Procurements which are funded using Prudential Borrowing may be seen as offering reduced borrowing costs (see Question 5) and reduced procurement times (see Question 9).
However, it is important that that the choice of funding is driven by overall value for money. The point at issue here is the need to focus on contractual outputs and outcomes rather than inputs. The cost of finance is no different from any other input cost to a procurement, such as the cost of design, or cost of materials. The best overall value-for-money outcome for the Authority will not necessarily involve the lowest cost of finance or, for that matter, the cheapest design or materials.
Similarly, in relation to perceived reduced procurement timescales where Prudential Borrowing is used, the focus needs to be on value for money over the economic life of the assets being procured (e.g. 25 years). In this context, a few additional months in procurement may be justified to ensure that these long-term value-for-money benefits are secured.