Technical Report on Victorian Desalination Plant †Free Samples

Question: Discuss about the Technical Report on Victorian Desalination Plant. Answer: Introduction: The Victorian Desalination Plant project is a government-funded project that was initiated in 2007 with the aim of providing a reliable water supply. In a single private partnership, the government offered the contract to AquaSure Company in 2009 to build, maintain, and finance the project for the next thirty years, which was fixed at $ 3.5 billion. It encompasses the construction of pipelines, water plants drainage, and maintenance among others. In the single private partnership, aquaSure is expected to play a more substantial role in managing, monitoring, and tracking of the project progress. In the definition of its role, includes maintaining best practices and standards across the operations, creating the best liaise with the surrounding community to ensure operation and maintenance of the water tunnels, ecological reserves and the pipelines accordingly. Fifty-two people run the project with the capacity of supplying up to 150 billion liters of good drinking water per year to the people living around the local regional community, including Melbourne and Geelong. The project is undertaken with an expectation of over 95 years lifespan. The water being processed at the project is subjected to real-time and online monitoring to ensure quality. Furthermore, laboratory tests are carried out both during water processing session and in the reservoir tank. The rules and regulations help to clearly appraise the procedural order in which the parties will operate and the alternative actions in case the agreed terms are not successfully achieved by either the contracting body or the contractor. Furthermore, it is also important in tracking the adherence of the contract to the standards and rules put forward by authorities. With the effort to ensure health enforcement and building standards, the building act 1993 may be applied. This fosters the enforcement of the construction regulations such as monitoring the health of the workforce involved in the construction of the water project. furthermore, the act may be applicable in granting the operational permit, warrantees and insurance, among others (Martin 2009, p.91). This is important in attaining the established construction standards in the water project. Taking a critical analysis of the possible diverse effect of land excavation and concrete construction, the Environmental protection act 1970 is a substantial tool for the enforcement of appropriate construction lines. As the pipelines are constructed, there must adequate survey conducted to ensure minimal destruction of vital resources that may cause more adverse effect to the environment if they are destroyed. Such resources may include forests, water bodies, and recreation centers among others. In ensuring privacy between the dealing parties, Privacy Act 1988 is applicable in the contract. The terms and condition under which the information will be shared is highlighted in this regulation. For example, no party is legible to sharing information of the contract for its independent benefit at the expense of the other. May be in form of reputation and company image to the general public (Goodman and Douglas 2017, p.350). Planning and environment act 1987 is an important act and can be used concurrently with the environmental protection act 1997. This all focus on the environmental sustenance and maintenance. As the water construction project is signed, the partnership contract has to adhere to the standard environmental laws. The Australian government takes initiative of ensuring environmental protection and management. Responsible authorities are subject to signing the contract before it kicks off. It therefore implies that the established laws will have to be followed (Cheung et al. 2012, p.45). The architect act 1991 may be applicable in the implementation of the project design. It must be based on a clear model, for example, Build-lease-transfer (BLT), build-own-operate (BOO), Build operate-transfer (BoT), among others. This clearly determines the phases in which the project will run. Either if the project will be handed over to the client after its complete of the private entity will continue with the operations (Martin, 2009, p.90). Critique of the type of contract that was used Public private partnership can basically be understood as a mutual contract understanding/ agreement built between a private sector entity and a public agency. The contract agreement grants the [private sector entity an upper hand in monitoring, financing, procurement, and delivery of the project requirements. It is important to note that in the contract agreement, the private entity takes significantly a greater role in the management and control of the project under execution (Cheung et al. 2009, p.83). For the last two decades, public private partnership has demonstrated a promising solution for filling up of the gaps that prevail in other forms of contracts. Taking a critical analysis and review of the public private partnership and innovation undertaken by many public agencies and Victorian Desalination Plant (VDP) in particular, there are several remedies, which among others include; Share of risks; as a result of collaboration between the government and the private entity, the impacts of the risks are minimized. This ensure quality assurance due to the fact that the client has the ability to monitor, track, supplement or complement on the progress of the project being undertaken. Some projects can tend to be too risky and costly for private entities to fully undertake. Other wise, if undertaken, the quality of the work done may be compromised. To help in solving scenarios of this kind, public private partnership serves to be the best and most appropriate for highly risky and costly projects (Jin, and Doloi, 2008, p.720). Improvement in the accountability of public entities. It is considerably true that government entities have always had problems of fund swindling, misappropriation and poor implementation effectiveness in planned programs. It is therefore more convenient to employ partnership in which case the, the private entity takes on the accountability (Nisar 2007, p.19). Though collaboration, an enhanced public management is attained as the public agencies may act as regulators who basically monitor the quality of work being undertaken. Rather than taking the responsibility of day today management, the public agency capitalizes on planning and performance monitoring. The method is also an appropriate way of increasing production scale (Regan et al. 2010, p.9). Resource pooling serves as a solution for addressing the problem of resource shortages. There tend to be cases of resource shortages in terms of expertise, finances, capital stock, and equipment among others. In some instances, projects may require a wide diversity of expertise and resources, which may necessarily be available to one firm. This makes the private public partnership the most recommendable (Garvin, M.J., 2009, p.409). Public private partnership also serves as a solution for addressing topics that require a multi-stakeholder/ neutral environment. For progress to be achieved on some issues there is need for creation of a neutral environment. Relative partnership between the private entity and the public agencies serves as the best solution in this case (Deva 2006, p.107). An incite can be drawn in the issues of the regulatory arena where the regulatory authorities have a substantial role to play and yet inputs from the industry is also required (Bailey et al. 2011) However, it is important to note that, even if the type of contract is good and recommendable, it also has its adverse effects and shortcomings. Among others, include; Time-lines and sustainability; in private public partnership, the private sectors usually receive funding for a period of three to five years. Victorian Desalination Plant (VDP) in particular received a particular sum of finances budgeted to achieve a particular goal within a given time schedule. The stipulated terms of contracts tends to be breached due to the time limitedness (Osei-Kyei, and Chan, 2015, p.1340). Difficulties in handling conglomerate leadership and project management. As the project is run in partnership, there is need to have extra ordinary competencies and skills to effectively integrate and coordinate the parties involved with the aim of capacity building. Challenges may emerge due to the fact that the level of competencies and expertise differ and this could lead to disagreement between the parties. Furthermore, there is a bureaucratic flow of information and decision-making becomes substantially hard and long. It is therefore not recommendable for projects that require execution in the shortest time (Ke et al. 2009, p.1010). The type of contract chosen does not give adequate room for performance measurement in relation to the roles played by each party in the achievement of the project goals and objectives. In other words, it is difficult to examine and evaluate the performance contributed by each entity. This type of contract also eliminates the role of small and medium sized enterprises. These types of contracts are meant only for large entities, consequently leading to the neglect of the upcoming firms. Furthermore, lager entities are highly mechanized hence offering less employment to the locals. In other words, public private partnership employ more of technological intensive method rather than labour intensive and in return, leads to technological unemployment (Hodge and Greve, 2007, p.550). Basing on the relevance and the shortcomings of the contract type, it a better strategy for achieving the best results in bigger, costly and risky projects. Given the long-term period for the project lifespan and the role it plays in providing a public service, it is unrealistic to fully contract a private firm. References Cheung, E., Chan, A.P. and Kajewski, S., 2009. Reasons for implementing public private partnership projects: perspectives from Hong Kong, Australian and British practitioners.Journal of Property Investment Finance,27(1), pp.81-95. Cheung, E., Chan, A.P. and Kajewski, S., 2012. Factors contributing to successful public private partnership projects: Comparing Hong Kong with Australia and the United Kingdom.Journal of Facilities Management,10(1), pp.45-58. Deva, S., 2006. Global Compact: A Critique of the UN's public-private partnership for promoting corporate citizenship.Syracuse J. Int'l L. Com.,34, p.107. Garvin, M.J., 2009. Enabling development of the transportation public-private partnership market in the United States.Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,136(4), pp.402-411. Hodge, G.A. and Greve, C., 2007. Publicprivate partnerships: an international performance review.Public administration review,67(3), pp.545-558. Jin, X.H. and Doloi, H., 2008. Interpreting risk allocation mechanism in publicprivate partnership projects: an empirical study in a transaction cost economics perspective.Construction Management and Economics,26(7), pp.707-721. Ke, Y., Wang, S., Chan, A.P. and Cheung, E., 2009. Research trend of public-private partnership in construction journals.Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,135(10), pp.1076-1086. Martin, C.E., 2009. Sovereignty, Meet Globalization: Using Public-Private Partnerships to Promote the Rule of Law in a Complex World.Mil. L. Rev.,202, p.91. Nisar, T.M., 2007. Risk management in publicprivate partnership contracts.Public Organization Review,7(1), pp.1-19. Osei-Kyei, R. and Chan, A.P., 2015. Review of studies on the Critical Success Factors for PublicPrivate Partnership (PPP) projects from 1990 to 2013.International Journal of Project Management,33(6), pp.1335-1346. Regan, M., Smith, J. and Love, P.E., 2010. Impact of the capital market collapse on public-private partnership infrastructure projects.Journal of construction engineering and management,137(1), pp.6-16. Bailey, I.H., Bell, M. and Bell, C., 2011.Construction law in Australia. Lawbook Company. Goodman, R. and Douglas, K., 2017. Dealing with Conflict in Local Planning: Reflections from Australian Planners.Planning Practice Research,32(4), pp.345-360.