Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Business

Australia's tier 4 data centre. Micron21 mission critical hosting services.

G and H Aluminium pinged $100,000

By johnboy - 5 April 2011 5

The ABCbrings word on the contractors for the Harrison school site getting hit with a stiff fine after failing to keep their workers’ compensation insurance up to date.

The Construction Union’s Dean Hall says authorities were notified after an injured worker tried to get his medical bills reimbursed.

“After unsuccessfully getting those reimbursed by the employer, he rang the insurer,” Mr Hall said.

At $100k it might have been cheaper to keep the insurance up to date. Let’s hope their work on the school site is up to scratch.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
5 Responses to
G and H Aluminium pinged $100,000
dtc 10:04 am 06 Apr 11

EvanJames said :

The tendering processes are ludicrous. The public servants are so hamstrung by the stupid regulations they work under, that even a company that has done rotten work in the past has to be considered on the merits of the tender, and knowing that they suck can’t be used in the decision-making. It’s a joke.

This is not quite true – a properly written tender can assess using past performance, company scorecards, referees/references etc. What you cannot do is make a decision based on what your mate in another department overheard someone say.

That said, the problem is ‘lowest is the best’ but also that most public servants just dont have the skills to know who will do a good job because most public servants are not specialists in the technical areas they are running a tender for. This is not their fault – they are contracting officers or whatever, suddenly asked to pick which building company or computing company will be the one to give the best solution; and then never given enough (or any) money to hire an expert to assist in their evaluation. Its fine to spend $100m on a project, but not to spend $50k on getting expertise to allow you to pick the best contractor.

(and, no, I am not a contractor or a consultant)

EvanJames 8:55 am 06 Apr 11

The tendering processes are ludicrous. The public servants are so hamstrung by the stupid regulations they work under, that even a company that has done rotten work in the past has to be considered on the merits of the tender, and knowing that they suck can’t be used in the decision-making. It’s a joke.

Deref 7:34 am 06 Apr 11

Bar them forever from running a business. Bastards who put their employees at risk like that aren’t fit to employ people.

georgesgenitals 7:14 am 06 Apr 11

Using the lowest bidder is standard practice among government, especially for smaller jobs, because most public servants don’t have the wantons or skills to write proper justification for selection a party other than the lowest bidder. I see this constantly in my work.

pandaman 10:06 pm 05 Apr 11

I’m getting tired of saying it, but I suspect I’ll have cause to keep on repeating myself for years to come. If you want decent results, the lowest bidder is most likely not the best option.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site