Evaluation Criteria

Yes

No

A. General

1.  All of the required sections of the Second File are provided, and the information provided is in sufficient detail to enable the Supervisory Committee to fully evaluate whether the project should proceed to the Third File phase. Any updates or revisions to the project concept are fully integrated across all Second File sections, and an affirmative statement on data accuracy and currency is included.

2.  It is clear which organization is implementing the project and who will ultimately be responsible for delivering the project on time and to budget.

B. Project Rationale and Assessment of Need

3.  The problem or opportunity to be addressed is clearly demonstrated and the way in which the project will help solve the problem or respond to the opportunity is explained and appears plausible.

4.  The description of the scope of the project is sufficiently detailed for the Second File stage and there are no obvious omissions of major components that could potentially jeopardize the achievement of the project purpose or materially affect the cost estimates.

5.  There is an urgent need, i.e., within the next 3 years, for the services of the project as evidenced by one or more of the following:

a)  existing demand for a facility close to the end of its economic life or technologically obsolescent;

b)  a severe capacity constraint in existing facilities resulting in suppressed demand;

c)  strongly growing demand, likely to outstrip the capacity of existing facilities in the near future;

d)  demand for new services not previously provided; or

e)  Economic benefit from transfer of functions to private operation.

6.  The project will contribute to the achievement of relevant strategic goals and objectives as set out in Vision 2030 or the National Transformation Plan and is aligned with the sectoral Privatization plan as approved by the sectoral Supervisory Committee.

C.  Economic Case

7.  The proposed technical solution appears appropriate to the problem identified, and the risk analysis and cost estimates appear realistic and complete, based upon available information.

8.  The postulated project benefits and identification of potential negative impacts appear realistic in the context of this project.

9.  Alternative solutions have been adequately considered, and the preponderance of evidence supports the conclusion that the preferred option is the most advantageous to the Kingdom.

10. On balance, there is good reason to believe that in the preferred option the proposed project costs are likely to be exceeded by the potential benefits.

D. Assessment of Affordability

11. Budgetary resources for the project are available, or can reasonably be expected to be made available if the project is approved.

12. Benefits to users are likely to be achievable at an acceptable cost, for example, approximate capital costs per user or per unit of output are in line with comparable projects and/or international experience.

E.  Market Assessment

13. The market assessment demonstrates that there is private sector interest, experience, and capacity to undertake the project.  If there are concerns about the adequacy of any of these factors, a plausible plan is presented to address the concern(s), and is considered in the relevant cost estimates.

F.  Identification of Issues

14. The Second File identifies the relevant technical, environmental social and legal issues, the associated risks, and the costs associated with mitigating those risks.

15. Affordable and practical mitigation measures are identified for all of the relevant risks.

G.  Project Plan

16. The Project Plan is complete and realistic.

H.  Summary and Recommendation

17. The recommendation to proceed to the Third File stage is supported by the information and analyses included in the Second File, which are fully compliant with all NCP requirements.