Heard of a $2.2k foldable bicycle?


Who's decision to make these extravagant purchases?

Who approved?

Who are the people who tender for the purchase contracts?

How were these tender's sought?

How many of such tenders were considered?

What were the factors and reasons for the decision upon going with the selected vendor instead of the rest?

Was the minister consulted before such decision was made?

Is there a need to buy 26 at one go?

Why not buy 6 first as trial run before considering to buy 26 if it works well?


Buy bicycle also consult minister, then buy plane must ask god liao.
 

airfins said:
I don't think that's true, what makes you think that Singaporean will complain when a cheaper bike was purchased? I for sure won't complain about that. Remember the thousand dollar chair case few years back? It's the case again of over spending on public money.

I for one wont complain if its much more affordable.

Think the bidding thing has to make a change la. Maybe the nxt time round la.
 

Last edited:
good news, they will spend another $2000 on video light,. on each each wheel

[video=youtube;mT13ZcpwYtA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mT13ZcpwYtA[/video]

it will display their logo on the wheels. cool
 

SINGAPORE: Police are looking for a man to assist with investigations into a case of bicycle theft at Block 979A Buangkok Crescent on June 5 this year.

The man is believed to be in his thirties and is of slim build with tanned complexion.

He was last seen in a white singlet, blue jeans, black shoes and white cap.

Anyone with information is requested to call the Police Hotline at 1800-255 0000.

All information will be kept strictly confidential.

- CNA/fa

wa, newspaper appeal. :sweat: wonder what brand is it? who bike is it? must be a serial bicycle theft!!! catch him and cane :sweat:
 

saying that we do nothing except complaining is also an act of complaining :sweat:

I am not complaining because I dun really bother if they pay $2.2 or $2.2k for a bicycle. What I am trying to say is that if you are unhappy about something, do something about it. If you don't wanna do anything, then don't complain.

An example.
A: "I have waited so long for the bus! %$#@%%^ Don't even know what took it so long for it to arrive!"
B: "You should send a complaint letter to the bus company."
A: "Don't want to. It's so troublesome."

Don't you guys find this so familiar.. :)
 

I am not complaining because I dun really bother if they pay $2.2 or $2.2k for a bicycle. What I am trying to say is that if you are unhappy about something, do something about it. If you don't wanna do anything, then don't complain.

An example.
A: "I have waited so long for the bus! %$#@%%^ Don't even know what took it so long for it to arrive!"
B: "You should send a complaint letter to the bus company."
A: "Don't want to. It's so troublesome."

Don't you guys find this so familiar.. :)

I tried that once and contacted SMRT.. they only give excuses without any intention of improving the service :dunno:
 

The TV news at 9.30pm on 13 July 2012 has something on this.
 

Definitely a poor use of public money.

An electric bike is <$1k and can even skip the MRT use.

My ~$300 Urata has lasted me at least 5yrs and seen a mileage of at least 80K per week for regular commute to work and excludes some weekend rides to photo locations. Its even been to overseas a couple of times.
I certainly take the ease of breakdown and maintenance argument with a pinch of salt.
Any servicing is a simple visit to the local bike shop and small adjustments are free (kam cheng service) or less than $8.

A lower end, but much better than my Urata, Dahon or Tern or Flamingo is only $600+ to $1300.
Brompton for what the NParks is using is a waste of money and overkill.
They don't need 9 speed, the high-end shifters nor high end wheels or slick tyres.
 

Last edited:
something seems to be stirring at some other local forum, with talks of 'investigative' work been done on this bidding exercise.

maybe there will be more eventful news coming at 9am?
 

I think the main issue here is not the $2.2K bike but the bidding exercise.

Recent cases of corruptions related to IT female executives and government officials show that there is a flaw.

For my company, anything above $2K need at least 2 quotations before the requester can submit the purchase request for Management approval.

With a flaw in the bidding process, it is possible for corruption to become widespread. Therefore, a review is necessary.
 

With a flaw in the bidding process, it is possible for corruption to become widespread. Therefore, a review is necessary.

Agreed that the flaw in the bidding process had to be address, but the problem is that given the flaw and the high price of the bike, our Minister see it fit to approve, give his mandate to the whole process and even justify the purchase. Now that is a bigger flaw!!!
 

There may be nothing wrong with the bidding process.

Unless, the bicycles that were delivered to them were Urata instead of Brompton.
 

Last edited:
Agreed that the flaw in the bidding process had to be address, but the problem is that given the flaw and the high price of the bike, our Minister see it fit to approve, give his mandate to the whole process and even justify the purchase. Now that is a bigger flaw!!!

They feel that nothing is wrong if they follow procedure and I have no doubt that they are following procedure but the procedure is wrong in the 1st place.
The minister is not wrong to approve the purchase because his staff have follow procedure but he is wrong in not seeing the flaw in the system.
 

i knew it! some IT Executive must be involved....

it must be this IT Executive:

m85at.jpg


:bsmilie:
 

n response to fervent online forum chatter in reference to the 26 Bromptons ordered by National Parks Board: almost all local bike companies do not follow Gebiz tenders as one would not expect government agencies to want to buy high-end bicycles for group use.

As the commodity indicated in the tender specs: a folding bike with 16 inch wheels is not a common commodity like tissue paper and pens, it would be fair to assume that Procurement/Purchasing would want to seek out the various players in the industry to ask them to consider bidding for their bulk purchase tenders, thus doing their due diligence.

NParks is aware that Diginexx is the authorized distributor that offers the 5-year warranty on the frame and 2-year warranty on parts. If it was really intended for local bike companies to tender for this bulk purchase, NParks would have been able to find through the various bids that there are likely cheaper alternatives to the Brompton and/or be able to receive a competitive price quote from Diginexx so that NParks can buy and save public money in the process.

In this case, no local bike companies was aware of this tender, and there was only one bidder.

And even if NParks had really specifically wanted just the Brompton for their usage, the model in question is a M6L.

A M6L retails at S$2250 per bike at Diginexx which will cover the 5-year frame warranty and 2-year warranty on parts.

In comparison, buying a total of 26 M6L Bromptons at $2200 per bike is unfortunately not a fair deal for NParks especially when the bikes come from a non-authorised reseller, which do not and cannot offer the official five-year frame warranty and two-year parts warranty.

As a result, the issue remains contentious as reflected in many forums such as mycarforum, hardwarezone and CNA forums.

Response by Diginexx, the authorized distributor
26 June 2012
Diginexx - Singapore's Only Folding Bike Specialists - Shopping/Retail - Singapore, Singapore | Facebook
 

Back
Top