CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS

CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS:

ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE

The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR (Councillor Graham QUIRK), Chairman of the Establishment and Coordination Committee, moved, seconded by the DEPUTY MAYOR (Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER), that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 18 August 2014, be adopted.

LORD MAYOR: Yes, there is, thanks, Madam Chairman. I would just like to commence by noting a number of things. Firstly, the Cancer Council of Australia had their Daffodil Day last Friday. It was unfortunately very wet weather, and I assume that sales would have been down significantly on where it has been in the past. But I commend those who did contribute to that important day, with the moneys going towards Cancer research.

Valley Fiesta was conducted also with a bit of wet weather on Saturday, but it certainly didn't dampen the spirits of those attending. Some headline acts including The Preatures, Dan Sultan, AllDay and Motez—there was a great line up, and a very enthusiastic crowd down there on the weekend as part of the new Fortitude Valley Mall and celebrating the Valley Fiesta.

Coopers Plains Library refurbishment—an important part of the city's work. I saw a good crowd at the Coopers Plains Library, in spite again of the wet weather, and I just want to congratulate everybody concerned. It is a great outcome. If anyone has the opportunity to get down and have a look at the Coopers Plains Library, it is staggering the work that is being done around libraries. Some great outcomes, and we have refreshed a few of them this year, and they are looking really good. So to Councillor ADAMS and all of her team, all of those involved in the design work, a very big thank you.

The Mercedes Benz Fashion Festival also is on at the moment. It's being conducted in this building. The other things I was going to mention were obviously item A and item B. Item A is Final Authorisations Review—so this is, if you like, those changes which occurred to budget in between when budget was brought down in the middle of June and the end of financial year. So the final authorisations. It outlines two movements of a significant note; firstly, savings of $4.625 million from Council's operating costs, and there is also $60 million in transfer of capital to expense as a result of work being done as part of the Legacy Way project that was reclassified as operating expenditure, not capital expenditure on advice from the Queensland Audit Office.

Also, Council continued of course to maintain its very strong financial position over the year, which has allowed us to accelerate a number of projects. The sum of $13.5 million was brought forward to accelerate the delivery of the Robinson Road Rail Crossing at Geebung, as well as $3.64 million at Telegraph Road. In conjunction with the upgrade of Telegraph Road Rail Crossing, $5.3 million has been invested to commence work on the upgrade of the Telegraph Road corridor. That's a key link that provides important access to the Gateway Motorway, with $4 million as part of the upgrade for Brunswick Street Mall. Other projects received additional investment as well.

Item B is the Contract and Tendering program. Firstly, a contract there awarded to Queensland Rail Ltd. That one is for $1.039 million. There is a contract with GHD Pty Limited, infrastructure forecast modelling, tools, pavement, and that is $1.45 million. The next one is ferry terminal upgrade. This is geotechnical investigations. That is with Q Port Marine Pty Ltd. The next one is Microsoft Operations Pty Ltd; they received a contract there for $10.5 million. That is over a period of time, obviously, over a year. That is a range of software licensing agreements. We have operations there with Microsoft.

Naturoform Pty Ltd, $205,000; landscaping works at Whites Hill Reserve. That included a whole range of things—planting, mulching, irrigation, et cetera. Riverstage PWD (Persons With a Disability) lift—that is $167,000. That is at the back of stage area at Riverstage. Civil works associated with traffic signals at Logan Road outbound and the approach to O'Keefe Street, the roundabout there at Stones Corner. That was won by Sovereign Energy Pty Ltd; $140,000 was the tender there. Brisbane Lifestyle—we had a tender for $120,000 for Envisionware Maintenance Services. Brisbane Transport—supply, management and maintenance of the public transport business intelligence solutions, $1,232,000.

The next one is Native Animal Ambulance Service—that is Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty, $90,000. The next one is the provision of Disaster Emergency Management System, Noggin Pty Ltd, $793,000. The next one is the provision of an Enterprise Architecture Management Tool, $173,000. The next one is provision of travel management services—this is a $1 million amount. Let us have a look at this in a bit more detail. It is for a three-year period, a maximum term of five years, but the initial period here is for three years, and that is $10,000 per annum, which is the fee. The actual company receives as its fee $10,000 per annum.

The next one is provision of printing services. That is $1.78 million for Interforms Printing Group Pty Ltd. There are others there—Fuji Xerox Document Management Solutions for a total of $280,000, and forms and corporate stationery for $564,000. Law in Order Pty Ltd, $220,000; Law in Order Pty Ltd for $21,000.

The next one is supply and delivery of passenger and light commercial vehicles for $32.2 million. The next one is unaddressed direct mail services for an amount of $40,500. The next one is Australia Post Corporation—Australia Post; again, that has achieved the highest value for money, but they've got a bit of a—well, they are the secondary one. There is a citywide distribution, both of Australian Postal Corporation, $40,500 for the first one and there is a second one there as well.

The next one is provision of Citrix XenDesktop and Netscaler support and maintenance, $1.1 million. The next one is $13 million for the provision of road profiling services. That has been won in this case by Base Course Management. The provision of Cisco Hardware and Maintenance Support, Dimension Data Pty Ltd was successful there of $6.8 million. The provision of chemicals for the control of pests, $19,000 for Garrards. The next thing is Globe Australia Pty Ltd for $122,000, and there are others there. The next one is for Garrards again—that is another category. There are four categories involved in that one.

The final one is the supply of pumps, foam systems and ancillary pumping and spraying systems, $150,000. There is a schedule of rates.

Chairman: LORD MAYOR, your time has expired.

LORD MAYOR: Thanks, I'm right on cue. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: Further debate; Councillor DICK.

Councillor DICK: Thank you, Madam Chair; I rise to speak on the items today. I am deeply concerned about contracts and tendering. There are two that standout enormously to me, and it really sums up the priorities of this Administration. You can always guarantee two things about this Administration: marketing and travel. You put them together, and you get a document with millions and millions of dollars.

So I draw to the attention of the Chamber the contracts and tendering page five; and I am going to speak a little moment on items 13 and 14. You can see item 13 is there for Corporate Travel Management, $1 million. I can't say it more clearer than this: this Council has an addiction problem when it comes to travel and also marketing costs. That is clear. We've seen it time and time again.

I have a bundle of information here, of trip after trip after trip, for bureaucrats and politicians; simply we are spending too much on corporate travel. Over and over again we see this, just as we've seen this LNP and Council now for 10 years, when you lose touch with what's happening out in the community, you see the wrong priorities.

Item 14 is $12 million on marketing collateral. Madam Chair, there is no excuse for Council spending a multimillion dollar amount of ratepayers' money on glossy publications propping themselves up. It is simply unacceptable when we are asking ratepayers to do more with less, when we cut back frontline services, when we slash jobs, and then we actually deliver less for the ratepayers, that we would spend millions and millions of dollars. Those opposite should hang their head in shame.

We are looking at printing costs. We are looking at forms and corporate stationery. We know you can't race to your letterbox without seeing a glossy publication with the LORD MAYOR on the front page.

DEPUTY MAYOR interjecting: Hear, hear!

Councillor DICK: Why does the LORD MAYOR—oh, I just heard 'Hear, hear!'

Councillor DICK: They want—and I wouldn't be surprised, Madam Chair. Well, my question through you, I take the DEPUTY MAYOR's interjection. Why does the LORD MAYOR of Brisbane have to be on every single front page—

Councillor DICK: —and that's what you said. That's the argument. You're just jealous.

Chairman: Order!

Councillor DICK: I'll take that interjection. You're just jealous.

Chairman: Councillor DICK, I think you should get back to the item we're debating, thank you.

Councillor DICK: Sure, Madam Chair. Just taking your own party's interjections.

Chairman: Councillor DICK, I find that offensive.

Councillor DICK: Sorry, Madam Chair, I'll withdraw that and say I am taking the interjections from the LNP councillors to my left.

Chairman: Thank you.

Councillor DICK: Their interjection was, 'You’re jealous.' That's the attitude when it comes to marketing. That's the attitude. We've got a right to do whatever we want. That's what happens with massive majorities.

Councillor interjecting.

Councillor DICK: You get this arrogance—and they're laughing. This is not a joking matter. When you spend on the contract $12 million out in the community, they say a council or any government has the wrong priorities. We're not going to fix lighting in the city; we're going to cut public transport, but we will—

Chairman: Councillor DICK! Councillor DICK! Get back to the item please.

Councillor DICK: —but we will spend—they don't like it, Madam Chair, they absolutely don't like their hypocrisy being shown—$12 million on marketing collateral. It's not good enough. The contracts are right next to each other, $1 million on corporate travel, $12 million on marketing, you've got the wrong priorities, through you, Madam Chair.

This is not good enough. I won't talk about what that money could be spent on, but every ratepayer in this city knows that it shouldn't be spent on corporate travel and corporate marketing. I am disappointed that we are being asked to endorse such an obscene amount of money that is being asked today. I will not support it. Every Labor councillor will not support it, and we will continue to argue that this Council has the wrong priorities, and this document today clearly proves it.

Chairman: Further debate; Councillor McKENZIE.

Councillor McKENZIE: Thank you, Madam Chairman; I wish to speak on clause B in the E&C Report, contracts and tendering, attachment A, number 7, which is the civil works associated with traffic signals at the Logan Road outbound approach to O'Keefe Street, near the Stones Corner Shopping Centre. There are 21 items in this section, and we have just heard about one or two items, and there are about 19 others which are far more important with regard to servicing the people of Brisbane.

This roundabout intersection, for example, is experiencing an incredible rise in traffic as is happening all over the city. It is fed by travellers from Old Cleveland Road into O'Keefe Street through Stones Corner. The roundabout feeds the Clem7 Tunnel, Logan and Ipswich Roads. Also in the vicinity is the PA (Princess Alexandra) Hospital, the Buranda Railway Station, the Buranda State School and the Buranda Busway Station.

The LORD MAYOR's arterial roads program identified this intersection as a congestion hotspot, well worthy of the $140,000 of public expenditure to keep Brisbane moving. This area is well known to me. It's adjacent to my ward. However, I consider it's a rather unusual project, as it involves the installation of traffic lights on the outward bound section of this large roundabout. I have since learned that there are a few more in the city, but I haven't experienced them.

Only red and amber signals have been installed on this approach which will hold traffic for a period, allowing the heavy-inbound traffic to flow more freely during the morning peak. When neither the red or the amber signal is displayed to the northern approach, the traffic will be able to proceed under normal roundabout rules, giving way to the right before entry. The works were completed at this location at the end of June 2014 and have been a great success. They have shown to not only reduce congestion at this point in peak times, but to improve safety.

This corner has also recently been modified to facilitate the easy movement of the Maroon Flyer which has been an added bonus to the residents in this area. With the areas of Greenslopes and Stones Corner Shopping Village increasing in popularity and population, these changes to the traffic flow are evidence that this Administration is continually looking to the safety and the convenience of future generations. I wish to thank residents for their patience during these works, and congratulate the Congestion Reduction Unit for their work in making this a safer and more driver-friendly thoroughfare.

Chairman: Further debate; Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, I rise to speak briefly on item A and B. Firstly with respect to item A, the Final Budget Review and Authorisations. Can I say that last year's budget was a lost opportunity for this city, and I am disappointed that the LORD MAYOR has come in here and basically presented the final financial reports to the city, but there was so much left undone in last year's budget with respect to rollovers and cuts, and I think it is disappointing. Unfortunately, this year's budget is not looking any better.

With respect to item B, there are a couple of things that I would like to note. There are, in fact, as Councillor McKENZIE has pointed out, 21 items before us today in the Contracts and Tendering Report. Of these 21 items, eight have not gone through a competitive tendering process, so that is 38 per cent of all of those projects that have not had any market testing or any discipline attached with getting the best value for ratepayers' money.

We are being asked to note this report. Again, the decisions were made by Council officers. These powers have been delegated away, and I have spoken many times about my concerns regarding that. But what we have now is a process where there is no competitive process for major projects. There is no oversight by the elected representatives of this Council, yet officers—and sometimes junior officers—are locking this Council into significant financial contracts, and that is of concern.

I think anybody who is interested in good governance and transparency would be concerned that almost 40 per cent of all of the contracts being considered by this Council, that are being reported here today, have not gone through a market process. That is of concern. I note that there are a few items on here as well, and I found some of the same ones that Council is addicted to, but I'll just mention a few.

Number 11, Organisational Services: Provision of disaster emergency management system. We're spending $800,000 on a company called Noggin Pty Ltd. It is one of these that have been exempt from tendering because we're doing what the State Government is doing. That does not inspire me with confidence, that we are doing what the State Government is doing. I don't recall hearing any explanation from the LORD MAYOR about what exactly this disaster emergency management system is.

This is an issue that I am interested in. My ward has experienced its share, like all other wards in the city, of disasters, and I would certainly like to know what we are committing ourselves to, what the process is that the State Government went through, and what the nature of this emergency system actually is, because there are no details here, and we haven't gone through a competitive tendering process.

I, too, noted the extensive Corporate Travel Management $1 million contract that we have entered into, again without any competitive tendering process. So we know that the travel arrangements of this Administration—sometimes they're a bit light on, too. What did we have—Councillor ADAMS last year went off to look at the lights somewhere, didn't she? The Lantern Festival. So there is a concern about whether or not the ratepayers of Brisbane are getting value for money. I would have thought that this is an area where we should have sought competitive tenders.

The LORD MAYOR stands up and claims he is pro-business, and yet he is not putting out part of this Council's operational arrangements to the market for a competitive price. Why is it that Corporate Travel Management has been given this contract without any competitive process? I think that we should be putting it out to the market. We should be testing whether we're getting value for ratepayers' money. This is not our funding. This is the ratepayers' funds, and it is a concern that another contract for $1 million for travel is just being entered into.

I note that the LORD MAYOR is now asking the Finance Chairman, questions, hopefully about this, and we will get some reply, because it is a problem. I think that the only explanation seems to be that perhaps we're doing what the State Government is doing, again, so what do we call him, the 19^th Minister for George Street, is that what it is, in the Newman Government? It is a concern if we are just being led around by the nose, by the Newman Government, and we are simply jumping on board their contracts. Why? Do they offer the best value for money for our ratepayers? Or is this LORD MAYOR propping up a Newman Government in George Street that is clearly struggling? Is he trying to help his mate out? I don't know.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, you are imputing motive.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Well, Madam Chairman, it says that we're doing it because of State Government arrangements. So, I appreciate you don't like what I've said here, but it is reasonable to say what is going on, and to ask the question about whether ratepayers are getting value for money.

I also note that we are entering into significant contracts—these did go through a competitive process—for the distribution of marketing collateral in the city, and there are phenomenal amounts of money that are being entered into here for the distribution of Living in Brisbane, $2,750,000 for distribution Living in Brisbane around the city. This is the publication, along with this new one, Business in Brisbane or whatever it is called, that has the giant photo of the LORD MAYOR on the front of it, so of course we have increased the frequency of that publication; we have increased the cost to ratepayers of that publication—

Councillor JOHNSTON: —the photo of the LORD MAYOR, as I tweeted a year ago, has gone to like a third of the page, and I suspect it is not because there's a level of jealousy amongst ALP councillors; I suspect that there is some internal polling that has gone people don't know who the LORD MAYOR of this city is, and therefore—

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, back to the item please.

Councillors interjecting.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, and they've bumped up the photo and they've bumped up the distribution. Well, that's costing the ratepayers of Brisbane for this indulgence that features the LORD MAYOR almost $3 million for the Living in Brisbane newsletter. It is phenomenal that that is what the LORD MAYOR is doing.

There's another one in here that's of interest as well, and that is Base Course Management, $13 million. I actually found this one quite interesting, and I presume it does relate to BaSE, so presumably this is now all the training that is going on in relation to BaSE, but I'd like someone to clarify this. We're accused in here of not asking questions. Well, here's a contract that has come up, been ticked off by Council officers, and we're spending $13 million for what I presume is training but I would like some clarification on what that $13 million is going to spent on, because it is quite problematic, I think, in terms of the description that we have here.

So there we have it. Almost 40 per cent of the contracts we're being asked to approve today have not been tested in the market. There has been no competitive process, and we cannot be sure that the ratepayers of Brisbane are getting value for money. With many of these contracts, particularly where they are sensitive relating to marketing or to disaster arrangements or to travel, we are simply following what the Newman State Government is doing, and yet no explanation is being offered about why that is the best approach. I have serious questions about the financial rigor of this Administration, and I think they are increasingly being exposed for very poor financial decision making.

Chairman: Further debate; Councillor SIMMONDS.

Councillor SIMMONDS: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman; I rise obviously to support both items A and B of this report. If I could speak briefly first of all on item A, the Final Authorisations Review, and extend my congratulations to the Council officers for the work they've done in assisting to manage and present the 2013-14 budget. This is the finalisation of it, as well with the audited statements, which will come very shortly.

Congratulations to the team on achieving $4.675 million in savings. So again, this is an example of this Administration completing the task that it set out for itself at the beginning of the year, and doing it under budget. It is something that we didn't see under the many, many years of Labor administration, but something we continually see under this Administration, thanks to good, sound financial management.

The other issue to note in those Final Financial Statements is that there has been a reclassification of Legacy Way funding from capital to expenses, something that Councillor FLESSER asked me about earlier today, and I undertook to get him an answer. It is a discussion that we have been having with the QAO (Queensland Audit Office) about how to classify these expenses which are spent on the Legacy Way Tunnel. Obviously expenses that are spent on the tunnel itself can be capitalised against that project, but this is on expenses on associated works which are owned by the State Government; for example, the Toowong roundabout and the interchange, so these cannot be capitalised against the Legacy Way Tunnel. That is the reason for that.

Other than that, I would just reinforce the LORD MAYOR's message that he put forward in this debate that it is because of the strong financial management of this Administration throughout the 2013-14 budget period that we are able to do things like bring forward the backflow drainage work and put an extra $2.5 million towards it, how we were able to bring forward funding for Legacy Way as that project accelerates, how we were able to bring forward funding to complete the open rail crossings ahead of schedule, and these can only be done when you have good financial management.

In terms of item B, contracts report, if I could address a few issues. First of all, I thought I'd deal with the issue of the tendering processes, why some are awarded through a competitive tendering process and some are awarded through a sole source or some are alternatively awarded off a State Government panel. This is a decision that our procurement officers make on a daily basis, and they make it both in the best interests of ratepayers but also in consideration of the market.

There are various issues why they would make the decision to either sole source a company or to do it off a State Government panel. Probably the two that have been raised give me an opportunity to give you an example of each. Noggin, for example, which is the disaster software, I note that Councillor JOHNSTON asked for more information about this. I provided a lengthy answer, approximately 10 minutes I believe it almost was, at my budget information session when I was asked about this system. This is a system that connects in with the State Government disaster response agencies, and connects the Council's LDCC (Local Disaster Coordination Centre) in with those agencies, and provides a much better series of communication.

It also is a tracking tool that allows people, when we are logging jobs in the field, to have a much better management system to track those jobs and to make sure that they are closed off. Not only that, but for the State Government and the police and other agencies to see it. That is an example of where you would sole source, because what you have here is you have State agencies and you have other disaster enforcement agencies—people like the police and emergency services—already using this system.

So this is an example where of course you would sole source because you want our system to be able to talk to theirs, and the best way to do that is to have the same system, so that everyone is looking at the same information, everyone knows how to use the same thing. So far from being any impropriety, as the Councillor opposite would try and impinge and imply, the facts—

Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: Point of order against you, Councillor SIMMONDS. Yes, Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Claim to be misrepresented.

Chairman: Thank you.

Councillor SIMMONDS: In fact, this is an example of officers making sure that your disaster management and our disaster response is as efficient as it possibly can be, and that we do it in conjunction with our other agencies. I would expect Councillor JOHNSTON, in her clarifying remarks, to support this wholeheartedly if indeed she is genuine in looking after her residents who are affected by disasters.

The other example is, of course, CTM (Corporate Travel Management), which is the travel management group. Again here this is a situation where we've chosen to source off the State Government panel. We must be mindful of both the market and best value for money for ratepayers in that tender processes are expensive. They are expensive for the Council to go out and get tenders and to evaluate them, and they are expensive for businesses to put them together. You need to weigh that up with the buying power of the particular organisation which is releasing the tender.

In this case the State Government has recently been through a tender process in the market to find the best travel management company. So they have gone through an open tender process and they have won. Let me make that clear. They have gone through an open tender process and they have won. The State Government, because of their sheer buying power across all of those different departments, have received the best price that is available in the market.

So in the interests of ratepayers, in the interests of not costing them money for a tender, in the interests of not costing the business community more money to go through a new tender, in the interests of getting the best price because we can piggyback off the buying power of the State Government, we have chosen to go with them.

But I might mention a little bit, because Councillor DICK and Councillor JOHNSTON both did, about those two items, communication and travel. First of all travel: the LORD MAYOR makes a very good point that this contract is over a three-year period for a start. I also know that we won't meet that $1 million over the three-year period, because I know how much we spend on travel every year. But it made me wonder why—I wonder how quickly it would take if we had allocated a maximum of $1 million over three years on travel for this Council, including the bureaucrats and everyone else, how long would it take Labor to go through that amount of money? Three years? Two years? No, I can tell you that in one year, they went through $1.2 million. It gets worse.

Councillor SIMMONDS: No, that was just one effort. In 2000-01, they went through $1.4 million in a single year—not over three years, in a single year. They went on, with $1.1 million in 2001-02, and then in their last year in Office, 2002-03, $1.4 million in a single year, for Jim Soorley to travel the world on a farewell tour.

Chairman: Order!

Councillor SIMMONDS: Melbourne Cup—that's the kind of travel they have.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON! Order!

Councillor SIMMONDS: Then they talk to us about transparency. That was what Councillor JOHNSTON was talking about. All of our travel is on the website. All of it is on the website for everyone to see. How much of—

Councillor WYNDHAM: Point of order, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Point of order; yes, Councillor WYNDHAM.

Councillor WYNDHAM: Would Councillor SIMMONDS take a question?

Chairman: Councillor SIMMONDS?

Councillor SIMMONDS: Sure, it would be my pleasure.

Councillor WYNDHAM: Councillor SIMMONDS, is that on today's dollars or 2003 dollars?

Councillor SIMMONDS: Well, it is in fact in today's dollars, but it is just as bad—

Chairman: Order!

Councillor SIMMONDS: But it is just as bad.

Chairman: Order! Order!

Councillor SIMMONDS: Well, they laugh, Madam Chairman, because they don't want us to compare apples with apples. That's how the Labor Party works.

Councillor DICK: Point of order, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Point of order against you, Councillor SIMMONDS.

Councillor DICK: Just for clarity—

Chairman: Yes, Councillor DICK—just wait; yes.

Councillor DICK: Sorry, there's so much noise. Just for clarity, could Councillor SIMMONDS table that in previous dollars from when it was the real time, the actual dollars?

Chairman: I'm not sure if you are asking a question; Councillor SIMMONDS, do you have anything to table?

Councillor SIMMONDS: Don't they want apples compared with apples? Do they want to muddy the debate? Do they want to pretend Labor was less than it actually is, Madam Chairman?

Councillors interjecting.

Chairman: Order!

Councillor SIMMONDS: Because this is what it actually looks like.

Chairman: Order!

Councillor SIMMONDS: There's theirs versus ours; have a look at that, Madam Chairman. This Administration is more transparent than they were, and they spend a lot less. But let's get to communications, let's get to communications, because—

Councillors interjecting.

Chairman: Order!

Councillor SIMMONDS: —because here is another issue where the hypocrisy shines through again. This is a three-year contract, a three-year contract, so the money we're talking about is over three years. It also goes far beyond things like Living in Brisbane; it also includes, for example, legal printing. Would they suggest that we don't engage in any legal printing anymore?

It also includes the photocopiers. Would they like me to turn off their photocopier? It also includes office stationery. I didn't see a single one of the Labor councillors asking to give back their business cards. But feel free; feel free to not print any business cards anymore, because that's what this contract includes.

But there were plenty of examples, weren’t there, Madam Chairman, of glossy brochures? They talked about glossy brochures, so I went back to this one. In 2003, full colour, A3, how many pages? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight—and the whole front page, what is it? Oh, a message from Tim Quinn, the Lord Mayor.

Councillors interjecting.

Councillor SIMMONDS: Oh, no, no, he must have had recognition issues.

Chairman: Order! Councillor JOHNSTON!

Councillor SIMMONDS: No one knew who he was.

Chairman: Order!

Councillor SIMMMONDS: Remember, it's 2003—

Chairman: Just a minute, Councillor; Councillor JOHNSTON, if you continue to yell out like that, you will be warned.

Councillor interjecting.

Councillor DICK: Point of order, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Yes, Councillor DICK.

Councillor DICK: Will Councillor SIMMONDS table the document so we can see the photo of—

Chairman: Order! Councillor BOURKE! A point of order has been called. Please be quiet. Councillor DICK, sorry.

Councillor DICK: —so we can see the photo of the former Lord Mayor, or is there no photo on that document?

Chairman: Sorry, you're asking to table a copy. Councillor SIMMONDS, will you—

Councillor SIMMONDS: Madam Chairman, this is my only copy. I couldn’t bear it, because what would I—

Councillors interjecting.

Chairman: Order!

Councillor SIMMONDS: —how would I send myself to sleep at night if I couldn’t read through the one page Tim Quinn editorial at the front, because obviously, as we now know, the—

Councillors interjecting.

Chairman: Order!

Councillor SIMMONDS: —only time a Lord Mayor puts any messages in a leaflet is because he has recognition issues. So 2003, obviously no one knew who Tim Quinn was, and what a surprise, what a surprise.

Councillor interjecting.

Chairman: Councillor NEWTON!

Councillor SIMMONDS: We don't produce eight-page A3 glossy things.

So, this is a $12 million contract, $12 million—

Chairman: Just a minute, Councillor SIMMONDS. Councillor NEWTON, if you want to talk to Councillor DICK, do it either quietly or go outside. Yelling in this Chamber is not acceptable, from anyone. Councillor SIMMONDS.

Councillor SIMMONDS: So, a three-year contract for $12 million. Again, how long did it take—

Chairman: Councillor SIMMONDS, your time has expired. Misrepresentation Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, Madam Chairman; Councillor SIMMONDS stated that I had alleged some impropriety in the contracts before us today. Clearly my debate was about ensuring that there is transparency and value for money for ratepayers. I did not allege any impropriety as Councillor SIMMONDS stated.

Chairman: Thank you. Councillor FLESSER.

Councillor FLESSER: Thank you, Madam Chair. Firstly, I'd just like to make a couple of comments about the final authorisation. I'd like to thank Councillor SIMMONDS for providing that answer about the $55 million that has gone from capital to expenses. However, in his answer, he has actually raised a very serious question. He indicated that the QAO have decided that those funds were not capital, they were actually expenses, and the reason for that is because the money that was spent was actually going to State Government assets.

This raises a big question. We know that the Legacy Way Tunnel is costing about $1.7 billion and all the interest on the borrowings is all being capitalised as well. Of that, $500 million is being paid by the Federal Government. But to my knowledge, the State Government aren’t putting in a single cent. Councillor SIMMONDS said that $55 million of what Council has spent is actually going to become a State Government asset.

Well, Madam Chair, I think that, as I've certainly said on many occasions before, this is a regional road project, and I don't believe that Brisbane's ratepayers should be putting in the amount of money that they are into this project, and it should really be a State and Federal project. As I've said before, one of the largest beneficiaries of this project are actually going to be the ratepayers of Ipswich, not the ratepayers of Brisbane.

So, Madam Chair, I would ask whether Council will be seeking $55 million, or at least a percentage of that $55 million, that Councillor SIMMONDS is saying that Brisbane ratepayers have put into this project, but is actually going to become a State Government asset. We know that this Administration has become the 20^th Ministry of the Newman Government, but I think that ratepayers deserve someone standing up for them to the State Government. If this is $55 million going to the State Government in an asset that will go on their books, we should be getting at least some of that money back. I'd be most appreciative if the LORD MAYOR could give an explanation about that, and maybe some sort of commitment that we'll be chasing at least some of that $55 million back off the State Government to ease the burden on Brisbane's ratepayers.

Chairman: Further debate; LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: Madam Chairman, just to take the last question first, because it is at least of some relevance to the advancement of the people of this city, the issue there is that the State are paying the overwhelming amount of that money, Councillor FLESSER. That is the reality. We acknowledge that. There are certain components of it that are part of the Brisbane network, and others that are part of the State, and already, this money is flowing back in relation to that. So I can assure you we will not be paying for all that.

The debate of course has been about the usual things that Councillor DICK likes to raise—travel and communications, anything bar the policy stuff that advances the welfare and the lifestyle of the people of this city. But if he wants to have a look at some of those things, Councillor SIMMONDS has been talking about 2003. Just have a listen to this: this was Labor in 2001. Kevin Bianchi, twice to Taiwan; Kerry Rae, to Japan; we had Maureen Hayes to the UK and Europe.

Chairman: Order!

LORD MAYOR: Kim FLESSER to Japan—I think that was to see the birds, to make sure they flew south for summer; Jim Soorley, who went to the United States three times that year, twice to New Zealand, he went to Poland, and he went to Taiwan. That wasn't a bad year's arrangements. He fitted a bit of Lord Mayoralty in between. Then Tim Quinn went to China and Japan. So that was one year.

If you want those dollars in that year, Councillor DICK, remembering that the $1 million in here is total domestic, total international travel for three years; this was one year of international travel only—$311,000 in 2000 dollars. If you want to project that forward, to be fair dinkum, and have a comparison of today's dollars, that would equate to $431,000 in international travel in that one year alone. Remembering again what is here today, up to $1 million in total travel for three years, domestic and international. So don't come the cop with me here, Councillor DICK.

That was what your party did in Administration. If ever you got back here, you'd be at it again. You'd be at it again, because you've got some of the same people. You've got Councillor NEWTON as a backbencher; Councillor FLESSER as a backbencher. They were all at it. So let's not come in here with that nonsense today.

Councillors interjecting.

Chairman: Order! Order!

LORD MAYOR: That's the reality. So, Madam Chairman, I am happy to move the report.

Chairman: I will put the motion.

A 2013-14 BUDGET – FINAL AUTHORISATION REVIEW

134/135/86/140

97/2014-15

1. The Divisional Manager, Organisational Services, provided the information below.

2. The purpose of the Final Authorisation Review is to provide authorisation for actual expenditure of the 2013-14 financial year.
3. As the Final Authorisation Review is for expenditure authorisation purposes, it does not realign the budget to actual results for all changes. Attachment B submitted on file, recommends final budget authorisation to the approved budget for 2013-14.
Financial impact
4. The proposed final authorisation to the budgets for 2013-14 will result in a budgeted accumulated surplus of $0.53 million at 30 June 2014 after adjustments of Reserves.
5. The Divisional Manager provided the following recommendation and the Committee agrees.
6. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL RESOLVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.
Attachment A

Draft Resolution
TO PROPOSE THE ADOPTION OF THE FINAL BUDGET AUTHORISATION
THAT COUNCIL RESOLVE THAT
1. COUNCIL ADOPTS the final budget authorisation for the operations and the projects for the services provided by Council for 2013-14 in accordance with the Budgeted Financial Statements and the recommendations as set out in Attachment B, submitted on file.

ADOPTED
B CONTRACTS AND TENDERING – REPORT TO COUNCIL OF CONTRACTS ACCEPTED BY DELEGATES FOR JUNE 2014

109/695/586/2

98/2014-15

7. The Chief Executive Officer provided the information below.

8. Sections 238 and 239 of the City of Brisbane Act 2010 (“the Act”) provide the Council may delegate some of its powers. Those powers include the power to enter into contracts under section 242 of the Act.
9. Council has previously delegated some powers to make, vary or discharge contracts for the procurement of goods, services or works. Council made these delegations to the Establishment and Coordination Committee and Chief Executive Officer.
10. The City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 (“the Regulation”) was made pursuant to the Act. Section 227 in Chapter 6 (Part 4) of the Regulation provides that: (1) Council must, as soon as practicable after entering into a contract under this chapter worth $200,000 or more (exclusive of GST), publish relevant details of the contract on Council’s website; (2) the relevant details must be published under subsection (1) for a period of at least 12 months; (3) also, if a person asks Council to give relevant details of a contract, Council must allow the person to inspect the relevant details at Council’s public office. ‘Relevant details’ is defined in section 227 Chapter 6 (Part 4) (4) as including: (a) the person with whom Council has entered into the contract; (b) the value of the contract; and (c) the purpose of the contract (e.g. the particular goods or services to be supplied under the contract).
11. The Chief Executive Officer provided the following recommendation and the Committee agrees.
12. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ATTACHMEN A, hereunder.
Attachment A
City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 – Chapter 6 – Contracting

Details of Contracts Accepted by Delegates of Council for June 2014

Contract/Quote No. & Successful Contractor/s	Delegate	Nature of Arrangement and Estimated Maximum Expenditure	Contract/Quote Purpose	Unsuccessful Tenders & Quoters	Prices Tendered	Approval, Start/End Dates & Term
BRISBANE INFRASTRUCTURE
1. Contract No: N/A Queensland Rail Limited (QR) – $1,039,030	CPO	QR Interface Agreement – schedule of rates $1,039,030	Telegraph Road, Bracken Ridge, Open Level Crossing Replacement Project – removal of existing open level crossing	Contract exempt from quoting and tendering requirements in accordance with section 2.5 (Exemptions from Tendering) of Council’s Contract Manual pursuant to the City of Brisbane Act 2010. QR assets are only able to be relocated or worked on by QR or through an approved subcontractor directly appointed by QR.	N/A	Approved 19.06.2014 Start 01.04.2015 End 30.06.2015
2. Contract No: BI130122-12/13 GHD Pty Ltd – $1,450,813 Achieved highest Value for Money Index {VFM} of 60.3	CPO	Preferred Supplier Arrangement – lump sum and schedule of rates $1,450,813	Infrastructure Forecast Modelling Tools – Pavement	Shortlisted tenderers: ARRB Group limited Achieved VFM of 59.7 Tenderers not shortlisted: (Final tendered price and VFM not calculated as offers were not competitive) SMEC Australia Pty Ltd RMIT University Non-conforming tenderers: Jeff Roorda and Associates Pty Ltd	$1,414,052	Approved 17.06.2014 Start 26.06.2014 End (Initial term) 25.06.2018 Max. Term Seven years
3. Contract No: OS120107-11/12 Q Port Marine Pty Ltd – $197,000 (SP1) and $152,650 (SP2)* SP2 is subject to availability of approved budget.	CPO	Schedule or rates $197,000 (SP1) $152,650 (SP2)*	Ferry terminal upgrade geotechnical investigations: Separable Portion 1 – Kingsford Smith Drive (SP1) Separable Portion 2 – Kangaroo Point Pedestrian Bridge (SP2)*	N/A Q Port Marine were engaged in April 2014 to supply a floating platform to undertake the geotechnical investigation for four proposed ferry terminal upgrades which were due for completion by mid-June 2014. Two further projects requiring geotechnical investigation have since been identified and due to the high cost to establish and de-establish a floating barge, Q Port were engaged to continue for these additional geotechnical investigations whilst they were still established in the Brisbane River.	N/A	Approved 05.06.2014 Start 09.06.2014 End Estimated completion within two months
4. Contract No: 510143 Microsoft Operations Pte Ltd (Microsoft Enterprise Agreement); and Insight Enterprises Australia Pty Ltd (Preferred Licensing Solution Partner)	E&C	Enterprise Agreement – lump sum and schedule of rates $10,540,000	Microsoft Enterprise Software Licensing Agreement	Contract entered into without seeking competitive tenders in accordance with section 2.4 (Sole or Select Sourcing) of Council’s Contract Manual pursuant to the City of Brisbane Act 2010. In March 2014, State Government Standing Offer Arrangement (SOA) ICTSS.13.05 for the provision of Microsoft products commenced. Microsoft only sell these products to large organisations through firms designated by Microsoft as large licencing solution partners. Insight provided the best Microsoft product pricing under the SOA.	N/A	Approved 16.06.2014 Start 01.07.2014 End 30.06.2017
5. Contract No: 520032 Naturform Pty Ltd – $205,548 Achieved highest Value for Money Index {VFM} of 44.27	CPO	Schedule of rates $205,548	Landscaping works at Whites Hill Reserve, Camp Hill, including planting, mulching, turf supply and lay, irrigation and maintenance as part of the stormwater harvesting project	Shortlisted tenderers: Dig-It Landscapes Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 32.10 Tenderers not shortlisted: Edwards & Pittman Landscape Concepts P/L Achieved VFM of 16.27 Logan Landscapes Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 8.35	$200,343 $281,179 $203,521	Approved 05.06.2014 Start 09.06.2014 End Estimated completion within seven weeks
6. Contract No: 530056 Disability Lifts Pty Ltd t/a Platform Lift Company (QLD) – $167,299 Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 4.66	CPO	Lump sum $167,299	Riverstage PWD (Persons with a Disability) Lift	Disability Lifts Pty Ltd t/a Platform Lift Company (QLD) were the only company to respond to the Request for Quote.	N/A	Approved 26.06.2014 Start 01.07.2014 End Estimated completion within 18 weeks
7. Contract No: 530204 Sovereign Energy Pty Ltd atf Sovereign Energy Trust t/a The Sovereign Energy Trust – $140,082 Achieved highest Value for Money Index {VFM} of 54.80	Executive Manager, Field Services Group (FSG)	Lump sum $140,082	Civil works associated with traffic signals at Logan Road, outbound approach, to the O’Keefe Street roundabout, Stones Corner	Service Stream Holdings Pty Ltd t/a S.E.Q.U.D Achieved VFM of 53.00 Rainmont Pty Ltd t/a Allied Traffic Services Achieved VFM of 20.6	$143,700 $148,528	Approved 02.06.2014 Start 03.06.2014 End Estimated completion within three weeks
BRISBANE LIFESTYLE
8. Contract No: 006171-000 Envisionware Pty Ltd – $120,457	CPO	Lump sum $120,457	Envisionware Maintenance Services (in relation to the public internet management system in libraries)	Contract entered into without seeking competitive tenders in accordance with Exemption 7 (Extensions of ICT Maintenance and Support Arrangements) under Schedule A of Council’s Annual Procurement Policy and Contracting Plan 2013-2014.	N/A	Approved 10.06.2014 Start 01.07.2014 End (Initial term) 30.06.2017 Max. Term Five years
BRISBANE TRANSPORT
9. Contract No: T100192 netBI Pty Ltd – $1,232,150	E&C	Lump sum $1,232,150	Supply, Management and Maintenance of the Public Transport Business Intelligence Solution and the Brisbane Transport Incident Management System	Contract entered into without seeking competitive tenders in accordance with section 2.4 (Sole or Select Sourcing) of Council’s Contract Manual pursuant to the City of Brisbane Act 2010. Extension of an existing contract in relation to key operational, strategic and risk management tools to align with Translink’s requirements for contestability.	N/A	Approved 30.06.2014 Start 27.07.2014 End (Initial term) 24.09.2015 Max. Term Three years and two months
CITY PLANNING & SUSTAINABILITY
10. Contract No: 510151 Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) – $90,000* Achieved highest Value for Money Index {VFM} of 100.73 *Final tendered price is the estimated annual contract sum.	CPO	Preferred Supplier Arrangement – annual lump sum $450,000	Native Animal Ambulance Service	Brisbane Livestock Control Achieved VFM of 51.83	$144,000*	Approved 26.06.2014 Start 01.07.2014 End (Initial term) 30.06.15 Max. Term Five years
DISASTER RESPONSE & RECOVERY
Nil
OFFICE OF THE LORD MAYOR & CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Nil
ORGANISATIONAL SERVICES
11. Contract No: 570012 Noggin Pty Limited – $793,160	CPO	State Government Standing Offer Arrangement $793,160	Provision of a Disaster Emergency Management System	Contract exempt from quoting and tendering requirements in accordance with section 2.5 (Exemptions from Tendering) of Council’s Contract Manual pursuant to the City of Brisbane Act 2010. As a result of an open market tender process, the State Government Attorney-General’s department has a Standing Offer Arrangement in place with the vendor. Council are able to place contracts with the vendor under this arrangement.	N/A	Approved 23.05.2014 Start 30.05.2014 End (Initial term) 31.05.2017 Max. Term Seven years
12. Contract No: 510147-000 Seattle Software Ltd t/a Orbus Software – $173,716 Achieved highest Value for Money Index {VFM} of 42.9	CPO	Lump sum $173,716	Provision of an Enterprise Architecture Management Tool	Avolution Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 40.8	$195,000	Approved 24.06.2014 Start 26.06.2014 End (Initial term) 25.06.2016 Max. Term Three years
13. Contract No: 802080 Corporate Travel Management (CTM) – $1,000,000* *Price is the total potential commitment by Council under the maximum term of this contract. The majority is the direct cost of airfares and accommodation, with the fees paid to CTM amounting to less than $10,000 per annum.	CPO	Schedule of rates $1,000,000	Provision of Travel Management Services	Contract exempt from quoting and tendering requirements in accordance with section 2.5 (Exemptions from Tendering) of Council’s Contract Manual pursuant to the City of Brisbane Act 2010. Council are able to place contracts with the vendor under Queensland State Government Standing Offer Arrangement (SOA) PD886 for the Provision of Travel Management Services, which allows entities such as Council to access this arrangement.	N/A	Approved 18.06.2014 Start 01.07.2014 End (Initial term) 30.06.2017 Max. Term Five years
14. Contract No: 510019 Category A – Marketing Collateral Interforms Printing Group Pty Ltd ATF Interforms Printing Group Unit Trust – $1,782,941 Achieved highest Value for Money Index {VFM} of 47.7 Category B – Variable Data Fuji Xerox Document Management Solutions – $280,720 Achieved highest Value for Money Index {VFM} of 326 Category C – Forms and Corporate Stationery Interforms Printing Group Pty Ltd ATF Interforms Printing Group Unit Trust – $564,807 Achieved highest Value for Money Index {VFM} of 147 Category D (i) – Instant Law in Order Pty Ltd – $220,089 Achieved highest Value for Money Index {VFM} of 358.9 Category D (ii) – Secure/Legal Law in Order Pty Ltd – $21,639 Achieved highest Value for Money Index {VFM} of 36.5	CEO	Preferred supplier arrangements – schedule of rates $12,000,000	Provision of Printing Services	Note: Final tendered price and VFM not calculated for tenderers who were not shortlisted as they scored lower in experience, capacity and quality methodologies compared to shortlisted tenderers. Category A – Marketing Collateral Shortlisted tenderers: James Fergusson Pty Ltd t/a Fergies Print & Mail Achieved VFM of 41.7 Print Works (Queensland) Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 39.5 CPX Printing & Logistics (VFM not calculated as they did not provide pricing on a number of items) Tenderers not shortlisted: Platypus Graphics Inprint Pty Ltd Printcraft Chandler Personalised Communications SKH Holdings Pty Ltd ATF Hall Investment Trust All Clear Print and Signs Cross and Hamilton Printers Staples Australia Pty Limited Cornerstone Press Pty Ltd Category B – Variable Data Shortlisted tenderers: Australian Postal Corporation Achieved VFM of 324 Tenderers not shortlisted: SEMA Operations Pty Ltd Chandler Personalised Communications Forms Express Pty Ltd GJI Pty Ltd All Clear Print and Signs Category C – Forms and Corporate Stationery Shortlisted tenderers: Print Works (Queensland) Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 122.8 Tenderers not shortlisted: Platypus Graphics Chandler Personalised Communications Staples Australia Pty Limited Printcraft All Clear Print and Signs The Croham Trust, t/a Cross & Hamilton Printers (Qld) Pty Ltd Category D (i) – Instant Shortlisted tenderers: Print Works (Queensland) Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 247.9 CPX Printing & Logistics Achieved VFM of 209.3 Tenderers not shortlisted: James Fergusson Pty Ltd t/a Fergies Print & Mail SKH Holdings Pty Ltd ATF Hall Investment Trust Colourwise Digital Pty Ltd All Clear Print and Signs Category D (ii) – Secure/Legal Tenderers not shortlisted: James Fergusson Pty Ltd t/a Fergies Print & Mail All Clear Print and Signs	$1,892,367 $1,973,461 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $266,846 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $643,466 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $318,631 $391,746 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A	Approved 24.06.2014 Start 01.07.2014 End (Initial term) 30.06.2017 Max. Term Five years
15. Contract No: 510033 Motorama Management Pty Ltd Achieved highest Value for Money Index {VFM} of 87 AP Eagers Ltd Achieved VFM of 86 Stones Corner Motors Pty Ltd, t/a Keema Automotive Group Achieved VFM of 74 Note: Council are utilising Queensland Government Arrangement Q-Fleet 1211 in relation to this contract.	CEO	Panel arrangement – schedule of rates $32,250,000	Supply and Delivery of Passenger and Light Commercial Vehicles	Shortlisted tenderers: Bryan Byrt Holdings Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 68 Tenderers not shortlisted: (Final VFM not calculated due to lower scores in the evaluation criteria for meeting Council’s service level expectations, organisational resources, forward planning, methodology, value-adds and commercial criteria). Sci Fleet Motors Pty Ltd Norris Motor Group Zupps Mt Gravatt Pty Ltd Westpoint Auto QLD Pty Ltd Q Automotive Pty Ltd	N/A	Approved 17.06.2014 Start 01.07.2014 End (Initial term) 30.06.2017 Max. Term Five years
16. Contract No: 510098 Category 1 – Citywide Distribution Australian Postal Corporation t/a Australia Post – $40,500* Achieved highest Value for Money Index {VFM} of 1.93 *Price for Category 1 represents a citywide delivery of 450,000 of the Living in Brisbane publication. For Salmat this was reduced to 418,875 deliveries due to their inability to deliver to PO boxes, acreage, standard businesses and a number of highrise addresses. Category 2 – Localised Distribution Australian Postal Corporation t/a Australia Post – $279** Achieved highest Value for Money Index {VFM} of 2.78 **Price for Category 2 represents the per item distribution multiplied by 3000 (Salmat’s minimum delivery amount) for comparison purposes. Council’s average order is $869 with the majority of orders under $2,000.	CEO	Preferred Supplier Arrangement – schedule of rates $2,750,000	Unaddressed Direct Mail Services (UDMS)	Category 1 – Citywide Distribution Salmat Mediaforce Pty Limited (Non-conforming. VFM not calculated) Category 2 – Localised Distribution Salmat Mediaforce Pty Limited (VFM not calculated)**	$15,917* $114**	Approved 24.06.2014 Start 01.07.2014 End (Initial term) 30.06.2017 Max. Term Five years
17. Contract No: 510118 Data#3 Limited – $1,135,445	CPO	Lump sum and annual fee for optional additional periods $1,135,445	Provision of Citrix XenDesktop and Netscaler support and maintenance	Contract exempt from quoting and tendering requirements in accordance with section 2.5 (Exemptions from Tendering) of Council’s Contract Manual pursuant to the City of Brisbane Act 2010. Leveraged off LocalBuy contract BUS214-0611 which allows customers to place orders directly with the vendor.	N/A	Approved 17.06.2014 Start 01.07.2014 End (Initial term) 31.10.2017 Max. Term Five years and four months
18. Contract No: 510119 Base Course Management QLD Pty Ltd – $2,865,357* Achieved highest Value for Money Index {VFM} of 35.91 *Price is a basket of goods including float costs.	CEO	Preferred Supplier Arrangement – schedule of rates $13,000,000	Provision of Road Profiling Services	Shortlisted tenderers: Ellis Profiling Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 26.63 RPQ Profiling Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 28.51 Tenderers not shortlisted: (VFM was not calculated as these tenderers were unable to cover Council’s requirements which average seven road profilers on a daily basis). Stanley Macadam Company Creggs Asphalt Pty Ltd	$4,263,286* $3,514,871* $688,750 $833,607	Approved 24.06.2014 Start 27.07.2014 End (Initial term) 26.07.2017 Max. Term Five years
19. Contract No: 510137 Dimension Data Pty Ltd – $6,835,999* Achieved highest Value for Money Index {VFM} of 56.69 *Price is the estimated spend over a five year period.	CEO	Discount off Cisco recommended retail price and schedule of rates $6,835,999*	Provision of Cisco Hardware and Maintenance Support	Shortlisted tenderers: Data#3 Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 47.69 Tenderers not shortlisted: Bridgepoint Communications Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 36.76 Alphawest Services Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 21.64	$7,493,676* $8,905,324 $10,052,586	Approved 24.06.2014 Start 01.07.2014 End (Initial term) 30.06.2017 Max. Term Five years
20. Contract No: 520024 Category 1 – Supply of Rodenticides, Termiticides and General Pest Control Products (Preferred Supplier Arrangement) Garrards Pty Ltd – $19,837 Achieved highest Value for Money Index {VFM} of 412.61 Category 2 – Supply of BTI Larvaecide (Preferred Supplier Arrangement) Garrards Pty Ltd – $121,700 Achieved highest Value for Money Index {VFM} of 67.26 Category 3 – Supply of S-Methoprene Lavaeside (Panel Arrangement) Globe Australia Pty Ltd – $122,073 Achieved highest Value for Money Index {VFM} of 63.08 Pacific Biologics Pty Ltd – $165,640 Achieved VFM of 49.75 Category 4 – Supply of non-scheduled products on the published pricelist (Preferred Supplier Arrangement) Garrards Pty Ltd – price is discount of 12.5% off vendor’s published price list for non-scheduled products *Price is a basket of goods based on 2012/13 quantities.	CEO	Panel and Preferred Supplier Arrangements – schedule of rates $1,674,400	Provision of Chemicals for the Control of Pests	Category 1 – Supply of Rodenticides, Termiticides and General Pest Control Products (Preferred Supplier Arrangement) Globe Australia Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 298.92 Category 2 – Supply of BTI Larvaecide (Preferred Supplier Arrangement) Globe Australia Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 61.11 David Gray and Co Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 42.89 Category 3 – Supply of S-Methoprene Lavaeside (Panel Arrangement) Garrards Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 54.45 Category 4 – Supply of non-scheduled products on the published pricelist (Preferred Supplier Arrangement) Gerrards Pty Ltd were the only tenderer in this category offering a discount of 12.5% off their published list price for non-scheduled products.	$25,760 $126,000 $139,660 $150,319 N/A	Approved 19.06.2014 Start 01.07.2014 End (Initial term for categories 1, 2 and 4) 30.06.2017 (Initial term for category 3) 30.06.2015 Max. Term Five years
21. Contract No: 247400-000 Queensland State Government Public Safety Business Agency (PSBA) Standing Offer Arrangement (SOA) F-2474 for the Supply of Pumps, Foam Systems and Ancillary Pumping and Spraying Systems	CPO	Schedule of rates $150,000	Supply of Pumps, Foam Systems and Ancillary Pumping and Spraying Systems	Contract exempt from quoting and tendering requirements in accordance with section 2.5 (Exemptions from Tendering) of Council’s Contract Manual pursuant to the City of Brisbane Act 2010. Council are able to place contracts with the vendor directly under a Queensland State Government SOA which allows entities such as Council to access this arrangement.	N/A	Approved 26.06.2014 Start 01.07.2014 End (Initial term) 30.06.2017 Max. Term Five years

ADOPTED

Directory: sites -> default -> files
files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2
files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations
files -> Nstructions for Acquiring Excess Equipment online, through the 1033 Program
files -> Occupational health and safety
files -> The Black Panther Party’s Ten Point Program
files -> International programs roel profile
files -> Fermi Questions a guide for Teachers, Students, and Event Supervisors Lloyd Abrams, Ph. D. DuPont Company, cr&D/ccas experimental Station Wilmington, de 19880
files -> Personal Information Name: Maha Al-Ammari Nationality: Saudi Relationship Status

Download 0.63 Mb.

Share with your friends: