Public-Private Partnerships: Tips for In-House Counsel
An overview of issues and considerations that in-house counsel should keep in mind when approaching public-private partnership projects.
June 24, 2015 at 07:19 AM
11 minute read
Public-private partnerships (P3s) have been gaining increased favor in the U.S. as a way for the public sector to harness the expertise and efficiencies of the private sector in meeting the infrastructure and social needs of local and state governments. Although P3s have been used for many years for the building of “toll” roads and bridges, they are now gaining popularity for building and repairing a wide array of infrastructures including: water systems; sewer systems; buses running on natural gas, light rail systems, and other transportation; courthouses; jails; affordable living accommodations, mixed use development of retail and housing on government-owned land, dormitories and housing for universities. P3s have been successfully used in Canada and Europe to build all of the above and more, including hospitals, for many years.
Although there is promise for this type of P3 use in the U.S., there are still many barriers and challenges to overcome. This type of creative financing between entities that do not typically partner (i.e., the public and private sectors) presents unique and challenging issues for in-house counsel trying to protect their companies while not killing the deals. Based on our experience counseling clients in these matters, the following is an overview of issues and considerations that in-house counsel should keep in mind when approaching P3 projects.
Structuring the Projects
One of the biggest challenges facing P3 projects in the U.S. is that no two P3 projects or deals are the same. Experts in the industry often joke that “if you have seen one P3 project, you have seen one P3 project.” Thus, formulaic or cookie-cutter approaches do not work. Although many states have shown interest in developing P3 legislation to help address infrastructure needs, currently there are no federal guidelines and only a small number of state statutes addressing P3 projects. Without such guidance, the learning curve for practitioners is very steep when approaching these opportunities.
Structuring a P3 deal is more complex than traditional projects because of the myriad stakeholders, from various departments and staff members within governmental entities, private developers, architects, engineers and firms providing financing, to attorneys representing many of the parties involved in the P3 projects. In-house counsel can play an integral role in making sure the project has all of the appropriate team members needed to get the project started, and to provide the framework and guidance necessary to keep the project on course and moving forward.
RFPs
The first task to be undertaken in the P3 process is the Requests for Proposals (RFP) and Requests for Information issued by the public entities. These set forth the terms and standards of the projects they want to have developed. RFPs and similar processes are the selection tools that public entities use to determine which entities or teams will be awarded the projects. While the responses to these solicitations are typically demanding and voluminous, they are especially daunting in the P3 process due to the “partnership” aspects of the proposed projects. The in-house counsel for the private entity team plays an important role in navigating this selection process.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNew Merger-Review Process Could Doom Some Deals, Add Headaches, Subjectivity to Others
7 minute readFTC Bans Exec From Chevron Board—Exercising Authority It Doesn't Have, GOP Dissenters Say
5 minute read$5.3 Billion Sale of MotoGP's Parent Hammered Out by Lawyers From Around Globe
Trending Stories
- 1Restoring Trust in the Courts Starts in New York
- 2'Pull Back the Curtain': Ex-NFL Players Seek Discovery in Lawsuit Over League's Disability Plan
- 3Tensions Run High at Final Hearing Before Manhattan Congestion Pricing Takes Effect
- 4Improper Removal to Fed. Court Leads to $100K Bill for Blue Cross Blue Shield
- 5Michael Halpern, Beloved Key West Attorney, Dies at 72
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250