| Subject: Re: Press article 13/2/2002 AFR Feb 13th 2002. |
Author:
Steve Bonkers.
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 03:30:52 02/13/02 Wed
In reply to:
Steve Bonkers.
's message, "Re: Press article 12/2/2002. (Daily Telegraph page 10)" on 00:51:31 02/12/02 Tue
Cubic drops smartcard ticketing allegations
Feb 13
Annabel Hepworth
In a dramatic about-face, smartcard technology company Cubic Transportation Systems yesterday abandoned allegations that senior members of the Carr Government improperly interfered in the tender process for a $100 million-plus public transport ticketing project.
The allegations of impropriety were a central plank of Cubic's legal challenge against the Government's decision to award the contract for the overhaul of Sydney's ticketing system to a rival consortium of which ERG Ltd is the major partner.
Cubic, which is headquartered in California, will, however, still press ahead with its attempt to prohibit the Government from entering into the contract with the successful tenderer, Integrated Transit Solutions Ltd.
The full hearing starts next Tuesday with Transport NSW last night reaffirming its plans to vigorously fight the remaining aspects of Cubic's case.
In the interlocutory hearing in the NSW Supreme Court yesterday, counsel for Cubic, Mr Tim Moore, pointed to comments the project manager for the ticketing deal, Mr John Armstrong, is alleged to have made about the independent evaluation committee that assessed the competing bids.
Cubic alleges Mr Armstrong effectively said it had intended to recommend the Smartpos consortium (of which Cubic was a member) but was then instructed to favour the ITSL bid or that, regardless of the committee's recommendation, the deal was awarded to ITSL.
Cubic now considers that statement was false and there was a deliberate attempt to deceive the company, Mr Moore said.
Mr Armstrong's role was as a "spider" in the web of something significantly below politics, he said. The company's case is that the decision to select ITSL involved a breach of the Government's own tendering and procurement code because it was not based exclusively on the evaluation criteria.
In other developments, Dr John Griffiths SC, for the defendants, suggested Cubic had moved away from allegations raised on Monday against the probity auditors, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu.
The plaintiffs claim Deloitte had misrepresented the stage reached in the evaluation process in August 2000, but were no longer saying this was intentional. This put a different "spin" on the matter, he said.
Mr Moore responded that a file note from Deloitte was among documents found during discovery which would "speak for itself".
However, Cubic now also claims Deloitte was in breach of its duties because it had been providing professional advice to ERG Ltd.
Last night a Deloitte spokesperson said: "We are confident there is no conflict of interest and look forward to addressing the matter in court."
The case was adjourned until this afternoon.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 