Delivery partners will work with irrigators to determine the minimum water savings achievable under a project, and a certified irrigation professional will confirm that these represent a conservative estimate of the water savings that are technically feasible. This protects the irrigator from risk by ensuring that the project will genuinely recover at least the amount of water being offered. Furthermore, irrigators are able to retain any additional water savings. All COFFIE documents will explain this clearly. Water and project pricing Many submissions voiced support for: the department’s review of pricing to avoid problems experienced in previous programs. Submissions noted: that the water price must be contemporary/current and reflect the true market and productive value of the water to be attractive to irrigators the effect of the program itself on market pricing and the influence of large companies who invest in water. Suggestions for setting a price included: using the spot price establishing a market or fixed price to provide security and a variable component to allow for fluctuations including internal trades in pricing updating the water price at quarterly or six monthly intervals, or updating as the price shifts. Water price transparency Some submissions expressed support because: lack of transparency has made previous programs difficult. Some submissions raised concerns that transparency may: influence suppliers to drive up prices disadvantage organisations with a competitive advantage in the current on-farm program Department’s response:
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: