1.18 Industry experts felt that the PFI process encouraged a whole life costing approach. They were aware that consortia were investing in good design and construction at the start of the contract. This allowed them to achieve better quality building and to save on maintenance costs and reduce the risk of payment deductions later in the contract, while maintaining the asset to the standards agreed in the contract.
1.19 Interviewees also said they felt that procuring departments were placing greater weight in their bid evaluations on the aesthetic aspect of design in more recent PFI projects than had been the case in earlier projects, while recognising there is often a trade-off between this aspect and construction costs. They felt that it was important that departments made clear to bidders the importance of design quality to emphasise that the department was not simply looking for the lowest cost bid. Additionally, bodies such as CABE are now involved in the design aspects of bidding competitions.6
1.20 Contractors had previously told us that in most cases they are given fair scope to innovate in PFI contracts. They noted, however, certain constraints which are inherent in particular types of project. For example, road contractors felt constrained by orders and commitments made at public enquiries. Hospital and prison contractors noted the building regulations they are required to follow. Road contractors also considered innovation was restricted at the tender stage by the desire to have all bidders competing on exactly the same terms.7
___________________________________________________________________________________
6 For further information on best practice promoted by CABE see Part 2.