Table 2.

Key aspects on auditing and performance measurement

Key Issue 1 – Auditing and performance measurement
 Case study A (ITALY)Case study B (USA)
Monitoring regimeContractors’ performance is subject to periodical audit by the identified audit authority. The contract specifies a self-monitoring procedure to be followed, but there is no specification on the methodology of monitoring to be adopted by the contractorsContractors are both subject to continuous audit, one every month. A third entity is required to undertake this function and a monitoring system is well detailed
Customer satisfactionThere is no reference to the customer satisfaction in the contract, and therefore, it is not able to influence deductionsCustomer satisfaction accounts in the determination of deductions
Performance reportingThe local authority (regional government) requires a periodical performance report, with potential deductions for performance calculated according to a specific formulaNo performance reports are required by the governmental authority involved in the PPP contracts
Fault reportingThe contract does not require a staff reporting procedure. No location is available for this issueA self-reporting procedure is applied, promoting culture of change
   
Source: Our elaboration

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal