Assessment criteria

When you submit a proposal to the Infrastructure Priorities Programme (IPP) it is assessed by expert assessors at Te Waihanga and reviewed by an expert panel. The criteria are standardised, so all proposals are reviewed independently and based on their own merit.

How we assess an IPP submission depends on the stage of a proposal. All proposals are considered against three key criteria:

1. Strategic alignment. Does a proposal support future infrastructure priorities and/or improve existing infrastructure systems and networks that New Zealanders need?
2. Value for money. Does a proposal provide value to New Zealand above the costs required to deliver, operate, and maintain it?
3. Deliverability. Can a proposal be successfully implemented and operated over its life?

The focus of assessment changes depending on the stage of the proposal as illustrated in the diagram below.

Our Submission guide section has more information on the three different proposal stages.

Strategic alignment

Strategic alignment is one of the key criteria for assessment of proposals. Rautaki Hanganga o Aotearoa, the New Zealand Infrastructure Strategy, sets out five long-term strategic objectives for New Zealand's infrastructure:

• Enabling a net-zero carbon emissions Aotearoa through rapid development of clean energy and reducing the carbon emissions from infrastructure.
• Supporting towns and regions to flourish through better physical and digital connectivity and freight and supply chains.
• Building attractive and inclusive cities that respond to population growth, unaffordable housing and traffic congestion through better long-term planning, pricing and good public transport.
• Strengthening resilience to shocks and stresses by taking a coordinated and planned approach to risks based on good-quality information.
• Moving to a circular economy by setting a national direction for waste, managing pressure on landfills and waste-recovery infrastructure and developing a framework for the operation of waste-to-energy infrastructure.

Strategic alignment plays the largest role in assessing Stage 1 proposals, and continues to be important in Stages 2 and 3.

Value for money

A project that represents value for money provides value to society above the costs required to deliver, operate, and maintain it.

It’s possible that more than one solution could address a problem in a way that provides net societal benefits. In our assessment of value for money, proposals will need to show that their preferred option achieves higher net societal benefits than all other options.

Each stage has different requirements with regard to being value for money:

• Stage 1. At this stage, our assessment focuses on whether applicants investigated whether a significant problem or opportunity exists. Our assessment at this stage determines whether there is a significant issue that warrants further investigation. It is not necessary to have any specific solutions at this stage, but proposals should have considered whether potential solutions to the problem are proportionate to the cost of the problem.
• Stage 2. At this stage, we are focused on on determining whether the applicant has appropriately considered a wide range of options that could solve the problem, and then identifying a short-list that will do so in the most efficient way. We want to see that applicants have robustly created a longlist and filtered it using an appropriate and consistent methodology. Following a robust longlist and shortlist process provides confidence that the preferred solution will deliver value for money with the greatest certainty.
• Stage 3. At this stage, we expect applicants to demonstrate whether the preferred option, in a sufficiently scoped and designed form, still maximises value for money under a range of scenarios. At Stage 3, we expect that the full scope and details of the preferred option to be completed. We also want to see evidence that the applicant has robustly considered the whole-of-life costs of the project.

Deliverability

There are many factors that affect deliverability of a proposal, such as how technical it is, the quality of project planning and design and the capability of the organisation that is planning and delivering the project. Deliverability is assessed holistically by considering the following three elements:

• Project scoping. Has the proposal been developed sufficiently to adequately understand the proposal’s needs?
• Commercial case. Is the investment viable and achievable in the delivery market?
• Project controls and project management. Is the investment supported appropriately to deliver scope and realise the intended benefits?