Service T3 — Institutional Design

Who approves what, under what rule, and what of it actually works.

Every method for value for money, fiscal commitment, guarantees or risk allocation presupposes a body with the authority to decide and the capacity to defend the decision. When that body does not exist, or exists without the power, or has the power without the staffing, the methods run and bind no one: the file arrives fully built, with no alternative left.

6
Deliverables, each with its methodological source
3
Phases: desk, field, strategy
8–10
Weeks, field work included
3
International instruments, never averaged into an index
The problem

The cheapest failure to fix in a concession cycle, and the one most often deferred.

It does not show up in any single project: it shows up in the programme. It is the problem of a ministry of finance or a PPP unit when the body that should decide lacks the authority, shares it without a method, or holds the mandate without the staffing to exercise it. Three ways it fails, and each is diagnosed differently.

The empty authority

The rule says a body approves; in practice it approves whatever reaches it, once there is no alternative left.

The split authority

Two bodies share the decision without either having the method, and the project moves forward through whichever asks fewer questions.

The unstaffed authority

The mandate is real and the staffing does not reach far enough to exercise it — the best-documented case in the comparative literature: statutory caps on commitments breached precisely because the body meant to enforce them had no way to measure them.

What it delivers

Six deliverables, each with its methodological source declared.

Three run directly on modules of the Austral Platform; the other three — the inventory, the map and the synthesis — have no surface on the platform and are delivered as a template, because no module today performs the legal reading they require.

DeliverableWhat it coversPlatform module
01Attribution inventory Every legally binding act in the cycle — declaring an unsolicited proposal of public interest, approving bidding documents, awarding, authorising works, approving a modification with fiscal effect, sanctioning, terminating, accepting hand-over — against the body that issues it, the body that co-signs it, the body that reports without issuing, and the rule that grants it. Five minimum body rows, the ones named by principle 2 of the OECD Recommendation: contracting authority, PPP unit, central budget authority, supreme audit institution and sector regulator. Template — no platform module
02Approval map The same acts against the OECD Recommendation's four phases — planning; feasibility, design and tender preparation; tender and signing; construction and operation — to answer at what point each approval actually bites. Names three pathologies: the blind phase, the late gate and the duplicated gate. Template — no platform module
03Country PPP readiness diagnostic The World Bank Country Readiness Diagnostic's 19 key questions, with mandatory documentary citation on every answer, gaps ranked by priority, a cross-walk to the 12 OECD principles across their three clusters, and the country's band with its two validity thresholds printed alongside it. Module: Country PPP Readiness Diagnostic
04Implementation gap (PIMA) The IMF PIMA framework's 15 institutions scored on two axes — design strength and practical effectiveness — and the gap between them, with the weakest institutions named: the number that tells apart a country missing a rule from one missing staffing. PIMA module: Austral Platform
05PEFA PI-10 self-assessment The fiscal-risk-reporting indicator across its three dimensions, with the official M2 conversion — the disclosure institution a concessions programme can move on its own. Module: PEFA Scorecard
06Strategy note and action plan The reform sequence with responsible body, required act and deadline for each line; the four standing policies that must be published before the first project (public discount rate, value-for-money threshold, risk-allocation policy, fiscal envelope with its measurement rule); and the documentary evidence annex that lets a comptroller audit the diagnostic instead of taking it on faith. In Spanish and English, in DOCX and PDF. Produced in: Country PPP Readiness Diagnostic

The client keeps the tools and the capacity to operate them. The diagnostic, the PIMA score and the PEFA PI-10 stay in the ministry's own workspace, with their evidence and citations, and get re-run every budget cycle against the same baseline — the difference between a report and a series.

Timeline

Three phases, the World Bank instrument's own, unrenamed.

PhaseWhat happensIndicative timeframe
Desk Baseline built from public sources: legal framework, investment process, budget process, pipeline. Attribution inventory and first approval map. 3–4 weeks
Field Baseline confirmed with the bodies involved, both axes scored with their evidence, missing citations closed. 1–2 weeks in-country
Strategy Prioritised gaps, reform sequence, strategy note and action plan. Workspace handover and team training. 3–4 weeks

Field work is not optional: a band computed from desk research alone is a hypothesis, and the method refuses to render a country verdict below its completeness threshold. An engagement that skips field work is delivered as a documented baseline, without a band.

What this service does not do

Said up front, because it defines the engagement.

  1. States what the missing institution must be able to do, and with what fiscal effect.
    It does not draft law or regulation. Drafting the text is a matter for the country's own legal services or its legal adviser.
  2. Proposes attributions and gateways, which are objects of fiscal decision.
    It does not design the organisation: no org charts, staffing tables or internal reporting structures. Where the person exercising the attribution sits is the country's decision.
  3. Treats the pipeline as a fiscal constraint and a rationing problem.
    It does not do engineering or sector planning: which works suit the country is a matter for the line ministry and the national public-investment system.
  4. Measures the distance between the attribution as written and as exercised, each country against itself.
    It does not rate countries or publish a composite index. Three instruments, three scales, never averaged: a single "institutional quality" number would be an in-house instrument, unvalidated and cited by no one.
  5. Describes what the framework allows and what practice shows, with its citation.
    It is not an audit. It renders no opinion on legality or compliance, and leaves that judgment to whoever holds it by mandate.
Methodological basis

Published international methods; Austral's own synthesis and template.

Nothing in the service rests on a proprietary black box. Every deliverable applies a published, cited, auditable method.

Reference manual: M13 — Institutional Design of Concession Programmes (in preparation). The service is delivered today on this datasheet and the three instruments already in production; the manual will document the full method once published.

Next step

Ask for a proposal, or open the instruments first.

For a ministry of finance or a PPP unit

Tell us the country and the programme. We come back with the scope of the three phases for your case, and the instruments your team will keep.

For a development bank or a technical-assistance programme

The diagnostic can run as a component of a larger operation, with the same documentary evidence your comptroller or mission can audit.

Ask for a proposal → Open the Readiness Diagnostic