❓ A parliamentary question scrutinizing the West Kimberley power project tender process, focusing on transparency, fairness, and adherence to procedures, particularly regarding Energy Development Pty Ltd.
AnsweredQoN 1690Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the minister to his answer to question without notice 1629 concerning the West Kimberley power project. (1) When was Kimberley Power Pty Ltd’s tender opened and who was present? (2) Was the tender price at that time used as the final price in the evaluation? (3) When was Energy Development Pty Ltd’s tender opened and who was present? (4) Was the tender price at that time used as the final price in the evaluation? (5) Was Energy Development permitted to change its tender price before the final pricing was submitted to the reference group on 18 September and, if so, how much was the price reduction? (6) Can the minister confirm that Energy Development did not have a secure distribution point at the time of its bid? (7) Did Energy Development hold discussions with the Government concerning its development at the Burrup Peninsula prior to completion of the evaluation process, and, if so, what was the nature of the discussions? Hon TOM STEPHENS
AnswerView source ↗
The Minister for Energy has provide the following answer - (1) Kimberley Power’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Kimberley Power’s final tariff, the letter containing the tariff was received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. A copy of the letter was then provided to the evaluation team. (2) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (3) Energy Development’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Energy Development’s final tariff, the letters containing the tariff - compressed natural gas-based and liquefied natural gas-based proposals - were received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. Copies of the letters were then provided to the evaluation team. (4) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (5) No. Energy Development’s tender price did not change from 5 September 2003. (6) When the member clarifies what he means by “distribution point” this question will be answered. (7) I am advised that Energy Development Pty Ltd held discussions with the Department of Industry and Resources concerning access to land at the Maitland estate for its proposed LNG facility.
(1) When was Kimberley Power Pty Ltd’s tender opened and who was present? (2) Was the tender price at that time used as the final price in the evaluation? (3) When was Energy Development Pty Ltd’s tender opened and who was present? (4) Was the tender price at that time used as the final price in the evaluation? (5) Was Energy Development permitted to change its tender price before the final pricing was submitted to the reference group on 18 September and, if so, how much was the price reduction? (6) Can the minister confirm that Energy Development did not have a secure distribution point at the time of its bid? (7) Did Energy Development hold discussions with the Government concerning its development at the Burrup Peninsula prior to completion of the evaluation process, and, if so, what was the nature of the discussions? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for Energy has provide the following answer - (1) Kimberley Power’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Kimberley Power’s final tariff, the letter containing the tariff was received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. A copy of the letter was then provided to the evaluation team. (2) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (3) Energy Development’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Energy Development’s final tariff, the letters containing the tariff - compressed natural gas-based and liquefied natural gas-based proposals - were received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. Copies of the letters were then provided to the evaluation team. (4) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (5) No. Energy Development’s tender price did not change from 5 September 2003. (6) When the member clarifies what he means by “distribution point” this question will be answered. (7) I am advised that Energy Development Pty Ltd held discussions with the Department of Industry and Resources concerning access to land at the Maitland estate for its proposed LNG facility.
(2) Was the tender price at that time used as the final price in the evaluation? (3) When was Energy Development Pty Ltd’s tender opened and who was present? (4) Was the tender price at that time used as the final price in the evaluation? (5) Was Energy Development permitted to change its tender price before the final pricing was submitted to the reference group on 18 September and, if so, how much was the price reduction? (6) Can the minister confirm that Energy Development did not have a secure distribution point at the time of its bid? (7) Did Energy Development hold discussions with the Government concerning its development at the Burrup Peninsula prior to completion of the evaluation process, and, if so, what was the nature of the discussions? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for Energy has provide the following answer - (1) Kimberley Power’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Kimberley Power’s final tariff, the letter containing the tariff was received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. A copy of the letter was then provided to the evaluation team. (2) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (3) Energy Development’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Energy Development’s final tariff, the letters containing the tariff - compressed natural gas-based and liquefied natural gas-based proposals - were received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. Copies of the letters were then provided to the evaluation team. (4) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (5) No. Energy Development’s tender price did not change from 5 September 2003. (6) When the member clarifies what he means by “distribution point” this question will be answered. (7) I am advised that Energy Development Pty Ltd held discussions with the Department of Industry and Resources concerning access to land at the Maitland estate for its proposed LNG facility.
(3) When was Energy Development Pty Ltd’s tender opened and who was present? (4) Was the tender price at that time used as the final price in the evaluation? (5) Was Energy Development permitted to change its tender price before the final pricing was submitted to the reference group on 18 September and, if so, how much was the price reduction? (6) Can the minister confirm that Energy Development did not have a secure distribution point at the time of its bid? (7) Did Energy Development hold discussions with the Government concerning its development at the Burrup Peninsula prior to completion of the evaluation process, and, if so, what was the nature of the discussions? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for Energy has provide the following answer - (1) Kimberley Power’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Kimberley Power’s final tariff, the letter containing the tariff was received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. A copy of the letter was then provided to the evaluation team. (2) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (3) Energy Development’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Energy Development’s final tariff, the letters containing the tariff - compressed natural gas-based and liquefied natural gas-based proposals - were received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. Copies of the letters were then provided to the evaluation team. (4) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (5) No. Energy Development’s tender price did not change from 5 September 2003. (6) When the member clarifies what he means by “distribution point” this question will be answered. (7) I am advised that Energy Development Pty Ltd held discussions with the Department of Industry and Resources concerning access to land at the Maitland estate for its proposed LNG facility.
(4) Was the tender price at that time used as the final price in the evaluation? (5) Was Energy Development permitted to change its tender price before the final pricing was submitted to the reference group on 18 September and, if so, how much was the price reduction? (6) Can the minister confirm that Energy Development did not have a secure distribution point at the time of its bid? (7) Did Energy Development hold discussions with the Government concerning its development at the Burrup Peninsula prior to completion of the evaluation process, and, if so, what was the nature of the discussions? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for Energy has provide the following answer - (1) Kimberley Power’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Kimberley Power’s final tariff, the letter containing the tariff was received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. A copy of the letter was then provided to the evaluation team. (2) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (3) Energy Development’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Energy Development’s final tariff, the letters containing the tariff - compressed natural gas-based and liquefied natural gas-based proposals - were received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. Copies of the letters were then provided to the evaluation team. (4) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (5) No. Energy Development’s tender price did not change from 5 September 2003. (6) When the member clarifies what he means by “distribution point” this question will be answered. (7) I am advised that Energy Development Pty Ltd held discussions with the Department of Industry and Resources concerning access to land at the Maitland estate for its proposed LNG facility.
(5) Was Energy Development permitted to change its tender price before the final pricing was submitted to the reference group on 18 September and, if so, how much was the price reduction? (6) Can the minister confirm that Energy Development did not have a secure distribution point at the time of its bid? (7) Did Energy Development hold discussions with the Government concerning its development at the Burrup Peninsula prior to completion of the evaluation process, and, if so, what was the nature of the discussions? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for Energy has provide the following answer - (1) Kimberley Power’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Kimberley Power’s final tariff, the letter containing the tariff was received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. A copy of the letter was then provided to the evaluation team. (2) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (3) Energy Development’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Energy Development’s final tariff, the letters containing the tariff - compressed natural gas-based and liquefied natural gas-based proposals - were received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. Copies of the letters were then provided to the evaluation team. (4) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (5) No. Energy Development’s tender price did not change from 5 September 2003. (6) When the member clarifies what he means by “distribution point” this question will be answered. (7) I am advised that Energy Development Pty Ltd held discussions with the Department of Industry and Resources concerning access to land at the Maitland estate for its proposed LNG facility.
(6) Can the minister confirm that Energy Development did not have a secure distribution point at the time of its bid? (7) Did Energy Development hold discussions with the Government concerning its development at the Burrup Peninsula prior to completion of the evaluation process, and, if so, what was the nature of the discussions? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for Energy has provide the following answer - (1) Kimberley Power’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Kimberley Power’s final tariff, the letter containing the tariff was received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. A copy of the letter was then provided to the evaluation team. (2) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (3) Energy Development’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Energy Development’s final tariff, the letters containing the tariff - compressed natural gas-based and liquefied natural gas-based proposals - were received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. Copies of the letters were then provided to the evaluation team. (4) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (5) No. Energy Development’s tender price did not change from 5 September 2003. (6) When the member clarifies what he means by “distribution point” this question will be answered. (7) I am advised that Energy Development Pty Ltd held discussions with the Department of Industry and Resources concerning access to land at the Maitland estate for its proposed LNG facility.
(7) Did Energy Development hold discussions with the Government concerning its development at the Burrup Peninsula prior to completion of the evaluation process, and, if so, what was the nature of the discussions? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for Energy has provide the following answer - (1) Kimberley Power’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Kimberley Power’s final tariff, the letter containing the tariff was received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. A copy of the letter was then provided to the evaluation team. (2) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (3) Energy Development’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Energy Development’s final tariff, the letters containing the tariff - compressed natural gas-based and liquefied natural gas-based proposals - were received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. Copies of the letters were then provided to the evaluation team. (4) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (5) No. Energy Development’s tender price did not change from 5 September 2003. (6) When the member clarifies what he means by “distribution point” this question will be answered. (7) I am advised that Energy Development Pty Ltd held discussions with the Department of Industry and Resources concerning access to land at the Maitland estate for its proposed LNG facility.
Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for Energy has provide the following answer - (1) Kimberley Power’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Kimberley Power’s final tariff, the letter containing the tariff was received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. A copy of the letter was then provided to the evaluation team. (2) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (3) Energy Development’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Energy Development’s final tariff, the letters containing the tariff - compressed natural gas-based and liquefied natural gas-based proposals - were received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. Copies of the letters were then provided to the evaluation team. (4) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (5) No. Energy Development’s tender price did not change from 5 September 2003. (6) When the member clarifies what he means by “distribution point” this question will be answered. (7) I am advised that Energy Development Pty Ltd held discussions with the Department of Industry and Resources concerning access to land at the Maitland estate for its proposed LNG facility.
The Minister for Energy has provide the following answer - (1) Kimberley Power’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Kimberley Power’s final tariff, the letter containing the tariff was received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. A copy of the letter was then provided to the evaluation team. (2) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (3) Energy Development’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Energy Development’s final tariff, the letters containing the tariff - compressed natural gas-based and liquefied natural gas-based proposals - were received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. Copies of the letters were then provided to the evaluation team. (4) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (5) No. Energy Development’s tender price did not change from 5 September 2003. (6) When the member clarifies what he means by “distribution point” this question will be answered. (7) I am advised that Energy Development Pty Ltd held discussions with the Department of Industry and Resources concerning access to land at the Maitland estate for its proposed LNG facility.
(1) Kimberley Power’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Kimberley Power’s final tariff, the letter containing the tariff was received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. A copy of the letter was then provided to the evaluation team. (2) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (3) Energy Development’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Energy Development’s final tariff, the letters containing the tariff - compressed natural gas-based and liquefied natural gas-based proposals - were received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. Copies of the letters were then provided to the evaluation team. (4) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (5) No. Energy Development’s tender price did not change from 5 September 2003. (6) When the member clarifies what he means by “distribution point” this question will be answered. (7) I am advised that Energy Development Pty Ltd held discussions with the Department of Industry and Resources concerning access to land at the Maitland estate for its proposed LNG facility.
(2) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (3) Energy Development’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Energy Development’s final tariff, the letters containing the tariff - compressed natural gas-based and liquefied natural gas-based proposals - were received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. Copies of the letters were then provided to the evaluation team. (4) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (5) No. Energy Development’s tender price did not change from 5 September 2003. (6) When the member clarifies what he means by “distribution point” this question will be answered. (7) I am advised that Energy Development Pty Ltd held discussions with the Department of Industry and Resources concerning access to land at the Maitland estate for its proposed LNG facility.
(3) Energy Development’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Energy Development’s final tariff, the letters containing the tariff - compressed natural gas-based and liquefied natural gas-based proposals - were received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. Copies of the letters were then provided to the evaluation team. (4) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (5) No. Energy Development’s tender price did not change from 5 September 2003. (6) When the member clarifies what he means by “distribution point” this question will be answered. (7) I am advised that Energy Development Pty Ltd held discussions with the Department of Industry and Resources concerning access to land at the Maitland estate for its proposed LNG facility.
(4) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (5) No. Energy Development’s tender price did not change from 5 September 2003. (6) When the member clarifies what he means by “distribution point” this question will be answered. (7) I am advised that Energy Development Pty Ltd held discussions with the Department of Industry and Resources concerning access to land at the Maitland estate for its proposed LNG facility.
(5) No. Energy Development’s tender price did not change from 5 September 2003. (6) When the member clarifies what he means by “distribution point” this question will be answered. (7) I am advised that Energy Development Pty Ltd held discussions with the Department of Industry and Resources concerning access to land at the Maitland estate for its proposed LNG facility.
(6) When the member clarifies what he means by “distribution point” this question will be answered. (7) I am advised that Energy Development Pty Ltd held discussions with the Department of Industry and Resources concerning access to land at the Maitland estate for its proposed LNG facility.
(7) I am advised that Energy Development Pty Ltd held discussions with the Department of Industry and Resources concerning access to land at the Maitland estate for its proposed LNG facility.
(1) When was Kimberley Power Pty Ltd’s tender opened and who was present? (2) Was the tender price at that time used as the final price in the evaluation? (3) When was Energy Development Pty Ltd’s tender opened and who was present? (4) Was the tender price at that time used as the final price in the evaluation? (5) Was Energy Development permitted to change its tender price before the final pricing was submitted to the reference group on 18 September and, if so, how much was the price reduction? (6) Can the minister confirm that Energy Development did not have a secure distribution point at the time of its bid? (7) Did Energy Development hold discussions with the Government concerning its development at the Burrup Peninsula prior to completion of the evaluation process, and, if so, what was the nature of the discussions? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for Energy has provide the following answer - (1) Kimberley Power’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Kimberley Power’s final tariff, the letter containing the tariff was received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. A copy of the letter was then provided to the evaluation team. (2) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (3) Energy Development’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Energy Development’s final tariff, the letters containing the tariff - compressed natural gas-based and liquefied natural gas-based proposals - were received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. Copies of the letters were then provided to the evaluation team. (4) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (5) No. Energy Development’s tender price did not change from 5 September 2003. (6) When the member clarifies what he means by “distribution point” this question will be answered. (7) I am advised that Energy Development Pty Ltd held discussions with the Department of Industry and Resources concerning access to land at the Maitland estate for its proposed LNG facility.
(2) Was the tender price at that time used as the final price in the evaluation? (3) When was Energy Development Pty Ltd’s tender opened and who was present? (4) Was the tender price at that time used as the final price in the evaluation? (5) Was Energy Development permitted to change its tender price before the final pricing was submitted to the reference group on 18 September and, if so, how much was the price reduction? (6) Can the minister confirm that Energy Development did not have a secure distribution point at the time of its bid? (7) Did Energy Development hold discussions with the Government concerning its development at the Burrup Peninsula prior to completion of the evaluation process, and, if so, what was the nature of the discussions? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for Energy has provide the following answer - (1) Kimberley Power’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Kimberley Power’s final tariff, the letter containing the tariff was received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. A copy of the letter was then provided to the evaluation team. (2) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (3) Energy Development’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Energy Development’s final tariff, the letters containing the tariff - compressed natural gas-based and liquefied natural gas-based proposals - were received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. Copies of the letters were then provided to the evaluation team. (4) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (5) No. Energy Development’s tender price did not change from 5 September 2003. (6) When the member clarifies what he means by “distribution point” this question will be answered. (7) I am advised that Energy Development Pty Ltd held discussions with the Department of Industry and Resources concerning access to land at the Maitland estate for its proposed LNG facility.
(3) When was Energy Development Pty Ltd’s tender opened and who was present? (4) Was the tender price at that time used as the final price in the evaluation? (5) Was Energy Development permitted to change its tender price before the final pricing was submitted to the reference group on 18 September and, if so, how much was the price reduction? (6) Can the minister confirm that Energy Development did not have a secure distribution point at the time of its bid? (7) Did Energy Development hold discussions with the Government concerning its development at the Burrup Peninsula prior to completion of the evaluation process, and, if so, what was the nature of the discussions? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for Energy has provide the following answer - (1) Kimberley Power’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Kimberley Power’s final tariff, the letter containing the tariff was received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. A copy of the letter was then provided to the evaluation team. (2) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (3) Energy Development’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Energy Development’s final tariff, the letters containing the tariff - compressed natural gas-based and liquefied natural gas-based proposals - were received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. Copies of the letters were then provided to the evaluation team. (4) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (5) No. Energy Development’s tender price did not change from 5 September 2003. (6) When the member clarifies what he means by “distribution point” this question will be answered. (7) I am advised that Energy Development Pty Ltd held discussions with the Department of Industry and Resources concerning access to land at the Maitland estate for its proposed LNG facility.
(4) Was the tender price at that time used as the final price in the evaluation? (5) Was Energy Development permitted to change its tender price before the final pricing was submitted to the reference group on 18 September and, if so, how much was the price reduction? (6) Can the minister confirm that Energy Development did not have a secure distribution point at the time of its bid? (7) Did Energy Development hold discussions with the Government concerning its development at the Burrup Peninsula prior to completion of the evaluation process, and, if so, what was the nature of the discussions? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for Energy has provide the following answer - (1) Kimberley Power’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Kimberley Power’s final tariff, the letter containing the tariff was received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. A copy of the letter was then provided to the evaluation team. (2) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (3) Energy Development’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Energy Development’s final tariff, the letters containing the tariff - compressed natural gas-based and liquefied natural gas-based proposals - were received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. Copies of the letters were then provided to the evaluation team. (4) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (5) No. Energy Development’s tender price did not change from 5 September 2003. (6) When the member clarifies what he means by “distribution point” this question will be answered. (7) I am advised that Energy Development Pty Ltd held discussions with the Department of Industry and Resources concerning access to land at the Maitland estate for its proposed LNG facility.
(5) Was Energy Development permitted to change its tender price before the final pricing was submitted to the reference group on 18 September and, if so, how much was the price reduction? (6) Can the minister confirm that Energy Development did not have a secure distribution point at the time of its bid? (7) Did Energy Development hold discussions with the Government concerning its development at the Burrup Peninsula prior to completion of the evaluation process, and, if so, what was the nature of the discussions? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for Energy has provide the following answer - (1) Kimberley Power’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Kimberley Power’s final tariff, the letter containing the tariff was received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. A copy of the letter was then provided to the evaluation team. (2) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (3) Energy Development’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Energy Development’s final tariff, the letters containing the tariff - compressed natural gas-based and liquefied natural gas-based proposals - were received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. Copies of the letters were then provided to the evaluation team. (4) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (5) No. Energy Development’s tender price did not change from 5 September 2003. (6) When the member clarifies what he means by “distribution point” this question will be answered. (7) I am advised that Energy Development Pty Ltd held discussions with the Department of Industry and Resources concerning access to land at the Maitland estate for its proposed LNG facility.
(6) Can the minister confirm that Energy Development did not have a secure distribution point at the time of its bid? (7) Did Energy Development hold discussions with the Government concerning its development at the Burrup Peninsula prior to completion of the evaluation process, and, if so, what was the nature of the discussions? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for Energy has provide the following answer - (1) Kimberley Power’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Kimberley Power’s final tariff, the letter containing the tariff was received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. A copy of the letter was then provided to the evaluation team. (2) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (3) Energy Development’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Energy Development’s final tariff, the letters containing the tariff - compressed natural gas-based and liquefied natural gas-based proposals - were received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. Copies of the letters were then provided to the evaluation team. (4) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (5) No. Energy Development’s tender price did not change from 5 September 2003. (6) When the member clarifies what he means by “distribution point” this question will be answered. (7) I am advised that Energy Development Pty Ltd held discussions with the Department of Industry and Resources concerning access to land at the Maitland estate for its proposed LNG facility.
(7) Did Energy Development hold discussions with the Government concerning its development at the Burrup Peninsula prior to completion of the evaluation process, and, if so, what was the nature of the discussions? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for Energy has provide the following answer - (1) Kimberley Power’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Kimberley Power’s final tariff, the letter containing the tariff was received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. A copy of the letter was then provided to the evaluation team. (2) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (3) Energy Development’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Energy Development’s final tariff, the letters containing the tariff - compressed natural gas-based and liquefied natural gas-based proposals - were received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. Copies of the letters were then provided to the evaluation team. (4) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (5) No. Energy Development’s tender price did not change from 5 September 2003. (6) When the member clarifies what he means by “distribution point” this question will be answered. (7) I am advised that Energy Development Pty Ltd held discussions with the Department of Industry and Resources concerning access to land at the Maitland estate for its proposed LNG facility.
Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for Energy has provide the following answer - (1) Kimberley Power’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Kimberley Power’s final tariff, the letter containing the tariff was received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. A copy of the letter was then provided to the evaluation team. (2) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (3) Energy Development’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Energy Development’s final tariff, the letters containing the tariff - compressed natural gas-based and liquefied natural gas-based proposals - were received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. Copies of the letters were then provided to the evaluation team. (4) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (5) No. Energy Development’s tender price did not change from 5 September 2003. (6) When the member clarifies what he means by “distribution point” this question will be answered. (7) I am advised that Energy Development Pty Ltd held discussions with the Department of Industry and Resources concerning access to land at the Maitland estate for its proposed LNG facility.
The Minister for Energy has provide the following answer - (1) Kimberley Power’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Kimberley Power’s final tariff, the letter containing the tariff was received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. A copy of the letter was then provided to the evaluation team. (2) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (3) Energy Development’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Energy Development’s final tariff, the letters containing the tariff - compressed natural gas-based and liquefied natural gas-based proposals - were received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. Copies of the letters were then provided to the evaluation team. (4) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (5) No. Energy Development’s tender price did not change from 5 September 2003. (6) When the member clarifies what he means by “distribution point” this question will be answered. (7) I am advised that Energy Development Pty Ltd held discussions with the Department of Industry and Resources concerning access to land at the Maitland estate for its proposed LNG facility.
(1) Kimberley Power’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Kimberley Power’s final tariff, the letter containing the tariff was received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. A copy of the letter was then provided to the evaluation team. (2) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (3) Energy Development’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Energy Development’s final tariff, the letters containing the tariff - compressed natural gas-based and liquefied natural gas-based proposals - were received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. Copies of the letters were then provided to the evaluation team. (4) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (5) No. Energy Development’s tender price did not change from 5 September 2003. (6) When the member clarifies what he means by “distribution point” this question will be answered. (7) I am advised that Energy Development Pty Ltd held discussions with the Department of Industry and Resources concerning access to land at the Maitland estate for its proposed LNG facility.
(2) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (3) Energy Development’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Energy Development’s final tariff, the letters containing the tariff - compressed natural gas-based and liquefied natural gas-based proposals - were received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. Copies of the letters were then provided to the evaluation team. (4) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (5) No. Energy Development’s tender price did not change from 5 September 2003. (6) When the member clarifies what he means by “distribution point” this question will be answered. (7) I am advised that Energy Development Pty Ltd held discussions with the Department of Industry and Resources concerning access to land at the Maitland estate for its proposed LNG facility.
(3) Energy Development’s tender was opened on 17 February 2003 in the presence of the probity auditor and several members of the evaluation team. If the question was intended to refer to Energy Development’s final tariff, the letters containing the tariff - compressed natural gas-based and liquefied natural gas-based proposals - were received by the project officer by close of business on 5 September 2003. Copies of the letters were then provided to the evaluation team. (4) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (5) No. Energy Development’s tender price did not change from 5 September 2003. (6) When the member clarifies what he means by “distribution point” this question will be answered. (7) I am advised that Energy Development Pty Ltd held discussions with the Department of Industry and Resources concerning access to land at the Maitland estate for its proposed LNG facility.
(4) Yes. The tender price received on 5 September 2003 was used as the final price in the evaluation. (5) No. Energy Development’s tender price did not change from 5 September 2003. (6) When the member clarifies what he means by “distribution point” this question will be answered. (7) I am advised that Energy Development Pty Ltd held discussions with the Department of Industry and Resources concerning access to land at the Maitland estate for its proposed LNG facility.
(5) No. Energy Development’s tender price did not change from 5 September 2003. (6) When the member clarifies what he means by “distribution point” this question will be answered. (7) I am advised that Energy Development Pty Ltd held discussions with the Department of Industry and Resources concerning access to land at the Maitland estate for its proposed LNG facility.
(6) When the member clarifies what he means by “distribution point” this question will be answered. (7) I am advised that Energy Development Pty Ltd held discussions with the Department of Industry and Resources concerning access to land at the Maitland estate for its proposed LNG facility.
(7) I am advised that Energy Development Pty Ltd held discussions with the Department of Industry and Resources concerning access to land at the Maitland estate for its proposed LNG facility.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.