PIU, PPP, and OUC are different instruments, with different timelines and different critical paths. This page visualizes, side by side, the stages of each one, from the opening move to execution. The timelines are market averages, not exact figures.
Three instruments, three time scales. The table compares total timeline, dominant critical path, and who leads each process.
| Instrument | Average total timeline | Critical path | Who leads |
|---|---|---|---|
| PIU | 18 to 36 months | Technical approval + public hearing | Municipality (with private participation) |
| Municipal PPP | 24 to 48 months | Structuring (EVTEA) and bidding | Municipality (with private investor) |
| OUC | 36 to 72 months | Specific municipal law and CEPACs | Municipality (with market and property owners) |
Provides the urbanistic and financial detailing of a perimeter previously classified as AIU or OUC in the Master Plan. An instrument specific to São Paulo (Decree 56,901/2016), and a conceptual reference in other cities.
When the service runs at a deficit or there is no chargeable user tariff, it is the PPP that makes it feasible. Law 11,079/2004. Municipal cap: 5% of RCL (Net Current Revenue).
A set of interventions coordinated by a specific municipal law. Allows issuance of CEPACs and mobilization of private capital. Cases: Faria Lima, Porto Maravilha. City Statute, arts. 32 to 34.
The PIU is, above all, a detailing instrument. It only exists over a perimeter that the Master Plan has already classified as AIU or OUC. For that reason, it skips the slowest stage of any urban transformation: the original discussion of the perimeter. The schedule starts with a conceptual area already delimited and ends with approval by decree, with no need to go through the City Council.
The PPP has no such slack. Even when the object is clear, what eats up the schedule is the fiscal modeling and the design of the risk matrix. The EVTEA must demonstrate value for money, fiscal sustainability within the 5% RCL cap, and attractiveness to the market. After that, the bidding follows the procedures of Law 8,666 or 14,133, with non-compressible minimum periods for objections, appeals, and award.
The OUC carries the longest timeline because it requires a specific municipal law plus the CEPAC cycle. A bill in the City Council is a black box: it may take 8 months or 24, depending on the political composition of the moment. After enactment, there is still the registration of the prospectus with the CVM, which is a financial process with a logic different from urbanism, and that often surprises municipal teams not trained in capital markets.
In all three, the recurring bottleneck that appears in lived schedules, not planned ones, is the same: a poorly prepared public hearing (which must be redone) and insufficient municipal technical capacity to handle the complexity of the instrument without outsourcing entire stages. This shows up in the three Gantts as light gray at the bottom of the scale, but in real life it tends to turn black and double in size.
Five predictable events that tend to add months (or years) to the schedule of any instrument.
A current Master Plan shortens the first stage of any instrument. When the municipality already has a Master Plan reviewed within the ten-year cycle, with perimeters, density vectors, and building rights stocks formally defined, the phase of territorial diagnosis and perimeter definition is cut in half. Without an updated Master Plan, the instrument has to carry the burden of the homework that has not yet been done.
FEP Caixa funds the EVTEA at no upfront cost to the municipality. The Project Structuring Fund of Caixa Econômica Federal contracts technical, economic, and environmental feasibility studies for eligible municipalities, with reimbursement conditioned on the success of the project (only if there is a winning bidder). This removes the financial and technical barrier that paralyzes PPPs in medium-sized municipalities, but requires advance planning, since the FEP queue typically runs 6 to 12 months.
A transparently prepared public hearing reduces litigation. Technical material published 30 days in advance, an online session with a recorded broadcast, translation of technical terms in a public glossary, and a report responding to each statement create procedural protection. The cost of this preparation is marginal compared to the 12 to 36 months that a successful class action adds to the schedule.