Section 4: Our evaluation approach
This section outlines the evaluation model and criteria as well as the scoring that will be used and the evaluation process that MBIE will follow.
On this page
MBIE will use the evaluation process described in this section to evaluate applications and inform a recommendation to the Minister about the preferred proposed dispute resolution scheme. The Minister will then decide the approved scheme following the process laid out in Schedule 2 of the Act.
Applications should ensure they clearly demonstrate the necessary experience, organisational structure, capability, capacity, and commitment to best practice for operating an approved scheme, in accordance with requirements for the approved scheme set out in Subpart 5 of Part 4 and Schedule 2 of the Act.
4.1 Evaluation model
The evaluation model that will be used is weighted attribute (weighted criteria).
4.2 Evaluation criteria
Proposals will be evaluated on their merits according to the following criteria and weightings.
| Criterion | Weighting | Sub-weighting |
|---|---|---|
| Understanding of requirements | 10% | |
| Demonstrates understanding of the requirements for providing an approved scheme, as set out in the Act | 10% | |
| Approach to delivering dispute resolution services | 30% | |
|
5% | |
| Clearly shows how the proposed scheme would comply with the New Zealand Government Centre for Dispute Resolution’s best practice dispute resolution principles and standards | 5% | |
| Clearly shows how the proposed draft rules comply with clause 14 of Schedule 2 of the Act | 10% | |
| Satisfactorily addresses each of the mandatory considerations in clause 5 of Schedule 2 of the Act (excluding the considerations in clause 5(b), (h) and (i)) | 10% | |
| Capability to deliver an approved scheme | 20% | |
|
20% | |
| Capacity to deliver an approved scheme | 20% | |
| Has, or is able to obtain, the necessary funding, infrastructure and personnel to quickly establish, implement and deliver an effective and efficient approved scheme nationwide | 20% | |
| Management of an approved scheme | 20% | |
|
20% | |
| Total weightings | 100% |
4.3 Scoring
The following scoring scale will be used in evaluating applications. Scores by individual evaluation panel members may be modified through a moderation process across the whole panel.
| Rating | Definition | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| EXCELLENT significantly exceeds the criterion |
Exceeds the criterion. Exceptional demonstration by the applicant of the relevant ability, understanding, experience, skills, resource and quality measures required (as applicable) to meet the criterion. Application identifies factors that will offer potential added value, with supporting evidence. | 9-10 |
| GOOD exceeds the criterion in some aspects |
Satisfies the criterion with minor additional benefits. Above average demonstration by the applicant of the relevant ability, understanding, experience, skills, resource and quality measures required (as applicable) to meet the criterion. Application identifies factors that will offer potential added value, with supporting evidence. | 7-8 |
| ACCEPTABLE meets the criterion in full, but at a minimal level |
Satisfies the criterion. Demonstration by the applicant of the relevant ability, understanding, experience, skills, resource, and quality measures required (as applicable) to meet the criterion, with supporting evidence. | 5-6 |
| MINOR RESERVATIONS marginally deficient |
Some minor reservations of the applicant’s relevant ability, understanding, experience, skills, resource and quality measures required (as applicable) to meet the criterion, with little or no supporting evidence. | 3-4 |
| SERIOUS RESERVATIONS significant issues that need to be addressed |
Considerable reservations of the applicant’s relevant ability, understanding, experience, skills, resource and quality measures required (as applicable) to meet the criterion, with little or no supporting evidence. | 1-2 |
| UNACCEPTABLE significant issues not capable of being resolved |
Does not meet the criterion. Does not comply and/or insufficient information provided to demonstrate that the applicant has the ability, understanding, experience, skills, resource and quality measures required (as applicable) to meet the criterion, with little or no supporting evidence. | 0 |
4.4 Evaluation process and due diligence
In addition to the above evaluation of applications, MBIE may undertake the following process and due diligence, with information obtained taken into account in the evaluation process.
- reference check the provider of dispute resolution services named in the application
- require the provider of dispute resolution services to make a presentation
- any other checks MBIE considers are appropriate.
Last updated: 12 July 2023