3.31 As noted, public submissions were requested by 15 October 2008 and submissions from the States, Territories and the ARTC by 31 October 2008.
3.32 The Evaluation Plan stated that the Prioritisation Evaluation Committee could, at its absolute discretion, seek clarification of any candidate initiative or the assessment of any initiative where the provision of any such further information might assist the Prioritisation Evaluation Committee in the finalisation of the Interim Priority List. The Evaluation Plan also permitted clarification to occur where the advisers considered that there had been unintentional errors of form in a submission. In respect to opportunities for submitters to vary or revise their submissions, the Evaluation Plan stated that:
Clarification is permitted throughout Stage 2 [Screening for Compliance and Further Evaluation]. Any additional information submitted by a Submitter will need to be assessed to determine whether it is truly a clarification of submitted information, or whether it effectively amounts to the submission of late material that seeks to vary the existing Submission.
Submitters will be informed that the request for clarification is not an opportunity to materially re‐visit or revise their Submission.
3.33 The planned approach of having a clear, firm and consistent submission closing date and providing an opportunity to clarify submissions where necessary but not permitting proponents to add to or revise their submission was premised on the view that the process used by the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator was:
not radically innovative in substance. The fundamental elements have long been central to good infrastructure policymaking. In short, all proponents should already have been going through the various analytical steps in the course of normal decision‐making.101
3.34 However, at least three State/Territory Government submissions were received late.102 In addition, the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator found that many of the State and Territory submissions:
did not provide adequate information to enable assessment against the audit and prioritisation frameworks. Jurisdictions were then asked to revise their submissions in line with the frameworks and Prioritisation Methodology.103
3.35 The circumstances of late submissions and submissions from States and Territories not providing the requested information left the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator in a difficult situation. On the one hand, accepting late submissions and allowing States and Territories to add to and/or revise their submissions departed from the documented evaluation principle of:
Fairness -All Submissions and proposed Initiatives shall be treated equally and fairly, and shall be evaluated strictly in accordance with this Plan.104
3.36 On the other hand, there was a risk that assessing only those submissions received in full by the due date would not form the basis of a significantly robust Interim Priority List which could then be used to develop the Final Priority List. This latter concern was seen as more important such that the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator:
• assessed at least three submissions from a State/Territory received after the closing date together with a number of submissions made to the public submission process105 which were received after the closing date;106 and
• allowed a number of States, Territories and submitters to the public submission process to provide supplementary information in relation to a number of projects, which was then assessed.
3.37 For some projects, the approach taken permitted the proponent to make significant changes to the scope and/or estimated cost of delivering candidate projects. A number of projects also changed the submitted BCR prior to the release of the Interim Priority List. This was significant as, during the course of the assessment of submissions, a decision had been made by the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator to only focus on initiatives with a submitted BCR of above 1.5.107
3.38 In relation to the acceptance of late submissions, the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator advised ANAO in April and May 2010 that:
When late submissions were received, Infrastructure Australia had a choice whether or not to accept the submission. Infrastructure Australia's interest in encouraging a broad range of well‐developed submissions led the Infrastructure Coordinator to the view that it was better to accept late submissions than not. Indeed, in some cases, a decision not to accept late submissions might have placed a party at a disadvantage. For example, additional time was granted to the Western Australian Government to lodge a submission. This acknowledged the reality that there had been a change of Government during the period of the Audit, that is, when other jurisdictions were preparing their detailed project submissions.
3.39 In respect to the receipt of new information or changes to information already submitted, in June 2010 the Chair of the Council informed ANAO that:
We were looking to provide sound advice to governments about the key infrastructure priorities facing the country. As a result, Infrastructure Australia was open to receiving new information on project initiatives. Whilst this may or may not be appropriate in the context of a tender process, it is entirely appropriate given Infrastructure Australia's role in providing the best possible advice on infrastructure matters.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
101 ANAO Audit Report No.29 2008-09, Delivery of Projects on the AusLink National Network, Canberra, 23 April 2009, p. 220.
102 These were the Northern Territory, the Australian Capital Territory and the Western Australian submissions. In June 2010, the Chair of the Infrastructure Australia Council informed ANAO that the submissions from the Western Australian Government were late due to the need for the newly elected Government to review its priorities.
103 Infrastructure Australia, Report on the Evaluation of Submissions for Infrastructure Australia's Interim Infrastructure Priority List, 1 December 2008.
104 The other evaluation principles were auditability ('All reviews, critiques and decisions involved in the evaluation are to be fully traceable and auditable'), information security ('All Submissions shall be classed as commercially sensitive and shall be handled and protected in accordance with this Plan and Infrastructure Australia's Document Control Plan') and confidentiality ('All involved individuals, including advisors and the Prioritisation Evaluation Committee, are to be fully accountable for their actions and shall avoid all situations, which would be or could be seen to be involving Infrastructure Australia in any conflicts of interest. All involved individuals will execute Deeds of Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest Declarations').
105 For example, Brisbane City Council provided information as part of the public submission process dated 24 October 2008 (a summary of the submission) and 10 November 2008 (the entire submission), which was assessed by the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator in the development of the Interim Priority List. Worley Parsons also provided a submission to the public submission process dated 18 September 2008, and a more comprehensive submission to the public submission process dated 31 October 2008. This later submission was also assessed by the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator in the development of the Interim Priority List.
106 In this context, the Report on the Evaluation of Submissions for Infrastructure Australia's Interim Priority List stated, in the context of the appraisal evaluation conducted by Infrastructure Australia that: 'However, four experts were brought back to the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator to assess a number of initiatives which were either late or for which updated information was provided.'
107 See further at paragraph 4.14.