NEA lost $680K selling scrap metal below market. CEO is ex-Admrial, surprised?

Papsmearer · Jul 16, 2015

Scrap metal price go up so much the last few years and the NEA continue to sell its steel scrap to the same contractor at the old price. And surprise surprise, CEO of NEA was a parachuted in Ex-Admiral Ronnie Tay. Another meritocracy appointment? I think not.

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT AGENCY

The AGO found that the NEA did not call revenue tenders for the sale of scrap steel recovered from three of its incineration plants when their agreements expired between 2006 and 2012. Instead, the agency continued to sell the steel scrap to the contractor based on the original contract price, but "there was no evidence that NEA had properly assessed whether the original contract price was still reasonable and fair", the AGO said.

Based on the AGO's checks on market prices, the AGO estimated a potential loss of revenue of S$680,000.

The NEA has since called a tender for the sale of steel scrap, which was awarded on Feb 11. It has also set up a central repository of contracts to track and ensure new tenders are called before the prior ones expire.

The AGO also found gaps in NEA's handling of its rat control programme. NEA's contractors were required to treat burrows in areas under NEA's charge and not those under other public agencies. As such, some burrows in public areas were left untreated. Over time, the number of burrows in several locations increased.

The AGO's report said NEA's current rat control programme as currently structured could result in higher overall cost of treating rat problems. The report also observed that the NEA did not actively follow up with public agencies on actions taken to treat the active burrows detected.

NEA said it would strengthen co-ordination with other public agencies to tackle the rat problem.

xpo2015 · Jul 16, 2015

Do I know you?

Are you the scrap metal seller from opposition?

Papsmearer · Jul 16, 2015

xpo2015 said:
Do I know you?

Are you the scrap metal seller from opposition?

NEA is the scrap metal seller, idiot.

tanakow · Jul 16, 2015

What fark does the AGO want? If NEA were to follow up and incur costs, what is to stop the farking AGO to flag that NEA should not follow up as it results in costs that NEA need not incur?

Whether NEA follows up or not is none of AGO farking business and not its mandate. AGO should stick to what it is supposed to do.

Papsmearer said:
The report also observed that the NEA did not actively follow up with public agencies on actions taken to treat the active burrows detected.

NEA said it would strengthen co-ordination with other public agencies to tackle the rat problem.

Papsmearer · Jul 16, 2015

tanakow said:
What fark does the AGO want? If NEA were to follow up and incur costs, what is to stop the farking AGO to flag that NEA should not follow up as it results in costs that NEA need not incur?

Whether NEA follows up or not is none of AGO farking business and not its mandate. AGO should stick to what it is supposed to do.

U need to go and study english because you did not understand the post I put up. basically, NEA had a contract to sell its scrap metal to a certain contractor. This contract was awarded fairly at that time the bids when out. When the contract expired, NEA should have called for a new bid and sell their scrap metal to the contractor with the highest bid. They did not do this. Instead, they continued to sell the metal to old contractor at the prices that were set under the old and now expired contract. Since the price of scrap metal has gone up drastically, by not getting new bids, NEA has lost $680K by giving the metal away too cheaply to the old contractor. If they had conducted a bidding process like they were supposed to, contractors would have bid a much higher price then under the old contract, simply because the price went up. They did 2 things wrong. They sold their scrap metal without a contract. And they took too little money for their scrap. Both against the govt policies and frankly ridiculously negligent.

kezgtree · Jul 16, 2015

Papsmearer said:
U need to go and study english because you did not understand the post I put up. basically, NEA had a contract to sell its scrap metal to a certain contractor. This contract was awarded fairly at that time the bids when out. When the contract expired, NEA should have called for a new bid and sell their scrap metal to the contractor with the highest bid. They did not do this. Instead, they continued to sell the metal to old contractor at the prices that were set under the old and now expired contract. Since the price of scrap metal has gone up drastically, by not getting new bids, NEA has lost $680K by giving the metal away too cheaply to the old contractor. If they had conducted a bidding process like they were supposed to, contractors would have bid a much higher price then under the old contract, simply because the price went up. They did 2 things wrong. They sold their scrap metal without a contract. And they took too little money for their scrap. Both against the govt policies and frankly ridiculously negligent.

Negligence....or there are more to meet the eye than such lapses...your guess is as good as mine

halsey02 · Jul 16, 2015

Papsmearer said:
U need to go and study english because you did not understand the post I put up. basically, NEA had a contract to sell its scrap metal to a certain contractor. This contract was awarded fairly at that time the bids when out. When the contract expired, NEA should have called for a new bid and sell their scrap metal to the contractor with the highest bid. They did not do this. Instead, they continued to sell the metal to old contractor at the prices that were set under the old and now expired contract. Since the price of scrap metal has gone up drastically, by not getting new bids, NEA has lost $680K by giving the metal away too cheaply to the old contractor. If they had conducted a bidding process like they were supposed to, contractors would have bid a much higher price then under the old contract, simply because the price went up. They did 2 things wrong. They sold their scrap metal without a contract. And they took too little money for their scrap. Both against the govt policies and frankly ridiculously negligent.

Those 'involved' help to 'cover' $680,000 or more..."kawan-ku"....the incinerator plants, recycling plants etc...at Tuas; there is no corruption, most likely went for "makan" just crossing the CIQ in Johor....a lot of "seafood" & other "makan", even "massages" for more than $680,000 ( sing jia por dollars)...ha ha ha ha :biggrin:

tanakow · Jul 16, 2015

I will address the English part later. But first my posting was referring to the part that
"The report also observed that the NEA did not actively follow up with public agencies on actions taken to treat the active burrows detected."

It is none of AGO's business whether NEA coordinated with other public agencies or not; although it should. AGO's mandate is to ensure that processes are followed.

Talking about English, your reply contained a lot of English mistakes. It is not "english" but "English". basically should be "Basically". And is NEA singular or plural; make up your mind. And so on. Please don't ask people to go and study english (as how you wrote) when your command of English is just as bad.

Papsmearer said:
U need to go and study english because you did not understand the post I put up. basically, NEA had a contract to sell its scrap metal to a certain contractor. This contract was awarded fairly at that time the bids when out. When the contract expired, NEA should have called for a new bid and sell their scrap metal to the contractor with the highest bid. They did not do this. Instead, they continued to sell the metal to old contractor at the prices that were set under the old and now expired contract. Since the price of scrap metal has gone up drastically, by not getting new bids, NEA has lost $680K by giving the metal away too cheaply to the old contractor. If they had conducted a bidding process like they were supposed to, contractors would have bid a much higher price then under the old contract, simply because the price went up. They did 2 things wrong. They sold their scrap metal without a contract. And they took too little money for their scrap. Both against the govt policies and frankly ridiculously negligent.

Papsmearer · Jul 16, 2015

tanakow said:
I will address the English part later. But first my posting was referring to the part that
"The report also observed that the NEA did not actively follow up with public agencies on actions taken to treat the active burrows detected."

It is none of AGO's business whether NEA coordinated with other public agencies or not; although it should. AGO's mandate is to ensure that processes are followed.

Talking about English, your reply contained a lot of English mistakes. It is not "english" but "English". basically should be "Basically". And is NEA singular or plural; make up your mind. And so on. Please don't ask people to go and study english (as how you wrote) when your command of English is just as bad.

Once again, you read the report but don't understand anything. That is why I question your command of english. The AGO ask NEA to follow up with other agencies on the rat control programme because just exterminating the rats in NEA's area means nothing when the other public agencies don't do the same. The rats from public areas will simply return and repopulate the NEA's areas. The end result will be that NEA has to spend more money on another rat extermination programme later on. Its better for NEA to co-ordinate with the public agencies and kill the rats in all areas, not just those under the NEA's care. The report clearly states that after NEA treated the rat burrows in their areas, the number of burrows in public areas not under NEA control increased. Therefore, NEA should have informed the public agencies to expect increase rat burrows and activities in their areas caused by the rats fleeing the NEA areas. By not doing so, they passed the problem on to the public agencies and it will result in the rats repopulating their areas. In other words, no one at NEA has a brain.

jw5 · Jul 16, 2015

Never mind lah. It must be that the people at NEA only collect the scrap steel for exercise, leisure, or extra pocket money. They do not feel any need to sell the steel at the best price whatsoever, since they actually enjoy collecting the scrap metal. :rolleyes:

Unrepented · Jul 16, 2015

Come to think of it:(......actually NEA has met its basic mission objective, did a very good job by making sure our environment is not littered by scrap metal which could endanger the lives of the general public...someone could have tripped and hurt themselves by rust scrap metal.:o

jw5 said:
Never mind lah. It must be that the people at NEA only collect the scrap steel for exercise, leisure, or extra pocket money. They do not feel any need to sell the steel at the best price whatsoever, since they actually enjoy collecting the scrap metal.

Confuseous · Jul 16, 2015

Anyone with a bit of cow sense will know that you CANNOT call for a "tender" in such a manner.
Each lot should be tendered out separately, BY THE LOT, not by a fixed tenure.

jw5 · Jul 16, 2015

Absolutely agree and I am with you on this. :wink:

And the best part is that they actually enjoy collecting the scrap metal. So everybody wins!!! :biggrin:

Unrepented said:
Come to think of it:(......actually NEA has met its basic mission objective, did a very good job by making sure our environment is not littered by scrap metal which could endanger the lives of the general public...someone could have tripped and hurt themselves by rust scrap metal.:o

Unrepented · Jul 16, 2015

At source and onsite weight must tally, and each lot the metal all different, each lot must invite buyer come look see look see and bid. These white affiliates are just plain lazy with no body else interest at heart nor place any pride in their work.

Maybe they give scrap metal collectors a chance to exercise and pass time.

Confuseous said:
Anyone with a bit of cow sense will know that you CANNOT call for a "tender" in such a manner.
Each lot should be tendered out separately, BY THE LOT, not by a fixed tenure.

Cerebral · Jul 16, 2015

Papsmearer said:
Scrap metal price go up so much the last few years and the NEA continue to sell its steel scrap to the same contractor at the old price. And surprise surprise, CEO of NEA was a parachuted in Ex-Admiral Ronnie Tay. Another meritocracy appointment? I think not.

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT AGENCY

The AGO found that the NEA did not call revenue tenders for the sale of scrap steel recovered from three of its incineration plants when their agreements expired between 2006 and 2012. Instead, the agency continued to sell the steel scrap to the contractor based on the original contract price, but "there was no evidence that NEA had properly assessed whether the original contract price was still reasonable and fair", the AGO said.

Based on the AGO's checks on market prices, the AGO estimated a potential loss of revenue of S$680,000.

The NEA has since called a tender for the sale of steel scrap, which was awarded on Feb 11. It has also set up a central repository of contracts to track and ensure new tenders are called before the prior ones expire.

The AGO also found gaps in NEA's handling of its rat control programme. NEA's contractors were required to treat burrows in areas under NEA's charge and not those under other public agencies. As such, some burrows in public areas were left untreated. Over time, the number of burrows in several locations increased.

The AGO's report said NEA's current rat control programme as currently structured could result in higher overall cost of treating rat problems. The report also observed that the NEA did not actively follow up with public agencies on actions taken to treat the active burrows detected.

NEA said it would strengthen co-ordination with other public agencies to tackle the rat problem.

Prices of steel has fallen so much. Now call tender for fuck

eatshitndie · Jul 16, 2015

Cerebral said:
Prices of steel has fallen so much. Now call tender for fuck

it's costing scrap metal dealers more to haul, store, recycle and process scrap metal these days. in the bay area, rent (for space) alone is the main issue. in sg, there's no luxury of space to hoard scrap. the only silver lining is the state and county encourage recycling and use taxpayer money to fund "redemption value" of scrap, e.g. aluminum cans. without subsidies and incentives by gov, these scrap dealers would not want to be in the business. only tiongs will be enterprising enough to ship all scrap to china for recycling. china is becoming the scrap heap for the world's metallic trash. no wonder it's so polluted there.

winnipegjets · Jul 16, 2015

tanakow said:
What fark does the AGO want? If NEA were to follow up and incur costs, what is to stop the farking AGO to flag that NEA should not follow up as it results in costs that NEA need not incur?

Whether NEA follows up or not is none of AGO farking business and not its mandate. AGO should stick to what it is supposed to do.

Do you tell the auditors the same thing?

NEA should be investigated for possible corruption. PWC partners should be called in. More money is involved here than the WP TC issue.

tanakow · Jul 16, 2015

You dont seem to read my message. I am questioning why AGO strayed into area not within their scope.

By the way, you have not replied on the three English errors you have made.

Papsmearer said:
Once again, you read the report but don't understand anything. That is why I question your command of english. The AGO ask NEA to follow up with other agencies on the rat control programme because just exterminating the rats in NEA's area means nothing when the other public agencies don't do the same. The rats from public areas will simply return and repopulate the NEA's areas. The end result will be that NEA has to spend more money on another rat extermination programme later on. Its better for NEA to co-ordinate with the public agencies and kill the rats in all areas, not just those under the NEA's care. The report clearly states that after NEA treated the rat burrows in their areas, the number of burrows in public areas not under NEA control increased. Therefore, NEA should have informed the public agencies to expect increase rat burrows and activities in their areas caused by the rats fleeing the NEA areas. By not doing so, they passed the problem on to the public agencies and it will result in the rats repopulating their areas. In other words, no one at NEA has a brain.

Hans168 · Jul 17, 2015

Papsmearer said:
Scrap metal price go up so much the last few years and the NEA continue to sell its steel scrap to the same contractor at the old price. And surprise surprise, CEO of NEA was a parachuted in Ex-Admiral Ronnie Tay. Another meritocracy appointment? I think not.

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT AGENCY

The AGO found that the NEA did not call revenue tenders for the sale of scrap steel recovered from three of its incineration plants when their agreements expired between 2006 and 2012. Instead, the agency continued to sell the steel scrap to the contractor based on the original contract price, but "there was no evidence that NEA had properly assessed whether the original contract price was still reasonable and fair", the AGO said.

Based on the AGO's checks on market prices, the AGO estimated a potential loss of revenue of S$680,000.

The NEA has since called a tender for the sale of steel scrap, which was awarded on Feb 11. It has also set up a central repository of contracts to track and ensure new tenders are called before the prior ones expire.

The AGO also found gaps in NEA's handling of its rat control programme. NEA's contractors were required to treat burrows in areas under NEA's charge and not those under other public agencies. As such, some burrows in public areas were left untreated. Over time, the number of burrows in several locations increased.

The AGO's report said NEA's current rat control programme as currently structured could result in higher overall cost of treating rat problems. The report also observed that the NEA did not actively follow up with public agencies on actions taken to treat the active burrows detected.

NEA said it would strengthen co-ordination with other public agencies to tackle the rat problem.

IN GE THERE was a purchasing mgr who was on the take selling scrap cheap cheap &but was sent back to HQ
Anohter, a local, made enuf & retired to Oz busy counting his money........... Albert?

Confuseous · Jul 17, 2015

Unrepented said:
At source and onsite weight must tally, and each lot the metal all different, each lot must invite buyer come look see look see and bid. These white affiliates are just plain lazy with no body else interest at heart nor place any pride in their work.

Maybe they give scrap metal collectors a chance to exercise and pass time.

Actually the weighing needs to be done only at the scrap heap site, when the lorry pauses at the weighing scale.
The total weight minus the weight of the lorry equals the amount of scrap for the particular lorry.
If there was nobody at that stage, this would be another level of "lapse".

NEA lost $680K selling scrap metal below market. CEO is ex-Admrial, surprised?

Alfrescian (InfP) - Comp

Alfrescian

Alfrescian (InfP) - Comp

Alfrescian

Alfrescian (InfP) - Comp

Alfrescian

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian

Alfrescian (InfP) - Comp

Moderator

Alfrescian

Alfrescian (Inf)

Moderator

Alfrescian

Alfrescian (InfP) [Comp]

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian (Inf)

Similar threads