This paper reviews value for money (VfM) analyses conducted in the United States to gain an understanding of methods used in addressing key issues in VfM analyses. The paper shows that VfM analysis approaches are inconsistent. In many cases it is difficult to decipher the source of differences between delivery options. Discount rates are sometimes used in a way that reduces credibility of the results. The paper presents some ideas for how these key issues can be approached so that VfM analysis results are more credible, consistent, and transparent.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Government of Australia. National Public-Private Policy Guidelines Volume 2: Practitioners’ Guide. Government of Australia, 2015.
2.
HM Treasury. Value for Money Assessment Guidance, August2004 (updated November2006).
3.
Partnerships British Columbia. Methodology for Quantitative Procurement Options Analysis, 2011 (updated April2014).
4.
Federal Highway Administration. P3-Value 2.0 Guide. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., February2016.
5.
StuartM.Value for Money: Cautionary Lessons about P3s from British Columbia. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, BC Office, 2006.
6.
MorallosD.AmekudziA.RossC. L.MeyerM.Value for Money Analysis in U.S. Transportation Public–Private Partnerships. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2009. 2115: pp. 27–36.
7.
Federal Highway Administration. Value for Money State of the Practice. December2011.
BaruthaP.EricS.Value for Money on a Public Private Partnership Infrastructure Project: An International Comparative Analysis. Presented at 95th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2016.
10.
National Infrastructure Unit of the Treasury. Guidance for Public-Private Partnerships (P3s) in New Zealand. NZ Treasury, 2009.
11.
GiffordJ. L.WheelerP. K.KweunJ. Y.Comparative Analysis of Value-for-Money Studies: Highway Public-Private Partnerships Projects in the United States. Paper number 16-4546. Presented at 95th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., January2016.
12.
BoardmanA. E.HellowellM.Comparison and Analysis of Specialist PPP Units’ Methodologies for Conducting Value for Money Analysis. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, pp. 1–17. DOI: 10.1080/13876988.2016.1190083
13.
Colorado High Performance Transportation Enterprise. US 36 Managed Lanes Toll Concession Project: Project Value Analysis. Colorado High Performance Transportation Enterprise, Colorado, 2014.
14.
Virginia Office of Public-Private Partnerships. Transform 66 Project (Outside the Beltway): Initial Value for Money Assessment. Virginia Office of Public-Private Partnerships, Virginia, 2015.
15.
Colorado Department of Transportation. I-70 East Project Financing and Delivery Options: A Summary of the Value for Money Analysis. Colorado Department of Transportation, Colorado, 2015.
16.
Florida Department of Transportation. I-595 Corridor Roadway Improvements: Value for Money Analysis. Florida Department of Transportation, Florida, 2009.
17.
Ohio Department of Transportation and Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. Brent Spence Bridge Project Options Analysis. Ohio Department of Transportation and Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Ohio, 2013.
18.
Arup/PB Joint Venture. Analysis of Delivery Options for the Presidio Parkway Project.Arup/PB Joint Venture, San Francisco, 2010.
19.
Ohio Department of Transportation. SCI-823 Portsmouth Bypass: Project Delivery Alternatives Analysis. Ohio Department of Transportation, Ohio, Undated.
