Delivering Value through Public-Private Partnerships at Home and Abroad

72 Pages·2013·1.02 MB·English

Canada as a Global leader
Delivering Value
through Public-
Private Partnerships
.
at Home and Abroad
RePoRt August 2013
For the exclusive use of Brian Arnold, [email protected], AMG.
Canada as a Global Leader: Delivering Value through Public-Private Partnerships at Home and Abroad
by Vijay Gill and Sarah Dimick
About The Conference Preface
Board of Canada
Canada’s public infrastructure renewal challenges have
forced consideration of alternative infrastructure ser-
We are:
vice delivery. Public-private partnerships (P3) are one
 The foremost independent, not-for-profit, applied
such procurement alternative. Recent P3 experience in
research organization in Canada.
Canada continues the trend of delivering projects on
 Objective and non-partisan. We do not lobby
time and on budget.
for specific interests.
 Funded exclusively through the fees we charge
Meanwhile, Canada has emerged as a global leader
for services to the private and public sectors.
in P3 project delivery. This has in turn attracted inter-
 Experts in running conferences but also at con-
national talent while also creating export opportunities
ducting, publishing, and disseminating research;
for Canadian companies. In the domestic market, some
helping people network; developing individual
opportunity exists for alternative procurement at the
leadership skills; and building organizational
municipal level.
capacity.
 Specialists in economic trends, as well
as organizational performance and public
policy issues.
 Not a government department or agency,
although we are often hired to provide
services for all levels of government.
 Independent from, but affiliated with, The
Conference Board, Inc. of New York, which
serves nearly 2,000 companies in 60 nations
and has offices in Brussels and Hong Kong.
©2013 The Conference Board of Canada*
Published in Canada • All rights reserved
Agreement No. 40063028
*Incorporated as AERIC Inc.
®The Conference Board of Canada and the torch logo are registered
trademarks of The Conference Board, Inc.
Forecasts and research often involve numerous assumptions and data
sources, and are subject to inherent risks and uncertainties. This information
is not intended as specific investment, accounting, legal, or tax advice.
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
Contents
executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Chapter 1—Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Chapter 2—state of P3s in Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Federal Support of Infrastructure Investment and P3s ............................................... 4
P3 Canada Fund............................................................................. 5
Provincial P3 Activity ........................................................................ 5
Municipal Support for P3s..................................................................... 5
The Canadian P3 Pipeline ..................................................................... 7
The Canadian Allure for P3 Investments ......................................................... 8
Chapter 3—stakeholder Reflections on Benefits and Risks of P3s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Benefits ................................................................................... 9
Drawbacks or Additional Costs................................................................ 13
Conclusions: Overarching Themes From Stakeholders ............................................. 16
Chapter 4—Key Benefits and Risk in Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
The Evidence Base for Canadian P3s Since Dispelling the Myths..................................... 24
Chapter 5—the International Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Comparing the Domestic P3 Market Environment With International Markets........................... 26
Exporting Canadian P3 Expertise .............................................................. 37
Summary: A Stable Market With Leading Expertise ............................................... 41
Chapter 6—Breaking Down the Municipal Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
How Large Is the Potential Municipal P3 Market in Canada? ........................................ 43
Recent Trends in the Municipal Market ......................................................... 44
Summary ................................................................................. 47
Chapter 7—Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Growth in the Domestic Market ............................................................... 49
Canadian P3 Expertise....................................................................... 50
Appendix A—update of P3 Projects in Canada since Dispelling the Myths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Appendix B—Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60
For the exclusive use of Brian Arnold, [email protected], AMG.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Mario Iacobacci and Marc-André Roy for their comments and review of an earlier
draft of this report. The authors would also like to thank Len Coad, Trevor Foster, Margaret Caron-Vuotari,
Michael Grant, and David Stewart-Patterson of The Conference Board of Canada for their research and support.
The Conference Board would like to thank Alberta Infrastructure, Infrastructure Ontario, Infrastructure Québec,
Partnerships British Columbia, PPP Canada, and The Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships for financially
supporting this research. In keeping with Conference Board guidelines for financed research, the design and method of
research as well as the content of this study were determined solely by the Conference Board. The Conference Board of
Canada alone is responsible for the report’s methodology, scope, and findings, including any errors and omissions.
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
Executive Summary
Canada as a Global Leader:
Delivering Value through
Public-Private Partnerships
at Home and Abroad
greater role for the private sector in the delivery of
at a glance
public infrastructure services. Canada wide, support for
 Canada’s public infrastructure renewal chal- private sector delivery of these services in partnership
lenges have forced greater consideration with government has increased from 60 per cent in 2004
of alternate infrastructure service delivery. to 70 per cent in 2011. This period coincides with the
Public-private partnerships (P3) are one growth and standardization of the alternative procure-
alternative. ment of public projects across the country.
 Recent P3 experience in Canada continues
the trend of delivering projects on time and
In SearchIng for alternatIveS
on budget.
 Canada has emerged as a global leader in P3 In January 2010, The Conference Board of
project delivery, attracting talent from around Canada released Dispelling the Myths: A Pan-
the world and creating export opportunities Canadian Assessment of Public-Private Partnership
for Canadian companies. for Infrastructure Investments, a report that assessed the
recent cost and time performance of public-private part-
 Long-term P3 projects have become
nerships (P3s) in Canada. That report also found that P3
favoured investments for investors with
projects initiated since 2004 had delivered important
long time horizons.
efficiency gains for the public sector. These efficiency
gains were found to be a result of a high degree of cost
T and time certainty over the construction period of these
he general public is becoming increasingly aware
projects. This cost and time certainty was in turn found
of the story of Canada’s aging and poorly main-
to be driven by the key P3 project traits:
tained public infrastructure. Meanwhile, there
 output-based rather than input-based contract
has been a growing public acceptance of a greater role
specifications
for the private sector in the delivery of infrastructure
 the additional oversight provided by private financing
services across the country. These two trends are
 upfront planning due to the integration of build and
not unrelated.
maintenance phases
 the optimal risk allocation between public and pri-
Polls conducted on behalf of The Canadian Council
vate partners, where risk that was better managed
for Public-Private Partnerships (CCPPP) by Nanos
by the private sector was transferred to them
Research have shown growing public support for a
Find this report and other Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca
For the exclusive use of Brian Arnold, [email protected], AMG.
ii | Canada as a Global Leader—August 2013
This new report, Canada as a Global Leader: It should be noted that these evaluations are typically
Delivering Value through Public-Private Partnerships conducted ex ante and refreshed during the procurement
at Home and Abroad, builds upon Dispelling the Myths using the actual bid cost, but they are not ex post evalu-
by reviewing the evidence of the continuing flow of P3 ations. As more projects enter later stages of maturity,
projects that have been procured or have reached con- consideration should be given to conducting ex post
struction completion since January 2010. Following the evaluations as well. This would allow for an updated
Introduction, Chapter 2 provides an update of the P3 analysis of the benefits of the alternative procurement
landscape in Canada. Through the creation of PPP after they have actually been realized and will help to
Canada and the P3 Canada Fund, the federal govern- identify best practices. The public also needs to be bet-
ment has played a more active role in encouraging P3 ter educated on the fact that VfM evaluations compare
project delivery across the country. This fund is particu- all costs (procurement, financing, capital, operations
larly important as an encouragement for greater munici- and maintenance) over the total life of the contract. The
pal involvement in P3s. evaluation must consider the time value of money so it
is not a straightforward accounting of dollars and cents.
the federal government has played a more active role in
encouraging P3 project delivery across the country, through canada’S P3 Performance In the
the creation of PPP canada and the P3 canada fund. InternatIonal context
Chapter 5 considers the Canadian experience with P3s
Chapter 3 provides an assessment of the potential benefits within an international context. While other countries
and drawbacks of P3 delivery according to interviews such as the United Kingdom and Australia pioneered the
that were conducted with P3 practitioners and observers concept of alternative financing procurement, Canada
from across Canada. The potential benefits identified has since become a P3 leader and has in many ways
are time savings, optimization of life-cycle spending, surpassed the trailblazing P3 countries. Due in part to
long-term guarantees on maintenance, innovative solu- the standardized approaches to P3 delivery taken by
tions, cost savings, and checks/balances in contracting. Canadian provinces, the Canadian P3 market is now
The potential drawbacks include private financing rates, known as a whole to be one of the most stable in the
the risk premium, transaction costs, lead times, and non- world. For both domestic and international investors
effective risk transfer. Chapter 4 relates the results of with long time horizons such as pension funds and asset
the interviews to observations of recent P3 project per- management companies, P3 projects have become an
formance. For example, the benefit of predictable and attractive investment. This has resulted in a competitive
on-time construction completion of P3 projects persists, bidding environment and lower bids.
with relatively few projects being delivered late. Moreover,
when projects were delivered late, the private sector has Among the factors that have made the Canadian market
absorbed the penalty, suggesting evidence of effective attractive is a consistent and predictable procurement
risk transfer in P3 contracts. Meanwhile, expected bene- process. Whereas the U.K. market has been hampered
fits for the public sector according to value-for-money by unnecessarily long procurement periods that often
(VfM) studies comparing projected P3 and traditional exceed more than three years, average procurement time
project costs have ranged from a few million dollars to in Canada is roughly 18 months. Moreover, participants
$1.06 billion for the Southeast Stoney Trail in Calgary. in the Canadian P3 market have a high degree of confi-
On average, cost savings according to the VfM studies dence in the public sector partner’s ability to follow
have been 13 per cent for P3 projects compared with through on projects once they are announced. This is in
traditional projects. contrast to highly unpredictable markets such as those
Find this report and other Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
The Conference Board of Canada | iii
in the United States market, where a number of projects Nevertheless, the municipal P3 market is expanding,
have been cancelled. Finally, Canadian projects have with domestic expertise in both the public and private
avoided the problems associated with the transfer of sectors helping municipalities to overcome some of those
demand risk by relying primarily on availability pay- barriers. Despite the inexperience with P3s in Manitoba,
ments. This raises the question of under what circum- the City of Winnipeg has been able to achieve success
stances if any might the transfer of more demand risk with the delivery model. Among the most notable recent
be more appropriate. successes across the country is the Chief Peguis Trail
Extension, which was delivered nearly a year early rela-
develoPIng and exPortIng canadIan tive to the contracted construction completion date.
P3 exPertISe
Canadian companies have developed their own P3 Municipalities across the country are taking note of these
expertise that has allowed them to increasingly partici- recent successes. The “carrot” that has been extended
pate in and lead P3 projects in Canada. These firms have by the P3 Canada Fund has certainly helped, suggesting
also become more active in the international market, that similar programs at the provincial level may in part
creating important opportunities in Canada’s growing encourage municipalities to take the political risk asso-
professional service exports. ciated with certain projects. After all, much of the fund-
ing for capital that municipalities already receive comes
In addition, the Canadian P3 market has attracted a from the higher levels of government. Tying this fund-
number of international firms and expertise that have ing to an incentive to consider P3 delivery may be the
established large domestic subsidiaries. Unlike subsidi- way to address the imbalance between the political risk
aries found in some goods-producing industries, these and lack of political reward at the local level.
are not branch plant subsidiaries where the high value-
added planning and design services are left in the global
headquarters. Rather, they are employing highly skilled canadian companies have developed their own P3 exper-
professionals who are doing value-added work in Canada. tise that has allowed them to increasingly participate in
and lead P3 projects in canada.
oPPortunItIeS for munIcIPalItIeS
To tie these incentives more directly to the expected
Chapter 6 delves into the growing but cautious enthusiasm benefits of P3s, the P3 Canada funding formula could
for P3s for Canadian municipalities. Across the country, be modified to provide funding as a share of total pro-
municipalities collectively spend as much on infrastruc- ject costs rather than as a share of capital costs. This
ture as the provinces. However, the number and total would provide an additional incentive to bundle an
value of P3 projects delivered by municipalities lags operations and maintenance (O&M) phase with the
in comparison. This is due to obstacles such as lack design/build phase. However, it is recognized that this
of financial resources, greater political risk, a lack of would require larger changes to the budgetary process
familiarity with P3 delivery, and smaller project sizes. and funding based on long-term operations is not a
The political risk is present as a result of the municipal straightforward process.
decision-making process, where there are many more
opportunities for councillors to bring a project to a halt Moreover, both provincial and federal funding could
after it has entered into the procurement process. There consider favouring projects that make use of efficient
is also a risk for politicians that may not be balanced by pricing practices, particularly for wastewater projects.
the potential for political reward, as successful projects For example, nearly 30 per cent of residential customers
are less likely to be noticed by the public. in Canada do not pay metered water pricing, resulting
Find this report and other Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca
For the exclusive use of Brian Arnold, [email protected], AMG.
iv | Canada as a Global Leader—August 2013
in excessive water consumption. On the other hand, P3 category but can still apply some of the advantages
some municipalities go beyond simple metering and of P3 projects. This presents an opportunity to apply
make use of increasing block rates to further encourage some of the lessons learned from P3 delivery to other
water conservation. Municipalities that make use of procurement methods. In fact, this opportunity has
mechanisms designed to reduce consumption (and cap- already begun to be realized since many of the procure-
ital costs as a result) could be favoured when seeking ment agencies are responsible for the delivery of both
funding from senior levels of government. P3 and traditional infrastructure projects. This is import-
ant for two reasons. One, they are recognized as experts
P3 procurement is not suitable for all infrastructure pro- in infrastructure delivery and can apply that expertise in
jects. The majority of projects have and will continue to either case. And two, having responsibility for the deliv-
be delivered by more traditional means. Moreover, it is ery of all infrastructure projects creates a direct incentive
not always simply a question of P3 versus traditional, to be impartial and to explore alternative procurement
as there are a range of options that would fall out of the approaches only when they make sense.
Find this report and other Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
Chapter 1
Introduction
Chart 1
Chapter Summary
Who Delivers “Infrastructure” in Canada? Investment in Structures
 Canada faces a substantial public infrastruc- and Equipment, 2007–11
ture deficit. Private parties typically have a (per cent)
good track record with asset maintenance,
15.6
including infrastructure assets.
All government—structures and equipment
37.5
 Public-private partnerships have become a Business—residential structures
common Canadian approach to addressing 25.2 Business—non-residential structures
large infrastructure projects, as an efficient
Business—machinery and equipment
way to protect taxpayer funding and benefit
21.7
from private sector expertise.
Sources: Statistics Canada, CANSIM Table 380-0017; The Conference Board of Canada.
 P3 delivery is intended to help enhance the
long-term quality of the infrastructure and
deliver value for taxpayers. But it is not
non-residential structures alone far exceeds total gov-
intended to replace traditional procurement
ernment expenditures on all types of structures and
altogether—it is just one tool in the toolbox.
equipment from year to year. (See Chart 1.)
The public sector contracting the projects has to deal with
P
ublic infrastructure in Canada and around the competing needs of life-cycle planning and budgeting for
world is facing substantial maintenance and new infrastructure and a short cycle of political power
renewal challenges. The result has been a grow- with regular elections. Additionally, the structure within
ing interest in alternatives in order to rectify the situa- public governments for managing infrastructure separ-
tion and avoid these challenges in the future. ates out the initial capital costs, maintenance, and oper-
ations budgets. Once the infrastructure is built, this
The general public often thinks of infrastructure as may sometimes result in operations shortfalls and
being in the domain of the public sector. While it is true deferred maintenance.
that many infrastructure projects are publically owned,
the majority are not. In fact, businesses’ investment in As a result of these factors, much of the public infra-
structure in Canada is in poor condition, and resources
are wasted in the meantime. For example, 12.8 per cent
Find this report and other Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca
For the exclusive use of Brian Arnold, [email protected], AMG.
2 | Canada as a global Leader—August 2013
of the water that is treated in municipal wastewater project (or with ongoing availability payments when an
plants leaks from the delivery pipes before it reaches operations and maintenance [O&M] phase is included).
the customer.1 It is perhaps for this reason that “infra- With P3 delivery, governments have attempted to take the
structure” is often thought of synonymously with the benefits of private sector stewardship that have resulted
public sector—that is, the infrastructure that is in poor in the relatively strong upkeep of private infrastructure
state of repair gets noticed due to its deficiencies. assets and apply them to public assets in order to
deliver the best value for taxpayer funds, while
On the other hand, private infrastructure for the most maintaining public control and ownership.
part remains in a good state of repair relative to public
infrastructure, making it “out of sight and out of mind” The “second wave”3 of Canadian P3 projects has been
for the general public. For example, few stop to think notably influenced by the standardization of the process
about the more than billion dollars of private investment in particularly active provinces through the establish-
that goes into rail freight infrastructure in Canada every ment of infrastructure-supporting departments and more
year, or the more than billion dollars of private investment recently through the creation of PPP Canada and the P3
that is put into natural gas distribution infrastructure. Canada Fund at a federal level. P3 delivery has become
an alternative solution for provinces such as Alberta,
British Columbia, Ontario, New Brunswick, and Quebec
With P3 delivery, governments have attempted to take the in particular and is gaining some momentum elsewhere.
benefits of private sector stewardship and apply them to Recently, the Government of Saskatchewan has announced
public assets to deliver the best value for taxpayer funds. the creation of the SaskBuilds and the SaskBuilds Fund,
which includes $150 million in support of P3 delivery.4
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities identified The Conference Board of Canada released Dispelling the
a $123-billion deficit in municipal infrastructure alone Myths: A Pan-Canadian Assessment of Public-Private
across the country.2 This represents needs in five categor- Partnerships for Infrastructure Investments in 2010.
ies, including water, wastewater, transit, transportation, (See box “Highlights From Dispelling the Myths.”) The
and other public infrastructure that comprises cultural, current report acts as a follow-up to that report—both
social, community, and recreational facilities—all updating the information on the Canadian P3 arena as
essential areas to maintain the current quality of life. well as placing the Canadian P3 experience into an
international perspective.
For these reasons, among others, the public sector has
turned to alternative project procurement and manage- The current research was conducted through a multi-
ment methods. One of the most popular methods, espe- tiered approach, including a detailed literature review,
cially in Canada, is the implementation of public-private interviews with P3 practitioners, procurers, interested
partnerships (P3s). P3 projects are financed by the private parties, and critics, as well as a series of case studies,
sector, place greater emphasis on output-based contract both national and international.
specifications (rather than input-based specifications),
and are paid at least in part upon the completion of the
3 The second wave of P3 projects in Canada is typically attributed to
have begun around 2004 with the establishment of dedicated prov-
incial infrastructure agencies. National Bank of Canada Financial
Markets, The Present and Future of Public-Private Partnerships in
1 Gill, Tapped Out, 28. Canada, 7.
2 Mirza, Danger Ahead, 2. 4 Government of Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan Plan for Growth, 4.
Find this report and other Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca