Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Thursday, 9 December 1976
Page: 3713

Mr Abel asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

(   1 ) With With reference to the Telecom Tender for Pressure Sensitive Labels Corporate Identity Schedule No. C.8664 for 2 year period 1 July 1976 to 30 June 1978, what date did tender forms leave the offices of Telecom for prospective tenderers.

(2)   Which officer was responsible for the drawing up of the technical requirements set out in the specifications.

(3)   Was the *3M Controltac' product tested prior to being included in the specifications: if not, why not: if so, what were the results of those tests.

(4)   Did the 3M Company write the original specifications.

(5)   Following the close offenders, did any tenderer bring to the attention of Telecom evidence that the product known as '3M Controltac' would not and could not perform within the quality requirements and to the extent required in the specifications set out by Telecom.

(6)   If so, when did Telecom receive this information, and did any officers of Telecom carry out a new investigation into the performance of the '3M Controltac' product as a result of this new evidence.

(7)   If a new investigation was carried out, when were these tests (a) commenced and (b) concluded.

(   8 ) Which officer held responsibility for the supervision of these tests, and what was the result

(9)   Has it been explained to Telecom that the '3M Controltac' product will be inadequate for Telecom's specified purposes, and, as a result, will tens of thousands of taxpayers ' dollars be wasted.

(10)   Was the tenderer who brought the defects in the ' 3M Controltac' product to the notice of Telecom given an opportunity to re-tender; if not, why not.

(11)   Were the original specifications changed as a result of the new investigation following additional evidence; if so, when were the changes made.

(12)   Has the contract been let in part or in total; if so, to whom.

(13)   What percentage of the total contract's money value has been let.

(14)   What was the value of that part of the contract which has been let

(15)   What is the total value of the overall contract

(   16) If part ofthe contract has been let, to which firms has it been let, and in which cities are those contractors located.

(17)   Were any original tenderers given the opportunity to re-tender; if not, why not; if so, what was the date of the written advice to new tenderers despatched from Telecom.

(18)   What closing date was set

(19)   Will the tender now be completely re-opened.

Mr Eric Robinson (MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND) - The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:

(1)   1 June 1976.

(2)   The technical requirements were prepared jointly by officers from the Automotive Plant and Transport Workshops Production Section, General Works Branch, Engineering Department, Telecom Australia.

(3)   Based on Commission experience the specification for 8 of the 9 items included in the schedule was written around 3M Controltac', as this material features positionable adhesive. The schedule called for base material to be similar or equal to 3M Controltac The schedule clearly stated in both paragraphs 1.9 and 2.3 ( 1 ) a to c that alternative materials would be considered. It was expected that a number of tenderers would offer material other than 3M Controltac Full testing of all materials offered would then be at that stage conducted under identical conditions.

(4)   No.

(5)   Yes-One tenderer informed the Chief Manager Supply that in his opinion 3M Controltac would not meet Telecoms quality requirements.

(6)   Tenders closed on 24 June 1976 and about that date the tenderer referred to in (5) above contacted the Chief manager Supply who arranged for a Telecom Engineer to visit the tenderer's premises on 6 July, and discussed the suitability of 3M Controltac for use intended by Telecom. While no tests were conducted at this stage an investigation took place.

(7)   Not applicable.

(8)   Not applicable.

(9)   No contracts have been placed for 3M Controltac material.

(10)   No-Suitable formal tenders were received. The tender schedule provided for tenderers to offer material other than 3M Controltac and seven tenderers did offer alternative materials.

(11)   No-(See 9 above)

(12)   Contracts have been arranged for 8 of the 9 items included in the schedule with the following companies:

Multiform Selex

Clayton. Vic. 3168-Items 4 and 7

Grier Sign Company

Guildford. NSW 2 161 -Items 1-3, 5, 8 and A contract for the outstanding Item 6 is currently being arranged.

(13)   99 per cent.

(14)   $43,000 approximately.

(15)   $43,500 approximately.

(16)   Details provided under (12) above.

(17)   No. Suitable formal tenders were received.

(18)   Not applicable.

(19)   No.

Suggest corrections