Weak points of the Italian regulatory context for public works. What do other countries have that we don't have? The results of an international comparison.
In topic of infrastructure and public works, one wonders whether it is possible today in Italy to carry out quality projects, or whether the Italian regulatory framework allows us to design useful works, built on time and within pre-established costs and capable of attracting private capital. From an international comparison on the regulatory framework in the field of public works, a series of peculiar criticalities emerge in our Country System which could represent an obstacle to the realization of Quality Projects.
The analysis was carried out on 7 countries: Italy, Germany, United Kingdom, Spain, France, Holland, Sweden. The regulatory characteristics compared were: legal system and governmental structure, planning of the works, methods of managing stakeholders and consensus, evaluation of the usefulness and economic impacts, design, assignment.
From this emerge a number of peculiarities of the Italian system, which it seems to have weaknesses especially in the planning and programming phase.
In the first place, in European practice, the evaluation phase of the utility of the work through the Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) and other criteria is anticipated to the planning phase and is formalised. In Italy the evaluation moment is postponed (only suggested) to the planning phase, not allowing to evaluate the utility of the work a priori. Furthermore, there is a lack of formalization and standardization of the methodology. This does not allow comparisons between works and makes it impossible to use evaluation methodologies such as CBA to determine the priority of works. For example, in Germany, for transport infrastructures, the ACB methodology is traditionally applied from the planning stage, in order to determine the priority works. The works are then prioritized and planning is done by the Federal Government. The ACB methodology is also formalized in guidelines and provides for a standard methodology.
Secondly, foreign countries give more weight than Italy to the technical component rather than the disciplinary one both in codes and practices. Furthermore, in Italy the final technical evaluation of the projects would seem vague and not well determined. The result is a lack of technical details in the executive project with a consequent recourse to variants. Also in Germany, for example, the design system is based on very strict technical standards (the Din Normen). The Din Normen are about fifty technical files, very voluminous and detailed, organized for all the different types of processes. The offers are formulated on the basis of unit price lists indicated in a very detailed and complete manner by the customer following standard forms drawn up by the Ministry of the territorial Land to which they belong.
On the other hand, analyzing the methods of awarding, the countries considered have similar institutions from a regulatory point of view (joint or separate tender, open or restricted procedure, economically more advantageous offer, etc.). The differences are due to the practices used by the contracting authorities. For example, in Italy the maximum discount would appear to be more widespread than the most economically advantageous offer, despite the fact that the second method is preferable.
Finally, it is underlined that in Italy there is no formal process of involving the population, which is present in many countries analysed. In them, this institute is normally placed in the initial stages in order to discuss both the opportunity to carry out the work and its characteristics. In France, for example, the public debate tool intervenes "upstream" of the decision-making process of a project and is placed in a moment of time of the elaboration in which the project can still be modified, in whole or in part. The public debate has the objective of democratically legitimizing the subsequent decision and allows the proposing institution to inform the population and interested subjects about the project, as well as receive information and suggestions.
From this international comparison and from the analysis of the criticalities in the construction of the works, it is possible to affirm that the initial phases, the first designs, are the most complex ones, where there are numerous elements of uncertainty (technical, administrative, economic-financial) which make implementation times longer and more difficult to make reliable forecasts on the economic progress of the work.
Overall, the numerous criticalities encountered during the construction of a work can be traced back to the shortcomings of the infrastructure planning, evaluation, authorization and construction system. These critical issues derive, in turn, from bureaucratic and procedural lengths, from legislative structures, from financial planning, from social oppositions, from the too easy opportunity to appeal to the administrative courts (often characterized by modest specific technical skills) with delays and postponements in the order of years, as well as from political inertia and planning difficulties. These problems are historically attributable to political-administrative systems which have not always been able to set clear priorities for intervention and to complete what was foreseen, and to their scarce assumption of responsibility.
These issues will be the subject of the first QPLab Workshop, which will be held in Rome on 30 September at the Via Veneto Auditorium (visit the event website).
