Upcoming Webinars
Access the latest trends and insights shaping the profession—free for members.
.jpg)
 (1).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Document
ART - A Closer Look At The Trophy Case 2012
Year Created: 2012
DOCUMENT
ART - Success with Public-Private Partnerships 2014
- YEAR CREATED: 2014
- ENTITY TYPE: Scholarly Publication
- TYPE OF DOCUMENT: ART - Article, Paper, Review, Survey, Report
- Education and Training
- Management
The document discusses the recommendations and considerations related to Public-Private Partnerships (P3s). It mentions that local governments can proceed with P3s while a task force conducts research and generates recommendations. The task force was charged with considering various issues such as ensuring competition in the procurement process, selecting among competing proposals, timelines for proposal selection, use of an accelerated review process, financial review and analysis, protection of financial and proprietary information, and the use of outside expertise for project analysis.
The document highlights that current laws are sufficient for public notice, interaction with government staff, and criteria for selecting proposals. However, it recommends allowing RPEs (Responsible Public Entities) to extend the acceptance time period for unsolicited proposals beyond 120 days if the project complexity warrants it. It also suggests that pricing in proposals should be valid for a specific time period.
The task force recommends that RPEs should determine when and how accelerated review for proposals should be utilized. If unsolicited proposals become exempt from public record, RPEs should have the flexibility to develop documentation needed to solicit competing proposals effectively. It suggests exempting specific proprietary and trade secret information within a proposal from public record, but becoming public after a certain period of time. The document states that current requirements for financial reviews of proposals are adequate, but outside expertise should be engaged as needed.
The task force proposes a flat fee of $50K for the review of unsolicited proposals by RPEs, which can be increased to cover review costs if necessary. It recommends authorizing a state agency to aid RPEs with the process and analysis of P3 proposals and projects. The document suggests revising model guidelines available to RPEs on a regular schedule to include best practices.
Other recommendations include decreasing the amount of notice required by RPEs to affected local jurisdictions, considering an optional judicial validation process for P3 project financing, extending the time period for reversion of a ground lease for a P3 facility back to the RPE, clarifying the "most efficient pricing" requirement, and ensuring that comprehensive agreements address termination and material default.
The document also suggests clarifying language related to the selection of private firms, school boards seeking approval from other local governing bodies, and the definition of RPEs. It recommends excluding special districts and the state from being defined as RPEs and consistently using the term RPE throughout the law. It also suggests not replacing or impinging upon existing authority concerning industrial development revenue bond financing.
Additionally, the document proposes clarifying language regarding the intent to prohibit a RPE from granting a mortgage or security interest in real or tangible property, regulating project revenues consistent with the comprehensive agreement, and setting minimum standards for qualifying professional services and contracts for private sector team members.
The document also provides information on starting a P3 initiative, including determining the existence of state P3 enabling legislation, identifying infrastructure needs and priorities, and dealing with unsolicited proposals. It emphasizes that selecting the private sector partner is the most important part of managing the P3 process and recommends considering qualifications, experience, financial capability, and risk transference.
In addition to the above, the document mentions that the proposed P3 partner should not be involved in any current litigation or controversy that could affect the project. This consideration aims to ensure that the partner is capable of fulfilling its obligations and does not pose any legal risks to the project.
Overall, the document provides recommendations and considerations for implementing and managing P3s, aiming to ensure competition, protect financial and proprietary information, improve the efficiency of the procurement process, and mitigate potential legal risks.