in the Last landstingsrådet and Stig Nyman will take the ROTOR up to the future of the PPP-project (public-private partnerships in the us, quite a crucial question is: does the New Karolinska Hospital (NKS) has been the subject of a relevant examination, and the outcome of the review to be accurate. Nyman seems to think that this does not give an accurate picture of the project and the politicians, out of fear of being associated with a failed project, is opposed to the PPP, which upphandlingsform.

a lawyer who has been involved in the NKS address this issue is to be welcomed. For the us, which has long been engaged in PPP-projects the NKS has become something of a stoppkloss, which prevents further development. They have a negative experience that is associated with the NKS have been effectively blocked out of the new projects and every new project that is based on this genomförandeform have been dead. Nyman, have the right to say that it is now politically correct to be ”against the PPP as an effective upphandlingsform”. He’s probably also right that ”cast doubt on this approach, it is based on an in-depth knowledge”. It is a political beröringsskräck of NKS is out of the question.

This would have been the right time, from a responsibility to their starting point, in defense of the form of the implementation of large-scale projects that can have a lot of benefits. Instead of a response to this criticism, and to explain the benefits of the OPS, merely Assisted in comparing the NKS of the hospital, which was built over 50 years ago, and concluded that the costs of construction are comparable.

the Method for comparison is lame, especially since there are a number of other, more relevant comparison figure for the cost of capital, to name just one. The choice of PPP as a form of implementation of the NKS pointing to the article on the ”need for a fundamental thinking and re-thinking the alone, up the side of a building. By the Nyman article, however, we are not new to the knowledge of the benefits of PPP and how they came to be embodied in NKS. It’s a shame.

Sweden has a great need for investment in infrastructure. Rather than dismissing the PPP, which is a genomförandeform for the future of the project should be the experience of the NKS can be subject to an in-depth analysis. Such an analysis should, as a minimum, include the following:

the cost of capital. If included, the financing of the PPP project, and how much more expensive it was for the council to allow a private party to fund the construction of the building? What are the ”efficiencies” that would offset the increased costs and have they been achieved?

the Competition. NKS is attracted to only one (1) of the bidders, and a procurement process that fails to create competition, it can not be called efficient. Why is was designed the contract to which it was made, and why was discontinued after the competition.

a Private party’s contribution.

so, What was the knowledge that the private partner could provide, and that the county was missing? It has not been able to gain the same knowledge anyway, and at a lower cost, and the manner in which kvalitetssäkrades that, in the absence of competition.

At a time when the need for investment is high and resources are limited, can the by OPS a a lever for the further development of the society, but to do so, we first need to add the NKS is now behind us.

the Hospital is, and will remain, a millstone for a long period of time, and in the absence of a proper analysis is to weigh on the politicians themselves, who have no knowledge of the OPS. In the analysis, and whether the taxpayers are getting the maximum out of the 61 billion-to pay, we might be on the 14th of February, when the OPS report (S, 2018:01 pm) to be responsible for their own assignments.

<

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR