Once critical design decisions are taken around how a PDF is structured, how it is funded, and the nature of projects it will support, there remain a wide range of PDF operational issues that need to be considered. These include:
- Issues related to the staffing of PDFs;
- PDF roles in supporting PDF demand;
- PDF roles in advisor procurement; and
- PDF disclosure.
Although these issues may not need to be fully fleshed out prior to the decision to implement a PDF, they do merit consideration during the development of PDFs. In particular, the identification of specific operational challenges may drive certain design decisions or may otherwise serve to better prepare governments for PDF implementation.
This section provides an overview of how these operational issues impact PDFs and highlights considerations which may be relevant for PDF design. The issues discussed here are those most relevant for PDF development; however, this is not intended to suggest that they are the only operational challenges that PDFs may face. PDFs should consider the development of both multi-year strategic plans and annual business plans1 to support a clear understanding of activities and resource requirements.
Staffing Considerations
The design of a PDF strongly influences staffing requirements. Although the importance of PDF staffing to enable them to achieve their objectives2 is widely noted, variance in PDF design and functionality means that appropriate staffing levels are different from one PDF to another. Many of the factors that impact staffing needs have been discussed throughout this Primer. Those that are particularly relevant from a staffing perspective include:
- PDF size: As noted in Chapter 4.2, the size of a PDF, or more specifically the number of projects a PDF is expected to support, is a decision that is dependent on both the potential size of a PPP market as well as the role the PDF is expected to play in supporting PPP project development within that market. The number of projects a PDF will support is a key driver of its project preparation funding requirements. PDFs that support more projects will in turn require higher staffing levels to administer the larger project volume.
- Project readiness: Chapter 5.2 discusses the overall project preparation cycle and decisions related to the stage in the PPP project cycle when a project can access PDF support. This decision can impact demand for PDF support as well as the funding requirements of a PDF. It also directly impacts PDF staffing because PDFs that provide support further upstream in the PPP project cycle require more resources and implementing capacity.3
- PDF role and function: Although the core role of disbursing funding is similar across PDFs, the extent to which PDFs perform additional functions varies. PDFs take very different approaches to their engagement with, and the level of technical support provided to, implementing agencies, both in terms of the origination of applications for PDF support and in managing that support once awarded. As discussed below in Chapters 6.2 and 6.3, decisions on these issues will drive overall PDF activity, which will in turn necessitate more and higher capacity staff.
- PDF host: The number of staff required by a PDF also depends on its institutional model and, often, the relevant PPP framework. As described in Chapter 3.3, many PDFs are administered by PPP units, with staff often supporting PPP unit and PDF functions. Even where PDF functions are separately staffed, there is often overlap between a PDF’s role in supporting project preparation4 and typical PPP unit project support functions. The extent to which a PDF’s functions necessitate additional staff will depend on whether it can draw on PPP unit staff and the extent to which a PDF supports functions that are not already envisioned in the PPP framework or captured within the functions of the PPP unit.
Specialized skillsets are often required for the effective performance of PDF functions. Although a PDF’s precise staffing requirements will vary depending on its design, many PDFs will require technical experts that are well-versed in PPP policy and PPP frameworks, transaction requirements and contract structures, as well as capabilities related to the formulation and application of guidelines for engaging consultants and transaction advisors on behalf of Implementing Agencies.5These competencies are very similar to those required for PPP unit staff more generally. 6 In addition, PDFs will require administrative skills that are not PPP-specific or project preparation related. These competencies may also be found within the PDF host.
The requisite skills sets are, however, often difficult to find within many countries, 7 even where the PPP market is well established. 8 Similar capacity challenges are also noted with respect to a wide range of project preparation facilities. 9 These challenges may be more acute where the PDF or the general PPP market within a country is small, targeting relatively few projects per year, because it is difficult to ensure an appropriate breadth of expertise across a smaller staffing pool. 10 Although the administration of PDFs through PPP units may address this challenge to some extent, by better utilizing a single staffing pool, it does not necessarily solve the problem.
Where requisite skill sets can be found, it may be difficult to retain them. In Ghana and Kenya, for example, PPP units struggled to attract and retain the necessary staff, with long vacancies for some key leadership personnel or high turnover rates when staff was retained. Civil service pay rates are one reason attracting and retaining staff with relevant experience can be difficult.11 Public sector hiring or contracting requirements that are bureaucratic or overly burdensome may also create challenges for the retention of qualified staff. In these instances, the design of the PDF as a separate legal entity that can apply marketbased pay rates or adopt market hiring practices may merit consideration.
To address these challenges, PDFs often leverage external resources to supplement internal capacity. This can occur on a temporary or permanent basis:
- Temporary approaches may include seconding staff from private companies, development partners, or other government agencies.12 PDFs could also retain international experts to fulfill PDF roles when it is initially established, with these experts transitioning to a support or coaching role as internal capacity is built.13 As noted in Chapter 4.1, development partner expertise and funding can also be particularly useful in supporting national PDF capacity. In development partner operations that financed programmatic project preparation in Afghanistan, Ghana, Indonesia, Kenya, and Nigeria, World Bank Group (WBG) staff provided assistance reviewing procurement and transaction-related deliverables. Development partner support may also include funding for the hiring of local and/or international staff to support PDF administrative and/or technical functions.
- More permanent solutions for the integration of capacity from other entities in the PDF structure have included the involvement of local DFIs in the delivery of PDF functions, as discussed more fully in Chapter 4.3. The management of Mexico’s PDF has been entirely outsourced to BANOBRAS, the national development bank. In Indonesia, although the administration of the PDF on a fund level has been retained within the government, a local DFI, PT SMI, was used to manage advisors, as well as complement broader project development support provided by the PPP Unit.
PDFs should conduct business planning to evaluate their staffing requirements, identify strategies to address capacity gaps, and estimate likely staffing costs. Given the wide range of PDF staffing requirements and a lack of available data, benchmarking PDF costs is challenging. In many cases, PDF staffing costs are not easily separable from those of its host institution. Where information is available, it is often PDF-specific, based on the unique structure and design of a particular PDF. For example, the PPP Center in the Philippines has a separate unit for the management of its PDF, which has received annual operational funding of 0.35 percent of the PDMF’s committed capital. 14 However, the role of PDF staff is very narrow, with other staff within the PPP Center performing most project development tasks. In contrast, Indonesia's PT SMI, which performs much of the PDF’s project management functions and is involved more heavily in project development support, charges a mark-up on top of the project preparation expenditures to cover its staffing costs. This mark-up was estimated at 15 percent in business planning assumptions. Data from a range of project preparation facilities have noted general costs ranging from 6 percent to nearly 30 percent of fund commitments.15
Any commitment to establish a PDF should also include a continued commitment to support the cost of PDF staffing. As noted in Chapter 4.2, PDFs do not generally use funds allocated for project preparation for operational costs. As a result, whether provided through PPP units or on a stand-alone basis, PDFs will often require continued budget support in order to deliver on their mandates. This can create risks, given the long-term nature of the funding required, as the government’s commitment and/or ability to fund these costs may change over time.
| Key Takeaways |
|
Demand for PDF Support
Under most PPP frameworks, implementing agencies are responsible for project development and implementation, including all stages of project preparation. 16 PPP units typically provide support and/or oversight for the development of these projects, 17 but it is the implementing agency that must ultimately decide to explore the delivery of a project through a PPP modality. Consistent with the typical role of various PPP support instruments and institutions, PDF support is also provided on a voluntary basis.18 As a result, the demand for PDF funding is dictated by the general level of interest of implementing agencies in pursuing PPP projects, and more specifically, in leveraging PDF resources.
Demand for PDF support often fails to materialize as expected. Intuitively, the offer of funding to unlock the delivery of a PPP project sounds attractive. As noted in Chapter 2, increasing incentives to pursue PPP projects is a key motivation for the establishment of PDFs. However, some PDFs have noted that applications for PDF support have not materialized as initially expected. Although clear goals for the number of projects targeted for PDF supported are not often publicly available, development partner operations that finance programmatic project preparation do generally capture this information. Development partner operations in Afghanistan, Ghana, Mexico, Nigeria, and Viet Nam all had financing which was not disbursed due in part to a lack of demand for their services. This was often despite exercises carried out to identify a PPP pipeline focused on identifying first-mover projects. Although development partner operations may impose requirements on the project preparation process19 that contributed to the lack of demand, it is likely that a broader range of factors related to the general appetite for PPPs in a country or the PPP capacity of the implementing agency were also at play.
In order to ensure demand for a PDF, a government must first address the broader factors that are hindering implementation of PPPs. A key challenge for some PDFs is a lack of interest in PPPs.20 Implementing agency reluctance to consider PPPs in the face of a preference for conventionally procured and financed projects is common, particularly in countries without significant PPP experience. The hesitance to consider PPPs may be attributed to the additional oversight that is associated with the development, award, and implementation of PPP projects, as well as the perception that PPPs take longer to implement. Implementing agencies that are hesitant to implement PPPs will not request or require PDF funds. For example, in Ghana, failure to sustain high-level commitment to the PPP program led to poor uptake of the World Bank’s available financing for programmatic project preparation, despite infrastructure development in general remaining a government priority. The operation was seen as an obstacle, rather than a solution, to the preparation and execution of projects within a politically appropriate timeframe due to the rigid application of technical rules.21
A lack of capacity may hinder implementing agencies that are interested in pursuing PPPs from accessing a PDF. Applications for PDF funding may often fail to meet requirements for approval, either because of a lack of project readiness, or because a project is not well-suited for implementation as a PPP. As an example, the IIPSA, a European Union-supported blended finance facility which also supported project preparation, received 250 applications, but only 27 were eligible for support, largely due to the fact that most applications were for projects that were not developed beyond the concept stage.22 Although many implementing agencies possess sectoral expertise, it is often noted that determining whether a PPP approach is a genuine possibility requires specialist support. 23 As discussed in more depth in Chapter 3.2, this lack of capacity can create a paradox, where implementing agencies require external advisors to develop a PPP project concept, but a well-developed PPP project concept is necessary to avail PDF support. Ensuring the availability of necessary capacity and resources to support early-stage project identification and development is therefore crucial to avoid the perception that PPPs are overly complex or bureaucratic.
Implementing agencies may also be uninterested in PDFs due to concerns about PDF requirements. One concern is related to a potential loss of control over the project preparation process. Although implementing agencies are ultimately responsible for the project, the additional oversight that frequently comes along with PPP project preparation can be unattractive. 24 PDFs often impose additional requirements on the PPP project development process which can range from managing the advisor selection process to review and approval of PPP advisory work at all stages of the process. 25 In Indonesia, implementing agencies that have PPP experience prefer to use their own budgets to develop PPP projects in order to avoid PDF involvement. PDF eligibility requirements can also create challenges; the design of a development partner operation in Viet Nam resulted in any project needing to register in the medium-term investment framework, a burdensome process which many implementing agencies chose to avoid.
PDFs should adopt a demand-led approach by thinking of implementing agencies as clients and making their requirements a central concern.26 This suggests that stakeholder consultations are critical from the earliest stages of PDF design, to help ensure that the implications of design decisions on implementing agencies are taken into account. A key implementing agency complaint noted by PDF staff is the complexity of navigating various PPP-related processes, including PPP project cycle approvals as well as applying for government support such as PDFs or VGFs. 27 Coordination across PPP institutions to streamline these processes may support an improved implementing agency experience. Engagement with implementing agencies as clients does not end when the PDF is established, and some PDFs expend considerable resources to solicit demand for PDF support.
The issuance of PDF guidelines describing PDF eligibility criteria, the application process, and how PDF support can be used is a basic step which can build awareness of the PDF. The preparation of PDF guidelines is considered a key responsibility of PDF governance committees and is more generally noted as being critical for supporting transparency and effectiveness in PDF operations.28 In addition to being tools to ensure equity in PDF operations, guidelines also serve to help implementing agencies understand what to expect when engaging with the PDF, and adherence to these guidelines can help to build institutional trust. Guidelines for implementing agencies have been issued by a number of the PDFs reviewed for this Primer, including the India’s IIPDF, Kenya’s PDF Window, Mexico’s FONADIN, the Philippines’ PDMF, and South Africa’s PDF. Although the content and depth of these guidelines vary considerably, the guidelines tend to cover: scope and eligibility; institutional roles; approval process; consultant selection; and information on the PDF funding model and cost recovery. Some guidelines also include templates such as PDF application forms, model PDF funding agreements, and model advisor terms of reference.
PDFs may also engage more directly with implementing agencies through capacity building activities or upstream project development work. These activities, shown in the figure below, help to build relationships between implementing agencies and PDF staff, and they may be particularly relevant where the concept of PPPs is not yet well understood by implementing agencies. However, some of these activities may overlap with PPP unit responsibilities, and PDF design should seek to avoid duplication of effort.
Figure 13: PDF Engagement with Implementing Agencies
PDF Application Support | Project Identification | Capacity Building |
|
|
|
Engagement with implementing agencies should continue to be important for PDFs as PPP programs grow and the needs of beneficiaries targeted by PDFs evolve. More established PDFs have noted the changing needs they face in attracting users. India’s IIPDF has found that implementing agencies with more PPP experience have now mainstreamed PPP project preparation into their annual budget requests and no longer require PDF support. The Philippines’ PDMF has indicated that although implementing agencies with PPP experience continue to use the PDMF, the PDMF wants to encourage the entry of less experienced implementing agencies into the PPP space. For example, sub-national implementing agencies have not often used the PDMF, with only three of its 45 projects sponsored by local governments. 29 Recognizing the additional challenges that sub-nationals may have in developing PPP projects, the PDMF has institutionalized a Local PDMF Committee whose role is to evaluate and approve PDMF applications submitted by local implementing agencies.
In addition to targeting implementing agencies with less PPP experience, some PDFs have also broadened their scope. For example, the Philippines’ PDMF added the ability for implementing agencies to avail support during project implementation based on the needs of users. Mexico’s FONADIN has followed a different approach through adding new sectoral focus areas. This began with adopting a program to support public transportation projects, which has been followed by programs to develop greater activity in the water and waste sectors. Other PDFs have considered changing their engagement approach. For example, in Pakistan, recommendations included engaging directly with the Ministry of Planning to broaden the implementing agencies which sponsor PPPs. 30
Key Takeaways |
|
PPP Advisor Procurement
PPP project preparation requires the support of PPP advisory services to develop the detailed definition of a PPP project and associated legal documents, including tender documentation and contracts, which capture that project definition and seek to obtain the best value for its achievement. However, the management of PPP advisors poses significant challenges, given the specialized skills and experience required to assess work product quality.31 The procurement of PPP advisory services has also proven difficult. In addition to the challenges posed by public procurement rules discussed in Chapter 2.1, the procurement of PPP advisors has frequently been inefficient. Procurements in Afghanistan, Ghana, and Kenya were noted as taking longer than 12 months in many cases. These challenges are sufficiently prevalent that specific guidance has been developed to support governments to hire and manage PPP advisors.32
Many PDFs recognize the need to provide support to retain and manage advisors to improve the quality and efficiency of project preparation. Where PPP units do not have a role in advisor selection and management, PDFs are seen to play a critical role in maintaining consistent and appropriate quality standards that support both PPP projects as well as the development of the local PPP advisory market.33 The support provided by PDFs often includes guidelines for engaging consultants, experts and transaction advisors supported by funds from the PDF, 34 which can help to ensure the procurement of high quality advisors in a more systematic manner. However, many PDFs go considerably further than the issuance of guidance documentation.
Figure 14: PDF Procurement Roles [insert chart]
Many PDFs participate directly in individual advisor procurement processes, particularly where procurement is seen as a challenge for the PPP program. A common model includes heavy involvement of the PDF in consultant procurement and management. Under this model, the PDF is responsible for the recruitment and payment of external advisors, approval of the final advisory contract, and approval of deliverables before payment.35 This model is seen in Indonesia and the Philippines, although the specific approach varies. In Indonesia, the PDF has outsourced the advisor selection process to a local DFI and advisor management is then a shared responsibility between the local DFI and the implementing agency, which is detailed in a tripartite agreement between the DFI, the implementing agency and the advisor.
Philippines’ PDMF: Role in Advisor Selection and Management
The Philippines’ PDMF requires the PPP Center, which houses the PDF, to play an active role in the retention and management of PPP advisors. Specific responsibilities include:
- Establishment of advisory panels: the PDMF prequalifies three panels of consultants covering different activities that the PDMF supports.
- Special Bids Award Committee: This is a three-member committee tasked with selecting advisors from the panel on a competitive basis for specific projects. The committee has two representatives from the PPP Center.
- Project Study Committee: This is a three-member committee tasked with evaluating advisors’ deliverables and ensuring quality outputs. The committee has two representatives from the PPP Center.
Other PDFs take a more limited role. For example, India’s IIPDF established a shortlisted panel of prequalified consultants which implementing agencies could use to expedite the procurement process. India also encourages the use of competitive tendering more generally by supporting a larger share of advisory costs if the transaction advisor is competitively procured; however, the ultimate selection of consultants is entirely at the discretion of the implementing agency, which is also responsible for advisor management. Mexico’s FONADIN varies the support it provides to advisor procurement depending on implementing agency capacity; however, in all cases it retains approval rights where advisors are not selected through an open competitive procurement process. However, both India and Mexico are federal systems, and their more limited role may reflect greater decentralization of project development. In unitary states, there are also examples where the PDF is not involved in consultant selection and management. For example, Kenya’s PPP Window has no role in advisor selection, because this is managed by the PPP Unit, 36 which serves in a quality assurance role, on behalf of the implementing agency. Empanelment of advisors is often a key tool used by PDFs to expedite the procurement process and help to ensure the quality of advisory support.37
Empanelment of advisors is generally a two-stage competitive selection process, where the first stage is used to prequalify and retain a panel of consulting firms, generally under an indefinite delivery contract (IDC) facility using a quality-based selection (QBS) method.38 The second stage is the selection of a particular consulting firm from the panel for PPP advisory services for a specific project. The need to conduct only the second stage of procurement for individual projects reduces the procurement time, which is attractive to implementing agencies. For example, in the Philippines, high demand for PDMF services has been attributed to the fast consultant selection process.39 Where empanelment is used, the PDF manages the empanelment process, and may or may not be involved in the second stage of the selection process. In addition to helping to ensure experienced advisory firms are engaged for PPP project preparation, the use of longer-term IDC contracts can better align the interests of PPP advisors and the PDF, because advisory firms that want to be retained for future projects will have greater incentives to focus on the client’s longer-term interests.
The use of empanelment of advisors alone, however, is not sufficient to ensure that high quality advisory support is delivered without active management. Continuous monitoring of advisory outputs and evaluation of the panel firms’ suitability for the project being prepared by the PDF remains critical. In the Philippines, an initial panel of advisory firms was established by the PDMF in 2011 and expanded in 2012. Despite the participation of 15 highly qualified firms, the PDMF noted a number of challenges related to the quality of outputs, active participation of panel members, and sectoral coverage. It undertook a restructuring of its panel in 2014 to try to address these issues, which involved dissolving the existing panel and conducting a new prequalification process, which changed how firms with different expertise were allowed to associate. Indonesia’s PDF has also found that merely hiring large, international consulting firms has not delivered the quality that was expected and that the empanelment process needs to be more thorough. Although the empanelment process in Indonesia was initially managed entirely by PT SMI, Ministry of Finance (MoF) staff are increasingly involved in this process.
Active management by the PDF may also be useful to support efficient and effective consumption of PPP advisory support by implementing agencies. The Philippines’ PDMF has actively worked with implementing agencies to help support the transition to working with international PPP advisors. This involved managing expectations regarding the nature of the advisory contracts—for example, carefully managing requirements for in-person meetings in order to not overrun caps on levels of effort for key experts. In addition, this has supported a transition to seeing advisors as a key part of a broader project team, where implementing agencies also have key responsibilities, including the provision of critical inputs.
Key Takeaways |
|
Disclosure
Public disclosure of PDF performance is not yet common. Transparency in the operation of a PDF is commonly highlighted as being important, given that PDFs are intended to establish precedents for the proper preparation of PPP projects.40 However, of the PDFs reviewed for this Primer, there is little reference to requirements related to reporting and monitoring, with the exception of Kenya and South Africa.
Information that is made available is often limited to the projects that have received PDF support. In the Philippines and South Africa, project data have been provided annually and include the funding that has been allocated to specific projects. Mexico’s FONADIN maintains a comprehensive list of the projects it has supported on its website, which includes the project name, a brief description, project cost data, and total FONADIN funding. Although Kenya’s PFF Regulations require the PDF Window to publish annually at least the funds received and the number of projects supported,41 such reports do not appear to have been made available to date.
Greater transparency around PDF activity and results would contribute to a richer understanding of PDF effectiveness and performance. Although limited information on performance is publicly available, basic reporting on PDF financial activity is likely carried out to comply with relevant financial management regulations. In some cases, more detailed information may be available. For example, the South African PPP Unit contracted a financial management company to create an environment that promotes accountability and ensures that financial resources are used in an efficient, effective, economical, and appropriate way.42 In addition, there is little information that can be easily accessed to determine the extent to which PDFs have supported successful PPP projects. The Philippines PPP Center’s annual report references the extent to which PDMF-supported projects have closed in a year, one of the few public references identified. As discussed in Chapter 4.1, many PDFs rely on continued budget contributions to fund project preparation activities as well as pay for PDF administration. More transparent reporting could help to demonstrate the value of continued public funding allocations or otherwise support improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of PDF operations.
Key Takeaways |
|
Footnote 1: ADB. 2016. A Project Development Fund for Mongolia’s Public-Private Partnerships.
Footnote 2: GIH. 2019. Leading Practices in Governmental Processes Facilitating Infrastructure Project Preparation.
Footnote 3: ICA. 2012. Assessment of Project Preparation Facilities for Africa.
Footnote 4: ADB. 2016. A Project Development Fund for Mongolia’s Public-Private Partnerships.
Footnote 5: GIH. 2019. Leading Practices in Governmental Processes Facilitating Infrastructure Project Preparation.
Footnote 6: Jooste, S., R. Levitt, and W. Richard Scott. 2009. Capacity, Legitimacy, and Interest: Toward a Framework for PPP Framework Success.
Footnote 7: Jooste, S., R. Levitt, and W. Richard Scott. 2009. Capacity, Legitimacy, and Interest: Toward a Framework for PPP Framework Success.
Footnote 8: United Kingdom (UK) National Audit Office. 2011. Lessons from PFI and Other Projects.
Footnote 9: WEF. 2015. A Principled Approach to Infrastructure Project Preparation Facilities.
Footnote 10: Fioravanti, R., C. Lembo, and A. Deep. 2019. Filling the Infrastructure Investment Gap: The Role of Project Preparation Facilities: An Overview of MDBs and the Inter-American Development Bank Approach. IADB.
Footnote 11: ADB. 2016. A Project Development Fund for Mongolia’s Public-Private Partnerships.
Footnote 12: WEF. 2015. A Principled Approach to Infrastructure Project Preparation Facilities.
Footnote 13: ADB. 2016. A Project Development Fund for Mongolia’s Public-Private Partnerships.
Footnote 14: Government of the Philippines. 2023. PPP Center Budget Allocation Report.
Footnote 15: ICA. 2012. Assessment of Project Preparation Facilities for Africa.
Footnote 16: WBG. 2018. Benchmarking Infrastructure Development PPP Dataset.
Footnote 17: UNECE. 2008. Guidebook on Promoting Good Governance in Public-Private Partnerships.
Footnote 18: GIH. 2019. Leading Practices in Governmental Processes Facilitating Infrastructure Project Preparation.
Footnote 19: See Chapter 4.1 for further detail.
Footnote 20: GIH. 2019. Leading Practices in Governmental Processes Facilitating Infrastructure Project Preparation.
Footnote 21: WBG. 2018. Ghana PPP Project Implementation Completion Report.
Footnote 22: WBG. 2020. Global Review of Public Infrastructure Funds.
Footnote 23: GIH. 2019. Leading Practices in Governmental Processes Facilitating Infrastructure Project Preparation.
Footnote 24: WBG. 2021. “Building Stronger Institutions to Deliver Better PPPs (P173186) Issues Paper: Identifying Critical Factors for Success and Challenges of Implementing a PPP Program.” Unpublished.
Footnote 25: See Chapter 6.3 for more detail.
Footnote 26: ADB. 2016. A Project Development Fund for Mongolia’s Public-Private Partnerships.
Footnote 27: WBG. 2018. Ghana PPP Project Implementation Completion Report.
Footnote 28: GIH. 2019. Leading Practices in Governmental Processes Facilitating Infrastructure Project Preparation.
Footnote 29: As of September 2022.
Footnote 30: WBG. 2010. Review of Pakistan’s Infrastructure Project Development Facility.
Footnote 31: ADB. 2016. A Project Development Fund for Mongolia’s Public-Private Partnerships.
Footnote 32: PPIAF/WBG (Public-Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility/World Bank Group). 2001. A Guide for Hiring and Managing Advisors for Private Participation in Infrastructure.
Footnote 33: ADB. 2016. A Project Development Fund for Mongolia’s Public-Private Partnerships.
Footnote 34: ADB. 2016. A Project Development Fund for Mongolia’s Public-Private Partnerships.
Footnote 35: ADB. 2016. A Project Development Fund for Mongolia’s Public-Private Partnerships.
Footnote 36: Note that Kenya’s PPP Unit also plays this role for PPP projects which are not supported by the PDF.
Footnote 37: ADB. 2016. A Project Development Fund for Mongolia’s Public-Private Partnerships.
Footnote 38: GIH. 2019. Leading Practices in Governmental Processes Facilitating Infrastructure Project Preparation.
Footnote 39: Philippines PPP Center. 2013. PPP Talk Volume 2, No. 3.
Footnote 40: G20 Working Group. 2014. Assessment of the Effectiveness of Project Preparation Facilities in Asia; and ADB. 2016. A Project Development Fund for Mongolia’s Public-Private Partnerships.
Footnote 41: Government of Kenya. 2017. PFF Regulations.
Footnote 42: Government of South Africa. 2004. PPP Manual Module 3: PPP Inception.