Whilst the structuring of the overall alliance procurement process is beyond the scope of this guideline, this section and Chapter 8 provide an overview of issues to be considered. The following table provides the key best practice considerations in structuring a full, partial or non-price NOP selection and TOC development process.
Table 5: The three NOP selection processes compared - selection elements to consider
Selection Element | Full Price | Partial Price | Non-price |
Level of documentation | RFP and supporting technical specifications. | RFP and supporting technical specifications. | RFP and supporting technical specifications. |
Human resourcing | Designated Owner Contact Person for each Proponent team for formal communication between Evaluation team and Proponent team. Other Owner Personnel for Proponent Interaction and Participant(s) as appropriate. All Owner Participants provide observations to Evaluation Panel. Owner Participant for each Proponent and 'crossover' team as appropriate. Roles for Commercial Advisor, Legal Advisor, Financial Advisor, and Owners Estimator. Specialist advisors as required. Other general procurement support functions. | Designated Owner Contact Person for each Proponent team for formal communication between Evaluation team and Proponent team. Other Owner Personnel for Proponent Interaction and Participant(s) as appropriate. All Owner Participants provide observations to Evaluation Panel. Owner Participant for each Proponent and 'crossover' team as appropriate. Same as full price plus Owner's Estimator to assist in negotiating Final TOC and more reliance on Commercial Advisor and Legal Advisor. Specialist advisors support functions. Other general procurement support functions. | Owner Participants and Evaluation Team for Selection Process that is concluded prior to commencement of TOC development phase. Multiple Owner Participants in TOC development. Owner is heavily reliant on Commercial Advisor, Legal Advisor, Financial Advisor, and Owners Estimator to assist in negotiating Final Project Proposal, including Final TOC. Specialist advisors as required. Other general procurement support functions. |
Opportunities for Proponent differentiation | Maximum opportunity available. | Opportunity pre-determined by Owner. | Limited opportunity for shortlisted Proponent Teams during Selection Process prior to TOC development. No direct objective comparators available for Proponent during TOC development. |
Probity considerations regarding Owner interaction during the TOC Development phase | Use of single evaluation team provides for both Proponents. Governance arrangements protect Proponent IP and process integrity. Owner has an embedded Participant(s) with each Proponent teams and/or a cross-over team working with both Proponents. All matters should be resolved before selection. | Use of single evaluation team provides for both Proponents. Governance arrangements protect Proponent IP and process integrity. Owner has an embedded Participant(s) with each Proponent teams and/or a crossover team working with both Proponents. Negotiation on selected final matters to be resolved after selection. | No probity process issue regarding confidentiality of IP as the single Proponent selected is through traditional EOI process; however, there are broader probity issues to be managed. High risk of capture by Proponents when engaged to undertake early works. TOC developed after selection of Preferred Proponent. Negotiation on all elements of the Project Proposal as none are resolved prior to selection. |
Timelines for selection processes | Fixed by Owner. | Fixed by Owner | Can be longer than other processes as no competition or process to 'time-box' process (use of a capped fee provides some incentive for timeliness). |
Reimbursement of Proponent costs | Capped Fee agreed up front. Suggested 50%. | Capped Fee agreed up front. Suggested 50%. | Capped fee agreed up front. Suggested 50% to 100% depending on circumstances.* |
* - Where there is a very high degree of scope uncertainty and external consultation, it may be appropriate to pay full costs, but generally the fee should be limited to provide incentives to the Preferred Proponent to reach agreement on an acceptable TOC that aligns with the Business Case