2.2 Decisions on whether to use PFI are hindered by a lack of clear evidence on previous performance compared to alternatives. The Committee of Public Accounts noted that there is no clear evidence to conclude whether PFI has been demonstrably better or worse value for money for housing and hospitals than other procurement options.22 In many cases local authorities and NHS Trusts chose the PFI route because the departments offered no realistic funding alternative. This led to the Committee's recommendation that departments should prepare and publish whole-programme evaluations. These should assess PFI against alternative procurement routes using clear value for money criteria to assist future decisions on the form of procurement, and the merits of including support services in the contracts.
2.3 It is also important for a department to specify the information required at the outset of a project to help it make key decisions about the project. A recurring theme in our recent PFI reports has been a failure by departments to specify this information (Figure 2).
2.4 Inadequate data to make informed decisions is not unique to PFI. It affects all buying decisions. In our report on the Efficiency and Reform Group,23 we found no current system to provide clear and up to date data on procurement across Government on a consistent basis.
2.5 Despite the shortfalls identified, there are some good aspects to PFI data. These include a Treasury PFI contract database, which means that key data about all PFI contracts can be consulted in one place. In addition, because payment is related to performance, PFI contracts generally have adequate performance data.
_________________________________________________________________________
22 Committee of Public Accounts, PFI in Housing and Hospitals, Fourteenth Report of Session 2010-11, HC 631, January 2011.
23 Comptroller and Auditor General, The Efficiency and Reform Group's role in improving public sector value for money, Session 2010-11, HC 887, National Audit Office, March 2011.