Standoff over civic centre
You have no credits left. To view this article subscribe to Business News.
You have used {{points}} and have {{current_points}} remaining. Your credits will reset on {{reset_date}}.
This article is part of a special report and is available to paid Business News subscribers only.
You can purchase access to this special report or subscribe to Business News.
You can purchase access to this special report or subscribe to Business News.
This article is premium content and is available to paid Business News subscribers only.
Subscribe to Business News.
Subscribe to Business News.
Tuesday, 17 April, 2001 - 22:00
A $3 million upgrade of the Belmont Civic Centre, home of the City of Belmont council chambers, is enmeshed in a legal Mexican stand-off between the two lowest bidding builders.
It has cost the council thousands in legal fees, delayed construction for three years, and is unlikely to proceed unless further costly appeals are lodged.
The fiasco is the result of a faulty due diligence process where a simple matter, in this case whether the final tenderers were registered builders, was overlooked by City of Belmont officials who awarded preferred tenderer status to a builder who was unregistered at the time.
An ambitious $3 million renovated state-of-the-art civic centre was proposed and a design by the Bollig Design Group accepted in early 1998. Twenty builders submitted expressions of interest and four finalists were invited to submit tender documents.
Link Projects Australasia Pty Ltd, the second lowest tenderer, was awarded the tender but had tendered using a supervisor’s building registration number. Records held by the Builders’ Registration Board of Western Australia show Link did not register until May 28th 1998, after an objection had been lodged by the lowest tenderer, BGC Construction.
Neither Link, BGC nor the City of Belmont will discuss the issue. Industry sources however say the Council had a preference for Link and ignored suggestions raised by the public at a 1998 council meeting to award the tender. It was suggested the tender be granted on a conditional basis or deferred until registration details were checked.
As a consequence Link was awarded the contract and BGC challenged the legitimacy of the action based on government tendering guidelines.
Earlier this year, after several hearings and appeals, the City of Belmont and Link’s contract was declared a ‘no contract’ by the Supreme Court.
It is understood City of Belmont officials are unimpressed with BGC’s challenge and refuse to grant them the contract as the lowest bidder. A spokesman for the City of Belmont said the city was abiding within the law and had reserved making any decision.
If they proceed with their plans for the civic centre using Link as the builder, BGC will sue them. If they proceed with BGC as the builder, Link will sue. They are between a rock and a hard place.
It has cost the council thousands in legal fees, delayed construction for three years, and is unlikely to proceed unless further costly appeals are lodged.
The fiasco is the result of a faulty due diligence process where a simple matter, in this case whether the final tenderers were registered builders, was overlooked by City of Belmont officials who awarded preferred tenderer status to a builder who was unregistered at the time.
An ambitious $3 million renovated state-of-the-art civic centre was proposed and a design by the Bollig Design Group accepted in early 1998. Twenty builders submitted expressions of interest and four finalists were invited to submit tender documents.
Link Projects Australasia Pty Ltd, the second lowest tenderer, was awarded the tender but had tendered using a supervisor’s building registration number. Records held by the Builders’ Registration Board of Western Australia show Link did not register until May 28th 1998, after an objection had been lodged by the lowest tenderer, BGC Construction.
Neither Link, BGC nor the City of Belmont will discuss the issue. Industry sources however say the Council had a preference for Link and ignored suggestions raised by the public at a 1998 council meeting to award the tender. It was suggested the tender be granted on a conditional basis or deferred until registration details were checked.
As a consequence Link was awarded the contract and BGC challenged the legitimacy of the action based on government tendering guidelines.
Earlier this year, after several hearings and appeals, the City of Belmont and Link’s contract was declared a ‘no contract’ by the Supreme Court.
It is understood City of Belmont officials are unimpressed with BGC’s challenge and refuse to grant them the contract as the lowest bidder. A spokesman for the City of Belmont said the city was abiding within the law and had reserved making any decision.
If they proceed with their plans for the civic centre using Link as the builder, BGC will sue them. If they proceed with BGC as the builder, Link will sue. They are between a rock and a hard place.