Page 2972 - Week 07 - Thursday, 7 June 2012

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

designs for the building, given that a private sponsor had indicated a willingness to sponsor the building. Approximately 60 per cent of the value of the work to be undertaken in this stage of the project was competitively bid in accordance with the procurement thresholds. The TZG component of the offer (approximately 40 per cent) was based on hourly rates which were considered to be in line with industry standards. Accordingly, it was considered that the TZG offer was a value-for-money offer for the required services.

(2) Section 10 of the Government Procurement Regulation 2007 allows that the responsible Director-General may exempt a procurement from the requirements of section 6 or 9, as long as they are satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that the benefit of not complying with the requirement outweighs the benefits of complying with the requirement.

TZG were joint winners of the international two stage design competition, which attracted 45 entries. As a result, TZG has been through an extensive, open and competitive process to be involved at the NAC. TZG had specialist architectural knowledge and also had intimate knowledge of the site, the Arboretum project and the National Arboretum Canberra (NAC) master plan.

(3) The Director-General agreed to the exemption (and hence agreed to a single select method of procurement) on the basis of specialist knowledge and the time frame as allowed for under Section 10 of the ACT Procurement Regulations 2007. The concept and sketch drawings were required for discussion and consideration by the National Arboretum Board and the prospective sponsors. The decision was made following the development and approval of a strategic procurement plan, incorporating a risk plan.

(4) Notwithstanding that the contract was executed before PC25 was released, the process described above complies with the Government Procurement Regulation requirements restated in the Policy Circular.

Planning—Kingston foreshore
(Question No 2286)

Ms Le Couteur asked the Minister for Economic Development, upon notice, on 2 May 2012:

(1) In relation to the Kingston Foreshore shared path, is the Land Development Authority responsible for constructing the path.

(2) Under what approval or plan are they required to build the path.

(3) Why has this project been delayed.

(4) What are the specific dates for starting and completing the project, including design and construction.

(5) What is the total funding presently allocated to the project.

(6) Where in the Budget is this funding allocated.

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