外文翻译公路保修条款的评析.doc

《外文翻译公路保修条款的评析.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《外文翻译公路保修条款的评析.doc（8页珍藏版）》请在三一办公上搜索。

1、Valuing the Warranty Ceiling Clause on New Mexico Highway 44 Using a Binomial Lattice ModelAbstract: In 1998 the New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department (NMSHTD) agreed to pay $60 million for a 20-year pavement warranty on their Route 44 project (NM 44, now US 550). The warranty inclu

2、des a ceiling clause that caps total expenditures at $110 million. As the first long-term highway warranty in the United States, the transaction set a controversial precedent that parties interested in innovative highway contracting, including other state department of transportations (DOTs), the US

3、DOT, sureties, and contractors, view as a test case for evaluating pricing and cost-effectiveness. An interim audit report published by the State of New Mexico Abbey (2004). Rep.to the Legislative Finance Committee, State Highway and Transportation Department. Santa Fe. N.M. provides invaluable fisc

4、al projections and challenges the cost effectiveness of the $60 million expenditure. This paper presents an independent analysis of the effectiveness of the warranty clauses. Based upon NMSHTD data, the analysis contends that $60 million was a fair cost of the 20-year pavement warranty at the time o

5、f acceptance if the expenditure ceiling is not considered. Furthermore. this paper argues that the ceiling on expenditure can be valuable. Using the real options approach, the paper evaluates the warranty ceiling clause on NM 44 and some policy suggestions are discussed. Introduction：State Departmen

6、ts of Transportation (DOT) turned increasingly proactive when awarding large highway pavement contracts as a result of the United States Federal Highway Administrations (FHwA) Special Experimental Projects (SEPs). SEP No. 14, implemented in 1990, opened the door for innovative contracting methods in

7、cluding lane rental, cost-plus-time bidding, design.build techniques, and warranty clauses. The warranty clauses hold contractors liable for reparationfor performance failures within a warranty period that typically extends from 5 to 7 years.Though New Mexico was not among the original eight states

8、that initiated the use of warranties under SEP No. 14. they have since evaluated the option of warranty contracting and success-fully applied it to the New Mexico State Route 44 Project (now U.S. 550), which traverses 118 mi (190 km) from 1-25 at San Ysidro northwest to Bloomfield, near the Four Cor

9、ners area. When considering the prospect of infiltrating the northwest corner of New Mexico, New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department (NMSHTD) renamed New Mexico Deparunent ofTransportation (NMDOT) in 2003, determined that the future maintenance and rehabilitation costs of the upgraded

10、 118 mi of roadway would total about $16,000/lane-mi/year over a service life of 20 years (May et al. 2003) totaling just over $15I million. Additionally, they determined that the roadbed and surface upgrades would take almost 27 years to complete using normal contracting methods. In an effort to ke

11、ep the highway in good condition for the long term, NMSHTD purchased a 20-year warranty agreement from Mesa PDC who in turn guaranteed the pavement performance during the warranty period. Thc NM 44 warranty broke new ground in both length and cost. It was the first long-term highway warranty in the

12、United States and.,at $62 million, the most expensive. Since conception, its economics and applicability to other projects has been a subject of debate. Moreover, the two ceiling clauses in the warranty agreement that limit cumulative traffic volume and maintenance expenditures have been neither exa

13、mined nor evaluated. In this paper we address the cost effectiveness of the warranty clauses in the NM 44 project.1 Warranty Provisions for NM 44Two primary participants, NMSHTD and Mesa Project Development Contractor (PDC), a division of Wichita, Kan.-based Koch Performance Roads, Inc., cooperated

14、on the NM 44 project. The NMSHTD laid out design criteria, performance requirements, and oversight procedures, and estimated a life-cycle cost to establish the overall present value of the expected maintenance during the 20-year warranty period. Through team building and open communications, NMSHTD

15、was able to monitor performance without responsibility for performance, while Mesa PDC was able to gain insight into the development and award process along with the limitations and constraints that had to be addressed. To carry a long-term warranty agreement, a professional services contract was in

16、troduced. Basic items included delineation of responsibilities and appropriate protocol for repairs, costing, and reimbursement. The final price on the warranty was comprised of $60 million for a 2pavement warranty and, $2 million for a 10-year structures warranty to cover bridges, drainage, erosion

17、, etc. for a total of $62 million in warranty liability. Mesa PDC also agreed to a 3.5% inflationary risk on future maintenance costs. Based on these numbers, the warranty pricing was $6,400/lane mi/year, a 60% reduction as compared to the initial evaluation ( Mav et al. 2003). Additionally, the war

18、ranty duration was limited by three ceiling clauses: (1) 20 years of service life: (2) 4,000,000 equivalent single axle loads (ESALs); and (3) $114 million in total expenditures, of which $1 l0 million is the ceiling for the pavement warranty and $4 million is the ceiling for the structure warranty.

19、 Thus, in return for $62 million. Mesa PDC agreed to provide up to $114 million in repairs over a period of 20 years or 4 million ESALs. To ensure the fiscal liability was met. the warranty was also backed by a performance bond. The parties established what constitutes warranted pavement defects bas

20、ed on objective criteria such as smoothness, rutting, transverse crack spacing, crack width, potholes, depressions.bleeding, raveling,and delaminations. Because the warranty provider shoulders the risks associated with performance, they have a strong incentive to assure quality in the design, compos

21、ition, and construction of the pavement. The parties also developed plans to monitor performance and perform both preventative and routine maintenance to ensure the highways health.2 Discounted Cash Flow AnalysisIn a recent interim report of the NM 44 warranty audit, the state of New Mexico challeng

22、ed the cost effectiveness of the $62 million warranty (Abbey 2004). This interim report and its predecessor (Abbey 1999) provide invaluable cost projections on the NM 44 project and the associated warranty. Using these data we conducted our own cost analysis based on the information available to the

23、 NMSHTD when they made the warranty decision in 1998.So for this analysis,all warrafity benefits and costs incurred during the construction and warranty period were discounted back to the decision time in 1998, and all costs ,and payments were assumed to fall at the end of the year. Additionally, we

24、 considered only the pavement warranty which is valued at $60 million and explains 96.8% of the total warranty cost. Ignoring the structures warranty, which is valued at only $2 million, reduces ambiguity without any significant impact on the results. Farthermore. Abbey (2004) estimates that the str

25、uctures warranty will expire before the end of the 10-year warranty period, while the pavement warranty probably will remain in effect for the entire 20-year term.3 Discussion and Policy SuggestionsDue to the ceiling clause, the price of the warranty provisions in the NM 44 project does not reflect

26、the real cost to the NMSHTD.The ceiling clause, valued at 4.8 million/year 1998 dollar as calculated, represents additional revenue to Mesa besides the $62 million warranty payment from NMSHTD. By declaring the ceiling clause, Mesa PDC in fact eliminates unfavorable risk while keeping profitable unc

27、ertainty. What Mesa gains is what NMSHTD loses since this is a zero-sum game. The actual cost for the warranty provision in the NM 44 project goes up to 57.3 million/year 1998 dollar. The hurdle rate of a viable warranty provision falls to 4% (Fig. 6). Considering that the NMSHTD had to borrow at a

28、higher interest rate to finance the NM 44 project .the warranty provision is not justified because of the high cost of the ceiling clause. It is suggested that the state highway agencies carefully evaluate the ceiling clauses when requiring warranty services in selling infrastructure projects. A two

29、fold analysis needs to be conducted so a better decision can be made. First, one must realize that the ceiling clause may be costly. The model developed in this paper is a handy approach to evaluate the ceiling clause value. Second state agencies should better determine a favorable ceiling when incl

30、uding ceiling clauses in the warranty. A sensitivity analysis indicates that the value of the ceiling clause is elastic to the determined ceiling. A 10% increase of the ceiling in the NM 44 warranty provisions would reduce the option price of the ceiling clause by 30%. Therefore, careful selection f

31、or a ceiling can significantly reduce the impact of the ceiling clause. The ceiling clause, in essence, is a call option that provides flexibility to switch a decision after more information is available through locking in risks while leaving the favorable uncertainties open. The real option concept

32、 provides powerful tools not only for contractors, but also state agencies ceiling clauses or other trigger points in uncertain cash flows. One potential application of the real option concept in warranty contracting is to delay the warranty decision until the end of construction when more performan

33、ce information is available (Cui et al. 2004). Then future maintenance savings could be estimated more accurately, and a better decision can be made on whether to purchase a warranty.Acknowledgments：The writers gratefully acknowledge the support for this research provided by the University Transport

34、ation Center for Alabama(UTCA) and the Alabama Contractors Fees Fund.Reforance：1)Warranty Provisions for NM 44 Qingbin Cui1; Philip Johnson2; Aaron Quick3;and Makarand Hastak 2)Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, January 2008, Volume 134.Number 1, 10-17对使用二项式格子模型的新墨西哥44公路保修条款的评析摘要：在1

35、998年，新墨西哥州公路和运输部门（ NMSHTD ）为44公路项目的20年的路面保修同意支付6000万美元（新墨西哥州44公路，现为美国550干线） 。该保修包括了一个支出总额上限为1.1亿美元的条款。作为在美国第一个公路的长期保修，交易开创了一个这样有争议的先例。其双方，包括其他国家的交通运输部（点），都乐于公路承包的创新。且其USDOT，担保人和承包商也认为该交易可以作为一个评估定价和成本效益的测试案例。新墨西哥洲圣塔菲议员向立法会财务委员会，国家公路和运输部Abbey（ 2004年）公布了临时审计报告。该报告提供了其成本效益为6000万美元的宝贵的财政预测。本文介绍了一个有效性保修条款

36、的独立的分析。根据NMSHTD数据，分析认为，如果接受开支最高限额不考虑的情况下，20年保证路面，6000万美元是一个公平的费用。此外，本文认为，保修费用的支出是值得的。文章用实物期权的方法对新墨西哥州44公路评价最高的保修条款和一些政策建议进行了讨论。导言: 由于美国联邦高速公路管理局的特别实验项目（ SEPs ）的实施，国家运输部门（点）变成越来越积极的授标大量公路路面的合同。在1990年 9月14号开始实施创新承包方法，包括车道租金，成本招标，时间招标，技术设计和保修条款的建立。保修条款表明承包商负责赔偿的性能故障的保修期，通常是5至7年。虽然新墨西哥州并不属于原来在9月14号发起使用保

37、证的8个州中的一个，但他们评估了保修合同的选择，并成功的将其运用到新墨西哥州的44公路中了（现为美国550干线） ，其中从1到25在圣思多罗西北菲尔德附近的四角地区长达118英里（ 190公里）。当他们考虑到浸润新墨西哥西北角的前景，墨西哥州公路和运输部（ NMSHTD ） 在2003年改名新墨西哥州的交通运输部门（ NMDOT ） ，确定118米的巷道今后的维修和重建费用总额约为每年每英里1600万美元，而一个服务生涯为20年的公路花费（ May et al. 2003年）总额才刚刚超过 151万美元。此外，他们还确定，路基和表面的升级将使用几乎27年才能完成正常的承包使用方法。为了保持公路

38、良好的条件，从长远来看， NMSHTD从保证了在路面使用性能的保修期Mesa PDC手里购买了20年的保修协议。新墨西哥州44公路的保修新的突破在时间和费用上。这是美国第一次长期的最昂贵的达62万美元保修公路。概念上，其项目的经济性和适用性一直是辩论的焦点问题。此外，在保修期的两个最高限额条款一致认为，累积量和维修的支出额既不需要检查，也不需要进行评估。在本文中，我们处理的新墨西哥州44公路项目成本效益的保证条款。 1 新墨西哥州44的保修条款 两个主要参与者， NMSHTD和项目开发承建商梅萨合作新墨西哥州44项目，梅萨是一个部门堪萨斯州威奇托的道路性能科技公司。该NMSHTD制定了设计标准

39、，性能要求，并监督程序，估计寿命周期费用，建立预计维持在20年的保修期的整体现值。通过团队建设和开放式通讯， NMSHTD能够监测表现不负责的业绩，而梅萨PDC能够洞察过程中随着限制和约束必须加以解决的发展和裁决。为了执行一项长期的保修协议，合同介绍了专业的服务。基本项目包括划分责任和进行修理，费用和偿还的适当协议。最后的价格是保证包括6000万美元的20年期保修和200万美元的涵盖桥梁，排水，土壤侵蚀等结构10年期的保修，共计6200万美元的保修责任。梅萨还商定了未来维修费用3.5 的通胀风险。基于这些数字，保修定价为6400每英里每年，与初步评估相比减少了60 （May et al .20

40、03年）。此外，保修期有三个最高限额条款：（ 1 ）20年的使用寿命：（ 2 ）等效单轴载荷（ ESALs ）为400.000.000和（ 3 ） 1.14亿美元支出总额，其中10亿美元是为路面保修的最高限额和400万美元为结构担保的最高限额。因此，梅萨PDC同意提供高达1.14亿美元的为期20年的保修或400万ESALs以换取6200万美元。为了满足确保财政责任，保修也支持支付履约保证金. 双方建立构成路面缺陷需要根据客观标准，如光滑，车辙，横向裂纹间距，裂缝宽度，坑洞，凹凸不平，冒浆，分散和脱层。由于供应商保修的风险与履约相关，所以他们会因此确保高质量的路面设计，组成和建设。双方还制定了监

41、测效能和执行预防性和日常维护的计划，以确保公路的健康。2 贴现现金流量分析在最近的新墨西哥州44保修审计的一次临时报告中，新墨西哥州挑战的成本效益为6200万美元的保修（Abbey， 2004年） 。这份临时报告及其前身（Abbey, 1999 ）提供了新墨西哥州44项目和相关的质保的宝贵的成本预测。利用这些数据，在提供给NMSHTD当他们在1998年的做出决定的信息保证的基础上，我们进行了我们自己的成本分析。因此这一分析，所有保修好处和费用，在建设过程中和保修期内的折扣回到时间的决定在1998年，和所有费用，并承担支付属于在今年年底。此外，我们认为路面保修只是价值6000万美元和解释了96.

42、8 的总的保修费用。忽视了只是价值200万美元的结构的保修，这是减少没有任何重大的影响歧义的结果。此外，Abbey（ 2004 ）估计，结构的保修将与10年保修期年底前期满，而路面的保修可能会继续有效，整个的任期为20年。 3 探讨与政策建议由于最高限额的条款，据NMSHTD，新墨西哥州44项目的保修条款的价格并不反映的实际费用。最高限额的条款，按1998年美元计算，意味着梅萨从NMSHTD那里拿到的除了6200万美元的保证付款还有价值480万美元/ 年的额外收入。通过宣布的最高限额的条款，梅萨实际上消除了不利的风险，同时保持盈利的不确定性。梅萨的收益就是NMSHTD的失去，因为这是一个零和游

43、戏。在实际费用的保修条款中，考虑到NMSHTD借用了一个较高的利率，以资助44项目，按1998年的美元计算，新墨西哥州44项目上升到57.3万个每年，一个属于保修规定的可行率下降了4 （图6 ）。新墨西哥州的保修规定是没有道理的，因为上限条款的成本高。 有人建议，国家公路仔细评估机构的最高限额的条款时，需要保修服务的销售基础设施项目。这是一种以便可以进行更好的决策的双重的分析需要。第一，人们必须认识到，最高限额的条款可能会昂贵。本文是用一个方便的方法来评估发达国家的模式的价值最高限额的条款。第二，国家机构当包括条款的保证时，应更好地确定一个良好的最高限额。敏感性分析表明，最高限额条款的价值使固

44、定最高限额变得灵活。新墨西哥州44保修条款增加了10 的上限将降低期权价格的上限条款的30 。因此，应仔细选择一个可明显影响着条款限额降低的上限。最高限额的条款，在本质上是一种期权，提供的灵活性，交换性的决定后，更多信息可以通过锁定风险的同时使有利的不确定性开放。真正的选择权概念提供强有力的工具，不仅为承包商，但也最高国家机构或其他条款的触发点在不确定的现金流量。一个潜在的应用实物期权的概念在保修合同是拖延保修的决定，直到施工结束时，更多的性能资料（Cui et al. 2004年） 。然后，更准确地估计可以节省日后维修，可对是否购买保修做出更好的决定。 鸣谢： 作者非常感谢支持这项研究的交通大学中心的阿拉巴马州（ UTCA ）和阿拉巴马州承建商的收费基金。 参考文献：1 Qingbin Cui;Philip Johnson;Aaron Quilk;Makarand Hastak, 对使用二项式格子模型的新墨西哥44公路的估价保修条款2 建造工程及管理期刊， 2008年1月，卷134.Number 1 ， 10 - 17