❓ A parliamentary question regarding the confidentiality of reports and correspondence related to a Jarrah sawlog purchase proposal, specifically questioning the evaluation process and employment estimates. The Minister defends the confidentiality due to commercially sensitive information and clarifies the verification process.
AnsweredQoN 413Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
With regard to the probity audit RFP 2649 and associated reports, I thank the minister for receipt of certain documentation on this matter which has arrived in the mail. (1) Why does the probity auditor’s “Recommendation Report Request for Proposals for the Purchase of Jarrah Sawlogs” of January 2002 remain confidential? (2) Can the minister please table a copy of the correspondence referred to in the probity auditor’s stage B evaluation from the probity auditor to Sotico Pty Ltd following a meeting between them on 13 June 2002? (3) If not, why not? (4) Why did the Forest Products Commission’s evaluation panel accept the downstream employment estimates of the tenderers “at face value”? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. The use of the possessive for the probity auditor in conjunction with the “Recommendation Report Request for Proposals for the Purchase of Jarrah Sawlogs” contains the implication that the report is the probity auditor’s report; in fact, it is the Forest Products Commission’s report. I explain that because it makes the answer a little clearer. (1) The “Recommendation Report Request for Proposals for the Purchase of Jarrah Sawlogs” was completed by the FPC’s tender evaluation committee and assessed by the probity auditor. The recommendation report contains commercially sensitive information and comparatives of request for proposals proponents and it is not appropriate for a government agency to release the details. It is normal practice to release the results of an RFP or similar tender process, not the actual submission, reports or correspondence relating to the deliberative and evaluation process. (2) No. (3) The correspondence dated 13 June 2002 relates to a letter between the FPC and Sotico Pty Ltd. The correspondence between the FPC and Sotico forms part of Sotico’s confidential submission as part of the RFP evaluation process. (4) “At face value” are words used in the probity auditor’s report. However, the FPC evaluation panel verified the employment estimates by using comparative numbers in a sample of downstream timber processing entities.
(1) Why does the probity auditor’s “Recommendation Report Request for Proposals for the Purchase of Jarrah Sawlogs” of January 2002 remain confidential? (2) Can the minister please table a copy of the correspondence referred to in the probity auditor’s stage B evaluation from the probity auditor to Sotico Pty Ltd following a meeting between them on 13 June 2002? (3) If not, why not? (4) Why did the Forest Products Commission’s evaluation panel accept the downstream employment estimates of the tenderers “at face value”? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The use of the possessive for the probity auditor in conjunction with the “Recommendation Report Request for Proposals for the Purchase of Jarrah Sawlogs” contains the implication that the report is the probity auditor’s report; in fact, it is the Forest Products Commission’s report. I explain that because it makes the answer a little clearer. (1) The “Recommendation Report Request for Proposals for the Purchase of Jarrah Sawlogs” was completed by the FPC’s tender evaluation committee and assessed by the probity auditor. The recommendation report contains commercially sensitive information and comparatives of request for proposals proponents and it is not appropriate for a government agency to release the details. It is normal practice to release the results of an RFP or similar tender process, not the actual submission, reports or correspondence relating to the deliberative and evaluation process. (2) No. (3) The correspondence dated 13 June 2002 relates to a letter between the FPC and Sotico Pty Ltd. The correspondence between the FPC and Sotico forms part of Sotico’s confidential submission as part of the RFP evaluation process. (4) “At face value” are words used in the probity auditor’s report. However, the FPC evaluation panel verified the employment estimates by using comparative numbers in a sample of downstream timber processing entities.
(2) Can the minister please table a copy of the correspondence referred to in the probity auditor’s stage B evaluation from the probity auditor to Sotico Pty Ltd following a meeting between them on 13 June 2002? (3) If not, why not? (4) Why did the Forest Products Commission’s evaluation panel accept the downstream employment estimates of the tenderers “at face value”? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The use of the possessive for the probity auditor in conjunction with the “Recommendation Report Request for Proposals for the Purchase of Jarrah Sawlogs” contains the implication that the report is the probity auditor’s report; in fact, it is the Forest Products Commission’s report. I explain that because it makes the answer a little clearer. (1) The “Recommendation Report Request for Proposals for the Purchase of Jarrah Sawlogs” was completed by the FPC’s tender evaluation committee and assessed by the probity auditor. The recommendation report contains commercially sensitive information and comparatives of request for proposals proponents and it is not appropriate for a government agency to release the details. It is normal practice to release the results of an RFP or similar tender process, not the actual submission, reports or correspondence relating to the deliberative and evaluation process. (2) No. (3) The correspondence dated 13 June 2002 relates to a letter between the FPC and Sotico Pty Ltd. The correspondence between the FPC and Sotico forms part of Sotico’s confidential submission as part of the RFP evaluation process. (4) “At face value” are words used in the probity auditor’s report. However, the FPC evaluation panel verified the employment estimates by using comparative numbers in a sample of downstream timber processing entities.
(3) If not, why not? (4) Why did the Forest Products Commission’s evaluation panel accept the downstream employment estimates of the tenderers “at face value”? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The use of the possessive for the probity auditor in conjunction with the “Recommendation Report Request for Proposals for the Purchase of Jarrah Sawlogs” contains the implication that the report is the probity auditor’s report; in fact, it is the Forest Products Commission’s report. I explain that because it makes the answer a little clearer. (1) The “Recommendation Report Request for Proposals for the Purchase of Jarrah Sawlogs” was completed by the FPC’s tender evaluation committee and assessed by the probity auditor. The recommendation report contains commercially sensitive information and comparatives of request for proposals proponents and it is not appropriate for a government agency to release the details. It is normal practice to release the results of an RFP or similar tender process, not the actual submission, reports or correspondence relating to the deliberative and evaluation process. (2) No. (3) The correspondence dated 13 June 2002 relates to a letter between the FPC and Sotico Pty Ltd. The correspondence between the FPC and Sotico forms part of Sotico’s confidential submission as part of the RFP evaluation process. (4) “At face value” are words used in the probity auditor’s report. However, the FPC evaluation panel verified the employment estimates by using comparative numbers in a sample of downstream timber processing entities.
(4) Why did the Forest Products Commission’s evaluation panel accept the downstream employment estimates of the tenderers “at face value”? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The use of the possessive for the probity auditor in conjunction with the “Recommendation Report Request for Proposals for the Purchase of Jarrah Sawlogs” contains the implication that the report is the probity auditor’s report; in fact, it is the Forest Products Commission’s report. I explain that because it makes the answer a little clearer. (1) The “Recommendation Report Request for Proposals for the Purchase of Jarrah Sawlogs” was completed by the FPC’s tender evaluation committee and assessed by the probity auditor. The recommendation report contains commercially sensitive information and comparatives of request for proposals proponents and it is not appropriate for a government agency to release the details. It is normal practice to release the results of an RFP or similar tender process, not the actual submission, reports or correspondence relating to the deliberative and evaluation process. (2) No. (3) The correspondence dated 13 June 2002 relates to a letter between the FPC and Sotico Pty Ltd. The correspondence between the FPC and Sotico forms part of Sotico’s confidential submission as part of the RFP evaluation process. (4) “At face value” are words used in the probity auditor’s report. However, the FPC evaluation panel verified the employment estimates by using comparative numbers in a sample of downstream timber processing entities.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The use of the possessive for the probity auditor in conjunction with the “Recommendation Report Request for Proposals for the Purchase of Jarrah Sawlogs” contains the implication that the report is the probity auditor’s report; in fact, it is the Forest Products Commission’s report. I explain that because it makes the answer a little clearer. (1) The “Recommendation Report Request for Proposals for the Purchase of Jarrah Sawlogs” was completed by the FPC’s tender evaluation committee and assessed by the probity auditor. The recommendation report contains commercially sensitive information and comparatives of request for proposals proponents and it is not appropriate for a government agency to release the details. It is normal practice to release the results of an RFP or similar tender process, not the actual submission, reports or correspondence relating to the deliberative and evaluation process. (2) No. (3) The correspondence dated 13 June 2002 relates to a letter between the FPC and Sotico Pty Ltd. The correspondence between the FPC and Sotico forms part of Sotico’s confidential submission as part of the RFP evaluation process. (4) “At face value” are words used in the probity auditor’s report. However, the FPC evaluation panel verified the employment estimates by using comparative numbers in a sample of downstream timber processing entities.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. The use of the possessive for the probity auditor in conjunction with the “Recommendation Report Request for Proposals for the Purchase of Jarrah Sawlogs” contains the implication that the report is the probity auditor’s report; in fact, it is the Forest Products Commission’s report. I explain that because it makes the answer a little clearer. (1) The “Recommendation Report Request for Proposals for the Purchase of Jarrah Sawlogs” was completed by the FPC’s tender evaluation committee and assessed by the probity auditor. The recommendation report contains commercially sensitive information and comparatives of request for proposals proponents and it is not appropriate for a government agency to release the details. It is normal practice to release the results of an RFP or similar tender process, not the actual submission, reports or correspondence relating to the deliberative and evaluation process. (2) No. (3) The correspondence dated 13 June 2002 relates to a letter between the FPC and Sotico Pty Ltd. The correspondence between the FPC and Sotico forms part of Sotico’s confidential submission as part of the RFP evaluation process. (4) “At face value” are words used in the probity auditor’s report. However, the FPC evaluation panel verified the employment estimates by using comparative numbers in a sample of downstream timber processing entities.
(1) The “Recommendation Report Request for Proposals for the Purchase of Jarrah Sawlogs” was completed by the FPC’s tender evaluation committee and assessed by the probity auditor. The recommendation report contains commercially sensitive information and comparatives of request for proposals proponents and it is not appropriate for a government agency to release the details. It is normal practice to release the results of an RFP or similar tender process, not the actual submission, reports or correspondence relating to the deliberative and evaluation process. (2) No. (3) The correspondence dated 13 June 2002 relates to a letter between the FPC and Sotico Pty Ltd. The correspondence between the FPC and Sotico forms part of Sotico’s confidential submission as part of the RFP evaluation process. (4) “At face value” are words used in the probity auditor’s report. However, the FPC evaluation panel verified the employment estimates by using comparative numbers in a sample of downstream timber processing entities.
(2) No. (3) The correspondence dated 13 June 2002 relates to a letter between the FPC and Sotico Pty Ltd. The correspondence between the FPC and Sotico forms part of Sotico’s confidential submission as part of the RFP evaluation process. (4) “At face value” are words used in the probity auditor’s report. However, the FPC evaluation panel verified the employment estimates by using comparative numbers in a sample of downstream timber processing entities.
(3) The correspondence dated 13 June 2002 relates to a letter between the FPC and Sotico Pty Ltd. The correspondence between the FPC and Sotico forms part of Sotico’s confidential submission as part of the RFP evaluation process. (4) “At face value” are words used in the probity auditor’s report. However, the FPC evaluation panel verified the employment estimates by using comparative numbers in a sample of downstream timber processing entities.
(4) “At face value” are words used in the probity auditor’s report. However, the FPC evaluation panel verified the employment estimates by using comparative numbers in a sample of downstream timber processing entities.
(1) Why does the probity auditor’s “Recommendation Report Request for Proposals for the Purchase of Jarrah Sawlogs” of January 2002 remain confidential? (2) Can the minister please table a copy of the correspondence referred to in the probity auditor’s stage B evaluation from the probity auditor to Sotico Pty Ltd following a meeting between them on 13 June 2002? (3) If not, why not? (4) Why did the Forest Products Commission’s evaluation panel accept the downstream employment estimates of the tenderers “at face value”? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The use of the possessive for the probity auditor in conjunction with the “Recommendation Report Request for Proposals for the Purchase of Jarrah Sawlogs” contains the implication that the report is the probity auditor’s report; in fact, it is the Forest Products Commission’s report. I explain that because it makes the answer a little clearer. (1) The “Recommendation Report Request for Proposals for the Purchase of Jarrah Sawlogs” was completed by the FPC’s tender evaluation committee and assessed by the probity auditor. The recommendation report contains commercially sensitive information and comparatives of request for proposals proponents and it is not appropriate for a government agency to release the details. It is normal practice to release the results of an RFP or similar tender process, not the actual submission, reports or correspondence relating to the deliberative and evaluation process. (2) No. (3) The correspondence dated 13 June 2002 relates to a letter between the FPC and Sotico Pty Ltd. The correspondence between the FPC and Sotico forms part of Sotico’s confidential submission as part of the RFP evaluation process. (4) “At face value” are words used in the probity auditor’s report. However, the FPC evaluation panel verified the employment estimates by using comparative numbers in a sample of downstream timber processing entities.
(2) Can the minister please table a copy of the correspondence referred to in the probity auditor’s stage B evaluation from the probity auditor to Sotico Pty Ltd following a meeting between them on 13 June 2002? (3) If not, why not? (4) Why did the Forest Products Commission’s evaluation panel accept the downstream employment estimates of the tenderers “at face value”? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The use of the possessive for the probity auditor in conjunction with the “Recommendation Report Request for Proposals for the Purchase of Jarrah Sawlogs” contains the implication that the report is the probity auditor’s report; in fact, it is the Forest Products Commission’s report. I explain that because it makes the answer a little clearer. (1) The “Recommendation Report Request for Proposals for the Purchase of Jarrah Sawlogs” was completed by the FPC’s tender evaluation committee and assessed by the probity auditor. The recommendation report contains commercially sensitive information and comparatives of request for proposals proponents and it is not appropriate for a government agency to release the details. It is normal practice to release the results of an RFP or similar tender process, not the actual submission, reports or correspondence relating to the deliberative and evaluation process. (2) No. (3) The correspondence dated 13 June 2002 relates to a letter between the FPC and Sotico Pty Ltd. The correspondence between the FPC and Sotico forms part of Sotico’s confidential submission as part of the RFP evaluation process. (4) “At face value” are words used in the probity auditor’s report. However, the FPC evaluation panel verified the employment estimates by using comparative numbers in a sample of downstream timber processing entities.
(3) If not, why not? (4) Why did the Forest Products Commission’s evaluation panel accept the downstream employment estimates of the tenderers “at face value”? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The use of the possessive for the probity auditor in conjunction with the “Recommendation Report Request for Proposals for the Purchase of Jarrah Sawlogs” contains the implication that the report is the probity auditor’s report; in fact, it is the Forest Products Commission’s report. I explain that because it makes the answer a little clearer. (1) The “Recommendation Report Request for Proposals for the Purchase of Jarrah Sawlogs” was completed by the FPC’s tender evaluation committee and assessed by the probity auditor. The recommendation report contains commercially sensitive information and comparatives of request for proposals proponents and it is not appropriate for a government agency to release the details. It is normal practice to release the results of an RFP or similar tender process, not the actual submission, reports or correspondence relating to the deliberative and evaluation process. (2) No. (3) The correspondence dated 13 June 2002 relates to a letter between the FPC and Sotico Pty Ltd. The correspondence between the FPC and Sotico forms part of Sotico’s confidential submission as part of the RFP evaluation process. (4) “At face value” are words used in the probity auditor’s report. However, the FPC evaluation panel verified the employment estimates by using comparative numbers in a sample of downstream timber processing entities.
(4) Why did the Forest Products Commission’s evaluation panel accept the downstream employment estimates of the tenderers “at face value”? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The use of the possessive for the probity auditor in conjunction with the “Recommendation Report Request for Proposals for the Purchase of Jarrah Sawlogs” contains the implication that the report is the probity auditor’s report; in fact, it is the Forest Products Commission’s report. I explain that because it makes the answer a little clearer. (1) The “Recommendation Report Request for Proposals for the Purchase of Jarrah Sawlogs” was completed by the FPC’s tender evaluation committee and assessed by the probity auditor. The recommendation report contains commercially sensitive information and comparatives of request for proposals proponents and it is not appropriate for a government agency to release the details. It is normal practice to release the results of an RFP or similar tender process, not the actual submission, reports or correspondence relating to the deliberative and evaluation process. (2) No. (3) The correspondence dated 13 June 2002 relates to a letter between the FPC and Sotico Pty Ltd. The correspondence between the FPC and Sotico forms part of Sotico’s confidential submission as part of the RFP evaluation process. (4) “At face value” are words used in the probity auditor’s report. However, the FPC evaluation panel verified the employment estimates by using comparative numbers in a sample of downstream timber processing entities.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The use of the possessive for the probity auditor in conjunction with the “Recommendation Report Request for Proposals for the Purchase of Jarrah Sawlogs” contains the implication that the report is the probity auditor’s report; in fact, it is the Forest Products Commission’s report. I explain that because it makes the answer a little clearer. (1) The “Recommendation Report Request for Proposals for the Purchase of Jarrah Sawlogs” was completed by the FPC’s tender evaluation committee and assessed by the probity auditor. The recommendation report contains commercially sensitive information and comparatives of request for proposals proponents and it is not appropriate for a government agency to release the details. It is normal practice to release the results of an RFP or similar tender process, not the actual submission, reports or correspondence relating to the deliberative and evaluation process. (2) No. (3) The correspondence dated 13 June 2002 relates to a letter between the FPC and Sotico Pty Ltd. The correspondence between the FPC and Sotico forms part of Sotico’s confidential submission as part of the RFP evaluation process. (4) “At face value” are words used in the probity auditor’s report. However, the FPC evaluation panel verified the employment estimates by using comparative numbers in a sample of downstream timber processing entities.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. The use of the possessive for the probity auditor in conjunction with the “Recommendation Report Request for Proposals for the Purchase of Jarrah Sawlogs” contains the implication that the report is the probity auditor’s report; in fact, it is the Forest Products Commission’s report. I explain that because it makes the answer a little clearer. (1) The “Recommendation Report Request for Proposals for the Purchase of Jarrah Sawlogs” was completed by the FPC’s tender evaluation committee and assessed by the probity auditor. The recommendation report contains commercially sensitive information and comparatives of request for proposals proponents and it is not appropriate for a government agency to release the details. It is normal practice to release the results of an RFP or similar tender process, not the actual submission, reports or correspondence relating to the deliberative and evaluation process. (2) No. (3) The correspondence dated 13 June 2002 relates to a letter between the FPC and Sotico Pty Ltd. The correspondence between the FPC and Sotico forms part of Sotico’s confidential submission as part of the RFP evaluation process. (4) “At face value” are words used in the probity auditor’s report. However, the FPC evaluation panel verified the employment estimates by using comparative numbers in a sample of downstream timber processing entities.
(1) The “Recommendation Report Request for Proposals for the Purchase of Jarrah Sawlogs” was completed by the FPC’s tender evaluation committee and assessed by the probity auditor. The recommendation report contains commercially sensitive information and comparatives of request for proposals proponents and it is not appropriate for a government agency to release the details. It is normal practice to release the results of an RFP or similar tender process, not the actual submission, reports or correspondence relating to the deliberative and evaluation process. (2) No. (3) The correspondence dated 13 June 2002 relates to a letter between the FPC and Sotico Pty Ltd. The correspondence between the FPC and Sotico forms part of Sotico’s confidential submission as part of the RFP evaluation process. (4) “At face value” are words used in the probity auditor’s report. However, the FPC evaluation panel verified the employment estimates by using comparative numbers in a sample of downstream timber processing entities.
(2) No. (3) The correspondence dated 13 June 2002 relates to a letter between the FPC and Sotico Pty Ltd. The correspondence between the FPC and Sotico forms part of Sotico’s confidential submission as part of the RFP evaluation process. (4) “At face value” are words used in the probity auditor’s report. However, the FPC evaluation panel verified the employment estimates by using comparative numbers in a sample of downstream timber processing entities.
(3) The correspondence dated 13 June 2002 relates to a letter between the FPC and Sotico Pty Ltd. The correspondence between the FPC and Sotico forms part of Sotico’s confidential submission as part of the RFP evaluation process. (4) “At face value” are words used in the probity auditor’s report. However, the FPC evaluation panel verified the employment estimates by using comparative numbers in a sample of downstream timber processing entities.
(4) “At face value” are words used in the probity auditor’s report. However, the FPC evaluation panel verified the employment estimates by using comparative numbers in a sample of downstream timber processing entities.
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.