Table 9.13 shows participant feedback relating to terms and conditions and the researcher's response to the comments.
Table 9.13 Terms and Definitions.
Participant | Feedback | Researcher Response |
FG01 | The definition of VfM in your conceptual overview is perhaps not the best available definition. The Victorian Government Purchasing Board policy and guidance material contains a better definition | Accepted. The Victorian Government Purchasing Board definition is more comprehensive than the current definition, and refers both to the need for managing risk and performance |
FG04 | On the coversheet of the IMM, it is stated that the intended audience is for 'public sector project directors responsible for PPP oversight', yet in the peer reviewed conference paper and other documents it suggests the focus for the IMM is the operational term of PPPs? In my experience, the role of PPP project director exists and is resourced in the planning and procurement / delivery phases of PPPs and typically ceases at or around commencement of the operating term | Accepted. The term 'project director' was used to refer to the senior public partner officer responsible for contract oversight of PPP 'projects'. The cover sheet will be amended to read 'contract director' as this relates more directly to the operational phase of PPPs |
FG04 | On the coversheet, 'Rationale / purpose of model' could be tightened up to provide a better linkage to the pages that follow. Alternatively, you may wish to consider how to distil the main points of your conference paper into an expanded 'Rationale / purpose of model' section on the coversheet | Not accepted. The rationale / purpose of the model reflect the intended outcomes of this research. Therefore no change has been made |
Apropos the comments of FG01, the Victorian Government Purchasing Board defines VfM in the following terms:
"VfM denotes, broadly, a balanced benefit measure covering quality levels, performance standards, risk exposure, other policy or special interest measures, as well as price. Generally, VfM is assessed on a 'whole of life' or 'total cost of ownership' basis" (Department of Treasury and Finance 2011a: p.19).
This is contrasted with the previously adopted definition for this research (see Chapter 3: '3.3.4 Public Private Partnership'):
"getting the best possible outcome at the lowest possible price" (New South Wales Treasury in English 2006).
In addition to the justifications outlined in Table 9.13, this definition has been adopted for this research due to:
- The Victorian Government Purchasing Board definition closely aligning with key VfM findings of this research (see Chapter 8: '8.5 Exploration and Validation of PPP Value-for-Money Issues') including that the VfM concept is rooted in the entire lifecycle of the asset, and that price should only be one factor when making a VfM determination; and
- FG01's observation that it is unclear how "getting the best possible outcome at the lowest possible price" can be successfully applied in situations where there are several options under consideration and where the preferred option (that is believed to provide the best possible outcome) does not offer the lowest possible price.