However, Price Water House ran into implementation difficulties and overran the $ 60m Budget assigned to the project. These difficulties were a direct result of their failure to develop the correct architecture the company need by evaluating what it has and then acquire them. It seems also that Price Water House lacked the technical expertise to take the project forward, in that several contingencies were made, including hardware and software that were not in the original budget.Sidney Water had carefully followed the tender process of selecting Price Water House as the winner but should have done background checks on its past performances with other companies. It should also have brought in IT experts within the organization, and externally, to timely perform Technical Proof Of Concept (TPOC) to help guide its decision in the correct direction.It seems Sidney Water was looking only at keeping the project cost below the budgeted and not at its feasibility. This is due to the fact that companies in a tender process will give information they cannot guarantee, in order to win bids, and they often hope the bid recipients will be impressed and make hastily uninformed decisions.The company after selecting Price Water House called in the company after three months to begin work, without visiting other facilities that had similar systems to see what levels of efficiency they were achieving and be able to make comparisons to its goals and objectives.Poor contract administration led to the transfer of responsibility for certain aspects of the project back to Sidney Water from Price Water House.