DOCSLIB.ORG

Public-Private Partnerships: Understanding the Challenge

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Public-Private Partnerships: Understanding the Challenge A RESOURCE GUIDE PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS UNDERSTANDING THE CHALLENGE secOND editiON Public-Private Partnerships: Understanding the Challenge Second Edition Public-Private Partnerships: Understanding the Challenge Second Edition June 2009 WrittEn by Heather Fussell and Charley beresford ResearCH assiStanCE rachelle Mellanby AcknoWlEdgEMEntS the Centre for Civic governance would like to thank all the locally elected officials and experts who provided their advice and comments on earlier drafts of this guide. any errors and omissions are those of the authors. layoUt and design Working design The CEntrE For CiviC govErnance iS an initiativE oF tHE ColUMbia inStitUtE. Executive Summary Over the last few years public-private partnerships (P3s) have become an increasingly important topic for locally elected officials across Canada. Decades of underinvestment in infrastructure and tight operating budgets have forced local governments to constantly search for the best way to pro- vide the services their citizens expect at the lowest cost. P3s are offered as a solution to this challenge, though not everyone agrees that P3s can deliver infrastructure and services at the lowest cost. Many critics argue that P3s can end up costing governments more in the long run. The central ques- tion for locally elected officials when contemplating a P3 is, will it ultimately serve the public interest? This resource guide reviews a growing body of research about P3s. The record of P3s in Canada is decidedly mixed, and few P3s have been in oper- ation long enough for anyone to be able to evaluate whether or not they offer greater value than governments taking on the project themselves. The aim of this guide is to provide locally elected councillors and school board trustees with the information and tools they need to understand how P3s work and identify key questions. One point about P3s is clear: for locally elected officials and the staff they work with, P3s present a new set of challenges. At the heart of all P3s are intricate, complex contracts. Governments must hire outside consultants who have expertise in contract management, law and finance to help staff and locally elected officials evaluate proposals and negotiate final agree- ments. Even when a P3 has some chance of success, the long, complex and costly procurement process may outweigh any potential benefits. Public-Private PartnershiPs: understanding the challenge 5 Based on the available evidence we have identified eight points that locally elected officials may want to consider when deciding whether or not a P3 is right for their community: 1. Need. Could “on-time, on-budget” goals be reached through another procurement model, such as a design-build contract? 2. Resources. How long is the procurement process for a P3 expected to take? How much will it cost? Does the government have suf- ficient staff resources and in-house expertise to work on the pro- curement and negotiation of the P3 contract? If not, how much will hiring additional help cost? What happens if only one or two bidders respond? 3. Risk. What risks will the private sector take on? What risks will remain with the local government? Is it realistic to assume that the private partner will be able to manage the risks transferred to it at a lower cost than the government? 4. Responsibility. What will happen if the private partner fails to deliver on the agreed upon contract? Will the government still be on the hook to cover costs? 5. Accountability. How will the government monitor the contract? Can the government afford the additional monitoring costs? What will happen if service quality declines? 6. Jobs. How will the job security of current employees affected by the introduction of a P3 be protected? 7. Flexibility. If future public policy requires a change in the P3, will the government have the flexibility it needs to meet its goals? 8. Exit Strategy. If during the procurement or operation of a P3 it becomes evident that the P3 no longer serves the public interest, what is the government’s exit strategy? 6 Public-Private PartnershiPs: understanding the challenge On balance, the research indicates that P3s can have significant down- sides for the public interest. Money borrowed by the private sector is more expensive than money borrowed by governments, and those costs are passed along to the public. In addition to cost considerations, P3s present substan- tive issues for transparency and government oversight. Commercial considerations can limit public oversight in procurement, and contract provisions may limit changes that may be necessary to safe- guard public interest as new public policy imperatives evolve. Lengthy contracts require that the local government be able to predict public policy considerations decades down the road and effectively remove the service from public control. Although quality public service is the goal for local governments, pri- vate enterprises must show a profit for shareholders, and the public sector remains on the hook for provision of services. If local governments proceed down the P3 path, they are wise to do so only after a thorough review of the options. Charley Beresford Public-Private PartnershiPs: understanding the challenge 7 executive summary –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 5 table of contents –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 9 introduction ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 12 1. The emergence and evolution of Public-Private PartnershiPs ____________________ 15 1.1 What are Public-Private Partnerships? _______________ 15 1.2 The United kingdom: the birthplace of Canadian P3s ______ 17 1.3 P3s and new Public Management __________________ 17 1.4 P3s in Canada ______________________________ 18 1.5 P3s as Stimulus _____________________________24 1.6 Conclusion _______________________________25 2. Private finance and the credit crisis An uneasy future ––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 27 2.1 Public Sector accounting and Private Finance –––––––––– 27 Off-book financing –––––––––––––––––––––––––– 28 2.2 New rationales for Private Finance ––––––––––––––––– 30 2.3 Private Finance and tight Credit –––––––––––––––––– 32 2.4 Conclusion ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 35 3. Understanding P3s –––––––––––––––––––––––––– 36 3.1 Definitions ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 37 Who are the ‘ partners’ that governments deal with in P3s? –– 39 Thinking critically about P3 definitions –––––––––––––– 40 3.2 The P3 Procurement Process ––––––––––––––––––––– 42 P3 procurement framework ––––––––––––––––––––– 42 Length and cost –––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 44 3.3 Risk transfer –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 48 Types of risk –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 51 Public-Private PartnershiPs: understanding the challenge 9 Identifying and allocating risk –––––––––––––––––––– 53 Issues with risk transfer –––––––––––––––––––––––– 55 3.4 Comparing P3s to Public Procurement ––––––––––––––– 58 Value for money reports ––––––––––––––––––––––– 58 Public sector comparator –––––––––––––––––––––– 59 Discount rates ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 61 3.5 Contracts and Costs –––––––––––––––––––––––––– 64 The P3 contract –––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 64 Transaction and monitoring costs –––––––––––––––––– 65 3.6 Trade agreements ––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 68 4. P3s in different sectors ––––––––––––––––––––––– 70 4.1 Health –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 70 4.2 K-12 Education ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 72 4.3 Recreation Centres –––––––––––––––––––––––––– 74 4.4 Water and Sewage ––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 75 4.5 Transportation ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 77 4.6 Conclusion ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 78 5. Discussion ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 79 5.1 P3s: theory and Practice ––––––––––––––––––––––– 79 5.2 Accountability ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 82 5.3 Benefits and disadvantages ––––––––––––––––––––– 83 6. Protecting the Public interest –––––––––––––––––– 85 Endnotes –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 90 Further reading ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 102 10 Public-Private PartnershiPs: understanding the challenge aPPendix a - MUniCiPal, rEgional and |SCHool diStriCt P3 ProJECtS in Canada ––––––––––––– 106 aPPendix b - ResoUrces –––––––––––––––––––––––––– 115 list of boxes and tables boxes 1.1 Local Contractors left behind by P3s? ––––––––––––––– 25 2.1 City of vancouver olympic village and Whistler olympic village ––––––––––––––––––––––– 31 2.2 A return to Public Financing in british Columbia ––––––––– 33 3.1 Architecture and P3s ––––––––––––––––––––––––– 38 3.2 Abbotsford Hospital and Cancer Centre: One Partner, Many owners ––––––––––––––––––––– 40 3.3 Recreation Centre bail outs: ottawa and Cranbrook –––––– 49 3.4 Canada line and golden Ears bridge: User risk Stays with the transit authority –––––––––––––––––––––– 56 3.5 The impact of transaction Costs on the Success of P3s: Findings from a UbC P3 Project Study ––––––––––––––– 67 6.1 Discussion Points ––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 88 tables 1.1 Summary of Federal and Provincial P3 initiatives ––––––––– 22 3.1 Costs associated with dbo Process for Whistler’s Sewage treatment Plant ––––––––––––––––––––––– 46 3.2 Potential risks in infrastructure Projects and Services –––––– 52 5.1 Difference between initial Estimate and Actual Cost of P3 Projects –––––––––––––––––––––– 81 5.2 Benefits and disadvantages of P3s ––––––––––––––––– 84 Public-Private PartnershiPs: understanding the challenge 11 Introduction The Columbia Institute’s Centre for Civic Governance works to provide support to community leaders as they meet today’s social, economic and environmental challenges.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Partnership for Public Facilities and Infrastructure Act Guidelines Task Force Meeting Oct
    Partnership for Public Facilities and Infrastructure Act Guidelines Task Force Meeting Oct. 24, 2013 Meeting Agenda I. Introduction and Adoption of Minutes II. Staff Overview of House Bill 85 III. Presentation from the National Council on Public-Private Partnerships Mr. Rick Norment, Executive Director IV. Presentation from the Government of Canada Mr. Marc-Andre Hawkes, Consul and Sr. Trade Commissioner V. Presentation from the Florida School Boards Association Dr. Wayne Blanton, Executive Director Mr. Bill Graham VI. Presentation on Local Government Infrastructure Financing Mr. Randall C. Clement, Bryant Miller Olive VII. Panel discussion on Financing of Public-Private Partnerships Moderator: Mr. Lee Weintraub, Becker & Poliakoff Panelists: Mr. Lowell Clary, Clary Consulting Mr. Randall C. Clement, Bryant Miller Olive Mr. John Dionisio, Meridiam Infrastructure Mr. Chris Kinsley, Florida Board of Governors VIII. Presentation from the Florida Department of Transportation Mr. Leon Corbett, Project Finance Manager IX. Presentation from the Florida Association of Counties Mr. Chip Fletcher, County Attorney, Hillsborough County X. Presentation from the Florida League of Cities, Inc. Mr. Michael Parker, City of Tallahassee Mr. Kevin Crowder, Redevelopment Management Associates XI. Other Business and Public Testimony XII. Adjourn HB 85 Overview Partnership for Public Facilities and Infrastructure Guidelines Act Task Force October 24, 2013 Craig J. Nichols, Secretary HB 85 • HB 85, signed into law as Chapter 2013-223, Laws of Florida, authorizes public-private partnerships with responsible public entities. • The bill creates section 287.05712, F.S., to govern the procurement process for public- private partnerships for public purpose projects. • The bill creates the Partnership for Public Facilities and Infrastructure Act Guidelines Task Force.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloads/P3%20Practice%20Guidelines %20May%202009.Pdf
    Transportation Association of Canada Synthesis of Practices for Implementing Public-Private Partnerships in Transportation Related Projects November 2012 DISCLAIMER The material presented in this text was carefully researched and presented. However, no warranty expressed or implied is made on the accuracy of the contents or their extraction from reference to publications; nor shall the fact of distribution constitute responsibility by TAC or any researchers or contributors for omissions, errors or pos- sible misrepresentations that may result from use of interpretation of the material con- tained herein. Copyright 2012 by Transportation Association of Canada 2323 St. Laurent Blvd. Ottawa, ON K1G 4J8 Tel. (613) 736-1350 ~ Fax (613) 736-1395 www.tac-atc.ca ISBN 978-1-55187-348-6 TAC REPORT DOCUMENTATION FORM Title and Subtitle Synthesis of Practices for Implementing Public-Private Partnerships in Transportation Related Projects Report Date Coordinating Agency and Address ITRD No. November 2012 Transportation Association of Canada 2323 St. Laurent Boulevard Ottawa, ON K1G 4J8 Author(s) Corporate Affiliation(s) and Address(es) SNC Lavalin Transportation Association of Canada Abstract Keywords Canada is one of the leading practitioners of public-private partnerships (P3) in the Economics and Administration transportation sector. Some provinces have adopted this delivery format for Administration infrastructure including hospitals, municipal buildings and detention centres. More Construction recently, this format is increasingly used for larger transportation infrastructure Evaluation (Assessment) projects. Financing Highway As these larger infrastructure projects are completed, and as their operations and Public Private Partnership concessions begin and evolve, there are opportunities to determine if a project is Specifications successful during the implementation phase both for the public and the private side Textbook of the equation.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Impact Bonds in Canada: from Theory to Implementation
    SOCIAL IMPACT BONDS IN CANADA: FROM THEORY TO IMPLEMENTATION by Arjun Langford Bachelor of Public Affairs and Policy Management, Specialization: International Studies, Carleton University, 2009 PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF PUBLIC POLICY In the Public Policy Program of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences © Arjun Langford, 2011 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Term (choose Fall or Spring or Summer) Year All rights reserved. However, in accordance with the Copyright Act of Canada , this work may be reproduced, without authorization, under the conditions for Fair Dealing . Therefore, limited reproduction of this work for the purposes of private study, research, criticism, review and news reporting is likely to be in accordance with the law, particularly if cited appropriately. Approval Name: Arjun Langford Email: [email protected] Degree: Master of Public Policy Title of Project: Social Impact Bonds in Canada: From Theory to Implementation Supervisory Committee: Jonathan R. Kesselman Senior Supervisor Public Policy Program John Richards Supervisor Public Policy Program Date Approved: March 11, 2011 1 Abstract Social impact bonds (SIBs) are a new method of generating private investment for preventative social programming in the UK. SIBs generate investment from private sources for social programs by issuing a contract that pays returns to investors based on a percentage of the savings received by government as a result of the program outcomes. This paper analyzes the theoretical underpinnings of this concept and attempts to determine applicability in a Canadian context. No previous substantive study of this kind has been performed in a Canadian context. This study undertakes empirical research of potential SIB applications in the form of an employment program for persons with disabilities, a social housing program and a preventative healthcare program for hypertension management.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Engage with the Private Sector in Public-Private Partnerships in Emerging Markets
    How to Engage with Public Disclosure Authorized the Private Sector in Public-Private Partnerships in Emerging Markets Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Edward Farquharson Clemencia Torres de Mästle and E.R. Yescombe with Javier Encinas Public Disclosure Authorized How to Engage with the Private Sector in Public-Private Partnerships in Emerging Markets How to Engage with the Private Sector in Public-Private Partnerships in Emerging Markets Edward Farquharson Clemencia Torres de Mästle and E.R. Yescombe with Javier Encinas © 2011 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org All rights reserved 1 2 3 4 14 13 12 11 This volume is a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Develop- ment / The World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this volume do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the govern- ments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgement on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any terri- tory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly.
    [Show full text]
  • PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS for TRANSPORTATION in the APEC REGION an Analysis and Literature Review
    PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS FOR TRANSPORTATION IN THE APEC REGION An Analysis and Literature Review January 2017 This publication was produced by Nathan Associates Inc. for review by the United States Agency for International Development. PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS FOR TRANSPORTATION IN THE APEC REGION An Analysis and Literature Review DISCLAIMER This document is made possible by the support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Its contents are the sole responsibility of the author or authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States government. GREAT WOMEN IN ASEAN INITIATIVE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE CONTENTS Abbreviations i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii 1. Introduction 1 Working Definition of PPP 1 How this Report is Organized 2 2. Summary of Relevant APEC Policy Frameworks 3 The APEC Growth Strategy 3 The APEC Multiyear Plan on Infrastructure Development and Investment (MYPIDI), 2013–2016 4 Cebu Action Plan (CAP) 4 APEC Connectivity Blueprint (2015–2025) 5 Additional Initiatives Supported under APEC Forums 5 3. Objectives for Pursuing PPPs in APEC Economies 9 4. Gap Analysis of PPP Development 13 Factors in Success of a PPP 15 Conclusion 21 5. Case Studies: Transportation PPPs in the APEC Region 23 Port of Baltimore and the Seagirt Marine Terminal, USA 23 Airport Privatization, Mexico 26 Metro Rail Line 4, People’s Republic of China 28 Peninsula Link Project, Australia 30 General Conclusions and Lessons Learned 32 Works Cited 33 Appendix A: Economy-level Analyses on PPP Development 35 Australia 1 Brunei Darussalam 2 Canada 3 Chile 3 People’s Republic of China 4 Hong Kong, China 5 Indonesia 6 Japan 7 Republic of Korea 8 Malaysia 8 Mexico 9 New Zealand 10 Papua New Guinea 11 Peru 12 The Republic of the Philippines 12 Russia 14 Singapore 14 Chinese Taipei 15 Thailand 16 The United States 17 Viet Nam 18 Appendix A Works Cited 1 Appendix B: Websites Referenced vii INTRODUCTION V ILLUSTRATIONS Figures Figure 4-1.
    [Show full text]
  • Public-Private Partnerships: Re-Conceptualizing the ‘Public Interest’
    Public-private partnerships: re-conceptualizing the ‘public interest’ Draft: not for citation without author’s permission Canadian Political Science Association 2013 Annual Conference University of Victoria Victoria, BC June 4-6, 2013 Heather Whiteside1 Abstract Public-private partnerships (P3s) have been present in jurisdictions across Canada since the 1990s but it is only within the past decade (or less) that systematic attempts have been made on the part of government to protect the public interest when developing P3s. This raises three interrelated questions: how is the ‘public interest’ now conceptualized, what types of protections are being offered, and what have been the implications of these reforms? In addressing these issues, this paper argues that the P3 phenomenon relies on a fundamental reorientation and marketization of the public interest. Key components of this process include the methods now used to make infrastructure planning decisions (including how value for money is assessed and risk is gauged) and the empowering of new public sector agencies geared strictly toward privatization. Attempts to protect the public interest are therefore more attuned to facilitating P3s and streamlining privatization processes than they are to improving social outcomes, broadly conceived. Public-private partnerships (P3s)2 have been present in jurisdictions across Canada since the 1990s but it is only within the past decade (or less) that systematic attempts have been made on the part of government to protect the public interest when developing P3s. Protections are sorely needed given the poor track record of P3s in Canada: these projects are frequently unable to meet the promises made by proponents and carry several other negative social consequences (Whiteside 2011; 2013a; 2013b).
    [Show full text]
  • Using Public-Private Partnerships to Improve Transportation Infrastructure in Canada by Charles Lammam, Hugh Macintyre, and Joseph Berechman
    Studies in Economic Prosperity May 2013 Using Public-Private Partnerships to Improve Transportation Infrastructure in Canada by Charles Lammam, Hugh MacIntyre, and Joseph Berechman Contents Executive summary / iii Introduction / 1 1 What are Public-Private Partnerships? / 3 2 The benefits of Public-Private Partnerships / 11 3 Common concerns about Public-Private Partnerships / 23 4 Conditions for successful Public-Private Partnerships / 31 5 Measuring the extent of transportation Public-Private Partnerships in Canada / 37 Conclusion / 44 Appendix A: Information on individual Canadian transportation P3s from 1985 to 2013 (as of Jan. 30) / 47 Appendix B: A description of PWF’s International Major Projects Database / 51 References / 53 About the authors / 62 Acknowledgments / 63 Publishing information / 64 Supporting the Fraser Institute / 65 Purpose, funding, & independence / 66 About the Fraser Institute / 67 Editorial Advisory Board / 68 fraserinstitute.org / i ii / fraserinstitute.org Executive summary There is general agreement among diverse groups and individuals that Canada’s transportation infrastructure desperately requires improvement. As governments move to confront this challenge, it is not enough that they simply commit to building more roads or bridges; the infrastructure must be built on time and on budget, be of high quality, and be well-maintained. The conventional way for providing transportation infrastructure involves the government hiring a firm to build the facility based on a pre- scriptive design. The government then takes responsibility for operating and maintaining the facility and perhaps outsources some aspects of care to pri- vate companies. With a history of construction-cost overruns and time delays as well as other notable problems, the conventional process has not served Canadians well.
    [Show full text]
  • Canada Infrastructure Bank Spending Outlook
    April 28, 2021 CANADA INFRASTRUCTURE BANK SPENDING OUTLOOK Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) The Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) supports Parliament by providing economic and financial analysis for the purposes of raising the quality of parliamentary debate and promoting greater budget transparency and accountability. This report examines the current and projected status of the Canada Infrastructure Bank’s investment commitments and funding disbursements. Lead Analyst: Nora Nahornick, Analyst This report was prepared under the direction of: Trevor Shaw, Director Nancy Beauchamp, Carol Faucher, Jocelyne Scrim and Rémy Vanherweghem assisted with the preparation of the report for publication. For further information, please contact [email protected] Yves Giroux Parliamentary Budget Officer RP-2122-003-S_e Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 1. Introduction 3 2. Current status 4 3. Causes of funding delays 6 4. Benchmarking CIB 9 5. Future outlook 11 Defining the Public Sector 14 Benchmarking Organizations 15 Projected Spending 17 Capital Losses and Operating Expenses 19 Notes 21 Canada Infrastructure Bank Spending Outlook Executive Summary As part of the $187.8 billion Investing in Canada Plan, the Government established the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB) to invest $35 billion into large, revenue generating infrastructure projects that are in the public interest, and developed and delivered in partnership with public, private, and institutional investors.1 Four years into its mandate, funding is being disbursed by CIB much slower than planned. As of April 22, 2021, CIB has publicly announced $5.1 billion in investments for seventeen projects. However, finalizing contracts and the actual disbursement of money has lagged the CIB’s own projections.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report on the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act
    Annual Report on the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act 2016 –17 © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the President of the Treasury Board, 2017 Catalogue No. BT1-18E-PDF ISSN 2292-048X This document is available on the Government of Canada website at www.canada.ca This document is available in alternative formats upon request. Table of contents Introduction ........................................................................................ 1 Reported disclosure activity ................................................................... 2 Review of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act ............................. 5 Appendix: Summary of organizational activity related to disclosures under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act ........................................... 6 A. Organizations reporting activity under the act in the 2016 to 2017 fiscal year ....................................................................................... 6 B. Organizations that reported disclosures that led to a finding of wrongdoing under the act in the 2016 to 2017 fiscal year .................... 10 C. Organizations that reported no activities related to disclosure in the reporting period ............................................................................. 11 D. Organizations that do not have a senior officer for disclosure or internal procedures as of the end of the reporting period, pursuant to subsection 10(4) of the act .............................................................. 14
    [Show full text]
  • Public Private Partnerships
    Public Private Partnerships Responses to Exposure Draft July 2017 Public Private Partnerships Responses to Exposure Draft Table of Contents Response Organization Contact Person Page No. No. 1 Metrolinx Robert Siddall 1 – 4 2 BDO Canada LLP Armand Capisciolto, CPA, CA CPA (Michigan) 5 – 10 3 Government of Saskatchewan Terry Paton, Provincial Controller 11 – 14 4 Province of British Columbia Carl Fischer, CPA, CGA 15 – 20 5 City of Calgary Duri Lee, CPA, CA 21 – 24 6 Alberta Treasury Board and Finance Dan Stadlweiser 25 – 32 7 Auditor General of Canada Stuart Barr 33 – 38 8 Nova Scotia Finance and Treasury Josh Burk 39 – 42 Board 9 Ordre des Comptables Annie Smargiassi 43 – 52 Professionnels Agrées du Québec 10 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Lucy Durocher 53 – 55 11 Office of the Auditor General of Wayne Morgan, PhD, CPA, CA, CISA 56 – 61 Alberta Colin Semotiuk, CPA, CA 12 Treasury Board Secretariat of Leona Melamed 62 – 70 Canada Michael Lionais 13 PPP Canada Greg Smith 71 – 73 14 Canadian Union of Public Toby Sanger 74 – 80 Employees 15 Provincial Auditor of Saskatchewan Judy Ferguson, FCPA, FCA 81 – 83 16 City of Surrey Jorge Silvestre, BBA(app), CPA, CGA 84 – 87 17 Office of the Chief Administrative Michael Ruta, FCA 88 – 99 Officer 18 Province of Manitoba Aurel Tess, CPA, CGA 100 – 104 19 Ministre des Affaires Municipales de Nancy Klein 105 – 112 Québec 20 Comptroller General of Finance Ann Marie Miller 113 – 115 Newfoundland and Labrador 21 Colleges Ontario Finance Officers Kelly Morrow, CPA, CA 116 – 119 Public Private Partnerships Responses to Exposure Draft 22 Deloitte LLP Gloria Lemire, FCPA, FCA 121 – 128 23 The Regional Municipality of York Jason Li 129 – 132 Canice Mok 24 Auditor General of Ontario Bonnie Lysik 133 – 136 25 SaskBuilds Corporation Miller, Alicyn 137 1 Response Questionnaire Public Private Partnerships Statement of Principles Name: Robert Siddall Organization: Metrolinx E-mail: [email protected] General comments: Dear Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Moving Forward on Public Private Partnerships: U.S
    BROOKINGS-ROCKEFELLER Project on State and Metropolitan Innovation Moving Forward on Public Private Partnerships: U.S. and International Experience with PPP Units Emilia Istrate and Robert Puentes Summary In a time of constrained public budgets, leveraging private-sector financial resources and exper- “ Dedicated tise to deliver a range of infrastructure projects has growing appeal. However, these public/pri- vate partnerships (PPPs) are often complicated contracts that differ significantly from project to PPP units help project and from place to place. In the United States, many states lack the technical capacity and expertise to consider such deals and fully protect the public interest. To address this problem, governments countries, states, and provinces around the world have created specialized institutional enti- ties—called PPP units—to fulfill different functions such as quality control, policy formulation, and develop and technical advice. This report recommends that U.S. states should: expedite the PPP n Establish dedicated PPP units to tackle bottlenecks in the PPP process and protect the public interest market, while at n Pass legislation and change the procurement culture to a more transparent and outcome- based project selection process the same time n Work with the federal government to address technical assistance gaps on PPPs, on an as-needed basis protecting the public interest.” I. Introduction ith its emphasis on consumption rather than production, the Great Recession un- veiled an American economy dangerously out-of-whack. During the sluggish recovery that has followed, national, state, and metropolitan public and private sector leaders continue to push for investments in infrastructure to put Americans back to work and Wrebalance the economy.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case for Public-Private Partnerships in Infrastructure
    Timothy J. Murphy The case for public-private partnerships in infrastructure Abstract: Much of the public debate about public-private partnerships (P3s) has oc- curred through the lens of those who either oppose or support this increasingly popular method of delivering public infrastructure assets. Despite some scepticism in the academic literature, an analysis of the key arguments for and against P3s con- cludes that the P3 model can successfully deliver public infrastructure goods and services, provided that certain key thresholds are met. Lessons learned from early experiments in P3s and from the experience of the newer government P3 procure- ment agencies suggest that P3s can provide value for money if risk is allocated to the party best able to manage it. An appropriate risk allocation requires that governments have the expertise to identify all of the relevant risks before entering into the part- nership contract. Governments must also have the contract management skills to ensure that those risks are in fact borne by the private sector. To maintain public con- fidence in the P3 model, governments must live up to their own obligations of transparency and accountability and not succumb to private-sector demands for con- fidentiality. The article recognizes that not all government goods and services can meet the threshold but that, if they do, it argues strongly for the efficiency and effec- tiveness of the P3 model. Sommaire: Une grande partie du de´bat public au sujet des partenariats entre le secteur public et le secteur prive´ (les P3) a eu lieu par l’entremise de ceux qui opposent ou soutiennent cette me´thode de plus en plus populaire de livrer de l’infrastructure publique.
    [Show full text]