What Are Park-PFI Solicitation Guidelines
The statutory document that serves as the legal foundation for a Park-PFI solicitation. Missing any of the ten required items invalidates the process
Legally required items under Article 5-2, Paragraph 2 of the Urban Park Act — missing any one invalidates the solicitation
10 items
Minimum period required between public announcement of guidelines and the plan submission deadline
1 month min.
Maximum certification validity period under Park-PFI (requires designated park facility construction)
20 years max.
Standard selection structure: Stage 1 screening (pass/fail) → Stage 2 scoring evaluation
2 stages
When a municipality intends to implement Park-PFI (the Public Solicitation Management System), the first statutory document it must publish is the solicitation guidelines for installation and management (hereafter "guidelines"). Article 5-2, Paragraph 1 of the Urban Park Act mandates that guidelines be drafted and publicly announced "when a park management authority intends to publicly solicit a person to install or manage publicly solicited park facilities."
Guidelines are not merely a request for proposals. The conditions set out in the guidelines become the legal basis for all subsequent procedures — participation screening, plan certification, and agreement execution. It is legally impermissible to introduce conditions during evaluation that do not appear in the guidelines, or to impose certification requirements that contradict the guidelines.
The Urban Park Act requires that at least one month elapse between the public announcement of the guidelines and the deadline for submitting installation and management plans (Enforcement Rules, Article 3-4). This minimum period reflects the time private-sector businesses need to thoroughly examine and develop a business plan in response.
Drafting errors — missing legally required items, or setting contradictory conditions — create defects in the entire solicitation process. Prior review by the municipality's legal department and legal counsel is essential.
Detailed Explanation of the Ten Legally Required Items
A systematic walkthrough of Items 1 through 10, with common drafting errors and practical tips for each
Article 5-2, Paragraph 2 of the Urban Park Act enumerates ten items (Items 1 through 10) that must be included in the guidelines. Below is a systematic explanation of each item along with practical considerations.
Item 1: Types of Publicly Solicited Park Facilities
Specifies the type of facilities sought for installation. Municipalities may enumerate specific business types (e.g., "restaurant," "café," "food and beverage outlet") or use broader language (e.g., "commercial facilities that contribute to vitality and community engagement").
Practical consideration: Overly narrow specifications limit the pool of applicants; overly broad language makes evaluation difficult. Working backwards from identified community needs — insufficient dining options, lack of rest areas, absence of children's facilities — to clarify the "functions required" is an effective approach.
Item 2: Location of Publicly Solicited Park Facilities
Specifies the location, area, current condition, and applicable regulations for the installation zone. Attaching a location map and site layout is mandatory. Building coverage ratios (as defined in the ordinance), and availability of utilities such as electricity, gas, and water must also be described.
The 10 points of added coverage are shared with rest facilities, not granted separately to each. A park that already reaches 12% coverage through rest or sports facilities cannot add a Park-PFI amenity building (Guidelines, §2.3).
Practical consideration: Inaccuracies in utility availability — particularly gas line presence and sewage treatment methods — can determine whether food service operations are viable. A pre-solicitation site survey with cross-referencing against drawings is indispensable.
Item 3: Start Dates for Installation and Management
Specifies when installation and management of revenue facilities are to begin. The timeline must account for design, construction, building permit processing, and other legal procedures.
Practical consideration: When private operators need to secure financing, the period from construction commencement to opening often spans one to two years. Setting overly tight completion deadlines reduces the number of applicants. Coordinating the construction schedule of designated park facilities with revenue facility construction must be addressed during the planning stage.
Item 4: Minimum Usage Fee
Specifies the minimum usage fee to be paid by the revenue facility operator. The amount may not fall below the level prescribed by the relevant municipal ordinance (Article 5-2, Paragraph 2, Item 4).
Practical consideration: The usage fee directly affects the financial viability of private operators. Setting the minimum too high deters applicants; too low reduces revenue returned to the park management authority. The fee should be validated against usage fee data from comparable parks and the operator's projected annual sales per floor area.
Item 5: Construction of Designated Park Facilities
Specifies the types, specifications, quantities, and cost-sharing arrangements for designated park facilities (toilets, paths, plazas, benches, lighting, etc.) to be constructed by the private operator.
Practical consideration: Clearly distinguishing "what the park management authority will construct" from "what the private operator must fund at minimum" is critical. Ambiguous language becomes a source of dispute after plan certification. Setting an upper limit on the municipality's cost share enables private operators to build accurate financial projections.
Item 6: Installation of Convenience Enhancement Facilities
Where bicycle parking, signage, advertising towers, or information boards ("convenience enhancement facilities") ancillary to revenue facilities are to be permitted, specifies their types, locations, and conditions.
Practical consideration: Conditions for advertising towers and signage must be consistent with the landscape ordinance. When such facilities are permitted, it is advisable to explicitly state standards for color, size, and placement.
Item 7: Environmental Maintenance and Improvement Measures
Specifies the day-to-day maintenance requirements — cleaning, planting management, etc. — to be carried out by the revenue facility operator.
Practical consideration: Where Park-PFI is integrated with the designated manager system, roles must be clearly delineated in the guidelines. Failing to clarify "who cleans which area at what frequency" at the guidelines stage leads to confusion during subsequent agreement negotiations.
Item 8: Validity Period of Certification
Specifies the validity period (maximum of 20 years) of the installation and management plan certification. The period should reflect the scale of investment and the time required to recover it.
Practical consideration: Setting a period of 20 years requires that the plan include the construction of designated park facilities (Article 5-8, Paragraph 1). Where only revenue facilities are involved, the maximum is 10 years (consistent with ordinary installation and management permits). This distinction requires careful attention.
Item 9: Evaluation Criteria
Specifies the criteria used to evaluate submitted plans. The MLIT guidelines propose six evaluation items: (1) business implementation policy, (2) business implementation structure, (3) facility installation plan, (4) facility management and operations plan, (5) business plan, and (6) price proposal.
Practical consideration: The allocation of scoring weights shapes the nature of proposals. Higher weight on "price proposal" drives price competition; higher weight on "business implementation policy" shifts competition toward proposal quality. Reflecting the municipality's priority challenges — vitality creation, local employment, accessibility for older residents — in the scoring weights is essential. For detailed guidance, see Park-PFI Scoring Criteria Design.
Item 10: Details of Solicitation Implementation
Specifies eligibility criteria, required submission documents, evaluation schedule, agreement terms, and other implementation details not covered in Items 1 through 9.
Practical consideration: Overly restrictive eligibility requirements undermine competitive integrity; excessively lenient requirements risk attracting applicants without genuine capacity to execute the project.
Using the MLIT Word Template
Where to download the template, its structure, and how to customize it — along with its inherent limitations
Where to Download
The MLIT Urban Bureau publishes a Word-format template for solicitation guidelines. It is available at:
Template Structure and How to Use It
The template is a draft document covering all ten required items, with sample language and notes for each. The recommended approach is as follows:
- Fill in park-specific information for Items 1–4: Based on the physical characteristics of the park (location, area, utilities)
- Draft Item 5 in conjunction with an improvement plan: Prepare a facility improvement plan (scope of aging-facility renewal, construction cost estimates) before drafting this item
- Create a separate scoring table for Item 9: Use the template's evaluation items as a base and adjust weights to reflect local priorities
- Attach schedules and document checklists as annexes to Item 10: Clearly state deadlines for each stage — intent to participate, application submission, and evaluation
Limitations of the Template
The MLIT template is a starting point only. The following areas require municipality-specific customization:
- Alignment with local ordinances: Building coverage ratios, occupation restrictions, and landscape ordinance conditions vary by municipality
- Integration with the designated manager system: When integrated with designated management, designated management specifications must be incorporated into the guidelines
- Explicit notation of sounding bonus points: When prior sounding participation is to be rewarded with bonus points, this must be stated in the guidelines along with the point value
Comparison with Koriyama City's Real-World Guidelines
Breaking down the 61-page real-world guidelines to show how the legal items map to actual document chapters
The guidelines published by Koriyama City for Kaiseizan Park in April 2022 constitute a detailed 61-page, 170KB document. They comprehensively address all ten legal requirements while incorporating a range of practical innovations.
Mapping Chapter Structure to Legal Requirements
| Chapter | Title | Corresponding Legal Item |
|---|---|---|
| Chapter 1 | Project Overview | General overview, Item 3, Item 8 |
| Chapter 2 | Solicitation Procedures | Item 10 |
| Chapter 3 | Selection of Designated Installer | Item 9 (evaluation criteria) |
| Chapter 4 | Post-Selection Procedures | Item 10 (agreements, etc.) |
| Chapter 5 | Designated Park Facility Construction | Item 5 |
| Chapter 6 | Publicly Solicited Park Facilities | Items 1, 2, 4 |
| Chapter 7 | Convenience Enhancement Facilities | Item 6 |
| Chapter 8 | Environmental Maintenance Measures | Item 7 |
| Chapter 9 | Designated Management | Item 10 (designated management integration) |
| Chapter 10 | Risk Allocation | Item 10 (risk allocation) |
| Chapter 11 | Miscellaneous | Item 10 (insolvency provisions, etc.) |
Notable Innovations in the Koriyama Guidelines
① Explicit notation of sounding bonus points: Chapter 3's scoring criteria include "incentive points" — +5 points for trial sounding participation and +3 points for market sounding participation. This design encourages private-sector dialogue well before the formal solicitation.
② Clear cost-sharing structure: The designated park facility construction cost is explicitly divided as "municipality: up to 90%, private sector: at least 10%." Revenue facilities (publicly solicited park facilities) are designated as "fully privately funded," making it straightforward for private operators to build financial projections.
③ Comprehensive risk allocation table: Chapter 10 contains a detailed risk allocation table covering the design, construction, and operations phases, clarifying which party bears each category of risk — facilitating business planning for prospective operators.
④ Integrated designated management: Chapter 9 explicitly states designated management duties and costs (total designated management fee: JPY 1.44 billion over 19 years), serving as a model for integrated solicitation of Park-PFI and designated management.
⑤ Pre-disclosed selection committee composition: Chapter 3 discloses the selection committee membership in advance (including university professors, certified public accountants, and the managing director of a park management foundation), ensuring transparency and institutional credibility.
Designing Recommended (Non-Mandatory) Items
Non-mandatory but practically essential items and how to design them
Beyond the ten legally required items, the MLIT guidelines recommend additional items that are optional under law but practically indispensable.
Eligibility Criteria Design
Eligibility requirements should be designed with the objective of selecting applicants with genuine capacity to execute the project. Overly restrictive criteria undermine competitive integrity.
Sample standard eligibility requirements:
- Applicant must be a legally incorporated entity (individual or consortium)
- Applicant must not be in a state of net liabilities as of the most recent financial statements
- Applicant must hold a construction business license (where construction works are involved)
- Applicant must be capable of obtaining a food business license under the Food Sanitation Act (for food service operations)
- Applicant must not be subject to suspension of business, public disclosure of violations, or other disqualifying conditions
Where consortiums are permitted, requirements for the lead firm, the roles of consortium members, and liability allocation must also be specified.
Business Insolvency Provisions
Defining in advance how to handle the insolvency of an operator is the most significant risk mitigation measure available to municipalities.
Items to address:
- Obligations and security deposits for repair and restoration of designated park facilities
- Mandatory insurance coverage and submission of insurance certificates
- Requirements and procedures for business succession to a successor operator
- Conditions under which the municipality may purchase facilities or assume interim management
Urban Development Fund (Vitality Promotion Project Loans)
The national government operates the Urban Development Fund (Vitality Promotion Project Loans), under which the national government provides subsidized loans covering half of funds lent by local governments to private operators. Where this scheme is to be utilized, it must be noted in the guidelines.
Designing Evaluation Criteria (A Deeper Look at Item 9)
How to draft Item 9 (evaluation criteria) — balancing quantitative and qualitative scoring while ensuring fairness
Two-Stage Selection Structure
The MLIT guidelines recommend conducting selection in two stages: Stage 1 (screening) and Stage 2 (evaluation).
- Stage 1 (screening): Objective review under Article 5-4, Paragraph 1. Confirms alignment with guidelines, financial soundness (no net liabilities), and track record in construction and management
- Stage 2 (evaluation): Quantitative scoring restricted to applicants who pass screening. Conducted by a committee comprising at least two academic experts — a statutory requirement
The Six Evaluation Items and Scoring Design
The following shows typical scoring weight ranges for the six evaluation items proposed in the MLIT guidelines:
| Evaluation Item | Primary Evaluation Content | Typical Weight Range |
|---|---|---|
| ① Business Implementation Policy | Addressing local challenges, improving park quality, stimulating local economy | 15–25% |
| ② Business Implementation Structure | Local firm participation, financial soundness, role allocation | 15–20% |
| ③ Facility Installation Plan | Design quality, accessibility, construction plan | 10–20% |
| ④ Facility Management and Operations Plan | Safety, disaster response, community engagement | 15–20% |
| ⑤ Business Plan | Financial projections, withdrawal risk mitigation | 15–20% |
| ⑥ Price Proposal | Municipality's burden for designated park facilities; usage fee | 10–20% |
Key design principle: Assigning excessive weight to Item ⑥ (price proposal) risks inducing price dumping. To prevent the scenario in which an operator submits an aggressive price proposal and subsequently becomes insolvent, price proposal weighting is typically capped at 15–20% of total points.
Setting a Minimum Qualifying Score
To safeguard fairness and practical executability, setting a minimum qualifying score is recommended. In the Koriyama City case, the threshold was set at "at least 60% of total possible points across all evaluators, with no primary evaluation category — overall plan, improvement works, or management — falling below 60%."
Pre-Publication Quality Checklist
The following checklist should be reviewed before publicly announcing guidelines:
Legal requirements:
- All ten legally required items (Items 1–10) are included
- The minimum usage fee in Item 4 is not below the ordinance-prescribed level
- The certification validity period in Item 8 does not exceed 20 years (contingent on designated park facility construction)
- At least one month elapses between public announcement and the plan submission deadline
Practical requirements:
- Building coverage ratio and occupation restriction figures from the ordinance are accurately stated
- Utility availability (electricity, gas, water, sewage) has been confirmed on-site
- The risk allocation table distinguishes "construction risk," "operations risk," and "force majeure risk"
- The selection committee has at least two academic experts confirmed
What to do next
In the order you can act on them, within the week you read this.
| # | What to do | Where | Rough effort |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Pull the current building coverage of the candidate park: how much rest and sports facilities already use | Your parks team | Half a day |
| 2 | From step 1, confirm whether any of the 10 points remain. At 12% already, no amenity building can be added | Same | — |
| 3 | Count visitors yourself, weekday and weekend, rather than using an estimate | On site | Two days |
| 4 | Collect actual fees paid to the city at three comparable parks — not visitor counts | Ask those municipalities | 1–2 weeks |
| 5 | With 1–4 in hand, run market sounding. If no one comes forward here, no one will bid | Private operators | 2–3 months |
Steps 1 and 2 can be done today. If no headroom remains, nothing further is needed.
References
Guidelines for Improving the Quality of Urban Parks through Park-PFI (Revised May 30, 2025) — Urban Bureau, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (2025)
Kaiseizan Park Park-PFI Solicitation Guidelines (April 2022) — Koriyama City (2022)
MLIT Park-PFI Utilization Page (Templates, Case Studies, etc.) — Park and Green Landscape Division, Urban Bureau, MLIT (2025)
PPP/PFI Policy Briefing Materials — Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (2024)
Park-PFI Scoring Criteria Design
How to design the 6-item evaluation table — including sounding bonus points and the 500-point structure used in Koriyama City
Park-PFI Market Sounding Practical Guide
Designing and conducting market soundings — how to validate usage fee levels and scope of improvements before finalizing guidelines
