The ACT Government has allocated a further $300,000 for repairs at the Gungahlin Pool after construction delays due to Sydney’s extended lockdown pushed the pool’s completion date into 2022.
The new $1,103,300 contract to replace the pool’s tiling and membrane has been awarded to Metz Project Services. The company’s headquarters are in Sydney.
Just over $720,000 of the contract will come out of the original $1.45 million allocated for the pool’s repair. The remaining $300,000 is additional funding.
A government spokesperson said the additional funding “will allow Metz to install the comprehensive tiling system … recommended by experts to provide the best possible chance to reduce the risk of further pool repairs in the future”.
“The additional costs are due to market pressures such as increasing costs of materials, the complex requirements for the various trades packages needed to complete the work and the availability of suitable tenderers for the specialised work required.”
This brings the pool’s total repair cost to $1.75 million so far, greatly exceeding the $400,000 settlement between the ACT Government and the pool’s original builder.
An updated timeline for the pool still has not been released.
The Canberra Liberals criticised the delays last week saying the pool’s completion would not have been pushed back had the government used local Canberra workers for the repairs.
Yerrabi Liberal MLA Leanne Castley accused the government of turning its back on the Gungahlin community.
The contract was listed as a single select, with the government saying Metz was the only suitable supplier for the build*.
No local Canberra tiling contractors applied through the public procurement process, the spokesperson said.
“The tiling system being used for the 50-metre pool is not just a simple tiling project,” the spokesperson said.
“A specialist commercial aquatic contractor is required to install the comprehensive tiling system which includes several stages and requires specific qualifications to complete the work.”
*Correction: The original article said the contract’s procurement methodology was not an open tender. It was single select.