2.1.1 In his review of PFI, published in June 1997, Sir Malcolm Bates observed that a large number of advisers had surfaced of varying ability. Despite the detailed procurement systems already in place to ensure top quality appointments, the quality of advisers on PFI projects was felt, by public sector project managers in particular, to be distinctly patchy. A number of PFI projects had been hampered by the engagement of advisers who were clearly "learning at the public sector's expense" and incapable of providing the timely advice to the quality required. This added to project costs and created unnecessary delays in the procurement process.
2.1.2 From the private sector's perspective, the public sector has been guilty sometimes of appointing the cheapest, but not necessarily the best, advisers available. In addition, there is evidence that the public sector has not always thought through the precise role it wanted the private sector to play. Private sector legal advisers have in some instances been asked to contribute well before actual Business Cases for projects have been properly developed and, on occasion, financial advisers have been asked to make policy decisions on behalf of procurers.
2.1.3 Recommendation 11 of the Bates review asked the Treasury Taskforce to develop quickly a means of improving the quality of advisers by, first, checking credentials and testing their knowledge, commitment and depth of resource and, secondly, clarifying the role of advisers so as to ensure consistency throughout PFI projects. Specifically, the Treasury Taskforce "should develop an accreditation facility to improve the quality and consistency of external advice".