Dow Olympic Wrap 'Sold off to Private Sector'
Difficult Questions from Barry Gardiner MP
A year on from the London Olympics and questions have been asked regarding Dow's 'sustainable' London Olympic stadium wrap.
Dow had arrived, like a knight in shining armour, to provide this plastic wrap to the London Games organisers.
The Sunday Express reports: "Locog always insisted it ran a fair and rigorous tender process for the wrap but some MPs believed it had been influenced by the International Olympic Committee's decision to sign a lucrative partnership agreement with Dow earlier in 2011."
Barry Gardiner MP posed some extremely serious questions at a Parliamentary Adjournment debate and went on to suggest that the whole procurement process had been rigged in favour of Dow:
"Let me be clear. I believe that the government quite properly wished to achieve savings in the cost of the Olympic Games. I also believe that Dow Chemicals was putting pressure on the IOC to find a way for it to become a key sponsor with "sector exclusive marketing rights" for the London Games. I believe that LOCOG wished to assist the IOC in this endeavour and therefore suggested that £7million could be saved by taking the wrap away from Architen Landrell and procuring it under a sponsorship deal from Dow. I believe the government knew that a sponsorship deal was being negotiated and were content to collude with the IOC and LOCOG to facilitate a major IOC sponsor and to pretend to the public that in doing so they were achieving a saving of £7million. In short the procurement process was rigged in favour of Dow Chemicals. It was a sham."
"Sadly LOCOG is a private organisation that is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. On the 18th of December Last year I wrote to Lord Coe as Chairman of LOCOG asking many of the above questions and many more. To date he has not seen fit to answer them."
The Sunday Express also asked a couple of pointed questions regarding Dow's post-games 'legacy' use of the wrap.
Some of the material is being donated to a charity but nobody seems to wish to explain why ALL of it should not have been donated to charity.
More from Barry Gardiner MP below here and please see also 'Trial by Jeory':
http://trialbyjeory.wordpress.com/
Barry Gardiner MP in Parliament, Tuesday 21 February 2012:
"First then I will raise my concerns about the chronology, openness and transparency of the Olympic wrap procurement process. It is my understanding that just three months after Dow was confirmed as an official partner of the International Olympic Committee, LOCOG chose the Olympic Stadium wrap as one of the areas of the Olympic budget to be cut.
"Now I accept that this was a perfectly proper response to the Spending Review; however, reports from LOCOG at the time put the estimated savings from the Wrap at seven million pounds. It was also reported at the time by the tenacious Sunday Express Journalist, Ted Jeory, that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sports, had been informed that finding a private sector partner for the wrap was highly likely.
"We now know from Architen Landrell, a UK company based in Chepstow, that they had been appointed under a tier 3 contract by Sir Robert McAlpine, the main contractor for the stadium construction. They had been asked to produce eight test panels and to give a final costing for the stadium wrap, which they did at a price of approximately £1.5million.
"Two questions arise out of this:
"Why did the Secretary of State believe that it was highly likely that a private sponsor would be found for the stadium wrap?
"And
"Why was the figure of £7million given to the media as the projected saving, when the actual saving was known to be only £1.5million?
"On February the 8th 2011 it was reported that the tendering process for a company to sponsor the Wrap would go ahead, with expressions of interest due by February 18th. Clearly this was an extraordinarily short period of time in which to source a major supplier. The public might consider it inconceivable that only 10 days were allowed for such a major tender, unless there had been clear and ongoing discussions with potential partners prior to the announcement.
"In a recent response to a written question to the department I was told that the shortest period of time DCMS had allowed in the previous 12 months for any tender where the contractor would be paid over £1million was 28 days. Yet LOCOG allowed only 10 days for someone to bid to pay a sum publicly estimated at £7million to sponsor the wrap.
"Does the Minister think that LOCOG would have set the tender window at a mere 10days if Dow Chemicals Ltd had not already been lined up as a sponsor?
"In his letter to GLA Member Darren Johnson, Lord Coe said that government took the decision to ditch the wrap in order to achieve the announced saving.
"This prompts several further questions:
"What discussions did DCMS, ODA and LOCOG have about the decision to put the wrap up for sponsorship?
"Did the International Olympic Committee put any pressure on LOCOG to provide a niche for DOW as a sponsor of the London Games?
"If the government simply wanted to achieve savings over the original budget, why did it not press on with the Architen Landrell wrap which would have shown a saving of £5.5million against the original budget and given the project to a British company?
"The ODA Procurement Policy for the Olympics states:
"As a public body the ODA is required to operate in the procurement framework set out by European Union Procurement Legislation and UK Regulations."
"Was this the reason that the procurement of the wrap was passed from ODA to LOCOG – because LOCOG is not a public but a private body and therefore was not obliged to follow the standard EU and UK Procurement rules?
"Another company, the Nottingham Textile Company are adamant that they submitted an expression of interest before the deadline on February 18th. They heard nothing for a long time and eventually inquired why they had received no response. This company was told by LOCOG that their submission had been "too late".
"Will the Minister undertake to check the date on which Nottigham Textile Company's submission was received by LOCOG and whether it was in time or not?
"Let me be clear. I believe that the government quite properly wished to achieve savings in the cost of the Olympic Games. I also believe that Dow Chemicals was putting pressure on the IOC to find a way for it to become a key sponsor with "sector exclusive marketing rights" for the London Games. I believe that LOCOG wished to assist the IOC in this endeavour and therefore suggested that £7million could be saved by taking the wrap away from Architen Landrell and procuring it under a sponsorship deal from Dow. I believe the government knew that a sponsorship deal was being negotiated and were content to collude with the IOC and LOCOG to facilitate a major IOC sponsor and to pretend to the public that in doing so they were achieving a saving of £7million. In short the procurement process was rigged in favour of Dow Chemicals. It was a sham.
"Sadly LOCOG is a private organisation that is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. On the 18th of December Last year I wrote to Lord Coe as Chairman of LOCOG asking many of the above questions and many more. To date he has not seen fit to answer them."
Difficult Questions from Barry Gardiner MP
A year on from the London Olympics and questions have been asked regarding Dow's 'sustainable' London Olympic stadium wrap.
Dow had arrived, like a knight in shining armour, to provide this plastic wrap to the London Games organisers.
The Sunday Express reports: "Locog always insisted it ran a fair and rigorous tender process for the wrap but some MPs believed it had been influenced by the International Olympic Committee's decision to sign a lucrative partnership agreement with Dow earlier in 2011."
Barry Gardiner MP posed some extremely serious questions at a Parliamentary Adjournment debate and went on to suggest that the whole procurement process had been rigged in favour of Dow:
"Let me be clear. I believe that the government quite properly wished to achieve savings in the cost of the Olympic Games. I also believe that Dow Chemicals was putting pressure on the IOC to find a way for it to become a key sponsor with "sector exclusive marketing rights" for the London Games. I believe that LOCOG wished to assist the IOC in this endeavour and therefore suggested that £7million could be saved by taking the wrap away from Architen Landrell and procuring it under a sponsorship deal from Dow. I believe the government knew that a sponsorship deal was being negotiated and were content to collude with the IOC and LOCOG to facilitate a major IOC sponsor and to pretend to the public that in doing so they were achieving a saving of £7million. In short the procurement process was rigged in favour of Dow Chemicals. It was a sham."
"Sadly LOCOG is a private organisation that is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. On the 18th of December Last year I wrote to Lord Coe as Chairman of LOCOG asking many of the above questions and many more. To date he has not seen fit to answer them."
The Sunday Express also asked a couple of pointed questions regarding Dow's post-games 'legacy' use of the wrap.
Some of the material is being donated to a charity but nobody seems to wish to explain why ALL of it should not have been donated to charity.
More from Barry Gardiner MP below here and please see also 'Trial by Jeory':
http://trialbyjeory.wordpress.com/
Barry Gardiner MP in Parliament, Tuesday 21 February 2012:
"First then I will raise my concerns about the chronology, openness and transparency of the Olympic wrap procurement process. It is my understanding that just three months after Dow was confirmed as an official partner of the International Olympic Committee, LOCOG chose the Olympic Stadium wrap as one of the areas of the Olympic budget to be cut.
"Now I accept that this was a perfectly proper response to the Spending Review; however, reports from LOCOG at the time put the estimated savings from the Wrap at seven million pounds. It was also reported at the time by the tenacious Sunday Express Journalist, Ted Jeory, that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sports, had been informed that finding a private sector partner for the wrap was highly likely.
"We now know from Architen Landrell, a UK company based in Chepstow, that they had been appointed under a tier 3 contract by Sir Robert McAlpine, the main contractor for the stadium construction. They had been asked to produce eight test panels and to give a final costing for the stadium wrap, which they did at a price of approximately £1.5million.
"Two questions arise out of this:
"Why did the Secretary of State believe that it was highly likely that a private sponsor would be found for the stadium wrap?
"And
"Why was the figure of £7million given to the media as the projected saving, when the actual saving was known to be only £1.5million?
"On February the 8th 2011 it was reported that the tendering process for a company to sponsor the Wrap would go ahead, with expressions of interest due by February 18th. Clearly this was an extraordinarily short period of time in which to source a major supplier. The public might consider it inconceivable that only 10 days were allowed for such a major tender, unless there had been clear and ongoing discussions with potential partners prior to the announcement.
"In a recent response to a written question to the department I was told that the shortest period of time DCMS had allowed in the previous 12 months for any tender where the contractor would be paid over £1million was 28 days. Yet LOCOG allowed only 10 days for someone to bid to pay a sum publicly estimated at £7million to sponsor the wrap.
"Does the Minister think that LOCOG would have set the tender window at a mere 10days if Dow Chemicals Ltd had not already been lined up as a sponsor?
"In his letter to GLA Member Darren Johnson, Lord Coe said that government took the decision to ditch the wrap in order to achieve the announced saving.
"This prompts several further questions:
"What discussions did DCMS, ODA and LOCOG have about the decision to put the wrap up for sponsorship?
"Did the International Olympic Committee put any pressure on LOCOG to provide a niche for DOW as a sponsor of the London Games?
"If the government simply wanted to achieve savings over the original budget, why did it not press on with the Architen Landrell wrap which would have shown a saving of £5.5million against the original budget and given the project to a British company?
"The ODA Procurement Policy for the Olympics states:
"As a public body the ODA is required to operate in the procurement framework set out by European Union Procurement Legislation and UK Regulations."
"Was this the reason that the procurement of the wrap was passed from ODA to LOCOG – because LOCOG is not a public but a private body and therefore was not obliged to follow the standard EU and UK Procurement rules?
"Another company, the Nottingham Textile Company are adamant that they submitted an expression of interest before the deadline on February 18th. They heard nothing for a long time and eventually inquired why they had received no response. This company was told by LOCOG that their submission had been "too late".
"Will the Minister undertake to check the date on which Nottigham Textile Company's submission was received by LOCOG and whether it was in time or not?
"Let me be clear. I believe that the government quite properly wished to achieve savings in the cost of the Olympic Games. I also believe that Dow Chemicals was putting pressure on the IOC to find a way for it to become a key sponsor with "sector exclusive marketing rights" for the London Games. I believe that LOCOG wished to assist the IOC in this endeavour and therefore suggested that £7million could be saved by taking the wrap away from Architen Landrell and procuring it under a sponsorship deal from Dow. I believe the government knew that a sponsorship deal was being negotiated and were content to collude with the IOC and LOCOG to facilitate a major IOC sponsor and to pretend to the public that in doing so they were achieving a saving of £7million. In short the procurement process was rigged in favour of Dow Chemicals. It was a sham.
"Sadly LOCOG is a private organisation that is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. On the 18th of December Last year I wrote to Lord Coe as Chairman of LOCOG asking many of the above questions and many more. To date he has not seen fit to answer them."
No comments:
Post a Comment