This page relates to the 2024–27 National Land Transport Programme.
This page outlines the requirements of peer reviews to ensure the robustness evaluations of an approved organisation or NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi (NZTA; for its own activities), and to reduce risk to the delivery of desired outcomes from our (NZTA as investor) investment decisions.
The purpose of the peer review is to reduce the risks that projects either do not deliver on the outcomes forecast in the funding application, or they fail to deliver the outcomes at the level of efficiency and effectiveness stated in the application.
We require a peer review of improvement activities, or combination of activities that have estimated whole-of-life costs over $15 million or where a significant level of risk is involved. Improvements means any activities that propose a change to the current customer levels of service or improvements to the efficiency in delivering an existing level of service.
For projects that do not meet the $15 million threshold or do not have significant risk, we encourage that these projects are internally peer reviewed.
Small projects (between $2 million and $15 million whole-of-life cost) may be peer reviewed if the cost and/or benefit risks associated with these are considered high or the applicant lacks experience in the development and implementation of such projects
We (NZTA as investor) may waive the requirement for a peer review, in whole or in part and/or direct the review towards particular aspects.
The reviewer must raise in writing with the applicant organisation any:
The reviewer must request that the applicant organisation:
The reviewer must note any outstanding concerns in the review report.
The peer reviewer shall be selected and appointed by the applicant and must:
For very large, complex programmes and activities, a peer review panel, covering a range of competencies, may be more appropriate.
We reserve the right to undertake our own peer review of any activity or to require the approved organisation or NZTA (for its own activities) to appoint a specific peer reviewer or to establish a peer review panel with appropriate competencies.
The peer review must include a range of considerations.
The reviewer must determine whether the activity is eligible for funding from the relevant funding sources. In many cases, this will be that it fits the description of one or more of the activity classes in the current Government Policy Statement on land transport (GPS) and complies with other NZTA funding rules.
Government Policy Statement on land transport 2024(external link)
The reviewer must verify that the activity evaluation conforms to the requirements of this knowledge base, including that it has been assessed by the applicant in conformance with the NZTA Investment Prioritisation Method (IPM). The reviewer needs to be satisfied that the IPM ratings for the activity are justified.
2024–27 NLTP Investment Prioritisation Method
To confirm credibility, the reviewer must:
The reviewer must assess the do-minimum as stated in the activity report and must determine whether it complies with the definition in the MBCM, including that it does not represent another option to be considered in the analysis.
The reviewer must examine the evaluation and judge whether all feasible alternatives and options have been identified and considered adequately, and provide a view if there could be a better preferred option from a technical perspective. The examination must determine if the intervention hierarchy has been appropriately applied, including low-cost options.
The reviewer needs to be satisfied that the process for selecting the preferred alternative and option(s) has been robust and includes incremental assessment where appropriate.
The reviewer must check compliance with cost estimate process requirements, including parallel costs estimates, where applicable.
See the Cost estimation manual (SM014) for details.
Cost estimation manual (SM014)
The reviewer must determine whether the cost-benefit appraisal has conformed to all the relevant requirements of the MBCM. The reviewer must determine whether there are any outstanding issues not addressed in the activity report.
Monetised benefits and costs manual
If there is a departure from the requirements, or any defect or omission, the reviewer must comment on its significance.
Where the reviewer considers there have been discrepancies and departures from procedure, or has concerns about cost and/or benefit estimation, the reviewer will determine the activity 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 activity. If the options identified:
In special cases, other economic impacts may be considered (for example wider economic benefits). These are to be shown as sensitivity analyses, in addition to the MBCM procedure economic analysis.
Where supplementary (third party) funding is involved, a government BCR must be determined in addition to the national BCR.
The reviewer must assess whether:
The reviewer must consider whether the sensitivity of critical aspects of the activity evaluation has been covered off adequately, paying particular attention to:
