In this part of the P3 business case, sponsors should:
• Review the results of their qualitative and quantitative analysis to determine if the results of the VFM has had any impact on the delivery models that were assessed and/or ranked in Section 3.0. Ideally, the top ranked short-listed delivery model will also have the greatest VFM. However, there may be discrepancies between the qualitative and quantitative assessments arising from; for example, legislative and legal hurdles associated with the procurement options. In these cases, the sponsor should reassess the delivery models against the evaluative criteria, particularly qualitative ones, when arriving to a recommendation. A sponsor should also ensure that there is no-double counting of the qualitative and quantitative expected benefits of the project, i.e. if benefits associated with an option have been integrated into the quantitative analysis, this benefit should not be double counted qualitatively;
• If the project delivery models are reassessed from a qualitative perspective, disclose the process for doing so and the revised scoring along with the rationale for any and all adjustments; and
• Clearly identify qualitative factors such as early delivery and the associated beneficial outcomes, influence of private sector operating practices, improvements in public sector procurement. This could be furthered with a multi-criteria analysis approach;
• Based on the revised qualitative analysis and the VFM assessment, provide a recommended procurement option (i.e., traditional procurement or a specific P3 procurement model). The sponsor should: (i) make clear the relative importance that the qualitative and the quantitative analysis had in arriving at the recommended procurement option; and (ii) state the expected benefits of the recommended options.