Society challenges tender process, council responds

• Published date: 15 September 2021
• Publication title: Kapiti News

■ This is the Kāpiti Improvement Society press release, which had Sharon Hunter as the point of contact, with a headline: Mayor and council bulldoze through the Gateway!

The tender process for the gateway must be stopped immediately. The Kapiti Improvement Society (KIS), representing over 3000 petitioners opposing the Gateway (Te Uruhi), is shocked and dismayed to see that the Kāpiti Coast District Council has thrown away the rulebook and has let tenders for the Kāpiti Gateway. The mayor and six councillors have decided to steamroll this project and are defying legal requirements. This is an appalling abuse of process.

We have been advised the RMA (Resource Management Act) consent should come first.

Council has put the cart before the horse. Council seems to be trying to coerce and influence the independent assessor to approve the application. What chance is there that council’s regulatory services department will turn down an application after council has already started tender work and working drawings? Council has spent over 18 months trying to get this project approved, that has multiple problems with non-compliance issues within the Operative District Plan and the Reserves Act.

We urgently request that our elected representatives step in and stop this tender process immediately.

By starting the project the council is forcing its regulatory services department to grant consent. In other words the whole consenting process has been corrupted by council’s actions.

There is a second major problem. The council press release says: “Council is using an Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) agreement which involves the preferred contractor providing constructability and innovation advice into the detailed design process.” It would appear council has already chosen, without any competitive tender the building contractor.

We have obtained advice from experts. They say the ECI has four major problems:

1. There is no fixed price so the costs can soar exactly like the aquatic centre did. It went from $6 million to $22 million.

2. It is non-competitive so the price can go as high as the parties agree.

3. It requires high-quality management and oversight by council. The aquatic centre blowout, the closure of the Waikanae library for failed management, and closure of the community centre reflect levels of incompetence that should preclude council from even considering using this type of contract.

4. It is only suitable for large-scale projects, and this is not one.

...