International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)

Volume 8, Issue 6, June 2017, pp. 584–594, Article ID: IJCIET_08_06_064

Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=6
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

RISK MITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR PUBLIC

PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP HIGHWAY
PROJECTS IN INDIA
Pawan Deshpande
Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering,
Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal, India

Siddhartha Rokade
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,
Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal, India

ABSTRACT
In developing nations like India, private sector has indispensable role in
infrastructure development. Public Private Partnership (PPP) is a popular method of
privatization of public infrastructure development. PPP cycle generally runs through
three major stages: development, construction and operation. The development stage
mainly comprises of project initiation, financial closure, contract and tendering. The
construction stage includes designing & building and operation stage require
regulation along with maintenance. The paper discusses the various risks at each of
the stages i.e. Operation Stage Financing Stage Construction Stage Transfer Stage
Feasibility Stage. Further the risk mitigation strategies for each of the stages are
presented in the paper. The risk mitigation strategies are sector specific and suggested
for Indian highway projects scenario in this study.
Keywords: Public Private Partnership, Risk Mitigation, Model Concessionaire
Agreement, Build Operate and Transfer (Toll)
Cite this Article: Pawan Deshpande And Siddhartha Rokade, Risk Mitigation
Strategies for Public Private Partnership Highway Projects in India. International
Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(6), 2017, pp. 584–594.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=6

1. INTRODUCTION
Most developing nations face the challenge to meet the growing demand for new and better
infrastructure services for both economic growth and social development, India is no
exception. Another challenge is that the funding in the public sector is limited. Partnership
with the private sector has emerged as an attractive alternative to increase and improve the
supply of infrastructure services. The partners in a PPP, usually through a legally binding
contract or some other mechanism, agree to share responsibilities related to implementation
and/or operation and management of an infrastructure project. This collaboration or

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 584 editor@iaeme.com

 Pawan Deshpande and Siddhartha Rokade

partnership is built on the strength of each partner that meet clearly defined public needs
through an appropriate allocation of resources risks responsibilities and rewards (Economic
and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific, 2011). The Government of India defined PPP as
a project based on a contract or concession agreement, between a government or statutory
entity on one side and a private sector company on the other side, for delivering an
infrastructure service on payment of user charges (Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry
of Finance, Government of India, 2010). Planning commission of India, defines PPP as an
approach under which services are delivered by the private sector (Non profit or profit based
organization) while the responsibility for providing the service rests with the government.
This arrangement requires the government to either enter into a contract with the private
partner on pay for the services (reimburse) rendered by the private sector. Contracting
prompts a new activity, especially so, when neither the public sector nor the private sector
existed to provide the service At the heart of all PPPs, is the deployment of private sector
capital. Within a PPP framework, this can result in improved value for money for the
government in terms of the risks transferred to the private sector (for those risks which the
private sector are best able to manage) and powerful private sector incentives for the long-
term delivery of reliable public services. There are four major ‘drivers’ to determine whether
a PPP is value for money. These include- risk transfer, whole-of-life costing, innovation and
asset utilization (Singh et al, 2015).
In developing nations like India, private sector has indispensable role in infrastructure
development. PPP is a popular method of privatization of public infrastructure development.
Precise financial analysis of these projects is very important as they involve huge investments.
The main objective of the financial analysis is to examine the viability of implementing the
project on a commercial basis. The analysis attempts to ascertain the extent to which the
investment can be recovered through toll revenue and the gap, if any, be funded through
alternative revenue sources. Moreover, in order to serve road user better, road user
perspectives based on identified road user parameters on PPP highways is essential. These
road user perspectives can be used in the measurement of satisfaction level on PPP highways.

1.1. Variants of PPP in Road Sector

The four models of PPP adopted in India for the development of National Highways are Build
Operate and Transfer (Toll), BOT (Annuity), Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV).
(a) BOT (Toll) model, here the Concessionaire recovers his investment by charging toll
from the users of the road facility. This model reduces the fiscal burden on the government
while also allocating the traffic risk to the Concessionaire. The toll rates are fixed by the
government as a policy. This is the model used for most of the projects and can be regarded as
the default model for highway projects.
(b) BOT (Annuity) Model: Under a BOT annuity model, the Concessionaire is assured of
a minimum return on his investment in the form of annuity payments. The Concessionaire
does not bear the traffic risk and the Government bears the entire risk with respect to toll
income.
(c) Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV) model, government, private operator and other
financial entities form a separate unit which constructs and operates the project. The revenue
collected are shared by the stake holders of the SPV in agreed manner (Kadiyali, 2013).
Design, Build, Finance and Operate (DBFO) model is a sub type of BOT, in which
detailed project report (DPR) is not prepared by government unlike the above three models

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 585 editor@iaeme.com

 Risk Mitigation Strategies for Public Private Partnership Highway Projects in India

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Zhang et al. 2014 defined “PPP as a strategy that is utilized to provide quality infrastructure
facilities and services with high efficiency (as purpose and function), based on a long-term
contractual arrangement between public and private parties through the synergetic
cooperation between partners.” But, researchers in PPP mainly focus on the extent to which
benefits are realized and how such benefits can be increased keeping in mind that the risk and
uncertainties of a project cannot be underestimated.
UNIDO (1996) have developed a risk checklist under two major categories with three sub
categories under each. The risks classified in the first category are political risks, commercial
risks and legal risks, and that in second category are developmental risks,
construction/completion risk and operating risks. (Akintoye et al., 1998) have concluded risk
assessment / prioritization in private finance initiative (PFI) projects in UK. The 10 most
important risk factors identified by him (based on survey among clients, contractors, and
financial institution) are design risk, construction cost risk, performance risk, etc. (Wang et
al., 2000 ; Akbiyikli 2004) presented the findings from an international survey on risk
management of build-operate-transfer (BOT) projects in developing countries, with emphasis
on infrastructure projects in China. In this the criticality of the political and force majeure
risks has been discussed. From the survey, the following critical risks, in descending order of
criticality, have been identified: Chinese Parties’ reliability and creditworthiness, change in
law, force majeure, and delay in approval, expropriation, and corruption. The measures for
mitigating each of these risks are also discussed. (Jefferies and Chen, 2003) applies an
identified list of risk factor to a case study of Stadium Australia. Bidding process, the high
level of public scrutiny, post-Olympic Games facility revenue and the complicated nature of
the consortium structure are the most significant risk associated.
Thomas et al. (2003) found that despite massive investment opportunities and
establishment of framework for private sector participation a huge degree of risk exposure
disagreement on many risk issues among major stakeholders and the absence of adequate
government guarantees are some of the major reasons for this lukewarm response from
private sector. The outcome of a risk perception analysis which is done to evaluate the risk
criticality, risk management capability, risk allocation/sharing preference, and factors
influencing risk acceptance of major stakeholders to achieve that a survey was conducted
among senior project participants such as government officials, promoters, lenders and
consultants of Indian BOT road projects, have also been discussed here. In the Indian road
sector under BOT set up, eight types of risks have been identified as very critical risk with
traffic revenue risk being the most critical. Though there is fair agreement among survey
respondents with respect to the risk management capabilities of stakeholders, their
preferences of allocations are divergent. Regression analysis is used to identify the significant
factors influencing the risk acceptance of each stakeholder. The study also concludes that the
acceptance capacity of a stakeholder is significantly different from factors and their relative
influence on the risk. Methodology used is Risk Perception Analysis.
Yuan et al. (2009) focused on the process factors that can persuade the performance of
PPPs and to improve process and performance management in PPPs, the performance
objectives and key performance indicators (KPIs) are identified to improve the partnership
outcomes. Mainly 15 performance objectives are selected, based on the goal-setting theory.
The relative significance and difference of performance objectives for different stakeholders
are presented based on a structured questionnaire survey. The survey results show that all
recognized objectives are essential. There are evident differences in the objectives of budget
constraints of the public sector, risks, revenue and guarantees, inspite of stakeholders’

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 586 editor@iaeme.com

 Pawan Deshpande and Siddhartha Rokade

common opinions on the objectives of quality, costs, time and the services provided by PPPs
results.

3. RISK MITIGATION STRATEGIES

3.1. Traffic Revenue Risk
The Model Concession Agreement follows DBFOT mode of PPP, the concessionaire is whole
sole responsible for revenue generation and operating the highway along with the
maintenance in long years of concession period and the major risk at this stage is revenue
generation from the project which is influenced by various factors as showed in Figure 1. The
revenue generation is further influenced by loss due to adverse government policy, loss due to
resistance to pay, poor toll enforceability, operational problem, prolonged force majeure
event, etc. This shows that revenue generation depends on various factors which make this
stage risky requiring immediate mitigation for smooth operation.

The mitigation strategy for this stage suggested is as follows:

i. To check leakage of the road i.e. any other alternative route to avoid any particular
section, if exist any and plan the location of toll collection accordingly so that there
won’t exist any chance to escape which is a general tendency of the public in
developing countries.
ii. As the charges per PCU is decided at the time of agreement per km, there should be
another toll payment structure for regular driver’s in form of passes and user book so
as to save the time of a public and avoid in convince to them.
iii. There should be equity for all road user and no special consideration should be given
to any political or press members. This is suggested to avoid force majeure events.
As this stage is identified as most critical risk group due to revenue generation and public
credit i.e. unwillingness to pay the BOT (Toll) has failed and reluctance of private
participation in PPP mode increase leading to immediate need of development of innovative
contractual structure. To overcome this, experts and policymakers in India have prescribed
Annuity-based BOT model to limit the effect of price elasticity of traffic demand. Annuity-
based BOT model is traffic risk-neutral PPP model. . In this variant of PPP model, the
granting authority will pay to the concessionaire a fixed semi-annual annuity.
This amount will compensate for the expenses incurred by the concessionaire in
construction, operation and maintenance of the facilities, and the returns thereon.
This amount does not bear any relationship with the level of traffic using the facilities;
hence the concessionaire does not bear the traffic revenue risk. In addition to this, private
investors are not exposed to development risks associated with conventional BOT
development process which is described to be a very expensive and time consuming process.
Hence, the mitigation of this particular stage is achieved using Annuity-based BOT model
where traffic-revenue shortfall of Concessionaire is overcome.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 587 editor@iaeme.com

 Risk Mitigation Strategies for Public Private Partnership Highway Projects in India

Figure 1 Revenue Risk of Operation Stage

(Source: Thomas et al, 2006)

3.2. Strategy For Financing Stage Risk

This includes arrangement of debt and equity finance by concessionaire for the particular
highway project. The amount of investment for highway project is huge and hence involves
many parties which are banker, lenders, government, etc and is a big question in term of
project lifecycle as it deals with various uncertainties due to long time investment,
disagreement of clauses in concession agreement, financial closure, etc.
The financial closure is the main risk associated with any PPP project as it is needed to be
done within 180 days from LOA (Letter of Award) according to MCA. But it is generally
delayed due to delay in performance security, inadequate guarantees from government, etc.
The failure or delay in financial closure depends on various factors such as failure to
arrange equity at time which is a common risk as the cost of investment is huge, delay in debt
syndication which includes processing time to arrange debit and sudden change in cost of debt
which is quiet common now- a-days due to market changing condition. This factor further
depends on various other factors as shown in Figure 2. This indicates interdependency of each
factor on financial closure.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 588 editor@iaeme.com

 Pawan Deshpande and Siddhartha Rokade

Figure 2: Delay in Financial Closure Risk of Financing Stage

(Source: Thomas et al, 2006)
In India, government does not assume any responsibility for delay in financial closure of
BOT road projects (Model Concession Agreement, 2009). The concessionaire feel that the
risk has to be shared by government as availability of long-term finance for infrastructure
project is limited and Indian capital market is also underdeveloped and unreliable and
promoters find it really difficult to arrange alternate finance from this source. In non-resource
finance, project depends on its bankability, which in turn is also influenced by traffic revenue,
land acquisition and permits/clearance in time. This issue to a great extent governed by
government’s policy and co-operation. Though promoters are ready to take the risk, they want
it to be partly shared by the government.
The mitigation strategy for financial stage risk is as follows:
i. The background of a concessionaire is checked at the time of RFP by government i.e.
financial capability is checked along with the track record of his work.
ii. The various factors such as inflation, market status and all the uncertain factors
involved in finance are properly analyzed and aggressive bidding should be checked
i.e. the bidding with lowest bid must be analyzed and too much difference in
estimation should not be neglected.
iii. To achieve this committee of experts should be formed which analysis each project
along with the stakeholders.
iv. The range of variation should be decided i.e. the upper and lower limit of variation in
total project cost to check aggressive bidding.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 589 editor@iaeme.com

 Risk Mitigation Strategies for Public Private Partnership Highway Projects in India

v. The most important mitigation suggested is the government should also participate in
financing of the project and provide guarantee to the bankers and lenders.
To achieve this “hybrid annuity model” is suggested by Government of India which was
conceived in the last financial year to bring back private participation in highway projects,
which has dried up in the last few years. Under this model, the government would provide 40
per cent of the project cost to the developer to start work. The remaining investment will have
to be made by the contractor. This will give the motivation and support to the concessionaire
and guarantee in some form to lenders and bankers as government is also participating.

3.3. Construction Stage Risks

This stage mainly includes the construction of highway which requires nearly two years after
financial closure and finished when COD (Commercial Operation Date) is awarded. The main
risk at this stage includes completion risk along with the risk of delay of construction of
highway project which ultimately results in a reduction in effective operation period, where
entire risk is on the private sector.
The mitigation strategy for this stage suggested is as follows:
i. The monitoring of the flow of cash during construction and the milestone should be
set as per Model Concessionaire Agreement (MCA) for timely completion of project.
ii. The EPC contract should be awarded where there should be no need of finance
arrangement and the concentration is concise to construction only.
The next stage as per priorities is Transfer Stage, Design Stage and Feasibility Stage
respectively indicating comparatively less risk’s in this stage of PPP highway project.
Although the transfer stage is ranked below and is considered less risky but the risk cannot be
neglected completely, this stage includes the risk such as legal dispute, low residual value,
etc. which can be mitigated by fast track administration and legislation system. The change in
tax regulation also comes under the transfer stage since the concession period is too long and
hence required the consideration at time of agreement. The next risky stage is design stage
where too many design changes, inadequate design, etc are the risk involved, as the
specification are already decided by MoRT & H and other codal provisions are there. Hence,
the chance of failure due to this risk is low. The last risky stage is Feasibility stage, in which
land acquisition, government intervention, etc are risk factors which are most probable but
this is at very initial stage and if project failed or terminated it can be restarted with minimal
loss.

3.4. Feasibility Stage Risks

This is very first stage of project lifecycle of PPP highway in which the viability of a project
is checked and the accuracy is the main indicator kept in mind for a successfully feasible
project.
The main risk involved in this stage is 80% of acquisition of land prior to financial closure
as stated in Model Concessionaire Agreement (MCA) which is quiet a difficult task due to
various social reasons such as encroachment, un-availability of land and various other reason
shown in above figure.
The responsibility of land acquisition is with the government and the compensation is paid
to the concessionaire in case of delay in land acquisition, which is very small compared to the
project loss to the concessionaire which arises from inordinate project delay due to non-
availability of land in time.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 590 editor@iaeme.com

 Pawan Deshpande and Siddhartha Rokade

The mitigation strategy for this stage suggested is as follows:

i. The land availability is checked prior to the project invitation by the bidders and the
encroachment should be removed at initial stage only.
ii. The rehabilitation issues should be resolved at very initial stage and all the
departments should have good co-ordination so as to understand the urgent need of
issue.
iii. The increase in fund and other legal issues should be considered at the time of analysis
only so that unexpected change can be handled.

Figure 3: Land Acquisition Delay of Feasibility Stage

(Source: Thomas et al, 2006)

3.5. Financing Stage

This stage mainly includes the arrangement of funds and estimation of revenue collection at
the time of financial closure or prior to that so as to achieve the profitable highway project
where there is win-win situation for government as well as public. The reason behind the
insufficient finance is unavailability of flowing cash in the market at the time of financial
closure or construction. Hence, the mitigation suggested is as follows-
i. The flow of cash in market should be checked and there should be provision for
payment release i.e. release of payment by lenders should be according to project
growth, at the particular time of project.
ii. The estimation should be appropriate where consideration for change in project cost
due to variation in rates of material, labor or machinery is taken in account of overall
project cost.
iii. If required grants at time of construction or operation should be provided by
government up to particular percentage of a project cost for smooth movement of
project.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 591 editor@iaeme.com

 Risk Mitigation Strategies for Public Private Partnership Highway Projects in India

iv. The VGF (Viability Gap Funds) should also be provided to the concessionaire where
the gap in terms of finance for the viability of project is awarded by the Government.
Since, whole the project cost is to be arranged by the concessionaire only so the entire risk
of finance is on to them and hence the concessionaire felt there is need of risk sharing with the
government. As a mitigation of above the hybrid annuity model is proposed by the
Government of India where 40% of project finance is arranged by Government and is
provided to them in installment after every milestone decided in Draft Concession Agreement
at time of bidding. Hence, the Payment Milestone for release of payment during Construction
Period shall be as under:
a) I (first) Payment Milestone - On achievement of 20% Physical Progress
b) II (second) Payment Milestone - On achievement of 40% % Physical Progress
c) III (third) Payment Milestone – On achievement of 60% Physical Progress
d) IV (fourth) Payment Milestone - On achievement of 75% Physical Progress
e) V (fifth) Payment Milestone – On achievement of 90% Physical Progress
Provided that in case of Change of Scope, the Physical Progress shall be recalculated to
account for the changed scope.
In this factors the main risk is the aggressive bidding done by the Concessionaire where
RFP is sent and tendering is done without analyzing there efficiency to complete the project at
that cost. The mitigation suggested for these stages are formation of committee to check the
practicality of project, the committee may consist of PPP experts, stakeholders from both
parties, etc. The probability of occurrence and impact of this risk is higher than Adverse
Market though prioritized more risky. The main risk at this stage is varying market where the
investments i.e. shares and property of Concessionaire is not liquefied at the time of
construction /operation thus obstructing the expectation of Concessionaire.
The next risky stage is Interest Rate Fluctuation followed by Inflation, Policy Restriction
of Bank and Recession in Economy respectively. Hence, the impact of project risk on factors
of Financing Stages was comparatively more than the others stages indicating that the factors
in this stage have greater probability of occurrence along with the severity of influence.

3.6. Construction Stage

This stage deals with the development of a project which is nearly two years as per Model
Concession Agreement and the revenue of the project is directly related to the development of
project as this time is included in Concession Period. The main reason for the delay as per the
survey and literature is the flow of cash in the development stage, the land acquisition and the
clearances, permit and approvals required for construction are delayed due to various reasons.
The damages for delay is although provided by the government at the rate of 0.1% of
Performance Security on the basis of Model Concession Agreement but the refunded amount
is too less in comparison of the loss to the Concessionaire. Hence, there is urgent need to
mitigate this risk. The mitigation strategy is as follows:
i. There should be proper monitoring of the development of the project from both the
parties (i.e. government and private) so as to maintain the timely completion with
proper specification and design of the project.
ii. The flow of cash is to be checked during this phase of project so as to maintain the
movement of the project without any obstacle and hurdles.
iii. There should be a provision to benefit the Concessionaire for timely completion i.e.
bonus should be given to the Concessionaire.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 592 editor@iaeme.com

 Pawan Deshpande and Siddhartha Rokade

3.7. Operation and Transfer Stage

This stage mainly starts after the COD (Commercial Operation Date) is awarded to the
Concessionaire for revenue generation i.e. collection of toll. The operation stage is fixed for a
concessionaire as a concession period which is nearly 15 to 20 years. The main risk in this
factor is that when there is delay in award of COD then there is loss of revenue which is too
high compared to the compensation paid as damage due to delay. This damage is 0.1% of
performance security for government and 0.2% of performance security for concessionaire.
The mitigation strategy is as follows:
i. There should be fast track administration as well as legislation system for smooth
movement of the project resolving the practical obstacle and hurdles during
implementation.
ii. The damage for delay should be increased to some extent to compensate the loss
which is incorporated in “hybrid annuity model” of PPP highway project i.e. the
damage for delay by government is increased to 0.2% of performance security for
government and 0.3% of performance security for concessionaire for each days’ until
the fulfillment of condition precedent.
iii. The time schedule for each stage should be revised and the marginal time in case of
delay should be provided considering the case i.e. the marginal time can be varied
from project to project depending on the condition.

4. CONCLUSIONS
Identifying the risks in advance and allocating these risks to the concerned party who can best
manage them can reduce the overall project risks. It is concluded that one of the critical
aspects that affects the success of a PPP project is the risk management, which involves the
identification of the key risks, their allocation between the two parties (i.e. public and
private), and the adoption of suitable strategies to mitigate risks as and when they occur. It is
recognized that the relevance of risks, the establishment of an acceptable risk allocation
scheme, and the choice of the appropriate risk mitigation strategies depend on the specific
PPP sector. The research findings presented in this paper will support both the public and
private sectors in understanding the key risks and adopting the most effective mitigation
strategies.

REFERENCES
[1] Akintoy E. A,Taylor, C, Fitzgerald, E. (1998) 'Risk analysis and management of Private
Finance Initiative projects', Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management,
[online] Vol. 5 Issue:1,pp.9- 21. Available from:
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/eb021056.
[2] Akbiyikli, R and Eaton D, (2004) " risk management in pfi procurement: a holistic
approach", 20th Annual Association of Researchers in Construction Management,
(ARCOM) Conference , pp. 1269-79. Edinburgh, U.K: Heriot- Watt University.
[3] Chan, D, Kumaraswamy, M. (1996) 'An evaluation of construction time performance in
building industry.' Building and Environment. [online] Vol.31, Issue 6, p 569-578.
Available from:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0360132396000315
[4] Jefferies,M and Chen,S. (2003) ' Identifing risk factors of boot procurment:a case study of
Stadium Australia", The Australian Journal of Construction Economics and Building.
[Online] Vol 4, No 1,p 11-20. Available from :
https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/AJCEB/article/view/2935
[5] Model Concession Agreement (2009) "Public Private Patnership for State Highway" ,
Planning Commission, Government of India, New Delhi, India.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 593 editor@iaeme.com

 Risk Mitigation Strategies for Public Private Partnership Highway Projects in India

[6] Model Concession Agreement (2012) "Public Private Patnership for National Highway" ,
Planning Commission, Government of India, New Delhi, India.
[7] Ministry of Shipping and Road Transport and Highways (MORTH),Roads and highways
public private participation. Department of Roadand Highways, MORTH, Government of
India, India;2005. Available from http://morth.nic.in.
[8] Singh, L. and Kalidindi, S. (2006). ' Traffic revenue risk managment through Annuity
Model of PPP road Projects in India ', International Journal of Project Management.
[Online] Vol 24,Issue 7,p605-613, Available from:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263786306000950.
[9] Thomas, A , Kalidindi, S, and Ananthanarayanan,K.(2003) 'Risk Perception Analysis of
BOT Road Project Participants in India", Construction Managment and Economics
,[online] Vol 21 Issue 4, p393-407.Available from:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcme20.
[10] Thomas, A , Kalidindi, S, Ganesh,L. (2006) ' Modeling and assessment of critical risks in
BOT road projects', Construction Managment and Economics ,[online] Vol. 24 ,p 407-24.
Available from: http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/choudhury/articles/6.pdf.
[11] UNIDO.,(1996) " Guidelines for Infrastructure Development through Build-Operate-
Transfer (BOT) Projects" [Online] Vienna: United Nations Industrial Development
Organisation. Available from: http://www.unido.org/en/resources/publications/imported-
publications/guidelines.
[12] Yuan,J, Zeng, A, Skibniewski, M, and Li, Q.(2009) 'Selection of Performance Objectives
and Key Performance Indicators in Public-Private Partnership Projects to Acheive Value
for Money ", Construction Managment and Economics , [Online] Vol. 27, Issue 3, p 253-
270
[13] Zhang,S, Gao,Y, Feng,Z and Sun, W (2014) 'PPP application in infrastructure
development in China: Institutional analysis and implications.' International Journal of
Project Management. [Online] Vol 33, Issue 3, p 497-509.
[14] Nicoleta Crăciun, Behaviour of the Ropes Constituents under the Action of Risk Factors
that Exist in the Work Environment. International Journal of Advanced Research in
Engineering and Technology, 7(3), 2016, pp 77–86.
[15] S. Ramanathan and V. Rathinakumar, Analysis of Risk Factors in Small, Medium &
Large Construction Projects. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology,
8(4), 2017, pp. 1977–1984
[16] R. Prasanna Kumar, Afshan Sheikh and SS.Asadi, A Systematic Approach For Evaluation
of Risk Management In Road Construction Projects - A Model Study. International
Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(3), 2017, pp. 888–902.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 594 editor@iaeme.com