###### Abstract
The perspective of end-users and their voice for further service performance improvements in PPPs operations has largely been unrecognized [5], although many studies have proved that PPP success goes through the end-user's satisfaction regarding their experience quality [10; 14; 15]. In essence, the PPPs provide physical infrastructure to meet the end-user's needs more efficiently and comprehensively. In turn, the feedback from the end-user plays an important role in building and rebuilding the infrastructure. This paper, thus, focuses on the end-user's perceived service quality and contractual obligations through the lens of marking theory, to quantify service performance and identity when their gap warrants reconsideration, consequently addressing necessary major changes of project scope in social PPP operations. The service delivery process for PPPs is described in Figure 1, where marketing theory is adapted as the public infrastructure or service could typically be viewed as a production process [16]. Figure 1: Service delivery process diagram within PPP practice. (Gap 1: difference between the service quality perceived by end-user and the assessment of delivered service; Gap 2: difference between end-user’s service expectation and output specifications in a contract; and Gap 3: difference between the assessment of delivered service and contractual obligations in terms of output specification). In the service delivery process, the end-user is considered as rational consumer with individual and diverse needs, generating their own service expectations. Their perception of service quality is generally based on their preconceived view and local experiences rather than any understanding of the contractual obligations of the PPP provider. Thus, if the end-user' perceived service meets or exceeds their expectation, they will be satisfied. If their experience does not meet their expected level of service, they will be dissatisfied, regardless of any contractual obligation detailed in the output specifications, (refer 'Gap 2' in Figure 1). In a perfect world, when the agreement was struck there would be no gap between end-user expectations and the contracted services, (i.e., Gap 2 = 0). The contractual obligations of PPP Co., as detailed in the output specifications of the agreement, are monitored and administered by the government's contract manager through a key performance indicators (KPIs) mechanism, which is referred to as a performance management system (PMS) [15]. Should the delivered service fall below that specified in the contract (refer Gap 3 in Figure 1), the government has an abatement regime that is linked to KPIs. The application of the abatement regime results in an adjustment of the periodic payment to the PPP Co, usually done on a quarterly basis. Thus, should the end-user have concerns about the quality of delivered contracted services, the mechanisms in the contract, once applied, should close the satisfaction gap. Over the term of the contract changes invariably occur. These changes may be linked to changes in demand or changes in service expectations due to unforeseen events or changing community expectations with time. It is also possible that the expectation of the end-user is more a wishlist of desired outcomes rather than defined policy objectives or government standards of the day. It is often difficult to understand when a gap in end-user expectation relates to something that should be redressed through major change to the PPP contract, the undertaking of additional minor works, a major modification to the agreement or if this end-user gap relates to an ambient request for an enhancement or simply a lack of understanding of terms of the agreement. Delays and frustration often result when requests for enhancements go unanswered, yet current practice lacks mechanisms to transparently consider the end-user's perception of service quality. Coincidentally, [PERSON], et al.