Marcus Sorensen

Dear Sarang, If you are planning to manage such a project, some issues must be addressed: The project must make profits prior to the transfer. Companies who build well do not necessarily operate well, so check their track records on both fronts. Ownership will matter depending on the strategy in terms of upkeep; historical track records would be a good guide. Some alternatives to BOOT could maybe be interessed for you in order to mitigate the risks: BRT: Build, Rent, Transfer BOT: Build, Operate, Transfer BTO: Build, Transfer, Operate DBOT: Design, Build, Operate, Transfer BOOST: Build, Own, Operate, Subsidize, Transfer FBOOT: Finance, Build, Own, Operate, Transfer For inspiration, try www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1555_web.pdf Regards Marcus Sorensen

Dear Sarang, The concept of BOOT involves an arrangement by which a private developer builds an infrastructure facility using limited or non-recourse financing in return for the right to operate the facility and charge users a fee in order to generate a commercially acceptable rate of return (15% or more) on investment. The private developer owns and operates the project for a specified amount of time, usually 25 to 30 years, after which ownership is transferred to the government without compensation. In the "build" phase, Lean will make good sense as Lean is about reducing waste which means that the "build" phase will be reduced by using Lean. Regards, Marcus Sorensen