Guide to answering questions
This section evaluates Sydney Metro’s quality, time and cost performance.
Quality refers to Sydney Metro’s governance performance, the quality of direction given and the appropriateness of the assurance regime
1a. How well did Sydney Metro provide clear direction and appropriate assurance?
Exemplar – New governance precedent with positive implications for the supplier partner’s performance.
Excellent – Strong governance that improved the supplier partner’s ability to deliver.
On Target – Appropriate governance that enabled the supplier partner to meet targets.
Acceptable – Some governance activities need improvement, but did not impact on the supplier partner’s ability to deliver.
Not on Target – Some governance activities impact the supplier partner’s ability to deliver, but can easily to be rectified.
Corrective Action – Inadequate level of governance significantly impacts the supplier partner’s ability to deliver. Will need dedicated action to mitigate.
Unsustainable – Poor and/or unnecessary governance significantly impacts the supplier partner’s ability to deliver. Executive investment required.
Critical – Governance practices detrimentally impact the supplier partner’s ability to deliver. Immediate executive intervention essential.
Not Applicable – I do not have visibility of this area of performance.
1b. How well do you expect Sydney Metro will provide clear direction and appropriate assurance in the next period?
Exemplar – New governance precedent that will have positive implications for the supplier partner’s performance.
Excellent – Strong governance that will improve the supplier partner’s ability to deliver.
On Target – Appropriate governance that will enable the supplier partner to meet targets.
Acceptable – Some governance activities need improvement, but will not impact on the supplier partner’s ability to deliver.
Not on Target – Some governance activities will impact the supplier partner’s ability to deliver, but can easily be rectified.
Corrective Action – Inadequate level of governance will significantly impact the supplier partner’s ability to deliver. Will need dedicated action to mitigate.
Unsustainable – Poor and/or unnecessary governance will significantly impact the supplier partner’s ability to deliver. Executive investment required.
Critical – Governance practices will detrimentally impact the supplier partner’s ability to deliver. Immediate executive intervention essential.
Not Applicable – I do not have visibility of this area of performance.
Time refers to schedule, program, asset and resource availability and responsiveness, deliverable dates, timeliness of information, and other agreed timeframes.
2a. How well did Sydney Metro deliver against agreed timeframes?
Exemplar – New time management precedent drove a step change in performance.
Excellent – Timeframes always met, reducing delivery risk.
On Target – Timeframes always met.
Acceptable – Timeframes slipped within tolerance, without adverse impacts.
Not on Target – Delays experienced, causing inconvenience, but gaps can easily be rectified.
Corrective Action – Delays experienced, causingadverse impact and dedicated action is required to remediate.
Unsustainable – Delays caused major impact. Executive investment sought.
Critical – Unrecoverable delays causing critical impact. Immediate executive intervention essential.
Not Applicable – I do not have visibility of this area of performance.
2b. How well do you expect Sydney Metro will deliver against agreed timeframes in the next period?
Exemplar – New time management precedent will drive a step change in performance.
Excellent – Timeframes will always be met, reducing delivery risk.
On Target – Timeframes will always be met.
Acceptable – Timeframes will slip within tolerance, without adverse impacts.
Not on Target – Delays will be experienced causing inconvenience, but gaps can easily be rectified.
Corrective Action – Delays will be experienced causing adverse impact and dedicated action is required to remediate.
Unsustainable – Delays will cause major impact. Executive investment sought.
Critical – Unrecoverable delays will cause critical impact. Immediate executive intervention essential.
Not Applicable – I do not have visibility of this area of performance.
Cost includes value for money, costs for resources and similar cost metrics.
3a. How well did Sydney Metro impact costs?
Exemplar – New cost management precedent drove a step change in performance.
Excellent – Effectively managed and understood cost drivers, reducing delivery risk.
On Target – Effectively managed and understood cost drivers.
Acceptable – Cost targets met, but management and understanding of cost drivers can be improved.
Not on Target – Management and understanding of cost drivers impeded delivery, but gaps can easily be rectified.
Corrective Action – Management and understanding of cost drivers caused adverse impact and dedicated action is required to remediate.
Unsustainable – Management and understanding of cost drivers caused major impact. Executive investment sought.
Critical – Management and understanding of cost drivers caused unrecoverable impact. Immediate executive intervention essential.
Not Applicable – I do not have visibility of this area of performance.
3b. How well do you expect Sydney Metro will impact costs in the next period?
Exemplar – New cost management precedent will drive a step change in performance.
Excellent – Will effectively manage and understand cost drivers, reducing delivery risk.
On Target – Will effectively manage and understand cost drivers.
Acceptable – Cost targets will be met, but management and understanding of cost drivers can be improved.
Not on Target – Management and understanding of cost drivers will impede delivery, but gaps can easily be rectified.
Corrective Action – Management and understanding of cost drivers will cause adverse impact and dedicated action is required to remediate.
Unsustainable – Management and understanding of cost drivers will cause major impact. Executive investment sought.
Critical – Management and understanding of cost drivers will cause unrecoverable impact. Immediate executive intervention essential.
Not Applicable – I do not have visibility of this area of performance.
This section evaluates Sydney Metro’s relationship and behaviour performance.
Collaboration measures how well Sydney Metro works with the supplier partner and others to achieve performance.
4a. How effective were Sydney Metro’s relationships with the the supplier partner?
Above Expectations – Active engagement, demonstrated deep trust and complete understanding of the supplier partner’s needs.
As expected – Good level of trust and sought to understand the supplier partner’s needs. Accepted feedback and acted accordingly.
Below expectations – Had some reservations but tried to understand the supplier partner’s needs. Feedback not accepted well.
Not acceptable – Interactions were transactional. No demonstrated interest in building a relationship or understanding the supplier partner’s needs. Feedback met with negativity.
Not Applicable – I do not have visibility of this area of performance.
4b. How well did Sydney Metro coordinate with third parties, including other industry players, Sydney Metro stakeholders and government agencies?
Above Expectations – Understood all performance interdependencies and proactively managed them to optimise internal and external results.
As expected – Proactive coordination with others linked to broader performance.
Below expectations – Only coordinated with others when requested to by supplier partner.
Not acceptable – Teamed poorly with others, impacting broader and/or downstream performances.
Not Applicable – I do not have visibility of this area of performance, or there was no need for third-party integration this period.
4c. How well did Sydney Metro manage contract variations/claims?
Above Expectations – Understood all factors influencing contract scope and performance, proactively and collaboratively agreed an appropriate variation/claim with Industry, and promptly processed the administration and finances.
As expected – Reacted promptly to understand factors influencing contract scope and performance, collaboratively agreed an appropriate variation/claim with Industry, and processed the administration and finances.
Below expectations – Variation/claim agreed with Industry, and administration and finances were processed, but could have been more prompt and/or collaborative.
Not acceptable – Did not seek to understand factors affecting contract scope and performance, would not agree an appropriate variation/claim with Industry, and/or did not process the administration and finances.
Not Applicable – I do not have visibility of this area of performance, or there were no variations/claims in this period.
Responsiveness includes engaging with industry in response to change, and speed of decision-making.
5a. How well did Sydney Metro engage with the supplier partner when circumstances changed?
Above Expectations – Proactively engaged to forecast issues and the supplier partner’s ability to respond. Actively used advice to optimise decisions.
As expected – Regularly sought and used advice from the supplier partner to effectively respond to change.
Below expectations – Occasionally sought advice from industry when circumstances changed. Decisions could have had greater consideration of Industry’s ability to respond to change.
Not acceptable – Industry were not approached, and decisions did not consider Industry’s ability to respond to change.
Not Applicable – I do not have visibility of this area of performance, or circumstances did not change during the period.
5b. How timely was Sydney Metro’s decision-making?
Above Expectations – Decisions always timely, with sufficient notice for Industry to optimise their response and monitor effects.
As expected – Decisions mostly timely, with enough notice for Industry to respond appropriately.
Below expectations – Decisions occasionally timely.
Not acceptable – Decisions rarely or never timely.
Not Applicable – I do not have visibility of this area of performance, or decisions were not required to be made this period.
Outcome focus includes the trade-off decisions, and support for innovation and improvement, needed to achieve best-for-project, best-for-customer, best-for-taxpayer outcomes (as applicable).
6a. How well did Sydney Metro balance time, cost and quality?
Above Expectations – Demonstrated a strong focus on best-for-project/customer/taxpayer. Consistently managed the trade-off of time, cost and quality.
As expected – When required, managed the trade-off between time, cost and quality.
Below expectations – Managed the trade-off between time, cost, and quality, but sometimes at the expense of the outcome.
Not acceptable – Did not manage the trade-off between time, cost and quality, or did not have a best-for-project/customer/taxpayer focus when doing so.
Not Applicable – I do not have visibility of this area of performance, or trade-offs were not needed during the period.
6b. How well did Sydney Metro enable improvement and innovation?
Above Expectations – Proactively encouraged and enabled improvement and innovation, with measurable benefits returned to the infrastructure sector.
As expected – Encouraged and enabled improvement and innovation on request, when expected benefits were clear.
Below expectations – Allowed improvement and innovation but did not encourage nor enable it.
Not acceptable – Inhibited improvement and innovation. Process rather than outcome focus.
Not Applicable – I do not have visibility of this area of performance, or there were no opportunities for improvement or innovation this period.
This section evaluates the supplier partner’s quality, time and cost performance.
Quality refers to the supplier partner’s standard of work, design, resources provided, deliverables and/or outcomes (as applicable). Quality includes functional and compliance requirements.
8a. How well did the supplier partner deliver the agreed quality?
Exemplar – Delivered a new benchmark for quality, resulting in a step change in performance.
Excellent – Quality exceeded expectations.
On Target – Achieved agreed quality requirements.
Acceptable – Achieved agreed quality requirements, but some practices can be improved.
Not on Target – Some agreed quality requirements were not met, but gaps can be easily rectified.
Corrective Action – Some agreed quality requirements were not met and dedicated action is required to mitigate.
Unsustainable – Outcomes were affected due to any number of agreed quality requirements not being met. Executive investment sought.
Critical – Outcomes were not achieved due to essential quality requirements not being met. Immediate executive intervention essential.
Not Applicable – I do not have visibility of this area of performance.
8b. How well do you expect the supplier partner will deliver the agreed quality in the next period?
Exemplar – Will deliver a new benchmark for quality, resulting in a step change in performance.
Excellent – Quality will exceed expectations.
On Target – Will achieve agreed quality requirements.
Acceptable – Will achieve agreed quality requirements, but some practices can be improved.
Not on Target – Some agreed quality requirements will not be met, but gaps can be easily rectified.
Corrective Action – Some agreed quality requirements will not be met and dedicated action is required to mitigate.
Unsustainable – Outcomes will be affected due to any number of agreed quality requirements not being met. Executive investment sought.
Critical – Outcomes will not be achieved due to essential quality requirements not being met. Immediate executive intervention essential.
Not Applicable – I do not have visibility of this area of performance.
Time refers to schedule, program, asset and resource availability and responsiveness, deliverable dates, timeliness of information, and other agreed timeframes.
9a. How well did the supplier partner deliver against agreed timeframes?
Exemplar – New time management precedent drove a step change in performance.
Excellent – Timeframes always met, reducing delivery risk.
On Target – Timeframes always met.
Acceptable – Timeliness slipped within tolerance, without adverse impacts.
Not on Target – Delays experienced causing inconvenience, but gaps can easily be rectified.
Corrective Action – Delays experienced causing adverse inconvenience and dedicated action is required to remediate.
Unsustainable – Delays caused major impact. Executive investment sought.
Critical – Unrecoverable delays causing critical impact. Immediate executive intervention essential.
Not Applicable – I do not have visibility of this area of performance.
9b. How well do you expect the supplier partner will deliver against agreed timeframes in the next period?
Exemplar – New time management precedent will drive a step change in performance.
Excellent – Timeframes will always be met, reducing delivery risk.
On Target – Timeframes will always be met.
Acceptable – Timeframes will slip within tolerance, without adverse impacts.
Not on Target – Delays will be experienced, causing inconvenience, but gaps can easily be rectified.
Corrective Action – Delays will be experienced, causing adverse impact and dedicated action is required to remediate.
Unsustainable – Delays will cause major impact. Executive investment sought.
Critical – Unrecoverable delays will cause critical impact. Immediate executive intervention essential.
Not Applicable – I do not have visibility of this area of performance.
Cost includes value for money, costs for resources and similar cost metrics.
10a. How well did the supplier partner impact costs?
Exemplar – New cost management precedent drove a step change in performance.
Excellent – Cost targets met and cost management reduced delivery risk.
On Target – Cost targets met.
Acceptable – Cost targets met, but management can be improved.
Not on Target – Cost targets met, but gaps can easily be rectified.
Corrective Action – Cost management caused adverse impact and dedicated action is required to remediate.
Unsustainable – Cost management caused major impact. Executive investment sought.
Critical – Cost management caused unrecoverable impact. Immediate executive intervention essential.
Not Applicable – I do not have visibility of this area of performance.
10b. How well do you expect the supplier partner will impact costs in the next period?
Exemplar – New cost management precedent will drive a step change in performance.
Excellent – Cost targets will be met and cost management will reduce delivery risk.
On Target – Cost targets will be met.
Acceptable – Cost targets will be met, but management can be improved.
Not on Target – Cost targets will not be met, but gaps can easily be rectified.
Corrective Action – Cost management will cause adverse impact and dedicated action is required to remediate.
Unsustainable – Cost management will cause major impact. Executive investment sought.
Critical – Cost management will cause unrecoverable impact. Immediate executive intervention essential.
Not Applicable – I do not have visibility of this area of performance.
This section evaluates the supplier partner’s relationship and behaviour performance.
Collaboration measures how well the supplier partner works with Sydney Metro and others to achieve performance
11a. How effective were the supplier partner’s relationships with Sydney Metro?
Above Expectations – Active engagement, demonstrated deep trust and complete understanding of Sydney Metro’s needs.
As expected – Good level of trust and sought to understand Sydney Metro’s needs. Accepted feedback and acted accordingly.
Below expectations – Had some reservations but tried to understand Sydney Metro’s needs. Feedback not accepted well.
Not acceptable – Interactions were transactional. No demonstrated interest in building a relationship or understanding Sydney Metro’s needs. Feedback met with negativity.
Not Applicable – I do not have visibility of this area of performance.
11b. How well did the supplier partner coordinate with third parties, including other industry players and government agencies?
Above Expectations – Understood all performance interdependencies and proactively managed them to optimise internal and external results.
As expected – Proactive coordination with others linked to broader performance.
Below expectations – Only coordinated with others when requested to by Sydney Metro.
Not acceptable – Teamed poorly with others, impacting broader and/or downstream performances.
Not Applicable – I do not have visibility of this area of performance, or there was no need for third-party integration this period.
11c. How well did the supplier partner manage contract variations/claims?
Above Expectations – Variations/claims always collaboratively agreed with Sydney Metro. Accurate and factual justification for circumstances and price always provided. No further clarifications needed for settlement or processing.
As expected – Variations/claims mostly collaboratively agreed with Sydney Metro. Accurate and factual justification for circumstances and price mostly provided. Few further clarifications needed for settlement or processing.
Below expectations – Variations/claims agreed with Sydney Metro but could be more collaborative. Justification for circumstances and price could be more accurate and/or factual. Clarifications often needed for settlement or processing.
Not acceptable – Variations/claims are rarely accurate or factually justified. Settlement and processing of variations/claims is contentious needing executive intervention.
Not Applicable – I do not have visibility of this area of performance, or there were no variations/claims in this period.
Responsiveness includes engaging with Sydney Metro in response to change, and speed of implementation.
12a. How well did the supplier partner respond when circumstances changed?
Above Expectations – Actively monitored emerging risks, issues and opportunities. Provided dependable, complete advice to Sydney Metro. Re-prioritised activities to optimise changing circumstances.
As expected – Provided dependable, complete advice to Sydney Metro within scope. Often re-prioritised activities in response changing circumstances.
Below expectations – Irregular, incomplete input to issues. Unable to re-prioritise activities in response changing circumstances.
Not acceptable – Did not contribute to resolving issues. Resistant to re-prioritising activities in response to changing circumstances.
Not Applicable – I do not have visibility of this area of performance, or circumstances did not change during the period.
12b. How timely was the supplier partner’s implementation of agreed responses to change?
Above Expectations – Implementation always timely, allowing Sydney Metro to maximise benefit from the response.
As expected – Implementation mostly timely, allowing Sydney Metro to achieve benefit from the response.
Below expectations – Implementation not timely, reducing Sydney Metro’s benefit from the response.
Not acceptable – No implementation of agreed responses to change, negatively impacting Sydney Metro.
Not Applicable – I do not have visibility of this area of performance, or responding to change was not required this period.
Outcome focus includes the trade-off decisions, and fostering innovation and improvement, needed to achieve best-for-project, best-for-customer, best-for-taxpayer outcomes (as applicable).
13a. How well did the supplier partner balance time, cost and quality?
Above Expectations – Demonstrated a strong focus on best-for-project/customer/taxpayer. Consistently managed the trade-off of time, cost and quality.
As expected – When required, managed the trade-off between time, cost and quality.
Below expectations – Managed the trade-off between time, cost, and quality, but sometimes at the expense of the outcome.
Not acceptable – Did not manage the trade-off between time, cost and quality, or did not have a best-for-project/customer/taxpayer focus when doing so.
Not Applicable – I do not have visibility of this area of performance, or trade-offs were not needed during the period.
13b. How well did the supplier partner improve and innovate?
Above Expectations – Demonstrated strong commitment to continuous improvement and innovation, maximising value to Sydney Metro.
As expected – Implemented improvements and/or innovative practices that increased value to Sydney Metro.
Below expectations – Introduced improvements with some value to Sydney Metro. Level of commitment to improvement was lower than expected.
Not acceptable – Did not improve and/or innovate. Practices have remained stagnant or have deteriorated.
Not Applicable – I do not have visibility of this area of performance, or there were no opportunities for improvement or innovation this period.
15a. Overall, how well did Sydney Metro perform in this reporting period?
Excellent – Ideal partner. Sydney Metro performed well, and provided above-expectation support to enable the Industry Partner to perform.
On Target – Good partner. Sydney Metro performed well, and provided as-expected support to enable the Industry Partner to perform.
Acceptable – Good partner. Sydney Metro performed well, but could have better-enabled the Industry Partner to perform.
Not on Target – Could have been a better partner. Sydney Metro’s performance or enablement of the Industry Partner was below expectations, but gaps can easily be rectified.
Corrective Action – Could have been a better partner. Sydney Metro’s performance or enablement of the Industry Partner requires dedicated action to remediate.
Unsustainable – Poor partner, causing significant performance challenges for the Industry Partner.
Critical – Unacceptable level of performance that cannot be continued.
15b. How well do you expect Sydney Metro to perform in the next period?
Excellent – Ideal partner. Sydney Metro will perform well, and provide above-expectation support to enable the Industry Partner to perform.
On Target – Good partner. Sydney Metro will perform well, and provide as-expected support to enable the Industry Partner to perform.
Acceptable – Good partner. Sydney Metro will perform well, but can better-enable the Industry Partner to perform.
Not on Target – Could be a better partner. Sydney Metro’s performance or enablement of the Industry Partner will be below expectations, but gaps can easily be rectified.
Corrective Action – Could be a better partner. Sydney Metro’s performance or enablement of the Industry Partner requires dedicated action to remediate.
Unsustainable – Poor partner, causing significant performance challenges for the Industry Partner.
Critical – Unacceptable level of performance that cannot be continued.
16a. Overall, how well did the supplier partner perform in this reporting period?
Excellent – Ideal partner. Performed well and provided above-expectation support to Sydney Metro’s outcomes.
On Target – Good partner. Performed well and provided as-expected support to Sydney Metro’s outcomes.
Acceptable – Good partner. Performed well, but could have better-supported Sydney Metro’s outcomes.
Not on Target – Could have been a better partner. Performance or support to Sydney Metro’s outcomes was below expectations, but gaps can easily be rectified.
Corrective Action – Could have been a better partner. Performance or support to Sydney Metro’s outcomes requires dedicated action to remediate.
Unsustainable – Poor partner, with performance causing significant impacts on Sydney Metro’s outcomes.
Critical – Unacceptable level of performance that cannot be continued.
16b. How well do you expect the supplier partner to perform in the next period?
Excellent – Ideal partner. Will continue to go above and beyond to support Sydney Metro Partner outcomes requirements.
On Target – Good partner. Will continue to meet all expectations to support Sydney Metro Partner outcome requirements.
Acceptable – Good partner, will continue to require some areas of improvement that would assist the Sydney Metro Partner.
Not on Target – Would be a good partner, but will continue to either over-deliver or under-deliver and have a negative impact on the Sydney Metro Partner.
Corrective Action – Would be a good partner with increased internal investment, underperformance is still within the partner’s control to remediate.
Unsustainable – Poor partner, will continue to cause significant performance challenges for the Sydney Metro Partner.
Critical – Will continue to provide an unacceptable level of performance that cannot be continued.
