Page 5375 - Week 12 - Thursday, 28 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
(4) Given that page 47, Section 9.1 of the Design Brief for the project requires “All concrete water retaining tanks, shall include an approved protective coating or lining over the complete internal surface and splash zones for corrosion/erosion protection and ease of maintenance”, what (a) material, extent of coverage and application method was envisaged by the design brief; and (b) was the projected cost of the protective/epoxy coating including its application.
(5) At what point, including the date, was the decision made to recommend that the design brief, criteria, standards or scope of works for the Stromlo water treatment plant be varied to exclude the protective/epoxy coating component and why was that recommendation made.
(6) Who authorised adoption of the recommendation referred to in part (5) and why was the authorisation given.
(7) Was the quality of the water taken into account in the decision making.
(8) Was experience at the Googong water treatment plant taken into consideration in the decision making.
(9) As a result of removing the requirement for a protective coating from the contract, (a) how much money was saved in the final approved total project budget, (b) how much construction and completion time was saved and (c) were the construction contracts varied in any way as to cost, time to complete, bonuses, other incentives or warranty arrangements; if so, to what extent in each area mentioned; if not, why not.
(10) After the Stromlo water treatment plant was commissioned into service, (a) how frequently were inspections made as to the integrity of the construction and maintenance requirements and (b) when was the first inspection made.
(11) How many of the inspections and/or reports identify any deterioration in the construction integrity, including defects or potential defects.
(12) If any of the inspections referred to in part (11) identified any deterioration, defects or potential defects, (a) when did that deterioration, defect or potential defect first emerge, (b) how many reports were made that identified deterioration or defect or potential defect, (c) over what period were those reports made, (d) what was done to investigate and rectify the problems identified and when, (e) were the warranty (defects liability) provisions of the contract pursued to address any identified defects or potential defects; if so, what warranty rectification works were undertaken and when; if not, why not, (f) how much has it cost to rectify the problems identified and (g) who has done the rectification work.
(13) In terms of the remedial works announced in the report published in The Canberra Times on 20 April 2010 including, but not limited to, the retro-application of the protective/epoxy coating, (a) when was the recommendation made to proceed with the remedial works, (b) who made the recommendation and why, (e) who authorised the project to proceed and why, (f) what is the design brief, criteria, standards or scope of works, (g) what is the total project budget, (h) what are the individual elements of that budget, together with the costs for each element including, but not limited to, project management, design, site supervision, owners costs, overheads, profit and incentive fees, (i) what is the timeline for completion, (j) how many contracts have been or will be awarded and for what elements of the scope of works,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video