deloitte - ppps in water sector - getting best public policy outcomes - 2009

8/2/2019 Deloitte - PPPs in Water Sector - Getting Best Public Policy Outcomes - 2009

1/16

PPPs and thewater sectorPlugging theinfrastructure hole

March 2009

Deloitte Corporate Finance

Infrastructure & Project Finance

Roger Black


2/16


3/16

In early 2007 Deloitte released its global research study

of the experience with public-private partnerships

(PPPs) across different sectors of social and economic

infrastructure, including water, wastewater and waste

Titled, Closing the infrastructure gap: the role of public-

private partnerships, it provided a global overview of PPPs

including: how, why and when PPPs should be considered

as a delivery model; which countries have greatest

experience with infrastructure and services delivery viaPPPs; which sectors of infrastructure have seen greatest

deployment of PPPs; and the circumstances under which

different types of PPP delivery models have been used,

and with what success.

The follow up, Closing the infrastructure gap: Part II

to be released Q1 2009 specifically focuses on aiding

the public sector deal with the strategic and operational

issues involved with private sector involvement in the

delivery of infrastructure projects.

Specific questions addressed in the research include:

whataremychoicesintermsoftheroleoftheprivate sector?

howdoIdecidewhatroletheprivatesector

should play?

whataretherisksandconsiderationsinselectingthe

role of the private sector?

whatisbeingdoneinotherjurisdictions?

whatisthecostofinvolvingtheprivatesector?

whatmightadealstructurelooklikeforincorporating

the private sector?

The goal of the research is to provide a frameworkthat helps public officials select the appropriate role

or involvement for the private sector in infrastructure

projects based on:

riskqualification/assessment

thecostsassociatedwithdifferentdeliverymodels

thedesirabilityofretainingcontrolover

the infrastructure.

This paper draws from the findings of both

Deloitte research papers, including leading

examples from around the world, and applies

the research to the provision of infrastructureand services in the water, wastewater and

waste sectors.

Introduction

PPPs in water 3


4/16

While traditionally the sole province of state and local

government, water and wastewater management has

become a growing area for the application of PPPs

globally. The drivers for this are many and vary fromcountry to country, although in broad terms typically differ

between the developed and the developing worlds, and

the water-rich and the water-scarce.

In the developed world early entrants into various types

of PPPs included the Netherlands, a number of Canadian

municipal governments and Ireland.

intheNetherlandsa30yearconcession-withatotal

contract value of 1.58 billion - was awarded by the

Water Board of Delft land in 2002 for the design,

construction, and operation of a new wastewater

treatment plant, and the refurbishment and operation

of an existing wastewater treatment plant

inCanada,ageingwaterandwastewatersystems

requiring renewal expenditure of more than $28 billion

prompted the municipalities of Moncton, Hamilton

& Dartmouth to consider and develop PPP financing

mechanisms to deliver water services

inIrelandmorethan100waterandwastewaterPPP

projects - most of them design-build (DB) - are either

operational, or in construction and planning.

In the developing world private participation in the water

sector began to be hailed as a solution to chronic failures

of coverage and services during the 1990s. Between

1990 and 2005 private investors committed over USD 50

billiontomorethan380waterinfrastructureprojectsin

developing countries.

The PPP experience in providing water and wastewater

infrastructure in many ways replicated the PPP experience

in other sectors of social and economic infrastructure.Contracts often reflected excessive optimism by both

private investors and governments, and the socio-political

difficulties of raising tariffs to levels covering costs were

often underestimated. After a number of major water

project contracts proved insufficiently robust to survive

the financial crisis of the 1990s, several international

operators lost much of their appetite for further

investment in developing countries.

More recently, continued necessity combined with the

lessons and experience of earlier ventures is resulting in a

maturing of the PPP market following the initial boom and

subsequent contraction. Stakeholders, public and private,are growing more aware of both the benefits and risks

involved, and are looking for contractual arrangements

best suited to the nature of the inherent risks and the

socio-political context.

So, before dealing with the specific characteristics of

water, wastewater and waste infrastructure including

dams, pipelines, water grids, water treatment plants,

water recycling plants, desalination plants, waste

treatment/sewerageplantsitisworthoutliningthe

range of PPP options and the general learnings, to date,

regarding the conditions which underpin PPP success.

PPPs in the water sectorglobally: current status

4


5/16

Table 1: Water PPP projects by region and type (1991-2007)

Region Total

No. of Projects

Concession Divestiture New Projects

ie. DBO/BOO etc

Service & Management

Contracts & Leases

East Asia & Pacific 282 116 8 146 12

Europe & Central Asia 61 8 5 7 41

Latin America & the Caribbean 193 109 12 42 30

Middle East & North Africa 15 0 0 6 9

South Asia 9 1 0 4 4

Sub-Saharan Africa 24 2 0 2 20

584 236 25 207 116

Source: World Bank Group, Private participation in infrastructure database

Table 2: Water PPPs by subsector (1991-2007)

Subsector Segment Project Count

Treatment plant Potable water and sewerage treatment plant 12

Potable water treatment plant 120

Sewerage treatment plant 163

Utility Sewerage collection 1

Sewerage collection and treatment 9

Water utility with sewerage 215

Water utility without sewerage 64

584

Source: World Bank Group, Private participation in infrastructure database

PPPs in water 5


6/16

Common forms of PPP where new

infrastructure is required

In general terms a PPP refers to a contractual agreement

formed between a government agency and a private

sector entity that allows for greater private sector

participation in the delivery of public infrastructure

projects. Compared with traditional procurement

models, the private sector assumes a greater role in

the planning, financing, design, construction, operation,and maintenance of public facilities.

Some of the most common PPP models used for

new projects include:

Design-Build (DB)/Build-Transfer (BT): Under

this model the public sector contracts with a private

partner to design, and build, a facility in accordance

with the requirements it sets. Upon completion the

public sector assumes responsibility for operating and

maintaining the facility

Design-Build-Maintain (DBM): This model is similar

to Design-Build except that the private proponentalso maintains the facility. The public sector retains

responsibility for operations

Design-Build-Operate (DBO)/Build-Transfer-

Operate (BTO): Under this model, the private sector

designs and builds a facility. Upon completion, the title

for the new facility is transferred to the public sector,

while the private sector operates the facility for a

specified period

Design-Build-Operate-Maintain (DBOM)/Build-

Operate-Transfer (BOT): This model combines the

responsibilities of design-build procurements with the

operations and maintenance of a facility for a specified

period by a private sector partner. At the end of that

period, the operation of the facility is transferred back

to the public sector

Build-Own-Operate-Transfer (BOOT): The public

sector grants a franchise to a private partner to

finance, design, build and operate a facility for a

specific period of time. Ownership of the facility is

transferred back to the public sector at the end of

that period

Build-Own-Operate (BOO): The public sector

grants the right to finance, design, build, operate

and maintain a project to a private entity, which

retains ownership of the project. The private entity

is not required to transfer the facility back to the

public sector

Design-Build-Finance-Operate/Maintain (DBFO,

DBFM or DBFO/M): Under this model, the private

sectordesigns,builds,finances,operatesand/or

maintains a new facility under a long-term lease. At

the end of the lease term, the facility is transferred

tothepublicsector.(NBInsomecountries,DBFO/M

covers both BOO and BOOT).

Figure 1: the PPP continuum: degree of public sector responsibility

New projects

Existing services and facilities

Public responsibility Private responsibility

Design-build Design-build-maintain

Design-build-operate

Design-build-operate-maintain

Design-ownoperate-transfer

Design-own-operate

Servicecontracts

Managementcontracts Lease Concession Divestiture

Source: The National Council for Public Private Partnerships

Models of PPP

6


7/16

Common forms of PPP involving

existing infrastructure

In addition to delivering new infrastructure, PPPs can also

be used for existing services and facilities. Models include:

service contract: The public sector contracts with

a private entity to provide services the public sector

previously performed

management contract: A management contractdiffers from a service contract in that the private

entity is responsible for all aspects of operations and

maintenance of the facility under contract

lease: The public sector grants a private entity a

leasehold interest in an asset. The private partner

operates and maintains the asset in accordance with

the terms of the lease

concession: The public sector grants a private entity

exclusive rights to operate and maintain an asset

over a long period of time in accordance with set

performance requirements. The public sector retains

ownership of the original asset, while the privateoperator retains ownership over any improvements

made during the concession period

divestiture/privatisation: The public sector transfers

an asset, either in part or in full, to the private sector.

Generally it will include certain conditions with the

sale of the asset to ensure that improvements are

made and the community continues to be served.

Figure 1 (opposite) identifies the differences in the levels

of public and private sector responsibility involved in each

of the models.

Recent developments in PPP models

A number of variations of the PPP model have been

developed in recent years in response to the challenges

faced in specific situations and sectors.

Alliancing. Under this model, the public and private

sector agree to jointly design, develop, and finance the

project. In some cases they also work together to build,

maintain, and operate the facility.

Bundling: Contracting with one partner to provide

several small-scale PPP projects in order to reduce

the length of the procurement process as well as

transaction costs.

Competitive Partnership: Several private partners

are selected, in competition with each other, to deliver

different aspects of a project. The contract allows the

public sector to reallocate projects among partners at

a later date, depending upon performance. The public

partner can also use the cost and quality of other

partners outputs as a benchmark for all partners.

Incremental Partnership: The public sector contractswith a private partner, in which certain elements of

the work can be called off, or stopped, if deemed

unproductive. The public sector can commission work

incrementally, and reserves the right to use alternative

partners if suitable.

Integrator: The public sector appoints a private

sector partner, the integrator, to manage the project

development. The integrator arranges the necessary

delivery functions and is rewarded according to overall

project outcomes wherever possible, with penalties for

lateness, cost overruns, poor quality, and so on. The

integrator has a less direct role in service provision and in

some cases is barred from being involved in direct delivery

at all. In other cases, the integrator is appointed to carry

out the first phase of work, or specified works but is then

barred from carrying out subsequent phases of work

to remove the potential for conflict of interest between

achieving best value for the public sector and maximising

private returns through the supply chain.

Joint Venture: A joint venture company is set up, a

majority of which is owned by a private sector partner.

The public sector selects a strategic partner through a

competitive process that includes a bid to carry out the

first phase of work. The typical contract is for 20 years.

Subsequent phases are commissioned by the public sectorpartner, but carried out by the strategic partner using

the first phase of work as a benchmark to determine the

appropriateness of future costs. The United Kingdom has

used a variant of this model, called local improvement

finance trust (LIFT), for its hospital PPPs.

PPPs in water 7


8/16

Lessons for the water sector from the global

PPP experience

Our research of the PPP experience globally - across all

sectors of social and economic infrastructure - holds

useful insights for the development and application of

PPPs in Australia for water, wastewater and waste.

PPPs have proven to be an effective infrastructure delivery

tool under specific conditions! The key to success isthe role of the public sector. Most commonly project

failure has equated to the financial failure of the private

operator. A significant part of designing an enduring

market, and therefore private sector willingness to

fund and undertake risk, entails improving public sector

capacity to execute and manage sustainable partnerships.

Poor PPP outcomes can be seen to have emanated from:

poor setup. The success or failure of PPPs can often

be traced back to the initial design of PPP policies,

legislation, and guidance. A common mistake is

placing so many restrictions and conditions and

expectations of risk transfer on the private sectorsponsor and agencies involved that a financially

feasible deal becomes impossible to structure. Another

is having unrealistic expectations of PPPs thinking

that they provide free money or that theyre the

solution to all problems

lack of clarity about project objectives. Sponsors

sometimes lack consensus about the purpose of, and

expected outcomes for, the project. Public officials

may then try to compensate for this failure by over-

specifying inputs

too much focus on the transaction. Public

sector may mistakenly view PPPs merely as financinginstruments when in fact they represent a very

different way of working. This can lead to a poor

operational focus and service outcomes

inappropriate risk model applied to project.

Much of what differentiates the various PPP models

is the level and nature of risk shifted to the private

sector. A common mistake is the attempt to transfer

demand risk ie the amount of use the infrastructure

will receive - to the private sector, even when the

private contractor has no control over demand factors

Private Sector vs Public Sector

The defence of PPPs generally is not the focus of this

paper. While failures have been headline news and

typically involved the failure of the private operator

and the loss of investor capital rather than the failure

to deliver the contracted infrastructure for public use -

numerous reports support the effectiveness and utility

of PPPs.

Whatever the drivers for involving the private sector in

greater partnership in the provision of much needed

infrastructure and services then and these can range

from the nakedly political to the utterly financial the

ideal PPP should combine the characteristic and arguably

distinctively different skills of the public and private

sectors to maximise the delivery of public good. In short,

the regulatory and economic development expertise

which is typically the preserve and expertise of the public

sector, and the management, innovation, finance raising,

budgeting and on-time and on budget delivery skills

which, at best, are hallmarks of the private sector.

Lessons to date

8


9/16

lack of internal capacity. Even when the public

sector is supported by external advisers, many tasks

cannot be outsourced, and often the agency does not

have the skill sets internally to manage complex PPPs

or the dedicated team required to address the time

intensive upfront structuring needs

failure to realise value for money. This failure

occurs when the borrowing and tendering costs

associated with PPPs are not sufficiently offset byefficiency gains or when government officials dont

have a real understanding of how to test value

for money

inadequate planning. Without taking proper

account of the market in the planning phase, the

public sector may come out with more projects than

bidders creating a non-competitive environment. On

the flipside, too few projects can result in industry

moving on to a more active jurisdiction.

Setting up successful PPPs

A step-by-step guide to designing and implementing PPPs

is beyond the scope of this paper (although further detail

can be found in Closing the infrastructure gap Parts 1

& 2). However the lessons learned from water and other

infrastructure projects delivered so far suggest several

strategies for successful execution of these partnerships.

First, the public sector needs a full life-cycle approachor framework that pays adequate attention to all phases

of a PPP - from policy and planning, to the transaction

phase, and then to managing the facility. The goal of

such an approach is to avoid the problems of poor setup,

lack of clarity about outcomes, inadequate internal

capacity, lack of interest from the private sector, and an

overly narrow focus on the transaction.

Second, a strong understanding of the range of possible

PPP models can help the public sector achieve the proper

allocation of risk even in conditions of pronounced

uncertainty about future needs. Proper risk allocation

allows the public sector to better tailor PPP approaches to

specific situations and infrastructure sectors.

PPPs in water 9


10/16

It is essential to get the financial terms of the PPP deal

right. Equally critical however is getting stakeholder buy-

in, managing the change process, correctly allocating

risk, developing the legislative and regulatory framework,

and analysing the long-term effects of the project on the

sector as a whole. This means developing a holistic view

of the infrastructure projects entire life cycle from the very

outset.

A life-cycle view helps to get better buy in fromall parties involved. It also provides a framework for

evaluating whether the solution is the most appropriate

for the public over time. Without such a holistic view,

public officials will be unable to plan in advance for key

considerations that if not properly accounted for can

stymie efforts to move beyond the transaction stage.

A life-cycle approach best ensures the interest of the

government agency that retains ownership and ultimate

responsibility for the asset throughout the life-cycle. While

many experts emphasise the transaction phase of PPP

transactions, the success of the project is actually heavily

dependent on a sound policy and legal framework,effective risk allocation, a well-executed procurement

process, strong project management, and close attention

to the concession phase.

A life-cycle perspective helps governments understand

how decisions made during different phases will affect

the long term success of the project. For example, the

way a project is monitored will be determined largely by

how much risk is transferred to the private sector during

the transaction construction and concession phases.

Figure 2 shows the three major phases in the lifecycle of

an infrastructure project and the key tasks and activities

involved in each stage.

Taking a life-cycleapproach

10


11/16

Policy and planning phase Transaction phase Construction andconcession phase

1. Condition of infrastructurefinancial situation

2. Legislation/regulation

3. Leadership: policy andproject management

4. Planning: environmentalassessments and projectopportunities

5. Communications: internaland external with major

stakeholder groups

Establish objectives.The objectives a governmentestablishes for the PPP projectform the foundation for evaluating

options and allows it to communicatea consistent message regarding thepurpose of the program. Time spent

fully exploring objectives and corevalues regarding the governments

roles and responsibilities will avoidmissteps later in the process.

Evaluate alternativefinancing structures.This evaluation should start with an

understanding and analysis of theexisting debt alternatives within thestate. By preparing a range of financialalternatives, the agency can articulateto its stakeholders what might be

accomplished with traditionalfinancing and what innovativefinancing structures are availableand perhaps necessary for

project feasibility.

Communicate the benefits.A strategic communications plan thatexplains the benefits of the programcan prevent the discourse from beingdefined by detractors and focus

discussion on economic benefits (suchas congestion relief and improvedmovement of goods) as well as socialbenefits such as faster and morereliable commute times).

Build market interest.There should be an appropriatenumber of projects coming into the

market at the right pace to ensurethat constructors and facilitymanagement firms have the capacityand financial ability to keep pace withthe potential projects.

1. Transaction process2. Shortlist qualified bidders3. Risk transfer and value for money

4. Payment mechanism/performance5. Request for proposal

6. Finalise project agreement7. Preferred bidder selection

and negotiations8. Financial close

Establish a realistic time frame.Project objectives, the budget, marketinterest, the amount of risk shifting,project size, and the structure of the

deal all affect the timeline for theproject delivery.

Secure the best value for money.A fundamental objective in any project

is to secure the best value for money.Creating comprehensive financialmodels that allow you to evaluatevalue for money from both aqualitative and quantitativeperspective is a critical component of

this process.

Establish performance standards.This often entails using penalties andrewards to achieve the desired

behavior. Care must be taken withboth rewards and penalties since theycan drive unintended consequences.Setting performance standards will

also help to develop the best paymentapproach for each project.

Develop a draftproject agreement.These agreements are included withthe request for proposal (RFP) and

help to identify issues bidders mayhave before the selection of thesuccessful bidder.

Establish constructiongovernance.

Large infrastructure constructionprojects should have effectivegovernance and controls in place

before the project begins in order toavoid cost overruns, scheduling delaysand litigation.

1. Transition to construction(e.g. design/build)

2. Construction and monitoring

3. Facility operation (contract andrelationship management)

4. Evaluate whether promisedbenefits materialised

5. Maintenance: hard and softservice provision

6. Asset hand back

Monitor construction.Many entities believe that oncethey have entered into turnkeycontracts with concessionaires their

responsibility for constructionmonitoring and oversight has beentransferred. The public will continue to

hold the public sector accountable forthe successful delivery of the project,

however, so it is critical to establishsound monitoring programsthroughout the constructionphase without creating additionalproject risks.

Monitor the concession.Under traditional procurementapproaches, monitoring substantiallyends at the completion ofconstruction. In the case of a PPP

procurement, the contract monitoringneeds to be far more sophisticatedbecause it is required to address awide range of issues relating to

finance, operations and maintenanceover an extended period of time.

Prepare staff.Most jurisdictions are used toundertaking these projects on theirown. While PPPs may reduce the need

for additional staff to do inhousedesign and engineering work, currentstaff are required to provide projectmanagement and long-term oversight.

Establish the concession

governance model.Its important that effective projectgovernance models are established

and that skilled individuals are in placeduring both the construction andconcession phase.

Key activities

Sequential activities forinfrastructure delivery

Figure 2: Project lifecycle and activities

PPPs in water 11


12/16

The following key questions should be asked prior to

choosing the model:

howconfidentareyounowaboutthetypeof

infrastructure and services that are needed over the

next 10, 15, or 20 years?

howlikelyisitthattheneedsofcitizensinthisarea

will change?

howlikelyissignificantpolicychange?

howeasyisittospecifywhatwillbeneeded?

inwhichsectoristhePPPapproachgoingtobe

employed?

howconfidentareyouinthesupplieroftheservice

and how much control do you wish to retain?

canrisksbetransferredorwouldbetteroutcomesbe

achieved through risk sharing?

Figure 3: Certainty classifications

Certainty continuum

LowThe public sector is unsure about the

infrastructure it needs (or even whatis possible), let alone when or how it

wishes to have it delivered.

MediumThe public sector knows the kind of

infrastructure it needs, but is lesscertain about the timing and exact

extent of work in wishes to undertake.

HighThe public sector knows with

confidence either the condition ofthe assets and/or the future asset

and service requirements at adetailed level.

The level of certainty the public sector possesses about

its infrastructure and service requirements should be a

key determinant in the choice of model. This includes

certainty about the external environment, including the

policy environment, as well as the capacity of contract

performance standards and realities and incentives to

higher outputs.

Figure3classifiescertaintyintothreecategories,being

low, medium and high. A high level of certainty suggeststhat the public sector can shift substantial control and

risk to the private sector (the best options are Private

DeveloperScheme,Design-Build-Finance-Operate/

Maintain, or Conventional Procurement). The integrator,

joint venture, or competitive partnership models should

be considered where certainty is more limited. The

alliancing or incremental partnership models would be

more appropriate when a low level of certainty exists.

The decision tree in Figure 4 provides some guidance

regarding the most appropriate model in particular

circumstances. This list of models is by no means

exhaustive; any decision to choose one model overanother should always be derived from a robust appraisal

of the options, based on the specific circumstances in

which the project is being developed.

Choosing theright model

12


13/16

Selecting an appropriate model

Do assets have highresidual value?

Private developerscheme

Design-build-finance

operate/maintain

Conventionalprocurement

Integrator

Competitive partnership

Joint venture

Incremental partnership

Alliancing

Is the project size

significant?

Are the elements ofwork heterogeneous?

Is the infrastructurelarge, indivisible,and complex?

Can work easily, beseparated intodiscrete elements?

What is the level ofcertainty about theinfrastructure?

Yes

No

High

Low

No

Medium

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Figure 4: PPP model decision tree

PPPsinwater13


14/16

While it shares characteristics with some other sectors of

social and economic infrastructure the water, wastewater

and waste sector has some unique characteristics which

need to be factored into consideration in terms of PPPs.

Challenges

Market Competition. There are a small number of

market participants in the water sector. This is due to

the high market concentration, and over-specification. Substantial procurement costs. High procurement

costs and high uncertainty about the availability of

technology require a contractual framework with

shorter procurement times that fosters innovation.

Uncertainty. The condition of assets in existing facilities

may result in an increase in project costs.

Scale.Thesizeoftheprojectmaynotallowfor

efficient use of private finance. Also, contracts

involvingwatersupplyoflessthan40millionm3suffer

from unrealised economies of scale. Conversely, when

thelevelofwatersupplyexceeds400millionm3,the

operation will suffer from diseconomies of scale.

Politics. Water and wastewater are often seen as

falling squarely under the public sector domain. Public

employees may have deep concerns for their welfare

under the new management.

Because of this, most water projects tend to be leases

or operating contracts as they allow the private operator

to concentrate on improving the utilitys operational

efficiency and viability while leaving the public authority in

charge of raising investment financing. Greenfield projects

are still common in treatment plants however.

Solutions

Applying the analytical assessment of PPP models outlinedin brief in the foregoing (and in more detail in Closing the

infrastructure gap: parts 1 & 2) can help overcome some

of the challenges in the water sector. For example, the

public sector can reduce the length of the procurement

process and attract companies with stronger financial and

operational capacity by using a bundling approach. This

saves procurement time and effort as the public sector

is no longer required to contract with different private

partners in delivering individual small-scale projects.

A key challenge in this sector is that the consumer is

generally not exposed to the full cost of water. Moving to

full cost pricing of water utilities before moving to a PPP

approach can help to avoid rate shocks that may derailthe project.

Table 3: Some current water PPPs by type

Sydney Desalination Plant

(value $1.76 billion)

250megalitre/day DBO Contractawarded22/06/07

Bahrain, Tubli WWTP expansion

(value$133million)

230,000m3to350,000m3 DBO & 5 year operating contract RFPissued31/12/08

Egypt, New Cairo WWTP 250,000m3 BOO 20 years RFPissued01/12/08

Egypt, Abu Rawash WWTP 800,000m3 BOO 20 or 25 years In progress

China, Harbin Qunli WWTP

(value $56.8 million)

150,000m3 DBOM30years Contractawarded30/11/08

China,WenzhouXipian,ZhejiangProvinceWWTP 100,000m3 DBOM 26 years Contractawarded20/11/08

Mexico, Guadalajara, Agua Prieta WWTP

(value $150 million)

734,000m3 DBOM RFPissued01/11/08

Source: Global Water Intelligence, volume 9; issue 12, December 2008.

Implications for PPPsin the water sector

14


15/16

PPPs are an effective way of delivering infrastructure

projects, and draw upon the strengths of both the

public and private sectors.

There are a number of different PPP models that can beutilised for the different types of infrastructure required

in the water, wastewater and waste sector. Whether

it be; dams, pipelines, water grids, waste treatment

plants, water recycling plants, desalination plants, or

waste treatment/sewerage plants, sufficient planning

and investigation should be undertaken to ensure the

correct model is implemented.

There is a strong precedent for water infrastructure

projects being delivered via PPPs. Key learnings from

previous projects must be taken on board and thinking

creatively about the delivery model can aid in the

successful procurement of this very much needed sector

of infrastructure.

Conclusion

PPPs in water 15


16/16

Contact us

Deloitte

Riverside Centre

Level26,123EagleStreet

Brisbane Qld 4001

Australia

Tel:+61(0)733087000

Fax:+61(0)733087001

www.deloitte.com.au

Acknowledgment

This document was derived from the author guidelines used for all AWA conferences

and events.

References

Allen Consulting Group, November 2007, Performance of PPPs and traditional

procurement in Australia.

Booz&Company,2008,Public-PrivatePartnerships:ANewCatalystfor

Economic Growth.

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, 2006, Closing the Infrastructure Gap: The Role of Public-

Private Partnerships.

Global Water Intelligence, volume 9; issue 12, December 2008.

PhilippeMarinandAdaKarinaIzaguirre,September2006,Gridlinesprivate

participation in water.

The World Bank & PPIAF, Private Participation in Infrastructure Database,

http://ppi.worldbank.org/explore/ppi_exploreSector.aspx?sectorID=4

General information only

This [document describe what is it eg, publication] is provided as general information only and does not consideryourspecificobjectives,situationorneeds.Youshouldnotrelyontheinformationinthis[document/publication]ordisclose it or refer to it in any document . We accept no duty of care or liability to you or anyone else regarding this[document/publication]andwearenotresponsibletoyouoranyoneelseforanylosssufferedinconnectionwiththeuseofthis[document/publication]oranyofitscontent.

About DeloitteDeloitte provides audit, tax, consulting, and financial advisory services to public and private clients spanning multipleindustries. With a globally connected network of member firms in 140 countries, Deloitte brings world classcapabilities and deep local expertise to help clients succeed wherever they operate. Deloittes 150,000 professionalsare committed to becoming the standard of excellence.

Deloittes professionals are unified by a collaborative culture that fosters integrity, outstanding value to markets andclients, commitment to each other, and strength from diversity. They enjoy an environment of continuous learning,challenging experiences, and enriching career opportunities. Deloittes professionals are dedicated to strengtheningcorporate responsibility, building public trust, and making a positive impact in their communities.

Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, a Swiss Verein, and its network of member firms, each ofwhichisalegallyseparateandindependententity.Pleaseseewww.deloitte.com/au/aboutforadetaileddescriptionof the legal structure of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu and its member firms.

About Deloitte Australia

In Australia, Deloitte has 12 offices and over 4,500 people and provides audit, tax, consulting, and financial advisoryservices to public and private clients across the country. Known as an employer of choice for innovative human

resources programs, we are committed to helping our clients and our people excel. Deloittes professionals arededicated to strengthening corporate responsibility, building public trust, and making a positive impact in theircommunities. For more information, please visit Deloittes web site at www.deloitte.com.au.

Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

DesignedandproducedbyAquaMedia,AM_Syd_01/09_037243

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, Janurary 2009. All rights reserved.

deloitte - ppps in water sector - getting best public policy outcomes - 2009

Documents