[雙語翻譯]ppp投標(biāo)外文翻譯--公私伙伴關(guān)系（ppp）投標(biāo)的物有所值（vfm）評價(jià)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)

1、3150 英文單詞， 英文單詞，1.8 萬英文字符，中文 萬英文字符，中文 5200 字文獻(xiàn)出處： 文獻(xiàn)出處：Ismail K, Takim R, Nawawi A H. The evaluation criteria of Value for Money (VFM) of Public Private Partnership (PPP) bids[C]//International Conference on Intelligent

2、Building and Management. 2011, 5: 349-355.The evaluation criteria of Value for Money (VFM) of Public Private Partnership (PPP) bidsKharizam Ismail., Roshana Takim., Abdul Hadi NawawiAbstractFundamentally, the notions of

3、Value for Money (VFM) is associated with the concepts of whole life value of service provided for construction projects. VFM is associated in reducing life cycle costs; provide better allocation of risk, faster implement

4、ation, improved service quality and generating high revenue of the project outcomes. In achieving VFM of Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects, a mixture of financial and non-financial criteria are prerequisite in th

5、e evaluation of PPP bids to ensure the project provide VFM to project stakeholders.PPP bids evaluation had also been subjected to a wide criticism. The debate divulged the lack and unclear process of detailing of how PPP

6、 bids evaluation process could provide VFM. Hence, the research aim is to identify important criteria to be integrated in the evaluation of PPP bids for VFM. This research uses a postal questionnaire technique conducted

7、among all PPP stakeholders (public and private sectors) in Malaysia. Through a descriptive analysis, the results revealed 6 out of 20 criteria as ‘very critical’ in the evaluation of VFM of PPP bids. These are: optimum w

8、hole life cost, innovation, fit for purpose, comprehensive specification, compliance on time, and appropriate risk allocation. Further analysis by means of factor analysis technique revealed four principal components: pr

9、oject operational and social benefit; managerial and financial criteria; and technical and environmental criteria. Hence to incorporate VFM in the proposed of PPP bids, the 4 recommended principal components that embrace

10、d both financial and non- financial aspects are inevitable.Keywords: Evaluation criteria; Descriptive analysis; PPP bids; Value for money; Factor analysis1. IntroductionPublic Private Partnership (PPP) is seen as an effe

11、ctive way to achieve value for money (VFM) in public projects. These benefits include introducing competition between prospective private bidders and exploiting the greater efficiency and innovation in the private sector

12、. VFM definition depends on the motives and interests of the governments. It may change over time due to political, economical and social developments (Akintoye et al. 2003). For instance, Moralos and Amekudzi (2008) cla

13、ims VFM as a best available outcome for the cost savings, benefits, appropriate risk allocation throughout the project’s lifetime which focused on the quality and competency in order to meet the public requirements. Shou

14、l (2005) believes in essence that the VFM term is built on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness aspects. It relates to the idea that VFM as an examination to determine whether the projects are performing economicall

15、y; efficiently and effectively in its use of resources, operations and pursuit the objectives of the stakeholders’ requirements. Thus, undoubtedly VFM is not the lowest cost option but an understanding of the whole life

16、benefits and appropriate risk allocation between public and private sectors.There are two ultimate goals in conducting VFM assessment of PPP projects. The first goal is to identify factors to determine whether a project

17、delivers VFM to stakeholders. The second goal months from February to May 2010. To obtain an accurate and precise information, a purposive sampling technique was used. The target respondents were selected based on their

18、involvement with Malaysia PPP projects. The data was accumulated from 216 target respondents which comprised of top management levels of contractors, consultants and governments’ officers. They were chosen as they are th

19、e key stakeholders in PPP projects. The targeted respondents have vast knowledge and experiences in BOT and PPP projects local and abroad.A total of 51 respondents completed the questionnaires that were returned represen

20、ting a response rate of 23.6%. Two separate statistical analyses (descriptive and inferential) were adopted using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). The first analysis ranked the criteria based on mean v

21、alue of responses. One–way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was executed to test whether the mean values on each criteria for the groups were equal. For the same data set, factor analysis technique was applied to the twenty

22、criteria in the PPP evaluation bids. The essense of the factor analysis is to explore the relative importance amongst these criteria and to achieve a parsimonious reduction into fewer meaningful principal factors (Takim,

23、 2005).3.0 Key research findings3.1 PPP evaluation bids-descriptive analysisTable 1 shows the result of the analysis based on overall mean scores and the priority ranking by the respondents. Out of 20 criteria, 6 criteri

24、a are regarded as ‘ very critical’ based on the overall mean scores being over 4.00 and the scores range between 4.02 (appropriate risk allocation) to 4.14 (optimum whole life cost). With regard to the three groups of re

25、spondents (government, consultants & contractors), government and consultants signify the utmost concern by selecting all the six criteria as ‘very critical’. However, contractors choose 4 out of 6 criteria as ‘very

26、critical’.These six criteria are: optimum whole life cost, innovation, fit for purpose, comprehensive specification, compliance on time, and appropriate risk allocation. In agreement with HM Treasury (2006), the optimum

27、whole life cost is believed to be the most critical criterion in VFM evaluation of PPP bids. All respondents (government, consultants and contractors) agreed that this criterion as the utmost important with the overall m

28、ean value of 4.14. This indicates that the concept of VFM itself refers to the whole life value of the service given. Since PPP is a form of procurement that involves an integration of finance, design, construction and o

29、peration, the understanding of whole life cost’s concept is vital to achieve VFM. Therefore, the performance of PPP should be assessed over the entire whole life cost of a project from inception to end of the contract du

30、ration as suggested by Akintoye (2003).The second critical criterion is innovation. The results showed that contractors rated innovation as crucial in the evaluation of VFM of PPP bids with the mean value of 4.20. This i

31、ndicates that contractors believed that in order to win the PPP bids, it is important for them to offer innovative solution in the proposal (Spiering,2006). However, the choice by both government and consultants contradi

32、cted with contractors as they rated‘comprehensive specification’ as more critical than innovation. The third critical criterion is ‘fit for purpose’ (overall mean=4.10). Once again both government and consultants are in

33、line with the opinion that the achievement of VFM should be assessed from the quality’s perspective and comply with building functionality (fit for purpose). Thus, PPP bids should be streamlined and fit the purpose of th