Key Takeaways: NGA Fall Infrastructure Workshop on Alternative Delivery and P3s

On Oct. 1-2, 2026, the National Governors Association (NGA) held its Fall Infrastructure Coordinator Workshop in New York City. Based on feedback from governors' advisors at NGA's Spring Infrastructure Coordinator Workshop, the focus of the convening was on best practices in innovative infrastructure delivery methods, such as design-build, public-private partnerships (P3s) and long-term asset concessions.

Over 30 governors' infrastructure coordinators and transportation advisors from 18 states and territories attended the convening and were joined by federal officials and NGA corporate partners from the infrastructure investor, developer and consulting sectors. During the two-day workshop, attendees shared their experiences, best practices and lessons learned with the goal of better understanding these delivery tools, their benefits and risks, and how they could be applied in their states and territories. The program included state showcases, panels and presentations, and wrapped up with a site tour of upgrades being made to the Grand Central Terminal train infrastructure, with a look at how real estate development in midtown Manhattan is contributing to these efforts.

Below are some of the key takeaways shared by governors' advisors and practitioners during the two-day convening.

Choosing Among Alternative Delivery Approaches

During the event, participants clarified that alternative infrastructure delivery refers to any approach other than the traditional design-bid-build method, which involves a public agency designing an infrastructure project, a competitive bidding process on that design and construction by the successful bidder. It was noted that depending on the method chosen, different levels of responsibility and risk are shared between the public sector and private partners. Some of the key tools discussed throughout the event include:

• Design-build delivery. Under this method, the project design team and construction contractor are selected together by the public agency and work under the same contract. This type of approach can create value through accelerating delivery and greater innovation in design.
• Progressive design-build delivery. The contractor selects a design-build contractor early on based on qualifications and experience, with the option to choose another contractor to deliver the project once design reaches a certain point. Attendees noted that these types of models can fit projects where risk is unclear at the outset, but participants stressed defining a workable "off-ramp" up front.
• Public-private partnerships (P3s). P3s are a form of alternative delivery whereby the private sector is responsible not only for designing and building the infrastructure but also financing and the operations and/or maintenance for an extended period. P3s can be either revenue-risk projects (where the concessionaire is responsible for collecting user fees and faces demand risk), or availability payment P3s (where the state provides recurring payments to the concessionaire over a period of years). Workshop attendees noted that since private sector financing costs are higher than traditional public delivery, the value of using P3s must be derived through innovation, whole-life cost savings and well-priced risk transfers.
• Long-term asset concessions. Long-term asset concessions involve the leasing of existing revenue-generating assets owned by the state, such as toll roads, airports or water systems. Long-term concessions are sometimes called "brownfield" transactions since they relate to existing assets, as opposed to new or "greenfield" projects for traditional P3s. Asset concessions can create value for the public through generating an upfront payment and incentivizing a developer to drive incremental value and asset improvements.
• Project Bundling. Participants also discussed the delivery of a group of infrastructure projects through a single contract. It was noted that a single small project rarely attracts private interest, but a group of projects can create the scale needed for competition.

Attendees observed throughout the workshop that alternative delivery methods can be used for many types of infrastructure assets.While case studies are often focused on roads and bridges, alternative delivery approaches can also be applied to airports, ports, water infrastructure projects, and even social infrastructure such as schools and hospitals.

Building State Capacity for Alternative Delivery and P3s

The critical step of building state capacity to deploy these tools came up in nearly every session at the workshop. Overall, many participants agreed states and territories need a small, skilled core team that owns decisions, supported by experienced advisors and consultants. Some of the lessons learned and best practices shared included:

• Start small and build experience. Several mature programs began with design-build procurement before moving to P3s. One state chose a roughly $30 million construction manager/general contractor procurement process for a bridge over a much larger project for its first effort.
• Consider a dedicated, commercially minded office. A long-running state program relies on a small P3 office of business, legal, finance and engineering specialists. It coordinates attorneys, financial advisors, engineers and executives and weighs whether each design request makes commercial sense.
• Leverage advisors if needed. Several participants advised that states and territories should not attempt a first P3 without advisors. They also noted the importance of checking that the proposed key personnel quoted by advisors during bidding will actually be the ones doing the work, while also urging agencies to be clear whether they want advice or support delivering the project.
• Build a delivery culture within state government. Participants described reorganizing agencies around strong project managers, retraining staff to work with private partners, and integrating planning, delivery-model selection, procurement and legal functions.
• Tap federal and peer support. States described using federal technical assistance and grant programs to pay for advisors, as well as learning directly from peer states that have completed procurements.

Allocating Risk Between the Public and Private Sectors

Risk allocation between the public sector asset owner and the private sector is where value is created or lost in alternative delivery approaches. Participants urged states to treat these approaches as a way to align public and private interests, leverage incentives, and not simply to push risk away. Some of the key insights on risk allocation shared included:

• Share risks that neither party can fully control. A common approach is to give the developer the first layer of risk that it can influence through design, such as utility relocation and right-of-way. The public partner can then step in once third-party actions put the risk beyond the developer's control.
• Sharing risk can unlock innovation and value. When one state agreed to share costs if an innovative design failed during environmental reviews, the number of bids submitted rose sharply compared with earlier procurements.
• Be clear about how to handle inflation and tariffs. Some agencies now include symmetric price-adjustment clauses, so bidders need not price in every shock. Others prefer to lock in lump-sum prices at award and pay more up front for certainty.
• A risk allocated is not a risk removed. Participants stressed that both partners must work through problems together and that the public will still hold the government accountable when something goes wrong.

Attracting Developers and Private Capital

Some states and territories have had to work hard to attract investors and developers (and thus competition) to their jurisdictions. Some suggestions raised during the convening on attracting private capital and expertise include:

• Investors look for readiness in a program. Developers and investors cited clear enabling legislation, an office with authority to advance projects, a visible political champion, broad political consensus and experienced advisors on the public side.
• A pipeline is preferable to a one-off project. A program of multiple projects draws more interest than a single deal. One state saw the number of teams interested in a corridor grow significantly over a few years as its pipeline matured.
• Make the bidding process competitive. One jurisdiction facing rebuilding needs many times its normal capital budget found contractors uninterested in small packages. It held industry days, ran a contractor road show, bundled projects into larger packages, asked firms to signal interest early and streamlined its payment process. As a result, several new contractors entered the market.
• Treat the private sector as a resource. Investors and developers offered to respond to requests for information and to talk through early concepts. They also acknowledged that industry must listen more closely to public partners' political realities.

Economic and Fiscal Benefits and Risks of Innovative Delivery

Throughout the convening, participants touched on the broader economic and fiscal benefits and risks of exploring alternative delivery, P3s, and asset concessions. Some of the key takeaways included:

• Supporting the delivery of projects when traditional funding cannot keep pace. Participants said gas tax revenue and federal programs alone offer a limited path to addressing urban congestion, particularly in high growth locations. One state's single urban interstate widening project would have consumed multiple years of its entire capital budget. If a P3 arrangement can cover most of the multibillion-dollar financing for a project, then the rest of the capital program remains available for other needs.
• The use of long-term asset concessions for existing assets can create value and free up resources. Value can be created through a state or territory leasing an existing asset in exchange for an upfront payment, along with asset improvements and long-term delivery efficiencies. Any additional funds received can be reinvested in other infrastructure priorities. Participants suggested tying proceeds to a clear public priority, such as future infrastructure investment, and noted that federal rules requiring tax-exempt debt be paid off first (like projects originally financed by municipal bonds) can reduce net proceeds available to pay to a private funder for new projects.
• Innovative tools can help bridge the gap between infrastructure backlogs and available funding. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates a $3.69 trillion infrastructure funding gap through 2033 across the nation. Innovative delivery tools and private capital can help address this and thereby improve economic and job outcomes across the U.S. economy.
• Alternative delivery tools have the potential to incorporate resiliency. As the frequency and severity of natural disasters increase, alternative delivery and P3 tools can create innovations to harden existing infrastructure and ensure new infrastructure projects can withstand a range of impacts.
• Expand supporting lending tools. Facing tighter federal and state budgets, states are exploring infrastructure banks and low-interest municipal loan programs. One state seeded such a program through its existing development finance agency, prioritizing communities with limited access to private capital.
• Know when to say no. Participants reiterated that alternative delivery and P3s are not suitable for all projects. Speakers urged states to compare each procurement option against a realistic public alternative. One state chose design-build over a P3 for a major tunnel because private financing would have added cost without any value.

Next Steps

A recurring theme throughout the workshop was the value of peer exchange and the power of storytelling to support state and territory officials with planning for and implementing governors' infrastructure priorities. NGA looks forward to building upon these discussions and peer connections and continuing to engage with NGA's governors' infrastructure coordinator and transportation networks on these and other important infrastructure topics.

NGA would like to thank all the attendees, speakers and panelists for sharing their experiences, best practices and lessons learned over the two-day event and for making it an informative and successful workshop. NGA also thanks the host state New York for all their support for the convening, the excellent state showcase panel, and for organizing the informative site tour of upgrades to Grand Central Station. NGA is also grateful for the hosts of this event, Macquarie Group, for their hospitality and the expertise that they brought to the program.

For more information about NGA's work supporting infrastructure, transportation and broadband initiatives, view NGA's infrastructure resources, infrastructure implementation page and broadband resources. More information about alternative delivery can be found on NGA's state resource center focused on innovative infrastructure funding, financing and delivery.