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)

Tuesday, May 8, 2018

Look-see called for in not a good look government contract

The first thing you need to know, if you don't already, about this article is that it involves an Australian political party whose very name is a deceit. The "Liberal" Party is actually notoriously conservative. Oh, and it currently controls the Federal Government.

'Not a good look': Calls for transparency after Liberal Party donor wins Pacific cable contract
The Federal Government has been called on to publicly explain its decision to award a multi-million-dollar contract to a company that has previously donated tens of thousands of dollars to the Liberal Party.

Telecommunications company Vocus was last year awarded a $2.8 million contract to carry out a three-month scoping study on the planned undersea high-speed internet cable for Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands. Vocus donated $44,000 to the Liberal Party of Australia in 2013, and a further $50,000 in 2016.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) awarded the scoping study contract through a limited tender, a process where only one or more potential suppliers are approached to apply.

Marc Purcell, the chief executive of the Australian Council for International Development, told the ABC's Pacific Beat program the combination of the donations and the limited tender were "not a good look". "The Government does have the ability under the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines to have a limited tender," he said. "While it has that power, the issue is the lack of transparency and what I think will raise eyebrows in Canberra is the fact that the preferred provider Vocus is a donor to the Coalition."

The company said the political donations were made by its former board and management team.

DFAT said Vocus was awarded the scoping study contract on account of its "extensive, recent experience with similar infrastructure projects", and that the company was "assessed as being best placed to explore potential cable solutions".

Australia made an offer to help with the Pacific cable project last year after the Solomon Islands signed a deal with Chinese communications giant Huawei. That deal unnerved security experts concerned about China's growing influence in the region, and the prospect of a Chinese company gaining access to Australia's internet infrastructure.

No comments: