Two Ways to Support PFS Beyond Service Delivery

A research note from the Public Asset and PPP Lab (ISVD-LAB-005), following The structure behind 9% PFS adoption. It compares support roles using the Cabinet Office guidelines and implementation survey.

The PFS delivery structure

In PFS, a form of PPP/PFI, a public body commissions a private operator and links payment to outcomes. The Cabinet Office guidelines identify five roles. This does not mean that five separate organisations participate in every project.

This note compares intermediary support organisations and funders. Evaluators also work outside service delivery, but their independence warrants separate consideration.

An SIB links repayment to funders to the public body's outcome-linked payment. The Cabinet Office survey reports 379 PFS projects, 19 of them SIBs[1], or about 5%. This counts projects, not funding organisations. The survey also provides no aggregate count of intermediary support organisations.

Funders' work and responsibilities

SIB funders supply working capital. This can help smaller firms and nonprofits that would struggle to finance a long project themselves. Access depends on the project and the funder's assessment and contractual terms.

The three examples in the guidelines use different financing arrangements.

How repayments or interest vary with outcomes must be checked in each contract. Fees to financial institutions and any costs of establishing an SPC also need to be included when comparing financing methods.

The count of 19 does not establish why SIB use is limited. Additional costs may matter, but project-size data and reasons for rejecting the model would be needed to distinguish slow uptake from a limited range of suitable projects.

Intermediaries' work

Intermediaries may coordinate participants, develop projects and provide technical advice. The guidelines note that consulting firms often support public bodies in domestic examples. Some also evaluate outcomes, so the work varies by project.

The role alone does not establish that an intermediary is outside all contracts or bears no risk. Its fees, contractual responsibilities and any involvement in financing need to be checked separately from a funder's outcome-linked risk.

If an organisation both develops a project and evaluates its outcomes, its evaluation methods and interests need review. The guidelines recommend a third-party evaluator to help secure independence.

Comparing the roles

The roles cannot simply be divided into “before” and “after” the contract. Financing may need preparation during project development, and intermediary support may continue through implementation and evaluation.

The March 2026 action plan encourages diverse funding, including donations and crowdfunding, and networks among public bodies, operators, financial institutions, universities and intermediaries. Its targets of 150 new projects, 75 new commissioning bodies and 3 pioneering projects do not directly measure support organisations or practitioners.

Further information needed

Information on intermediaries' numbers, work and involvement in evaluation could help public bodies find support and assess shortages. Counts alone cannot establish quality; experience and specialisms also matter.

For SIBs, project size, financing amounts and additional costs would help explain when the model is used. Three Criteria for Comparing Project Support Roles compares these issues with the dormant deposits scheme.

Related research notes

• The structure behind 9% PFS adoption. Adoption challenges for public bodies
• The structural gap in priority review regulations. Adoption and operation of regulations

Related guides

• Five ways into the dormant deposits scheme. Participation requirements and financing