❓ A parliamentary question regarding the Perth Convention Centre tender process reveals that none of the initial bids fully met requirements, including the winning bid by Multiplex. Despite this, Multiplex was chosen due to overall competitiveness, and the probity auditor signed off on the process.
AnsweredQoN 131Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) In what respects, if any, did each of the three leading tenders for the convention centre project fail to conform to the tender specifications? (2) Does Multiplex’s tender for the convention centre project comply with the requirements of the tender process? (3) If not, with which requirements does it not comply and why did the Government accept the tender? (4) Has the probity auditor for the convention centre tender process not yet signed off on the process because of the tenderer’s failure to comply with mandatory requirements and the refusal of the two unsuccessful tenderers to sign off on the process? Hon N.F. MOORE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. I am pleased he asked it because it is time this issue is straightened out. (1) After the proponents responded to the request for proposal, they were written to on 17 December 1999 and advised of a number of elements that the evaluation panel of the Perth Convention and Exhibition Centre task force considered did not meet the mandatory requirements of the request for proposal. Leighton consortium’s bid was conditional on the State’s acceptance of the goods and services tax liability, and the exhibition hall was not divisible into seven spaces. Multiplex consortium’s bid was conditional on stamp duty and land tax relief, and the flexible performance space was not separate. The Nexus consortium bid proposed break-out rooms for only 1 000 delegates and was conditional on stamp duty and land tax relief. (2)-(3) As part of the process, between the end of the response period of the request for proposal and the decision on the final preferred provider, the two short-listed bids were progressed. The Multiplex proposal, which won preferred provider status, did not meet two of the mandatory requirements: It did not provide a separate flexible performance space, and the requirement of the 20 000 square metres of floor space was reduced to 17 000 square metres. Multiplex was selected as the preferred provider because, overall, it was able to deliver more competitively on the core assessment parameters in the final stage of the evaluation process. (4) No, in fact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu provided an opinion on the validity of the process on 30 June this year, which it reiterated in a letter dated 26 July. In line with normal independent probity processes, the consortia are not required to sign off on the process, rather it is an issue for the probity auditor to determine. There is some suggestion that the two unsuccessful proponents are required to sign off on the probity auditor’s report. It is the other way around: The probity auditor signs off on the process. It has done that. The Leighton consortium is engaged in a dispute with the task force about why it did not win. However, Leighton has not indicated to the probity auditor any concern about the probity of the process. People should get that straight. The probity auditor has ticked off the process. I table the probity auditor’s letters to the project director and the Minister for Tourism. [See paper 197.]
(2) Does Multiplex’s tender for the convention centre project comply with the requirements of the tender process? (3) If not, with which requirements does it not comply and why did the Government accept the tender? (4) Has the probity auditor for the convention centre tender process not yet signed off on the process because of the tenderer’s failure to comply with mandatory requirements and the refusal of the two unsuccessful tenderers to sign off on the process? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I am pleased he asked it because it is time this issue is straightened out. (1) After the proponents responded to the request for proposal, they were written to on 17 December 1999 and advised of a number of elements that the evaluation panel of the Perth Convention and Exhibition Centre task force considered did not meet the mandatory requirements of the request for proposal. Leighton consortium’s bid was conditional on the State’s acceptance of the goods and services tax liability, and the exhibition hall was not divisible into seven spaces. Multiplex consortium’s bid was conditional on stamp duty and land tax relief, and the flexible performance space was not separate. The Nexus consortium bid proposed break-out rooms for only 1 000 delegates and was conditional on stamp duty and land tax relief. (2)-(3) As part of the process, between the end of the response period of the request for proposal and the decision on the final preferred provider, the two short-listed bids were progressed. The Multiplex proposal, which won preferred provider status, did not meet two of the mandatory requirements: It did not provide a separate flexible performance space, and the requirement of the 20 000 square metres of floor space was reduced to 17 000 square metres. Multiplex was selected as the preferred provider because, overall, it was able to deliver more competitively on the core assessment parameters in the final stage of the evaluation process. (4) No, in fact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu provided an opinion on the validity of the process on 30 June this year, which it reiterated in a letter dated 26 July. In line with normal independent probity processes, the consortia are not required to sign off on the process, rather it is an issue for the probity auditor to determine. There is some suggestion that the two unsuccessful proponents are required to sign off on the probity auditor’s report. It is the other way around: The probity auditor signs off on the process. It has done that. The Leighton consortium is engaged in a dispute with the task force about why it did not win. However, Leighton has not indicated to the probity auditor any concern about the probity of the process. People should get that straight. The probity auditor has ticked off the process. I table the probity auditor’s letters to the project director and the Minister for Tourism. [See paper 197.]
(3) If not, with which requirements does it not comply and why did the Government accept the tender? (4) Has the probity auditor for the convention centre tender process not yet signed off on the process because of the tenderer’s failure to comply with mandatory requirements and the refusal of the two unsuccessful tenderers to sign off on the process? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I am pleased he asked it because it is time this issue is straightened out. (1) After the proponents responded to the request for proposal, they were written to on 17 December 1999 and advised of a number of elements that the evaluation panel of the Perth Convention and Exhibition Centre task force considered did not meet the mandatory requirements of the request for proposal. Leighton consortium’s bid was conditional on the State’s acceptance of the goods and services tax liability, and the exhibition hall was not divisible into seven spaces. Multiplex consortium’s bid was conditional on stamp duty and land tax relief, and the flexible performance space was not separate. The Nexus consortium bid proposed break-out rooms for only 1 000 delegates and was conditional on stamp duty and land tax relief. (2)-(3) As part of the process, between the end of the response period of the request for proposal and the decision on the final preferred provider, the two short-listed bids were progressed. The Multiplex proposal, which won preferred provider status, did not meet two of the mandatory requirements: It did not provide a separate flexible performance space, and the requirement of the 20 000 square metres of floor space was reduced to 17 000 square metres. Multiplex was selected as the preferred provider because, overall, it was able to deliver more competitively on the core assessment parameters in the final stage of the evaluation process. (4) No, in fact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu provided an opinion on the validity of the process on 30 June this year, which it reiterated in a letter dated 26 July. In line with normal independent probity processes, the consortia are not required to sign off on the process, rather it is an issue for the probity auditor to determine. There is some suggestion that the two unsuccessful proponents are required to sign off on the probity auditor’s report. It is the other way around: The probity auditor signs off on the process. It has done that. The Leighton consortium is engaged in a dispute with the task force about why it did not win. However, Leighton has not indicated to the probity auditor any concern about the probity of the process. People should get that straight. The probity auditor has ticked off the process. I table the probity auditor’s letters to the project director and the Minister for Tourism. [See paper 197.]
(4) Has the probity auditor for the convention centre tender process not yet signed off on the process because of the tenderer’s failure to comply with mandatory requirements and the refusal of the two unsuccessful tenderers to sign off on the process? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I am pleased he asked it because it is time this issue is straightened out. (1) After the proponents responded to the request for proposal, they were written to on 17 December 1999 and advised of a number of elements that the evaluation panel of the Perth Convention and Exhibition Centre task force considered did not meet the mandatory requirements of the request for proposal. Leighton consortium’s bid was conditional on the State’s acceptance of the goods and services tax liability, and the exhibition hall was not divisible into seven spaces. Multiplex consortium’s bid was conditional on stamp duty and land tax relief, and the flexible performance space was not separate. The Nexus consortium bid proposed break-out rooms for only 1 000 delegates and was conditional on stamp duty and land tax relief. (2)-(3) As part of the process, between the end of the response period of the request for proposal and the decision on the final preferred provider, the two short-listed bids were progressed. The Multiplex proposal, which won preferred provider status, did not meet two of the mandatory requirements: It did not provide a separate flexible performance space, and the requirement of the 20 000 square metres of floor space was reduced to 17 000 square metres. Multiplex was selected as the preferred provider because, overall, it was able to deliver more competitively on the core assessment parameters in the final stage of the evaluation process. (4) No, in fact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu provided an opinion on the validity of the process on 30 June this year, which it reiterated in a letter dated 26 July. In line with normal independent probity processes, the consortia are not required to sign off on the process, rather it is an issue for the probity auditor to determine. There is some suggestion that the two unsuccessful proponents are required to sign off on the probity auditor’s report. It is the other way around: The probity auditor signs off on the process. It has done that. The Leighton consortium is engaged in a dispute with the task force about why it did not win. However, Leighton has not indicated to the probity auditor any concern about the probity of the process. People should get that straight. The probity auditor has ticked off the process. I table the probity auditor’s letters to the project director and the Minister for Tourism. [See paper 197.]
Hon N.F. MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I am pleased he asked it because it is time this issue is straightened out. (1) After the proponents responded to the request for proposal, they were written to on 17 December 1999 and advised of a number of elements that the evaluation panel of the Perth Convention and Exhibition Centre task force considered did not meet the mandatory requirements of the request for proposal. Leighton consortium’s bid was conditional on the State’s acceptance of the goods and services tax liability, and the exhibition hall was not divisible into seven spaces. Multiplex consortium’s bid was conditional on stamp duty and land tax relief, and the flexible performance space was not separate. The Nexus consortium bid proposed break-out rooms for only 1 000 delegates and was conditional on stamp duty and land tax relief. (2)-(3) As part of the process, between the end of the response period of the request for proposal and the decision on the final preferred provider, the two short-listed bids were progressed. The Multiplex proposal, which won preferred provider status, did not meet two of the mandatory requirements: It did not provide a separate flexible performance space, and the requirement of the 20 000 square metres of floor space was reduced to 17 000 square metres. Multiplex was selected as the preferred provider because, overall, it was able to deliver more competitively on the core assessment parameters in the final stage of the evaluation process. (4) No, in fact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu provided an opinion on the validity of the process on 30 June this year, which it reiterated in a letter dated 26 July. In line with normal independent probity processes, the consortia are not required to sign off on the process, rather it is an issue for the probity auditor to determine. There is some suggestion that the two unsuccessful proponents are required to sign off on the probity auditor’s report. It is the other way around: The probity auditor signs off on the process. It has done that. The Leighton consortium is engaged in a dispute with the task force about why it did not win. However, Leighton has not indicated to the probity auditor any concern about the probity of the process. People should get that straight. The probity auditor has ticked off the process. I table the probity auditor’s letters to the project director and the Minister for Tourism. [See paper 197.]
I thank the member for some notice of this question. I am pleased he asked it because it is time this issue is straightened out. (1) After the proponents responded to the request for proposal, they were written to on 17 December 1999 and advised of a number of elements that the evaluation panel of the Perth Convention and Exhibition Centre task force considered did not meet the mandatory requirements of the request for proposal. Leighton consortium’s bid was conditional on the State’s acceptance of the goods and services tax liability, and the exhibition hall was not divisible into seven spaces. Multiplex consortium’s bid was conditional on stamp duty and land tax relief, and the flexible performance space was not separate. The Nexus consortium bid proposed break-out rooms for only 1 000 delegates and was conditional on stamp duty and land tax relief. (2)-(3) As part of the process, between the end of the response period of the request for proposal and the decision on the final preferred provider, the two short-listed bids were progressed. The Multiplex proposal, which won preferred provider status, did not meet two of the mandatory requirements: It did not provide a separate flexible performance space, and the requirement of the 20 000 square metres of floor space was reduced to 17 000 square metres. Multiplex was selected as the preferred provider because, overall, it was able to deliver more competitively on the core assessment parameters in the final stage of the evaluation process. (4) No, in fact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu provided an opinion on the validity of the process on 30 June this year, which it reiterated in a letter dated 26 July. In line with normal independent probity processes, the consortia are not required to sign off on the process, rather it is an issue for the probity auditor to determine. There is some suggestion that the two unsuccessful proponents are required to sign off on the probity auditor’s report. It is the other way around: The probity auditor signs off on the process. It has done that. The Leighton consortium is engaged in a dispute with the task force about why it did not win. However, Leighton has not indicated to the probity auditor any concern about the probity of the process. People should get that straight. The probity auditor has ticked off the process. I table the probity auditor’s letters to the project director and the Minister for Tourism. [See paper 197.]
(1) After the proponents responded to the request for proposal, they were written to on 17 December 1999 and advised of a number of elements that the evaluation panel of the Perth Convention and Exhibition Centre task force considered did not meet the mandatory requirements of the request for proposal. Leighton consortium’s bid was conditional on the State’s acceptance of the goods and services tax liability, and the exhibition hall was not divisible into seven spaces. Multiplex consortium’s bid was conditional on stamp duty and land tax relief, and the flexible performance space was not separate. The Nexus consortium bid proposed break-out rooms for only 1 000 delegates and was conditional on stamp duty and land tax relief. (2)-(3) As part of the process, between the end of the response period of the request for proposal and the decision on the final preferred provider, the two short-listed bids were progressed. The Multiplex proposal, which won preferred provider status, did not meet two of the mandatory requirements: It did not provide a separate flexible performance space, and the requirement of the 20 000 square metres of floor space was reduced to 17 000 square metres. Multiplex was selected as the preferred provider because, overall, it was able to deliver more competitively on the core assessment parameters in the final stage of the evaluation process. (4) No, in fact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu provided an opinion on the validity of the process on 30 June this year, which it reiterated in a letter dated 26 July. In line with normal independent probity processes, the consortia are not required to sign off on the process, rather it is an issue for the probity auditor to determine. There is some suggestion that the two unsuccessful proponents are required to sign off on the probity auditor’s report. It is the other way around: The probity auditor signs off on the process. It has done that. The Leighton consortium is engaged in a dispute with the task force about why it did not win. However, Leighton has not indicated to the probity auditor any concern about the probity of the process. People should get that straight. The probity auditor has ticked off the process. I table the probity auditor’s letters to the project director and the Minister for Tourism. [See paper 197.]
(2)-(3) As part of the process, between the end of the response period of the request for proposal and the decision on the final preferred provider, the two short-listed bids were progressed. The Multiplex proposal, which won preferred provider status, did not meet two of the mandatory requirements: It did not provide a separate flexible performance space, and the requirement of the 20 000 square metres of floor space was reduced to 17 000 square metres. Multiplex was selected as the preferred provider because, overall, it was able to deliver more competitively on the core assessment parameters in the final stage of the evaluation process. (4) No, in fact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu provided an opinion on the validity of the process on 30 June this year, which it reiterated in a letter dated 26 July. In line with normal independent probity processes, the consortia are not required to sign off on the process, rather it is an issue for the probity auditor to determine. There is some suggestion that the two unsuccessful proponents are required to sign off on the probity auditor’s report. It is the other way around: The probity auditor signs off on the process. It has done that. The Leighton consortium is engaged in a dispute with the task force about why it did not win. However, Leighton has not indicated to the probity auditor any concern about the probity of the process. People should get that straight. The probity auditor has ticked off the process. I table the probity auditor’s letters to the project director and the Minister for Tourism. [See paper 197.]
(4) No, in fact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu provided an opinion on the validity of the process on 30 June this year, which it reiterated in a letter dated 26 July. In line with normal independent probity processes, the consortia are not required to sign off on the process, rather it is an issue for the probity auditor to determine. There is some suggestion that the two unsuccessful proponents are required to sign off on the probity auditor’s report. It is the other way around: The probity auditor signs off on the process. It has done that. The Leighton consortium is engaged in a dispute with the task force about why it did not win. However, Leighton has not indicated to the probity auditor any concern about the probity of the process. People should get that straight. The probity auditor has ticked off the process. I table the probity auditor’s letters to the project director and the Minister for Tourism. [See paper 197.]
[See paper 197.]
(2) Does Multiplex’s tender for the convention centre project comply with the requirements of the tender process? (3) If not, with which requirements does it not comply and why did the Government accept the tender? (4) Has the probity auditor for the convention centre tender process not yet signed off on the process because of the tenderer’s failure to comply with mandatory requirements and the refusal of the two unsuccessful tenderers to sign off on the process? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I am pleased he asked it because it is time this issue is straightened out. (1) After the proponents responded to the request for proposal, they were written to on 17 December 1999 and advised of a number of elements that the evaluation panel of the Perth Convention and Exhibition Centre task force considered did not meet the mandatory requirements of the request for proposal. Leighton consortium’s bid was conditional on the State’s acceptance of the goods and services tax liability, and the exhibition hall was not divisible into seven spaces. Multiplex consortium’s bid was conditional on stamp duty and land tax relief, and the flexible performance space was not separate. The Nexus consortium bid proposed break-out rooms for only 1 000 delegates and was conditional on stamp duty and land tax relief. (2)-(3) As part of the process, between the end of the response period of the request for proposal and the decision on the final preferred provider, the two short-listed bids were progressed. The Multiplex proposal, which won preferred provider status, did not meet two of the mandatory requirements: It did not provide a separate flexible performance space, and the requirement of the 20 000 square metres of floor space was reduced to 17 000 square metres. Multiplex was selected as the preferred provider because, overall, it was able to deliver more competitively on the core assessment parameters in the final stage of the evaluation process. (4) No, in fact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu provided an opinion on the validity of the process on 30 June this year, which it reiterated in a letter dated 26 July. In line with normal independent probity processes, the consortia are not required to sign off on the process, rather it is an issue for the probity auditor to determine. There is some suggestion that the two unsuccessful proponents are required to sign off on the probity auditor’s report. It is the other way around: The probity auditor signs off on the process. It has done that. The Leighton consortium is engaged in a dispute with the task force about why it did not win. However, Leighton has not indicated to the probity auditor any concern about the probity of the process. People should get that straight. The probity auditor has ticked off the process. I table the probity auditor’s letters to the project director and the Minister for Tourism. [See paper 197.]
(3) If not, with which requirements does it not comply and why did the Government accept the tender? (4) Has the probity auditor for the convention centre tender process not yet signed off on the process because of the tenderer’s failure to comply with mandatory requirements and the refusal of the two unsuccessful tenderers to sign off on the process? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I am pleased he asked it because it is time this issue is straightened out. (1) After the proponents responded to the request for proposal, they were written to on 17 December 1999 and advised of a number of elements that the evaluation panel of the Perth Convention and Exhibition Centre task force considered did not meet the mandatory requirements of the request for proposal. Leighton consortium’s bid was conditional on the State’s acceptance of the goods and services tax liability, and the exhibition hall was not divisible into seven spaces. Multiplex consortium’s bid was conditional on stamp duty and land tax relief, and the flexible performance space was not separate. The Nexus consortium bid proposed break-out rooms for only 1 000 delegates and was conditional on stamp duty and land tax relief. (2)-(3) As part of the process, between the end of the response period of the request for proposal and the decision on the final preferred provider, the two short-listed bids were progressed. The Multiplex proposal, which won preferred provider status, did not meet two of the mandatory requirements: It did not provide a separate flexible performance space, and the requirement of the 20 000 square metres of floor space was reduced to 17 000 square metres. Multiplex was selected as the preferred provider because, overall, it was able to deliver more competitively on the core assessment parameters in the final stage of the evaluation process. (4) No, in fact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu provided an opinion on the validity of the process on 30 June this year, which it reiterated in a letter dated 26 July. In line with normal independent probity processes, the consortia are not required to sign off on the process, rather it is an issue for the probity auditor to determine. There is some suggestion that the two unsuccessful proponents are required to sign off on the probity auditor’s report. It is the other way around: The probity auditor signs off on the process. It has done that. The Leighton consortium is engaged in a dispute with the task force about why it did not win. However, Leighton has not indicated to the probity auditor any concern about the probity of the process. People should get that straight. The probity auditor has ticked off the process. I table the probity auditor’s letters to the project director and the Minister for Tourism. [See paper 197.]
(4) Has the probity auditor for the convention centre tender process not yet signed off on the process because of the tenderer’s failure to comply with mandatory requirements and the refusal of the two unsuccessful tenderers to sign off on the process? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I am pleased he asked it because it is time this issue is straightened out. (1) After the proponents responded to the request for proposal, they were written to on 17 December 1999 and advised of a number of elements that the evaluation panel of the Perth Convention and Exhibition Centre task force considered did not meet the mandatory requirements of the request for proposal. Leighton consortium’s bid was conditional on the State’s acceptance of the goods and services tax liability, and the exhibition hall was not divisible into seven spaces. Multiplex consortium’s bid was conditional on stamp duty and land tax relief, and the flexible performance space was not separate. The Nexus consortium bid proposed break-out rooms for only 1 000 delegates and was conditional on stamp duty and land tax relief. (2)-(3) As part of the process, between the end of the response period of the request for proposal and the decision on the final preferred provider, the two short-listed bids were progressed. The Multiplex proposal, which won preferred provider status, did not meet two of the mandatory requirements: It did not provide a separate flexible performance space, and the requirement of the 20 000 square metres of floor space was reduced to 17 000 square metres. Multiplex was selected as the preferred provider because, overall, it was able to deliver more competitively on the core assessment parameters in the final stage of the evaluation process. (4) No, in fact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu provided an opinion on the validity of the process on 30 June this year, which it reiterated in a letter dated 26 July. In line with normal independent probity processes, the consortia are not required to sign off on the process, rather it is an issue for the probity auditor to determine. There is some suggestion that the two unsuccessful proponents are required to sign off on the probity auditor’s report. It is the other way around: The probity auditor signs off on the process. It has done that. The Leighton consortium is engaged in a dispute with the task force about why it did not win. However, Leighton has not indicated to the probity auditor any concern about the probity of the process. People should get that straight. The probity auditor has ticked off the process. I table the probity auditor’s letters to the project director and the Minister for Tourism. [See paper 197.]
Hon N.F. MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I am pleased he asked it because it is time this issue is straightened out. (1) After the proponents responded to the request for proposal, they were written to on 17 December 1999 and advised of a number of elements that the evaluation panel of the Perth Convention and Exhibition Centre task force considered did not meet the mandatory requirements of the request for proposal. Leighton consortium’s bid was conditional on the State’s acceptance of the goods and services tax liability, and the exhibition hall was not divisible into seven spaces. Multiplex consortium’s bid was conditional on stamp duty and land tax relief, and the flexible performance space was not separate. The Nexus consortium bid proposed break-out rooms for only 1 000 delegates and was conditional on stamp duty and land tax relief. (2)-(3) As part of the process, between the end of the response period of the request for proposal and the decision on the final preferred provider, the two short-listed bids were progressed. The Multiplex proposal, which won preferred provider status, did not meet two of the mandatory requirements: It did not provide a separate flexible performance space, and the requirement of the 20 000 square metres of floor space was reduced to 17 000 square metres. Multiplex was selected as the preferred provider because, overall, it was able to deliver more competitively on the core assessment parameters in the final stage of the evaluation process. (4) No, in fact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu provided an opinion on the validity of the process on 30 June this year, which it reiterated in a letter dated 26 July. In line with normal independent probity processes, the consortia are not required to sign off on the process, rather it is an issue for the probity auditor to determine. There is some suggestion that the two unsuccessful proponents are required to sign off on the probity auditor’s report. It is the other way around: The probity auditor signs off on the process. It has done that. The Leighton consortium is engaged in a dispute with the task force about why it did not win. However, Leighton has not indicated to the probity auditor any concern about the probity of the process. People should get that straight. The probity auditor has ticked off the process. I table the probity auditor’s letters to the project director and the Minister for Tourism. [See paper 197.]
I thank the member for some notice of this question. I am pleased he asked it because it is time this issue is straightened out. (1) After the proponents responded to the request for proposal, they were written to on 17 December 1999 and advised of a number of elements that the evaluation panel of the Perth Convention and Exhibition Centre task force considered did not meet the mandatory requirements of the request for proposal. Leighton consortium’s bid was conditional on the State’s acceptance of the goods and services tax liability, and the exhibition hall was not divisible into seven spaces. Multiplex consortium’s bid was conditional on stamp duty and land tax relief, and the flexible performance space was not separate. The Nexus consortium bid proposed break-out rooms for only 1 000 delegates and was conditional on stamp duty and land tax relief. (2)-(3) As part of the process, between the end of the response period of the request for proposal and the decision on the final preferred provider, the two short-listed bids were progressed. The Multiplex proposal, which won preferred provider status, did not meet two of the mandatory requirements: It did not provide a separate flexible performance space, and the requirement of the 20 000 square metres of floor space was reduced to 17 000 square metres. Multiplex was selected as the preferred provider because, overall, it was able to deliver more competitively on the core assessment parameters in the final stage of the evaluation process. (4) No, in fact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu provided an opinion on the validity of the process on 30 June this year, which it reiterated in a letter dated 26 July. In line with normal independent probity processes, the consortia are not required to sign off on the process, rather it is an issue for the probity auditor to determine. There is some suggestion that the two unsuccessful proponents are required to sign off on the probity auditor’s report. It is the other way around: The probity auditor signs off on the process. It has done that. The Leighton consortium is engaged in a dispute with the task force about why it did not win. However, Leighton has not indicated to the probity auditor any concern about the probity of the process. People should get that straight. The probity auditor has ticked off the process. I table the probity auditor’s letters to the project director and the Minister for Tourism. [See paper 197.]
(1) After the proponents responded to the request for proposal, they were written to on 17 December 1999 and advised of a number of elements that the evaluation panel of the Perth Convention and Exhibition Centre task force considered did not meet the mandatory requirements of the request for proposal. Leighton consortium’s bid was conditional on the State’s acceptance of the goods and services tax liability, and the exhibition hall was not divisible into seven spaces. Multiplex consortium’s bid was conditional on stamp duty and land tax relief, and the flexible performance space was not separate. The Nexus consortium bid proposed break-out rooms for only 1 000 delegates and was conditional on stamp duty and land tax relief. (2)-(3) As part of the process, between the end of the response period of the request for proposal and the decision on the final preferred provider, the two short-listed bids were progressed. The Multiplex proposal, which won preferred provider status, did not meet two of the mandatory requirements: It did not provide a separate flexible performance space, and the requirement of the 20 000 square metres of floor space was reduced to 17 000 square metres. Multiplex was selected as the preferred provider because, overall, it was able to deliver more competitively on the core assessment parameters in the final stage of the evaluation process. (4) No, in fact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu provided an opinion on the validity of the process on 30 June this year, which it reiterated in a letter dated 26 July. In line with normal independent probity processes, the consortia are not required to sign off on the process, rather it is an issue for the probity auditor to determine. There is some suggestion that the two unsuccessful proponents are required to sign off on the probity auditor’s report. It is the other way around: The probity auditor signs off on the process. It has done that. The Leighton consortium is engaged in a dispute with the task force about why it did not win. However, Leighton has not indicated to the probity auditor any concern about the probity of the process. People should get that straight. The probity auditor has ticked off the process. I table the probity auditor’s letters to the project director and the Minister for Tourism. [See paper 197.]
(2)-(3) As part of the process, between the end of the response period of the request for proposal and the decision on the final preferred provider, the two short-listed bids were progressed. The Multiplex proposal, which won preferred provider status, did not meet two of the mandatory requirements: It did not provide a separate flexible performance space, and the requirement of the 20 000 square metres of floor space was reduced to 17 000 square metres. Multiplex was selected as the preferred provider because, overall, it was able to deliver more competitively on the core assessment parameters in the final stage of the evaluation process. (4) No, in fact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu provided an opinion on the validity of the process on 30 June this year, which it reiterated in a letter dated 26 July. In line with normal independent probity processes, the consortia are not required to sign off on the process, rather it is an issue for the probity auditor to determine. There is some suggestion that the two unsuccessful proponents are required to sign off on the probity auditor’s report. It is the other way around: The probity auditor signs off on the process. It has done that. The Leighton consortium is engaged in a dispute with the task force about why it did not win. However, Leighton has not indicated to the probity auditor any concern about the probity of the process. People should get that straight. The probity auditor has ticked off the process. I table the probity auditor’s letters to the project director and the Minister for Tourism. [See paper 197.]
(4) No, in fact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu provided an opinion on the validity of the process on 30 June this year, which it reiterated in a letter dated 26 July. In line with normal independent probity processes, the consortia are not required to sign off on the process, rather it is an issue for the probity auditor to determine. There is some suggestion that the two unsuccessful proponents are required to sign off on the probity auditor’s report. It is the other way around: The probity auditor signs off on the process. It has done that. The Leighton consortium is engaged in a dispute with the task force about why it did not win. However, Leighton has not indicated to the probity auditor any concern about the probity of the process. People should get that straight. The probity auditor has ticked off the process. I table the probity auditor’s letters to the project director and the Minister for Tourism. [See paper 197.]
[See paper 197.]
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.