Consistent with other key issues impacting the overall efficiency of typical PPP procurement processes, ensuring the availability of a project team that has the requisite level of expertise and capacity to undertake the project is essential to producing high quality project documentation and effective processes.
A properly run Interactive Tender Processes should lead to a greater understanding of each party's requirements and significant efficiency gains, minimising these problems. Furthermore, overly restrictive probity processes must not stifle appropriate interactions.
We recommend that Governments undertake a range of steps to improve the quality of documentation and processes (many of which some jurisdictions already undertake):
V. improved sharing of skills and knowledge between delivery personnel and procurement project teams (i.e. not just respective PPP units), particularly in relation to lessons learnt and "good practices", adopting a framework to facilitate the transfer of experience from earlier to later deals. This process should go further than just simply sharing documentation between jurisdictions. As part of this process, project teams should develop "lessons learnt" documents, articulating the key challenges faced by the project and areas for future improvement. As noted in recommendation M above, Governments should consider an inter-jurisdictional forum of project directors to aid in the sharing process
W. using strong precedent documentation as appropriate for generic aspects of projects (no need to try and recreate the wheel), noting that jurisdictions already use precedents for project contracts based on the National PPP Guidelines' standard commercial principles
X. consistently applying the National PPP Guidelines, particularly on conducting an Interactive Tender Process, across the country, recognising that what matters more is the quality of the project teams implementing the guidance
Y. using Gateway or other independent reviews at the key stages of documentation preparation and the procurement process to verify their appropriateness (ensuring that reviewers are familiar with PPP projects)
Z. having a high degree of fruitful interaction during tender processes within appropriate but not excessive probity requirements
AA. where not already done, undertaking due diligence investigations that all bidders require to minimise the unnecessary duplication of effort and costs, recognising that bidders may still require their own specific investigations.
In most instances, Governments do have a high level of interaction during procurement processes via the Interactive Tender Process, leading to a greater understanding of each party's perspective and to significant efficiency gains, with better value for money bids. However, as noted above, appropriate interaction continues to be stifled unnecessarily in some projects due to overly risk-averse probity processes. Such probity processes often occur in projects where those responsible for the process are less experienced and, as a result, are less prepared to lead a process within appropriate probity boundaries, as opposed to allowing probity to drive the process.
There is now enough experience within the Australian PPP market to minimise the risk of project teams not having, or having ready access to, experience in managing PPP procurement processes. Accordingly, we recommend that the procurement of an appropriately skilled team be a prerequisite to commencing the PPP procurement process.