Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
• Wider Market (Introducing the skills and finance of private sector to help better uses
of the assets in the public sector)
8000 120
Capital Value (£'millions)
No. of Projects
5000 Number 75
4000 62 60
56
3000 45
2000 34 30
22
1000 15
7 9
0 1 2 2 2 2 0
87
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
Years
£' million
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
He
al
th
Sc
ho
ol
s
Tr
an
sp
or
t
De
fe
nc
e
Ho
m
e
O
W ffi
Sector
at ce
er
W
as
te
M
Ho gt
us
PFI projects: Total value per sector
ing
/o
ffic
e
O
th
er
s
Signed UK PPP/PFI Projects (1990-2003)
16,000 200
14,000 175
Capital Value (£'millions)
No. of Projects
10,000 Number 125
8,000 100
6,000 75
4,000 50
2,000 25
0 0
gt
s
e
e
th
ce
r
er
c
ol
M
po
l
ffi
ea
en
ff i
th
ho
te
ns
/o
O
H
ef
Sc
as
ng
a
e
D
Sectors
Tr
om
si
ou
H
er
at
H
W
Capital Value (£'millions)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
H
ea
l th
Sc
h oo
l s
Tr
an
sp
or
t
D
ef
en
ce
Ho
m
e
W O
ffi
at
er c e
W
as
te
H M
ou gt
si
ng
/o
ff i
ce
O
th
er
s
Signed UK PPP/PFI Projects: Average size of projects
Sector
Capital Value (£'millions)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
He
al t
h
Sc
ho
ol s
Tr
an
sp
ort
De
fen
ce
Ho
me
O ffi c
W e
a te
rW
as
te
Mg
Ho t
us
ing
/o f
fic
e
(excl. 4 transport projects over £800m)
Signed UK PPP/PFI project average size
Ot
he
rs
Sectors
Analysis of Signed PPP/PFI Projects
Less
than 10 69% 26% 7% 22% 41% 5% 29% 50% 42% (234)
11.03.2004 / FT
Tim Stone (International Chairman of PPPs at KPMG)
warned that the Government's PPP investment
programme may place unreasonable demands on the
capacity of the private sector to deliver:
• Effective Procurement
• Project Implementability
• Government Guarantee
• Favourable Economic Conditions
• Available Financial Market
Value for Money in PPP/PFI
Factors: Factor Analysis
Similarities: The making of profit, achievement of value for money and successful risk
management of projects appear to be the some of the common reasons advanced by
the participants.
Differences: Each type of organisations proffered diverse reasons for describing certain
schemes as best.
PFI Risks
Provide Retain
Contingency Risks and
Plan and Re-examine at
Retain Risk Intervals
Re-Classification of PFI Risks
• MACRO RISKS
– political, policy, economic, legal, social, industrial and
natural
• MESO RISKS
– selection, finance, design, construction,
technical, operation
• MICRO RISKS
– public service vs. private profit
PFI Risk Factor Criticality
0%
4%
8%
12%
16%
20%
C
os
t
D
es
ig
In n
su Fi
ra na
nc nc
e ia
ex l
po
su
re
O
rg
an Le
is ga
at
Pa io l
ym na
en lr
is
Pe t m ks
r fo ec
rm ha
an ni
sm
ce
Type of risk
-re
la
te
d
Po
l it
ic
al
So
ci
al
Te
ch
ni
ca
l
Ti
m
e
investigated during a PFI project
Risk categories most frequently
Major types of risk examined
Similarities: All participants consider the common risks in PFI, like performance related
risks, financial risks, cost risks, construction risks, legislative changes, etc.
Main risk identification techniques
Similarities: All PFI participants rely on experience and consultation when they identify
risks.
Differences: Different other approaches are also used by different participants, like: risk
matrices are used by consultants, workshops by clients, databases by construction
companies, etc.
Similarities: Broadly similar methodologies are used in the risk evaluation process with
emphasis on Semi-quantitative and Qualitative approaches.
Differences: While all parties utilise external consultants, there are different degrees of
reliance. Notably most Client organisations tend to be significantly influenced in their
decision making.
Risk Assessment strategies
Continuous
Risk Negotiation