❓ A WA parliamentary question addresses cost overruns and the tender process for the Tonkin Highway extension, revealing budget discrepancies and company shortlisting details.
AnsweredQoN 948Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to a report in The West Australian on 10 May concerning tenders for the Tonkin Highway extension. (1) Can the minister confirm the report that the tender bids had come in noticeably higher than anticipated by the department in its budget planning? (2) Can the minister confirm that the only three companies short-listed for tender were Leighton Construction Pty Ltd, Thiess Bros Pty Ltd and Transfield McMahon? (3) Can the minister confirm that the successful tenderer was Transfield McMahon? (4) Can the minister list those companies that did not make the short list? (5) Will the minister table the relevant document from the tender committee that outlines the reasons given for companies not being short-listed? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The design and construct prices exceeded the $105 million contract budget that had been allocated for the contract. The additional costs were primarily due to higher risk costs on environmental and Aboriginal heritage issues, as well as prices for insurances, supervision, bridge construction and relocation of services being higher than recent contract prices. (2) Four companies were short-listed, including Henry Walker Eltin Contracting Pty Ltd. At the time, Transfield had no connection whatsoever with the Leighton Group. (3) Yes. It was granted preferred proponent status on 4 December 2002. Again, at this stage the company still had no connection with the Leighton Group. (4) BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd. (5) BGC was assessed by a panel of four people, including two independent engineers, as ranking fifth on a number of criteria. Generally, as requested by the construction industry, only three tenderers would be selected on such a project. However, because two companies were connected, four tenderers were selected.
(1) Can the minister confirm the report that the tender bids had come in noticeably higher than anticipated by the department in its budget planning? (2) Can the minister confirm that the only three companies short-listed for tender were Leighton Construction Pty Ltd, Thiess Bros Pty Ltd and Transfield McMahon? (3) Can the minister confirm that the successful tenderer was Transfield McMahon? (4) Can the minister list those companies that did not make the short list? (5) Will the minister table the relevant document from the tender committee that outlines the reasons given for companies not being short-listed? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The design and construct prices exceeded the $105 million contract budget that had been allocated for the contract. The additional costs were primarily due to higher risk costs on environmental and Aboriginal heritage issues, as well as prices for insurances, supervision, bridge construction and relocation of services being higher than recent contract prices. (2) Four companies were short-listed, including Henry Walker Eltin Contracting Pty Ltd. At the time, Transfield had no connection whatsoever with the Leighton Group. (3) Yes. It was granted preferred proponent status on 4 December 2002. Again, at this stage the company still had no connection with the Leighton Group. (4) BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd. (5) BGC was assessed by a panel of four people, including two independent engineers, as ranking fifth on a number of criteria. Generally, as requested by the construction industry, only three tenderers would be selected on such a project. However, because two companies were connected, four tenderers were selected.
(2) Can the minister confirm that the only three companies short-listed for tender were Leighton Construction Pty Ltd, Thiess Bros Pty Ltd and Transfield McMahon? (3) Can the minister confirm that the successful tenderer was Transfield McMahon? (4) Can the minister list those companies that did not make the short list? (5) Will the minister table the relevant document from the tender committee that outlines the reasons given for companies not being short-listed? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The design and construct prices exceeded the $105 million contract budget that had been allocated for the contract. The additional costs were primarily due to higher risk costs on environmental and Aboriginal heritage issues, as well as prices for insurances, supervision, bridge construction and relocation of services being higher than recent contract prices. (2) Four companies were short-listed, including Henry Walker Eltin Contracting Pty Ltd. At the time, Transfield had no connection whatsoever with the Leighton Group. (3) Yes. It was granted preferred proponent status on 4 December 2002. Again, at this stage the company still had no connection with the Leighton Group. (4) BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd. (5) BGC was assessed by a panel of four people, including two independent engineers, as ranking fifth on a number of criteria. Generally, as requested by the construction industry, only three tenderers would be selected on such a project. However, because two companies were connected, four tenderers were selected.
(3) Can the minister confirm that the successful tenderer was Transfield McMahon? (4) Can the minister list those companies that did not make the short list? (5) Will the minister table the relevant document from the tender committee that outlines the reasons given for companies not being short-listed? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The design and construct prices exceeded the $105 million contract budget that had been allocated for the contract. The additional costs were primarily due to higher risk costs on environmental and Aboriginal heritage issues, as well as prices for insurances, supervision, bridge construction and relocation of services being higher than recent contract prices. (2) Four companies were short-listed, including Henry Walker Eltin Contracting Pty Ltd. At the time, Transfield had no connection whatsoever with the Leighton Group. (3) Yes. It was granted preferred proponent status on 4 December 2002. Again, at this stage the company still had no connection with the Leighton Group. (4) BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd. (5) BGC was assessed by a panel of four people, including two independent engineers, as ranking fifth on a number of criteria. Generally, as requested by the construction industry, only three tenderers would be selected on such a project. However, because two companies were connected, four tenderers were selected.
(4) Can the minister list those companies that did not make the short list? (5) Will the minister table the relevant document from the tender committee that outlines the reasons given for companies not being short-listed? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The design and construct prices exceeded the $105 million contract budget that had been allocated for the contract. The additional costs were primarily due to higher risk costs on environmental and Aboriginal heritage issues, as well as prices for insurances, supervision, bridge construction and relocation of services being higher than recent contract prices. (2) Four companies were short-listed, including Henry Walker Eltin Contracting Pty Ltd. At the time, Transfield had no connection whatsoever with the Leighton Group. (3) Yes. It was granted preferred proponent status on 4 December 2002. Again, at this stage the company still had no connection with the Leighton Group. (4) BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd. (5) BGC was assessed by a panel of four people, including two independent engineers, as ranking fifth on a number of criteria. Generally, as requested by the construction industry, only three tenderers would be selected on such a project. However, because two companies were connected, four tenderers were selected.
(5) Will the minister table the relevant document from the tender committee that outlines the reasons given for companies not being short-listed? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The design and construct prices exceeded the $105 million contract budget that had been allocated for the contract. The additional costs were primarily due to higher risk costs on environmental and Aboriginal heritage issues, as well as prices for insurances, supervision, bridge construction and relocation of services being higher than recent contract prices. (2) Four companies were short-listed, including Henry Walker Eltin Contracting Pty Ltd. At the time, Transfield had no connection whatsoever with the Leighton Group. (3) Yes. It was granted preferred proponent status on 4 December 2002. Again, at this stage the company still had no connection with the Leighton Group. (4) BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd. (5) BGC was assessed by a panel of four people, including two independent engineers, as ranking fifth on a number of criteria. Generally, as requested by the construction industry, only three tenderers would be selected on such a project. However, because two companies were connected, four tenderers were selected.
Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The design and construct prices exceeded the $105 million contract budget that had been allocated for the contract. The additional costs were primarily due to higher risk costs on environmental and Aboriginal heritage issues, as well as prices for insurances, supervision, bridge construction and relocation of services being higher than recent contract prices. (2) Four companies were short-listed, including Henry Walker Eltin Contracting Pty Ltd. At the time, Transfield had no connection whatsoever with the Leighton Group. (3) Yes. It was granted preferred proponent status on 4 December 2002. Again, at this stage the company still had no connection with the Leighton Group. (4) BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd. (5) BGC was assessed by a panel of four people, including two independent engineers, as ranking fifth on a number of criteria. Generally, as requested by the construction industry, only three tenderers would be selected on such a project. However, because two companies were connected, four tenderers were selected.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The design and construct prices exceeded the $105 million contract budget that had been allocated for the contract. The additional costs were primarily due to higher risk costs on environmental and Aboriginal heritage issues, as well as prices for insurances, supervision, bridge construction and relocation of services being higher than recent contract prices. (2) Four companies were short-listed, including Henry Walker Eltin Contracting Pty Ltd. At the time, Transfield had no connection whatsoever with the Leighton Group. (3) Yes. It was granted preferred proponent status on 4 December 2002. Again, at this stage the company still had no connection with the Leighton Group. (4) BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd. (5) BGC was assessed by a panel of four people, including two independent engineers, as ranking fifth on a number of criteria. Generally, as requested by the construction industry, only three tenderers would be selected on such a project. However, because two companies were connected, four tenderers were selected.
(1) The design and construct prices exceeded the $105 million contract budget that had been allocated for the contract. The additional costs were primarily due to higher risk costs on environmental and Aboriginal heritage issues, as well as prices for insurances, supervision, bridge construction and relocation of services being higher than recent contract prices. (2) Four companies were short-listed, including Henry Walker Eltin Contracting Pty Ltd. At the time, Transfield had no connection whatsoever with the Leighton Group. (3) Yes. It was granted preferred proponent status on 4 December 2002. Again, at this stage the company still had no connection with the Leighton Group. (4) BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd. (5) BGC was assessed by a panel of four people, including two independent engineers, as ranking fifth on a number of criteria. Generally, as requested by the construction industry, only three tenderers would be selected on such a project. However, because two companies were connected, four tenderers were selected.
(2) Four companies were short-listed, including Henry Walker Eltin Contracting Pty Ltd. At the time, Transfield had no connection whatsoever with the Leighton Group. (3) Yes. It was granted preferred proponent status on 4 December 2002. Again, at this stage the company still had no connection with the Leighton Group. (4) BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd. (5) BGC was assessed by a panel of four people, including two independent engineers, as ranking fifth on a number of criteria. Generally, as requested by the construction industry, only three tenderers would be selected on such a project. However, because two companies were connected, four tenderers were selected.
(3) Yes. It was granted preferred proponent status on 4 December 2002. Again, at this stage the company still had no connection with the Leighton Group. (4) BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd. (5) BGC was assessed by a panel of four people, including two independent engineers, as ranking fifth on a number of criteria. Generally, as requested by the construction industry, only three tenderers would be selected on such a project. However, because two companies were connected, four tenderers were selected.
(4) BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd. (5) BGC was assessed by a panel of four people, including two independent engineers, as ranking fifth on a number of criteria. Generally, as requested by the construction industry, only three tenderers would be selected on such a project. However, because two companies were connected, four tenderers were selected.
(5) BGC was assessed by a panel of four people, including two independent engineers, as ranking fifth on a number of criteria. Generally, as requested by the construction industry, only three tenderers would be selected on such a project. However, because two companies were connected, four tenderers were selected.
(1) Can the minister confirm the report that the tender bids had come in noticeably higher than anticipated by the department in its budget planning? (2) Can the minister confirm that the only three companies short-listed for tender were Leighton Construction Pty Ltd, Thiess Bros Pty Ltd and Transfield McMahon? (3) Can the minister confirm that the successful tenderer was Transfield McMahon? (4) Can the minister list those companies that did not make the short list? (5) Will the minister table the relevant document from the tender committee that outlines the reasons given for companies not being short-listed? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The design and construct prices exceeded the $105 million contract budget that had been allocated for the contract. The additional costs were primarily due to higher risk costs on environmental and Aboriginal heritage issues, as well as prices for insurances, supervision, bridge construction and relocation of services being higher than recent contract prices. (2) Four companies were short-listed, including Henry Walker Eltin Contracting Pty Ltd. At the time, Transfield had no connection whatsoever with the Leighton Group. (3) Yes. It was granted preferred proponent status on 4 December 2002. Again, at this stage the company still had no connection with the Leighton Group. (4) BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd. (5) BGC was assessed by a panel of four people, including two independent engineers, as ranking fifth on a number of criteria. Generally, as requested by the construction industry, only three tenderers would be selected on such a project. However, because two companies were connected, four tenderers were selected.
(2) Can the minister confirm that the only three companies short-listed for tender were Leighton Construction Pty Ltd, Thiess Bros Pty Ltd and Transfield McMahon? (3) Can the minister confirm that the successful tenderer was Transfield McMahon? (4) Can the minister list those companies that did not make the short list? (5) Will the minister table the relevant document from the tender committee that outlines the reasons given for companies not being short-listed? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The design and construct prices exceeded the $105 million contract budget that had been allocated for the contract. The additional costs were primarily due to higher risk costs on environmental and Aboriginal heritage issues, as well as prices for insurances, supervision, bridge construction and relocation of services being higher than recent contract prices. (2) Four companies were short-listed, including Henry Walker Eltin Contracting Pty Ltd. At the time, Transfield had no connection whatsoever with the Leighton Group. (3) Yes. It was granted preferred proponent status on 4 December 2002. Again, at this stage the company still had no connection with the Leighton Group. (4) BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd. (5) BGC was assessed by a panel of four people, including two independent engineers, as ranking fifth on a number of criteria. Generally, as requested by the construction industry, only three tenderers would be selected on such a project. However, because two companies were connected, four tenderers were selected.
(3) Can the minister confirm that the successful tenderer was Transfield McMahon? (4) Can the minister list those companies that did not make the short list? (5) Will the minister table the relevant document from the tender committee that outlines the reasons given for companies not being short-listed? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The design and construct prices exceeded the $105 million contract budget that had been allocated for the contract. The additional costs were primarily due to higher risk costs on environmental and Aboriginal heritage issues, as well as prices for insurances, supervision, bridge construction and relocation of services being higher than recent contract prices. (2) Four companies were short-listed, including Henry Walker Eltin Contracting Pty Ltd. At the time, Transfield had no connection whatsoever with the Leighton Group. (3) Yes. It was granted preferred proponent status on 4 December 2002. Again, at this stage the company still had no connection with the Leighton Group. (4) BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd. (5) BGC was assessed by a panel of four people, including two independent engineers, as ranking fifth on a number of criteria. Generally, as requested by the construction industry, only three tenderers would be selected on such a project. However, because two companies were connected, four tenderers were selected.
(4) Can the minister list those companies that did not make the short list? (5) Will the minister table the relevant document from the tender committee that outlines the reasons given for companies not being short-listed? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The design and construct prices exceeded the $105 million contract budget that had been allocated for the contract. The additional costs were primarily due to higher risk costs on environmental and Aboriginal heritage issues, as well as prices for insurances, supervision, bridge construction and relocation of services being higher than recent contract prices. (2) Four companies were short-listed, including Henry Walker Eltin Contracting Pty Ltd. At the time, Transfield had no connection whatsoever with the Leighton Group. (3) Yes. It was granted preferred proponent status on 4 December 2002. Again, at this stage the company still had no connection with the Leighton Group. (4) BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd. (5) BGC was assessed by a panel of four people, including two independent engineers, as ranking fifth on a number of criteria. Generally, as requested by the construction industry, only three tenderers would be selected on such a project. However, because two companies were connected, four tenderers were selected.
(5) Will the minister table the relevant document from the tender committee that outlines the reasons given for companies not being short-listed? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The design and construct prices exceeded the $105 million contract budget that had been allocated for the contract. The additional costs were primarily due to higher risk costs on environmental and Aboriginal heritage issues, as well as prices for insurances, supervision, bridge construction and relocation of services being higher than recent contract prices. (2) Four companies were short-listed, including Henry Walker Eltin Contracting Pty Ltd. At the time, Transfield had no connection whatsoever with the Leighton Group. (3) Yes. It was granted preferred proponent status on 4 December 2002. Again, at this stage the company still had no connection with the Leighton Group. (4) BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd. (5) BGC was assessed by a panel of four people, including two independent engineers, as ranking fifth on a number of criteria. Generally, as requested by the construction industry, only three tenderers would be selected on such a project. However, because two companies were connected, four tenderers were selected.
Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The design and construct prices exceeded the $105 million contract budget that had been allocated for the contract. The additional costs were primarily due to higher risk costs on environmental and Aboriginal heritage issues, as well as prices for insurances, supervision, bridge construction and relocation of services being higher than recent contract prices. (2) Four companies were short-listed, including Henry Walker Eltin Contracting Pty Ltd. At the time, Transfield had no connection whatsoever with the Leighton Group. (3) Yes. It was granted preferred proponent status on 4 December 2002. Again, at this stage the company still had no connection with the Leighton Group. (4) BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd. (5) BGC was assessed by a panel of four people, including two independent engineers, as ranking fifth on a number of criteria. Generally, as requested by the construction industry, only three tenderers would be selected on such a project. However, because two companies were connected, four tenderers were selected.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The design and construct prices exceeded the $105 million contract budget that had been allocated for the contract. The additional costs were primarily due to higher risk costs on environmental and Aboriginal heritage issues, as well as prices for insurances, supervision, bridge construction and relocation of services being higher than recent contract prices. (2) Four companies were short-listed, including Henry Walker Eltin Contracting Pty Ltd. At the time, Transfield had no connection whatsoever with the Leighton Group. (3) Yes. It was granted preferred proponent status on 4 December 2002. Again, at this stage the company still had no connection with the Leighton Group. (4) BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd. (5) BGC was assessed by a panel of four people, including two independent engineers, as ranking fifth on a number of criteria. Generally, as requested by the construction industry, only three tenderers would be selected on such a project. However, because two companies were connected, four tenderers were selected.
(1) The design and construct prices exceeded the $105 million contract budget that had been allocated for the contract. The additional costs were primarily due to higher risk costs on environmental and Aboriginal heritage issues, as well as prices for insurances, supervision, bridge construction and relocation of services being higher than recent contract prices. (2) Four companies were short-listed, including Henry Walker Eltin Contracting Pty Ltd. At the time, Transfield had no connection whatsoever with the Leighton Group. (3) Yes. It was granted preferred proponent status on 4 December 2002. Again, at this stage the company still had no connection with the Leighton Group. (4) BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd. (5) BGC was assessed by a panel of four people, including two independent engineers, as ranking fifth on a number of criteria. Generally, as requested by the construction industry, only three tenderers would be selected on such a project. However, because two companies were connected, four tenderers were selected.
(2) Four companies were short-listed, including Henry Walker Eltin Contracting Pty Ltd. At the time, Transfield had no connection whatsoever with the Leighton Group. (3) Yes. It was granted preferred proponent status on 4 December 2002. Again, at this stage the company still had no connection with the Leighton Group. (4) BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd. (5) BGC was assessed by a panel of four people, including two independent engineers, as ranking fifth on a number of criteria. Generally, as requested by the construction industry, only three tenderers would be selected on such a project. However, because two companies were connected, four tenderers were selected.
(3) Yes. It was granted preferred proponent status on 4 December 2002. Again, at this stage the company still had no connection with the Leighton Group. (4) BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd. (5) BGC was assessed by a panel of four people, including two independent engineers, as ranking fifth on a number of criteria. Generally, as requested by the construction industry, only three tenderers would be selected on such a project. However, because two companies were connected, four tenderers were selected.
(4) BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd. (5) BGC was assessed by a panel of four people, including two independent engineers, as ranking fifth on a number of criteria. Generally, as requested by the construction industry, only three tenderers would be selected on such a project. However, because two companies were connected, four tenderers were selected.
(5) BGC was assessed by a panel of four people, including two independent engineers, as ranking fifth on a number of criteria. Generally, as requested by the construction industry, only three tenderers would be selected on such a project. However, because two companies were connected, four tenderers were selected.
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.