This is a horror story that repeats itself.

A PPP contract.

Thousands of pages.

Schedules.

KPIs.

Payment mechanisms.

Relief events.

Change mechanisms.

Handback requirements.

All written by people who probably looked boring.

Very boring.

Maybe too boring.

And then someone arrives.

A new advisor.

A new client-side team.

A new CEO.

A new politician.

A new “transformation office”.

And they say:

“We don’t understand why this clause is here.”

Or worse.

“This looks too generous to the private sector.”

Or even worse.

“Let’s simplify this.”

What could go wrong…

There are two questions you must answer before changing anything.

In a PPP contract or in anything.

Not one.

Two.

First:

Why was this fence built?

Second:

What happens if we remove it?

That’s it.

G.K. Chesterton explained this almost 100 years ago.

Imagine a fence in the middle of a road.

A reformer arrives and says:

“I don’t see the point of this fence. Let’s remove it.”

Chesterton’s answer was brutal:

“If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you remove it. Go away and think. Then, when you come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

Beautiful.

And extremely relevant… specially for PPPs.

Because PPP contracts are full of fences.

Some are stupid.

Some are outdated.

Some are badly drafted.

Some should be removed.

But some are holding the whole structure together.

And the problem is that the people removing them often don’t know which is which.

They look at a KPI and think:

“This is too complex.”

They look at a deduction regime and think:

“This is too harsh.”

They look at a relief event and think:

“This is contractor-friendly.”

They look at a change mechanism and think:

“This gives too much protection.”

Then they change it.

Because changing things feels like leadership.

Because consultants don’t get paid millions to say:

“Leave it alone.”

They are incentivized to take action.

Because new teams want to show impact.

Because politicians want headlines.

Because clients love the fantasy that a contract can be made cheaper, simpler, faster and tougher at the same time.

But my experience is that the cost of keeping a useless fence is usually small.

Bothering…

A bit of inefficiency.

A bit of complexity.

A bit of admin.

Annoying, yes.

Catastrophic, usually not.

But the cost of removing a useful fence can be brutal.

Claims.

Delay.

Disputes.

Lender panic.

Construction chaos.

Operational failure.

Discovering later that the “small contractual improvement” has just created a financial weapon of mass destruction is not my cup of tea.

And shouldn’t be yours…

To get more insights… you should be in The Room.

​The Room​

PD 1: If you liked this email, don't keep it in secret and forward it to a friend. They will thank you enormously one day.

PD 2: If somebody has sent you this email and you want to receive emails like this yourself, visit vicentevalencia.com

PD 3: If you want unsubscribe, click the link below.