[Peetwo]

From the ANAO & 'that man again'...

Finally from off the ANAO website:

Airservices Australia's Procurement of the International Centre for Complex Project Management to Assist with the OneSKY Australia Project

Portfolio: Infrastructure and Regional Development

Agencies involved: Airservices Australia

Audit Objective: To examine whether Airservices Australia has effective procurement arrangements in place, with a particular emphasis on whether consultancy contracts entered into with ICCPM in association with the OneSKY Australia project were effectively administered.Due to Table:Autumn 2016

Apparently we (the IOS) can even put in our 2 bobs worth:

Contributions to the 'Airservices Australia's Procurement of the International Centre for Complex Project Management to Assist with the OneSKY Australia Project' audit in progress

Airservices’ ‘dodgy dealings’ under watchdog probe  

• by: EAN HIGGINS
  
• From: The Australian
  
• October 16, 2015 12:00AM
  

Reporter




Airservices Australia’s acting chief executive Jason Harfield. Source: News Limited

The government watchdog which investigates public spending has confirmed it has launched a special probe into Airservices Australia and says it will focus on what has been described as “dodgy” and “incestuous” dealings with an obscure “not-for-profit” organisation.  

The move comes as speculation mounts in aviation circles that the Airservices board and Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss, whose portfolio covers aviation, are leaning towards appointing acting chief executive Jason Harfield to the position permanently.

As revealed last month, the Australian National Audit Office will investigate Airservices following reports in The Australian and Senate committee hearings, which raised serious questions about the organisation’s governance.

The ANAO has confirmed on its website that the investigation is under way. It will be specifically directed at Airservices’ dealings with the International Centre for Complex Project Management over the $1.5 billion OneSKY program which will integrate the nation’s civil and military air traffic control and navigation systems.

The ANAO website says the investigation’s objective is: “To examine whether Airservices Australia has effective procurement arrangements in place, with a particular emphasis on whether consultancy contracts entered into with ICCPM in association with the OneSKY Australia project were effectively administered.”

The move follows an urgent request from the Senate rural and regional affairs and transport legislation committee.

A Senate committee hearing in August heard that ICCPM managing director Deborah Hein is the wife of Steve Hein, who worked for ICCPM until hired by Airservices in a senior managerial role. One contract Airservices struck with ICCPM was processed by Mr Hein.

Senators also expressed incredulity that Airservices had hired an ICCPM consultant, Harry Bradford, to negotiate on its behalf with the prime contractor on the OneSKY project, aerospace group Thales Australia, when the managing director of Thales, Chris Jenkins, is also the chairman of ICCPM.

“The perception of conflict of interest is all over this,” Labor senator Joe Bullock told the hearing, while the committee chairman, Liberal Bill Heffernan, said the dealings were “incestuous” and would “not pass the public test … it sounds dodgy”.

Mr Bradford, who has been paid more than $1 million by Airservices thus far, is a former RAAF officer.

On its website, ICCPM describes itself as “an independent, international, not-for-profit organisation that would support both government and industry’s ability to better deliver complex projects”.

Ms Hein declined to speak over the telephone, but in an email said ICCPM “looks forward to the opportunity to engage in the ANAO audit”.

Sources told The Australian the ANAO regarded the matters raised about Airservices as serious, and would expedite the inquiry.

While former Airservices chief executive Margaret Staib resigned in late July citing health issues, aviation industry figures said they had not seen any advertising for the position.

Airservices spokeswoman Vicki Huggins and Mr Truss’s spokeswoman Kate Barwick would not answer questions about the process of appointing a new Airservices chief executive, including whether the position had been or would be advertised, with Ms Barwick only saying “the appointment will go through a recruitment process”.

Former Civil Aviation Authority chair, businessman and aviator Dick Smith said he had been contacted by “a number of people who would be really excellent for the job” but they had not seen the position advertised. “If they are thinking of doing an inside job that would be a disaster; they have a lot of problems and need a new person from outside,” Mr Smith said.

“This is a billion-dollar-a-year business; they should be advertising it around the world”. [b]{ Well said Dick.. }[/b]

Raiders of the lost trough - Part II

While we were analysing & dissecting all the juicy moments from the Senate Estimates hearing the Secretariat was quietly getting on with business and updating the ROTLT (ASA performance inquiry) webpage with some additional info/AQON etc.

First there was an additional, very informative submission from a Mr Robert Hamilton- see here. His background, much like Mr Bennett, does IMO classify him as an 'expert witness' infinitely qualified to comment. Mr Hamilton's concerns:

MY CONCERNS

I make this submission because I am concerned:

• That too many recent comments about Airservices, air traffic control and air traffic controllers appear misinformed, uninformed, inappropriate and at times

misleading-I seek to provide history and context to the comments and correct the public record where appropriate and to the extent that I can.

• That Airservices has not accurately provided to the aviation industry and the Australian taxpayer specific details about how ADS-B will be used in Australian airspace, whether it will benefit Australian aviation and what the costs and benefits will be-I seek to ensure, to the extent that I can, that Australia recognises and maximises the benefits obtainable from introducing at significant expense a 4th generation air traffic services system.

• About the risk to air safety when history is disregarded in favour of short term narrow objectives-I seek to provide an accurate history of radar in Tasmania and show how public funds were easily spent for no public benefit.

• About Airservices public image problems-I seek to point out the consequences of Airservices’ inaccurate public statements and inability to respond to irresponsible and ignorant statements too readily provided by so called ‘experts’.

 
Of main interest to most, will be the RH analysis of the ADSB mandate introduction from paragraphs 10-20.

From page 5:

A dream or a plan?
 
11.It seems to me that this is Mr Smith’s question, and it’s a fair one. But permit me to widen its scope and ask: What’s in it for the entire industry, not just general aviation? Mandating a short period for equipment purchase and installation is a first step toward avoiding the issues of the past but it increases the front end costs to the industry. The danger, though, based on past experience, is that the industry will bear high initial costs for benefits that will arrive only slowly and will never be maximised.

12.The industry’s objective now is the same as it was previously: it will have the new equipment and it will want to maximise the benefits that it will bring. And once again, any benefits and the extent of any benefits can only be provided by and known to Airservices, for it is the Australian air traffic system manager and it appears the only organisation that seems to know what the benefits will be for Australian users. But does it?

13.My reading so far suggests that Airservices and CASA demonstrate some knowledge of what ADS-B can do generally, but Airservices has not revealed its capacities or limitations within Australian airspace, how it will be used, what the benefits will be and when any benefits will be realised. Airservices plan, to me, appears more visionary than detailed.

14.Permit me to provide 4 real world examples of my concern. For the last 45 years aircraft departing Sydney for Brisbane have flown a track to West Maitland then Casino then Brisbane, or it seems recently to Casino, then Coolangatta, then Brisbane. Will this new equipment enable pilots to routinely plan and ATC to routinely permit a normal flight track from 5 miles east of Sydney direct to an 8 or 10 mile final approach at Brisbane? If not, then where is the gain to industry?

15.Or, aircraft are landed 3 miles or 2 minutes apart at our major airports. Will this equipment improve on that and the chronic holding delays over Coolangatta? I doubt it and the result-no cost saving. Or, there used to be a separation standard for properly equipped aircraft of 10 miles either side of planned track. Will the new system permit a lesser standard? If not, then no gain to industry. And another example: basic radar separation is 5 miles plus tolerances, or sometimes 3 miles. Can this be bettered? If not, then no gain to industry.


16.Airservices needs to show what changes it intends, not what changes it believes are possible. And then it needs to accurately, reliably and in greater detail cost and report to industry and government on the savings that it intends to deliver and on what time period it intends these savings will occur. 

 
TBC..