❓ A parliamentary question addresses concerns about a potential conflict of interest in a Department for Community Development IT tender, where a consultant involved in defining the tender requirements was also allowed to bid. The Minister defends the process, citing probity audits and adherence to government policy.
AnsweredQoN 1085Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
An article on page 53 of The West Australian on 17 November 2004 states that the Department for Community Development allowed a company that designed the requirements of the department’s multimillion dollar IT tender contract to also bid for the contract. The article states also that the probity auditor cleared the process in just two days after serious questions were raised. (1) Is it common for the minister’s department to permit consultants to prepare tender requirements and then allow those same consultants to tender for the work, having that inside knowledge? (2) In view of the serious questions raised by groups involved in the process, will the parliamentary secretary name the probity auditor and table a copy of the report; and, if not, why not? (3) Will the minister insist that Fujitsu, as a bidder with inside knowledge, be removed from the shortlist of bidders; and, if not, why not? Hon SUE ELLERY
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Fujitsu contributed to the development of the requirements to meet the business needs of the department. These requirements were then further developed and approved by the Department for Community Development before being included in the tender documents. The requirements were released to the industry on 26 May 2004, well in advance of the release of the tender in September 2004. This process is not in contravention of government policy. (2) Contrary to the member’s question, serious questions have not been raised by groups with the Department for Community Development. The probity auditor was AOT Consulting Pty Ltd, and the report is confidential. However, for reasons of openness and accountability, the outcome of the inquiry was provided in response to question 805, which was tabled on 26 October 2004, and was provided to the IT industry. (3) It is not appropriate for the tenderers to be publicly identified. However, as answered in question 805 of 26 October, the probity auditor concluded that Fujitsu had not been provided with any unfair advantage.
(1) Is it common for the minister’s department to permit consultants to prepare tender requirements and then allow those same consultants to tender for the work, having that inside knowledge? (2) In view of the serious questions raised by groups involved in the process, will the parliamentary secretary name the probity auditor and table a copy of the report; and, if not, why not? (3) Will the minister insist that Fujitsu, as a bidder with inside knowledge, be removed from the shortlist of bidders; and, if not, why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Fujitsu contributed to the development of the requirements to meet the business needs of the department. These requirements were then further developed and approved by the Department for Community Development before being included in the tender documents. The requirements were released to the industry on 26 May 2004, well in advance of the release of the tender in September 2004. This process is not in contravention of government policy. (2) Contrary to the member’s question, serious questions have not been raised by groups with the Department for Community Development. The probity auditor was AOT Consulting Pty Ltd, and the report is confidential. However, for reasons of openness and accountability, the outcome of the inquiry was provided in response to question 805, which was tabled on 26 October 2004, and was provided to the IT industry. (3) It is not appropriate for the tenderers to be publicly identified. However, as answered in question 805 of 26 October, the probity auditor concluded that Fujitsu had not been provided with any unfair advantage.
(2) In view of the serious questions raised by groups involved in the process, will the parliamentary secretary name the probity auditor and table a copy of the report; and, if not, why not? (3) Will the minister insist that Fujitsu, as a bidder with inside knowledge, be removed from the shortlist of bidders; and, if not, why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Fujitsu contributed to the development of the requirements to meet the business needs of the department. These requirements were then further developed and approved by the Department for Community Development before being included in the tender documents. The requirements were released to the industry on 26 May 2004, well in advance of the release of the tender in September 2004. This process is not in contravention of government policy. (2) Contrary to the member’s question, serious questions have not been raised by groups with the Department for Community Development. The probity auditor was AOT Consulting Pty Ltd, and the report is confidential. However, for reasons of openness and accountability, the outcome of the inquiry was provided in response to question 805, which was tabled on 26 October 2004, and was provided to the IT industry. (3) It is not appropriate for the tenderers to be publicly identified. However, as answered in question 805 of 26 October, the probity auditor concluded that Fujitsu had not been provided with any unfair advantage.
(3) Will the minister insist that Fujitsu, as a bidder with inside knowledge, be removed from the shortlist of bidders; and, if not, why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Fujitsu contributed to the development of the requirements to meet the business needs of the department. These requirements were then further developed and approved by the Department for Community Development before being included in the tender documents. The requirements were released to the industry on 26 May 2004, well in advance of the release of the tender in September 2004. This process is not in contravention of government policy. (2) Contrary to the member’s question, serious questions have not been raised by groups with the Department for Community Development. The probity auditor was AOT Consulting Pty Ltd, and the report is confidential. However, for reasons of openness and accountability, the outcome of the inquiry was provided in response to question 805, which was tabled on 26 October 2004, and was provided to the IT industry. (3) It is not appropriate for the tenderers to be publicly identified. However, as answered in question 805 of 26 October, the probity auditor concluded that Fujitsu had not been provided with any unfair advantage.
Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Fujitsu contributed to the development of the requirements to meet the business needs of the department. These requirements were then further developed and approved by the Department for Community Development before being included in the tender documents. The requirements were released to the industry on 26 May 2004, well in advance of the release of the tender in September 2004. This process is not in contravention of government policy. (2) Contrary to the member’s question, serious questions have not been raised by groups with the Department for Community Development. The probity auditor was AOT Consulting Pty Ltd, and the report is confidential. However, for reasons of openness and accountability, the outcome of the inquiry was provided in response to question 805, which was tabled on 26 October 2004, and was provided to the IT industry. (3) It is not appropriate for the tenderers to be publicly identified. However, as answered in question 805 of 26 October, the probity auditor concluded that Fujitsu had not been provided with any unfair advantage.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Fujitsu contributed to the development of the requirements to meet the business needs of the department. These requirements were then further developed and approved by the Department for Community Development before being included in the tender documents. The requirements were released to the industry on 26 May 2004, well in advance of the release of the tender in September 2004. This process is not in contravention of government policy. (2) Contrary to the member’s question, serious questions have not been raised by groups with the Department for Community Development. The probity auditor was AOT Consulting Pty Ltd, and the report is confidential. However, for reasons of openness and accountability, the outcome of the inquiry was provided in response to question 805, which was tabled on 26 October 2004, and was provided to the IT industry. (3) It is not appropriate for the tenderers to be publicly identified. However, as answered in question 805 of 26 October, the probity auditor concluded that Fujitsu had not been provided with any unfair advantage.
(1) Fujitsu contributed to the development of the requirements to meet the business needs of the department. These requirements were then further developed and approved by the Department for Community Development before being included in the tender documents. The requirements were released to the industry on 26 May 2004, well in advance of the release of the tender in September 2004. This process is not in contravention of government policy. (2) Contrary to the member’s question, serious questions have not been raised by groups with the Department for Community Development. The probity auditor was AOT Consulting Pty Ltd, and the report is confidential. However, for reasons of openness and accountability, the outcome of the inquiry was provided in response to question 805, which was tabled on 26 October 2004, and was provided to the IT industry. (3) It is not appropriate for the tenderers to be publicly identified. However, as answered in question 805 of 26 October, the probity auditor concluded that Fujitsu had not been provided with any unfair advantage.
(2) Contrary to the member’s question, serious questions have not been raised by groups with the Department for Community Development. The probity auditor was AOT Consulting Pty Ltd, and the report is confidential. However, for reasons of openness and accountability, the outcome of the inquiry was provided in response to question 805, which was tabled on 26 October 2004, and was provided to the IT industry. (3) It is not appropriate for the tenderers to be publicly identified. However, as answered in question 805 of 26 October, the probity auditor concluded that Fujitsu had not been provided with any unfair advantage.
(3) It is not appropriate for the tenderers to be publicly identified. However, as answered in question 805 of 26 October, the probity auditor concluded that Fujitsu had not been provided with any unfair advantage.
(1) Is it common for the minister’s department to permit consultants to prepare tender requirements and then allow those same consultants to tender for the work, having that inside knowledge? (2) In view of the serious questions raised by groups involved in the process, will the parliamentary secretary name the probity auditor and table a copy of the report; and, if not, why not? (3) Will the minister insist that Fujitsu, as a bidder with inside knowledge, be removed from the shortlist of bidders; and, if not, why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Fujitsu contributed to the development of the requirements to meet the business needs of the department. These requirements were then further developed and approved by the Department for Community Development before being included in the tender documents. The requirements were released to the industry on 26 May 2004, well in advance of the release of the tender in September 2004. This process is not in contravention of government policy. (2) Contrary to the member’s question, serious questions have not been raised by groups with the Department for Community Development. The probity auditor was AOT Consulting Pty Ltd, and the report is confidential. However, for reasons of openness and accountability, the outcome of the inquiry was provided in response to question 805, which was tabled on 26 October 2004, and was provided to the IT industry. (3) It is not appropriate for the tenderers to be publicly identified. However, as answered in question 805 of 26 October, the probity auditor concluded that Fujitsu had not been provided with any unfair advantage.
(2) In view of the serious questions raised by groups involved in the process, will the parliamentary secretary name the probity auditor and table a copy of the report; and, if not, why not? (3) Will the minister insist that Fujitsu, as a bidder with inside knowledge, be removed from the shortlist of bidders; and, if not, why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Fujitsu contributed to the development of the requirements to meet the business needs of the department. These requirements were then further developed and approved by the Department for Community Development before being included in the tender documents. The requirements were released to the industry on 26 May 2004, well in advance of the release of the tender in September 2004. This process is not in contravention of government policy. (2) Contrary to the member’s question, serious questions have not been raised by groups with the Department for Community Development. The probity auditor was AOT Consulting Pty Ltd, and the report is confidential. However, for reasons of openness and accountability, the outcome of the inquiry was provided in response to question 805, which was tabled on 26 October 2004, and was provided to the IT industry. (3) It is not appropriate for the tenderers to be publicly identified. However, as answered in question 805 of 26 October, the probity auditor concluded that Fujitsu had not been provided with any unfair advantage.
(3) Will the minister insist that Fujitsu, as a bidder with inside knowledge, be removed from the shortlist of bidders; and, if not, why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Fujitsu contributed to the development of the requirements to meet the business needs of the department. These requirements were then further developed and approved by the Department for Community Development before being included in the tender documents. The requirements were released to the industry on 26 May 2004, well in advance of the release of the tender in September 2004. This process is not in contravention of government policy. (2) Contrary to the member’s question, serious questions have not been raised by groups with the Department for Community Development. The probity auditor was AOT Consulting Pty Ltd, and the report is confidential. However, for reasons of openness and accountability, the outcome of the inquiry was provided in response to question 805, which was tabled on 26 October 2004, and was provided to the IT industry. (3) It is not appropriate for the tenderers to be publicly identified. However, as answered in question 805 of 26 October, the probity auditor concluded that Fujitsu had not been provided with any unfair advantage.
Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Fujitsu contributed to the development of the requirements to meet the business needs of the department. These requirements were then further developed and approved by the Department for Community Development before being included in the tender documents. The requirements were released to the industry on 26 May 2004, well in advance of the release of the tender in September 2004. This process is not in contravention of government policy. (2) Contrary to the member’s question, serious questions have not been raised by groups with the Department for Community Development. The probity auditor was AOT Consulting Pty Ltd, and the report is confidential. However, for reasons of openness and accountability, the outcome of the inquiry was provided in response to question 805, which was tabled on 26 October 2004, and was provided to the IT industry. (3) It is not appropriate for the tenderers to be publicly identified. However, as answered in question 805 of 26 October, the probity auditor concluded that Fujitsu had not been provided with any unfair advantage.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Fujitsu contributed to the development of the requirements to meet the business needs of the department. These requirements were then further developed and approved by the Department for Community Development before being included in the tender documents. The requirements were released to the industry on 26 May 2004, well in advance of the release of the tender in September 2004. This process is not in contravention of government policy. (2) Contrary to the member’s question, serious questions have not been raised by groups with the Department for Community Development. The probity auditor was AOT Consulting Pty Ltd, and the report is confidential. However, for reasons of openness and accountability, the outcome of the inquiry was provided in response to question 805, which was tabled on 26 October 2004, and was provided to the IT industry. (3) It is not appropriate for the tenderers to be publicly identified. However, as answered in question 805 of 26 October, the probity auditor concluded that Fujitsu had not been provided with any unfair advantage.
(1) Fujitsu contributed to the development of the requirements to meet the business needs of the department. These requirements were then further developed and approved by the Department for Community Development before being included in the tender documents. The requirements were released to the industry on 26 May 2004, well in advance of the release of the tender in September 2004. This process is not in contravention of government policy. (2) Contrary to the member’s question, serious questions have not been raised by groups with the Department for Community Development. The probity auditor was AOT Consulting Pty Ltd, and the report is confidential. However, for reasons of openness and accountability, the outcome of the inquiry was provided in response to question 805, which was tabled on 26 October 2004, and was provided to the IT industry. (3) It is not appropriate for the tenderers to be publicly identified. However, as answered in question 805 of 26 October, the probity auditor concluded that Fujitsu had not been provided with any unfair advantage.
(2) Contrary to the member’s question, serious questions have not been raised by groups with the Department for Community Development. The probity auditor was AOT Consulting Pty Ltd, and the report is confidential. However, for reasons of openness and accountability, the outcome of the inquiry was provided in response to question 805, which was tabled on 26 October 2004, and was provided to the IT industry. (3) It is not appropriate for the tenderers to be publicly identified. However, as answered in question 805 of 26 October, the probity auditor concluded that Fujitsu had not been provided with any unfair advantage.
(3) It is not appropriate for the tenderers to be publicly identified. However, as answered in question 805 of 26 October, the probity auditor concluded that Fujitsu had not been provided with any unfair advantage.
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.