In determining if the
use of a public-private partnership is the most advantageous method of awarding
and administering a project, the head of the state authority, or a person
authorized in writing as his or her designee, shall undertake an analysis of
the proposed project using the criteria established in paragraphs (a) and (b)
of this subsection.
(a) Qualitative
considerations shall include:
1. The ability
of the state authority to allocate and control risks, cost sharing,
responsibilities, and rewards between the state authority and a private partner
in a way that ultimately benefits the state authority, the cabinet, and the
commonwealth;
2. The timeliness of
completion, efficiency of delivery, and cost effectiveness of a project via a
public-private partnership as compared with other project delivery
methods;
3. A determination that
the tangible and intangible benefits to be gained by using a public-private
partnership equals or exceeds the cost of developing and maintaining a
public-private partnership;
4. The
ability and expertise of the state authority to measure and monitor performance
and operational controls;
5. The
ability of the state authority to capture and use incentives, efficiencies, and
expertise derived from the involvement of a private partner;
6. If the project or other services are
likely to be developed or entered into in the absence of private sector
involvement;
7. If a means of
financing or innovative approach is likely to be available that is not
otherwise available with other project delivery methods;
8. If the project or other service promotes
and encourages the use of local labor and resources, as well as disadvantaged,
minority, or small business enterprises, consistent with 49 C.F.R. Part
26 ,
KRS
154.1-750,
600
KAR 4:010, and other applicable law, including
requiring a private partner who has been awarded a project for a public-private
partnership to establish a local office within the Commonwealth of
Kentucky;
9. If the public interest
is best served through the use of a public-private partnership;
10. The impact of the development structure
and financing plan on the long term level of project toll rates and the use of
any excess toll revenue;
11. The
urgency of need for the project or service by the state authority;
12. The allocation of risks and contingencies
between the state authority and the private partner;
13. If a public-private partnership is likely
to impact the ability to achieve investment grade credit ratings and
successfully raise construction funding;
14. An analysis of the impact on procuring
financing; and
15. If similar
public-private partnership projects have been undertaken successfully.
(b) Quantitative
criteria shall include:
1. Net present value
of the cost of the project over its entire useful life, including if
applicable:
a. Financing, design, and
construction costs;
b. Operation
and management costs;
c. If the
state authority is required to make payments to the private partner or receive
payments from the private partner; and
d. Maintenance costs;
2. Operating cash flows expected to provide a
return on investment to a private partner;
3. A detailed breakdown of all cash flow on
all payments and expenditures, including interest cost associated with
utilizing a public-private partnership; and
4. The anticipated value of the project
deliverables at the end of the term of the agreement if
any.