Individual delivery partners Submissions raised concerns that: individual irrigators should not be delivery partners as it be difficult to monitor their projects or take punitive action, if needed there may be conflict of interest where irrigators act as their own delivery partner. Department’s response: While individual irrigators who meet COFFIE’s eligibility criteria can act as delivery partners, they are not allowed to act as their own delivery partner (conflicts of interest are dealt with in COFFIE’s Deed of Standing Offer for delivery partners). Consortiums One submission suggested that: delivery partners should be able to work within consortiums to help deliver services, noting that this gives an organisation the flexibility to be a delivery partner and/or a member of a consortium. Department’s response: COFFIE allows an organisation to be a delivery partner and a member of a consortium at the same time. The department will amend the language in the Statement of Requirement to make this clear. Adequacy and structure of delivery partner administration fees Many comments were received regarding the adequacy and structure of delivery partner fees. Some submissions voiced support for: COFFIE’s project-based payment structure for delivery partner fees (which reduces upfront costs) the 8 per cent fee cap the requirement that delivery partners advertise their price and conditions on their websites. Several submissions raised concerns that: COFFIE places additional risks and administrative burdens on delivery partners (compared with other programs) which may be difficult to absorb within the 8 per cent fee cap the administration fee may be inadequate for small projects, with start-up costs accounting for most of the fee the language in the Statement of Requirements around delivery partner fees needs tightening. Suggestions for improvement included:
Individual delivery partners Submissions raised concerns that: individual irrigators should not be delivery partners as it be difficult to monitor their projects or take punitive action, if needed there may be conflict of interest where irrigators act as their own delivery partner. Department’s response: While individual irrigators who meet COFFIE’s eligibility criteria can act as delivery partners, they are not allowed to act as their own delivery partner (conflicts of interest are dealt with in COFFIE’s Deed of Standing Offer for delivery partners). Consortiums One submission suggested that: delivery partners should be able to work within consortiums to help deliver services, noting that this gives an organisation the flexibility to be a delivery partner and/or a member of a consortium. Department’s response: COFFIE allows an organisation to be a delivery partner and a member of a consortium at the same time. The department will amend the language in the Statement of Requirement to make this clear. Adequacy and structure of delivery partner administration fees Many comments were received regarding the adequacy and structure of delivery partner fees. Some submissions voiced support for: COFFIE’s project-based payment structure for delivery partner fees (which reduces upfront costs) the 8 per cent fee cap the requirement that delivery partners advertise their price and conditions on their websites. Several submissions raised concerns that: COFFIE places additional risks and administrative burdens on delivery partners (compared with other programs) which may be difficult to absorb within the 8 per cent fee cap the administration fee may be inadequate for small projects, with start-up costs accounting for most of the fee the language in the Statement of Requirements around delivery partner fees needs tightening. Suggestions for improvement included:
coffie-thematic-paper.docx