2.13 Most PFI contracts should permit an authority access to any information reasonably required to monitor the performance of the SPV.24 In some PFI contracts, there are restrictions over the type of information that can be shared with the authority. From our survey, 35% of those who monitor the maintenance programme stated they had insufficient access rights to monitor the SPV's maintenance programme.25 Similarly, of those contracts in our survey with a lifecycle fund, around 25% do not have access rights over the size and fluctuations of the fund.26
2.14 Typically, an authority will have access to a financial model outlining all the forecast maintenance expenditure across the life of the contract. In addition, an SPV will usually provide the authority with an annual maintenance plan, which is the case in 70% of the contracts in our survey.27 These maintenance plans are not always supported with detailed actual expenditure data. Instead, authorities must rely on information contained in the financial statements of the SPV, which do not provide sufficiently detailed information on maintenance expenditure.
2.15 In one PFI hospital, the authority has identified a large gap between what is being paid into the lifecycle fund compared with actual maintenance expenditure. A gap could either indicate the SPV is not carrying out maintenance work as planned or less maintenance is needed owing to efficiencies in building design and management by the SPV. The authority is unable to robustly challenge this variance as it has limited access rights to the lifecycle information. We identified similar experiences in PFI school contracts where asset surveys conducted by the SPV are not shared with the authority or data on lifecycle funds are not provided.
2.16 The cooperation between the authority and SPV depends on the strength of the relationship. For example, we identified one contract where an SPV shares information on a voluntary, rather than contractual, basis. The SPV responsible for providing office space for Transport for London (TfL) shares information on retrospective maintenance expenditure, despite this not being a contractual obligation. Furthermore, the SPV performs regular audits of the subcontractor to assess whether the facilities management services are provided in line with the contract. These audit reports are also voluntarily shared with TfL.
______________________________________________________________________________________
24 HM Treasury, Standardisation of PFI Contracts Version 4, March 2007, para 26.2.1, p.220.
25 Question 30b: Did or does the authority have sufficient access rights to monitor the maintenance programme adequately? Number of responses: Yes - 15, No - 8, 8/23 = 34.78%, from a survey response of 23 (as not all monitor the maintenance programme).
26 Question 13a: Did or does the authority have access rights to information on this fund, such as size, fluctuations, in order to understand how the fund is being used? Number of responses: Yes - 19, No - 8, Don't know - 6, 8/33 = 24.24%, from a survey response of 33 (as not all have lifecycle or sinking funds).
27 Question 30: Did or does the authority monitor the annual maintenance programme under the contract? Yes - 52, No - 23, 52/75 = 69.33%.