❓ Opposition MP Michael Mischin questions the Minister for Regional Development regarding the tender process for the Albany Wave Energy Project after Carnegie Clean Energy's failure. The Minister denies involvement in drafting tender criteria and explains Carnegie's application was superior across all criteria.
AnsweredQoN 237Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
ALBANY WAVE ENERGY PROJECT
— CARNEGIE CLEAN ENERGY — TENDER PROCESS
237. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN to the Minister for Regional
Development:
I refer to the minister's
advice that apart from Carnegie Clean Energy, none of the other three tenders
for the Albany wave energy project that met the tender requirements were up to
the standard of Carnegie and are unsuitable to take over the project now that
Carnegie has failed.
(1) Did the
minister or anyone in her office contribute to the drafting of the tender
criteria or the settling of the final version; and, if so, what was that
contribution?
(2) In precisely
what respects was Carnegie's application superior to the other three
competing applicants that met the tender requirements?
(3) In precisely
what respects were the other three competing applicants that met the tender
requirements inferior to Carnegie's application?
(4) Were the
unsuccessful applicants advised of the precise reasons that their applications
were unsuccessful and the respects in which their applications were inferior to
Carnegie's application or Carnegie's application was superior
to their applications?
(5) If yes to
(4), consistent with the McGowan–Wyatt Labor government professions of
transparency, openness and accountability, will the minister table the advice;
and, if not, why not?
— CARNEGIE CLEAN ENERGY — TENDER PROCESS
237. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN to the Minister for Regional
Development:
I refer to the minister's
advice that apart from Carnegie Clean Energy, none of the other three tenders
for the Albany wave energy project that met the tender requirements were up to
the standard of Carnegie and are unsuitable to take over the project now that
Carnegie has failed.
(1) Did the
minister or anyone in her office contribute to the drafting of the tender
criteria or the settling of the final version; and, if so, what was that
contribution?
(2) In precisely
what respects was Carnegie's application superior to the other three
competing applicants that met the tender requirements?
(3) In precisely
what respects were the other three competing applicants that met the tender
requirements inferior to Carnegie's application?
(4) Were the
unsuccessful applicants advised of the precise reasons that their applications
were unsuccessful and the respects in which their applications were inferior to
Carnegie's application or Carnegie's application was superior
to their applications?
(5) If yes to
(4), consistent with the McGowan–Wyatt Labor government professions of
transparency, openness and accountability, will the minister table the advice;
and, if not, why not?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for the
question.
(1) No.
(2) Following a detailed
review of the proposals, the multi-agency evaluation panel agreed that the
submission from Carnegie Clean Energy was substantially stronger than the other
three proposals across all criteria, being corporate focus and resources,
financial backing, technical knowledge and capability, common-user
infrastructure proposal, and commitment to maximise services in Albany.
(3) As the member
would well and truly understand, details of unsuccessful proposals are not
disclosed.
(4) The
department offered each of the unsuccessful applicants the opportunity to
receive feedback on their proposals. Of the four unsuccessful applicants, two
applicants accepted this opportunity and received a full verbal briefing from
the department.
(5) Each of these
applicants were briefed verbally by the department, and as such there is no
advice to table.
question.
(1) No.
(2) Following a detailed
review of the proposals, the multi-agency evaluation panel agreed that the
submission from Carnegie Clean Energy was substantially stronger than the other
three proposals across all criteria, being corporate focus and resources,
financial backing, technical knowledge and capability, common-user
infrastructure proposal, and commitment to maximise services in Albany.
(3) As the member
would well and truly understand, details of unsuccessful proposals are not
disclosed.
(4) The
department offered each of the unsuccessful applicants the opportunity to
receive feedback on their proposals. Of the four unsuccessful applicants, two
applicants accepted this opportunity and received a full verbal briefing from
the department.
(5) Each of these
applicants were briefed verbally by the department, and as such there is no
advice to table.
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.