Tag Archives: Tenders

Why would DCC shaft its own company instead of investing in its change and development ?!

ODT 20.4.17 (page 28)

At Facebook:

Related Post and Comments:
11.3.17 How Safe Are We/Our Businesses with the Corporate Disaster that’s Aurora, owned by DCC ? #reliability

█ For more, enter the terms *delta*, *grady*, *aurora*, *poles*, *asset management plan*, *dchl*, *auditor-general*, *epicpolefail* or *epic fraud* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

Waste Management NZ Ltd is Chinese owned

Advertisements

16 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, DCHL, Delta, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, Resource management, Site, Stadiums, What stadium

Report from the University Landscape Trenches : Financial shoring collapsing, trouble brewing

Received from Rhodes
Mon, 24 Oct 2016 at 9:14 p.m.

Saturday’s ODT had an interesting article about delays on the troubled University of Otago landscaping project. This article is the canary in the University construction goldmine, as there are other even much larger disputes brewing on current University projects that certainly will become a goldmine for the contractors, to the detriment of the University’s financial health.

uoo-landscaping-20160508_135933Hoarding, University of Otago

Mr Mackay said the complications on the landscaping included “replacing old water, sewage and drainage pipes”. What he did not say is that this work was meant to have been done two summers ago, BEFORE the academic year, but due to the project management, it was not. However, this landscaping project is small beer, there are much bigger problems looming.

The University, in their biggest ever project, at the 11th hour, on the “advice” of a contractor, Fletcher Construction, who we understand did not even finally submit a bid, told the University they could save a few hundred thousand on the $100 million project by deleting the need for a cost control schedule…. that would have severely limited what the contractors could charge for changes and extra work. In a monumental display of incompetence, the University stopped production of the schedule – which was already underway and had to be part paid for anyway and put the drawings and specifications out to tender without a schedule. If the drawings were 100% complete and the University wasn’t to change its mind that would be OK, but the Pope is more likely to preach at Canterbury Cathedral than this happening. Of course, the drawings are woefully incomplete, and the arguments and changes have started. Watch out for Someone from the University Property Services division, in about a year, to be in full dissembling mode about the delays, and how, “even though it’s six months late, it’s still on budget”. If that is the case, the budget has massive doses of incompetency cover built into it !

An additional problem that’s about to come home to roost in the University and Otago Polytechnic’s coffers is insistence, by University Property Services, on the use of “Early Contractor Involvement” (ECI). (Someone at University Property Services has never met a new construction euphemism he did not use or a project delay that he could not justify). Both the University and Polytech on recent large projects have engaged in tender processes where there is no fixed sum, because the documents are far from complete, and the current fashion du jour is to have “early contractor involvement” where the builders are paid to be involved in the design phase, to provide “constructability” expertise. Basically the builders make a submission to say what nice people they are, and advise percentage site overhead and profit margins they would build the project for. The rest of the cost, about 85-90%, is just guesswork. (“Provisional Sums”). This process allows the “tender evaluation team” (mainly the Architect and the University) to choose who they want, without regard to price, because the weighting for “non-price attributes” is a lot more than 50% of the total weighting.

On both the University commerce building project, just started by Naylor Love, and the Polytechnic Hostel project (also won by Naylor Love), this was the process. Both projects are around $20 million all up. Significantly, the architect on both projects was Mason & Wales. There were a number of other consultants in the design teams. The politest way to put the next point is that there appeared to be “confusion” about the proposed early contractor involvement process from the team. It was thought, inexplicably, that this wonderful new system of selecting builders without worrying about price meant not only did they get to choose ones with very high margins who wouldn’t cause problems when the inevitable design problems arose, some consultants also thought that they could charge full fees and offload all of the detailing onto the builder…. which of course did not happen. Builders, in the South Island anyway, do not employ armies of CAD operators who can document bespoke large projects. That is what designers are for…. In both cases, the successful Naylor Love bid was hundreds of thousands of dollars more expensive than lower bids. Also in the case of both bids, the University and the Polytech paid a premium of around $500-600,000 to have the “ECI/ constructability” experience of Naylor Love…. only to find that the advice received was NOT what was expected…. the Polytech project has been now costed by Naylor Love and is $1.5-2.0 million over budget, and the “expert” constructability / ECI advice that the Polytech effectively paid $600,000 for is…. wait for it…. to make the building smaller. Hmmm, expensive and brief advice! Best not tell the Humanities students ! The other unsuccessful contractors may well feel aggrieved about how this process played out, as before they were even allowed to provide a proposal they had to prove their capability and experience to do the work, so in theory all tenderers were equally capable, and there was no logical reason for the favouritism to Naylor Love…. but were there other reasons ? There appears no meaningful financial oversight, the project teams seem a law unto themselves, and the suspicion is that both institutions’ funds are being spent in a very free and easy fashion.

[ends]

Related Posts and Comments:
18.7.16 Misero-mercenary at U of O
1.7.16 No one wants to work for U of O
25.9.15 University calling Property Services
28.3.15 University of Otago landscaping
24.7.13 University: Leith flood protection scheme and landscaping
31.5.13 University of Otago development plans
27.5.13 Carisbrook and Leith flood protection
17.11.10 Leith Lindsay Flood Protection Scheme
17.5.10 Campus Master Plan
28.1.10 University of Otago Campus Master Plan

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

6 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, Design, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Media, New Zealand, Otago Polytechnic, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, Resource management, Site, Travesty, University of Otago

Cycleway planning at #DUD

T R U E ● O R ● F A L S E

bike cartoon by bob lafay [glendalecycles.com]

First we heard there were resignations via ODT.

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/389654/fourth-high-profile-transport-department-resignation

Although some might be working out notice.

Online identities and job titles suggest people are still at DCC.

Simple. Not updated at LinkedIn possibly.

What’s your point ?!

“THE SUBSEQUENT NEWS” …. [pregnant pause]

The (friends ?)(professionals ?) have set up in the land of private enterprise.

Good for them.

But wait.

Someone has snaffled new cycleway planning and project management off DCC.

Noooo ! What ?

We thought we heard via SPOKES….. that “they” (the privateers) have ‘won’ (??) er, DCC’s new cycleway planning contracts to STUFF Dunedin roads.

Surely, they’d have had to go through an open tender process ?

Mmm. That remains to be seen.

Our Rates Money will go straight to the NOW Private Contractors in larger amounts probably.

Nah, don’t believe it. Can’t be True.

*Preferred Suppliers*—
Some Councillors know, some don’t.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

*Image: glendalecycles.com – Bob Lafay 12/03

7 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, Cycle network, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Fun, Geography, Health, Infrastructure, Media, New Zealand, NZTA, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin, Sport, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, University of Otago, Urban design, What stadium

Misero-mercenary at U of O

misero mercenary

Just in, Rhodes says:

Naylor Love stiffed by U of O.
$100M Dental School to be awarded to Leighs Construction.

But…
Naylor Love’s consolation prize is the new $18M Otago Polytechnic Hall of Residence, where they were significantly more expensive than other local rival Amalgamated Builders, but scored much higher on non-price attributes, which gave them top ranking.

Amalgamated Builders, clearly not flavour of the month at either Polytech or University —it’s understood the same thing occurred at the recent Commerce Building Upgrade.

Related Post and Comments:
1.7.16 No one wants to work for U of O
31.5.13 University of Otago development plans

For more enter the term *university*, *campus master plan*, *property services*, *leith flood protection* or *landscaping* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

12 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, Design, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Finance, Infrastructure, Name, New Zealand, Otago Polytechnic, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, Resource management, Site, Town planning, University of Otago, Urban design, What stadium

ODT: Vandervis v Cull

Dave Cull merge v1

‘Mr Cull maintained he was correct to call Cr Vandervis a liar during a furious bust-up at a council meeting last December, telling the Otago Daily Times yesterday “a lie is a lie”.’

### ODT Online Sat, 7 May 2016
Threat to ‘double damages’
By Vaughan Elder
Councillor Lee Vandervis has threatened to “double the damages” from defamation action after Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull stood by calling him a liar. […] Cr Vandervis launched the defamation action this week, saying Mr Cull calling him a liar during a discussion on a new council procurement policy was incorrect and defamed him. A letter sent to Mr Cull by Cr Vandervis’ legal counsel, Alistair Paterson, said he would be willing to forgo defamation action if Mr Cull paid his legal costs and made a public apology in a full council meeting filmed by Dunedin Television and in the presence of Allied Press [Otago Daily Times] reporters.
Read more

Channel 39 Published on Dec [14]*, 2015
Councillor asked to leave meeting
Councillor Lee Vandervis was instructed by Mayor Dave Cull to leave a Dunedin City Council meeting today. The request came after Cr Vandervis alleged that tender contracts could not be secured unless a relationship was developed with staff. The Mayor rejected his claims, saying he had no proof. Cr Vandervis then proceeded to continue discussing the matter and was asked to leave.
Note: Incorrect date of meeting given at YouTube entry.

Dunedin City Council Published on Dec 15, 2015
[full meeting video – relevant segment near end from 2:07:19]

Unconfirmed Minutes of Meeting (14.12.15)
No reason given for minutes as yet unconfirmed by Council.

Related Posts and Commments:
14.3.16 Cr Vandervis co-operates with investigators #mediaslant
20.12.15 More emails —DCC aftermath of full council meeting 14.12.15
19.12.15 Member of the public lays Conduct complaint against Mayor Cull
15.12.15 Santa Cull’s idea of standing orders 14.12.15 #xmasface

█ For more, enter the term *vandervis* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year —this post is offered in the public interest.

*Image: dunedintv.co.nz – archivemash by whatifdunedin

67 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Events, Finance, Media, Name, New Zealand, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, Site, Travesty

More emails —DCC aftermath of full council meeting 14.12.15

Updated post
Mon, 21 Dec 2015 at 1:00 p.m.

“I have told you personally of a relationship with a DCC manager where I had to pay a 10% backhander to get a contract.” –Cr Vandervis to Mayor Cull

### ODT Online Mon, 21 Dec 2015
Contract fraud call at DCC
By Chris Morris
Dunedin city councillor Lee Vandervis’ actions will form part of a fresh fraud investigation inside the Dunedin City Council, after he claimed to have paid a backhander to secure a council contract. Council staff have confirmed his actions would be examined by the council’s internal auditors, Crowe Horwath, under the council’s new fraud prevention policy.
Read more

Otago Daily Times Published on Dec 14, 2015
Cr Lee Vandervis instructed by Mayor Dave Cull to leave meeting.
[Vandervis statement around 1.25 mark]

Received from Lee Vandervis
Sat, 19 Dec 2015 at 10:56 p.m.

Re: Town Hall Redevelopment Project and Citifleet fraud allegations

—— Forwarded Message
From: Sandy Graham
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 02:37:27 +0000
To: “Council 2013-2016 (Elected Members)”
Cc: “Executive Leadership Team (ELT)”
Subject: Additional LGOIMA emails re Various matters related to allegations from Monday meeting

Councillors

Please find attached an additional PDF that was included in the information provided to the ODT but got missed in my earlier email to you.

Apologies.

Sandy

From: prncc209@dcc.govt.nz
Sent: Friday, 18 December 2015 12:48 p.m.
To: Sandy Graham
Subject: Message from KM_C454e

(1) Attachment:
SC454E0591715121812470 [683890] (PDF, 169 KB)
Lee Vandervis to Bidrose 28.6.15 [thread]

Related Post and Comments:
19.12.15 DCC aftermath of full council meeting 14.12.15 (emails released)

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

29 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Citifleet, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Infrastructure, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Police, Politics, Project management, Property, SFO

DCC aftermath of full council meeting 14.12.15 (emails released)

Extraordinary times at Dunedin City Council in which no-one looks good. With what political mileage generated at mayoral level; and what questions of the chief executive, and ODT’s role and or complicity, in this sudden council release of information to the public realm.

Read the email threads attached to Sandy Graham’s email to Cr Vandervis.

More than ever, these exchanges show strong need for an independent Procurement manager position at Dunedin City Council with oversight of all managers of departments and divisions, as Cr Vandervis has been recommending for some time.

Unsurprisingly, belatedly, an investigation into alleged fraud at City Property should commence, along the lines of what happened for Citifleet —this time, with full accountability to the ratepayers and residents of Dunedin.

Received from Lee Vandervis
Sat, 19 Dec 2015 at 11:12 a.m.

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 10:02:42 +1300
To: Sandy Graham, Andrew Noone, Andrew Whiley, Chris Staynes, Doug Hall, Hilary Calvert, John Bezett, Jinty MacTavish, Kate Wilson, Lee Vandervis, Mayor Cull, Mike Lord, Neville Peat, Richard Thomson, David Benson-Pope, Aaron Hawkins
Cc: Sue Bidrose
Conversation: LGOIMA request – Various matters related to allegations from Monday’s meeting
Subject: LGOIMA request – Various matters related to allegations from Monday’s meeting

Dear Sandy,

Given the Deloitte comment “We do not have any objection to you sharing this letter with the Councillors.”
and my repeated LGOIMA and requests for other Deloitte information, why was this information not supplied to me well before now?!
Please state complete reasons and who was responsible for the decisions to withhold this information from me.

Regards,
Cr. Vandervis

On 18/12/15 12:03 pm, “Sandy Graham” wrote:

Dear Councillors

FYI. This is a response to a LGOIMA request that we provided to the ODT. It is likely to feature in the paper over the next day or two.

Regards
Sandy

—————————————

From: Sandy Graham
Sent: Thursday, 17 December 2015 4:33 p.m.
To: Chris Morris [ODT]
Subject: LGOIMA resposne – Various matters related to allegations from Monday’s meeting

Dear Chris

Further to your LGOIMA request, please find below and attached responses to your questions.

You stated:
At Monday’s council meeting, Cr Vandervis claimed he had paid a backhander to council staff to secure a contract prior to his time as a councillor. I’m told by the Mayor that this is believed to relate to a former staff member who no longer works for council.

Q Are staff investigating or considering the legal or other implications of Vandervis’ backhander claim?

Yes – all aspects of the transaction will be investigated.

Q If so, can you say what the implications of his statement are, and the possible options or actions that might follow? Does it, for example, trigger an investigation under the council’s anti-fraud policies, and would that look at the actions of the former staff member, Cr Vandervis, or both?

The internal auditors have been advised and they are following the process as per the Fraud Prevention Policy and Procedures.

Q What action might be taken as a result?
It’s too early to say what if any action will be taken.

Previous questions
1. What claims has Lee Vandervis made in relation to alleged fraud involving council?

See attached emails which provides documented details of recent fraud allegations. As discussed, these emails are the what we have been able to quickly identify over the past couple of years. We have not gone back further at this stage.

2. What evidence, if any, has he provided to back up those claims?
Please see emails as above

3. I’m told the DCC received a separate piece of information from Deloitte assessing the claims made by Lee Vandervis in relation to the Citifleet fraud. If possible, can I have a copy of that today?

A copy is attached with redactions to protect the privacy of certain individuals pursuant to section 7(2)(a) of LGOIMA.

As we have withheld certain information, you are entitled to a review by the Office of the Ombudsman.

Regards
Sandy

Sandy Graham
Group Manager Corporate Services
Dunedin City Council

—— End of Forwarded Message

(4) Attachments:

SC454E0591715121715540 [546869]
Email thread Bidrose 16.12.15 – Community Housing Maintenance Contract LGOIMA

Email – 2015_02_25_Redacted]
Lee Vandervis to Grant McKenzie 25.2.15 In Confidence- Alleged Fraud

Email – 2015_02_25_Redacted [546867]
Email thread Grant McKenzie to Lee Vandervis 25.2.15 In Confidence- Alleged Fraud

SC454E0591715121715470_Redacted [546868]
Deloitte to Bidrose 4.8.14 – City Fleet Investigation – Matters raised by Councillors

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

14 Comments

Filed under Business, Citifleet, DCC, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, SFO