With reference to Australia Post:

(1)   In determining tenders, what guidelines are in place to ensure that there is no unconscionable conduct and favouritisms when determining successful tenderers?

(2)   In regard to the mail delivery contract for Maiden Gully that was taken from the Licensed Post Office and reassigned to an ex-employee of Australia Post:

(a)   was this tender contract solely determined by the management of the Bendigo Mail Centre;

(b)   who comprised the tenderer assessment team;

(c)   did any members of the tenderer assessment team have a close relationship with the successful applicant; and

(d)   has the successful tenderer had further monies made available to him or her beyond the tender price to enable him or her to fulfil the contract.

(3)   In regard to the fire brochures issued by the Victorian Government in December 2009:

(a)   what was the timetable for their delivery;

(b)   were they to be delivered within a 7 day period; and

(c)   were the brochures on the Maiden Gully mail delivery route delivered over a 3 week period; if so, why.

(4)   In regard to the Maiden Gully mail contract delivery:

(a)   what is the rate of misdirected and wrongly delivered mail in comparison to:

(i)   the prior contractor, and

(ii)   the general average across Australia Post; and

(b)   what are Australia Post’s guidelines in relation to support for Licensed Post Offices and dividing off from them the mail delivery contract.

(1)   Tenders are assessed against a specific set of criteria to determine a short list of tenderers that may progress to interview. The initial assessment occurs at the State Mail Contract Management Centre and interviews are undertaken locally by the Delivery Manager. Additionally all officers who receive and assess tenders are required to undertake Trade Practices and Probity training. All staff must comply with Australia Post’s “Our Ethics” policy, which identifies the standards of behaviour required by all employees and specifically covers situations relating to conflict of interest.

(2)   The contract previously held by the licensee of the Maiden Gully Licensed Post Office was due to expire in July 2007. It was advertised in the 2007 annual tender call and awarded according to normal process.

(a)   No, the initial assessment of tenders received was undertaken by staff at the Mail Contract Management Centre in Melbourne.

(b)   The assessment team comprised of Mail Contract Management staff based in Melbourne and the Bendigo Delivery Manager.

(c)   No, the officers who undertook the assessment did not have any relationship or friendship with either tenderer.

(d)   Yes, since the contract commenced in July 2007 the payment has varied a number of times in accordance with the Mail Contractor Agreement. These variations have been due to increases in the number of delivery points, requests for annual contract reviews and periodic fuel reviews.

(3)   Maiden Gully received a large volume of “Fire Ready” packs (approx 470 grams each) that required delivery through the busy Christmas period. Articles were addressed to residents on the electoral role hence most delivery points received more than one article per household.

(a)   The timetable for delivery of the “Fire Ready” packs to targeted areas across Victoria was originally based on an October/November 2009 delivery. However, delays to the production and availability of the information pack, out of Australia Post’s control, saw the delivery slip to December 2009.

(b)   The original delivery estimate of a week was based on an October/November delivery. Australia Post met with the customer and explained that due to the slippage in the time of lodgement, the quantity and availability of the lodgement, the article size and the delivery area density, Australia Post could not meet the original delivery estimate during the busy December period. The customer agreed that there would need to be some flexibility with the delivery timetable and was kept aware of progress by Australia Post.

(c)   As far as Maiden Gully was concerned, the information packs were delivered from 30 November to 17 December 2009. The articles were progressively dispatched to Maiden Gully from the Bendigo Mail Centre to align with storage capacity at Maiden Gully and the contractor’s delivery capability. Feedback from the originating customer was that they were happy with Australia Post’s delivery performance for all areas where information packs were delivered.

(4)   In regard to the Maiden Gully mail contract delivery:

(a)   Customer Contact Centre (CCC) records indicate that for 2009 the average number of delivery complaints was two per month;

(i)   CCC records indicate that there was only one complaint under the previous contractor. However, as the previous contractor was also the Licensee a meaningful comparison is difficult as delivery complaints may have been raised and resolved locally by the Licensee;

(ii)   the national average number of delivery complaints per month, per round for  2009, was 2.17.

(b)   Under the Licensed Post Office (LPO) Agreement, where a LPO hosts a delivery service, as is the case at Maiden Gully, the following payment categories apply:

(i)   an accommodation payment for each service; and

(ii)   a mail management fee for all points associated with the delivery service. The LPO Agreement and Mail Delivery Contract are two separate and distinct contractual agreements. Mail Delivery Contracts are awarded after an open public tender process and are for a fixed term. Prior to the expiry of the contract term, the mail service is readvertised by tender. There are no guidelines or support mechanisms in place to assist a Licensee who unsuccessfully tenders for a mail delivery contract that operates from their LPO.