4.3 The Evaluation Plan (see paragraph 3.13) had outlined that the second stage of evaluation (after formation of the Prioritisation Evaluation Committee) was to involve the advisers screening submissions to identify those that:
• were relevant to four asset classes (transport, water, energy and telecommunications-excluding initiatives that could be delivered via the implementation of the National Broadband Network)110; and then
• had failed to comply with minimum content and format of submission information requirements outlined in the Prioritisation Methodology.
4.4 Most of the proposals submitted to Infrastructure Australia were focused on infrastructure issues within a particular jurisdiction (State, Territory or regional/local government area) with very few being national in their scope. In addition, most of the initiatives related to transport infrastructure, with relatively few in the areas of energy, water and telecommunications infrastructure.
4.5 At its 12 November 2008 meeting, the Infrastructure Council was informed that 112 projects had been shortlisted for prioritisation against the published Prioritisation Methodology. The Infrastructure Coordinator advised ANAO in May 2010 that this list was to provide early advice to the Infrastructure Australia Council on the broad range of proposals that was being assessed. Subsequent to the 12 November 2008 Council meeting, the list of projects shortlisted for detailed evaluation was reduced to 94 projects. The Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator advised ANAO in May 2010 that the reduction from 112 projects in the November list to 94 projects in the 1 December list reflected a closer assessment of the proposals, including the extent to which the profiling template had been completed for various projects proposals, and the potential strategic significance of a project.
4.6 Under the Evaluation Plan, those submissions that were not within the four asset classes were to be excluded from further evaluation (clause 4.1.2 of the Evaluation Plan refers). However, of the 94 shortlisted proposals, five were not within the four asset classes, namely:
• four Indigenous/housing initiatives (the Aboriginal Community Water Supply and Sewerage capital works program submitted by the New South Wales Government, the Northern Territory Government's Indigenous Essential Services Requirements initiative, the Western Australia Government's Pilbara Housing and Indigenous Infrastructure initiative and the Queensland Government's Remote Road and Indigenous Employment Program initiative); and
• the Australian Capital Territory Government's Health Capital Projects initiative.
4.7 The Evaluation Report did not document why the eligibility requirement had been waived for those initiatives.
4.8 Also to be excluded from further evaluation were submissions that had not completed, at the minimum, Appendix C: Profiling in the Prioritisation Methodology. In this respect, the Council had been advised by the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator that the shortlisted submissions had completed, 'at the minimum, the profiling proforma'. However, included in the list of 94 projects advised to the Council were a number of projects that had not completed a summary of initiative profiling, including four Australian Capital Territory Government projects (the Very Fast Train project, the Southern Energy Supply project, the Hoskinstown to Fyshwick Looping project and Health Capital Projects) and the Worley Parsons Pilbara Power submission. Again, the Evaluation Report did not document why this eligibility requirement had been waived. In this regard, the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator advised ANAO in May 2010 that:
In a limited number of cases, judgements were made to assess some proposals notwithstanding that profiling templates had not been completed for the specific proposals. For example:
• the ACT Government's submission into a Very High Speed Train - this was assessed on the basis that a scoping study had been undertaken in 2001, and having regard to the project's potentially transformative nature; and
• the ACT energy projects (southern supply and Hoskinstown - Fyshwick looping) were potentially significant as a means of ensuring security of energy supply to the national capital, and, in the case of the Fyshwick project, there was an indication from the ACT Government that a detailed feasibility study would be available in December 2008.
Whilst these proposals were assessed by the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator, none of the projects were identified as having a 'medium', 'high' or 'very high' priority in the assessment material presented for [the] Infrastructure Australia [Council's] consideration on 1 December 2008.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
110 At its 1 December 2008 meeting, the Infrastructure Council had agreed that 'the national broadband initiative was a genuine national building project'.