Summary of Mid Year Meeting, Paper Reviews, and Poster Session

[Jen Mayer]

Thanks to everyone who attended the P3 subcommittee mid-year meeting
last month in DC. A brief summary is below.  We have received 16
papers related to P3s as submissions for presentation at the TRB
annual meeting in January.

I have assigned reviews to a number of you, but still require several
more.  The papers have a maximum length of 7,500 words, and initial
reviews must be completed by September 15th.  If you have not been
invited to review one or more papers, and would like to, please
contact me at jenma...@gmail.com and I will assign you a review. 

The subcommittee decided to sponsor another poster session for this
year's annual meeting in 2014.  The call for posters is attached - please circulate widely! If you are interested in participating
on review of the posters to be submitted, and/or in submitting a
poster proposal, please contact Tom Boast at tbo...@thbadvisory.com.

SUMMARY OF MID-YEAR P3 SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING

Academic Efforts

Andrew South of Stanford's Global Projects Center and Mike Garvin of
Virginia Tech discussed collaborative work they've been undertaking on
P3s.

Qingbin Cui of the University of Maryland described some research
studies being undertaken on P3s, including work on incorporating
benefit-cost analysis into VFM studies (on behalf of the Federal
Highway Administration).

Jonathan Gifford and Porter Wheeler of GMU's Transportation
Public-Private Partnership Policy Program described some of their
current work looking at VDOT's program.

Rick Geddes, Director of the Cornell Program in Infrastructure Policy,
also discussed Cornell's ongoing efforts in P3 research.

Barney Allison of Nossaman discussed numerous bi-state issues related
to the recent P3 on the East End Crossing, part of the bi-state
Louisville, KY and Southern Indiana Ohio River Bridges project.  The
East End Crossing is being carried out by the State of Indiana, but in
partnership with Kentucky.  Sharon Greene of  HDR/Sharon Greene &
Associates provided an update on the status of several P3
projects in Los Angeles.

POSSIBLE RESEARCH/SESSION TOPICS DISCUSSED:

Bi-State and international issues related to P3 management

Issues between P3 concessionaires and 3rd-party participants, such as
utilities and other stakeholders, who may treat the private sector
differently than traditional public partners, and whose processes may
be unfamiliar to the private sector

Differences in P3 strategy and implementation between concessions
controlled by strategic equity (e.g.,
construction/engineering/operating firms) and concessions controlled
by financial equity (e.g., investment funds).

Change of personnel on private and public sector side between parties
negotiating the P3 agreement and parties implementing it.  On the
public side, local offices of DOTs may or may not be given a role in
the early stages of projects that they will ultimately implement,
while on the private side, the negotiating team may bear little
resemblance to the team held responsible for carrying out the project.
Best practices exist to mitigate this situation. 

Impact of rating agency tightening of underwriting for toll revenue
(e.g., P90 requirement) on P3 financing

Buy-side analysis/perspective of P3 investors: source of funds,
timeframes for investing, competing interests

Labor Issues and P3s, including investment by ULICO in projects and
project labor agreements

Quantification of, and factors leading to, potential P3 efficiency vs.
the public sector.  Due to proprietary issues, it can be difficult to
document whether P3 concessionaires achieve the operating and other
cost efficiencies expected at agreement initiation.