Guide

Public projects start with a deliverable brief

Published 10 October 2026 · Invest Zimbabwe

A clear service need, authorised sponsor and transparent delivery route help public and parastatal opportunities withstand serious review.

A public project begins with the service it must deliver. For a market, water scheme, logistics facility or other infrastructure proposal, state who will use it, what is failing today and what improvement is required. An investor or delivery partner needs to understand the public need and the operating responsibilities before judging the proposed buildings, equipment or funding structure.

Identify the sponsoring entity and its authority at the start. Record who controls the relevant asset, who can commission preparation and who can approve the eventual transaction. Establish the board, owner, ministry or other approvals applicable to that entity and route, supported by qualified legal advice. A letter of support can provide context, but should not be presented as a completed procurement, concession or permission to commit a public asset.

Prepare a brief that someone outside the institution can test. Describe the location, service area, land and existing infrastructure, demand evidence and known constraints. Compare options, including rehabilitation, a smaller phase and improvements to an existing service. Explain why the proposed option offers value and which assumptions are still being investigated. Keep the approved scope separate from ideas that remain under discussion.

Clarify the delivery route before seeking a preferred partner. Ordinary procurement, an operating contract, a lease and a public-private partnership can involve different authorities and processes. PRAZ's electronic procurement platform supports public procurement functions including planning, bidding, evaluation and contract management. The responsible institution and its advisers should confirm the applicable pathway and current requirements; a project listing or introduction does not replace them.

The financial case should identify who pays, for what service and under which enforceable arrangement. Separate construction expenditure from operating, maintenance and eventual replacement costs. Test affordability for users and the public entity, including demand shortfalls, collection risk, inflation and payment delays. If public support is assumed, identify its status and the authority required to approve it instead of treating it as secured revenue.

Allocate risks in plain language. Who handles land availability, design changes, permits, construction delays and service performance? Who monitors delivery, deals with complaints and maintains the asset? Record the environmental and social work still needed, including current users and any possible displacement. These issues should inform the scope, cost and timetable while options can still be changed.

A useful opportunity package ends with a decision map: the preparation work required, the person responsible for each approval and the evidence needed to advance. Public bodies and parastatals can submit their opportunity to begin that assessment. Progress should be based on documented authority, a credible service case and a transparent process that remains the responsibility of the relevant institution.