10. We heard extensive frustration from the private sector that they were frequently being 'penalised' because they were being held to a significantly higher performance standard than the public sector expects in the context of the performance of its non-PFI assets. While we don't dispute that this difference in performance standard exists, we were not convinced that this point was relevant to PFI Contract management and associated relationships. Having spoken to some of the lead players in early PFI thinking, it is clear to us that (for the most part) one of the intended consequences of PFI was to ensure that public infrastructure being maintained under a PFI arrangement would perform to a higher standard than comparable assets being maintained in accordance with traditional arrangements, where budget constraints can lead to delayed maintenance. In fact, some Public Authorities operating large estates of public buildings shared with us (in a positive manner) that based upon apparent condition alone, it can be easy to identify those buildings that are operated under PFI, and those that are not.
11. This issue was made more relevant by some private sector consultees making the point that, in certain cases, service specifications may have been over specified, not just beyond what happens elsewhere in the non-PFI public estate, but also beyond what the Public Authority needs. To the extent that this is a valid point, we believe that it should be dealt with by local negotiation and the contractual change mechanism, if required.
12. Overall, our view was that what happens in the non-PFI estate is not a legitimate justification for failing to meet the specific performance requirements of a PFI Contract.