in the market, four companies submitted responses. Two suppliers provided a John Deere product, one offered a Case product and one offered a Scout product.
ISSUE 8
The tender document was very basic and open to interpretation according to the supplier.
ISSUE 9
The tender specifications varied considerably from the recommended specifications in the second CCIWA risk assessment report, which were developed and largely accepted by SES volunteers. The reasons for variation were also not explained to SES volunteers.
The evaluation panel evaluated the responses and the only machines deemed to have met specifications were the John Deere products. By the end of May, a request was sent to supplier Greenline Ag to provide the John Deere Gator XUV825i (petrol) and the John Deere Gator XUV 855D (diesel) …show more content…
The Project Manager was transferred into the regions, and the Project Coordinator changed role. Only the Project Manager was replaced. At this stage it seemed to the original PAT and evaluation panel members that most deliverables were back on track, after the unexpected delay of waiting for the ATUs to arrive in Perth.
ISSUE 13
There was a lack of continuity as key players left the replacement initiative and it was handed to new individuals and departments.
ISSUE 14
A lack of documentation on why previous decisions occured made it difficult for newcomers to the replacement initiative to get up to speed.
RETROFITTING OF THE ATUS
The ATUs were completed in January 2014, and by early February an ATU was delivered to the Fire and Emergency Services (FES) Academy for Training Resource Kit (TRK) development. As part of the TRK development, a SES subject matter expert (SME) was utilised. When the SES SME saw the completed ATU for the first time at the FES academy, they immediately raised multiple concerns in regards to the vehicle not meeting specifications and not being what the SES volunteers
ISSUE 8
The tender document was very basic and open to interpretation according to the supplier.
ISSUE 9
The tender specifications varied considerably from the recommended specifications in the second CCIWA risk assessment report, which were developed and largely accepted by SES volunteers. The reasons for variation were also not explained to SES volunteers.
The evaluation panel evaluated the responses and the only machines deemed to have met specifications were the John Deere products. By the end of May, a request was sent to supplier Greenline Ag to provide the John Deere Gator XUV825i (petrol) and the John Deere Gator XUV 855D (diesel) …show more content…
The Project Manager was transferred into the regions, and the Project Coordinator changed role. Only the Project Manager was replaced. At this stage it seemed to the original PAT and evaluation panel members that most deliverables were back on track, after the unexpected delay of waiting for the ATUs to arrive in Perth.
ISSUE 13
There was a lack of continuity as key players left the replacement initiative and it was handed to new individuals and departments.
ISSUE 14
A lack of documentation on why previous decisions occured made it difficult for newcomers to the replacement initiative to get up to speed.
RETROFITTING OF THE ATUS
The ATUs were completed in January 2014, and by early February an ATU was delivered to the Fire and Emergency Services (FES) Academy for Training Resource Kit (TRK) development. As part of the TRK development, a SES subject matter expert (SME) was utilised. When the SES SME saw the completed ATU for the first time at the FES academy, they immediately raised multiple concerns in regards to the vehicle not meeting specifications and not being what the SES volunteers