4. Assessment Criteria

4.1. Legislative and Policy Alignment

Proponents must clearly articulate how the proposal:

• supports DTP’s transport and land and infrastructure management objectives.
• aligns with broader Government transport, infrastructure, economic and environmental policies.
• demonstrates compliance with relevant legislation governing public and transport-related land and infrastructure use.

4.2. Value-for-Money

The proposal must demonstrate a strong business case with clear financial and non-financial benefits to the State and the community. It must:

• show how the business model ensures financial sustainability without requiring government funding.
• include a detailed analysis of whole-of-life-cycle costs, such as installation, operations, maintenance, and eventual decommissioning, as well as responsible parties for the costs.
• ensure that any revenue streams comply with relevant government regulations and guidelines.
• provide a clear explanation of the direct and indirect benefits to local communities, such as the promotion of sustainable transport, reducing emissions, attracting customers to local businesses, boosting economic activity.

Revenue considerations

In consideration of DTP’s fiscal responsibilities as the owner or manager of land and infrastructure, proponents are encouraged to include mechanisms for contributing financially to the public benefit. This may include the payment of a licence fee for land and infrastructure use, which reflects the value of the site and its community significance. Additionally, proponents should consider incorporating revenue-sharing arrangements into the proposal (e.g., revenue streams derived from user charges). Such arrangements should be structured to ensure a sustainable financial model while providing contribution to the use of land and infrastructure. Proposals that demonstrate strong financial responsibility and potential for mutual benefit will be viewed favourably in the assessment process.

4.3. Deliverability

The proponent must demonstrate that the project is deliverable within the proposed timelines and budgets, with clear evidence of:

• financial capacity and funding arrangements.
• experience and capacity to deliver similar projects.
• key risks including mitigation strategies associated with project implementation.
• realistic and achievable project timeline.

4.4. Exclusive Negotiation Justification

As the proposal seeks exclusive negotiation with DTP, it must justify:

• why the proposed use of land and infrastructure cannot be replicated through a competitive tender process.
• whether the proponent holds unique characteristics (e.g., patents, copyrights) that would prevent other market participants from delivering the same or similar DTP controlled land and infrastructure.
• any additional factors that would justify the need for exclusive negotiations for consideration at the sole discretion of DTP.

4.5. Site Suitability

Proponents must identify suitable locations on DTP-controlled land and infrastructure that meet the following criteria:

• Existing and future land and infrastructure use compatibility: The proposed site must not interfere with any existing and potential future land and infrastructure use, and it must be confirmed that the development will not hinder other government projects or plans. The proposal should demonstrate how disruptions to existing infrastructure, parking availability, or use will be minimised.
• Sufficient user demand: A site must be assessed for adequate user demand to justify the proposed land and infrastructure use. The proposal must include an analysis of current and projected user demand for the commercial activities in the selected area, supported by evidence.
• Accessibility and inclusivity: the proposed commercial activities must be easily accessible to all user groups, including people with disabilities. This includes ensuring compliance with relevant accessibility standards which are designed to accommodate a variety of user groups, ensuring equitable access for all users.
• Traffic conditions: the site’s accessibility and traffic flow will be carefully evaluated to ensure easy access without causing congestion or hazards. Proper signage, entry and exist points, and proximity to major roads or highways will also be considered to provide a smooth and safe experience for users.
• Safety-related risks and liabilities: The proposal should include a risk assessment including mitigation strategies for potential safety concerns such as electrical hazards, fire risks or vehicle accidents.
• Existing and planned similar activities in proximity: An evaluation of nearby existing and planned similar commercial activities will be included to avoid oversaturation and to identify gaps in the current and future activities.

Proponents should be aware that the final determination of site suitability is at the discretion of DTP.