10.2 Evaluation Criteria

Guidance note: The Evaluation Criteria and Evaluation Sub-Criteria set out below are a guide only and should be updated to reflect Project-specific requirements. Procuring Agencies should ensure that the Evaluation Criteria and Evaluation Sub-Criteria closely align with the Proposal Requirements.

It is also recommended that Procuring Agencies assign priorities to the Evaluation Criteria using a three star-priority rating which is disclosed to Respondents in the RFP. There should be sufficient differentiation between criteria for the rating to be effective. The rating is not intended to reflect a notional mathematical weighting, it is simply an indication of relative importance.

The Victorian Government has introduced formal weighting for Local Content as outlined in VIPP or LIDP plans, in the evaluation of VIPP applicable projects. The manner in which the Local Content weighting should be applied is set out in the Victorian Industry Participation Policy Agency Guidelines available at www.economicdevelopment.vic.gov.au/victorian-industry-participation-policy.

It is not proposed in this template that any evaluation criterion is classified as mandatory. Procuring Agencies may consider if this is necessary when finalising the Evaluation Criteria. A completeness review against Proposal Requirements is conducted before evaluation can commence.

The State will evaluate each Proposal against the Evaluation Criteria set out in Volume 1, Part B (Evaluation Criteria and Proposal Requirements). The Evaluation Criteria and Evaluation Sub-Criteria are summarised in Table 16 (Summary of Evaluation Criteria and Sub-Criteria) below.

In evaluating each Proposal, the State will have regard to the information provided by each Respondent in response to the Proposal Requirements set out in Volume 1, Part B (Evaluation Criteria and Proposal Requirements).

Table 16: Summary of Evaluation Criteria and Sub-Criteria

Evaluation Criteria / Sub-Criteria		Priority1
Qualitative Evaluation Criteria
Part A - Technical Solution		[###-star]
Evaluation Sub-Criterion A1	Masterplanning [#Optional]
Evaluation Sub-Criterion A2	Design Solution
Evaluation Sub-Criterion A3	Engineering Solution
Evaluation Sub-Criterion A4	Construction Management
Evaluation Sub-Criterion A5	Interface Management
Evaluation Sub-Criterion A6	Ecologically Sustainable Development [#Optional]
Evaluation Sub-Criterion A7	Technical Specification Departures
Part B - Services Solution		[###-star]
Evaluation Sub-Criterion B1	Mobilisation
Evaluation Sub-Criterion B2	Management of Service Delivery
Evaluation Sub-Criterion B3	Service Specific Solution
Evaluation Sub-Criterion B4	Services Specification Departures
Part C - Commercial and Financial Solution		[###-star]
Evaluation Sub-Criterion C1	Management and Commercial Solution
Evaluation Sub-Criterion C2	Acceptance of Risk Profile
Evaluation Sub-Criterion C3	Financial Capacity
Evaluation Sub-Criterion C4	Financing Structure
Evaluation Sub-Criterion C5	Certainty and Robustness of Financing Proposal
Part D - Government Policy Requirements		[###-star]2
Evaluation Sub-Criterion D1	Commitment to VIPP
Evaluation Sub-Criterion D2	Major Projects Skills Guarantee Compliance
Quantitative Evaluation Criteria
Part E - Value and Risk Proposition		N/A
Evaluation Sub-Criterion E1	Risk Adjusted Cost of Proposal [(including Scope Ladder)]
Evaluation Sub-Criterion E2	Financial Model Assumptions
Evaluation Sub-Criterion E3	Value for Money Enhancements and Other Cost Impacts
1. Definition of Priorities: Three-star Priority: Evaluation Criteria assigned a three-star priority are those that are relatively of higher importance than two-star and one-star Evaluation Criteria; Two-star Priority: Evaluation Criteria assigned a two-star priority are relatively more important than one-star Evaluation Criteria but of relatively lower importance than three-star Evaluation Criteria; and One-star Priority: Evaluation Criteria assigned a one-star priority are those that are relatively of lower importance than three-star and two-star Evaluation Criteria. The assignment of priorities to Evaluation Criteria are intended to provide guidance to Respondents in relation to the relative importance of each Evaluation Criteria to the State to assist in the preparation of Proposals. Respondents are to note that the priority framework is not intended to be rigid or imply a set relativity between priority allocations. 2. VIPP The priority allocated to the content of Respondents' LIDP Plan will be an equivalent [10] per cent weighting consistent with the Local Jobs First - VIPP Policy.

Without limiting any other provision in this RFP and the Terms and Conditions, the State reserves the right to:

• vary or amend its Evaluation Criteria at any time;

• develop and consider sub-criteria for some, or all, of the Evaluation Criteria;

• take into account information provided in response to a particular Evaluation Criterion in the evaluation of other Evaluation Criteria; and

• request additional information or clarifications in relation to any Proposal, including via interview or presentation.