e We have found examples of well managed and properly resourced projects that have taken 18 months to tender, including preferred bidder negotiations lasting less than six months. This suggests that a target of between 18 to 24 months would not be unreasonable for many projects, although it may be unrealistic for particularly complex, one-off PFI deals. Departments should agree with the Treasury what would constitute an appropriate target time for their sector, and individual procurement teams should be bound to this unless they can satisfy the Department that the target would be unrealistic in their case, even with more up-front preparation.
f To achieve much tighter timescales while maintaining good value for money, Authorities should:
■ obtain commitment to the project from all key stakeholders at an early stage;
■ develop better output specifications, including greater dialogue with potential bidders about the design of assets, before approaching the market;
■ establish the affordability of the project before it is brought to the market and again before a preferred bidder is selected. In establishing affordability, authorities should calculate available resources against a range of scenarios; and
■ agree the commercial basis of a deal as well as key aspects of the detailed design prior to selecting a preferred bidder - now a requirement under the Competitive Dialogue procedure.
g As part of good project and programme management using appropriate methodologies, the monitoring of projects as they progress through procurement should be ongoing and highlight where target times are likely to be missed. In these cases, the likelihood of missing the target time should serve as an alarm signal and trigger an action plan from the procuring authority.
h Partnerships UK maintains a database of information on PFI projects, parts of which are available on its website. The Treasury should consider whether information on the length of time taken to procure individual deals should be published, possibly in the form of an annual league table, to help motivate project teams to achieve shorter tendering times.
i The same issues arise repeatedly across projects, lengthening procurement periods and increasing costs unnecessarily. Departments should identify lessons from recently closed PFI projects of relevance to subsequent projects, revising sector-specific guidance and standard specifications where new issues recur across projects in a particular sector. Where appropriate, a programme approach to PFI projects such as that under Building Schools for the Future can facilitate the transfer of experience from earlier to later deals.
j There should also be a more structured process of learning and sharing lessons across sectors and public authorities, which includes:
■ Departments ensuring that post-project evaluations are completed as a matter of course and any lessons shared with other public sector procurement teams;
■ a more co-ordinated and targeted approach to sharing good practice by central advisory bodies such as the OGC, PUK, 4ps and the Project Review Group within the Treasury; and
■ a forum through which procuring Authorities can share their experiences and raise queries, to complement the existing PUK helpline.