Chamber and committees

I have asked Tony Cameron, Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service to respond. His response is as follows:The contract would include a requirement for any such costs to be paid within a defined time period.

I have asked Tony Cameron, Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service to respond. His response is as follows:I refer the member to the answer given to question S1W-26076 on 10 June 2002.

(a) Five hundred and forty-five. (b) The model does not separately identify grades.(c) The labour and labour related costs in cash value real terms are as follows:

Year	PSC Comparison(£000)
1	0
2	6,752
3	16,910
4	16,355
5	15,142
6	15,292
7	15,444
8	15,597
9	15,752
10	15,908
11	16,066
12	16,225
13	16,386
14	16,549
15	16,713
16	16,879
17	17,046
18	17,215
19	17,386
20	17,559
21	17,733
22	17,909
23		18,087
24		18,267
25		18,448
26		18,631
27		18,816

The Net Present Value (NPV) of each risk was not calculated in isolation in the PSC model. However, the NPV of each category of risk was calculated using a 6% discount rate and may be summarised as follows:

Risk Category	Total Cash Value Real (£000)	NPV (£000)
Site Planning and Construction Risk	19,294	17,802
Facility Risks	34,329	15,458
Strategic Risks	21,031	8,327
Total	74,654	41,587

The detailed information in respect of each risk identified in the document in cash value real terms is as follows:

PwC Report Reference	Base Cost (£000)	Impact	Probability	Cash Value Real Impact (£000)
2.7.1.1	883	> 25%	80%	176
2.7.1.2	200	n/a	90%	180
2.7.1.3	100	n/a	100%	100
2.7.1.4	250	n/a	80%	200
2.7.1.5	6,935	3 month delay	90%	6,242
2.7.1.6	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
2.7.1.7	112,657	15% uplift in costs	30%	5,070
2.7.1.8	900	n/a	40%	360
2.7.1.9	1,067	2 week delay	60%	640
2.7.1.10	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
2.7.1.11	112,657	10% uplift in costs	30%	3,380
2.7.1.12	1,500	n/a	70%	1,050
2.7.1.13	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
2.7.1.14	112,657	1% uplift in costs	10%	113
2.7.1.15	50	n/a	100%	50
2.7.1.16	6,935	3 month delay	25%	1,734
2.7.2.1	57,150	10% uplift on costs	25%	1,429
2.7.2.2	145,870	10% uplift on costs	25%	3,647
2.7.2.3	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
2.7.2.4	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
2.7.2.5	5,013	Years 2, 12 and 22 of the operational phase	70%	3,509
2.7.2.6	429,067	10% uplift on costs	60%	25,744
2.7.3.1	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
2.7.3.2	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
2.7.3.3	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
2.7.3.4	15,327	Years 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 of the project	100%	15,327
2.7.3.5	11,408	n/a	50%	5,704
2.7.3.6	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a

I have asked Tony Cameron, Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service to respond. His response is as follows:The net present value calculation was made using the formula as follows:Net present value of the stream of cashflows = CF₁/(1+r)¹ + CF₂/(1+r)² + CF₃/(1+r)³.....CF_N/(1+r)^NWhere:CF = Cashflow in the periodr = Discount RateN = Last period in the stream of cashflowsThe stream of cashflows is expressed in cash value real terms, i.e. net of inflation. The net present value (NPV) calculation has been calculated on the basis of the cashflow occurring at the end of the time period in question. Discount rates of 6% and 5% were applied to the cashflows to derive the NPVs.

Year	PSC Funding(£000)	PSC Comparison(£000)	PPP Private Build Private Operate(£000)
1	95,785	82,530
2	60,452	53,026
3	28,871	28,052	18,128
4	25,370	25,107	18,128
5	23,677	23,396	18,128
6	23,902	23,603	18,128
7	27,718	26,975	18,128
8	24,811	24,469	18,128
9	24,753	24,411	18,128
10	24,947	24,604	18,128
11	25,403	25,060	18,128
12	30,939	30,152	18,128
13	25,539	25,195	18,128
14	27,168	26,823	18,128
15	25,944	25,599	18,128
16	26,150	25,804	18,128
17	36,401	35,565	18,128
18	26,568	26,221	18,128
19	26,781	26,433	18,128
20	27,295	26,946	18,128
21	27,212	26,863	18,128
22	35,478	34,587	18,128
23	27,966	27,616	18,128
24	29,284	28,933	18,128
25	28,103	27,751	18,128
26	36,012	35,659	18,128
27	32,835	31,884	18,128

Separate cashflows were not calculated for the Private Build Public Operate models as these were compiled by reference to the PSC and Private Build Private Operate models.

I have asked Tony Cameron, Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) to respond. His response is as follows:SPS has no formal archive system. We keep such information as is necessary to run the business economically, efficiently and effectively and for audit purposes.

The Pricewaterhouse Coopers report explains why the information is not available:Para 4.2:It is clear that it is not possible to construct a detailed financial model of the PPP Private Build Public Operate model with the same degree of confidence in cost estimates as it is for the PPP Private Build Private Operate and PSC options because of the absence of any benchmark data. To have an equivalent level of certainty in such a model, there would need to be a fully worked up definition of how the model would be implemented, stating where the boundaries of risk transfer would lie, with assumptions regarding the private sector's response to the brief.Consequently, for the purpose of this initial assessment of the PPP Private Build Public Operate Option, PwC's approach has been:(a) to consider in conjunction with SPS the key issues of risk transfer and operational interface involved in implementing a PPP Private Build Public Operate Option and the implications of these for the definition of the PPP Private Build Public Operate Option and for its deliverability;(b) to undertake an outline financial assessment of the PPP Private Build Public Operate Option based upon scenario analysis of possible financial outturns relative to the PPP Private Build Private Operate and PSC options.Para 4.6.5:Unless the PPP Private Build Public Operate option is more fully specified it is not practicable to develop cost estimates which provide significantly more accuracy than the scenarios outlined above.In addition, the report also concludes in para 4.6.5:However, the above analysis demonstrates that any PPP Private Build Public Operate model has a very substantial value for money gap to bridge compared with the PPP Private Build Private Operate option and also a requirement for major changes in the approach to prison operation and staff terms and conditions within SPS to reduce its costs significantly below the PSC. The lowest cost option, Scenario 4, which assumes the possibility of replacing completely the SPS requirements for a prison design together with a 20% reduction in operating costs, will still be significantly more expensive than a PPP Private Build Private Operate option.On that basis, the work carried out by PricewaterhouseCoopers fulfils the obligation to secure best value.

The costs are aggregated in the model used by PricewaterhouseCoopers.

The information is published in the table in paragraph 1.5.3 on page 8 of the report.