On the heels of the federal government's bungled schools rebuilding program, its botched insulation scheme and the Green Loans debacle, the Australian National Audit Office revealed yesterday that government agencies failed to routinely compare prices when "direct sourcing" goods and services worth $10.2bn a year.
In direct sourcing, agencies can obtain oral or written quotes from one or several suppliers without going to an open tender.
Agencies could not demonstrate value for money in 74 per cent of the 285 untendered contracts analysed by the ANAO under Auditor-General Ian McPhee.
And government departments did not bother to get more than one quote in 85 per cent of "direct source" contracts, ranging from stationery to buildings, information technology and management consultancies. "Overall, agencies' quotation practices did not support competitive procurement," the ANAO says in a report tabled in federal parliament yesterday. "To apply the procurement principles of value for money and encouraging competition, it is prudent for an agency to seek submissions from more than one supplier, where practicable."
The ANAO based its analysis on 645 contracts, valued between $10,000 and $305 million, awarded by four government agencies: the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs; the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research; the Department of Veterans' Affairs; and the Australian Crime Commission.
Of those, 285 were "direct sourced" and the audit identified 121 contracts, each worth more than $80,000 and totalling $183m, that had been awarded with one or no quotes.
The ANAO's questioning of public service purchasing follows its criticism of the government's $16.2bn Building the Education Revolution program -- a school building scheme marred by cost blowouts.
On Wednesday, the Auditor-General made a withering assessment of the Environment Department's administration of a $275m "Green Loans" scheme.
Next month, the ANAO is due to report on the home insulation program, which had to be axed after four insulation workers died and more than 120 houses caught fire.
Simply some articles of interest and comments posted by the author of the Guam Procurement Process Primer, to add a broader context to the Guam procurement law issues discussed in the Primer. This Blog is intended for educational purposes. Nothing posted, said or implied or linked to in this blog, including any public comment, is intended to be taken as fact nor relied upon or used as legal advice. A quick guide to topics is available from the following Labels and Tags:
Labels and Tags
Accountability
(71)
Adequate documentation
(7)
ADR in procurement
(4)
Allocation of risks
(6)
Best interest of government
(11)
Best practices
(19)
Best value
(15)
Bidder prejudice
(11)
Blanket purchase agreement
(1)
Bridge contract
(2)
Bundling
(6)
Cancellation and rejection
(2)
Centralized procurement structure
(12)
Changes during bid process
(14)
Clarifications vs Discussions
(1)
Competence
(9)
Competition vs Efficiency
(29)
Competitive position
(3)
Compliance
(35)
Conflict of interest
(32)
Contract administration
(26)
Contract disputes
(4)
Contract extension or modification
(9)
Contract formation
(1)
Contract interpretation
(1)
Contract terms
(3)
Contract types
(6)
Contract vs solicitation dispute
(2)
Contractor responsibility
(20)
Conviction
(4)
Cooperative purchasing
(3)
Corrective action
(1)
Cost and pricing
(13)
Debarment
(4)
Determinations
(8)
Determining responsibility
(37)
Disclosure requirements
(7)
Discussions during solicitation
(10)
Disposal of surplus property
(3)
Effective enforcement requirement
(35)
Effective procurement management
(5)
Effective specifications
(36)
Emergency procurement
(14)
eProcurement
(5)
Equitable tolling
(2)
Evaluation of submissions
(22)
Fair and equitable treatment
(14)
Fair and reasonable value
(23)
Fiscal effect of procurement
(14)
Frivolous protest
(1)
Good governance
(12)
Governmental functions
(27)
Guam
(14)
Guam procurement law
(12)
Improper influence
(11)
Incumbency
(13)
Integrity of system
(31)
Interested party
(7)
Jurisdiction
(1)
Justification
(1)
Life-cycle cost
(1)
Limits of government contracting
(5)
Lore vs Law
(4)
market research
(7)
Materiality
(3)
Methods of source selection
(33)
Mistakes
(4)
Models of Procurement
(1)
Needs assessment
(11)
No harm no foul?
(8)
Offer & acceptance
(1)
Other procurement links
(14)
Outsourcing
(34)
Past performance
(12)
Planning policy
(34)
Politics of procurement
(52)
PPPs
(6)
Prequalification
(1)
Principle of competition
(95)
Principles of procurement
(25)
Private vs public contract
(17)
Procurement authority
(5)
Procurement controversies series
(79)
Procurement ethics
(19)
Procurement fraud
(31)
Procurement lifecycle
(9)
Procurement philosophy
(17)
Procurement procedures
(30)
Procurement reform
(63)
Procurement theory
(11)
Procurement workforce
(2)
Procurment philosophy
(6)
Professionalism
(17)
Protest - formality
(2)
Protest - timing
(12)
Protests - general
(37)
Purposes and policies of procurement
(11)
Recusal
(1)
Remedies
(17)
Requirement for new procurement
(4)
Resolution of protests
(4)
Responsiveness
(14)
Restrictive specifications
(5)
Review procedures
(13)
RFQ vs RFP
(1)
Scope of contract
(16)
Settlement
(2)
Social preference provisions
(60)
Sole source
(48)
Sovereign immunity
(3)
Staffing
(8)
Standard commercial products
(3)
Standards of review
(2)
Standing
(6)
Stays and injunctions
(6)
Structure of procurement
(1)
Substantiation
(9)
Surety
(1)
Suspension
(6)
The procurement record
(1)
The role of price
(10)
The subject matter of procurement
(23)
Trade agreements vs procurement
(1)
Training
(33)
Transparency
(63)
Uniformity
(6)
Unsolicited proposals
(3)
Friday, October 1, 2010
Procurement controversies -- Australia
Taxpayer rip-off on contracts: Auditor-General
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment