1. Risk. Reinsurance. Human Resources.
Aon Risk Solutions
Aon Infrastructure Solutions
P3-POINT™
The Public-Private Partnerships Pursuit
and Opportunity in Infrastructure Tool
First Quarter 2016
3. Aon Risk Solutions 1
Executive Summary
Political risk continues to be a key issue facing
public-private partnership (P3) projects in the
United States of America. Public-private partnerships
are an innovative project delivery method
that utilizes private finance and private sector
discipline to design, construct and maintain public
infrastructure assets. In the U.S., P3 projects are
only possible if a state has the requisite enabling
legislation allowing such projects. In Canada,
legislation at the federal level (Canada Strategic
Infrastructure Act) enables P3s generally and several
provinces have legislation to authorize specific
agencies to regulate P3 procurement. However,
even if the requisite legislation is in place, private
investors and contractors face the risk that their
investment in pursuing a public infrastructure
project could be affected by changing political
preferences. In sum, political risk deeply influences
P3 project likelihood and success at a time when
the P3 model is increasingly being adopted by
governments to address the demand for improved,
new or better maintained infrastructure.
Aon’s P3 Pursuit and Opportunity in Infrastructure
Tool (P3-POINT™) is one of the only tools of its kind
that assesses the “readiness” and “friendliness”
of U.S. states and Canadian provinces for P3
procurements. Readiness is a measurement that
describes the procurement, regulatory, and policy
mechanisms that define a state’s or province’s ability
to procure P3 projects. Friendliness is a measurement
that describes states’ and provinces’ willingness
and drive to successfully procure P3 projects. Using
these two measurements, P3-POINT™ assesses the
impact of the regulatory environment and political
climate of U.S. states and Canadian provinces on
their ability to successfully procure P3 projects.
In developing P3-POINT™, Aon administered a
survey that was shared with more than 1,000 P3
industry leaders. Survey recipients were senior
decision-makers from major construction firms,
legal, technical and risk advisors, and infrastructure
investors. The survey asked for their views on
the multiple issues that impact the bidding
climate for P3s in the U.S. and Canada. Responses
were anonymous and were to show industry
perception around the key factors that make up
a jurisdiction’s “readiness” and “friendliness” for
P3s. The data also provided insight into the ways
that various factors should be weighted in P3-
POINT™, meaning that some factors were given
more weight in the model than other factors.
Aon then examined and scored each state and
province based on the factors. After tabulating the
scores, P3-POINT™ results illustrate the differences
between the regulatory, political, and procurement
climates for P3 projects in states and provinces.
Aon’s P3-POINT™ highlights those states and
provinces that are most likely to support a successful
P3 procurement. P3-POINT™ results can be used as
one of the tools that contractors and investors use
when determining whether or not to pursue a P3
project in a particular jurisdiction. The following
white paper discusses the methodology that
Aon utilizes to assess political facing P3 projects
and discusses the tool’s significant results and
observations as of the first quarter in 2016. The
report identifies those states and provinces
that, in our opinion, are the most certain (from
a political perspective) to have a successful
procurement process for P3 projects and those
states and provinces that are less certain to run a
successful procurement process for P3 projects.1
1 The information contained in this report is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of a particular individual or entity. The observations made in this report are
Aon’s opinion only. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information and use sources we consider reliable, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of
the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the
particular situation.
4. 2 P3-POINT Tool
Political Risk and
Public-Private Partnerships
Public-private partnerships (P3) have emerged as
an innovative tool available to states and provinces
needing to build or repair infrastructure. The P3
market has developed unevenly across the globe as
more governments pass legislation needed to adopt
the P3 model. In a mature market, such as in the
United Kingdom, one in four infrastructure projects
is procured through public-private partnerships.
In 2015, Canada procured 36% of its infrastructure
with the P3 model and the U.S. procured 1% of its
infrastructure using P3.2
In the U.S., we anticipate
11 projects to close in 2016 with a capital value of
USD$8.7 billion dollars. We anticipate that
21 projects will close in Canada in 2016, with a
total capital value of USD$12.8 billon – the highest
value of P3 projects to be completed in Canadian
history.3
While deal flow and project activity vary
widely, there continues to be an upward trend for
the P3 model’s usage by public sector parties.
However, the P3 marketplace suffers when
projects are delayed or cancelled. Contractors,
private investors, and other parties engaged in
the P3 procurement process expend significant
effort – both in terms of intellectual property
and monetary investment – when bidding for P3
projects. Private parties become more hesitant
to embark on a P3 pursuit in light of an elevated
risk of project delay or cancellation, leading
to a narrower competitive field from which
governments can access during the procurement
process. Delays and cancellations are often the
result of political risk – changes in the political
and regulatory environment. Aon’s P3 Pursuit and
Opportunity in Infrastructure Tool (P3-POINT™) aims
to help governments, contractors, and investors
better understand the political and regulatory
environment for P3, leading to more effective
implementation of this procurement method.
P3-POINT™
Methodology
In P3-POINT™, political risk is evaluated using two
measurements of the procurement environment:
“readiness” and “friendliness”. “Readiness” is a
measurement that describes the procurement,
regulatory, and policy mechanisms that define
a state’s or province’s ability to procure P3
projects. “Friendliness” is a measurement that
describes the public sector’s willingness and
drive to successfully procure P3 projects.
Within these measurements, we identified
a subset of 16 factors that capture the most
important aspects of procurement “readiness”
and political environment “friendliness.”
The table below lists the sub-factors for the
two primary measurements in the tool.
2 AIS analysis of capex data from IHS and Infra-Deals. February 2016
3 AIS analysis of project pipeline and anticipated capital spend. February 2016
5. Aon Risk Solutions 3
Readiness Factors Friendliness Factors
The state/province has established requisite legislation,
allowing it to procure projects as P3s.
The state/province has a political champion (governor)
who is a strong supporter and advocate for P3s.
The state/province has the ability to procure projects
as P3s in both the transportation and “social” (vertical)
infrastructure sectors.
There is no existence of a known, organized opposition
that actively opposes P3s projects in the state/province.
Municipal entities have legislative authority to procure
P3s without additional state approval or oversight.
The state/province has executed P3 projects successfully
in the past five years.
The state/province has founded and runs a dedicated P3
procurement entity to manage P3 procurements.
The state/province maintains a P3 project pipeline, or
established list of projects that the state/province would
like to procure as P3s.
The P3 legislation stipulates the rules and restrictions
related to tolling, including identifying the entities
responsible for rate setting.
The credit rating of the state/province is sufficient to
support successful P3 procurements.
The state/province’s P3 legislation permits for all
forms of the P3 model and specifies the procurement
timeframe and methods.
The procurement approval procedures do not provide
for a final approval from elected or appointed officials.
The state/province has established standard tendering
procedures for P3 projects.
The state/province does not have a high reliance on
federal funding for infrastructure projects.
The state/province provides unsuccessful bidders with
stipends to compensate them for their P3 pursuit costs.
The state/province is not in a current election year.
P3-POINT™ Industry Survey
In developing P3-POINT™, Aon surveyed more than
1,000 P3 industry leaders from major construction
firms, legal, technical and risk advisors, and
infrastructure investors. The survey, distributed in
the fourth quarter of 2015, asked for private sector
leaders’ views on the multiple issues that impact
the bidding climate for P3s in the U.S. and Canada.
Approximately 18% of those surveyed responded
and provided insight into the P3 procurement
process. Seventy-percent of those surveyed are
senior decision-makers from contracting firms;
the remainder of those surveyed is a mix of
investors and advisors active in the industry.
The survey was designed to capture industry
leaders’ opinions on influential factors that drive
P3 success in the U.S. and Canada. Respondents
were asked to indicate the sector in which their
firm works (with the option of selecting multiple
sectors). Sixty-eight percent of respondents work
in the civil transportation infrastructure sector,
57% work in vertical or social infrastructure, 52%
of respondents work in the water/waste sector,
and 27% of respondents work in other private
sector capacities (such as law or finance). Of those
that responded, 93% indicated that it was very
likely and likely that they would be pursuing a P3
project in the next 12 months. More than half
(64%) of respondents specified that pursuing
P3 procurements figured prominently into their
growth plans. More than 70% of respondents
work in the U.S., with the remainder of participants
deriving from Canada. The demographic make-up
of survey respondents show that the survey was
taken by those most active in the P3 industry and
conducting P3 pursuits in the U.S. and Canada
(those jurisdictions analyzed by P3-POINT™).
6. 4 P3-POINT Tool
Responses were recorded anonymously and then
aggregated to show industry perception around the
key factors that make up a jurisdiction’s “readiness”
and “friendliness” for P3s. The first question in the
survey asked participants to indicate the importance
of “readiness” or “friendliness” in impacting the
government’s ability to run a procurement process
for a P3 that results in financial close. Level of
importance was measured on a scale from 1-10 for
the participants to respond. The average scale score
was 8.3 for “readiness” and 7.8 for “friendliness”.
Next, we used a similar process to understand
the importance of individual factors that make up
the “readiness” and “friendliness” measurements.
Respondents were asked 16 questions that related to
both measurements and then asked to evaluate each
factor’s level of importance on a rank from one to
ten, one being the least important factor influencing
P3 procurement and 10 being the most important
factor influencing P3 procurement. We asked
participants to rank factors relative to each other and
prioritize tem. The average score for these questions
were then calculated for each of the factors.
The existence of legislation and the kinds of
projects allowed under such legislation under
the “readiness” measurement were ranked
highest by survey respondents. Under the
“friendliness” measurement, the government’s
(successful) experience with P3 and the
presence of a political champion were ranked
highly as factors that evidence whether a
state or province is “friendly” to P3s.
Respondents also provided additional insight
into the factors comprising “readiness” and
“friendliness”. One respondent wrote: “Is the
project critical to the government? Critical projects
help create political will and enable the public
to proceed through opposition, regardless of
delivery model (P3 or otherwise).” The significance
of the project in meeting community needs
was often cited as a contributing component
to likelihood of success in P3 procurement.
Respondents also reflected on the importance
of a political champion, or an elected official
willing to expend political capital in support
of P3 projects. A survey respondent noted that
“The project must have a champion and a hook.
The champion is the driver to break down the
political obstacles that could derail the project.
The hook is the need being met by the project
itself. There needs to be a real or perceived
need to drive these projects to completion.”
Additionally, another respondent commented
that “A political champion is critical, but they
must be championing P3 to achieve realistic goals
that are aligned with what P3 can actually deliver.
The rhetoric and understanding of key officials
is an important factor in determining whether
or not a jurisdiction is ready, willing and able to
procure a P3. It is also important to understand
the budgeting and appropriations processes in
a jurisdiction, especially for availability payment
based transactions. If those processes are not
aligned with the delivery method, then a successful
7. Aon Risk Solutions 5
procurement will be quite challenging.” Through
these comments, private industry leaders described
the connections between the myriad of factors that
make up the landscape for P3 project success.
We also asked participants to identify additional
factors that are important in the pursuit planning
process. The table below lists some of the responses
that participants offered. Several respondents
observed that matching their firms’ strengths and
capabilities with the P3 project at hand was another
important factor influencing P3 pursuit choices.
Out of the additional factors suggested by
respondents, there was no clear statistical consensus
on additional factors needed for the P3-POINT™
model. The table below shows some of the
additional factors posed by survey respondents.
Aggregate survey responses similarly showed
that no one factor gained a very low ranking, so
there was no unanimity on factors that should be
excluded from the model. Consequently, we built
a model around the two primary measurements
(“readiness” and “friendliness”) and sixteen
factors within those two measurements.
What other factors do you evaluate before pursuing a P3 project in a state or province?
(89 total answers)
“Community view of the project”
“Source of funds (how secure); Likelihood that [the project] award will go to a local group or other group with
strong political power”
“Project type, length, bidders, and site conditions”
“The competition pursuing projects in the state or province; the ability for the Governor or Premier to have a
veto of the project; whether the public in the province recognizes that the project satisfies a need; clarity of
procurement process and evaluation”
“Level of public support for P3 project itself”
“Multiple levels of government involved can complicate a project”
“Politics, politics, politics”
“The experience of all the stakeholders”
“Available government resources and time commitment”
“Duration of tendering process, previous set-backs to P3 projects”
“Government understanding of P3”
“Whether [the government] legally be the counterparty in a P3”
“Benchmark [Value for Money] VfM established and published upfront for private sector to beat”
“Available funding from the state or province”
“Cost of capital”
8. 6 P3-POINT Tool
P3-POINT™ Model and Scoring
At the heart of the P3-POINT™ tool is a weighted
sum model. This form of model provides a
sensitivity analysis that allows us to look at the
influence of multiple factors on the P3 procurement
environment. Additionally, a weighted sum model
recognizes that not every metric is measured
equally. For instance, the “readiness” measurement
received a 53% weight and “friendliness” received
a 47% weight; therefore, “readiness” is weighted
with slightly more importance than “friendliness”.
Using the average responses from the industry
survey, each measurement and factor are
ranked from most to least influential in a P3
procurement success. In other words, the
survey’s average responses were translated into
a percent weight for each factor. This weight
accordingly contributes to the importance
assigned to each factor in the model.
Within each “readiness” and “friendliness”
measurement, we scored states/provinces on each
factor using a standardized method on a 0 to 100
basis. Scoring states and provinces required a
detailed examination of relevant legislation and a
thorough study of environmental conditions, such
as researching governors’ voting records on P3.
Our proprietary P3 legislation database records
current statutes and tracks pending legislative
action related to P3. We used the legislation
database to conduct an in-depth analysis of
existing legislation relevant to P3. Ultimately,
the scoring of each factor in each state and
province – combined with the weight associated
with each factor in each state and province and
measurement – produces the P3-POINT™ results.
After tabulating the scores, P3-POINT™ produces
three scores: a “readiness” score, a “friendliness”
score, and an aggregate Score. The aggregate
score is the summation of the “readiness” score and
“friendliness” score and these two measurements
are also weighted according to survey results as
noted above. All scores are then placed within
equally distributed categories ranging from “Low
Risk” to “High Risk”. The three scores are intended
to illustrate the differences between the states
and provinces on the regulatory and legislative,
political, and procurement environments for P3s.
4 The information contained in this report are of a general nature and are not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide
accurate and timely information and use sources we consider reliable, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be
accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation.
9. Aon Risk Solutions 7
P3-POINT™
Results4
Aon’s P3-POINT™ identifies those states and
provinces that, in our opinion, are the most
certain for successful P3 procurements and those
states and provinces that are the least certain
for P3 projects. The map shown on page 11
shows states’ and provinces’ aggregate scores
(total “readiness” and “friendliness” scores).
The P3-POINT™ tool is dynamic – meaning that
the results will change as the political climate
adjusts. The results below describe political risk
facing P3 procurement as of February 12, 2016.
Colorado, Georgia, Texas and Maryland are the
states, in our opinion, most certain to conduct
successful P3 procurements. The legislation
underpinning P3 in these states is comprehensive
and detailed, offering greater security to bidders
about the transparency and efficacy of the
procurement process. Even in the face of overt
political risk – such as the election of a new governor
in Maryland – a strong foundation based on
comprehensive legislation and sound procurement
practices goes a long way in establishing a P3
procurement that should end in a successful
financial close. Other notable features include
Georgia’s recently passed legislation that broadens
its ability to build infrastructure with P3, which
outweighed the state’s previous cancellation of the
West by Northwest Road Project. All of these states
are either currently overseeing P3 procurements
and/or have successfully managed P3 projects.
Those that present the least certainty for
procurement success –such as Idaho, Montana,
Wyoming, Oklahoma, Kansas, Rhode Island
and New Mexico – are states without enabling
legislation in place and do not have a P3 project
track record to rely upon. Generally, rural states do
not have enabling legislation and receive a greater
share of federal dollars (relative to other states)
for civil transportation projects. In our research,
we found a statistical correlation between a low
reliance on federal funding and the likelihood that
the state has executed a P3 project in the past
five years. States that are not certain to produce
successful P3 procurements also do not have the
population growth and rapid urbanization that
often prompts state innovation in infrastructure.
There are a number of surprising results revealed
by applying P3-POINT™. New York, categorized
as a “Not Certain” state, saw the financial close of
the Goethals Bridge project. This procurement
was made possible because Port Authority of New
York New Jersey has the authority to pursue
such a project without further state authorization.
Additionally, New York/New Jersey has yet to
see successful close of the LaGuardia Terminal
Building P3 project in 2015. New York and New
Jersey face a number of challenges that make
it riskier to pursue P3 in the states, such as the
lack of enabling legislation, lack of a political
champion (New Jersey’s Governor Chris Christie
vetoed P3 legislation in 2015), and lack of a P3
pipeline outside of the projects pursued by the
Port Authority of New York New Jersey.
Some states’ categorization as “Less Certain” – such
as Illinois, Kentucky, and Nevada – reflects accurately
the high profile cancellations or delays of various P3
projects in those states (the Illiana Expressway, Brent
Spence Bridge, and Project NEON respectively).
“Less Certain” states and provinces may have lower
scores for other factors. For example, Kentucky’s
HB 443 bill did not advance beyond Senate
committee due to considerable opposition in the
state legislature in 2015. While Illinois’ Governor
Bruce Rauner has recently announced the intent
to use P3 for the I-55 Managed Lanes project, the
combination of other regulatory and environmental
issues continue to place Illinois in the “Less Certain”
categorization. “Less Certain” states often possess
obstacles to successful P3 procurement, but
these states may have a couple of key elements
that could make P3 possible in the state.
10. 8 P3-POINT Tool
Michigan also shares a “Less Certain” categorization
in P3-POINT™. Michigan successfully worked on
several construction projects delivered through
alternative delivery methods over the years.
Most notably, the state closed on the Michigan
Freeway Lighting project in 2015. The state DOT
possesses the ability to procure projects by
various means, but the state overall lacks P3-
specific enabling legislation. Without legislation
in place, the procurement process is difficult to
anticipate and leads to greater uncertainty.
Michigan is also an example of an environment
that exemplifies the political risk facing P3
projects. In 2016, the state of Michigan and the
government of Canada will embark on the Gordie
Howe International Bridge P3 procurement.
The procurement will be managed solely by the
Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority (WDBA), which
is a not-for-profit entity that is owned by the
Canadian government. While the border crossing
project is bi-national in nature, it is revealing that
the procurement is managed solely by a Canadian
entity. Considering Michigan’s undefined political
will and lack of P3-specific procurement processes,
one may wonder if these risks may pose obstacles
to the project. With a new Liberal government in
place in 2016, the outgoing chairman of WDBA
reflected on the risks facing the project, particularly
the “reliance on Michigan to acquire most of
the key properties on behalf of the WDBA and
the state’s long-term political commitment to
crossing agreements in the 30-year concession.5
Canada is generally seen as the crucible for P3
development in North America. With more than
20 years of experience and with the formation
of entities such as PPP Canada, Infrastructure
Ontario and Partnerships BC, the country has
churned out P3 projects time and again. It may
seem that the country is unified around P3
procurement, but P3-POINT™ indicates procurement
certainty varies between the provinces.
The major economic regions of Ontario, Alberta,
British Columbia and Quebec score have very
high “readiness” scores. These provinces have a
long and stable history of procuring P3 projects
and this is reflected in the “readiness” scores.
Other provinces such as, Newfoundland and
Labrador, Nova Scotia and Manitoba have not
established a separate P3 procurement agency to
manage their P3 project endeavors and are less
ready. In general, these three Canadian provinces
are more P3 “ready” than P3 “friendly” due to
well-formed P3 opposition, a lack of published
pipelines, and a lack of political champions.
Canada’s success delivering P3 projects has
not come without criticism. Between 2012 and
2015, Auditor Generals in Ontario, BC, Alberta,
Saskatchewan and New Brunswick released reports
critical of the P3 model and questioning whether
P3s deliver value for money. The AG reports led
to significant debate in various provinces, with
some provincial opposition parties calling for P3s
to be scrapped entirely. Additionally, there is vocal
union opposition against P3s across the country.
Canada’s P3 friendliness also suffers because of
uncertainty over future projects. Currently, only
three provinces (Ontario, Quebec and BC) have a
published pipeline of P3 projects. Lastly, outside
of Ontario and Quebec, there is no visible political
champion for P3s. In Alberta, for example, the newly
elected NDP government, who has traditionally
been opposed to P3s are now in power. This change
in political climate poses additional uncertainty
on the future of the P3 model in the province.
While not “deal killers”, these elements simply
make the provinces slightly less desirable than say,
Ontario, in terms of attractiveness to P3 bidders.
Several jurisdictions show promise for successful P3
project opportunities. As noted above, states with
the lowest threat of political risk have P3 experience.
California, Louisiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are
categorized as certain – but not most certain – for
5 “Gordie Howe Bridge P3 Risks Unsettled.” Public Works Financing. December 2015.
11. Aon Risk Solutions 9
P3 procurement a variety of reasons. Pennsylvania
oversaw the successful financial close for the
Pennsylvania Rapid Bridge Replacement Project in
2015; yet, the legislation in place in Pennsylvania
is not as inclusive as other forms of P3 legislation
across the United States. Louisiana, on the other
hand, has P3 regulations that are broader and
stipulate standard tendering procedures. The
state is relatively new to the P3 marketplace and
has introduced two new projects (Louisiana Parish
Wastewater Facility and LSU Nicholson Gateway
Project) in the past year, so its policies are yet
to be tested fully. The P3-POINT™ tool permits
viewers to look more closely at the procurement
environments for P3 and enables bidders make
more accurate decisions where they wish to invest.
The scatterplot chart below reveals more about
the relationship between the two primary
measurements and the meaning of the aggregate
score when translated into terms of certainty.
The indicators for each state are colored along a
scale to show the aggregate score (the weighted
combination of “readiness” and friendliness”
scores). The indicator for each state is also plotted
on an axis, which displays both the “readiness”
and “friendliness” scores. States that do not have
enabling legislation – such as New Hampshire
and New Mexico – are seen at the far left of
the chart. States with enabling legislation
and a broad set of procurement practices
are located on the far right of the chart.
We observed that most states earn a base level
of points within the “friendliness” measurement
despite a lack of P3 “readiness”. This is because some
of the factors in the “friendliness” measurement are
symptomatic of an overall “friendly” environment
to infrastructure investment. For instance, most
states and provinces have an investment grade
credit rating of BBB- and above. Most states scored
well in this area and an investment grade rating
is conducive to not only P3 development, but
also public infrastructure development overall.
This explains why some states earn a number of
points in this area. If P3 enabling legislation were in
place, the model would then position these states
as lower risk. Ultimately, the scatterplot shows
there is a clear relationship between “readiness”
and “friendliness”. States that are most likely to
pursue P3 have a “friendliness” score greater than
70 and a “readiness” score greater than 60.
12. 10 P3-POINT Tool
P3-POINT™: 2016 Scores for the United States as of First Quarter 2016
Color indicates aggregate score for “Readiness” and “Friendliness”
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Ontario
Quebec
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Manitoba
British Columbia
Prince Edward Island
Saskatchewan
Alberta
Newfoundland and
Labrador
Puerto Rico
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
FriendlinessScore
Readiness Score
More Certain 80 - 100
Certain 60 - 80
Less Certain 40 - 60
Not Certain 20 - 40
Not Certain 0 - 20
13. Aon Risk Solutions 11
P3-POINT™: 2016 Aggregate Scores for the United States as of First Quarter 2016
More Certain 80 - 100
Certain 60 - 80
Less Certain 40 - 60
Not Certain 20 - 40
Not Certain 0 - 20
P3-POINT™: 2016 Aggregate Scores for Canada as of First Quarter 2016
More Certain 80 - 100
Certain 60 - 80
Less Certain 40 - 60
Not Certain 20 - 40
Not Certain 0 - 20
14. 12 P3-POINT Tool
Conclusions
Aon’s Public-Private Partnerships Pursuit and
Opportunity in Infrastructure Tool (P3-POINT™)
can be used to direct attention toward U.S.
and Canadian jurisdictions that are likely to be
the most stable and promising locations for P3
infrastructure investment. The tool’s results help
P3 stakeholders better understand the overall
political and legal environment for P3 in each
state and province so that stakeholders can make
informed decisions as to where they wish to
invest their resources pursuing P3 projects.
P3-POINT™ is accessible to Aon clients as a benefit
of using the Aon Construction Risk Portal (CRP).
CRP has become an essential tool to help clients
and colleagues navigate and bring clarity to
the risks associated with conducting work in
specific jurisdictions. Subscribers can access the
scores of each state and province in CRP, along
with detailed information on P3 legislation and
the risk maps presented above in an interactive
format. Since P3-POINT™ is dynamic and adjusts
according to changes in the political and
regulatory environment, CRP will contain the most
updated maps displaying P3-POINT™’s results.
P3-POINT™ results can also assist contractors and
investors when determining whether or not to
pursue a P3 project in a particular jurisdiction.
Aon can produce more detailed reports that
explain the nuances of each factor, including
analysis of relevant statutes and original research
that comprise the findings of P3-POINT™.
Contractors and infrastructure investors will
find the P3-POINT™ a valuable tool as they
consider in which states and provinces to invest
time and resources in pursuing P3 projects.
P3-POINT™ offers a new way to look at P3 political
risk and goes beyond anecdotal P3 experience
by pinpointing the environmental factors most
likely to influence a P3 project. P3-POINT™
explains the relationship between a state/
province’s ability to procure P3 projects and
its willingness to do so. Using a weighted sum
model and detailed research, P3-POINT™ offers an
assessment of the P3 landscape that can empower
results for private bidders in the marketplace.
15. Contacts
Caitlin Ghoshal
Associate
Aon Infrastructure Solutions
+1.312.381.3055
caitlin.ghoshal@aon.com
Michael DeLio
Analyst
Aon Infrastructure Solutions
+ 1.312.381.3249
michael.delio@aon.com
Wahed Fidaali
Associate
Aon Infrastructure Solutions
+1.416.868.5518
wahed.fidaali@aon.ca
www.aon.com/risk-services/construction-services/infrastructure-solutions.jsp
