Lessons from the Atlanta Experience
What will ultimately happen remains to be seen and will play out
in the coming months. The Atlanta deal will offer some valuable
insight into how to structure and negotiate public-private
partnerships.
- Communication is essential. Sometimes a lack
of understanding or agreement about performance expectations can
lead to disputes and even termination-this certainly has been the
case in Atlanta .Establishing a trust relationship requires
structuring the right risks, rewards, benefits and opportunities
early in the contract negotiation stage. Also, the more that the
expectations of the contract are based on measurable outcomes and
outputs (costs, quality, reliability), rather than inputs (like
work levels, hours, personnel, etc. ) the less subjective
everyone’s assessment will be and the less likely it is that
conflicts will arise.
- Oversight, reporting, and monitoring are
critical. Few would disagree that accountability is
important. Your contract is only as strong as the monitoring,
reporting, and direct oversight that is built into it. Periodic
reporting and monitoring are standard in privatization contracts.
The higher the risk and uncertainty the stronger these requirements
should be.
- Clear and agreed upon expectations and
definitions. Expectations and definitions need to be
clearly established and understood by both parties. Open and
consistent communication both before and during the contract period
will help eliminate ambiguities. Both sides also need to do their
due diligence in the status of the system, which should be agreed
upon and confirmed with data.
- Contracts should be value based. Saving money
is important, but having a well-run system is more important. Thus,
cities should avoid low bid or cost-plus contracts that provide
little incentive for contractors to hold down their costs. The
change orders submitted by UW have certainly been an issue in
Atlanta .Even though the consultants involved in the contract argue
that a best value contract was used the emphasis seemed to be
placed on cost. Thus not accurately assessing the existing
conditions and limitations of facilities has led to cost
overruns.
- Appropriate long-term business models need to be
developed. Atlanta was the first city to take advantage of
new legislation that allowed for long-term contracts. Long-term
contracts were largely uncharted waters and neither the city nor
the contractors knew exactly how to account for this. The
contractors attempted to take the existing O&M model (typically
3-5 year contracts on individual plants) and simply extend them,
both in terms of scope and length. The industry has started to
recognize that it isn’t healthy to simply extend a boilerplate
approach and is readjusting their approach to long-term contracting
and starting from scratch.
- Atlanta’s experience is not indicative of
privatization. Data tells us that over 90 percent of
cities that have privatized do not de-privatize. With the dire
status of our nations water and wastewater infrastructure
privatization will continue to be an important policy tool, as
identified by both the EPA and GAO, in improving services, meeting
tougher environmental standards, and lowering costs.