Local government is very, very big business. One could therefore argue that it behoves councils to ensure that they are as transparent and accountable in their dealings with companies as possible. Please note, we do recognise the importance of commercial in confidence’ and other associated legalities. All we’re saying is that residents need to have confidence that the successful applicants are in fact the best available and that we are getting ‘value for money’.
We’ve recently heard of a story where a certain club requested some equipment from Council. They offered to pay half and when told the price asked, they went and got their own quotations, and surprise, surprise – the quotations came in at half the cost that council had stated. When council was informed of this far cheaper quotation, their response was: “oh we’ve already selected our preferred supplier and it would now cost too much to tender”. End of story. The moral of course, is that residents end up paying double.
So what does this say about tendering and the processes involved? We’ve already asked whether councillors get a look in – do they see the tender documents? Do they sit on the selection panels? Do they help set the criteria? Who are the officers who sit on such panels? What are their qualifications? Why can’t the public be informed as to the process, the selection criteria, and the grades for each applicant – at least in those tenders that are not bound by ‘commercial in confidence’? It doesn’t seem to be a problem for Port Phillip, or other councils, to place in the public domain their evaluations and comments – see uploaded document.
We’ve gone through the last 3 Glen Eira council agendas/minutes and find the following tenders were, or are about to be, considered –
IT ‘management support’ – $4,250,000 (including GST?)
Designing Glen Eira News – “more than $200,000”
Sports oval –
$525,969.40 inclusive of GST
Concrete works – More than $1,000,000
Drainage – $1,445,000
Construction – $382,715.30 (GST incl)
From these 3 meetings alone, that’s a potential grand total (and could be more if GST isn’t included) of $7,803,684. And all we, and probably councillors get to know about all this, is the ‘recommendation’ by anonymous officers that councillors probably rubber stamp, and we residents keep paying for. A lot more information and communication in this area is desperately needed so that residents may have full confidence that they are actually getting value for their money. As for councillors, surely the GESAC basketball allocation mess should be a salutary lesson in the necessity of careful oversight?
Glen Eira Debates 
October 29, 2011 at 11:24 PM
Still can’t get my head around 250,000 for a bloody loo and 160,000 for a shed. They’re all stark raving mad.
October 30, 2011 at 8:40 AM
Relationships, my friend. Relationships.
October 30, 2011 at 6:02 AM
Mad ….no there not, the higher the price, the larger the (Moderators: phrase and following sentence deleted)
October 30, 2011 at 11:08 AM
You can’t expect councillors to do everything. They’re basically part timers and most are unqualified anyway in this area. This doesn’t excuse the secrecy that goes on and the different approaches taken by different councils. I simply find it extraordinary that the number of criteria for most tenders are minimalist. I would expect that for a $4m dollar contract the selection criteria would be far more than 2 or 3.
October 30, 2011 at 10:06 PM
Not one mention of , Internal Control, Separation of Duty,the Budgeting Process and Internal and External Audit.This area of Council would be the subject of annual Audit scrutiny. If you doubt me write to Mr Gibbs, the Chair of our Audit Committee and the Victorian Auditor General.
October 30, 2011 at 11:44 PM
Dear Mr Evans, In Glen Eira two is a good number. All the decisions of the “Special Racecourse Committee” (4 councillors) could have been carried by two persons as the chairperson has a casting vote too.
So in this dictatorship two is a powerful number..
The lawyers think they know all about building and industry too so everyone else sits quietly and listens to them rave on for fear of being told in noi uncertain terms that a contrasting view is no longer worth forwarding.