We have extensively written about how public-private partnerships (“P3s”) offer better, more efficient solutions to public infrastructure needs, and about how, given their effectiveness, they’ve become a preferred method for funding and managing infrastructure projects in and outside of the U.S. P3s, in short, effectively leverage private funding and expertise with government resources to more efficiently address public needs—often yielding extraordinary results. Yet, while P3s deliver more than just better results than traditional procurement methods tend to, they also incentivize more efficient dispute resolution, too. That is, while ordinary litigation options are typically still on the table, given the long-term arrangements between the parties involved, they tend to seek out faster dispute-resolution options like arbitration, for instance, instead of diving into years of costly, public litigation.
To be sure, P3 teaming arrangements are intricate and complex. A P3 proposer usually consists of a consortium of private entities who, through a special purpose vehicle, submit a proposal to the public entity and, if selected, enter into an agreement with that entity on the one hand, and numerous subcontractors on the other, to address a specific need—such as providing social infrastructure, transportation, or a new utility. From there, the P3 entity would then design, build, finance, operate, and maintain the asset for years to come. Essentially, they remain partners on a single, long-running project, as opposed to typical design-build arrangements where the private-party’s interests are short term. So, given the long-term nature of and goals for any given P3 project, the proposer’s and public entity’s interests tend to be more aligned as both sides have an interest in the project’s ongoing success given long-term operations and maintenance contracts are typically part of the deal.
We have previously 
Bilzin Sumberg is pleased to share the results of the 2019 South Florida Opportunity Zone Survey and subsequent Forum that we co-hosted with Urban Land Institute Southeast Florida/Caribbean (ULI SE FL/Caribbean) on June 5, 2019. The Report captures the perspectives of developers, investors, and other professionals who specialize in real estate and finance in Florida, to delve into how the industry is thinking about the Opportunity Zone program and where the opportunities lie. Specifically, the report aimed to examine issues including:
The Miami-Dade County Board of County Commissioners 
We previously wrote about whether and how public-private partnerships (P3s) could be the 
In the recent decision of Publix Supermarkets, Inc., v. Miami-Dade County, Case No. 17-082 AP, the 11th Judicial Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade County held: (i) the applicant successfully carried its burden in a quasi-judicial hearing before the zoning appeals board of Miami-Dade County (the “County”); and, (ii) that the opposition failed to establish the required “competent, substantial evidence” to deny the application. Thus, the circuit court granted the applicant’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari, quashed the resolution that denied the application, and remanded the case to the zoning appeals board. 
We recently 
In the last twelve months, four national public-private partnerships (“P3s”) have been financed in the U.S. private placement market, accounting for over $800 million in project cost financing. While there has been a shift towards private placement investors as a P3 financing source, the market activity in the last year has confirmed investor appetite in P3s, particularly those with availability payment-based compensation structures.
We have written about how the public-private partnership (P3) project delivery model 