Report comment

PFI wasn't a fundamentally flawed concept.
It successfully delivered a slew of major hospital and schools programmes within a time and cost certain envelope. The question of whether VFM was achieved is a far more complex matter and it is fatuous to compare the cost of the capital element of a PFI deal with a conventional capital project.
Debt and equity returns were high but that was the fair market price in the market at the time, obtained through lengthy and expensive (for the bidder) tender processes.
As ever, the costs of change through the variation process was and remains expensive and that could and should have been addressed more effectively by the public sector's very highly paid legal advisers who were knee deep at the time in negotiating the deals.
It is also wrong to suggest that PFI deals do not result in properly maintained buildings. The payment stream to the operator is already based on a strict 'payment mechanism' incorporating the performance KPI's referred to in the article. In addition, £billions are locked up in 'Maintenance Reserve Accounts' to meet the cost of life cycle replacement obligations.
The VFM flaws could be addressed relatively easily if there was any appetite on the part of the public sector to re-commence the process.