional Issues Affecting Traffic Forecasting Exercisesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting traffic forecasting by port authorities in the context of port planning and development

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The authority usually provides policy initiates data such as fiscal incentives scheme, retained responsibilities for the delivery of core services, governmental loan guarantee, royalty, tariff cap, etc. (Chang and Chen, 2001;Khan and Parra, 2003;Zhang, 2005b;Kulkarni and Prusty, 2007;Government of India, 2009). The sponsor supplies the initial cost of the project and the management cost.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Reference (s) Anticipating project cost overrun (CN1) World Bank and Public-Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility (2007) Committing the lowest level of equity possible (CN2) Khan and Parra (2003) Securing the project cash flows from the risks (CN3) Wibowo (2006), Kong et al (2008) Fiscal incentive or tax benefits from the government authority (CN4) Grimsey and Lewis (2004), Kulkarni and Prusty (2007), Khan and Parra (2003) Transparency during negotiation process (CN5) Demirag and Khadaroo (2011) (2003) Knowing whether the project needs a subordinated lender or not (CN10) Khan and Parra (2003) Reaching an agreement on forecast for Cash Available for Debt Service (CN11) Khan and Parra (2003) Risk allocation through all project agreements (CN12) Jun (2010) Assurance that the lenders are only lending a reasonable amount (Debt Sizing) (CN13) Schaufelberger and Wipadapisut (2003), Hucknall (2010) Insurance for any material error in the model resulting in the debt not being repayable (CN14) Hucknall (2010) Credit Committee requirement for approving the sponsor's credit application (CN15) Asenova and Beck (2003) Public-private partnership projects financial closing on acceptable terms and construction start, from the initial model, the sponsor(s) and the lenders (modelling bank) develop a lender base case financial model in order to undertake due diligence of the project's financial viability. However, due diligence procedure for PPP projects, with a relative high investment volume, is a time consuming process (Daube et al, 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Twelve expectations of major participants at the pre-proposal stage (PP1-12) are summarised in Table II. 2.2 Stakeholders' expectations in using PPP financial models at the contract negotiation stage Once the proposal is submitted to the government authority, the sponsor, or bidder quotes a percentage of their revenue to be shared with the government authority. Competitive pricing (PP1) Tiong (1996), World Bank and PPIAF (2007) Generally, the proposal with the highest percentage will be selected and taken forward to the contract negotiation process (Kulkarni and Prusty, 2007). The authorities also expect a reduced level of risk for them and flexibility of national budget expenditure.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Stakeholders’ expectations in utilising financial models for public-private partnership projects

Kurniawan

Ogunlana

Motawa

2014

Built Environment Project and Asset Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore stakeholders’ expectations in utilising PPP financial models in order to ensure that each stakeholder understands the expectations of others before negotiating and reaching contract agreement by all the stakeholders. Design/methodology/approach – Five common sets of 40 expectations have been identified through a systematic research approach, and their relative significances were verified based on pilot studies in India and the UK and expert opinion solicited worldwide through a structured questionnaire survey. The survey responses were evaluated by using statistical analyses. Findings – The most important stakeholders’ expectations in utilising PPP financial models were identified at five different stages in a project. They are bankable (at the pre-proposal stage), assessment of project's ability to carry senior debt (at the contract negotiation stage), sensitivity analysis for key commercial issues (at the finance-raising stage), debt service evaluation towards cost overrun and other adverse events (at the construction stage), and assurance of secure operational cash flow (at the operation stage). Although some of the most important expectations are agreed on by all stakeholders, the disagreement of most important expectations should also be considered by the other stakeholder(s) in order to achieve effective and efficient negotiations. Originality/value – The paper draws attention to stakeholders’ expectations in utilising a financial model that is arguably overlooked in evaluating PPP projects. It does so in order to speed up the negotiation process as a means of minimising cost and time expenditures on PPP contract negotiation.

show abstract