Page 995 - Week 03 - Thursday, 30 March 2006

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

Emergency Services Authority
(Question No 961)

Mr Pratt asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, upon notice, on 16 February 2006:

(1) Was the Emergency Services Authority (ESA) approached in 2003 by a firm known as WARPS Australia; if so, what did this company offer to the ESA;

(2) Why, when considering the tender process for a new communication facility that could provide automatic vehicle location technology and a common operating picture, was WARPS Australia not considered;

(3) Why was WARPS Australia not mentioned in estimates hearings of 26 May 2005 as one of the systems that was considered after WARPS Australia had approached the ESA;

(4) Given that Stuart Ellis, the chair of the COAG Inquiry on Bushfire Management and Mitigation has stated that he has absolutely no reservations about the benefits that WARPS can provide to rural fire services, why has a system that is considered so beneficial to rural fire services not been considered by the ESA;

(5) Is the ESA aware that a WARPS system could have been installed into all Rural Fire Service vehicles for under $100 000; if so, why was WARPS not seriously considered as an alternative to the current Firelink system;

(6) Why was a single select tender chosen as the most appropriate procurement method for a technology that was available from more than one provider;

(7) How much did the trial for Firelink cost the ACT Government;

(8) Are results from the Firelink trial publicly available; if not, why not;

(9) If results from the Firelink trial have not been made public, when will they be made public;

(10) Why was WARPS Australia not offered a trial to display their technologies;

(11) Has the ESA breached any procurement guidelines in selecting Firelink as its preferred provider;

(12) Given that the 2004-05 ESA annual report stated that a contractor by the name Opcomm Pty Ltd received payments of $140 720 to provide Firelink and Trunk radio support, (a) what is the registered business address of Opcomm, (b) who are the directors of the company, (c) what experience have they had with Firelink and the Trunk radio network and (d) what services did they provide for the $140 720 paid to them;

(13) What other contractors were considered for this Firelink and trunk radio support contract, and why were they not selected for the contract.

Mr Hargreaves: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:

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