Direct Contractual Agreements
Photo Credit: Image by Freepik
On this page: Learn more about the Direct Contractual Agreements utilized by public sector entities to monetize brownfield infrastructure assets without losing outright ownership of the underlying assets. Read more below, or visit the Content Outline.
Direct contractual agreements are utilized by public sector entities to monetize brownfield infrastructure assets without losing outright ownership of the underlying assets. These arrangements include brownfield concession agreements, operations, and maintenance (O&M) concession agreements and / or long-term lease agreements. For direct contractual agreements, the revenue model for the concessionaire is based on user-pay model, for instance, tolls for road projects and passenger service charges for airports projects. It is important to note that the direct contractual agreements for asset monetization may also fall under the domain of public-private partnerships (PPPs) in some jurisdictions. The difference between direct contractual agreements for asset monetization and PPPs is elaborated in Appendix B. Brownfield concession agreements A brownfield concession is an arrangement that typically involves a private sector entity (concessionaire) to provide the public service for a specified period, against payment of an upfront concession fee to the public sector entity (concession authority). In such a transaction, the private sector is responsible for the full delivery of services, performance-based operations and maintenance, and future development or expansion of the infrastructure assets over an agreed period (concession period). Under this arrangement, the concessionaire is required to pay the concession authority an upfront concession fee, or a combination of upfront and periodic payments as determined under the concession agreement. The private sector concessionaire is conferred the right to charge fees to the users of the asset (such as toll charges for the use of toll-roads). Typically, revenue and demand risks lie with the private sector. The concession may present to the concessionaire the opportunity to further develop or expand the asset to enhance revenue generation capacity. In some instances, the concessionaire may be obligated to meet capacity requirements through development or expansion (for instance, in most airport concessions, the concessionaire is obligated to expand the airport’s capacity to meet forecast demand). Operations and maintenance (O&M) concession agreements Unlike brownfield concession agreements, in an O&M concession, there is no future developmental or expansion aspect for the asset under consideration, consequently reducing the development and financing risk for the private sector. Long-term lease agreements Under a long-term lease agreement, the private sector is conferred rights as a lessee of the site on which the infrastructure asset is located. The private sector, as lessee, is responsible for operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility and services. Depending on the nature of the asset, the private sector may be required to make capital improvements or expand the asset to increase capacity. It is important to note that in long-term lease agreements, the private sector is typically constrained in their use to a specific function or service. Concession agreements, on the other hand, confer contractual rights to undertake the operations of the infrastructure project. It does not confer any ownership or leasehold rights with respect to the land or assets. It is more typical where there is no long-term commercial development on the site required on the part of the concessionaire which required long term secured tenure for commercial developments. Example: Examples of direct contractual agreements for asset monetization Brownfield concession agreement Source: Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (https://morth.nic.in/standard-tot-documents) Operations and maintenance (O&M) agreements Source: LTA (https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltagov/en/who_we_are/our_work/public_transport_system/rail/new_rail_financing_framework.html) Long-term lease agreements Source: Investment Policy Hub, UNCTAD (Australia - Australia sold the Port of Melbourne lease to a consortium including foreign investors | Investment Policy Monitor | UNCTAD Investment Policy Hub) Asset monetization through direct contractual agreements present an alternative source of funding to governments in need of funds to develop greenfield infrastructure projects without the need to raise debt, while leveraging the following private sector efficiencies: In essence, under a direct contractual agreement, the public sector is able to transfer risks of operating and maintaining the asset to the private sector while achieving upfront monetization of the underlying asset. Table 4: Key risks managed and mitigated through direct contractual agreements Monetization process The process involved in a direct contractual agreement transaction is presented in the figure below. Figure 6: Activities in a direct contractual agreement model Stakeholders in direct contractual model of asset monetization The following table presents the stakeholders, including respective roles and responsibilities, under a direct contractual model of asset monetization. Table 5: Stakeholders in direct contractual agreements Monetization structure The following steps presents the monetization process for a direct contractual agreement model. Figure 7: Indicative structure of direct contractual agreements In a direct contractual agreement, the counterparty to the public entity is likely be a sector specific strategic investor, with a strong track record of delivering certain infrastructure asset classes. These investors possess the relevant expertise required to deliver services successfully and meet performance standards. The financial and institutional investors are less likely to be the direct counterparty in direct contractual agreements with the government as their interests are primarily driven by financial returns and their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. Table 6: Examples of strategic investors in direct contractual agreements Macro-economic considerations and legal environment Example: Examples of legal and regulatory frameworks for direct contractual agreements The World Bank Group: PPP Legal Resource Centre (LRC) Financial and market conditions Nature of assets Operational control and ownership Find examples for Direct Contractual Agreements - Case Studies.Description of Direct Contractual Agreements
Objectives of Direct Contractual Agreements
Risk Category Risk Management and Mitigation Inadequate performance The appointment of a competent operator through direct contractual agreements remediates any inadequacies in performance. Operations, maintenance, and Environmental & Social risk The appointment of competent operator and management through direct contractual agreements puts into place timely remedial steps, including passing of increased costs to end-users within the parameters of fee and charges setting regime. Demand and traffic risk The risk of demand or traffic being lower than forecast causing a shortfall in actual revenue against budgeted revenue is passed on to the operator through direct contractual agreements. The operator ensures that traffic survey and forecast are conducted by competent advisers during the bidding stage; the operator may also have the right to defer the timing of capacity-driven capital expenditure program, deployment of staff and re-calibration of level and intensity of operational functions to mitigate this risk. Financial risks (inflation, forex, financial close) The operator may employ efficient hedging strategies, including financing in local currencies, indexation in fee and charges, and good relationships with credible lenders and financiers. Strategic control/ hand back The concession will provide for a hand back provision, whereby the operator is required to return the asset (with specified conditions with regards to the asset) to the public sector after the end of concession period. This ensures that the asset, when handed back, continues to operate without disruption. Monetization Process and Structure of Direct Contractual Agreements

Stakeholders Roles and Responsibilities Public Sector Entity/ Infrastructure Asset Owner The government is the public infrastructure asset owner which enters into a contractual agreement (either through a concession or a lease) with the private sector in exchange for upfront concession fee or combination of upfront and regular payments. Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) / Concessionaire The SPV is responsible for the day-to-day operations and regular maintenance of the infrastructure asset and for E&S management. It is also responsible for collection of revenue and distribution of cash flows back to the investor. Investor Investors invest in the concession or the lease through the upfront payment; usually acting in concert as a consortium of investors. These parties form an SPV that will act as the government’s counterparty to the contractual agreement. Financiers / Lenders Financiers can be in the form of commercial lenders such as domestic or international banks providing project finance loans to the SPV. Service Users (of Infrastructure Asset) Service users of the infrastructure make user payments such as toll for using toll road or passenger service charge for airports. These user payments ultimately form the cash flows to be distributed back to the investor. Regulator The Regulator may be responsible for setting applicable tariffs, setting service standards, or ensuring fair and equitable access to the use of asset to third parties. 
Investor Class in Direct Contractual Agreements
Asset Classes (Sectors) Examples of Strategic Investors Roads Cube Highways, EcoRodovias, Atlas Alteria, Gavio Group Rail Ferrovial, Keolis, Ferrovie dello Stato (FS), Canadian Pacific Railway, Sheltam Corporation, Aurizon Airports Changi Airports International, VINCI Airports, Zurich Airports, Aéroports de Paris (ADP) Power and Utilities KEPCO, TEPCO, HEPCO, Athena Energy, Sembcorp, EDP Brasil, Spark Infrastructure Multi-sector Acciona, Adani Group, Mitsubishi Corporation, Marubeni Corporation, Palisade Investment Partners, Plenary John Laing GIC Required Setting for Direct Contractual Agreements
Key Features
Monetization Models Key Objectives Model Structure Key Stakeholders Investor Class Required Setting Consideration for choice of model Direct Contractual Agreements Private sector operational efficiency through service standards/ KPIs, risk sharing with private sector, up-front and/ or annual proceeds, knowledge transfer, flexibility in terms of ownership of asset, attracting upfront investment from private sector A long-term contract conferred on private sector to operate and maintain infrastructure with the right to charge user fees. The private sector typically finances the concession through debt and equity structure with project finance structure Government Contracting Agencies (public sector entities), Developers/ Operators (private sector entities), Financiers (lenders), End Users, Regulator (if any) Predominantly strategic investors (such as sector-specific developers, operators) Clear regulation/ law on concession, availability of local currency financing and risk mitigation instruments, strong historical precedence of concessions Suitable where asset ownership needs to be retained by the government, leveraging private sector efficiencies and transfer of revenue risk to the private sector Case studies
Subsections


This section has not been prepared with any specific transaction in mind and are meant to serve only as general guidance. It is therefore critical that the content will be reviewed and adapted for specific transactions.
This is a new section of the website and is currently in draft form. For feedback on the content of this section or to suggest additional links or materials, please contact the PPP Resource Center using the feedback form.