As part of In the Public Interest’s mission to advocate for responsive, effective government, we research new rules and guidance issued by governmental agencies, especially at the federal level. It is often in these often-obscure spaces where changes—for better or worse—can take place.

In March 2026, the Federal Highway Administration and its Build America Bureau released Value for Money (VfM) analyses guidance to “help the public understand statutory requirements to evaluate the appropriateness of using public-private partnerships (P3s) to deliver infrastructure projects.” Specifically, it examines and provides details about when and how public agencies should use a value for money analysis when determining project delivery method.

In a new brief, New Guidance for Value for Money Analyses when Considering a Public-Private Partnership, In the Public Interest studied the new guidelines and the impact they have on what factors governments can and should include when considering a P3 contract. Spoiler alert: One of the things we’re always on the lookout for is when a public entity is simply looking for a way to turn a public asset over to a private corporation by loading the deck in its favor. The new rules, however, emphasize the importance of using accurate, verifiable data in the decision-making process.

BACKGROUND

In 2021, In the Public Interest wrote about important issues and considerations for value for money analyses, which are used to compare the lifecycle costs of designing, building, financing, operating, and maintaining an asset using various project delivery methods. It typically compares more public-oriented project delivery methods such as design-bid-build (DBB) or design-build (DB) to a P3 approach, which involves privatizing key aspects of the public asset. In practice, a VfM analysis is often used as a way to quantitatively justify a P3 approach to a project, as the methodology used often places a thumb on the scale for the P3 option.

Contrary to what some value for money analyses predict, experiences with P3s generally show that increasing private sector involvement in the provision of public infrastructure can increase the risk of construction delays and the costs of the project, while privatizing long-term operations and maintenance of the asset. This long-term privatization of operations and maintenance functions effectively removes the public asset from public control, allowing private corporations to make important decisions about how the asset will be run and how it can be used by the public.

THE NEW GUIDANCE AT A GLANCE

The new guidance was written for public agencies considering the use of P3s and seeking federal financial or credit assistance for infrastructure projects, but it could also be useful to public agencies considering P3s in other situations and sectors as well. ITPI found the new guidance includes several provisions that seek to bring much needed uniformity and baseline considerations to how value for money analyses are performed. For example, the guidance:

• directs public agencies to establish delivery option goals outside an exclusively fiscal perspective, such as “maximizing use of innovative approaches and technologies that enhance value and efficiency for the public good, preserving flexibility for future improvements, promoting economic well-being and broad-based opportunity, creating high-quality jobs, and minimizing the taxpayers’ financial burden in subsidizing the project.”
• emphasizes the types of data that are best used for a VfM analysis, with an important emphasis on using “actual, verifiable” data. This is an important development, as there has been a lack of uniformity of data sources and data quality among past VfMs, including those that ITPI has analyzed;
• recommends using assumptions that are supported by empirical data and, when such data is not available, stating so;
• highlights the importance of transparency of the analysis to the public.

WHAT’S NOT IN THE GUIDANCE

Among important issues that the guidance does not address is the inclusion of the following non-financial public interest criteria:

• regional economic impacts of a project;
• affordability and accessibility of the infrastructure to low-income communities;
• the number of high-quality jobs the project will create and access to these jobs by disadvantaged communities;
• environmental impacts;
• and project accountability and transparency measures.

The ability of public agencies to perform robust and sound project planning is essential to the building of high-quality and essential infrastructure. We believe that publicly-financed, maintained, and operated infrastructure should be the default delivery option. We also believe that jurisdictions considering P3s must make informed planning decisions with methodologically sound analysis methods, and urge decisionmakers at all levels of government to improve the way they conduct value for money analyses and other infrastructure planning exercises.

TO READ THE FULL BRIEF:

New Guidance for Value for Money Analyses when Considering a Public-Private Partnership