The Romanian A1 highway (Autostrada A1) is a partially built highway in Romania, planned to connect Bucharest (capital) with the western part of the country, and further with Hungary and Western Europe. The highway it will be approximately 581 km long and will follow the route: Pitesti, Sibiu, Orastie, Deva, Timisoara, Arad, connecting with Hungary's highway M43. The A1 highway it is part of the Pan-European Corridor IV. It is also the Priority Project 7 of the Trans-European Transport Networks and construction receives 85% funding from the European Union Cohesion Fund. As of November 2014, the sections in service include a 110-kilometer long highway linking Bucharest with Pitesti, the Sibiu – Deva segment (132 km), the Traian Vuia – Balinț segment (17.1 km), the Timisoara – Arad highway (54 km, in the western part of Romania) and the Pecica – Nădlac segment (28.5 km). The total length of the opened sections is 341 km, with another 91 km under construction. Currently, construction works are being performed between Deva and Nădlac. Several sections between Lugoj and Deva, comprising a total length of 71.8 km were tendered in 2013, and construction began in 2014, while for two segments (38.9 km) between Nădlac and Arad works have been finished only in 2015. Works are also finished on the remaining segment between Lugoj and Timișoara. Highway Pitești – Sibiu The highway section between Pitesti and Sibiu was scheduled to be tendered in the fourth quarter of 2012, but a new feasibility study will first have to be tendered for review. Total construction costs of the 116.6 km section of the highway, that would be crossing the Carpathian Mountains, partly along the Olt Valley, are estimated at 3.25 billion euro and were previously planned to be completed by 2020. This section has been subject to much controversy during 2013, when the Romanian Government declared the priority highway route for crossing the Carpathian Mountains will be the A3 highway (between Brasov and Comarnic) instead of the A1 highway (between Sibiu and Pitesti). According to the same plans, the A3 highway is planned to be connected to the A1 highway via another highway between Sibiu and Fagaras, thus creating a nearly complete highway corridor between Bucharest and Sibiu, whereas the section between Sibiu and Pitești is no longer a short-term priority.] It is considered that this is possibly to avoid a competing alternative route to the section of the A3 highway, which will be built via a concession contract. According to the government announcements in December 2013, this section of the highway is planned to be built however in the following years, between Pitești and Curate de Argeș, as part of a highway extension towards Râmnicu Valcea.

1.  Country of transition from North-West to
South-East of Europe.
 Only 530 km of Highway
 Takes 14 hours to reach Bucharest from the
western border with Hungary (650 km) and
16 hour up to the southern border with
Bulgaria (720 km)
 Most of the roads pass through the cities
 Frequent accidents
1

2. 2

3. P r e s e n t s i t u a t i o n
A c t u a l s i t u a t i o n
3

4. 4

5. 5

6.  Length 116 to 160 km;
 Last Feasibility Study 2008 (116 km);
 Tender for a new Feasibility Study (160km);
 Speed limit 120 km/h with possibility to increase
to 140 km/h;
 Cost of the Feasibility Study 10 million Euro
 Protect the environment;
 Connection with Rm. Valcea City.
 Possibility to extend with an additional line
after10 years
 To include two option of route.
6

7.  Romanian Legislation regarding the PPP
 In order to complement national legislative framework governing works and
service concessions (GEO no. 34/2006 regarding the award of public procurement
contracts, public works concession contracts and services concession) of Law no.
178/2010 public-private partnership. Also on December 13, 2010 was published
the Government Decision no. 1239/2010 approving the Methodological Norms for
applying Law no 178/2010 on Public-Private Partnership, and for approval of
reorganization measures Central Unit to coordinate public-private partnership of
the Ministry of Public Finance.
 Less than a year after the adoption, at the request of the European Commission
infringement acquis on public procurement, Law no. 178/2010 was modified by
Ordinance No. 39/2011 which, however, only partially solved the problems
encountered by European institutions.
Although it was long overdue international and domestic investors, this law
presents major shortcomings that make it virtually inapplicable in this moment:
Regulatory:
 The object of the law is unclear, there is a risk of confusion between the type of
public-private partnership contract provided by Law no. 178/2010 and works
concessions and services covered by GEO no. 34/20006;
 Low no. 178/2010 establish a new form of management of public goods
infringing art. 136 para. (4) of the Constitution;
7

8.  Prohibits public partner contribution in cash in violation of the
principle of free forms of financing specific public-private
partnership;
 The Project Company can be established only in the form of joint
stock companies.
 The provisions of GEO no. 34/2006 and its implementing rules
now allow the development of public-private partnerships in the
form of works and service concessions.
 Thus, by these measures, was chosen to replace the notion of
"public-private partnership" with those of "public works" and
"service concession" as a particular form of this concept, defined
more specifically in the acquis (Directive 17/2004 / EC 18/2004/
EC).
It should be noted that the Romanian legislation in the field of
concessions has been fully harmonized with EU legislation, so far
no significant conflicts between domestic and European rules
regarding the institution of law.
8

9.  At EU level, the PPP concept is governed by the following regulations:
 EU Directive 17/2004// EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March
2004 coordinating procedures for the award of contracts in the water, energy, transport
and postal services
 EU Directive 18/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March
2004 coordinating procedures for the award of public works, supply and services,
 EU Directive 665/89/EEC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
21<decembrie1989privind coordination of laws, regulations and administrative
provisions relating to the procedures on appeals against the award of public supply and
public works contracts;
 EU Directive 13/92/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the
procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and
telecommunications;
 EU Directive 2007/66 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11
December 2007 amending
 Council Directives 89/665 / EEC and 92/13 / EEC with regard to improving the
effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of procurement;
 EU Regulation (EC) no. 1564/2005 of 7 September 2005 establishing standard forms for
the publication of notices in the procedures for awarding public contracts in accordance
with Directives 2004/17 / EC and 2004/18 / EC of the European Parliament and the
Council.
9

10. Project Partners
 National Authority for Roads
10

11. Project Stakeholders:
 Ministry of Transport
 National Authority for Roads
 Local authorities
 Local communities
 Business associations
11

12. Best Practice Observed / Not O
 Capacity requirements necessary to conduct feasibility studies, risk
allocation, and financial modelling and rationale for PPP Units
 Using a PPP Unit to structure, promote, and monitor viable PPP projects,
institutionalize the procurement process, and serve as a communication
tool - See more at:
 Feasibility study requirements: economic, financial, social,
legal/regulatory, and technical criteria
 Creating a standardized process (checklist) for PPP project screening
 Developing a feasibility index and ranking opportunities for investment
decisions
 Analysis of risks and applicable allocation strategies to the most
suitable party
 Developing security packages (legal agreements) to mitigate project
risks
 Use of financial models to determine cost recovery and the level of tariff
12

13.  The role of insurance risk mitigation
 Illustrating the art of determining “value for money” and design a
“cost comparator” model to evaluate PPP options
 Analysing best practices in conducting financial, economic, and
technical feasibility studies
 Analysing case study experiences in structuring bankable PPP
deals
 Evaluating risk identification, mitigation, and allocation among
parties involved in a PPP project
 Engaging in a simulated PPP pre-feasibility analysis, a simulated
PPP transaction negotiation, or simulated PPP monitoring
exercise
 Developing an overall strategy for contract writing, management,
and negotiation Identifying key clauses required for technical
and financial contract specifications Developing contract/project
monitoring plans for better compliance
13

14. Recommendations:
 Clear and well prepared Feasibility Study,
 Good technical project
 Capacity to work under pressure and
capacity to adapt to situations
 Continue dialog with local and central
authorities
14

15. Thank you!
15