As a first step in developing a PPP program, some states, including Arizona, Missouri, and North Carolina, have provided for only a limited number of PPP projects in their statutes. This criterion is useful for determining how robust and permanent a state's PPP-enabling legislation is. These statutes do provide an affirmative first step towards promoting PPP projects, and also provide the time for an agency to gain experience in contracting for PPPs without taking significant risks for the public interest.
At the same time, they also signal that lawmakers have reservations about dedicating a state to the PPP process for the long term, discouraging private interests from developing a PPP network in a state. This approach is not recommended for the long term, as states have ways of managing the number and location of PPP projects other than strictly limiting the number of projects through legislation. The project selection must be based on a solid assessment of economic gain in each PPP project, and should not be limited by an arbitrary number of projects. If states receive more PPP proposals, which will likely increase economic efficiency, than what the statute provides, it can be difficult to encourage the legislature to timely amend the statutes to provide for additional projects.
Table 4-1: Project Selection and Approval
| Code | Provisions | AL | AK | AZ | CA | CO | DE | FL | GA | IN | LA | MD | MN | MO | MS | NV | NC | OR | SC | TN | TX | UT | VA | WA |
| 1-a | Allows for Unsolicited Proposals | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||||
| 1-b | Limits Number of Projects | Y | Y | N | N | N | N | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | N | N | Y | N | N | Y | N | N | N | N | |
| 1-c | Restricts Geographic Location | Y | N | Y | N | N | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y | N | N | N | |
| 1-d | Restricts Mode of Transportation | Y | N | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | N | N | N |
| 1-e | Allows for Conversions of Existing Roads | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||||||
| 1-f | Prior Legislative Approval | N | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | ||
| 1-g | Subject to Local Veto | N | Y | N | N | Y | N | N | N | N | N | Y | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | ||
| 1-h | Restricts PPP Authority to State Agencies | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | |
| 1-i | Design-Build Readily Allowed? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||
| 1-j | HOT Lane Projects? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||||||||||||||||||
| 1-k | Number of Major PPP Highway Projects Since 1991 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 4 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 1 |
*A cell left blank indicates state legislation does not make an explicit provision regarding that category.
*Nevada allows unsolicited proposals only.
*1-k is from page 63 of FHWA Guidebook (AECOM Consult 2007).
*Information for California in table 4-1 is from January 2009 legislation.