I am not particularly concerned with the &quot;above-the-table&quot; profit margin. I am concerned with the possibility that using private contractors is prone to abuse, a loss of accountability (shell games) and a race to the bottom for quality of service in a venture where human quality of life is (or should be) the primary goal. Sure, the prime contract might be locked-in to a small profit margin, but I find it hard to believe that the same owners don&#x27;t have their hand in the pot somewhere lower down in the supply chain. Which would lead to them making more than the prime contract 3.5% profit margin might suggest.<p>Then again, it&#x27;s not like public-private partnerships (or project delivery methods in general) are brand new concepts. Governments have somehow managed to get roads and schools (infrastructure) built for a pretty long time. (Not without complaints of overruns and abuse: see any megaproject in the United States.) Though perhaps there is something to be said for the qualitative difference and value of human life that distinguishes a &quot;race to the bottom&quot; for building a road, compared to providing temporary shelter and food for actual human beings.<p>I agree that it&#x27;s good that a government saves itself from getting into a &quot;non-core&quot; business so to speak. But I think that without strict oversight from government, refugee support services could turn into yet another field where shady business practices are the norm.