« Previous
Appendices
Appendix A Bibliography
- Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Build
America Transportation Investment Center (March 2016), Successful Practices for P3s: A Review of What Works
When Delivering Transportation via Public-Private Partnerships.
- HDR (2016), Accelerated Project Delivery Methods,
Preliminary Findings and Recommendations, Nebraska
Department of Roads.
- Parsons Brinkerhoff, Nossaman LLP, and HS Public
Affairs (2015), Effect of Public-Private Partnerships
and Nontraditional Procurement Processes on Highway
Planning, Environmental Review, and Collaborative Decision
Making, SHRP 2 Report #S2-C12-RW- 1.
- FHWA Office of Innovative Program Delivery (2014), P3 Peer Exchange, November 5-6, 2014.
- The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT),
Office of Major Project Development.
- Eno Foundation (2014), Partnership Financing:
Improving Transportation Infrastructure through Public
Private Partnerships, Eno Center for Transportation.
- Shukla, Shyamala (N.D.), A Framework for Disclosure
in Public-Private Partnerships, Technical Guidance for
Systemic, Proactive Pre- & Post Procurement Disclosure
of Information in Public-Private Partnership Programs.
World Bank Group Public-Private Partnerships, Washington,
D.C.
- World Economic Group (2013), Strategic Infrastructure
Steps to Prepare and Accelerate Public-Private Partnerships.
- Leendertse, Wim, Lenferink, Sander, and Arts Jos
(2012), Public-Private Collaboration: How Private
Involvement Can Contribute to Network Performance,
Transport Research Arena, Procedia Social and Behavioral
Sciences 48, 2917 - 2929.
- Farquharson, Edward, Torres de Mästle, Clemencia,
Yescombe, E.R. and Encinas, Javier, (2011) How to
Engage with the Private Sector in Public-Private Partnerships
in Emerging Markets, PFIAF, The World Bank, Washington,
D.C.
- PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC) (2010), Public
Private Partnerships: The U.S. Perspective.
- The World Bank, (2009) Attracting Investors
to African Public-Private Partnerships: A Project Preparation
Guide.
- Ahadzi, Marcus and Bowles, Graeme (2004), Public-Private
Partnerships and Contract Negotiations: An Empirical
Study, Construction Management and Economics 22,
967-978.
- The General Services Administration, (GSA), Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 2.101 Subpart 15.6, Washington,
DC.
- Kane, Christopher, (2010) Using PPPs in the
US to Develop, Finance and Operate Infrastructure Projects, TRB 49th Annual Workshop on Transportation Law, Newport,
Rhode Island.
- Johnson (HDR) and Zeltner (HDR), Alternative
Delivery: Progressive Design Build.
- National Conference of State Legislatures, Public-Private
Partnerships for Transportation: A Toolkit for Legislators,
October 2010.
- National Conference of State Legislatures, Public-Private
Partnerships for Transportation: A Toolkit for Legislators,
May 2015 Update and Corrections.
- FHWA, Challenges and Opportunity Series: Public
and Private Partnerships in Transportation Delivery (2012).
- Connecticut P3 Statute: Conn. Gen Stat. §4-255
- District of Columbia: P3 Statute: D.C. Act 20-550
- Illinois P3 Statute: Ill Rev. Stat. Ch. 605 §§5/10-802,
5/10-602(4)(1), 130/1 to 130/135, Ch. 20 §3501/825-105, Ch.30 §§550/1.5, 570/2.5,
575/2.5, Ch.35 §§ 120/1q, 200/15-55, Ch. 820 §130/2
- Maine P3 Statute: Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 23, §4251
- Ohio P3 Statute: Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§5501.70
to 5501.83
- Pennsylvania P3 Statute: Act No. 2012-88
- Puerto Rico P3 Statute: 9 L.R.P.A. §§
2001 to 2021, P.R. 2009 Act No.29
- West Virginia P3 Statute: W. Va. Code §§17-27-1
to 18
- Wisconsin P3 Statute: Wis. Stat. Ann. §84.01(30)
- Virginia Department of Transportation, Office of
Transportation Public-Private Partnerships. PPTA
Project Identification and Screening Guide, 2012.
Accessed April 28, 2014.
- European PPP Expertise Centre (EPEC), Procurement
of PPP and the Use of Competitive Dialogue in Europe,
2009.
Appendix B Summary of Literature Review
- Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Build
America Transportation Investment Center (March 2016), Successful Practices for P3s: A Review of What Works
When Delivering Transportation via Public-Private Partnerships.
This report identifies successful practices and issues
in developing and implementing P3 programs and projects.
Based primarily on discussions with public and private sector
practitioners, the report offers suggestions for public
agencies in the early stages of establishing a P3 program.
The report is organized around four phases of P3 program/project
development to identify practices related to: legislation
and policy, project development, procurement, and performance
monitoring and oversight. To supplement the chronological
nature of the report framework, potential trade-offs and
cross-cutting issues are also discussed.
- HDR (2016), Accelerated Project Delivery Methods,
Preliminary Findings and Recommendations, Nebraska
Department of Roads.
This report provides an overview of best practices for
design-build procurement as well as the legal and regulatory
barriers for delivering projects through this mechanism.
It provides guidance for expanding options to improve efficiency
and accelerate project delivery.
- Parsons Brinkerhoff, Nossaman LLP, and HS Public
Affairs (2015), Effect of Public-Private Partnerships
and Nontraditional Procurement Processes on Highway
Planning, Environmental Review, and Collaborative Decision
Making, SHRP 2 Report #S2-C12-RW- 1.
This report summarizes how the timing 12 and uncertainties related to the NEPA review and the long-range
planning process conducted by Metropolitan Planning Organizations
(MPOs) and state DOTs have formed barriers to the early
involvement of the private sector in the definition of P3
projects. Specifically, when P3 contracts are awarded after
the NEPA process has been completed, private developers
are usually reluctant to significantly change the project
definition due to the uncertainty associated with required
environmental reevaluations. The level of design required
to complete the NEPA process typically represents about
30 percent of the total project design. In environmentally
sensitive areas, 70 percent of design may be completed to
address potential impacts. Even in cases when projects have
already gained environmental clearance, private parties
typically forgo opportunities for innovation because of
schedule risk associated with project approvals, which may
outweigh the benefits of innovation. The report notes that
it is important to strike a balance between the level of
design included in a final environmental impact statement
(FEIS) and maximizing the flexibility of the private sector
during final design.
- Shukla, Shyamala (2015), A Framework for Disclosure
in Public-Private Partnerships, Technical Guidance for
Systemic, Proactive Pre- & Post Procurement Disclosure
of Information in Public-Private Partnership Programs.
World Bank Group Public-Private Partnerships, Washington,
D.C.
The authors highlight the importance of the drivers for
disclosing information in P3s - mobilizing private investment
capital, increasing public confidence in P3 projects, achieving
better value for money, and reducing the risk of corruption
- to maximize value and to ensure that disclosure policy
is aligned with project objectives. Underlying factors that
can result in greater public disclosure are the wider government
policy on transparency and the enactment of supportive legislation,
e.g., freedom of information (FOI) legislation, P3 legislation,
public financial management, and budget transparency.
- FHWA Office of Innovative Program Delivery (2014), P3 Peer Exchange, November 5-6, 2014.
The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Office
of Major Project Development (OMPD) and the CDOT High Performance
Transportation Enterprise (HPTE) requested that FHWA organize
a peer exchange after completing the procurement of the
US 36 Managed Lanes/BRT Project. HPTE obtained insights
from representatives from the public and private sectors
regarding procurement process, risk transfer, oversight
and monitoring, transparency, and the public involvement
process.
- Eno Foundation (2014), Partnership Financing:
Improving Transportation Infrastructure through Public
Private Partnerships, Eno Center for Transportation.
The objective of this report is to improve understanding
of the barriers to U.S. P3s including: (i) insufficient
revenues, funding and financing; (ii) federal, state, and
local legislative hurdles; (iii) U.S. tax-exempt municipal bond markets that create disincentives
to develop P3s and to secure capital in private markets;
(iv) P3 project eligibility and selection; (v) funding regulation;
(vi) political review and approval; and (vii) contract provisions.
Additional barriers cited include the lack of multi-modal
contracts and standard project appraisal mechanisms.
- World Economic Group (2013), Strategic Infrastructure
Steps to Prepare and Accelerate Public-Private Partnerships.
This report draws from interviews with senior management
from public and private entities as well as P3 practitioners
from around the world to provide an overview of international
best practices related to P3 procurements. This report has
contributed additional information on the market sounding
process, which is described in Section 2.2.
- Leendertse, Wim, Lenferink, Sander, and Arts Jos
(2012), Public-Private Collaboration: How Private
Involvement Can Contribute to Network Performance,
Transport Research Arena, Procedia Social and Behavioral
Sciences 48, 2917 - 2929.
This report reviews the approaches used to engage the
private sector in delivery of P3 and non-P3 transportation
projects in the Netherlands from 2006 to 2010, including
Market Consultation, Early Design Contests, Market Reconnaissance,
Interweaving, and Unsolicited Proposals. The main finding
is that early private involvement can add value in project
planning and programming, provide useful insights, and help
the procuring agency make better informed and realistic
programming decisions. It can add valuable information on
project design and construction, provide a more robust life-cycle
perspective, and help to optimize project definition. The "conceptual creativity" generated through competition
can offer different perspectives on project development
issues leading to more optimal solutions.
Two early involvement mechanisms discussed in this report
have been included in the Discussion Paper: Market Consultation
and Interweaving. Similar to Market Sounding (discussed
in Chapter 2), Market Consultation is a two-stage process
that involves multi-party discussions through industry forums
as well as bilateral discussions. With Interweaving, discussed
in Chapter 3, the procurement process begins prior to the
final determination of the alignment. The two processes
are coordinated to encourage the explicit and transparent
exchange of information. Interweaving has been used to develop
creative solutions and gain insight of proposed solutions
during procurement. Interweaving can help to reduce project
schedule, clarify impacts, and improve risk allocation.
Table B-1. Non-Competitive & Competitive
Private Involvement Instruments, Netherlands
|
Market Consultation |
Early Design Contest |
Market Reconnaissance |
Interweaving |
Unsolicited Proposal |
Goal |
Opinions on project or process |
Best design for defined problem |
Conceptual solutions for defined
problem |
Best quality at a competitive
price |
Project concept without a pre-defined
problem |
Timing |
Planning stage |
Planning stage |
Planning stage |
Planning process |
Depends on proposal |
Scope |
Specific |
Limited |
Broad |
Detailed |
Depends on proposal |
Incentive |
Future procurement |
Future procurement |
Future procurement |
Contract award |
Contract award |
Public Sector Role |
Program Manager |
Program Manager |
Program Manager |
Procuring agency |
Program Manager |
Private Sector Role |
Delivery of knowledge and experience |
Designer |
Planner, designer, and engineer |
Designer, engineer, proposer,
and contractor |
Planner and designer |
Examples |
Main road network |
Dam and causeway rehabilitation |
Renovation of steel bridges |
A2 Tunnel, Maastricht |
Rail Connection Breda-Utrecht |
Source: Adapted from Leendertse, Wim, Lenferink, Sander,
and Arts Jos (2012), Public-Private Collaboration: How Private
Involvement Can Contribute to Network Performance.
A third technique, Market Reconnaissance by public sector
project sponsors, has had limited applications. The approach
is "an early design concept without price competition
in which the goal is to get unique and feasible concepts
from the private sector. The government provides a problem
definition, a general scope, constraints and ambition, which
the private participants can use to develop and elaborate
unique concepts. Private participants are requested to deliver
a detailed elaboration on technical and financial feasibility,
with compensation for their engineering costs." The
limited application to date and the potentially higher costs
associated with a wider pool of eligible firms precludes
its usage for P3s in the US. As a result, this approach
has not been included.
- Farquharson, Edward, Torres de Mästle, Clemencia,
Yescombe, E.R. and Encinas, Javier, (2011) How to
Engage with the Private Sector in Public-Private Partnerships
in Emerging Markets, PFIAF, The World Bank, Washington,
D.C.
This report provides an overview of the P3 strategies
used in developed and emerging markets, makes recommendations
for engaging the private sector prior to project procurement,
provides tips for conducting market sounding discussions,
and identifies issues relating to the exchange of information
between the public and private sector.
- PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC) (2010), Public
Private Partnerships: The U.S. Perspective.
This report provides an overview of the P3 market, lists
the advantages and disadvantages of various P3 agreements,
and summarizes the legal, regulatory and political barriers.
- Ahadzi, Marcus and Bowles, Graeme (2004), Public-Private
Partnerships and Contract Negotiations: An Empirical
Study, Construction Management and Economics 22,
967-978.
This study evaluates various issues affecting P3 negotiations
with the goal of coming to agreement and shortening the
timeframe between contract award and commercial close. Given
the focus on the post-contract award process, the report
only tangentially deals with early involvement mechanisms
but does highlight barriers to private involvement that
affect the project downstream. The report concludes that
proper organizational structure, effective internal lines
of communication, and aligned objectives are required from
an early stage.
Appendix C Key Features of P3 Enabling
Legislation by Jurisdiction
Table C-1. Key Features of P3 Enabling
Legislation by Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction |
Broad Statutory Authority |
Limited or Project- Specific Authority |
Public Funding Combined with
Private Financing |
Authority to Issue Revenue Bonds or Notes |
Long- Term Leases of Toll Facilities
Allowed |
Outsourcing of Long-Term O&M and Asset Mgmt. |
Multiple Types of P3 Project Delivery Types Allowed |
Acceptance of Solicited & Unsolicited Proposals |
Alabama |
✔ |
|
|
|
✔ |
✔ |
|
|
Alaska |
|
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
|
|
Arizona |
✔ |
|
|
|
✔ |
✔ |
|
✔ |
Arkansas |
|
✔ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
California |
✔ |
|
|
✔ |
✔ |
|
✔ |
✔ |
Colorado |
✔ |
|
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
Connecticut |
|
✔ |
✔ |
|
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
|
Delaware |
✔ |
|
✔ |
|
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
DC |
✔ |
|
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
Florida |
✔ |
|
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
Georgia |
✔ |
|
✔ |
|
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
Illinois |
✔ |
|
|
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
|
Indiana |
|
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
|
Louisiana |
✔ |
|
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
Maine |
✔ |
|
|
|
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
Maryland |
✔ |
|
|
|
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
Massachusetts |
✔ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minnesota |
|
✔ |
|
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
|
✔ |
Mississippi |
✔ |
|
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
|
✔ |
✔ |
Missouri |
|
✔ |
|
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
Nevada |
|
✔ |
✔ |
|
✔ |
✔ |
|
✔ |
North Carolina |
|
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
North Dakota |
✔ |
|
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
Oregon |
✔ |
|
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
Ohio |
✔ |
|
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
Pennsylvania |
✔ |
|
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
Puerto Rico |
✔ |
|
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
South Carolina |
✔ |
|
|
✔ |
|
✔ |
|
|
Tennessee |
|
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
|
✔ |
✔ |
|
Texas |
|
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
Utah |
✔ |
|
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
Virginia |
✔ |
|
✔ |
|
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
Washington |
✔ |
|
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
West Virginia |
✔ |
|
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
Wisconsin |
✔ |
|
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
|
|
Sources: National Conference of State Legislatures, Public-Private Partnerships for Transportation: A Toolkit
for Legislators, October 2010. and May 2015 Update
and Corrections; PwC, Public Private Partnerships: The
U.S. Perspective, June 2010, and P3 statutes for Connecticut,
District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Puerto Rico, West Virginia and Wisconsin.
Appendix D Agencies and Organizations
Contacted
- Arizona Department of Transportation, Public-Private
Partnership Program
- California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Public-Private Partnership Program
- Colorado DOT, High Performance Transportation Enterprise
(HPTE)
- Florida Department of Transportation, Office of
Comptroller, Project Finance Office, Public- Private
Partnerships
- Maryland Transit Administration, Office of Transit
Development and Delivery
- Texas Department of Transportation
- Virginia Office of Public-Private Partnerships
- Denver Regional Transportation District (Denver
RTD)
- District of Columbia Office of Public Private Partnerships
(OP3)
- Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
(LA Metro)
- National Capitol Region Transportation Planning
Board
- Cintra U.S.
- Meridiam
- Plenary Concessions U.S.
- Star America Infrastructure Partners, LLC
- Table Rock Capital, LLC
- Nossaman, LLP
- WSP/Parsons Brinckerhoff
- American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO)
- American Public Transportation Association (APTA)
- Association for the Improvement of American Infrastructure
(AIAI)
- National Association of Regional Councils
- US Department of Transportation - Build America
Transportation Investment Center (BATIC)
- US Department of Transportation - Federal Highway
Administration
Footnotes
12 Transportation Improvement Plans
(TIPs) and State Transportation Improvement Plans (STIPs)
must be updated every four years but can be revised or amended
between updates.
« Previous