The relative ease with which councils have removed "gold-plating" in three new PFI contracts makes me wonder why unnecessary standards were ever specified.
The Government has clarified that it is not against the use of PFI, but it has pointed out the "perverse" incentives to using PFI that were created because it was basically free money. Why would you critically challenge over-the-top services standards and their financial consequences if it's not your bottom-line that it's affecting?
There is new hope that, after the Government's recent announcement that £1.5bn in savings can be made on existing PFI contracts, this will provide the necessary political cover for the coalition to start a new wave of PFI contracts. Both the parties in opposition were critical of the wastefulness, rigidness and secrecy of many PFI contracts.
So if the contracts can be amended to make savings in an open and transparent way, the flexibility and improved value-for-money and greater transparency that this provides will provide an answer to those criticisms. The level of risk transfer in PFI contracts lends itself to greater, rather than less efficiency.
But it's been poorly managed procurement and wasteful and rigid specifications that gave PFI a bad name. Delegates at the Future of Local Transport Delivery roadshow event in Birmingham will discuss how to take forward all the many successes of PFI contracts for the future, adapting them for changing circumstances.
The Efficiency Network is the next step in Local Transport Today's campaign to bring our extensive network of professionals the essential business intelligence required to deliver more with less.
