Hon. Tom Stephens questions the Tourism Minister regarding conflicting information about Leighton's proposal for the Perth Convention Centre meeting mandatory requirements. The Minister acknowledges discrepancies and promises to double-check the information.

AnsweredQoN 157Legislative Council
Asked
12 September 2000
Portfolio
Tourism

QuestionView source ↗

In light of those answers will the minister explain why, in the media assessment report for the Perth convention centre issued to the media on the announcement of the preferred tenderer, the task force indicated that Leighton's proposed facility meets the minimum mandatory requirements? Hon N.F. MOORE

AnswerView source ↗

My understanding is that Leighton's proposal did not meet the mandatory requirements. In fact, none of the three proponents met the basic standard requirements. However, the decision was made to proceed with two of the proposals, with Leighton's in reserve. The process of negotiations with Nexus and Multiplex proceeded until we decided to proceed with the Multiplex proposal. I must double-check what the member is talking about. In the previous answer, I said the three proponents were written to before a decision was made to go to two proposals, advising that none met the basic mandatory requirements. However, the Government was exercising its option to proceed to negotiate with the two preferred tenderers.
Hon N.F. MOORE replied: My understanding is that Leighton's proposal did not meet the mandatory requirements. In fact, none of the three proponents met the basic standard requirements. However, the decision was made to proceed with two of the proposals, with Leighton's in reserve. The process of negotiations with Nexus and Multiplex proceeded until we decided to proceed with the Multiplex proposal. I must double-check what the member is talking about. In the previous answer, I said the three proponents were written to before a decision was made to go to two proposals, advising that none met the basic mandatory requirements. However, the Government was exercising its option to proceed to negotiate with the two preferred tenderers.
My understanding is that Leighton's proposal did not meet the mandatory requirements. In fact, none of the three proponents met the basic standard requirements. However, the decision was made to proceed with two of the proposals, with Leighton's in reserve. The process of negotiations with Nexus and Multiplex proceeded until we decided to proceed with the Multiplex proposal. I must double-check what the member is talking about. In the previous answer, I said the three proponents were written to before a decision was made to go to two proposals, advising that none met the basic mandatory requirements. However, the Government was exercising its option to proceed to negotiate with the two preferred tenderers.

Explore WA Government Data

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

Explore more