Scathing audit questions tender process for Sydney's $2bn container terminal

Guardian Article: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/24/scathing-audit-questions-tender-process-for-sydneys-2bn-container-terminal

Audit Document: https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/delivery-moorebank-intermodal-terminal

Extract:The objective of the audit was to assess whether the contractual arrangements that 

have been put in place for the delivery of the Moorebank Intermodal Terminal (MIT) 

will provide value for money and achieve the Australian Government’s policy 

objectives for the project.

·         "Value for money progressively eroded during the negotiation of the contractual arrangements."

·          "The procurement process was not sufficiently competitive."

·         "Risks to removing competition from the second stage of the procurement process were identified. Risk mitigations were also identified."

·         "Negotiations took twice as long as had been planned."  

·         "There were shortcomings in the management of probity."

·         “Most of the key detailed documents that are required to complete and operationalise the regime have yet to be developed.”

·         “A compliance regime is in place. There are shortcomings in its design that can be expected to limit its effectiveness.”

·         “There are also other ongoing oversight responsibilities, including in relation to the capacity expansion arrangements. The resources required to undertake ongoing oversight have not yet been quantified.”

·         “The transaction was structured in a way that will enable a privatisation process through the creation of predictable income streams. Such a process is not expected to take place for some years as advice to the Department of Finance (Finance) is that sustainable positive cashflows are not expected for 15 years. There are also contractual restrictions on the entities to which the Australian Government can divest its interests.”

Moorebank Intermodal Company (MIC) “absolutely disagrees with the ANAO’s analysis that the direct negotiations did not secure a contractual commitment aligned to the Australian Government’s preferred approach."