4.5 Article

Can the pilot BOT Project provide a template for future projects? A case study of the Chengdu No. 6 Water Plant B Project

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Volume 27, Issue 6, Pages 573-583

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.10.006

Keywords

Build Operate Transfer (BOT); Infrastructure; Water sector; China; Project finance

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Chengdu No. 6 Water Plant B Project is a central government promoted pilot Build Operate Transfer (BOT) project in Chinese water sector, but the mode of the Chengdu project has not been well applied to the following BOT water supply projects. First hand data about the Chengdu project was collected focusing oil project development process and organization, and lessons learned were identified in terms of factors impacting project viability as well as their re-applicability towards future BOT water supply projects in China. Main factors include (1) flagship project status with strong commitment of the central government, local government and an international multilateral organization; (2) local government taking multiple risks and responsibilities; (3) engaging lenders in decision making; (4) procurement of local products and services in construction and maintenance; (5) utilization of proven and cost saving technology; and (6) time-consuming project development process and complex approval system. Why the following BOT water supply projects are often of small size and how the mode of the Chengdu project can be applied to future projects of similar or larger size are discussed. The study provides implications for governments to re-define their role and improve the institutional settings for BOT project delivery and for infrastructure developers and investors to better understand and participate into the enormous Chinese water market through the BOT method. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available