Indeed.....
PFIs
should, by definition, cost the tax payer more than 'traditional' procurement. Because - and this may come as a shock to some - the PFI provider
does expect to make a profit. They're not charities!
PFIs are supposed to make things fiscally easier by spreading the cost over the whole period of the contract. Whereas (in simple terms) conventional procurement would involve a lump sum which may be out of reach.....
It's a bit like replacing a car. If you only have £10000 available, you can't buy a £50000 car immediately. You could try hire purchase over 4 years, but that'll increase the cost because of interest - although at least the car will be yours after 4 years. Or, instead of acquiring your own 'asset' you contract your 'transport service' from a car rental firm; cheap for a few years, perhaps, but eventually a lot more expensive - and the car will
never be yours.
Or take the VC10 approach and keep trying to keep your old Ford Zephyr patched up for another 12 years......
. Because you haven't even got £10000 to spare as some thief has used it to pay for a war he can't afford himself.
But rip-off prices paid for simple tasks? Hasn't MoD often paid silly prices in the past for basic items? Remember the Mini alternator saga - cost to MoD was 5 times the price at Unipart, if I recall correctly.