New ticketing system tender

Executive summary
• shown more meaningfully the relative position of tenders
• allowed the Authority to more clearly match the assigned rating to the
evaluation narrative
• given a clearer representation of the progress of tenders over time.
While the NTS tender evaluation reports identified the areas where tenders did not
meet the RFT requirements, the reports did not articulate which requirements were
critical or threshold issues and which were not. For those requirements that were
negotiable to some extent, this extent was not specified. The clear articulation of a
maximum acceptable level of risk acceptance by government would have
enabled the decision-makers to determine with more precision and confidence
whether the departures from the RFT requirements were minor, or whether they
were such that the desired solution could not be acquired within the budget
without an unacceptable allocation of risk.
Probity of the NTS tender
While flexible and innovative approaches to tendering can enhance value for money
for public procurers, the importance of probity is just as great in new types of tendering
as it is in traditional procurement processes.
Due to the specialised nature of ticketing systems, it was highly likely that a number of
Authority staff would have potential conflicts of interest from prior experience with
organisations tendering for the NTS project. The Probity Auditor identified more than
30 staff and other individuals involved in the tender evaluation process who had
potential conflicts of interest. Seven staff members and one consultant were rated as
high risk. Most of the conflicts of interest resulted from previous work histories and/or
shares in two companies included in consortia tendering for the NTS.
All shareholdings were disclosed to the Authority in conflict of interest statements
signed by staff and consultants and were identified in the work undertaken by the NTS
Probity Auditor. All of the declared shareholdings were modest and most were
immaterial.
The most significant shareholding of relevance to the tender was the CEO’s
shareholding in Headstrong / James Martin & Co. The shareholding’s potential to
damage community confidence in the tender was high. The Authority could have taken
additional steps to address perceived conflicts in relation to the shareholding.
Some senior Authority managers had shared work histories with a number of members
of the tendering consortia. These shared work histories and other relevant
relationships were disclosed to the Authority. The Authority informed tenderers about
those people in the Authority who had prior experience with tenderers.
The Authority identified the conflicts of interest in a timely way. Audit found no evidence
of corruption in the NTS tender, and no evidence that the conflicts of interest led to the
unfair or biased treatment of particular tenderers or groups of tenderers. Nevertheless,
the Authority could have taken additional steps to communicate to tenderers, the
New Ticketing System Tender 5