Changes during the life of a project may not always have negative impacts, but may result in 'upside benefits' that increase the profitability of the project in unanticipated ways. When determining a risk allocation, thought should be given to 'symmetrical' provisions that create entitlements to such upside benefits, as well as any liability arising from a materialised risk.
It may not always prove possible to achieve a symmetrical risk allocation at reasonable cost, as bidders may increase the cost of their bids as a result of the decreased opportunity to enjoy upside benefits. The opportunity to share in upside benefits may not be worth the opportunity cost reflected in the additional bid price. This is a matter for case-by-case identification. However, it is government's likely preferred position that where government agrees to share in the downside of a risk, it should be entitled to share in any associated upside benefits.
Care should be taken to ascertain any taxation or balance-sheet implications arising from symmetrical risk allocation.