Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 3 Hansard (6 March) . . Page.. 598 ..

MR MOORE: Mr Berry, if you will just be silent and listen for a short while, you will realise that the numbers that you have there are totally irrelevant to the process that we are talking about. You are sitting there struthioid-like making sure that you hold on to a set of figures that somehow you think interfere with this process whereas they have nothing at all to do with the process. The figures are reasonably irrelevant because what we wanted to do, what Housing wanted to do and what this government was interested in doing, was to give the best possible overall service. No doubt, many of the same people who are delivering that style of service, putting the tiles back on the walls, will still do that, because there is no doubt that Transfield-

Mr Berry: You look like a goose, Michael. Sit down while you are in front.

MR MOORE: Mr Speaker, will you warn this man, for heaven's sake?

MR SPEAKER: I warn you, Mr Berry.

MR MOORE: Transfield and Hagen have already begun the process of looking for people to deliver this sort of service in the ACT. But what was the request for tender? What were the things that were in there? They were:

(a) price;

(b) level of contractual security offered to ACT Housing through the Tenderer's proposals on:

(1) level of compliance with the RFT...

(2) financial viability

(3) price variation; and

(4) insurance and indemnity.

(c) ability of the Tenderer to implement the Contract requirements by the Commencement Date;

(d) ability of the Tenderer to deliver and manage the Services consistent with the Specifications;

(e) ability of the Tenderer to design and achieve a cost effective and innovative outcome from the responsive repairs and maintenance pricing model transition process;

(f) capability and technical skills of the Tenderer;

(g) appreciation of the project requirements, incorporating the achievement of value for money on the following bases:

(1) effective, efficient and contestable project management;

(2) effective, accessible information management systems;

(3) realistic costing of services within the budget allocation from time to time;

(4) service standards which exceed the minimum requirements set out in the specifications;

(5) demonstrated capacity to ensure that all personnel and contractors have the interpersonal skills and the technical ability to achieve the highest levels of customer satisfaction, and

(6) establishment of straightforward and achievable means for measuring the required outcomes incorporated in the "value for money" concept.

(h) effectiveness of proposed strategies, systems and procedures, covering:

(1) conflict management

(2) equal opportunity and diversity training

(3) customer satisfaction

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .