Page 2940 - Week 07 - Thursday, 7 June 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Date 06/3/2012 – Contract Value $1,485,000 (GST Inclusive) are recorded as single select, urgent and exempt from quotation and tender threshold requirements, can a further description of each of these projects be provided.
(2) With respect to value for money in procurement within the Health Directorate in relation to the above contracts, 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.
(3) What were the reasons for not complying with subsection 9 of Part 2 of the Government Procurement Regulation 2007 with respect to each of the procurement processes.
(4) If the Director-General of the Directorate, in writing, exempted the Directorate from complying with the requirements of subsection 9 of Part 2 of the Government Procurement Regulation 2007, what were the reasons for so doing.
(5) 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 the two procurement processes.
Ms Gallagher: I am advised that the answer to the member’s question is as follows:
(1) (a) Further description of the project requires the consultant to:
|
(i) |
map the Health Directorate's current model of business processes, information, data, integration and applications; |
|
(ii) |
identify any gaps; and |
|
(iii) |
make future recommendations for next steps for the Health Directorate to undertake. |
This procurement was not undertaken as a single select procurement. I can confirm that the Contracts Register accurately reflects that a select procurement was undertaken by the Health Directorate, and that this involved three organisations. Value for money requirements were satisfied by assessing the three (3) responses received against pre-identified assessment criteria.
An invitation to public tender process was exempted by the Delegate on the grounds that “the time within which the procurement activity was to be completed prevented public tenders from being called”.
Under the Government Procurement Regulations 2007, the decision by the Delegate not to invite public tenders is consistent with the example type listed under Item
10(2)(4). Subsection 9 of Part 2 of the Government Procurement Regulation 2007 is consistent with Section 10(2)(4) of the Government Procurement Regulation 2007. The conduct of a public tender process was exempted by the Delegate on the grounds that “the time within which the procurement activity was to be completed prevented public tenders from being called”.
In assessing the responses received from the three organisations, the Health Directorate was satisfied that a value for money outcome was achieved. The Health Directorate’s approach to contracting the services of the consultant complied with all relevant requirements of the “ACT Government Procurement Policy Circular PC25: Select and Single Select Procurement”.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video