Randall Dutaillis Architects has missed out on tenders for stage one designs of the aquatic centre, the Rocky Hill museum extension and the performing arts centre. While owner Andrew Randall accepts the reasons for the latter, he says he has many questions about the others.

In the pool’s case, “I don’t think the evaluation panel has looked at our tender with enough rigour,” he told the Post.

”We put together a team that can do the job equally as well as anyone else and I felt the panel didn’t do their due diligence.”

Council general manager Warwick Bennett has rejected this, saying it was a rigorous process that involved deeper investigation when it was clear there were two “serious contenders”.

Mr Randall addressed councillors before Tuesday night’s meeting, pushing his firm’s credentials for the aquatic centre’s upgrade. It came before they considered a report recommending that dwp Australia receive the design tender. The company, based in Melbourne, with a head office and ownership in Bangkok, tendered $1,448,060 for the work, including $222, 882 for design attendance during construction. It brought the design price to $1,222,168. The firm is partnering with Canberra architecture consultancy Clarke Keller.

In 2016, HM Leisure had engaged dwp to prepare the concept plan for the centre’s three-stage redevelopment.

Stage one work includes a new 10-lane, 25-metre indoor pool, refurbishment of the existing 25m pool, a new leisure pool, new change rooms, a new entrance foyer, reception, administration area, cafe, new pool hall and more.

Nine firms tendered for the design and DA preparation. Randall Dutaillis and joint venture partner Facility Design Group’s price was $1,289,563, including $187,341 for design attendance during construction. The actual design price was therefore $1,102,222.

The panel evaluated tenders based on non-price criteria, such as previous experience, (given a 60 per cent weighting) and price (40pc weighting). While Randall Dutaillis scored better (100pc) on price, it was marked down on experience, according to a report to Tuesday’s council meeting. Only 1.6pc separated the pair and at this point the panel carried out “a more detailed assessment”.

“Many of the example projects submitted in RDA’s offer are refurbishment projects rather than full-scale redevelopments,” the panel concluded.

“Their redevelopment project examples are generally of a smaller scale than that proposed for this work. The panel believes that proceeding with RDA’s offer over dwp would present higher risk considering the differing levels of experience with major aquatic centres.”

They said dwp was recognised as an “aquatic industry leader”. The firm was duly selected.

But during his open forum address, Mr Randall said the panel’s conclusion was “speculation”.

“Facility Design Group is  a known specialist in aquatic centres and sports facilities,” he said.

“FDG has completed more aquatic centres in NSW than any other design firm during the past 19 years.

“Our submission provided example projects that reflect the brief provided; that is, a redevelopment that incorporates existing resources.

“The examples include greenfield sites and full scale redevelopments. The majority of the (23) projects presented as examples are new builds.”

One of these was the $9m Moss Vale aquatic centre. Mr Randall told the Post that Facility Design had also completed aquatic centres at Lithgow ($8.9m), Ryde and Narrabri ($4.7m), among others.

“We do not consider our bid to be higher risk,” Mr Randall said, noting the architectural and construction experience.

He told councillors that his joint venture could service the project from a local base “unlike any other company”.

But staff recommended that dwp be selected. The item was listed for open discussion at Tuesday’s meeting. However, Mr Bennett asked that it be deferred, pending discussions in closed session due to “legal issues” that had arisen. The matter only returned to open council for the decision and there was no discussion, Mr Bennett said. Councillors unanimously chose dwp. The media was not advised the matter had returned to open session.

Asked about the legal point after the meeting, Mr Bennett said councillors had to decide whether one tenderer had been given an unfair advantage by addressing open forum. They concluded he had not.

Mr Bennett stood by the decision, saying dwp offered “better opportunities and options.”

He said the panel thoroughly explored previous experience, especially given the closeness of the two tenders.

“They visited a number of sites, including the Moss Vale pool,” he said.

“Secondly, the panel can only assess the information provided and if it is not complete and thorough enough, it is not their role to seek it. However, because this was a significantly large project, the panel did go and look at sites completed by the two lead tenderers being seriously considered.” 

He described suggestions that the council had a bias against local firms for large projects, as a “subjective argument” and “unfair criticism”.

“We’ve used local architects before on many projects,” Mr Bennett said.

Mayor Bob Kirk told the Post he was “absolutely comfortable” with dwp’s selection. He said the council had learnt a lot from the Veolia Arena tender controversy and there wouldn’t be a person “game to step outside” the revamped guidelines. 

“Based on experience, price, practicality and expertise, I support the selection and I put great store in the processes put in place,” he said.

The mayor said the company had undertaken a number of community aquatic and sporting centre projects around the country, delivering 60 aquatic facility projects over 30 years, including the award winning Noble Park Aquatic Centre.

“They are a company who has had immense success in the design industry, particularly in community facilities such as this.

“This is a once in a lifetime chance to ensure the facility caters for the region properly for the next 50 years.”

The aquatic centre was constructed in the 1950s. A 2016 study commissioned by the council identified the scale and nature of redevelopment necessary to meet community needs.