Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Auditor-General—Audit report No. 37 of 2019-20—Performance audit—Procurement of garrison support and welfare services: Department of Home Affairs—Corrigendum


Download PDF Download PDF

Attachment A. Corrigendum

Auditor-General Report No.37 2019-20 Procurement of Garrison Support and Welfare Services contains a number of errors, which are outlined below.

Paragraph 10

Delete the sentence ‘A conflict of interest existed that was not acknowledged or managed.’ with no substitution.

Paragraph 16

Delete the sentence ‘A departmental officer had multiple roles during the procurement process and the conflict of interest resulting from this was not acknowledged or addressed.’ with no substitution.

Chapter 2 summary box (page 26 of the tabled report)

In the paragraph underneath the heading Conclusion delete the sentence ‘A conflict of interest existed that was not acknowledged or managed.’ with no substitution.

Box immediately preceding paragraph 2.37

Delete the sentence ‘A departmental officer had multiple roles during the procurement process and the conflict of interest resulting from this was not acknowledged or addressed.’ with no substitution.

Paragraph 2.42

Replace the entirety of paragraph 2.42 with the following text:

2.42 The ANAO’s examination of email traffic showed that the Director, Services Procurement engaged with JDA and NKW before and after their RFQs were lodged:

• prior to the lodgement of NKW’s RFQ, the Director, Services Procurement asked NKW whether it required ‘any further assistance with the RFQ response’; and

• the Director, Services Procurement met in Canberra with a representative of JDA after its RFQ was lodged, but before the assessment of the RFQ took place.

Paragraph 2.43

Replace the entirety of paragraph 2.43 with the following text:

2.43 Subsequently, the same officer chaired the pricing assessment and technical evaluation teams for the procurement processes which recommended that JDA and NKW be awarded contracts. There was no evidence that details of these interactions and discussions — including what ‘assistance’ may have been given to NKW — were recorded as required by the Probity Plans for the procurements. To that extent, there may have been a breach of probity.