The Practice of PPPs in Victoria Desalination Plant

The state government of Australia engaged itself in developing seawater reverse osmosis desalination plant as a result of the need to deal with the drought conditions experienced that impacted water reserves. With this, the Victorian desalination plant was constructed whereby it was under public-private partnership (PPP) for the purpose of supplying water to the city. PPP governed the project with the help of the state and private sector whereby they engaged in the development and provision of services and facilities. Infrastructure was essential in the project. These partnerships involved the work of designing, building and financing the construction as well as maintaining and operating them. Therefore, it involved dealing with all types of risks that presented themselves and they managed and handled each one of them by analyzing and coming up with risk management measures in order to minimize loss. On the other hand, the use of Public Sector Comparator in PPPs is important as it deals with the efficiency in the delivery of infrastructure service as it necessitated financing, building, and operation together with maintenance costs.

The practice of PPP’s and PSC’s

Introduction

According to Osborne (2002), the provision of public infrastructure and services in growing economies experience challenges to structuring innovative solutions to service delivery. Therefore, the Public-Private Partnerships have attracted attention whereby public authorities and private one liaise as they attempt to structure infrastructure projects. The main catalyst for Public-Private Partnership has always been the helpfulness, economy, and effectiveness of provisions of amenities like value for money. Consequently, the PSC is commonly used in the assessment and evaluation of PPPs projects and Value for Money. This is owed to the requisite for development in infrastructure that will help in providing for services that are better for public units that need the use of the alternate technique for acquiring project and financial plans. The Public Sector Comparative deals with the net present cost valuation and risks valuing over the entire projects (Osborne, 2002).

This paper will entail the practice of PPPs and PSCs, with a choice of the Victorian desalination plant as the case study. Furthermore, it tries to give an explanation to the risk transfer as revealed in the discount rate and if they are used in the PSC. To sum up, the paper will necessitate the use of PS in PPPs.

The Victorian desalination plant

It is a water desolation project situated in Dalyston in the southern Victoria, Australia. It is one of the largest Melbourne water system as well as PPP project that were effective in 2009. The plant has the capacity to supply up to one-third of Melbourne water’s demand that commenced its operation in December 2011. The state and the private sector governed the partnership in the development and services and facilities delivery. Therefore, PPP boosted effectiveness in the infrastructure services distribution with financing, building, and general operation services such as maintenance (El Saliby et al, 2009).

Victorian desalination plant and practice of PPPs

The Victorian Desalination Project is one of the principal investments of the public sector in the infrastructure of water in the history of Australia. The scheme is boosted by partnerships that represent a major urban water supply that provides better services to all Victorians by expanding and improving its public infrastructure (Wee, 2012). The Private Public Partnership was driven by the assessment of traditional state-funded procurement whereby it aimed at designing and constructing while offering maintenance of the plant. In addition, there was a government-sponsored alliance for enterprise and building with the public segment in its action and looking after. The plant further saw it necessary for engaging in partnerships such as Victoria backed PPP with the design of the private sector, finance, construction, and conservation over a prolonged time period. This is because the PPP organization was well-thought-out likely to give the optimum value for money result when it comes to delivery and outcomes for the project (Grimsey and Lewis, 2005).

PPPs are beneficial towards development as it ensures incentivizing the private sector to convey timely projects and within the financial plan. Employing PPP is a technique of mounting local private sector competencies as a result of the joint ventures with large international firms. These are some of the reasons why the Victorian desolation plant supports the practice of PPPs. Additionally, the practice of PPPs ensures extraction of long-term value for money over the suitable risk allocation to the private sector over the project life that is from design/construction to operation/preservation. PPPs gradually exposes state maintained initiatives and government to growth stages of private sector involvement hence the ability to transfer skills that lead to people running their own processes skillfully and ultimately export their capabilities (Siemiatycki and Farooqi, 2012).

As a result, the Victorian desalination plant supports the practice of PPPs as their outcome ensures the below benefits;

Operative risk allocation

PPP sees through an optimal risk profile depending on the extent and project complexity. This is in the construction period phase, as well as processes and preservation. With this kind of development plans, PPP ensures that the projects have the most efficient and effective management of risks overall (Partnerships Victoria Project Summary, 2009).

The whole of life efficiency

PPP ensures that there is a whole life methodology towards improving the balance between capital costs and on continuing costs of maintenance/lifecycle of the project (Partnerships Victoria Project Summary, 2009).

Value-added asset and quality service

There is a better regulator over the worth of groundwork and amenities offered by the practice of PPP. This is owing to the increased tough analysis and control. Consequently, it offers enactment standards which are sustained by a decline administration to certify those values are achieved (Partnerships Victoria Project Summary, 2009).

Design innovation

The PPP practice provides a high economical construction in which there were a substantial possibility and incentive for the private sector to convey advanced resolutions to realize the preeminent whole of life coast and organization of threat at the same time meeting the performance requirements (Partnerships Victoria Project Summary, 2009).

Timely delivery

PPP facilitates the necessary commencement timeframe of water distribution as well as moderating the dangers of postponement in the contracting compared to other choices deliberated (Partnerships Victoria Project Summary, 2009).

The transfer of risks

At any given point of infrastructure projects, they experience challenges during and after completing the projects. This includes undeveloped, insufficient and obsolete infrastructure challenges that hinder additional expansion of key commercial resources. Structure network is a requirement for the expansion of diverse segments thus there are difficulties in regulating and handling risks when it comes to project financing through PPP. The main challenge when it comes to PPP financing he projects is that there are way so many dangers on the market hence endanger projects from commencement (Shugart, 2008). Therefore, the exploration of possible risk components all over the processes from bidding to operational infrastructure projects is an essential element in maximizing profits and functionality of projects. Most risk of PPP projects originates from the difficulty of financing, taxation, law regulatory, discount rates, acquired technical records and building procedure involved in a key infrastructure venture. In addition, after analyzing the risks, risk management tackles are offered, composed with the method of risk management (Australia, 2008).

The Victorian desalination plant had systematic risks that were borne by the public and private sector shared between both that was reflected in the discount rate that was initially 6%. The efforts put forward to calculate and apply the different risk premiums for both public and private options reflected on the discount rate as a result of the transfer of risk. However, the rate that was used to discount the PPP and PSC was different because of the mode of bidding for each party. In addition, the systematic risk was shifted from the government to the private sector hence the differing discount rates. There are also project specific and diversifiable risks that enhanced the core principle that not all projects had systematic risks (Wee, 2012).

Further, the CAPM method was used to control the extent of systematic risk in the development. Therefore the reflection of discount rate depends on the amount of risk that is borne whereby the rate of return from an asset is expected to compensate owners from the risk that cannot be eliminated by diversification. With this, investment in other asset is required. The measure of risk determined the return that investors require for compensation when the risk occurs. Consequently, a higher return is essential for shareholders to take on the jeopardy if the schemes were riskier than the market portfolio which would have a higher measure of systematic risk. On the other hand, less risky projects than the market portfolio will experience a low measure of systematic risk and a lower return required (Wee, 2012).

The use of PSC in PPPs

Kerali (2006) states that the Public Sector Comparator determines the proper service provider for public sector projects and is widely used by the government. Therefore, it brings out the estimates of the costs that the government would pay in delivering service. The PSC is involved in decision making by looking at the mode in which a private investment suggestion gives value for money while at the same time compares it with the most effective form of public procurement. Therefore, the government, through PSC, is allowed to figure out whether private-public partnerships would be cost effective. It hence makes approximations on the hypothetical risk accustomed cost for a project that wants to be funded, maintained or executed by the government (Morallos and Amekudzi, 2008).

Hodge (2004) states that PPP projects necessitate cautious design, groundwork, assessment, procurement, contracting and attentive oversight depending on their complexities with a target of yielding net benefits to the society. Therefore, PSC helps PPPs in preparation and management of projects with institutionalized programs. PSC plays a significant role in justifying PPP projects as they benefit in countering the influences of faultfinders who are resilient to the impression of private sector participation in the projects as most people assume that PPP projects benefit the private sector interests at the interest of taxpayers or service users. PSC can be used at diverse periods of the project preparation course (Shugart, 2008).

The PSC allows risk-adjusted financial manner of a project of hypothetical public sector whereby it approximates the total costs to the administration of attaining the projected yields, supposing that the project is controlled in a standard approach with sensible predictable effectiveness progresses. On the other hand, PSC ensures that the PPP project’s risks are handled for example by having the government bailout a project contractor rather than let a project collapse. Most countries lack for structure projects therefore emerging and using PSC in any significant technique is usually not possible (Bing et al 20050. Rendering to Hodge and Greve (2007), there is a large economic benefit of countries that use PSC in PPP projects. It also allows an economically rational choice between PPP designs and old-style procurement hence demands the project organizer to emphasize the production description as well as risk allocation for the project. This will enable the stimulation of different risk allocations (Watts et al, 2000). Consequently, PSC is basically important to PPP projects as it deals with allowing cash flows for a pre-determined period, integrating the efficiency improvements raising from the management and reserved risks as well as it takes responsibility of dealing with the risks. PSC addresses revenues whether direct or indirect as it provides a means for decision making procedure in times of risk management and project development. It also assesses business models that are suitable for projects, the type of contract the projects require and employ and optimal risk sharing agreement. With this, there is potential for gain and exposure to project development and risk management hence saves on time and money leading to a successful project (Quiggin, 2004).

Conclusion

Public-Private Partnerships have attracted attention with public authorities and private one coming together in an attempt to structure infrastructure projects. The PSC is used in the preparation, valuation, evaluation, and management of PPPs projects and Value for Money. This enables the provision of improved amenities for community bodies that need the use of the different technologies for acquiring project and financial plans. The Public Sector Comparative deals with valuation of net present outlay and dangers over the whole projects. Most risks of PPP projects originate from the difficulty of supporting, taxation, the law governing, discount rates, acquired procedural documents and building procedure involved in a key set-up undertaking. In addition, PSC and PPPs are involved in analyzing the risks, thereafter risk organization gears are offered, composed with the method of managing risks. In this case of the Victorian desalination plant, the transfer of risk is revealed in the discount rate used in the PSC. With this, PSC in PPPs use is important in projects.

References

Australia, I., 2008. National public private partnerships guidelines: Volume 4–Public Sector Comparator guidance. Attorney General’s Department of Australia, Canberra, p.165.

Bing, L., Akintoye, A., Edwards, P.J. and Hardcastle, C., 2005. The allocation of risk in PPP/PFI construction projects in the UK. International Journal of project management, 23(1), pp.25-35.

El Saliby, I., Okour, Y., Shon, H.K., Kandasamy, J. and Kim, I.S., 2009. Desalination plants in Australia, review, and facts. Desalination, 247(1-3), pp.1-14.

Grimsey, D. and Lewis, M.K., 2005, December. Are Public-Private Partnerships value for money?: Evaluating alternative approaches and comparing academic and practitioner views. In Accounting forum (Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 345-378). Elsevier.

Hodge, G.A., 2004. The risky business of public-private partnerships. Australian Journal of public administration, 63(4), pp.37-49.

Hodge, G.A. and Greve, C., 2007. Public-private partnerships: an international performance review. Public administration review, 67(3), pp.545-558.

Jean Wee 2012. Case Study. Project finance: Victorian Desalination Plant. The Business School for the World.

Kerali, H., 2006. Public sector comparator for highway PPP projects. Online Presentation. World Bank. Retrieved from http://siteresources. world bank. org/INTO TRANSPORT/Resources/336291-1122908670104/1504838-1151587673078/PSCforHighwayPPPProjects-v2. pdf on, 8(23), p.09.

Morallos, D. and Amekudzi, A., 2008. The state of the practice of value for money analysis in comparing public-private partnerships to traditional procurements. Public Works Management & Policy, 13(2), pp.114-125.

Osborne, S., 2002. Public-private partnerships: Theory and practice in international perspective. Routledge.

Partnerships Victoria Project Summary 2009. Victorian Desalination Project. Retrieved on 29th December 2018. From https://www.dtf.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2018-01/Project-Summary-for-Victorian-Desalination-Project.pdf

Quiggin, J., 2004. Risk, PPPs, and the public sector comparator. Australian Accounting Review, 14(33), pp.51-61.

Shugart, C., 2008. PPPs, the Public Sector Comparator, and Discount Rates: Key Issues.

Siemiatycki, M. and Farooqi, N., 2012. Value for money and risk in public-private partnerships: Evaluating the evidence. Journal of the American Planning Association, 78(3), pp.286-299.

Watts, M.E.R., Swan, K., Fox, D.P., Upfold, M., Partner, M.S.J. and Housing, S., 2000. Public-private partnerships.