Engaging the economic facts and valuations underlying value for money in public procurement

References

• Ally, J., & Pryor, T. (2016). Lifecycle costing of diesel, natural gas, hybrid and hydrogen fuel cell bus systems: An Australian case study. Energy Policy, 94, 285–294. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.03.039
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asiedu, Y., & Gu, P. (1998). Product lifecycle cost analysis: State of the art review. International Journal of Production Research, 36(4), 883–908. doi: 10.1080/002075498193444
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barrett, P. (2016). New development: Procurement and policy outcomes—a bridge too far? Public Money & Management, 36(2), 145–148. doi: 10.1080/09540962.2016.1118939
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergman, M. A., & Lundberg, S. (2013). Tender evaluation and supplier selection methods in public procurement. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 19(2), 73–83. doi: 10.1016/j.pursup.2013.02.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bröchner, J., Camén, C., Eriksson, H., & Garvare, R. (2016). Quality and legal aspects in public care procurement. TQM Journal, 28(4), 648–663. doi: 10.1108/TQM-09-2014-0075
   Google Scholar
• Butler, S. A., & Ghosh, D. (2015). Individual differences in managerial accounting judgments and decision making. British Accounting Review, 47(1), 33–45. doi: 10.1016/j.bar.2014.09.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crowder, M. (2015). Public procurement: The role of cognitive heuristics. Public Money & Management, 35(2), 127–134. doi: 10.1080/09540962.2015.1007707
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dimitri, N. (2013). ‘Best value for money’ in procurement. Journal of Public Procurement, 13(2), 149–175. doi: 10.1108/JOPP-13-02-2013-B001
   Google Scholar
• Directive 2014 /24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC. Official Journal of the European Union, L 94/65.
   Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32. doi: 10.5465/amj.2007.24160888
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erridge, A., & Hennigan, S. (2012). Sustainable procurement in health and social care in Northern Ireland. Public Money & Management, 32(5), 363–370. doi: 10.1080/09540962.2012.703422
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erridge, A., & McIlroy, J. (2002). Public procurement and supply management strategies. Public Policy and Administration, 17(1), 52–71. doi: 10.1177/095207670201700105
   Google Scholar
• Falagario, M., Sciancalepore, F., Costantino, N., & Pietroforte, R. (2012). Using a DEA-cross efficiency approach in public procurement tenders. European Journal of Operational Research, 218(2), 523–529. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2011.10.031
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimsey, D., & Lewis, M. K. (2005). Are public private partnerships value for money? Evaluating alternative approaches and comparing academic and practitioner views. Accounting Forum, 29(4), 345–378. doi: 10.1016/j.accfor.2005.01.001
   Google Scholar
• Hall, M. (2010). Accounting information and managerial work. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(3), 301–315. doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2009.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heald, D. (2003). Value for money tests and accounting treatment in PFI schemes. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 16(3), 342–371. doi: 10.1108/09513570310482291
   Google Scholar
• Higham, A. (2015). Lifecycle costing: Evaluating its use in UK practice. Structural Survey, 33(1), 73–87. doi: 10.1108/SS-06-2014-0026
   Google Scholar
• Karmperis, A. C., Aravossis, K., Tatsiopoulos, I. P., & Sotirchos, A. (2013). Decision support models for solid waste management: Review and game-theoretic approaches. Waste Management, 33(5), 1290–1301. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2013.01.017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khadaroo, I. (2008). The actual evaluation of school PFI bids for value for money in the UK public sector. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 19(8), 1321–1345. doi: 10.1016/j.cpa.2007.05.001
   Google Scholar
• Kiiver, P., & Kodym, J. (2015). Price-quality ratios in value-for-money awards. Journal of Public Procurement, 15(3), 275–290. doi: 10.1108/JOPP-15-03-2015-B001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lahdenperä, P. (2013). Determining ‘the most economically advantageous tender’ based on capability and fee-percentage criteria. Journal of Public Procurement, 13(4), 409–446. doi: 10.1108/JOPP-13-04-2013-B001
   Google Scholar
• Laine, T., Korhonen, T., Suomala, P., & Rantamaa, A. (2016). Boundary subjects and boundary objects in accounting fact construction and communication. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 13(3), 303–329. doi: 10.1108/QRAM-09-2015-0085
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacDonald, C., Walker, D. H. T., & Moussa, N. (2012). Value for money in project alliances. International Journal Managing Projects in Business, 5(2), 311–324. doi: 10.1108/17538371211214969
   Google Scholar
• Martinez-Sanchez, V., Kromann, M. A., & Astrup, T. F. (2015). Lifecycle costing of waste management systems: Overview, calculation principles and case studies. Waste Management, 36, 343–355. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2014.10.033
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKevitt, D. (2015). Debate: Value for money— in search of a definition. Public Money & Management, 35(2), 99–100. doi: 10.1080/09540962.2015.1007702
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKevitt, D., & Davis, P. (2016). Value for money: A broken piñata? Public Money & Management, 36(4), 257–264. doi: 10.1080/09540962.2016.1162591
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morssinkhof, S., Wouters, M., & Warlop, L. (2011). Effects of providing total cost of ownership information on attribute weights in purchasing decisions. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 17(2), 132–142. doi: 10.1016/j.pursup.2011.02.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Navarro-Galera, A., & Maturana, R. I. O. (2011). Innovating in defence policy through spending efficiency: The lifecycle costing model. Journal of Policy Modeling, 33(3), 407–425. doi: 10.1016/j.jpolmod.2011.03.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nørreklit, H., Raffnsøe-Møller, M., & Falconer, M. (2016). A pragmatic constructivist approach to accounting practice and research. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 13(3), 266–277. doi: 10.1108/QRAM-05-2016-0039
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prowle, M., Kalar, M., & Barrow, L. (2016). New development: Value for money (VfM) in public services—the importance of organizational culture. Public Money & Management, 36(7), 547–552. doi: 10.1080/09540962.2016.1237169
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reich, M. C. (2005). Economic assessment of municipal waste management systems—case studies using a combination of lifecycle assessment (LCA) and lifecycle costing (LCC). Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(3), 253–263. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.02.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tagesson, T., Glinatsi, N., & Prahl, M. (2015). Procurement of audit services in the municipal sector: The impact of competition. Public Money & Management, 35(4), 273–280. doi: 10.1080/09540962.2015.1047270
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tarantini, M., Loprieno, A. D., & Porta, P. L. (2011). A lifecycle approach to green public procurement of building materials and elements: A case study on windows. Energy, 36(5), 2473–2482. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2011.01.039
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teerioja, N., Moliis, K., Kuvaja, E., Ollikainen, M., Punkkinen, H., & Merta, E. (2012). Pneumatic versus door-to-door waste collection systems in existing urban areas: A comparison of economic performance. Waste Management, 32(10), 1782–1791. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2012.05.027
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tysseland, B. E. (2008). Lifecycle cost based procurement decisions: A case study of Norwegian defence procurement projects. International Journal of Project Management, 26(4), 366–375. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.09.005
   Google Scholar
• Van den Abbeele, A., Roodhooft, F., & Warlop, L. (2009). The effect of cost information on buyer–supplier negotiations in different power settings. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(2), 245–266. doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2008.05.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Helden, J. (2016). Literature review and challenging research agenda on politicians’ use of accounting information. Public Money & Management, 36(7), 531–538. doi: 10.1080/09540962.2016.1237162
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waara, F., & Bröchner, J. (2006). Price and nonprice criteria for contractor selection. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(8), 797–804. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:8(797)
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watt, D. J., Kayis, B., & Willey, K. (2009). Identifying key factors in the evaluation of tenders for projects and services. International Journal of Project Management, 27(3), 250–260. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.03.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woodward, D. G. (1997). Lifecycle costing— theory, information acquisition and application. International Journal of Project Management, 15(6), 335–344. doi: 10.1016/S0263-7863(96)00089-0
   Google Scholar
• Yin, R. K. (1981). The case study crisis: Some answers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(1), 58–65. doi: 10.2307/2392599
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar