تأمین تجهیزات دارایی و سیستم مشارکت عامل (APOPS) برای زندان ها در آفریقای جنوبی

The global shift from public to private financing of infrastructure development has led to a search for alternative and innovative procurement techniques. A public–private partnership is one innovative procurement strategy for infrastructure development. When the process described in this paper was initially developed, public-private partnerships for infrastructure delivery was a new concept in South Africa. The Department of Public Works (DPW), South Africa, developed the framework for Asset Procurement and Operating Partnership System (APOPS). As with other private finance initiatives, APOPS aimed to reduce governments’ capital requirements, yet maintain the clear accountability of state ownership and embrace the capital efficiency savings and creativity of private enterprise. This paper provides a case study of the implementation of the APOPS process. Specifically, the paper examines the project management procedures and the difficulties faced in procuring infrastructure using public–private partnership in a developing country.

Internationally, government-spending constraints have led the public and private sectors to seek alternative, innovative techniques for infrastructure development. One technique is public–private partnerships (PPPs). A PPP for infrastructure development can be defined as a collaborative arrangement between a government or its agency and one or more private sector parties [1] and [2]. One reason for choosing a PPP approach, and one that is of particular significance in South Africa, is the general lack of capacity to manage facilities and provide required levels of service within the public sector. Given the history of apartheid, which excluded most black people from senior managerial roles, and drastically restricted access to the higher education that is needed for these positions, the South African Government is struggling to resource many of its service departments in line with its policies of Affirmative Action. It became apparent to the Presidential Review Commission in South Africa [3] that a primary limit to delivery and perhaps Governance itself is sufficient and appropriate management capability at all levels in the public service. In almost all interactions with public sector agencies, whether at a national or provincial level, departments identified lack of qualified staff as one of their biggest constraints. Although the Presidential Review Commission did not explicitly advocate PPPs, it promoted the concept of Alternative Service Delivery (ASD), which can embrace PPPs. Both ASD and PPPs are largely strategies designed to overcome the limits of the state in an era of resource constraints “without government abdicating its ultimate responsibility for governance” [3, p. 225]. The concept of PPPs for infrastructure development was relatively new in South Africa, but is used in other countries with varying success. The Department of Public Works (DPW) in South Africa developed a framework to engage in Asset Procurement and Operating Partnership Systems (APOPS) as a programme within the broader PPP framework [4]. This programme aims to reduce the governments’ capital requirements and utilise the private sectors’ management expertise in the provision of public sector infrastructure projects. APOPS, like the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) in the UK upon which it was based, is about buying a service not an asset or a building. In terms of this definition, PPP’s can range from service outsourcing to concessions.

In South Africa, PPPs are a growing market with pilot projects for water, toll roads and prisons underway. At the end of 2001, the government PPP unit had 36 projects under development covering a variety of sectors. A further 50 projects are under active consideration and planning at the municipal level. From the original DCS portfolio of four projects: Louis Trichardt Maximum Security Prison, Bloemfontein Maximum Security Prison, Barberton Youth Development Centre and Boksburg Awaiting Trial Facility; the projects that proceeded to contract negotiations and financial closure were the Maximum Security Prisons. The partner in the contract for maximum-security facility in Bloemfontein, is the Correctional Contracts (PTY) Limited with the Foreign Partner being Group 4 Securitas. Group 4 is an international company performing security services in over 40 countries world-wide. In this field of corrections, they have proven track records in the United Kingdom as well as Australia. The Louis Trichadt Maximum Security Prison contract has a concessionaire with a number of South African and international companies including Kensani Corrrections, Wackenhut Corrections Co-operation (USA), Concor Group, Amakhosi Holdings and Royal Foods. Unfortunately, there were many problems arising from the initial implementation of APOPS. In part, the purpose of documenting the APOPS process was to help ensure a record and institutional memory for the South African Government was created in a period when staff turnover and capacity constraints is occurring. The deeper problems of creating the appropriate institutional and procedural frameworks, and finding qualified people to use this information, will take much longer. Since, any delays by the South African Government in creating the appropriate frameworks can be expected to have a dampening effect on the market, it can only be hoped that the current efforts by the PPP task-team and other agencies will ensure that these frameworks be established expeditiously. This paper has tried to identify the process and learning that occurred from these pilot projects in South Africa. In some ways South Africa are where the UK was in 1997. It is worth noting that the new Labour government in June 1997 asked Sir Malcolm Bates to carry out a review of the PFI [12]. His main recommendations were: • to create a Taskforce within the Treasury. The first appointments, in September 1997, were experienced people recruited from the private sector on fixed term contracts. The aim of the Taskforce was to assist departments to deliver good quality projects. Key aspects of this task included providing advice on affordability, developing appropriate output specifications, risk allocation and funding mechanisms. The Taskforce was also to advise on draft contractual terms and conditions, project resources and whether proposed timetables were realistic, as well as monitoring the progress of projects. • to establish standard contract conditions. Standardisation of tender documents would sharply reduce legal fees and other costs and also time required for megotiation with tenderers and financiers. The Taskforce standard terms were published in July 1999. • to prioritise projects better. • to learn lessons. PFI experience was growing but those with the experience needed to be encouraged to share that it with others. The main operational conclusion that can be drawn is that although the government departments needed to be directly involved in the PPP procurement process, given the specialist skills required and overall shortage of such experienced personnel in the public sector, a dedicated PPP procurement agency is maybe needed. The current PPP unit in Treasury is only able to advise other Government departments who retain the responsibility for managing their own budgets. However, given the complexity of tasks involved in such PPP processes (as described above), there remains doubt whether they can manage these processes individually. From the policy perspective, the key conclusions arising from this paper is the identified need for an integrated and comprehensive guiding policy and creation of a legislative framework to support the PPP process. The establishment of the inter-departmental PPP task-team and PPP unit can be seen as attempts to address this issue. The implementation process would be facilitated by the creation of a dedicated PPP procurement agency within government capturing experience from all sectors of Government service provision. Specialist knowledge is required to bring public and private sectors together profitably. Developing teams across public and private sectors and between public and public sectors, for example between DPW (which is acting as the procuring agent) and DCS (which is acting as the client) is a complex undertaking. The integration and co-existence of different cultures, goals, values and business practices between organizations on a project basis cannot be left to chance. A specialist agency may ensure the qualified people and appropriate systems are in place to provide every possibility for the successful delivery of infrastructure across a nation.