❓ A parliamentary question regarding the cost and process of repairs to bridge 185 after damage caused by G.J. Freight and Transport. The response clarifies the circumstances and justifications for the repair costs.
AnsweredQoN 563Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
MAIN ROADS - BRIDGE 185
I refer to Main Roads’ claim for reimbursement from G.J. Freight and Transport of Donnybrook for $18 431.05 for the total cost of repairs to bridge 185 over the Brunswick River. (1) Why was redirection on the bridge required for three days when the damage was so minor? (2) Is there a record of the condition of the bridge railing before the damage occurred and is it correct that the condition of the bridge, especially the paintwork, is noticeably better after the repairs were carried out than it was before? (3) How many quotes for this work did Main Roads obtain, and what was the value of each quote? (4) Did Main Roads attempt to contract out the various repair jobs to different contractors in an effort to reduce the overall cost of repairs? (5) As the cost of repairs is in dispute, has Main Roads had the account for $18 431.05 from Jonor Construction independently assessed for price competitiveness; and, if not, will it agree to do so? (6) How does Main Roads justify the $4 140 cost for painting and the $4 850 cost of paint? (7) As this matter is in dispute and the proprietor of G.J. Freight and Transport acted in good faith by reporting the damage to the bridge of his own accord, will the government refrain from demanding interest or penalty payments? Hon ADELE FARINA
I refer to Main Roads’ claim for reimbursement from G.J. Freight and Transport of Donnybrook for $18 431.05 for the total cost of repairs to bridge 185 over the Brunswick River. (1) Why was redirection on the bridge required for three days when the damage was so minor? (2) Is there a record of the condition of the bridge railing before the damage occurred and is it correct that the condition of the bridge, especially the paintwork, is noticeably better after the repairs were carried out than it was before? (3) How many quotes for this work did Main Roads obtain, and what was the value of each quote? (4) Did Main Roads attempt to contract out the various repair jobs to different contractors in an effort to reduce the overall cost of repairs? (5) As the cost of repairs is in dispute, has Main Roads had the account for $18 431.05 from Jonor Construction independently assessed for price competitiveness; and, if not, will it agree to do so? (6) How does Main Roads justify the $4 140 cost for painting and the $4 850 cost of paint? (7) As this matter is in dispute and the proprietor of G.J. Freight and Transport acted in good faith by reporting the damage to the bridge of his own accord, will the government refrain from demanding interest or penalty payments? Hon ADELE FARINA
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) At the time of the incident, the bridge was undergoing major refurbishment and the work was being undertaken by Jonor Construction under contract to Main Roads WA. At the time, the northbound lane concrete bridge deck and guardrail works were complete and the southbound lane works were in progress. Prior to the damage occurring, traffic control was in place and traffic was using the northbound lane on the bridge only, as the southbound lane works were still in progress. After the damage, the northbound lane was closed and the traffic was transferred to the southbound lane to allow the removal of the damaged guardrail. A section of the guardrail had to be taken to Bunbury to be re-welded and straightened. (2) The guardrail was new prior to the damage. It was a less than a month old, having just been replaced under the contract works. Therefore, the original guardrail condition was actually better than the repaired guardrail. (3) As Jonor Construction had possession of the site and the guardrail was part of the contract between Jonor Construction and Main Roads, Jonor Construction was requested to provide a quotation to carry out the repairs under the provisions of the same contract. (4) No. See the answer to (3). (5) Jonor Construction’s quotation for the repairs was considered by Main Roads to be value for money at the time it was submitted. (6) The cost for painting was $4 140. This is considered reasonable, as it includes the application of a primer coat and two top coats. The cost of the paint, which is included in the $4 140, was $850. (7) When the damage occurred, the Jonor Construction’s workers were on site and observed the incident. Effectively, G.J. Freight and Transport was caught in the act, rather than its claim that it reported the damage of its own accord.
(1) Why was redirection on the bridge required for three days when the damage was so minor? (2) Is there a record of the condition of the bridge railing before the damage occurred and is it correct that the condition of the bridge, especially the paintwork, is noticeably better after the repairs were carried out than it was before? (3) How many quotes for this work did Main Roads obtain, and what was the value of each quote? (4) Did Main Roads attempt to contract out the various repair jobs to different contractors in an effort to reduce the overall cost of repairs? (5) As the cost of repairs is in dispute, has Main Roads had the account for $18 431.05 from Jonor Construction independently assessed for price competitiveness; and, if not, will it agree to do so? (6) How does Main Roads justify the $4 140 cost for painting and the $4 850 cost of paint? (7) As this matter is in dispute and the proprietor of G.J. Freight and Transport acted in good faith by reporting the damage to the bridge of his own accord, will the government refrain from demanding interest or penalty payments? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) At the time of the incident, the bridge was undergoing major refurbishment and the work was being undertaken by Jonor Construction under contract to Main Roads WA. At the time, the northbound lane concrete bridge deck and guardrail works were complete and the southbound lane works were in progress. Prior to the damage occurring, traffic control was in place and traffic was using the northbound lane on the bridge only, as the southbound lane works were still in progress. After the damage, the northbound lane was closed and the traffic was transferred to the southbound lane to allow the removal of the damaged guardrail. A section of the guardrail had to be taken to Bunbury to be re-welded and straightened. (2) The guardrail was new prior to the damage. It was a less than a month old, having just been replaced under the contract works. Therefore, the original guardrail condition was actually better than the repaired guardrail. (3) As Jonor Construction had possession of the site and the guardrail was part of the contract between Jonor Construction and Main Roads, Jonor Construction was requested to provide a quotation to carry out the repairs under the provisions of the same contract. (4) No. See the answer to (3). (5) Jonor Construction’s quotation for the repairs was considered by Main Roads to be value for money at the time it was submitted. (6) The cost for painting was $4 140. This is considered reasonable, as it includes the application of a primer coat and two top coats. The cost of the paint, which is included in the $4 140, was $850. (7) When the damage occurred, the Jonor Construction’s workers were on site and observed the incident. Effectively, G.J. Freight and Transport was caught in the act, rather than its claim that it reported the damage of its own accord.
(2) Is there a record of the condition of the bridge railing before the damage occurred and is it correct that the condition of the bridge, especially the paintwork, is noticeably better after the repairs were carried out than it was before? (3) How many quotes for this work did Main Roads obtain, and what was the value of each quote? (4) Did Main Roads attempt to contract out the various repair jobs to different contractors in an effort to reduce the overall cost of repairs? (5) As the cost of repairs is in dispute, has Main Roads had the account for $18 431.05 from Jonor Construction independently assessed for price competitiveness; and, if not, will it agree to do so? (6) How does Main Roads justify the $4 140 cost for painting and the $4 850 cost of paint? (7) As this matter is in dispute and the proprietor of G.J. Freight and Transport acted in good faith by reporting the damage to the bridge of his own accord, will the government refrain from demanding interest or penalty payments? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) At the time of the incident, the bridge was undergoing major refurbishment and the work was being undertaken by Jonor Construction under contract to Main Roads WA. At the time, the northbound lane concrete bridge deck and guardrail works were complete and the southbound lane works were in progress. Prior to the damage occurring, traffic control was in place and traffic was using the northbound lane on the bridge only, as the southbound lane works were still in progress. After the damage, the northbound lane was closed and the traffic was transferred to the southbound lane to allow the removal of the damaged guardrail. A section of the guardrail had to be taken to Bunbury to be re-welded and straightened. (2) The guardrail was new prior to the damage. It was a less than a month old, having just been replaced under the contract works. Therefore, the original guardrail condition was actually better than the repaired guardrail. (3) As Jonor Construction had possession of the site and the guardrail was part of the contract between Jonor Construction and Main Roads, Jonor Construction was requested to provide a quotation to carry out the repairs under the provisions of the same contract. (4) No. See the answer to (3). (5) Jonor Construction’s quotation for the repairs was considered by Main Roads to be value for money at the time it was submitted. (6) The cost for painting was $4 140. This is considered reasonable, as it includes the application of a primer coat and two top coats. The cost of the paint, which is included in the $4 140, was $850. (7) When the damage occurred, the Jonor Construction’s workers were on site and observed the incident. Effectively, G.J. Freight and Transport was caught in the act, rather than its claim that it reported the damage of its own accord.
(3) How many quotes for this work did Main Roads obtain, and what was the value of each quote? (4) Did Main Roads attempt to contract out the various repair jobs to different contractors in an effort to reduce the overall cost of repairs? (5) As the cost of repairs is in dispute, has Main Roads had the account for $18 431.05 from Jonor Construction independently assessed for price competitiveness; and, if not, will it agree to do so? (6) How does Main Roads justify the $4 140 cost for painting and the $4 850 cost of paint? (7) As this matter is in dispute and the proprietor of G.J. Freight and Transport acted in good faith by reporting the damage to the bridge of his own accord, will the government refrain from demanding interest or penalty payments? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) At the time of the incident, the bridge was undergoing major refurbishment and the work was being undertaken by Jonor Construction under contract to Main Roads WA. At the time, the northbound lane concrete bridge deck and guardrail works were complete and the southbound lane works were in progress. Prior to the damage occurring, traffic control was in place and traffic was using the northbound lane on the bridge only, as the southbound lane works were still in progress. After the damage, the northbound lane was closed and the traffic was transferred to the southbound lane to allow the removal of the damaged guardrail. A section of the guardrail had to be taken to Bunbury to be re-welded and straightened. (2) The guardrail was new prior to the damage. It was a less than a month old, having just been replaced under the contract works. Therefore, the original guardrail condition was actually better than the repaired guardrail. (3) As Jonor Construction had possession of the site and the guardrail was part of the contract between Jonor Construction and Main Roads, Jonor Construction was requested to provide a quotation to carry out the repairs under the provisions of the same contract. (4) No. See the answer to (3). (5) Jonor Construction’s quotation for the repairs was considered by Main Roads to be value for money at the time it was submitted. (6) The cost for painting was $4 140. This is considered reasonable, as it includes the application of a primer coat and two top coats. The cost of the paint, which is included in the $4 140, was $850. (7) When the damage occurred, the Jonor Construction’s workers were on site and observed the incident. Effectively, G.J. Freight and Transport was caught in the act, rather than its claim that it reported the damage of its own accord.
(4) Did Main Roads attempt to contract out the various repair jobs to different contractors in an effort to reduce the overall cost of repairs? (5) As the cost of repairs is in dispute, has Main Roads had the account for $18 431.05 from Jonor Construction independently assessed for price competitiveness; and, if not, will it agree to do so? (6) How does Main Roads justify the $4 140 cost for painting and the $4 850 cost of paint? (7) As this matter is in dispute and the proprietor of G.J. Freight and Transport acted in good faith by reporting the damage to the bridge of his own accord, will the government refrain from demanding interest or penalty payments? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) At the time of the incident, the bridge was undergoing major refurbishment and the work was being undertaken by Jonor Construction under contract to Main Roads WA. At the time, the northbound lane concrete bridge deck and guardrail works were complete and the southbound lane works were in progress. Prior to the damage occurring, traffic control was in place and traffic was using the northbound lane on the bridge only, as the southbound lane works were still in progress. After the damage, the northbound lane was closed and the traffic was transferred to the southbound lane to allow the removal of the damaged guardrail. A section of the guardrail had to be taken to Bunbury to be re-welded and straightened. (2) The guardrail was new prior to the damage. It was a less than a month old, having just been replaced under the contract works. Therefore, the original guardrail condition was actually better than the repaired guardrail. (3) As Jonor Construction had possession of the site and the guardrail was part of the contract between Jonor Construction and Main Roads, Jonor Construction was requested to provide a quotation to carry out the repairs under the provisions of the same contract. (4) No. See the answer to (3). (5) Jonor Construction’s quotation for the repairs was considered by Main Roads to be value for money at the time it was submitted. (6) The cost for painting was $4 140. This is considered reasonable, as it includes the application of a primer coat and two top coats. The cost of the paint, which is included in the $4 140, was $850. (7) When the damage occurred, the Jonor Construction’s workers were on site and observed the incident. Effectively, G.J. Freight and Transport was caught in the act, rather than its claim that it reported the damage of its own accord.
(5) As the cost of repairs is in dispute, has Main Roads had the account for $18 431.05 from Jonor Construction independently assessed for price competitiveness; and, if not, will it agree to do so? (6) How does Main Roads justify the $4 140 cost for painting and the $4 850 cost of paint? (7) As this matter is in dispute and the proprietor of G.J. Freight and Transport acted in good faith by reporting the damage to the bridge of his own accord, will the government refrain from demanding interest or penalty payments? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) At the time of the incident, the bridge was undergoing major refurbishment and the work was being undertaken by Jonor Construction under contract to Main Roads WA. At the time, the northbound lane concrete bridge deck and guardrail works were complete and the southbound lane works were in progress. Prior to the damage occurring, traffic control was in place and traffic was using the northbound lane on the bridge only, as the southbound lane works were still in progress. After the damage, the northbound lane was closed and the traffic was transferred to the southbound lane to allow the removal of the damaged guardrail. A section of the guardrail had to be taken to Bunbury to be re-welded and straightened. (2) The guardrail was new prior to the damage. It was a less than a month old, having just been replaced under the contract works. Therefore, the original guardrail condition was actually better than the repaired guardrail. (3) As Jonor Construction had possession of the site and the guardrail was part of the contract between Jonor Construction and Main Roads, Jonor Construction was requested to provide a quotation to carry out the repairs under the provisions of the same contract. (4) No. See the answer to (3). (5) Jonor Construction’s quotation for the repairs was considered by Main Roads to be value for money at the time it was submitted. (6) The cost for painting was $4 140. This is considered reasonable, as it includes the application of a primer coat and two top coats. The cost of the paint, which is included in the $4 140, was $850. (7) When the damage occurred, the Jonor Construction’s workers were on site and observed the incident. Effectively, G.J. Freight and Transport was caught in the act, rather than its claim that it reported the damage of its own accord.
(6) How does Main Roads justify the $4 140 cost for painting and the $4 850 cost of paint? (7) As this matter is in dispute and the proprietor of G.J. Freight and Transport acted in good faith by reporting the damage to the bridge of his own accord, will the government refrain from demanding interest or penalty payments? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) At the time of the incident, the bridge was undergoing major refurbishment and the work was being undertaken by Jonor Construction under contract to Main Roads WA. At the time, the northbound lane concrete bridge deck and guardrail works were complete and the southbound lane works were in progress. Prior to the damage occurring, traffic control was in place and traffic was using the northbound lane on the bridge only, as the southbound lane works were still in progress. After the damage, the northbound lane was closed and the traffic was transferred to the southbound lane to allow the removal of the damaged guardrail. A section of the guardrail had to be taken to Bunbury to be re-welded and straightened. (2) The guardrail was new prior to the damage. It was a less than a month old, having just been replaced under the contract works. Therefore, the original guardrail condition was actually better than the repaired guardrail. (3) As Jonor Construction had possession of the site and the guardrail was part of the contract between Jonor Construction and Main Roads, Jonor Construction was requested to provide a quotation to carry out the repairs under the provisions of the same contract. (4) No. See the answer to (3). (5) Jonor Construction’s quotation for the repairs was considered by Main Roads to be value for money at the time it was submitted. (6) The cost for painting was $4 140. This is considered reasonable, as it includes the application of a primer coat and two top coats. The cost of the paint, which is included in the $4 140, was $850. (7) When the damage occurred, the Jonor Construction’s workers were on site and observed the incident. Effectively, G.J. Freight and Transport was caught in the act, rather than its claim that it reported the damage of its own accord.
(7) As this matter is in dispute and the proprietor of G.J. Freight and Transport acted in good faith by reporting the damage to the bridge of his own accord, will the government refrain from demanding interest or penalty payments? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) At the time of the incident, the bridge was undergoing major refurbishment and the work was being undertaken by Jonor Construction under contract to Main Roads WA. At the time, the northbound lane concrete bridge deck and guardrail works were complete and the southbound lane works were in progress. Prior to the damage occurring, traffic control was in place and traffic was using the northbound lane on the bridge only, as the southbound lane works were still in progress. After the damage, the northbound lane was closed and the traffic was transferred to the southbound lane to allow the removal of the damaged guardrail. A section of the guardrail had to be taken to Bunbury to be re-welded and straightened. (2) The guardrail was new prior to the damage. It was a less than a month old, having just been replaced under the contract works. Therefore, the original guardrail condition was actually better than the repaired guardrail. (3) As Jonor Construction had possession of the site and the guardrail was part of the contract between Jonor Construction and Main Roads, Jonor Construction was requested to provide a quotation to carry out the repairs under the provisions of the same contract. (4) No. See the answer to (3). (5) Jonor Construction’s quotation for the repairs was considered by Main Roads to be value for money at the time it was submitted. (6) The cost for painting was $4 140. This is considered reasonable, as it includes the application of a primer coat and two top coats. The cost of the paint, which is included in the $4 140, was $850. (7) When the damage occurred, the Jonor Construction’s workers were on site and observed the incident. Effectively, G.J. Freight and Transport was caught in the act, rather than its claim that it reported the damage of its own accord.
Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) At the time of the incident, the bridge was undergoing major refurbishment and the work was being undertaken by Jonor Construction under contract to Main Roads WA. At the time, the northbound lane concrete bridge deck and guardrail works were complete and the southbound lane works were in progress. Prior to the damage occurring, traffic control was in place and traffic was using the northbound lane on the bridge only, as the southbound lane works were still in progress. After the damage, the northbound lane was closed and the traffic was transferred to the southbound lane to allow the removal of the damaged guardrail. A section of the guardrail had to be taken to Bunbury to be re-welded and straightened. (2) The guardrail was new prior to the damage. It was a less than a month old, having just been replaced under the contract works. Therefore, the original guardrail condition was actually better than the repaired guardrail. (3) As Jonor Construction had possession of the site and the guardrail was part of the contract between Jonor Construction and Main Roads, Jonor Construction was requested to provide a quotation to carry out the repairs under the provisions of the same contract. (4) No. See the answer to (3). (5) Jonor Construction’s quotation for the repairs was considered by Main Roads to be value for money at the time it was submitted. (6) The cost for painting was $4 140. This is considered reasonable, as it includes the application of a primer coat and two top coats. The cost of the paint, which is included in the $4 140, was $850. (7) When the damage occurred, the Jonor Construction’s workers were on site and observed the incident. Effectively, G.J. Freight and Transport was caught in the act, rather than its claim that it reported the damage of its own accord.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) At the time of the incident, the bridge was undergoing major refurbishment and the work was being undertaken by Jonor Construction under contract to Main Roads WA. At the time, the northbound lane concrete bridge deck and guardrail works were complete and the southbound lane works were in progress. Prior to the damage occurring, traffic control was in place and traffic was using the northbound lane on the bridge only, as the southbound lane works were still in progress. After the damage, the northbound lane was closed and the traffic was transferred to the southbound lane to allow the removal of the damaged guardrail. A section of the guardrail had to be taken to Bunbury to be re-welded and straightened. (2) The guardrail was new prior to the damage. It was a less than a month old, having just been replaced under the contract works. Therefore, the original guardrail condition was actually better than the repaired guardrail. (3) As Jonor Construction had possession of the site and the guardrail was part of the contract between Jonor Construction and Main Roads, Jonor Construction was requested to provide a quotation to carry out the repairs under the provisions of the same contract. (4) No. See the answer to (3). (5) Jonor Construction’s quotation for the repairs was considered by Main Roads to be value for money at the time it was submitted. (6) The cost for painting was $4 140. This is considered reasonable, as it includes the application of a primer coat and two top coats. The cost of the paint, which is included in the $4 140, was $850. (7) When the damage occurred, the Jonor Construction’s workers were on site and observed the incident. Effectively, G.J. Freight and Transport was caught in the act, rather than its claim that it reported the damage of its own accord.
(1) At the time of the incident, the bridge was undergoing major refurbishment and the work was being undertaken by Jonor Construction under contract to Main Roads WA. At the time, the northbound lane concrete bridge deck and guardrail works were complete and the southbound lane works were in progress. Prior to the damage occurring, traffic control was in place and traffic was using the northbound lane on the bridge only, as the southbound lane works were still in progress. After the damage, the northbound lane was closed and the traffic was transferred to the southbound lane to allow the removal of the damaged guardrail. A section of the guardrail had to be taken to Bunbury to be re-welded and straightened. (2) The guardrail was new prior to the damage. It was a less than a month old, having just been replaced under the contract works. Therefore, the original guardrail condition was actually better than the repaired guardrail. (3) As Jonor Construction had possession of the site and the guardrail was part of the contract between Jonor Construction and Main Roads, Jonor Construction was requested to provide a quotation to carry out the repairs under the provisions of the same contract. (4) No. See the answer to (3). (5) Jonor Construction’s quotation for the repairs was considered by Main Roads to be value for money at the time it was submitted. (6) The cost for painting was $4 140. This is considered reasonable, as it includes the application of a primer coat and two top coats. The cost of the paint, which is included in the $4 140, was $850. (7) When the damage occurred, the Jonor Construction’s workers were on site and observed the incident. Effectively, G.J. Freight and Transport was caught in the act, rather than its claim that it reported the damage of its own accord.
(2) The guardrail was new prior to the damage. It was a less than a month old, having just been replaced under the contract works. Therefore, the original guardrail condition was actually better than the repaired guardrail. (3) As Jonor Construction had possession of the site and the guardrail was part of the contract between Jonor Construction and Main Roads, Jonor Construction was requested to provide a quotation to carry out the repairs under the provisions of the same contract. (4) No. See the answer to (3). (5) Jonor Construction’s quotation for the repairs was considered by Main Roads to be value for money at the time it was submitted. (6) The cost for painting was $4 140. This is considered reasonable, as it includes the application of a primer coat and two top coats. The cost of the paint, which is included in the $4 140, was $850. (7) When the damage occurred, the Jonor Construction’s workers were on site and observed the incident. Effectively, G.J. Freight and Transport was caught in the act, rather than its claim that it reported the damage of its own accord.
(3) As Jonor Construction had possession of the site and the guardrail was part of the contract between Jonor Construction and Main Roads, Jonor Construction was requested to provide a quotation to carry out the repairs under the provisions of the same contract. (4) No. See the answer to (3). (5) Jonor Construction’s quotation for the repairs was considered by Main Roads to be value for money at the time it was submitted. (6) The cost for painting was $4 140. This is considered reasonable, as it includes the application of a primer coat and two top coats. The cost of the paint, which is included in the $4 140, was $850. (7) When the damage occurred, the Jonor Construction’s workers were on site and observed the incident. Effectively, G.J. Freight and Transport was caught in the act, rather than its claim that it reported the damage of its own accord.
(4) No. See the answer to (3). (5) Jonor Construction’s quotation for the repairs was considered by Main Roads to be value for money at the time it was submitted. (6) The cost for painting was $4 140. This is considered reasonable, as it includes the application of a primer coat and two top coats. The cost of the paint, which is included in the $4 140, was $850. (7) When the damage occurred, the Jonor Construction’s workers were on site and observed the incident. Effectively, G.J. Freight and Transport was caught in the act, rather than its claim that it reported the damage of its own accord.
(5) Jonor Construction’s quotation for the repairs was considered by Main Roads to be value for money at the time it was submitted. (6) The cost for painting was $4 140. This is considered reasonable, as it includes the application of a primer coat and two top coats. The cost of the paint, which is included in the $4 140, was $850. (7) When the damage occurred, the Jonor Construction’s workers were on site and observed the incident. Effectively, G.J. Freight and Transport was caught in the act, rather than its claim that it reported the damage of its own accord.
(6) The cost for painting was $4 140. This is considered reasonable, as it includes the application of a primer coat and two top coats. The cost of the paint, which is included in the $4 140, was $850. (7) When the damage occurred, the Jonor Construction’s workers were on site and observed the incident. Effectively, G.J. Freight and Transport was caught in the act, rather than its claim that it reported the damage of its own accord.
(7) When the damage occurred, the Jonor Construction’s workers were on site and observed the incident. Effectively, G.J. Freight and Transport was caught in the act, rather than its claim that it reported the damage of its own accord.
(1) Why was redirection on the bridge required for three days when the damage was so minor? (2) Is there a record of the condition of the bridge railing before the damage occurred and is it correct that the condition of the bridge, especially the paintwork, is noticeably better after the repairs were carried out than it was before? (3) How many quotes for this work did Main Roads obtain, and what was the value of each quote? (4) Did Main Roads attempt to contract out the various repair jobs to different contractors in an effort to reduce the overall cost of repairs? (5) As the cost of repairs is in dispute, has Main Roads had the account for $18 431.05 from Jonor Construction independently assessed for price competitiveness; and, if not, will it agree to do so? (6) How does Main Roads justify the $4 140 cost for painting and the $4 850 cost of paint? (7) As this matter is in dispute and the proprietor of G.J. Freight and Transport acted in good faith by reporting the damage to the bridge of his own accord, will the government refrain from demanding interest or penalty payments? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) At the time of the incident, the bridge was undergoing major refurbishment and the work was being undertaken by Jonor Construction under contract to Main Roads WA. At the time, the northbound lane concrete bridge deck and guardrail works were complete and the southbound lane works were in progress. Prior to the damage occurring, traffic control was in place and traffic was using the northbound lane on the bridge only, as the southbound lane works were still in progress. After the damage, the northbound lane was closed and the traffic was transferred to the southbound lane to allow the removal of the damaged guardrail. A section of the guardrail had to be taken to Bunbury to be re-welded and straightened. (2) The guardrail was new prior to the damage. It was a less than a month old, having just been replaced under the contract works. Therefore, the original guardrail condition was actually better than the repaired guardrail. (3) As Jonor Construction had possession of the site and the guardrail was part of the contract between Jonor Construction and Main Roads, Jonor Construction was requested to provide a quotation to carry out the repairs under the provisions of the same contract. (4) No. See the answer to (3). (5) Jonor Construction’s quotation for the repairs was considered by Main Roads to be value for money at the time it was submitted. (6) The cost for painting was $4 140. This is considered reasonable, as it includes the application of a primer coat and two top coats. The cost of the paint, which is included in the $4 140, was $850. (7) When the damage occurred, the Jonor Construction’s workers were on site and observed the incident. Effectively, G.J. Freight and Transport was caught in the act, rather than its claim that it reported the damage of its own accord.
(2) Is there a record of the condition of the bridge railing before the damage occurred and is it correct that the condition of the bridge, especially the paintwork, is noticeably better after the repairs were carried out than it was before? (3) How many quotes for this work did Main Roads obtain, and what was the value of each quote? (4) Did Main Roads attempt to contract out the various repair jobs to different contractors in an effort to reduce the overall cost of repairs? (5) As the cost of repairs is in dispute, has Main Roads had the account for $18 431.05 from Jonor Construction independently assessed for price competitiveness; and, if not, will it agree to do so? (6) How does Main Roads justify the $4 140 cost for painting and the $4 850 cost of paint? (7) As this matter is in dispute and the proprietor of G.J. Freight and Transport acted in good faith by reporting the damage to the bridge of his own accord, will the government refrain from demanding interest or penalty payments? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) At the time of the incident, the bridge was undergoing major refurbishment and the work was being undertaken by Jonor Construction under contract to Main Roads WA. At the time, the northbound lane concrete bridge deck and guardrail works were complete and the southbound lane works were in progress. Prior to the damage occurring, traffic control was in place and traffic was using the northbound lane on the bridge only, as the southbound lane works were still in progress. After the damage, the northbound lane was closed and the traffic was transferred to the southbound lane to allow the removal of the damaged guardrail. A section of the guardrail had to be taken to Bunbury to be re-welded and straightened. (2) The guardrail was new prior to the damage. It was a less than a month old, having just been replaced under the contract works. Therefore, the original guardrail condition was actually better than the repaired guardrail. (3) As Jonor Construction had possession of the site and the guardrail was part of the contract between Jonor Construction and Main Roads, Jonor Construction was requested to provide a quotation to carry out the repairs under the provisions of the same contract. (4) No. See the answer to (3). (5) Jonor Construction’s quotation for the repairs was considered by Main Roads to be value for money at the time it was submitted. (6) The cost for painting was $4 140. This is considered reasonable, as it includes the application of a primer coat and two top coats. The cost of the paint, which is included in the $4 140, was $850. (7) When the damage occurred, the Jonor Construction’s workers were on site and observed the incident. Effectively, G.J. Freight and Transport was caught in the act, rather than its claim that it reported the damage of its own accord.
(3) How many quotes for this work did Main Roads obtain, and what was the value of each quote? (4) Did Main Roads attempt to contract out the various repair jobs to different contractors in an effort to reduce the overall cost of repairs? (5) As the cost of repairs is in dispute, has Main Roads had the account for $18 431.05 from Jonor Construction independently assessed for price competitiveness; and, if not, will it agree to do so? (6) How does Main Roads justify the $4 140 cost for painting and the $4 850 cost of paint? (7) As this matter is in dispute and the proprietor of G.J. Freight and Transport acted in good faith by reporting the damage to the bridge of his own accord, will the government refrain from demanding interest or penalty payments? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) At the time of the incident, the bridge was undergoing major refurbishment and the work was being undertaken by Jonor Construction under contract to Main Roads WA. At the time, the northbound lane concrete bridge deck and guardrail works were complete and the southbound lane works were in progress. Prior to the damage occurring, traffic control was in place and traffic was using the northbound lane on the bridge only, as the southbound lane works were still in progress. After the damage, the northbound lane was closed and the traffic was transferred to the southbound lane to allow the removal of the damaged guardrail. A section of the guardrail had to be taken to Bunbury to be re-welded and straightened. (2) The guardrail was new prior to the damage. It was a less than a month old, having just been replaced under the contract works. Therefore, the original guardrail condition was actually better than the repaired guardrail. (3) As Jonor Construction had possession of the site and the guardrail was part of the contract between Jonor Construction and Main Roads, Jonor Construction was requested to provide a quotation to carry out the repairs under the provisions of the same contract. (4) No. See the answer to (3). (5) Jonor Construction’s quotation for the repairs was considered by Main Roads to be value for money at the time it was submitted. (6) The cost for painting was $4 140. This is considered reasonable, as it includes the application of a primer coat and two top coats. The cost of the paint, which is included in the $4 140, was $850. (7) When the damage occurred, the Jonor Construction’s workers were on site and observed the incident. Effectively, G.J. Freight and Transport was caught in the act, rather than its claim that it reported the damage of its own accord.
(4) Did Main Roads attempt to contract out the various repair jobs to different contractors in an effort to reduce the overall cost of repairs? (5) As the cost of repairs is in dispute, has Main Roads had the account for $18 431.05 from Jonor Construction independently assessed for price competitiveness; and, if not, will it agree to do so? (6) How does Main Roads justify the $4 140 cost for painting and the $4 850 cost of paint? (7) As this matter is in dispute and the proprietor of G.J. Freight and Transport acted in good faith by reporting the damage to the bridge of his own accord, will the government refrain from demanding interest or penalty payments? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) At the time of the incident, the bridge was undergoing major refurbishment and the work was being undertaken by Jonor Construction under contract to Main Roads WA. At the time, the northbound lane concrete bridge deck and guardrail works were complete and the southbound lane works were in progress. Prior to the damage occurring, traffic control was in place and traffic was using the northbound lane on the bridge only, as the southbound lane works were still in progress. After the damage, the northbound lane was closed and the traffic was transferred to the southbound lane to allow the removal of the damaged guardrail. A section of the guardrail had to be taken to Bunbury to be re-welded and straightened. (2) The guardrail was new prior to the damage. It was a less than a month old, having just been replaced under the contract works. Therefore, the original guardrail condition was actually better than the repaired guardrail. (3) As Jonor Construction had possession of the site and the guardrail was part of the contract between Jonor Construction and Main Roads, Jonor Construction was requested to provide a quotation to carry out the repairs under the provisions of the same contract. (4) No. See the answer to (3). (5) Jonor Construction’s quotation for the repairs was considered by Main Roads to be value for money at the time it was submitted. (6) The cost for painting was $4 140. This is considered reasonable, as it includes the application of a primer coat and two top coats. The cost of the paint, which is included in the $4 140, was $850. (7) When the damage occurred, the Jonor Construction’s workers were on site and observed the incident. Effectively, G.J. Freight and Transport was caught in the act, rather than its claim that it reported the damage of its own accord.
(5) As the cost of repairs is in dispute, has Main Roads had the account for $18 431.05 from Jonor Construction independently assessed for price competitiveness; and, if not, will it agree to do so? (6) How does Main Roads justify the $4 140 cost for painting and the $4 850 cost of paint? (7) As this matter is in dispute and the proprietor of G.J. Freight and Transport acted in good faith by reporting the damage to the bridge of his own accord, will the government refrain from demanding interest or penalty payments? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) At the time of the incident, the bridge was undergoing major refurbishment and the work was being undertaken by Jonor Construction under contract to Main Roads WA. At the time, the northbound lane concrete bridge deck and guardrail works were complete and the southbound lane works were in progress. Prior to the damage occurring, traffic control was in place and traffic was using the northbound lane on the bridge only, as the southbound lane works were still in progress. After the damage, the northbound lane was closed and the traffic was transferred to the southbound lane to allow the removal of the damaged guardrail. A section of the guardrail had to be taken to Bunbury to be re-welded and straightened. (2) The guardrail was new prior to the damage. It was a less than a month old, having just been replaced under the contract works. Therefore, the original guardrail condition was actually better than the repaired guardrail. (3) As Jonor Construction had possession of the site and the guardrail was part of the contract between Jonor Construction and Main Roads, Jonor Construction was requested to provide a quotation to carry out the repairs under the provisions of the same contract. (4) No. See the answer to (3). (5) Jonor Construction’s quotation for the repairs was considered by Main Roads to be value for money at the time it was submitted. (6) The cost for painting was $4 140. This is considered reasonable, as it includes the application of a primer coat and two top coats. The cost of the paint, which is included in the $4 140, was $850. (7) When the damage occurred, the Jonor Construction’s workers were on site and observed the incident. Effectively, G.J. Freight and Transport was caught in the act, rather than its claim that it reported the damage of its own accord.
(6) How does Main Roads justify the $4 140 cost for painting and the $4 850 cost of paint? (7) As this matter is in dispute and the proprietor of G.J. Freight and Transport acted in good faith by reporting the damage to the bridge of his own accord, will the government refrain from demanding interest or penalty payments? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) At the time of the incident, the bridge was undergoing major refurbishment and the work was being undertaken by Jonor Construction under contract to Main Roads WA. At the time, the northbound lane concrete bridge deck and guardrail works were complete and the southbound lane works were in progress. Prior to the damage occurring, traffic control was in place and traffic was using the northbound lane on the bridge only, as the southbound lane works were still in progress. After the damage, the northbound lane was closed and the traffic was transferred to the southbound lane to allow the removal of the damaged guardrail. A section of the guardrail had to be taken to Bunbury to be re-welded and straightened. (2) The guardrail was new prior to the damage. It was a less than a month old, having just been replaced under the contract works. Therefore, the original guardrail condition was actually better than the repaired guardrail. (3) As Jonor Construction had possession of the site and the guardrail was part of the contract between Jonor Construction and Main Roads, Jonor Construction was requested to provide a quotation to carry out the repairs under the provisions of the same contract. (4) No. See the answer to (3). (5) Jonor Construction’s quotation for the repairs was considered by Main Roads to be value for money at the time it was submitted. (6) The cost for painting was $4 140. This is considered reasonable, as it includes the application of a primer coat and two top coats. The cost of the paint, which is included in the $4 140, was $850. (7) When the damage occurred, the Jonor Construction’s workers were on site and observed the incident. Effectively, G.J. Freight and Transport was caught in the act, rather than its claim that it reported the damage of its own accord.
(7) As this matter is in dispute and the proprietor of G.J. Freight and Transport acted in good faith by reporting the damage to the bridge of his own accord, will the government refrain from demanding interest or penalty payments? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) At the time of the incident, the bridge was undergoing major refurbishment and the work was being undertaken by Jonor Construction under contract to Main Roads WA. At the time, the northbound lane concrete bridge deck and guardrail works were complete and the southbound lane works were in progress. Prior to the damage occurring, traffic control was in place and traffic was using the northbound lane on the bridge only, as the southbound lane works were still in progress. After the damage, the northbound lane was closed and the traffic was transferred to the southbound lane to allow the removal of the damaged guardrail. A section of the guardrail had to be taken to Bunbury to be re-welded and straightened. (2) The guardrail was new prior to the damage. It was a less than a month old, having just been replaced under the contract works. Therefore, the original guardrail condition was actually better than the repaired guardrail. (3) As Jonor Construction had possession of the site and the guardrail was part of the contract between Jonor Construction and Main Roads, Jonor Construction was requested to provide a quotation to carry out the repairs under the provisions of the same contract. (4) No. See the answer to (3). (5) Jonor Construction’s quotation for the repairs was considered by Main Roads to be value for money at the time it was submitted. (6) The cost for painting was $4 140. This is considered reasonable, as it includes the application of a primer coat and two top coats. The cost of the paint, which is included in the $4 140, was $850. (7) When the damage occurred, the Jonor Construction’s workers were on site and observed the incident. Effectively, G.J. Freight and Transport was caught in the act, rather than its claim that it reported the damage of its own accord.
Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) At the time of the incident, the bridge was undergoing major refurbishment and the work was being undertaken by Jonor Construction under contract to Main Roads WA. At the time, the northbound lane concrete bridge deck and guardrail works were complete and the southbound lane works were in progress. Prior to the damage occurring, traffic control was in place and traffic was using the northbound lane on the bridge only, as the southbound lane works were still in progress. After the damage, the northbound lane was closed and the traffic was transferred to the southbound lane to allow the removal of the damaged guardrail. A section of the guardrail had to be taken to Bunbury to be re-welded and straightened. (2) The guardrail was new prior to the damage. It was a less than a month old, having just been replaced under the contract works. Therefore, the original guardrail condition was actually better than the repaired guardrail. (3) As Jonor Construction had possession of the site and the guardrail was part of the contract between Jonor Construction and Main Roads, Jonor Construction was requested to provide a quotation to carry out the repairs under the provisions of the same contract. (4) No. See the answer to (3). (5) Jonor Construction’s quotation for the repairs was considered by Main Roads to be value for money at the time it was submitted. (6) The cost for painting was $4 140. This is considered reasonable, as it includes the application of a primer coat and two top coats. The cost of the paint, which is included in the $4 140, was $850. (7) When the damage occurred, the Jonor Construction’s workers were on site and observed the incident. Effectively, G.J. Freight and Transport was caught in the act, rather than its claim that it reported the damage of its own accord.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) At the time of the incident, the bridge was undergoing major refurbishment and the work was being undertaken by Jonor Construction under contract to Main Roads WA. At the time, the northbound lane concrete bridge deck and guardrail works were complete and the southbound lane works were in progress. Prior to the damage occurring, traffic control was in place and traffic was using the northbound lane on the bridge only, as the southbound lane works were still in progress. After the damage, the northbound lane was closed and the traffic was transferred to the southbound lane to allow the removal of the damaged guardrail. A section of the guardrail had to be taken to Bunbury to be re-welded and straightened. (2) The guardrail was new prior to the damage. It was a less than a month old, having just been replaced under the contract works. Therefore, the original guardrail condition was actually better than the repaired guardrail. (3) As Jonor Construction had possession of the site and the guardrail was part of the contract between Jonor Construction and Main Roads, Jonor Construction was requested to provide a quotation to carry out the repairs under the provisions of the same contract. (4) No. See the answer to (3). (5) Jonor Construction’s quotation for the repairs was considered by Main Roads to be value for money at the time it was submitted. (6) The cost for painting was $4 140. This is considered reasonable, as it includes the application of a primer coat and two top coats. The cost of the paint, which is included in the $4 140, was $850. (7) When the damage occurred, the Jonor Construction’s workers were on site and observed the incident. Effectively, G.J. Freight and Transport was caught in the act, rather than its claim that it reported the damage of its own accord.
(1) At the time of the incident, the bridge was undergoing major refurbishment and the work was being undertaken by Jonor Construction under contract to Main Roads WA. At the time, the northbound lane concrete bridge deck and guardrail works were complete and the southbound lane works were in progress. Prior to the damage occurring, traffic control was in place and traffic was using the northbound lane on the bridge only, as the southbound lane works were still in progress. After the damage, the northbound lane was closed and the traffic was transferred to the southbound lane to allow the removal of the damaged guardrail. A section of the guardrail had to be taken to Bunbury to be re-welded and straightened. (2) The guardrail was new prior to the damage. It was a less than a month old, having just been replaced under the contract works. Therefore, the original guardrail condition was actually better than the repaired guardrail. (3) As Jonor Construction had possession of the site and the guardrail was part of the contract between Jonor Construction and Main Roads, Jonor Construction was requested to provide a quotation to carry out the repairs under the provisions of the same contract. (4) No. See the answer to (3). (5) Jonor Construction’s quotation for the repairs was considered by Main Roads to be value for money at the time it was submitted. (6) The cost for painting was $4 140. This is considered reasonable, as it includes the application of a primer coat and two top coats. The cost of the paint, which is included in the $4 140, was $850. (7) When the damage occurred, the Jonor Construction’s workers were on site and observed the incident. Effectively, G.J. Freight and Transport was caught in the act, rather than its claim that it reported the damage of its own accord.
(2) The guardrail was new prior to the damage. It was a less than a month old, having just been replaced under the contract works. Therefore, the original guardrail condition was actually better than the repaired guardrail. (3) As Jonor Construction had possession of the site and the guardrail was part of the contract between Jonor Construction and Main Roads, Jonor Construction was requested to provide a quotation to carry out the repairs under the provisions of the same contract. (4) No. See the answer to (3). (5) Jonor Construction’s quotation for the repairs was considered by Main Roads to be value for money at the time it was submitted. (6) The cost for painting was $4 140. This is considered reasonable, as it includes the application of a primer coat and two top coats. The cost of the paint, which is included in the $4 140, was $850. (7) When the damage occurred, the Jonor Construction’s workers were on site and observed the incident. Effectively, G.J. Freight and Transport was caught in the act, rather than its claim that it reported the damage of its own accord.
(3) As Jonor Construction had possession of the site and the guardrail was part of the contract between Jonor Construction and Main Roads, Jonor Construction was requested to provide a quotation to carry out the repairs under the provisions of the same contract. (4) No. See the answer to (3). (5) Jonor Construction’s quotation for the repairs was considered by Main Roads to be value for money at the time it was submitted. (6) The cost for painting was $4 140. This is considered reasonable, as it includes the application of a primer coat and two top coats. The cost of the paint, which is included in the $4 140, was $850. (7) When the damage occurred, the Jonor Construction’s workers were on site and observed the incident. Effectively, G.J. Freight and Transport was caught in the act, rather than its claim that it reported the damage of its own accord.
(4) No. See the answer to (3). (5) Jonor Construction’s quotation for the repairs was considered by Main Roads to be value for money at the time it was submitted. (6) The cost for painting was $4 140. This is considered reasonable, as it includes the application of a primer coat and two top coats. The cost of the paint, which is included in the $4 140, was $850. (7) When the damage occurred, the Jonor Construction’s workers were on site and observed the incident. Effectively, G.J. Freight and Transport was caught in the act, rather than its claim that it reported the damage of its own accord.
(5) Jonor Construction’s quotation for the repairs was considered by Main Roads to be value for money at the time it was submitted. (6) The cost for painting was $4 140. This is considered reasonable, as it includes the application of a primer coat and two top coats. The cost of the paint, which is included in the $4 140, was $850. (7) When the damage occurred, the Jonor Construction’s workers were on site and observed the incident. Effectively, G.J. Freight and Transport was caught in the act, rather than its claim that it reported the damage of its own accord.
(6) The cost for painting was $4 140. This is considered reasonable, as it includes the application of a primer coat and two top coats. The cost of the paint, which is included in the $4 140, was $850. (7) When the damage occurred, the Jonor Construction’s workers were on site and observed the incident. Effectively, G.J. Freight and Transport was caught in the act, rather than its claim that it reported the damage of its own accord.
(7) When the damage occurred, the Jonor Construction’s workers were on site and observed the incident. Effectively, G.J. Freight and Transport was caught in the act, rather than its claim that it reported the damage of its own accord.
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.