2019-07-09 Services & Organisation Committee Agenda

Page 29 of 47

J Crowe Horwath.
                  PART OF FINDEX

 Overall probity assessment
 Our overall assessment of the EOI processes identified the following:
 »  The EO! was undertaken in a manner that complies with Council's procurement policy and the
    established Probity Plan.
 «  All tenderers were given equal opportunity and were treated fairly and consistently.
 « The EOI evaluation process was undertaken in a manner free of bias and the ranking is a true
    representation of the tenderers’ offers.
 Scope of the engagement
 We provided Probity Advisory Services over the EOI and checked Council's approach to market is in
 accordance with the Local Government Framework. A summary of the activities / procedures performed are
 included in Appendix 1.
 Summary of observations
Three (3) observations, summarised below, were identified during the performance of the Probity Advisory
 Services:
 «  Qbservation 1 — Additional contact from EOI responders: The Probity Adviser was provided with
    additional documentation from an individual associated with one of the parties submitting an EOI. The
    documentation was reviewed to determine if there was any indication that the independence of the EO!
    deliberations was impacted, no matters were identified. As part of the deliberations on the EOl’s
    submitted, the above was raised and the panel agreed that there was no impact on their consideration.
 «  Observation 2 — Approach to manage perceived Conflicts of Interest: The Probity Adviser provided
    recommendations to Council on how to manage perceived conflicts of interest during the EO!
    consideration process. The panel agreed with the recommendations.
 «  Qbservation 3 — Consideration of additional information in EOI response: At the commencement
    of the EO! evaluation meeting, confirmation was obtained on the ability of the evaluation panel to
    separate from their deliberation, additional information contained in the EO! response that was not in
    direct response to any of the five (5) evaluation criteria. The panel confirmed they were able to proceed.
 A detailed listing of all procedures performed is included in Appendix 1 to this letter. These procedures were
 undertaken, and no further observations were identified.
 Basis and use of this letter
This letter has been prepared in accordance with the objectives, scope and approach set out in the Proposal
 Letter dated, 2 April 2019 and subject to the limitations set out in Appendix 2 (Basis and Use of the Report).
 Yours sincerely
 Crowe Horwath

 John Zabala (FCA)
 Senior Partner

                                                                                   Page 29 of 47