Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 8 Hansard (26 October) . . Page.. 2080 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

on behalf of the Federal Government. The department concerned went through the tenders and said, "This is the cheapest tender. We will give it to this company". The only problem was that the company did not have any planes and it did not have any pilots, but it hoped that it might get some. What happened in that case was that they said, "Yes, price is the only thing". They were from Mr De Domenico's school of thought that price is the only criterion, and they bought a service from someone who was not in a position to deliver the service.

That is what this issue is about. A key element is that we have inadequate tender documents that do not properly explain what is being purchased. We have a failure by the department, with full approval from the Minister, to take account of value for money and to focus solely on price. What they have not done in evaluating these tenders is consider the experience of auctioneers and the quality of the service that was being provided. They have not considered any of these things in considering whether or not they were getting best value for money here. They did not ask for references. The tender documentation from Harold Hird and Associates, which was tabled in the Assembly last week, is a six-line letter. There is no reference to the qualifications or the experience of the auctioneer who was going to conduct the auction in order to establish that they would get good value for money for the ACT Government from this auction.

Mr De Domenico mentioned the Hymans bid. Mr De Domenico, who is claiming to have had nothing to do with the process, was only too happy to give Hymans advice on putting in a bid. In fact, I understand that they put in the bid to him and he passed it on to his department. The facts are that they rejected the Hymans bid because they said that it was not a bare price. They wanted a flat rate price; it was not a flat rate price. But where is the evidence that they were ever told that? They were not told that by Mr De Domenico, who accepted their bid and passed it on to the department. The department did not phone up and say, "No, you have got it wrong. What we wanted was a flat price. You had better submit something else". They just said, "No, this does not comply. Throw it out".

Another one of the purchasing guidelines states:

. use purchasing methodologies which utilise industry expertise to assist in the identification of better solutions to their procurement needs to maximise the value for money achieved;

What happened in this case? They have predetermined it. They have said, "We will do the advertising and we will book the hall. You just send along someone to auction it". Hymans has put in a bid saying, "We have a better way of doing it. We will do it this way. We will do the advertising. We will advertise it more extensively than you were going to do it. We will book a better venue that will create a more salubrious atmosphere for the auction, which will create an environment in which people will feel more comfortable, more ready to bid".

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .