Page 3002 - Week 07 - Thursday, 7 June 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
|
Output Class 1 – Disability and Therapy Services |
$25,297,770 |
|
Output Class 2 – Early Intervention |
$5,296,246 |
|
Output Class 3 – Community Development and Policy |
$7,919,156 |
|
Output Class 4 – Children, Youth and Family Services |
$26,942,000 |
2. Not applicable.
Government—procurement exemptions
(Question No 2322)
Mr Rattenbury asked the Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development, upon notice, on 3 May 2012:
(1) Given that within the ACT Government Contracts Register the procurement processes for the contracts (a) 2012.19443.220 – Provision of Redrafting the Think Water, Act Water Strategy for Public Consultation – Execution Date 30/3/2012 – Contract Value $50,000 (GST Inclusive) and (b) 2011.17542.220 – Report Writing for State of the Environment Report – Execution Date 04/8/2011 – Contract Value $36,300 (GST Inclusive) are recorded as single select, urgent and exempt from quotation and tender threshold requirements and with respect to value for money in procurement within the Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate in relation to the contracts, how has the Directorate assured itself that value for money in accordance with subsection 22A of Part 2A of the Government Procurement Act 2001 has been achieved.
(2) What were the reasons for not complying with subsection 6 of Part 2 of the Government Procurement Regulation 2007 for each of the procurement processes.
(3) If the Director-General of the Directorate, in writing, exempted the Directorate from complying with the requirements of subsection 6 of Part 2 of the Government Procurement Regulation 2007, what were the reasons for doing so.
(4) How did the Directorate assure itself that it met all relevant requirements of the ACT Government Procurement Policy Circular PC25: Select and Single Procurement for the two procurement processes.
Mr Corbell: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:
(1) In relation to contract 2012.19443.220 – Provision of Redrafting the Think water, act water strategy for Public Consultation. ESDD sought advice and worked closely with Procurement Solutions regarding the single select process to ensure due process was adhered to.
By following due process in conjunction with Procurement Solutions, including assessment panel evaluation, ESDD assured itself that it was receiving value for money in accordance with subsection 22A of Part 2A of the Government Procurement Act 2001.
In relation to contract 2011.17542.220 –Report Writing for State of the Environment Report, the engagement of the consultants allowed the services to be provided cost effectively to meet the urgent timeframes for the ACT State of Environment Report
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video