Recurrent Investor Assurance Framework FAQs
If a project or program is one of the following, it would be considered a recurrent investment:
- Implementation of a new Policy/Program
- Significant amendment/upgrade to an existing Policy/Program
- Outsourcing a service
- Like to like renewal of an existing policy or service that is due to lapse (no change in scope)
- Re-tender of existing services
- Creation of a new public entity (or new business unit within a public entity) with resource or regulatory cost implications
- The creation of a new government service with resource or regulatory cost implications
- A significant (non-routine) maintenance-for example, to address a large maintenance backlog
- An investment to enhance/extend agency capability
If the recurrent investment meets the thresholds in the Recurrent Investor Assurance Framework, it needs to be registered and risk assessed using the Registration and Risk Assessment Tool available on the Treasury website.
For General Government entities and government businesses, recurrent investments must be registered and risk assessed under the RIAF if they:
- have an ETC of greater than $100 million over 4 years or $50 million in any one year,
- are nominated by ERC, Treasury or the agency.
For State Owned Corporations (SOCs), the Major Projects Policy for Government Businesses, [TPP 18-05], sets out the circumstances in which the RIAF applies to SOCs. SOCs are required to notify Treasury and the relevant minister of all projects being considered over the next few years based on thresholds set out in TPP 18-05. This includes Recurrent investments. There is no requirement for SOCs to register projects under the RIAF. However, the relevant minister may refer any project being delivered by a SOC to Treasury for assurance under the RIAF. For more information refer to TPP 18-05.
No. There is no requirement for reviews to be retrospective.
No. In flight projects or programs that are in implementation stage should, however, be registered using the Registration and Risk Assessment tool. A customised assurance plan (depending upon the risk level and the project stage) can be proposed in discussion with the Treasury Gateway Team and implemented after endorsement by the Major Recurrent Advisory Group. (The Major Recurrent Advisory Group- with senior executive membership drawn from across the sector-reviews and endorses the self -assessment and an external assurance plan for Tier1, 2 and 3 projects or programs). Depending upon the circumstances there could some or no external review requirements.
Review teams use documents provided by the agency and a series of stakeholder interviews to formulate their review report and recommendation. It is not intended that agencies create documentation for the sake of reviews. Instead, it is expected that existing documentation (which may vary in name or form from the documents listed in the generic Gateway Review workbooks) but which provide relevant information will be used.
Three Gateway Coordination Authorities (GCAs) were established by the NSW Gateway Policy (TPP 17-01):
- INSW for capital infrastructure investments
- DFSI for ICT investments
- Treasury for recurrent investments
Each GCA has a framework that requires projects that fall within scope to be registered and risk assessed. It should generally be clear which GCA framework is applicable for a particular investment. However, in the case of an investment with capital, ICT and recurrent elements, materiality will determine under which framework the investment should be registered.
If there is any doubt, NSW Treasury may be approached as the Policy Owner for a determination.
The RIAF does not envisage any special or additional project or program reporting. Normal reporting practices will apply.
No. Machinery of Government changes (MoG) are out of scope.
Yes. The contracts have to be registered if they fall within the scope of the RIAF and meet the thresholds. However registration in itself does not mean there will need to be external Gateway reviews unless the risk assessment suggests that there is value to the Government as investor in external peer reviews.
It is anticipated that only a fraction of registered projects will undergo external Gateway reviews.