Addressing the UK’s Infrastructure Challenge
The UK faces a significant infrastructure investment gap, with an estimated requirement of £49 billion in funding (4% of the government’s total expenditure in 2023/24) required to address maintenance backlog. This however is dwarfed when considered in the context of the latest National Infrastructure and Construction Pipeline, which identified around £1 trillion of potential capital investment required over the coming decades. Current capital allocations are insufficient to meet this demand, prompting renewed discussion about the potential resurgence of Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) as a viable delivery mechanism.
The recent formation of the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority brings together the National Infrastructure Commission and Infrastructure Planning Authority. Its remit is to:
- develop and implement the Government’s next infrastructure strategy,
- unlock private investment in infrastructure and
- streamline planning to speed up the consenting process for major projects.
The UK Infrastructure Bank, now the National Wealth Fund (also publicly owned) signals the changing ambition of the government in this space, but will this prompt the creation of a pipeline of projects that has been talked about?
With the renewed interest in maximising the potential of private finance in public infrastructure, the lessons learned under previous PPP programmes are prompting the need to develop future models.
The evolution of PPP models must demonstrate the ability to address the shortcomings of previous schemes, particularly the challenge of monitoring quality to ensure long-term asset performance. We need a new and proactive approach to quality. Some momentum has been initiated with the Mutual Investment Model (MIM) schemes in Wales, where the Clerk of Works plays a much more fundamental role, but is this enough?
The Quality Challenge: Learning from Past Mistakes
A frequent challenge and dilemma for any renewed discussion around PPPs is the cost and reputational impact of addressing post-completion defects.
While these quality failures are not exclusive to PPP projects, they were often exacerbated by the sign-off processes and socioeconomic pressures in the delivery of such schemes to end users. This legacy is becoming more relevant as many PFI contracts approach transition back into the public estate. According to the Get It Right Initiative (GIRI), the UK built environment incurs between £10–£25 billion annually in unmeasured direct costs from avoidable errors representing up to 25% of project value. This is a stark indication of the need for systemic change.
However, we must acknowledge the context of many of the previous PFI schemes. For some, the requirement for new assets to be available for use for public services (sometimes with condensed construction programmes) created additional pressures. These new assets were often replacing older, poorly maintained health and educational facilities which were not always fit for purpose due to inherent backlog issues.
Created in the wake of the recession of the early 1990s, the early pathfinder schemes were initiated when many industries, including construction, were struggling to be viable, with some companies surviving on very low profit margins. It was common practice for an Independent Certifier (representing public and private stakeholders) to only routinely test and witness a minimal percentage of the asset. This enabled the assets to be available for the public sector to use; and completion triggered the Unitary Charge payments to the private sector to start servicing of the debt.
These pressures compromised the effectiveness of any quality assurance processes in place creating incentives to prioritise speed over quality.
At the time, digital tools were underdeveloped; documentation was not stored digitally, and Building Information Modelling (BIM) was in its infancy. Today, digital systems can provide verifiable records, reducing the need for intrusive inspections and enabling more robust scrutiny. Inaccuracies in these records can erode confidence and demand more comprehensive investigations, compounding costs.
Preventing Future Failures: A Three-Pronged Approach
To prevent history from repeating itself, we must adopt a new approach to quality and focus on a quality management system. This requires:
1. Cultural Change
Embedding a culture that prioritises quality from the outset with strong leadership and one that makes quality everyone’s responsibility. Teams must understand the value proposition: ‘do it once, do it right.’ Proactive quality management is less costly than reactive remediation. Leadership must drive this shift, with an emphasis on collaboration and shared responsibility, not relying solely on the Clerk of Works or other individuals as may have historically taken place.
2. A Quality Management Ecosystem
Quality must be integrated throughout the project lifecycle, beginning at the early RIBA stages right through to construction and handover and even during the operational phases of a building’s life. Early engagement of multidisciplinary teams including the Clerk of Works in design can ensure ‘buildability’ and long-term performance is properly considered at the outset, preventing reworks. Quality cannot be an afterthought introduced in the latter RIBA stages or once the contractor is appointed as has often been the case.
3. Effective Tools and Oversight
Finally, a robust system of tools and oversight can be used to support delivery of quality. A Clerk of Works should provide ongoing monitoring, identifying defects, ensuring workmanship meets standards, maintaining records, and representing client interests. An Independent Certifier must verify that design specifications, statutory standards, and client requirements are met at key milestones. The importance of digital tools such as BIM and digital twin models should not be underestimated. These models can be used for real-time monitoring, offering traceability and reducing reliance on intrusive verification works for public-facing assets providing real benefits to end users of services.
More consideration should also be given to a move away from a fearful expiry cliff edge, to focus on a ‘soft landings’ type approach as assets transition back to the public estate; whereby collaboration between the parties is a necessity to maintain service continuity for end users.
Evolving PPP Models: Toward a Quality-Focused Future
There are already examples of progress. Models like LIFT (Local Improvement Finance Trust) introduced public sector directors and Strategic Partnering Agreements (SPAs) to improve oversight. More recently, the MIM through WEPCo (Welsh Education Partnership Company) has placed greater emphasis on long-term asset performance, quality assurance, lifecycle maintenance, and net zero goals. These models incorporate independent oversight, focus on whole-life value, and recognise the importance of robust quality standards.
Recommendations for Future PPP Models
- Create a culture of quality through leadership and promote Best Practices by encouraging integrated teams—including Independent Certifiers, Clerks of Works, and Employer’s Agents—to work together from project inception.
- Create a Quality Management Eco system supported by Independent Quality Oversight from project inception and throughout the project lifecycle.
- Use Digital Verification Tools to implement digital solutions to monitor compliance, quality, and performance in real-time.
- Strengthen Contractual Quality Obligations by embedding quality management requirements in contracts across the entire asset lifecycle.
Conclusion: Prioritising Quality for Long-Term Value
Embedding quality is essential for the success of future UK infrastructure projects, especially if PPP schemes are to regain public trust. Policymakers, contractors, and financiers must shift focus from short-term cost savings to long-term asset integrity, recognising the true cost of poor quality. The opportunity is clear: by embedding quality from the outset, we can deliver infrastructure that stands the test of time.
Sources
NAO Maintaining Public Service Facilities (published 22 January 2025)
National Audit Office (NAO) Lessons Learned: Private Finance for Infrastructure (published 25 March 2025)
The Infrastructure and Projects Authority’s (IPA) National Infrastructure and Construction Pipeline, (published February 2024)
FURTHER INFORMATION:
