| VIABILITY Investment objectives and outcomes need to be translatable into outputs which can be contracted for, measured and agreed. | ||
| Issue | Questions | Response |
| Programme objectives outputs level and | Is the Procuring Authority satisfied that long term and operable contracts could be constructed for the projects to be included within the Programme? (describe the types of contracts envisaged) | |
| Could the contracts describe service requirements in clear, objective, output-based terms over a long term period? | ||
| Could the contracts support assessments of whether the service has been | ||
| Is the fit between needs and outcomes on a programme basis sufficient to proceed? | ||
| Will there be significant levels of investment in the new capital assets and related services? | ||
| Is service certification across projects likely to be straightforward in terms of agreeing measurable criteria and satisfying the interests of stakeholders? Does the Programme have clear boundaries (especially with respect to areas of procuring authority control)? If there are interfaces with other programmes are they clear and manageable? Can the services in the programme be provided without the essential involvement of Authority personnel? To what extent does any involvement negate the risk transfer that is needed for VfM? Will the private sector likely have control/ownership of the intellectual property rights associated with the performance/design/development of the assets for the new service? | ||
| Operational flexibility | Is the Procuring Authority, Agency or Directorate satisfied that operational flexibility is likely to be maintained over the lifetime of the contracts put in place at an acceptable cost? | |
| Is there a practical balance between the degree of operational flexibility that is desired and long term contracting based on up-front capital investment in projects? | ||
| What is the likelihood of large contract variations being required during the life of a typical contract? | ||
| Equity, efficiency and accountability | Are there public equity, efficiency or accountability reasons for providing the programme services directly rather than through private finance / NPD contracts? | |
| Does the scope of the programme services lend itself to providing the contractor with "end-to-end" control of the relevant functional processes? Do the services have clear boundaries? | ||
| Are there regulatory or legal restrictions that require programme services (or those services envisaged to be included in projects) to be provided directly? | ||
| Will the private sector be able to exploit economies of scale through the provision, operation or maintenance of other similar services to other customers (not necessarily utilising the same programme assets)? Does the private sector have greater experience/expertise than the procuring authority in delivery of programmes and associated services? Are the services in the programme non-core to the procuring authority? Is a privately financed / NPD procurement basis for projects likely to deliver improved value for money to the directorate as a whole? | ||
| OVERALL VIABILITY | Is the relevant Accountable Officer satisfied that operable contracts with built in flexibility can be constructed across the programme, and that strategic and regulatory issues can be overcome? | |