The NAO commissioned the Building Research Establishment to compare design quality between a group of PFI and a group of non-PFI hospitals. It found (2007c) that there were "no meaningful differences" in build quality between the two groups. However, it also noted that the average age of the non-PFI hospitals was much older.
We also know from the work of the Healthcare Commission that in terms of operational services in hospitals- cleaning, catering, portering and laundry-the quality in PFI hospitals tends to be lower than in non-PFI hospitals, and the costs are higher.
In other words, the evidence from government auditors and other specialists tells us that the cost of construction on hospitals built under the PFI is the same as under conventional procurement, but that the quality is somewhat lower. At the same time, the cost of services provided under PFI is higher than under conventional procurement, and the quality is lower.
The component of the PFI package that we know the least about is the maintenance-there is not sufficient data to say whether quality and cost are higher or lower in PFI, and this is something that future audits of value for money should consider.