Value for money – VfM (the provision of improved public infrastructure and services at lower cost) – is a central rationale for the deployment of public–private partnerships (P3s). However, it remains unclear how VfM is actually created in P3s. There are several issues that surround the ex ante evaluation conducted during P3 assessment, including: transparency of the process, engagement of stakeholders, potential restrictions on current and future public sector flexibility, and political influences that call into question the legitimacy of the process. This study examines these issues using Alberta's P3 projects executed since 2003, and interviews 35 key participants and stakeholders. The findings suggest that while the transfer of risk from the public to the private sector is a key driver of VfM, it may overstate the extent to which planning related risks can be transferred. This paper recommends enhanced VfM component disclosures and transparency as the evaluation process evolves. Furthermore, a more rigorous approach to risk conceptualisation and valuation should be adopted. Risk allocation should be about managing not only occurrence, but also impact of the risk factor. Finally, political interference must be moderated to allow for the optimal realisation of the best possible choices presented by P3 deployments.