4.5 Article

Procurement methods for US infrastructure: historical perspectives and recent trends

期刊

BUILDING RESEARCH AND INFORMATION
卷 30, 期 6, 页码 425-434

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09613210210159875

关键词

building stock; business systems; construction business system; Design-Build; Design-Build-Finance-Operate; Design-Build-Operate; infrastructure; life-cycle costs; maintenance; portfolio management; project delivery methods; public investment; public policy; public/private partnership; United States

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper is concerned with emerging trends within the delivery systems and financing methods of public and private infrastructure projects in the US, and with the ongoing debate on public/private partnerships. Project delivery methods and more generally the procurement policies that currently drive the management of the US infrastructure system are explored. The historical evolution of government procurement policies of facilities indicates a wide variety of strategies including a dual-track procurement strategy that used a combination of different delivery methods and, in many instances, private financing. The methods ranged from the combined procurement of the design, construction, operation and maintenance of a facility, such as Design-Build-Operate (DBO) and Design-Build-Finance-Operate (known outside the US as 'BOT'), to the separate procurement of these services, such as Design-Bid-Building (DBB) and Design-Build (DB). In the last 50 years, there has been a shift toward the exclusive reliance on separate procurement such as DBB and the use of public funding. This approach is not sustainable financially, considering the widening gap between the availability of public funds and the increasing needs of the existing infrastructure system. Some drivers that foster a possible future shift in public procurement procedures are highlighted as well as the development of a more efficient infrastructure management practice.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据