On the occasion of Dr. Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo’s First State of the Government Report, emphasis has been placed on the actions taken to promote infrastructure investment, and the significant participation of private investment in the ambitious programs and projects being undertaken has been discussed.
There are very clear examples of large investments, such as the development of the Ixachi Oil Field, which was awarded to Grupo Carso in September 2025 through a contract with Pemex for up to $1.991 billion United States dollars, for the drilling and completion of up to 32 wells in this onshore field located in the State of Veracruz.
This example suggests that “the wheels are turning”—that is, there is some activity for the construction industry on large infrastructure projects. Another example is the passenger train contracts awarded by the Railway Transport Regulatory Agency (ARTF) through an international public bidding process to build and design regional passenger train sections. One went to a consortium led by Mota Engil México, involving 70.7 km of the Querétaro-Irapuato highway, in the section between Apaseo El Grande and the Irapuato industrial zone; another to a group led by Gami Ingeniería e Instalaciones, which includes 136.4 km of the Saltillo-Nuevo Laredo highway in the Arroyo El Sauz-Nuevo Laredo section.
In highways, there also appears to be a movement of public and private investment under the mixed scheme known as CMRO (Construction, Maintenance, Rehabilitation, and Operation). This scheme is being implemented in various highway projects (at least five). Feasibility studies and final projects are apparently being integrated in accordance with the provisions of the still-current Public-Private Partnerships Law (although at least two initiatives are already being analyzed to reform or repeal it and replace it with a new General Law on Infrastructure Investments for Well-being).
So, what’s holding us back from achieving the accelerated pace of investment the country needs? There are many reasons, but from the perspective of infrastructure financing, one aspect is relevant for investors: bankability.
Although this may be a little-known term for some readers of this column, it is based on very clear criteria that define whether a project is bankable—that is, acceptable to the banks that provide the loans—or whether it is not popular with investors. The bankability criteria for infrastructure projects in Mexico are the factors that determine whether a project is bankable, that is, whether banks and investors consider it viable from a financial, technical, legal, and risk perspective.
These criteria apply to projects under traditional public works schemes as well as to Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs), concessions, or mixed investment schemes such as CMROs.
Some of these criteria are technical and planning-related, which allow for verification of whether the project is aligned with national, sectoral, and regional plans, whether there will be verifiable and sustainable demand, whether the necessary engineering studies are available, whether there is a final design, whether the construction program is adequate and feasible, and whether the construction costs have been thoroughly analyzed.
Other, more financial, criteria focus on ensuring that the project is structured and attractive for funding, ensuring the project’s ability to generate cash flows through the application of compensation, service fees, or tolls, and ensuring that these are sufficient to cover the costs within the project’s financial structure, as well as yielding a reasonable profit (it is estimated that a reasonable profit for infrastructure projects today is approximately 10% of the investment amount in real terms, i.e., above inflation).
Furthermore, bankable projects must meet legal and institutional criteria aimed at ensuring that the project is based on a solid framework and that disputes during the construction and operation stages can be resolved without bias or political orientations that contaminate these processes, which naturally arise given the size and typology of these types of investments and infrastructure development contracts.
Environmental and social criteria aimed at complying with national regulations and, if possible, international standards (especially if the financing involves multilateral banks) must also be considered.
Likewise, the criteria for identifying, mitigating, and allocating project risks between the parties and the establishment of guarantees typically required by banks and investors are highly relevant. The adoption of mitigation measures and mechanisms, such as insurance and payment guarantees, among others, is also highly relevant.
It is common for financial institutions, large investors, and financial funds to resort to the construction of bankability matrices. These are the criteria we have briefly described, which are applied to analyze whether the programs and projects being promoted are in fact attractive to them.
Source: eluniversal
