When Max Curzon-Hope and I met in 2013 we had different styles, but agreed that commercial services must be improved and buyers/clients and suppliers/providers should work more collaboratively.

Are all PFIs risky or are some more risky than others?

Are all PFIs risky or are some more risky than others?

Are all PFIs risky or are some more risky than others?

The similarity between PFI and construction soft landings

In previous blog posts, we talked about the importance of assets and services being handed back at expiry with due care and attention recognising that they are state critical and in most cases have been delivered under PFI by people with passion.

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) have published their report on PFI expiry and conclude that vital public services such as schools and hospitals face serious disruptions should the government fail to prepare for expiry. We agree. But we would add that the risk is twofold - the seamless operation of these critical assets is at risk AND there is the potential for substantial contract-end financial liabilities, at substantial cost to the taxpayer.

The PAC report is timely and rightly calls for action.

In previous blog posts we talked about the fact that a 30-year period of expiring PFI contracts is now upon us and gave our view on the NAO findings that contracting authorities do not have up-to-date contracts, lack information on asset condition and annual maintenance, do not have asset registers and expect to use the Dispute Resolution Process (DRP). In this post we talk about the importance of contracting authorities and PFI Providers starting the process in the right way so that collaborative working relationships, integral to CURSHAW’s E3 (effective, efficient and equitable) handback, are not compromised at the outset of the process.