Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Flawed cost comparator biased against PFI, says RICS

News

THE GOVERNMENT is failing to maximise use of privately fi nced construction because comparisons with traditional procurement routes are flawed, surveyors warned this week.

They want the government to change the Public Sector mparator (PSC) which is used to determine whether public or private money should be used to fund projects.

'The PSC is the real handicap to the private finance initiative reaching its full potential, as it does not compare like with like, ' says the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) report.

'It currently focuses on the narrower benefi s and dis enefits of future project options and this is often done at a stage where it is not possible to take sufficient account of the wider factors around pursuing a PFI procurement programme'.

The RICS wants the government to recognise that private fi ance initiative (PFI) schemes often have a lower environmental impact than conventionally procured projects.

This is because the maintenance obligation of PFI concessionaires means they design low-maintenance projects. As a result emissions from construction vehicles are lower over the whole life of the project.

INFOPLUS To access the RICS report go to the infoplus section at www.nceplus. co. uk

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.