The reviewer must determine whether the cost-benefit appraisal has conformed to all the relevant requirements of Waka Kotahi’s Economic Evaluation Manual (EEM). The reviewer must determine whether there are any outstanding issues not addressed in the project report.
If there is a departure from the requirements, or any defect or omission, the reviewer must comment on its significance.
Where the reviewer considers that there have been discrepancies and departures from procedure, or has concerns on cost and/or benefit estimation, the reviewer will determine the project benefit–cost ratio (BCR) and compare this with the applicant’s calculations.
The reviewer must determine whether the options identified in the analysis are mutually exclusive options of the same project. If the options identified:
- are mutually exclusive, then the reviewer must determine that an incremental assessment of the options has been carried out correctly, as set out in the Incremental Assessment section of this Knowledge Base, or
- are not mutually exclusive, then by definition they must be either:
- independent projects, in which case the reviewer must determine that the analysis has been undertaken in terms of independent projects and has been undertaken correctly, and should comment whether they should be resubmitted as separate projects; or
- inter-dependent projects, e.g. components of a package, in which case the reviewer should consider whether the analysis that has been undertaken is valid.
In special cases, other economic impacts may be considered (e.g. wider economic benefits). These are to be shown as sensitivity analyses, in addition to the EEM procedure economic analysis.
Where supplementary (third party) funding is involved, a government BCR must be determined in addition to the national BCR.