The State of the Practice of Value for Money Analysis in Comparing Public Private Partnerships to Traditional Procurements
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Literary sources regarding public—private partnerships (PPPs) often mention the importance of conducting a value for money (VfM) analysis to determine the value of pursuing a project through a PPP versus a traditional procurement; however, few sources detail how agencies actually use this analysis in practice. This article provides a state-of-the-practice review of VfM analysis using examples from Australia, Canada, Europe, Africa, and Asia, focusing particularly on the VfM model used by agencies such as Partnerships Victoria, The United Kingdom's Her Majesty Treasury Department, and Partnerships British Columbia. Despite its growing applications in PPP projects from all different sectors, VfM has faced significant criticisms from academics and practitioners. This article evaluates reviews of VfM, noting the weaknesses and strengths of the methodology. Using the information derived from the evaluation, this article provides a guided reference for public agencies looking to adopt this VfM methodology in their current PPP decision-making framework.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it