About Project Finance

INTRODUCTION TO PROJECT FINANCE

Origin

Private Investment in major infrastructure projects is not unusual. Prior to World War I, railways, roads, bridges, power plants, ports, water works and gas-distribution systems were being built all over the world by private entrepreneurs. These projects were financed largely by private capital, provided by entrepreneurs willing to risk all in return for high rewards. Fortunes were made and lost.

During the 19th Century ambitious projects such as the Suez Canal and the Trans-Siberian Railway were constructed, financed and owned by private companies. However, the private-sector entrepreneur disappeared after World War I and as colonial powers lost control, new governments financed infrastructure projects through public-sector borrowing. The state and public-utility organisations became the main clients in the commissioning of public works, which were then paid for out of general taxation.

During this post-World War I period in Europe, states invested in the reconstruction of war-damaged infrastructure and new nationalised industries. After World War II most infrastructure projects in industrialised countries were built under the supervision of the state and were funded from their respective budgetary resources of sovereign borrowings.

This traditional approach of government in identifying needs, setting policy and procuring infrastructure was by and large followed by developing countries, with the public finance being supported by bond instruments or direct sovereign loans by such organisations as the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

Development in the early 1980s

The convergence of a number of factors by the early 1980s led to the search for alternative ways to develop and finance infrastructure projects around the world. These factors include:

• Continued population and economic growth meant that the need for additional infrastructure ñ roads, power plants, water-treatment plants ñ continued to grow;

• The debt crisis meant that many countries had less borrowing capacity and fewer budgetary resources to finance badly needed projects; the debt burden required them to adopt an austere approach when planning fiscal spending, compelling them to look to the private sector for investors for projects which in the past would have been constructed and operated in the public sector;

• Major international contracting firms which in the mid-1970s had been kept busy, particularly in the oil-rich Middle East, were, by the early 1980s, facing a significant downturn in business and looking for creative ways to promote additional projects;

• Competition for global markets among major equipment suppliers and operators (particularly in the power and transportation industries) led them to become promoters of projects to enable them to sell their products or services;

• Outright privatisation was not acceptable in some countries or appropriate in some sectors for political or strategic reasons and governments were reluctant to relinquish total control of what may be regarded as state assets.

During the 1980s, as a number of governments, as well as international lending institutions, became increasingly interested in promoting the development of the private sector, a consensus developed. It supported tapping in the energy and initiative of the private sector, and the discipline imposed by its profit motive, to enhance the efficiency and productivity of what had previously been considered public-sector services.

It is now increasingly recognised that the private sector can play a dynamic role in accelerating growth and development. Many countries are encouraging direct private-sector involvement and making strong efforts to attract new money through new project financing techniques.

Such encouragement is not borne solely out of the need for additional financing, but it has been recognised that private-sector involvement can bring with it the ability to implement projects in a shorter time, the expectation of more efficient operation, better management and higher technical capability and, in some cases, the introduction of an element of competition into monopolistic structures.

Project Finance is being introduced in both developed and developing countries as an alternative way to finance infrastructure and industrial projects, both small and large. The concept is being used in transportation (tolled roads, tolled estuarial crossings and railways); energy (private power stations, waste-to-energy plants and gas-distribution pipelines); sewage and water-treatment plants; health care (construction and operation of new hospital buildings and clinical waste disposal plants); education (provision of student accommodation and facilities for universities, colleges and schools); and provision of government offices.

 

The Development of BOOT

Concessions

The search for a new way to promote and finance infrastructure projects led to the introduction of a technique, originally used in the 19th and 20th centuries, known as concessions. Concessions were widely used in many parts of the world to develop infrastructure. The Suez Canal is one of many examples of a privately financed concession and this method was also used to build canals, railroads, tramways, water works, electric utilities and similar projects in both industrialised and less-developed countries.

The BOOT formula adds to the old system of concessions, providing new possibilities for reducing or eliminating the direct financial burden which governments would otherwise bear. The objective is to transfer as much borrowing risk as possible to the private-sector promoter and the project itself. Therefore the BOOT promoter must finance the project. (The promoter typically does this by obtaining financing from groups of commercial banks, other financial institutions, export credit agencies and multilateral finance agencies.) Financing is made available on the strength of the projectís projected revenue stream and its other assets, including the promoterís equity. Normally the lenders would have limited or no resources to the promoter or shareholder of the promoting company.

 

Project Finance

This financing technique, generally known as project finance, was perfected in the 1970s for major private-sector projects, mainly in the area of oil and gas exploration and extraction, but has been extended widely since then. Project finance techniques are now applied across the world to numerous privately promoted infrastructure projects including power stations, gas pipelines, waste-disposal plants, waste-to-energy plants, telecommunication facilities, bridges, tunnels, toll roads, railway networks, city-centre tram links and now the building of hospitals, education facilities, government accommodation and tourist facilities Financial markets have become increasingly sophisticated in ëengineeringí financing packages to finance almost any type of reasonably predictable revenue stream.

Over the last two decades major international contracting firms, individual entrepreneurs and a number of developing countries have begun to promote infrastructure projects on a BOOT basis. Projects are financed on a limited-resource basis and built operated under a concession from the state or similar public body as a private venture. At the end of the concession the project is transferred back to the state or public body.

 

What is BOOT?

One method used to involve the private sector in large-scale infrastructure investments is where the private sector is granted a concession from the state to build, finance, own and operate a facility and after the time specified in the concession period is obliged to hand it back to the state. This concept is variously described as BOT, BOOT, BOO, BRT, BLT, BT and BTO, depending on the terms of the agreement.

The acronym BOT stands for build, own and transfer or build, operate and transfer (these terms are often used interchangeably). The owning is an essential element since the main attraction to host governments is that the promoters equity stake underwrites its commitment to a project's success.

Other variants include BOOT (build, own, operate and transfer) and BOO (build, own, operate). In BOO projects the promoter finances, designs, constructs, and operates a facility over a given period but it does not revert to the government as it would using the BOOT strategy.

Further extensions of the concept are BRT or BLT (build, rent/lease and transfer) or simply BT (build and transfer immediately, but possibly subject to instalment payments of the purchase price).

Another approach, BTO (build, transfer and operate), has become increasingly popular in the Far East and is particularly preferred by power and telecommunications authorities. It is a simpler transaction or concept than BOT and BOOT that can be implemented in a shorter time without the need for the formation of a project company and with the project assets being owned by the public sector.

 

The Components of BOOT

B for build

This is probably the easiest part of the acronym to understand. The concession will grant the promoter the right to design, construct and finance the project. A construction contract will be required between the promoter and a contractor. The contract is often among the most difficult to negotiate in a BOOT project because of the conflict that increasingly arises between the promoter, the contractor responsible for building the facility and those financing its construction.

Banks and other providers of funds will want to be sure that the commercial terms of the construction contract are reasonable and that the construction risk is placed as far as possible on the contractors. The contractor undertakes responsibility for constructing the asset and is expected to build the project on time, within budget and according to a clear specification and to warrant that the asset will perform its design function. Typically this is done by way of a lump-sum turnkey contract.

 

O for own

The concession from the state provides for the concessionaire to own, or at least possess, the asset that are to be built and to operate them for a period of time: the life of the concession. The concession agreement between the state and the concessionaire will define the extent to which ownership, and its associated attributes of possession and control, of the assets lies with the concessionaire.

 

O for Operate

An operator is to assume responsibility for maintaining the facilityís assets and operating them on a basis that maximises profit or minimises cost on behalf of the concessionaire and, like the contractor undertaking construction of the project, the operator may provide funds to finance construction and be a shareholder in the project company. The operator is often an independent company appointed under an armís-length agreement. However, in some cases the promoter operates the facility directly through the promoter company.

 

T for Transfers

This relates to a change in ownership of the assets which occurs at the end of the concession period, when the concession assets revert to the government grantor. Transfer may be at book value or no value and may occur earlier in the event of failure of the concessionaire.

 

Stages of a BOOT project

 

Build

• Design
• Manage project implementation
• Carry out procurement
• Finance
• Construct

 

Own

• Hold interest under concession

 

Operates

• Manage and operate facility
• Carry out maintenance
• Deliver products/service
• Receive payment for product/service

 

Transfer

• Hand over project in operating condition at end of concession period

 

The development of PPP

The concept of a PPP (Public Private Partnership) has been adopted by various governments in recent years. Instead of the public-sector procuring a capital asset and providing a public service, the private sector create the asset through a single stand alone business (financed and operated by the private sector) and then deliver a service to the public sector client, in return for payment linked to the service levels provided.

There are three main categories of PPPs

• The introduction of the private sector ownership into state-owned businesses, using the full range of possible structures (whether by flotation or the introduction of a strategic partner) with sales of either a majority or a minority stake;
• Arrangements where the public sector contracts to purchase quality services on a long-term basis so as to take advantage of private sector management skills incentivised by having private finance at risk. This includes concessions and franchises, where a private sector partner takes on the responsibility for providing a public service including maintaining, enhancing or constructing the necessary infrastructure. The UK PFI (Private Finance Initiative) falls within this category; and
• Selling government services into wider markets and other partnership arrangements where private sector expertise and finance are vital to exploit the commercial potential of government assets.

Generally, governments key objectives when commissioning a PPP are:

• To maximise value for money of providing a service over a long timescale (25 to 30 years). Maximising efficiency and innovation helps to achieve value for money
• To transfer maximum risk to the private sector consistent with the governmentsí economic policy and status.

 

Why should public or state authorities consider PPP?

There are a number of factors, relating to public sector cash constraints and the underlying principles of PPP, which might cause governments to consider the introduction of a PPP.

Public sector cash constraints in many countries, demand for new infrastructure projects is growing in quality and quantity. In addition there is the rising pressure for funds to renew, maintain and operate the existing infrastructure. Competition for such funding is often intense not just between infrastructure projects but also with the many other demands on public sector finance. PPP permits the authorities to substantially reduce capital expenditure and convert the infrastructure costs into affordable operating expenditure spread over an appropriate timescale.

Principles of PPP PPP allows each partner to concentrate on activities that best suit their respective skills. For the public sector the key skill is in developing policies on service needs and requirements, while for the private sector the key is to deliver those services at the most efficient cost.

 

Key Benefits of PPPs

• Infrastructure created through PPP can improve the quality and quantity of basic infrastructure such as water, energy supply, telecommunications and transport as well as being widely applied to other public services such as hospitals, schools and prisons. The public have access to improved services now, not years away when a governmentís spending programme permits.
• Value for money PPP projects deliver greater value for money compared with that of an equivalent asset procured conventionally. The combination of design construction and operation outweigh the higher cost of finance. PPP focuses on procurement process on the whole life cost of the project not simply on its initial construction cost. It identifies the long term costs and assesses the suitability of the project.
• Transfer the risk of performance of the asset to the private sector. The private sector only realises its investment if the asset performs according to its contractual obligations. As the private sector will not usually receive any payment until the facility is available for use, the PPP structure encourages efficient completion, on budget and without defects
• Buildings and services which would not otherwise be affordable ñ this is a major benefit and helps public authorities to take a long term strategic view of the services they require over a long period.
• The concept helps to reduce government debt and frees up public capital to spend on other government services
Innovation and best practice. The expertise and experience of the private sector encourages innovation, resulting in reduced cost, shorter delivery times and improvements in the construction and facility management processes. Developing these processes aids best practice.
• Repairs and maintenance ñ assets and services will be maintained at a pre-determined standard over the full length of the concession
• Enable investment decisions to be based on fuller information as it requires a defined analysis of project risks by both the government and lenders at the outset.
• The tax payer benefits by avoiding paying higher taxes to finance infrastructure development
• The government or public authority still retains strategic control of the overall project and service
• The process can assist in the reform of the public sector

 

Requirements for successful PPPs

Political support political support at the policy level is important for the private sector, because unless PPP is seen to offer continuing business opportunities, firms will be reluctant to develop the necessary resource that is required to bid for contracts.

Enabling legislation PPP projects need to be supported by enabling legislation, that is firmly embedded in the legal structure of the host country. A key aspect of this enabling legislation is the existence of a concession law that can be readily applied to projects.

Expertise Both the public and private sectors must have the necessary expertise to deal with the PPP process.

Project prioritisation The government needs to identify those sectors and projects that should take priority in the PPP process and undertake a review of the viability of each scheme before the project is procured. This avoids unnecessary failures and high bidding costs.

Heavy Deal flow and standardisation A regular and predictable flow of deals based on recognised risk allocation templates, assists the development of a successful PPP programme. Guidance on contract structure also helps to keep costs down.

 

The BOOT / PPP structure

In view of the flexibility of the BOOT/PPP structure and its variants, the legal and company structure differ from project to project, dependant on sector and country of origin. However, the normal structure would involve the creation by the promoters of a special-purpose, joint-venture company in which the contractor, operator and banks may have a share. This concession company borrows in order to fund the construction on the security of the revenue that lending banks believe will be generated by the facility. All financial obligations must be serviced within the life of the concession. Concession financing is therefore similar to limited-or non-resource project finance, except that the revenues are received under the terms of a concession agreement. The project will be approached in a similar way to limited-resource project financing in which the risks are isolated and allocated to those most qualified to bear them.

Each structure created is unique to the project, but generally BOOT/PPP is essentially a concession or global-service contract offered by a government and financed and undertaken by the private sector. A BOOT project often requires a promoter to enter into a number of contracts with a variety of parties. It is possible, however, for any particular project to have all, some or none of these contracts. A typical simple structure created between the various parties is outlined in figure 1. A more complex structure is necessary where the mending is sourced offshore in the international markets and is set out in figure 2.

The allocation of risks between the typical parties to a BOOT structure, as shown in the diagram, is regulated by the various agreements which the parties enter into.

 

Figure 1: Example of a simple BOOT/PPP Structure:

∑ The concession company promotes the project and has the ultimate liability to the government under the concession agreement.

∑ The concession agreement (sometimes referred to as the implementation or project agreement) is the primary contract between the government and the concession company and forms the contractual basis from which the other contracts are developed. It entitles the concession company to build, finance and operate the facility and imposes conditions as to design, construction, operation, of the project and establishes the concession or operation period.

∑ The equity investorsí and lendersí security for their loans and investment is limited to the revenues to be received by the concession company. They will therefore have considerable interest in the revenue forecasts produced by the concession company. Likewise the two areas that place the concession company and equity investors and lenders at risk are the construction contract and the operating contract.

∑ The construction contract. The parties would prefer a contractor to give a fixed price for completion by a fixed date without exclusions. This is rarely possible in projects of this nature. Finance providers are therefore only prepared to commit themselves to a fixed amount because if the project costs more their funds will be in jeopardy due to the interest burden. Lenders will not accept the risk of delay to completion, although they will normally provide a standby facility to offer some protection against time-and-cost overruns.

∑ The operating contract. The lenders have to be assured that an experienced operator will be available on completion of construction.

 

Figure 2: Example of an international BOOT/PPP Structure

The offtake contract. This is one of the key contracts. As limited-resource projects are, by definition, funded on the security of the future cash flow, there has to be some form of buyer. Projects fall into two categories: those where the identity of the buyer is obvious, for example toll roads and some power stations and those where there is physical product which has to be sold, often on the world market. Where there is a product involved it is essential to identify the offtaker or buyer and to establish the basic terms. Lenders prefer guaranteed minimum or ëfloorí prices, but these are frequently unobtainable. There is then the need to establish whether the future price of the product is something upon which the potential lenders to the project are prepared to take a risk. There may be an opportunity for the offtaker to take some of the downside risk by providing a very low floor price, for example one which is below the level at which the debt would have to be rescheduled with the lenders risking such rescheduling. In exchange the offtaker would expect a high reward in good times.