And the explanation for how it happened is far from clear or convincing on the part of the NSW government, particularly how it was decided whom would be awarded the contract. In particular, how was Vision Australia selected; was it one of the original tenderers; and if so how was it able to submit a revised tender to the satisfaction of the government when other tenderers were not permitted to do so? Furthermore, did the successful tenderer even submit the same tender as it had before, with just a little tweaking, or was it a completely-brand-new tender; and if so, why were others not invited to submit new tenders?
All that has been stated (by a press officer at the Department of Family and Community Affairs) is that “an open tender was conducted by the department to identify a provider for the program and that despite receiving a number of applications, the tender assessment panel was unable to identify a provider meeting the tender assessment criteria. FACS subsequently followed NSW government procurent processes which has led to contracting Vision Australia to commence as a program provider from 1 July 2014.”
At press time, even some providers near or at the top of the tree had not signed up for the new program as they were not willing to participate due to uncertainty about how the program will work or the conditions danded by Vision Australia.
Eyerising International addresses ‘limitations’ of red light study suggesting reduced cone density
The inventor of the Eyerising International repeated low-level red light (RLRL) therapy for myopia, Professor Mingguang He, has outlined “notable...
