Search results

The purpose of this chapter is to analyse the procurement of public–private partnerships (PPPs) through unsolicited proposals (USPs). This chapter compares the policy framework and economic data of USPs in Brazil and Chile and provides some economic insights based on this analysis. In line with the existing literature, empirical evidence shows that non-proponents rarely win the tender for a project based on a USP. Differently from the existing literature, data analysis suggests that USPs may result on successful projects only in very specific conditions. USPs may work better in sectors where the government has developed higher in-house expertise to manage infrastructure projects. Also, USPs are more fit to projects that are clearly economically viable ex ante. However, even in these cases, USPs might generate a higher transaction cost to the government and less competitive tenders in comparison to solicited proposals. The analysis focuses on countries that have a very rich experience in USPs. Nonetheless, given the different legal and regulatory environments around the globe, it is difficult to provide a one-size fits-all USP policy. This chapter aims to provide some insights into how to manage a USP in order to improve the public policy framework of this procurement tool. This chapter contributes to the literature as it provides an economic analysis of the conditions in which the USP mechanism could result in a successful project.

The most recent advent of the unsolicited proposal in the public private partnership mode of infrastructure procurement has changed the duties and roles of private and public sector agencies. Also, they have increased the practitioners' difficulties to work out strategic mechanisms and methods to manage these unsolicited proposals (USP) effectively. So, this study aims to understand how well equipped are the Indian USP guidelines for managing procurement.

Content analysis with coding procedures was carried to understand the regulations of USP frameworks of India over the four stages of USP procurement.

The findings show that there are severe flaws in various states' frameworks. The states have flaws in their policies in implementation features across the stages of USP such as defined objectives, the absence of fees and review timeframes in the submission, time frame and guidance on benchmarking and market testing in evaluation and development, time frame for bidding and access to information in procurement stages.

The USP implementation framework developed as part of this study can direct the policymakers and practitioners to improve public procurement regulations and the necessary changes for the successful implementation of USPs. In doing this, the private sector is enabled to develop more competitive and innovative proposals.