Page 2550 - Week 06 - Thursday, 10 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
(1) The approximate cost, including GST, is:
(a) Scania 14.5 metre Euro 5 bus: $590,000
(b) MAN 12.5 metre Euro 5 bus: $490,000
(c) Scania 12.5 metre CNG bus: $580,000.
(2) 33 (as at 30 April 2012).
Government—procurement process exemptions
(Question No 2321)
Mr Rattenbury asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 3 May 2012:
(1) Given that within the ACT Government Contracts Register the procurement process for the contract 1013 – Provision of CFO Services – Execution Date 14/3/2012 – Contract Value $179,560 (GST Inclusive) is recorded as single select, urgent and exempt from quotation and tender threshold requirements and with respect to value for money in procurement within the Justice and Community Safety Directorate in relation to the contract, how has the Directorate assured itself that value for money in accordance with subsection 22A of Part 2A of the Government Procurement Act 2001 has been achieved.
(2) What were the reasons for not complying with subsection 6 of Part 2 of the Government Procurement Regulation 2007 with respect to the procurement process.
(3) If the Director-General of the Directorate, in writing, exempted the organisation from complying with the requirements of subsection 6 of Part 2 of the Government Procurement Regulation 2007, what were the reasons for doing so.
(4) How did the Directorate assure itself that it met all relevant requirements of the ACT Government Procurement Policy Circular PC25: Select and Single Procurement for this procurement process.
Mr Corbell: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:
The contract referred to in the Member’s question relates to the Legal Aid Commission, not the Justice and Community Safety Directorate.
(1) The Directorate is not responsible for financial decisions of the Legal Aid Commission (the Commission). The Commission is an independent statutory agency and under the Financial Management Act 1996 and the chief executive officer of the Commission is responsible for the financial management of the Commission and is the responsible chief executive officer for the purpose of the Government Procurement Act 2001 and section 10 of the Government Procurement Regulation 2007. The chief executive officer was satisfied that the contract represented the best available procurement outcome having regard to the Commission’s financial management and related needs at this time, market rates for similar services, and the cost of employing a CFO of comparable competence and experience.
(2) The chief executive officer of the Commission exercised his discretion in writing in accordance with Section 10 of the ACT Government Procurement Regulation 2007 to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video