DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Improvement of Evaluation Criteria for Developer Selection of Public-Private Partnership Project of Mixed-use Development

복합용도개발의 공모형 PF사업자 선정을 위한 평가기준 개선

  • Received : 2012.02.20
  • Published : 2012.09.25

Abstract

Public-Private Partnership Development Project of Mixed-use Development is to implement a mixed-use development project jointly through the partnership between public organization and civilians. Specifically, developers of the public housing-sites invite public participation for excellent ideas, where the selection of a superior civilian developer is very important. However, some ordering organizations often failed to reflect clearly the daily diversifying characteristics of projects as they imitated existing directions for a contest in preparation of a contest direction. Also, there were many unreasonable criteria and methods in evaluation of land prices, project applicants as well as selection of a preferred negotiator, and an improvement in the evaluation criteria for a competent developer to implement the project to increase a realization likelihood of the project compared with the existing practice. In this study, an improved version of evaluation indices and scores is put forward based on the contest directions for civilian developers of contest-type PF projects to suggest reasonable evaluation criteria for selecting PF developers of a contest-type project.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : 국토해양부

References

  1. 김재환, 이상엽, 공모형 PF사업자 선정의 평가기준에 관한 연구, 국토연구, 국토연구원, 제69권, pp.101-121, 2011
  2. 김재환, 이상엽, 부동산개발프로젝트의 위험요소 정립 및 위험도 산정, 주택연구, 한국주택학회, 14권 1호, pp.85-114, 2006
  3. 대한주택공사, 복합단지개발 PF사업 업무편람, p.469, 2007
  4. 문영기, 장희순, 부동산 개발사업과 위험관리, 부연사, p.414, 2004
  5. 백인길, 손진수, 공모형 PF사업의 특성에 관한 연구 : 공모지침서를 중심으로, 부동산학연구 논문집, 부동산학연구, 제14권 제3호, pp.35-55, 2008
  6. 이학식, 임지훈, SPSS 16.0 매뉴얼, 법문사, 서울, p.575, 2009
  7. Saaty, T.L., The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hil International, New York, p.278, 1980
  8. Schwanke, D., Mixed-use Development Handbook, Second ed., The Urban Land Institute, Washington D.C., p.414, 2003