A WA parliamentary question seeks details about the Fines Enforcement Collection system contract, including reviews, performance indicators, and potential for bailiff system involvement. The Attorney General confirms contract review, KPIs, extension based on performance, and declines bailiff trial due to contractual/policy reasons.

AnsweredQoN 1279Legislative Assembly
Asked
15 August 2006
Portfolio
Attorney General

QuestionView source ↗

I refer to the tender for the Fines Enforcement Collection system in Western Australia, and the company that has held that tender since 1/5/04. That tender was won by Repcol Austwide (WA) Pty Ltd for a period of four years, subject to a review after 12 months, after which there were to be two on-year contract extensions.
Can the Attorney General please advise -
(1) Was the fines enforcement contract reviewed after two years, as per the original contract?
(2) Were there performance indicators linked to that original contract, that would determine whether a contract extension was warranted?
(3) If so, what were those performance indicators, and what were the results of the evaluation?
(4) If not, did the contract review process assess whether the performance of the contractor was satisfactory?
(5) Has the contract been extended for another year, and if so, upon what criteria?
(6) Would the Attorney-General give consideration to giving the existing bailiff system the opportunity to trial a sample number of the current outstanding fines, to review if there is a better system of recovery?

AnswerView source ↗

Answered
12 September 2006
Response time
28 days
(1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) There were seven Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) linked to the contract. See [tabled paper no 1817] for a full description of each KPI. In six of the KPIs, the contractor achieved the performance levels. The contractor did not meet KPI 6.2(a), however this indicator was not considered by the Steering Committee to be crucial to the successful running of the contract and is to be reviewed. Notably, the remaining components of 6.2 [(b) (c) and (d)] were met by the contractor. (4) Not applicable. (5) Yes, the contract has been extended for a 12 month period expiring 17 March 2007. Based on the results achieved in respect of the KPIs, the Steering Committee was satisfied with the performance of the contractor. (6) No. There are contractual and policy impediments which preclude that course of action.
(2) Yes. (3) There were seven Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) linked to the contract. See [tabled paper no 1817] for a full description of each KPI. In six of the KPIs, the contractor achieved the performance levels. The contractor did not meet KPI 6.2(a), however this indicator was not considered by the Steering Committee to be crucial to the successful running of the contract and is to be reviewed. Notably, the remaining components of 6.2 [(b) (c) and (d)] were met by the contractor. (4) Not applicable. (5) Yes, the contract has been extended for a 12 month period expiring 17 March 2007. Based on the results achieved in respect of the KPIs, the Steering Committee was satisfied with the performance of the contractor. (6) No. There are contractual and policy impediments which preclude that course of action.
(3) There were seven Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) linked to the contract. See [tabled paper no 1817] for a full description of each KPI. In six of the KPIs, the contractor achieved the performance levels. The contractor did not meet KPI 6.2(a), however this indicator was not considered by the Steering Committee to be crucial to the successful running of the contract and is to be reviewed. Notably, the remaining components of 6.2 [(b) (c) and (d)] were met by the contractor. (4) Not applicable. (5) Yes, the contract has been extended for a 12 month period expiring 17 March 2007. Based on the results achieved in respect of the KPIs, the Steering Committee was satisfied with the performance of the contractor. (6) No. There are contractual and policy impediments which preclude that course of action.
(4) Not applicable. (5) Yes, the contract has been extended for a 12 month period expiring 17 March 2007. Based on the results achieved in respect of the KPIs, the Steering Committee was satisfied with the performance of the contractor. (6) No. There are contractual and policy impediments which preclude that course of action.
(5) Yes, the contract has been extended for a 12 month period expiring 17 March 2007. Based on the results achieved in respect of the KPIs, the Steering Committee was satisfied with the performance of the contractor. (6) No. There are contractual and policy impediments which preclude that course of action.
(6) No. There are contractual and policy impediments which preclude that course of action.

Explore WA Government Data

Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.

Explore more