I recommend using further tool packages for reducing PPI project risks as follows.
8.5.1 Selection of Criteria for Tender Evaluation
The private sector cannot be expected to invest considerable time and resources to prepare a tender project bid if the process for awarding proposals is not based on explicit competitive criteria.
In PPI projects the commercial and financial elements rather than the technical elements are likely to be the final determinants in winning a concession.
The precise nature and type of facility often varies widely with the number of tenders.
As an example of a detailed evaluation of a toll road project, we can consider five major categories, those being: engineering, environmental, traffic, financial and economic elements.
Having identified complying tenders the public sector then considers the weighting of each project package.
It is not sufficient to use price as the sole criterion for evaluation
Any evaluation process must include the technical and commercial quality of tender, its effectiveness and efficiencies, any cost savings to the user also to the concession awarding party upon transfer.
Each of these factors may be expressed on the basis of compliance with concession agreement and in a weighting system for each project package.
For example, weighting of concession company selection criteria in four European Countries are as follows:
Table 8.1 Concession Company Selection Criteria
Shadow Toll Toll
UK Finland Spain Portugal
State Subsidy Criterion: Lowest NPV of Payments to a concession company
90% for NPV
35%
Coherence of concession co. financial plan
30%
Investment, toll charges, operating costs
25%
Completion dates for execution of work
70%
Design Technical minimum
required: Best non-enhanced
solution
10% for technical
criteria
Quality of service/maintenance
10% 30%
NPV=Net present value for scheduled payments by the Government to the concession company
Source: French Highway Directorate, Analysis of highway concessions in Europe, Report for the Western European Road Directors, February 1999
In this case the higher the tender scores, the greater the prospects of a successful project.
A weighting system associated with each package must be clearly identified in the tender documents.
I suggest the risk factor should be included in the tender evaluation and the private sector be informed about the risk evaluation score related to the project before proposal.
Detailed types of risks and classification of attributable causes shall be determined in the concession agreement by taking into account domestic and foreign case studies, effectiveness of risk management, appropriateness of risk allocation, etc.
8.5.2 Advisors for the Public Sector
Public sector employees may have limited experience in business negotiations leading to approved risk allocation.
In addition, projects and financing in toll roads using PPI are increasingly complex.
To achieve better value for money and solve these problems in context of complex and risky projects, private sector advisors’ (financial, technical, legal etc.) assistance
In the case of the M1/15 Motorway project, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), provided support during the whole tendering procedure (TIMÁR, A., 1994).
With the aim to assist the Bureau for Motorways in Concession (Hungary) in managing the tendering procedure for the M5 Motorway project, foreign financial and legal consultants as well as Hungarian engineering consultant were engaged separately, through competitive tendering.
Knowing the major role of traffic analysis and forecast, a foreign traffic consultant together with a Hungarian legal expert was also invited to assist the Evaluation and Expert Committee.
These experts prepared separate evaluation reports in their own field of competence (using their own costing, economic and financial evaluation models) as well as recommendation (GAZAL, D. and SIPOSS, A. G., 1997).
Reputable international team of advisors engaged by the public sector will give the
private sector confidence in a complex project.
8.5.3 Securing Competition for / in the Market
Securing competition for the market is essential because public sector employees do not always represent the interests of the public.
Institutions may need to be restructured, with the objectives of controlling the PPI process in the public interest, avoiding tendencies for corruption, nepotism, cronyism or political pressure, and creating a regulatory body, separate from vested sector interests.
The core requirements are well summarized in “developing best practices for promoting private sector investment in infrastructure (roads)” (The Asian Development Bank, 2000) as follows
• Developing an acceptable PPI legal framework- the exact nature of which will be country specific.
• Securing competition for the market. Government should identify good projects and then subject those to competitive bidding (rather than the widespread existing practice of accepting unsolicited bids).
Where unsolicited bids are accepted, they should be subject to realistic competition.
• Securing competition in the market. This requires:
- Legally-binding concession agreements which set out clearly the rights and obligations of all parties, and the procedures to be followed in the in the case of unforeseen events.
- Establishment of an autonomous and independent regulator, which is also accountable. This likely to be in government, but quite separate from vested sector interests.
- Encouragement of user groups, maybe empowered through an ombudsman function, to exert pressure on infrastructure providers.
• Granting concessions only after government has determined they are clearly in the
public interest, and can be revoked if this is not met.
Milti-lateral support for government is likely to be beneficial in implementation.
The main PPI Center has the brief to assist line agencies prepare, market and negotiate projects, and is staffed accordingly.
There are some countries, which have PPI Center to achieve these specific goals.
• PUK (Partnership UK): the United Kingdom.
• The PFI Acting Committee and PFI Promotion Division: Japan.
• The PICKO (Private Infrastructure Investment Center of Korea): South Korea.
• The Coordinating Center for Private Sector Participation (CCPSP; BOT Center):
the Philippine
8.5.4 Some Further Measures
There are many policies to facilitate PPI projects as follows:
· Changes in policy directions from a government-centered or government-financed scheme to a private-sector-oriented or private-sector-initiated scheme.
· Promotion of creativity and efficiency from the private sector throughout the stages of planning, design, construction and operation of PPI projects (for example, introduction of preferential treatment system for the private sector, provision of incentives for the reduction of construction period or project costs etc.).
· Promoting public hearing in the planning process and dealing with environmental issues.
· Considering a number of significant insurance policies in the context of concessions (e.g. contractor’s all risks third party liability, employer’s liability, workers compensation, material damage etc.).
· Restructuring domestic systems to meet international standards (mitigation of investment risks by providing a competitive rate of return, minimum operation revenue guarantee, foreign exchange risk reduction etc.).
· Fair and equal treatment of domestic and foreign investors etc.
Chapter Nine: Conclusion, Recommendations, Limitation, and Further Issues