21 June 2019
Dear C Stuart C
by email:
[FYI request #10384 email]
We refer to your request for information to Auckland Council dated Saturday 25 May 2019. Your request
was passed on to Watercare for response as Watercare is the entity undertaking the Central Interceptor
Project.
We repeat each of your requests as received and beneath each request is Watercare’s response.
1
Your request: First and foremost, please advise who the contract for the Central Interceptor was
awarded too. As the contract has been awarded to Ghella-Abergeldie when the board paper refers
to Ghella-Abergeldie Harker? These were two separate trading entities during the procurement of
the project.
Watercare response: The contract was awarded to Ghella Limited and Abergeldie Complex Infrastructure
Limited. They are parties to an unincorporated joint venture and are separate trading entities. Each
company is a signatory to the Contract jointly and severally as “Contractor”.
On 31 January 2019 Abergeldie Harker Limited changed its name to Abergeldie Complex Infrastructure
Limited. A record of this name change is available on the Companies Office website. You will note that this
name change occurred after the date of the Report to the Board of Watercare, hence the references to
“Abergeldie Harker Limited” and “Abergeldie Harker Joint Venture” in the report.
Accordingly, all references to Abergeldie Complex Infrastructure Limited in Watercare’s response to you
should be read and understood as “Abergeldie Complex Infrastructure Limited (formerly named Abergeldie
Harker Limited)”.
2
Your request: Please provide the board recommendation report for the awarding of the Central
Interceptor project to Ghella-Abergeldie / Ghella-Abergeldie Harker without the contract items and
summary BOQ items blacked out. This is a public works / local government contract and Watercare
Service Limited should be seen to be transparent in the letting of public contracts to privately held
companies.
Watercare response: Watercare will not be releasing a non-redacted version of the Contractor’s summary
BOQ items. Watercare considers that release of such information:
(a)
would likely result in unreasonable prejudice to Ghella Limited’s and Abergeldie Complex
Infrastructure Limited’s commercial positions; and
(b)
may be used for improper gain or improper advantage.
1 | P a g e
You are referred to section 7(2)(b)(ii) and section 7(2)(j) of the Local Government Official Information and
Meetings Act 1987 (
LGOIMA) which are the grounds relied upon by Watercare in refusing your request.
The disclosure of pricing breakdown would be likely to unreasonably prejudice the commercial position of
Ghella Limited and Abergeldie Complex Infrastructure Limited in that through analysis of this breakdown
their competitors may potentially determine the pricing strategies applied. This would place their
competitors in a position where they could use the pricing breakdown for improper advantage in future
tenders for similar works and place Ghella Limited and Abergeldie Complex Infrastructure Limited in a
position of disadvantage.
Watercare has considered whether the public interest in the information you seek outweighs the potential
prejudice to Watercare and Ghella Limited and Abergeldie Complex Infrastructure Limited. Watercare does
not accept that the potential detriment to Ghella Limited’s and Abergeldie Complex Infrastructure Limited’s
respective commercial positions is outweighed by public interest in the release of the BOQ items blacked
out in the Recommendation Report dated 29 January 2019 provided to the Watercare Board of Directors.
The accepted Contract Price of $750,576,981 excluding GST has been released and that is sufficient for the
transparency purposes you reference.
You have the right, under section 27 of the LGOIMA, to make a complaint to the Ombudsman about
Watercare’s decision to withhold this information.
3
Your request: Please provide copies of the four ‘Letters of endorsements from the four independent
advisors’ Further to this, please provide evidence off their expertise by way of their professional
CV’s.
Watercare response: Letters from PwC, Simpson Grierson, Rider Levett Bucknall, McRae Construction
Services and also Deloitte are
attached to this response.
With respect to your request for professional CVs, such information is in the public domain and can be
accessed by a Google search of the relevant individual or by a search of the relevant organisation’s website.
4
Your request: Please provide details and minutes of the negotiations with GAH as referred to in
section 2.1 in the letter to ‘Iain S’ dated 22nd of March, which includes the board recommendation
letter endorsing the selection of Ghella Abergeldie for the Central Interceptor project.
Watercare response: Watercare will not be releasing details or minutes of negotiations with Ghella Limited
and Abergeldie Complex Infrastructure Limited. The information contained in such minutes:
(a)
is confidential to Watercare and to Ghella Limited and Abergeldie Complex Infrastructure Limited;
(b)
may disclose a trade secret;
(c)
is likely to unreasonably prejudice the commercial positions of Ghella Limited and Abergeldie
Complex Infrastructure Limited;
2 | P a g e
(d)
contains information the subject of legal professional privilege; and
(e)
may be used for improper gain or improper advantage.
You are referred to sections 7(2)(i), 7(2)(b)(ii), 7(2)(c), 7(2)(g) and 7(2)(j) of the LGOIMA which are the
grounds relied upon by Watercare in refusing your request.
It was the understanding of the parties that negotiations and all records of those negotiations would be
strictly confidential to the parties. In recognition of the commercial sensitivity of the content, negotiations
were undertaken subject to confidentiality protocols and all parties present submitted to those protocols.
Further, the information you seek records details surrounding the risk approaches of the parties, including
discussions surrounding technical construction methodologies and associated pricing. Such risk positions
and pricing are necessarily confidential and may reveal critical commercial strategies and methodologies
which will be of significant interest to Ghella Limited’s and Abergeldie Complex Infrastructure Limited’s
competitors both in New Zealand and in the overseas markets in which their related companies operate.
In accordance with section 7(1) of the LGOIMA, Watercare has considered whether there are other
considerations which render it in the public interest for the information you seek to be released.
Watercare does not accept that the potential detriment to Ghella Limited’s and Abergeldie Complex
Infrastructure Limited’s respective commercial positions is outweighed by other considerations which in
the public interest render it desirable to publically release details or minutes of negotiations with Ghella
Limited and Abergeldie Complex Infrastructure Limited.
Also, Watercare considers the release of the details and minutes you seek is not in the public interest but
potentially detrimental to that interest in that the information could be used for improper gain or improper
advantage as well as prejudicing the likelihood that future tenderers will undertake open and frank
negotiations with Watercare where records of those negotiations will be released publicly to the
commercial detriment of that tenderer.
Further, certain details recorded in respect of negotiations with Ghella Limited and Abergeldie Complex
Infrastructure Limited are subject to legal professional privilege. Watercare has considered whether the
withholding of that information is outweighed by other considerations which render it desirable, in the
public interest, to make that information available. Watercare does not consider that such public interest
considerations (such as there might be) outweigh its interest in maintaining legal professional privilege in
respect of current matters.
Again you have the Contract Price accepted by Watercare. You also have the total cost of the Central
Interceptor Project at $1.266.8 billion.
You have the right, under section 27 of the LGOIMA, to make a complaint to the Ombudsman about
Watercare’s decision to withhold this information.
3 | P a g e
5
Your request: Please advise the changes to GAH’s proposal referred to in the second paragraph of
2.1 in the letter to ‘Iain S’ dated 22nd of March.
Watercare response: Watercare will not be releasing details of the changes to GAH’s proposal referred to
in the second paragraph of 2.1 in the letter to ‘Iain S’ dated 22 March 2019. Watercare considers that the
release of such detail is likely to unreasonably prejudice the commercial positions of Ghella Limited and
Abergeldie Complex Infrastructure Limited as it will disclose potential financial impacts of negotiations
undertaken between the parties and potentially reveal commercial strategies adopted by them.
You are referred to sections 7(2)(b)(ii) of the LGOIMA which are the grounds relied upon by Watercare in
refusing your request.
In accordance with section 7(1) of the LGOIMA, Watercare has considered whether there are other
considerations which render it in the public interest for the information you seek to be released.
Watercare does not accept that the potential detriment to Ghella Limited’s and Abergeldie Complex
Infrastructure Limited’s respective commercial positions is outweighed by other considerations which in
the public interest render it desirable to publically release such information.
You have the right, under section 27 of the LGOIMA, to make a complaint to the Ombudsman about
Watercare’s decision to withhold this information.
6
Your request: Part A - With the analysis undertaken by PWC on behalf of Watercare on Ghella and
Abergeldie Harker, please provide the following:
i) Margins on large projects
ii) cash flow analysis of these projects
iii) access to capital
iv) pipeline of work and capacity.
Further to the above request, please advise which entity PWC undertook their analysis on, was it:
a) Ghella
b) Abergeldie Complex Infrastructure
c) Abergeldie Harker Limited.
Watercare response: With respect to the due diligence review undertaken by PwC Watercare will not be
releasing details or information received or reviewed by PwC in the course of their due diligence review of
the financial capability of Ghella Limited and Abergeldie Complex Infrastructure Limited and their
respective parent companies including:
(a)
margins on large projects;
(b)
cash flow analysis of these projects;
(c)
access to capital; or
(d)
pipeline of work and capacity.
The information you seek:
(a)
is confidential to Ghella Limited and Abergeldie Complex Infrastructure Limited and their respective
related companies;
4 | P a g e
(b)
is likely to unreasonably prejudice the commercial positions of Ghella Limited and Abergeldie
Complex Infrastructure Limited and their respective related companies; and
(c)
may be used for improper gain or improper advantage.
You are referred to sections 7(2)(b)(ii), 7(2)(c) and 7(2)(j) of the LGOIMA which are the grounds relied upon
by Watercare in refusing your request.
The information furnished for the due diligence review was provided by Ghella Limited and Abergeldie
Complex Infrastructure Limited on the basis that it would be treated and kept by Watercare and PwC as
strictly confidential to the parties. The information you seek disclosure of is of extreme confidential
sensitivity to the parties who have furnished that information.
Ghella Limited and Abergeldie Complex Infrastructure Limited (as well as their parent and related
subsidiaries) are privately held companies and such information is not otherwise publically available.
Therefore, disclosure of the information you seek will be of significant interest to Ghella Limited’s and
Abergeldie Complex Infrastructure Limited’s competitors and the competitors of their respective parent
companies who operate and compete in international markets. Analysis of this information may place
these parties in a position of disadvantage whilst their competitors receive an improper advantage and
potentially improper gain.
In accordance with section 7(1) of the LGOIMA, Watercare has considered whether there are other
considerations which render it in the public interest for the information you seek to be released.
Watercare does not accept that the potential detriment to Ghella Limited’s and Abergeldie Complex
Infrastructure Limited’s respective commercial positions (or that of their parent or related companies) is
outweighed by public interest considerations (to the extent that there are any) in the public release of such
highly sensitive confidential commercial information.
Further, Watercare considers the release of such highly sensitive commercial information pertaining to
private companies operating in highly competitive environments may be detrimental to the public interest
as this information could be used for improper gain or improper advantage as well as prejudicing the
likelihood that future private company tenderers will submit to detailed financial due diligence required by
Watercare (or other public sector agencies) where confidential financial information will be released
publicly to the commercial and competitive detriment of that tenderer. It is in the public interest that
public sector agencies have information available to them to undertake robust due diligence reviews of
tenderers.
You have the right, under section 27 of the LGOIMA, to make a complaint to the Ombudsman about
Watercare’s decision to withhold this information.
You have also sought confirmation as to the “entity PwC undertook their analysis on”. Watercare can
confirm that PwC undertook a due diligence review of each of:
(a)
Ghella Limited
(b)
Ghella S.p.A
(c)
Abergeldie Complex Infrastructure Limited (as Abergeldie Harker Limited is now called)
(d)
Ablergeldie Holdings Pty Ltd
(e)
Abergeldie Consolidated Pty Ltd
5 | P a g e
6
Your request: Part B -“Should the audits be only completed on Ghella as mentioned in the letter to
‘Iain S’ dated 22nd of March, please provide the auditors reports on Abergeldie Complex
Infrastructure and Abergeldie Harker Limited. Please also advise what projects were audited, the
project location and who was the principal for audited project including contact details.”
Watercare’s response: The financial capacity of both joint venture parties was reviewed as part of the
tender evaluation. PwC was engaged to undertake a review of financial capacity and an assessment of
tenderer workload. This was in respect of all 4 tenderers. PwC then undertook a further due diligence
exercise in respect of the preferred bidder, the Ghella Limited and Abergeldie Complex Infrastructure joint
venture.
To clarify references in the Recommendation Report dated 29 January 2019 provided to the Watercare
Board of Directors, PwC were not engaged as “auditors”. The reference to “auditors” in the
Recommendation Report dated 29 January 2019 provided to the Watercare Board of Directors is to the
company auditors of Ghella and Abergeldie Complex Infrastructure and their respective parent companies
who provided detailed information and co-operated with PwC in their due diligence review.
The due diligence reports prepared by PwC for Watercare:
(a)
are confidential to Watercare, PwC, Ghella Limited and Abergeldie Complex Infrastructure Limited
and their respective related companies, and each of the other four tenderers and their parent
companies whose detailed commercial information is included;
(b)
are likely to unreasonably prejudice the commercial positions of Ghella Limited and Abergeldie
Complex Infrastructure Limited and their respective related companies as well as the commercial
positions of each of the other four tenderers and their parent and other related companies
referred to in the reports; and
(c)
may be used for improper gain or improper advantage.
You are referred to sections 7(2)(b)(ii), 7(2)(c) and 7(2)(j) of the LGOIMA which are the grounds relied upon
by Watercare in refusing your request.
Watercare will not be disclosing the evaluation report prepared by PwC in respect of financial capacity and
workload assessment. This report contains detailed financial assessment of all four tenderers and
Watercare and PwC consider the report to be strictly confidential. This report has been strictly held at
Watercare and has been shared confidentially on a “need to know basis” and to a very limited number of
persons.
The due diligence report prepared in respect of the preferred bidder, the Ghella Limited and Abergeldie
Complex Infrastructure Limited joint venture is also considered by Watercare, PwC, Ghella Limited and
Abergeldie Complex Infrastructure Limited to be strictly confidential. Given that the report would disclose
the same information as is sought above in respect of margins, cash-flow, capital and capacity of these
companies, their respective related companies as well as other detailed commercially sensitive
information, the same rationale and justification for withholding it applies as is described above at Part A of
Request 6.
In accordance with section 7(1) of the LGOIMA, Watercare has considered whether there are other
considerations which render it in the public interest for the information you seek to be released.
6 | P a g e
Watercare does not accept that the potential detriment to Ghella Limited’s and Abergeldie Complex
Infrastructure Limited’s respective commercial positions (or that of their parent or related companies) is
outweighed by public interest considerations (to the extent that there are any) in the release of such highly
sensitive confidential commercial information.
You have the right, under section 27 of the LGOIMA, to make a complaint to the Ombudsman about
Watercare’s decision to withhold this information.
7
Your request: It is referred in the letter to ‘Iain S’ dated 22nd of March, that the Abergeldie
shareholder has previously provided financial support when required. Please provide further
information of this shareholder and advise what personal guarantees this shareholder has provided
Watercare and Auckland Council.
Watercare response: In respect of the Central Interceptor Main Works Contract, a parent company
guarantee has been provided by Abergeldie Consolidated Pty Ltd to Watercare Services Limited. No
guarantee, personal or otherwise, has been provided to Auckland Council in respect of the Central
Interceptor Main Works Contract as far as Watercare is aware.
Abergeldie Consolidated Pty Ltd is Abergeldie Complex Infrastructure Limited’s ultimate parent company.
8
Your request: Please provide evidence of the parent companies guarantees as referenced in
section 3.2 of the Watercare board paper.
Watercare response: Parent company guarantees have been executed and delivered to Watercare by
Ghella S.p.A and Abergeldie Consolidated Pty Ltd and I can assure you this has occurred.
9
Your request: Please provide the tabulated risk allowance showing full values for transparency.
Watercare response: The information you seek:
(a)
is confidential to Ghella Limited and Abergeldie Complex Infrastructure Limited and their respective
related companies;
(b)
is likely to unreasonably prejudice the commercial positions of Ghella Limited and Abergeldie
Complex Infrastructure Limited and their respective related companies; and
(c)
may be used for improper gain or improper advantage.
You are referred to sections 7(2)(b)(ii), 7(2)(c) and 7(2)(j) of the LGOIMA which are the grounds relied upon
by Watercare in refusing your request.
Risk allowances are highly sensitive confidential commercial information. Their disclosure to competitors
would potentially be highly damaging to Ghella Limited and Abergeldie Complex Infrastructure Limited and
place these parties in a position of significant disadvantage in future tenders vis a vis their competitors.
Watercare does not accept that public “transparency” of such confidential commercially sensitive material
7 | P a g e
is necessary or desirable and considers the motives for the request may be to secure an improper
advantage in respect of these entities.
In accordance with section 7(1) of the LGOIMA, Watercare has considered whether there are other
considerations which render it in the public interest for the information you seek to be released.
Watercare does not accept that the potential detriment to Ghella Limited’s and Abergeldie Complex
Infrastructure Limited’s respective commercial positions is outweighed by public interest considerations (to
the extent that there are any) in the release of such highly sensitive confidential commercial information.
You have the right, under section 27 of the LGOIMA, to make a complaint to the Ombudsman about
Watercare’s decision to withhold this information.
10
Your request: Please advise the clause and framework used by GAH for escalations which limits
the risk to the GAH JV. Further to this, please advise how and what value the other three tenderers
allowed for escalations in their submissions? Furthermore, please advise why Watercare accepted
this escalation risk?
Watercare response: The Contract provides for a risk share approach to cost escalation between the
Contractor and Watercare. The Contract includes an escalation formula and escalation sums are calculated
in accordance with this formula. The Contractor wears escalation risk for a set period of time and then up
to a maximum threshold. The Contractor is not entitled to any cost adjustment until the combined
escalation sums exceed that threshold amount and then only to any amount above the threshold. The
threshold is set based on a higher than expected rate of building cost inflation.
Watercare accepted a shared risk approach to escalation because it was prudent and fiscally responsible to
do so. Without provision of an escalation adjustment, a contractor must make pricing allowances for the
risk of cost escalation occurring during the course of the contract period. This may result in a contractor
either over pricing this risk (meaning Watercare pays an inflated contract price for risk that may not
eventuate and may result in the contractor having an over recovery) or under-pricing this risk which may
result in reduced profitability for the contractor, or indeed significant losses. A contractor facing significant
losses on a complex project is not desirable and may not deliver on the outcomes Watercare’s customers
deserve.
Values and escalation allowances offered by the other three tenderers in their submissions will not be
disclosed by Watercare. The information you seek:
(a)
is confidential to the three other tenderers;
(b)
is likely to unreasonably prejudice the commercial positions of those tenderers; and
(c)
may be used for improper gain or improper advantage.
You are referred to sections 7(2)(b)(ii), 7(2)(c) and 7(2)(j) of the LGOIMA which are the grounds relied upon
by Watercare in refusing your request.
Commercial approaches surrounding escalation are highly commercially sensitive to tenderers and
especially so when cost escalation is a major issue in the current market. Approaches to escalation may be
a key differentiator in a competitive process. Given the sensitivity, public disclosure of these tenderers’
8 | P a g e
approaches to escalation would place them in a position of unreasonable prejudice and potential
commercial disadvantage.
In accordance with section 7(1) of the LGOIMA, Watercare has considered whether there are other
considerations which render it in the public interest for the information you seek to be released.
Watercare does not accept that the potential detriment to its other three tenderers is outweighed by
public interest considerations (to the extent that there are any) in the release of such highly sensitive
confidential commercial information.
Further, Watercare considers the release of such highly sensitive commercial information pertaining to
companies operating in highly competitive environments may be detrimental to the public interest as this
information could be used for improper gain or improper advantage as well as prejudicing the likelihood
that future tenderers will disclose critical pricing and risk approaches It is in the public interest that public
sector agencies have information available to them to undertake detailed analysis of tenders received so as
to enable them to undertake frank negotiations and discussions with tenderers surrounding key risks. Your
request jeopardises this.
You have the right, under section 27 of the LGOIMA, to make a complaint to the Ombudsman about
Watercare’s decision to withhold this information.
11
Your request: In section 3 of the Board paper from January to the Watercare board, it references
suitably of resources. Could these please be provided?
Watercare response: Watercare has interpreted your request as a reference to the section of the Board
report which refers to “Adequacy of resources” in a table on page 4 of the report and that you seek detail
of resourcing to be applied by the Contractor for the project.
Watercare will not be releasing the Contractor’s approach to resourcing for the Central Interceptor Project.
Watercare considers that release of such information:
(a)
would likely result in unreasonable prejudice to Ghella Limited’s and Abergeldie Complex
Infrastructure Limited’s commercial positions; and
(b)
may be used for improper gain or improper advantage.
You are referred to section 7(2)(b)(ii) and section 7(2)(j) of the LGOIMA which are the grounds relied upon
by Watercare in refusing your request.
Resourcing and a tenderer’s approach to resourcing is a key differentiator in a competitive process for
projects such as Central Interceptor or indeed any complex construction project. To disclose the
Contractor’s resourcing strategies to the public could unreasonably prejudice Ghella Limited and Abergeldie
Complex Infrastructure Limited and place their competitors in a position of improper advantage through
use and analysis of this information.
You have the right, under section 27 of the LGOIMA, to make a complaint to the Ombudsman about
Watercare’s decision to withhold this information.
9 | P a g e
12
Your request: In the Board paper from January to the Watercare board, it references GAH’s carries
the risk on tunnel spoil drying. Could GAH’s methodology please be provided to the general public
for viewing?
Watercare will not be releasing the Contractor’s spoil drying methodology for general public viewing.
Watercare considers that release of such information:
(a)
may disclose a trade secret;
(b)
is likely to unreasonably prejudice the commercial positions of Ghella Limited and Abergeldie
Complex Infrastructure Limited; and
(c)
may be used for improper gain or improper advantage.
You are referred to sections 7(2)(i), 7(2)(b)(ii) and 7(2)(j) of the Local Government Official Information and
Meetings Act 1987 which are the grounds relied upon by Watercare in refusing your request.
Spoil drying methodology is a critical part of a tunnelling contractor’s methodology and it can be key
differentiator in a competitive tendering process. Tunnelling contractors develop their spoil treatment
processes overtime and significant “know-how” and years of experience are employed in preparing
particular methodologies. The disclosure of the Contractor’s spoil drying methodology for the Central
Interceptor Project may result in the disclosure of this know-how which is unreasonably prejudicial to the
Contractor.
To disclose the Contractor’s spoil methodologies to the public could unreasonably prejudice Ghella Limited
and Abergeldie Complex Infrastructure Limited and place their competitors in a position of improper
advantage in subsequent competitive processes through use and analysis of this information.
You have the right, under section 27 of the LGOIMA, to make a complaint to the Ombudsman about
Watercare’s decision to withhold this information.
13
Your request: In the Board paper from January to the Watercare board, it states GAH’s submission
had several items from the sewer connections omitted. Please advise what these were and the value
this increased their tender submission?
Watercare response: Watercare will not be releasing details of the pricing omissions or associated value
increases. Watercare considers that the release of such detail is likely to unreasonably prejudice the
commercial positions of Ghella Limited and Abergeldie Complex Infrastructure Limited as it will disclose
detailed pricing information and pricing strategies as well as potential financial impacts of negotiations
undertaken between the parties.
You are referred to section 7(2)(b)(ii) of the LGOIMA which is the ground relied upon by Watercare in
refusing your request.
In accordance with section 7(1) of the LGOIMA, Watercare has considered whether there are other
considerations which render it in the public interest for the information you seek to be released.
Watercare does not accept that the potential detriment to Ghella Limited’s and Abergeldie Complex
10 | P a g e
Infrastructure Limited’s respective commercial positions is outweighed by other considerations which in
the public interest render it desirable to publically release such detailed pricing information.
14
Your request: Please advise the final contract sum with Ghella-Abergeldie?
Watercare response: The contract price accepted by Watercare for the Central Interceptor Project Main
Works Contract was $750,576,981 excluding GST.
15
Your request: Please advise the final contract sum with Ghella-Abergeldie Harker?
Watercare response: The answer is the same as for your request numbered 14 above. As advised above at
Request 1, Abergeldie Complex Infrastructure Limited and Abergeldie Harker Limited are the same entity –
just with a name change.
16
Your request: Please provide the tender prices from the other three tenderers and please state the
make up of these tenderers and their capacity?
The other tender prices received by Watercare from the other three tenderers were as follows:
$798,088,000 (excluding GST)
$814,427,979 (excluding GST)
$1,056,072,546 (excluding GST)
The other tenderers were (in alphabetical order and with no particular correlation to the pricing listed
above):
CPB Contractors Pty Limited
Pacific Network a joint venture consisting of McConnell Dowell Constructors Limited, The Fletcher
Construction Company Limited and Obayashi Corporation Limited
VINCI Joint Venture comprising VINCI Construction Grands Projets, Soletanche Bachy International
(New Zealand) Limited, Bessac and HEB Construction Limited
17
Your request: Please advise the price for the Grey Lynn tunnel and the other three tenderers price
for these additional works.
Watercare response: Watercare will not be releasing details of pricing for the Grey Lynn Tunnel either by
Ghella Limited and Abergeldie Complex Infrastructure Limited or by any of the other three tenderers. It is
confirmed that the accepted Contract Price includes the Grey Lynn Tunnel and all bidders included the Grey
Lynn Tunnel in their submitted price.
Detailed pricing information, such as any allowances or inclusions related to the Grey Lynn Tunnel, is of
significant commercial sensitivity to each of the bidders including the successful Contractor. Watercare
considers that the release of such detail is likely to unreasonably prejudice the commercial positions of
each bidder as it will disclose detailed pricing information, analysis of which may have an adverse effect on
them in future competitive processes.
11 | P a g e
You are referred to section 7(2)(b)(ii) of the LGOIMA which is the ground relied upon by Watercare in
refusing your request.
In accordance with section 7(1) of the LGOIMA, Watercare has considered whether there are other
considerations which render it in the public interest for the information you seek to be released.
Watercare does not accept that the potential detriment to each of the bidders’ respective commercial
positions is outweighed by other considerations which in the public interest render it desirable to publically
release such detailed commercial information.
You have the right, under section 27 of the LGOIMA, to make a complaint to the Ombudsman about
Watercare’s decision to withhold this information.
18
Your request: Please advise how liquidated damages could be applied to this JV and what the
dollar value is on daily liquidated damages against the JV?
The Contract provides for daily liquidated delay damages to be applied for failure to meet the Time for
Completion of Sections and the Works.
Watercare will not be disclosing the dollar value of these liquidated damages. The values are commercially
sensitive and correctly are not in the public domain. Further, disclosure of such sums may impact on the
Contractor’s ability to undertake its own negotiations with suppliers and subcontractors and therefore
unreasonably prejudice the commercial position of the Contractor.
You are referred to section 7(2)(b)(ii) of the LGOIMA which is the ground relied upon by Watercare in
refusing your request.
In accordance with section 7(1) of the LGOIMA, Watercare has considered whether there are other
considerations which render it in the public interest for the information you seek to be released.
Watercare does not accept that the potential detriment to the Contractor’s commercial position is
outweighed by other considerations which in the public interest render it desirable to publically release
such information.
You have the right, under section 27 of the LGOIMA, to make a complaint to the Ombudsman about
Watercare’s decision to withhold this information.
19
Your request: Please provide the contract construction programme for the central interceptor
project between Watercare and the Ghella-Abergeldie JV?
Watercare response: The Contract construction programme is a highly sensitive and sophisticated
proprietary document. Watercare will not be disclosing it.
Watercare considers that release of the programme may:
(b)
may disclose a trade secret;
12 | P a g e
(c)
is likely to unreasonably prejudice the commercial positions of Ghella Limited and Abergeldie
Complex Infrastructure Limited; and
(d)
may be used for improper advantage.
You are referred to sections 7(2)(i), 7(2)(b)(ii) and 7(2)(j) of the Local Government Official Information and
Meetings Act 1987 which are the grounds relied upon by Watercare in refusing your request.
Construction programming is a highly sophisticated process and includes sensitive proprietary information.
Disclosure of which may unreasonably prejudice the commercial position of Ghella Limited and Abergeldie
Complex Infrastructure Limited and may result in improper advantage through exploitation of this know-
how and information by their competitors.
Attached is a high level programme which shows key dates for the Project.
In accordance with section 7(1) of the LGOIMA, Watercare has considered whether there are other
considerations which render it in the public interest for the information you seek to be released.
Watercare does not accept that the potential detriment to the Contractor’s commercial position is
outweighed by other considerations which in the public interest render it desirable to publically release
such information.
You have the right, under section 27 of the LGOIMA, to make a complaint to the Ombudsman about
Watercare’s decision to withhold this information.
Further, we note that Watercare has separately responded to the request by ‘Iain S’ of the 6th of March.
That response has been uploaded to the FYI website which we understand you are familiar with.
Finally, as can be seen from the response to Requests 14 and 16, Watercare awarded the Central
Interceptor Main Works Contract to the lowest bidder by a significant margin. The Contractor was
appointed following a highly interactive process conducted under high levels of probity oversight by
Deloitte. Ghella Limited and Abergeldie Complex Infrastructure Limited have demonstrated to Watercare a
sound track record and the ability to deliver a project of such scale and complexity. The public know the
process undertaken was fair and equitable; how much is being spent; with whom and what the project
entails.
Yours sincerely
Rob Fisher
Company Secretary
Attachments:
Letter PwC dated 24 January 2019 to Shayne Cunis
Letter Simpson Grierson dated 23 January 2019 to Shayne Cunis
Letter Rider Levett Bucknall dated 23 January 2019 to Shayne Cunis
Email McRae Construction Services 22 January 2019 to Shayne Cunis
Letter Deloitte dated 27 November 2018 to Raveen Jaduram
High level programme for Central Interceptor Main Works Contract
13 | P a g e
