P3 practitioners constantly seek ways to transform and assign risk to make the process more equitable, efficient, and advantageous, generating an alphabet soup of abbreviations for the abundance of differing models.
[...]
Nonetheless, industry experts believe they may have some merit in the current environment.
“PVR contract structures are most suitable for revenue-risk deals where demand can be projected, but where volatility risk remains,” explains Patrick Harder, partner at law firm Blank Rome.
“These structures may not be the best choice for rail or social infrastructure projects where project revenue such as farebox revenue is often inadequate to fully support a demand risk financing structure,” he says. “PVR contracts bear some similarities to more traditional revenue-risk transactional structures. For example, there’s a feature in many revenue-risk deals where after a certain return-on-investment trigger is reached, then the public owner and the developer begin to share percentages of net revenue for the duration of the term or until a maximum return on investment is achieved, at which point the concession term ends and the facility reverts back to the public.”
To read the full article, please click here (subscription required).
"A Change in the Fare: Can PVRs Replace Fixed-Price Contracting?" was published in Partnerships Bulletin on July 31, 2026.