Defence: Navy Tenders

Senator Chris Evans asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 15 April 2002:

With reference to the recent call for tenders for a portable sound projection system for the Navy:

1. (a) How many tenders were submitted; and (b) which organisations submitted tenders.
2. What was the projected budget for the tender.
3. Has a decision been made in relation to this tender; if so: (a) which organisation was chosen; and (b) was the tender won on price (ie. all bids met the specifications required).
4. Has a contract been signed in relation to this purchase.
5. What is the contracted price for the delivery of the units.
6. Of the tenders submitted, how many had existing units that could be directly evaluated.
7. How are tenders assessed against each other and the specifications when some have existing units and others do not.
8. Did the winning tender have an existing unit to demonstrate its capability against the specifications required; if not, when will the winning tender have a unit available to test against the required specifications.

Senator Hill - Further to my interim reply, tabled on 17 June 2002, the answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:

1. 1. Six.
   2. FED I.T. Pty Ltd; Cross Fire Australia Pty Ltd; Goldfields Sound Services; Inwood International Pty Ltd; Operational Solutions Management Pty Ltd; and VAF Research Pty Ltd.
2. $0.4 million.
3. Yes.
   1. Operational Solutions Management Pty Ltd.
   2. the tender was won on a balance of compliance with the Request for Tender's published evaluation criteria, of which price was only one factor.
4. Yes.
5. $0.345 million.
6. Three.
7. Tenders were individually assessed against the evaluation criteria published in the Request for Tender and then compared against competing tenders. Availability of a pre-existing unit was only one of many factors taken into consideration. Where a tenderer did not have a pre-existing unit, an assessment was made by departmental engineering staff of the tenderer's claims and capability to design and produce the equipment.
8. No.
   1. March 2003.

Interim Reply tabled on 17 June 2002:

Senator Hill - The tender outcome of this project is currently under protest. I will be pleased to answer the questions as soon as the review is completed.

close