Questions about tender
IN A 2017 TCC media release dated November 17, Mayor Jenny Hill announced “Council will continue to work with local businesses to ensure they get the largest slice possible of the work on the project.
“It provides an opportunity to revitalise our manufacturing industries and upskill the city’s workforce. I make no apology for wanting to ensure this project creates jobs for locals.”
February 23 ( UTILITY Magazine) saw similar: “Manufacturing the pipe is a huge part of the project. Council is structuring the tenders to give local businesses the best chance of winning work on the pipeline and we’re hopeful local firms can partner with big industry players to manufacture the pipes locally.”
On April 24, council awarded the contract to an interstate company and the pipes will be made in Adelaide.
The product will be fibreglass reinforced plastic ( FRP) not steel as recommended by the Water Security Taskforce in June 2017.
In a technical briefing the day the contract was announced WFTAG was given a short explanation. When such a critical decision contradicts advice from expert engineers in the taskforce, the community is entitled to details and transparency.
All three state MPs stated support for whatever the intergovernmental taskforce recommended. None has commented publicly for or against the unexpected result.
Initially the angst expressed on our Facebook site was about the decision to go with plastic. This was allayed somewhat through our tech advice that the product meets Australian standards. Risks relate more to installation that must be monitored by very experienced certified inspectors.
The main concern for WFTAG now is about process. How was the tender structured to give local business the best chance of winning? What were the selection criteria? Why was the taskforce recommended steel option rejected? Why hasn’t council thought it appropriate to explain the backflips especially preference for interstate manufacturing? A few online comments follow.
Don: In a TV interview the Mayor said ... and we have reintroduced pipe manufacture to Townsville.
Adam: Wonder how Qld state government feels about paying SA workers to make their infrastructure?
Tracey: My question is about the durability and sustainability of this material and is there something in place to ensure any costs to repair will not be placed back on the ratepayers?
Brett: Was the tender process fair? Has TCC gone with the cheaper option and not taken into account the benefits of local people being employed and putting back into the local economy?
Malcolm: The pipe for industrial use is filament winding … hoop winding. Have I seen problem with these pipes? Yes, there can be installation problems, the joining of bends, curves, or fabrication of other fittings onto the larger pipe.
Sheryl: I think we should always consider new technologies. That said however, given past performance on many issues and TCC’s apparent lack of interest in addressing our water security problem, I’ve a complete lack of faith in their ability to make the right decision for a long- term solution.
Allan: Can someone please explain to me why this new development happened with such secrecy?
Judi: It’s a lot to gamble with … our water security. We want best not just cheapest. Sometimes spending a bit more initially is cheaper in long run.
Allan: There are no case studies for installations of this sized pressure pipe in Australia or New Zealand that we are aware of. This pipe has been made in Europe but that means nothing here until it is proven. We researched GRP in March 2017 and preferred MSCL ( mild steel concrete lined).
John: I believe politicians and corporations should accept the fact that detailed information is readily available to “the mass population”. The pipe decision is so obvious as is the agenda for it that it beggars belief the council and corporate elite still believe the “public” should be treated like “mushrooms”.
Adam: SEQ water had major issues with a GRP pipe installation and got in MSCL pipe to finish the job.
Judi: Hopefully Brad Webb will step up and fight for what is needed. Not just a cheap quick fix.
Eric: If funding was agreed for steel then steel it should be ... surely? Usually funding comes with “terms and conditions” ... doesn’t it?
Sarah: Will the technical details about the pros and cons of plastic or steel for our specific requirements be made available to the community?
Don: If TCC was open and communicative and acted solely on the basis of ratepayer benefit we would know the answer to these questions.
Surely the evaluation panel and council anticipated the inevitable controversy? Why not publish an article with the selection criteria made known and decisions justified? Which specific case studies were reviewed and for pressure testing to confirm the 1800mm FRP product is equal or superior to MSCL ( steel)? How, specifically, were the “tenders structured to ensure local businesses had the best chance of winning?”
Twenty- eight months ago ( TB, 251- 16) Cr Hill slammed an opposition candidate’s campaign, which prioritised water security.
She claimed the city’s water supply was already secure and it would be better for the community to manage water use. “There was no water crisis.” Fast- tracking and borrowing the then $ 160 million “would be a calamity for the ratepayer.” Now, however, council is pushing for the now $ 200 million to be fast- tracked by borrowing.
While Cr Hill conceded “it’s impossible to estimate the interest” and defended the decision to bring the project forward, sources suggest the interest bill could be as high as $ 10 million ( TB).
Is this about face in the best interest of Townsville’s future water security?