You can't fit a square peg into a round hole. While standardization of PPP policies and practices is important, standard templates simply don't work in some situations and sectors. As with experimentation in any area, governments can learn from both the successes and failures of a particular method and adjust their approach accordingly. The same is true for PPP infrastructure development.
For many projects, the traditional PPP model-typically entailing some variation of design, build, finance, operate and transfer-has served governments well. It provides strong incentives for delivering projects on time and on budget, while enabling the public sector to spread the cost of the investment over a 20-30 year period. It encourages a focus on value for money over the lifetime of the asset and is well suited for many large infrastructure projects with well-defined specifications in conditions of relative certainty. While the model is still in its relative infancy, its track record demonstrates it has significant merit.
The traditional PPP model also has some limitations, however. The procurement process is sometimes long and costly, making it unsuitable for small projects or those with a short lead time.36 The length of the contracts and relative uncertainty about costs mean that a great deal of pressure is placed on both parties to negotiate a contract upfront that is acceptable in the long-term. Changing service requirements at a later stage often comes with a significant price tag attached.