The overall approach during the TOC Development Phase was to provide a single core team ("NZTA Support Personnel") to attend the interactive workshops and collaborate with both proponents. In addition, a single NZTA employee ("NZTA Nominee") was provided for each proponent, and embedded in that team, to act as an interface. The resources (internal and external) provided by NZTA included:
• NZTA Support Personnel - attended interactive sessions during the TOC Development Phase, as appropriate to the programme of interactive sessions that the proponents requested (and also outside these sessions through defined communication channels).
• NZTA Nominees - for each proponent, one person from NZTA was nominated to be embedded and work full time within their teams during the TOC Development Phase as they developed their proposals. This person provided the link between the proponent team and NZTA during the TOC Development Phase.
• Interim Project Alliance Board members - two senior NZTA personnel. An interim Project Alliance Board (the PAB, equivalent to the ALT) was formed for each of the proponents during the TOC Development Phase. Each held two meetings.
• Evaluation Panel - a panel of four members who also attended each of the interactive workshops.
• Advisors - a range of external advisors, covering legal, financial, probity, technical and commercial matters.
• Road Safety Audit Team (external) - conducted an audit and assessment of each proponent's concept design during the TOC Development Phase.
• NZTA also provided an engineer to assist with risk modelling and conveying an understanding of the KPI messages to the wider team.
For the PAB, NZTA provided senior staff who were able to speak on behalf of NZTA and who provided valuable input during the Development Phase. However, due to their senior level positions within NZTA, they were, from time to time, diverted onto other issues and/or left and had to be replaced. As a result, the time commitment provided by the Owner's PAB nominees did not mirror that of the proponents' PAB nominees and as a result the process didn't fully achieve the expected collaborative interactions and conversations.
By comparison with single TOC processes (whether partial price or non-price), the Dual TOC process was not overly more resource intensive.
The proponents indicated that they experienced difficulties in effectively engaging client staff during the TOC Development Phase. This was accentuated by the very short timeframe for preparing the project proposal. However, during the Delivery Phase these difficulties dissolved.