As repeatedly observed in this report, school-based service providers had a strong interest and emotional connection to the look and feel of the PPP facility. One school principal was unhappy at being stopped from commissioning an Aboriginal artist to paint an external wall mural because the FM operator felt this would have an adverse impact when handing the facility to government at the end of the concession period.
The authors feel that with social infrastructure, more so than in economic infrastructure such as toll roads and water treatment plants, the hand back at the end of the concession period is a multi-layered issue. In economic infrastructure, the objective is to take back an un-depleted asset that is close to 'as good as new'. However, while the objective is to take back a school in a 'good as new' physical condition, the school community that has emerged would arguably want to see evidence of a flourishing and continuing culture, and of a tradition developed over the past 25 years. A 'as good as new' physical environment that is sterile of culture and tradition is unlikely to appeal.
The drafting of the hand back clause in a PPP contract for social infrastructure should be sensitive to the long-term wishes of the community it serves.