[Peetwo]

ANAO wet lettuce report tabled & published -

Procurement of the International Centre for Complex Project Management to Assist on the OneSKY Australia Program

Published

Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Report number: 1 of 2016-2017

Portfolio: Infrastructure and Regional Development

Entity: Airservices Australia


Summary and recommendations

Background

1. The civil air traffic management system operated by Airservices Australia (Airservices) and the separate system operated by the Department of Defence for military air traffic are both due to reach the end of their economic lives in the latter part of the current decade. The December 2009 National Aviation White Paper identified expected benefits from synchronising civil and military air traffic management through the procurement of a single solution to replace the separate systems. Under the OneSKY Australia program, Airservices is the lead agency for the joint procurement of a Civil Military Air Traffic Management System (CMATS). A Request for Tender (RFT) for the joint procurement was released on 28 June 2013. The RFT closed on 30 October 2013, with six tenders being received (including from the incumbent providers of both the Airservices and Defence air traffic management platforms).

2. On 27 February 2015, it was announced that Airservices, in partnership with Defence, would be entering into an Advanced Work contracting arrangement with the successful tenderer, Thales Australia, as a next step for the delivery of the OneSKY initiative. As at April 2016, negotiations for the finalisation of acquisition and support contracts for the provision of the combined civil-military system were ongoing.

3. At a public hearing held on 18 August 2015 as part of its ongoing inquiry in the performance of Airservices, the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee (Senate Committee) raised a number of concerns regarding conflict of interest matters in respect to Airservices’ procurement of services via the International Centre for Complex Project Management (ICCPM) to assist in the OneSKY Australia program. This audit was undertaken following requests subsequently received from the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development and the Senate Committee that the ANAO examine Airservices’ oversight and implementation of the OneSKY program.1

4. This audit is the first in a two-stage approach to those requests. Its objective was to examine whether Airservices has effective procurement arrangements in place, with a particular emphasis on whether consultancy contracts entered into with ICCPM in association with the OneSKY Australia program were effectively administered.

5. The second performance audit will examine the conduct of the OneSKY Australia tender process from initiation to finalisation of the selection and contracting process, with a focus on the achievement of value with public resources in accordance with appropriate probity protocols. The consideration of any probity impacts on the tender process will be examined within the scope of the second audit.

Conclusion

6. A key shortcoming in Airservices’ procurement policies and procedures is that they do not give appropriate emphasis to the use of competitive processes. In addition, Airservices routinely failed to adhere to its policies and procedures in procuring services from ICCPM. As a result, Airservices’ procurement of services from ICCPM, on an exclusively sole-sourced basis, did not deliver value for money. 

7. Airservices demonstrated a lack of organisational commitment to the effective implementation of probity principles in respect to the ICCPM arrangements. It was reasonably foreseeable that Airservices’ contracting of ICCPM to assist with the OneSKY Australia project would give rise to perceptions of conflicts of interest and, potentially, actual conflicts of interest. But the ICCPM engagements were not effectively managed so as to ensure the OneSKY tender process was free of any concerns over conflict of interest that could impact on public confidence in the outcome.

Also via the Oz from 'that man' Higgins again :

Airservices Australia ‘did not deliver value for money’

• Ean Higgins
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM September 1, 2016
  

[img=0x0]http://pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/0573acb566bb47c45e64e4c55a998aba/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img]
The Australian National Audit Office has delivered a scathing ­report on Airservices Australia’s dealings with a Canberra-based organisation, saying the government-owned body “did not deliver value for money” on a $1.5 billion national air traffic control system.

In a report tabled in parliament yesterday, the Audit Office made a range of adverse findings against Airservices, which runs the nation’s air traffic management and airport fire and rescue services, in its contracting with the International Centre for Complex Project Management.

Among the findings, it paid ICCPM consultants between $1500 and $5000 for an eight-hour day to advise on the One­SKY project, which is designed to integrate the military and civilian air traffic control systems. “Overall, Airservices’ approach to contracting ICCPM to assist with the delivery of OneSKY Australia was ineffective in providing value for money outcomes,” the Audit Office says in its report.

In a statement, Airservices said it accepted all the recommendations made by the Audit Office. It added: “While Airser­vices recognises improvements can be made with respect to procurement, we have full confidence in the tender evaluation process ­established for the One­SKY Australia program and are satisfied the governance arrangements ... were extremely robust.”

 

And from Oz Aviation, where attention is drawn to the fact that ANAO has also been commissioned to conduct a follow up audit:

Airservices criticised over OneSky contracts
August 31, 2016 by australianaviation.com.au
OneSky will replace the existing TAAATS system. (Airservices)

Airservices did not follow its own policies and procedures in contracting an external company, the International Centre for Complex Project Management (ICCPM), to provide services related to the OneSky project, the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) has found.

At the request of the Senate Rural Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, the ANAO conducted an audit into Airservices’ oversight and implementation of OneSky, which aims to combine both the civil and military air traffic management systems into one program.

The move to have ANAO look into the matter came after a parliamentary committee in August and September 2015 raised questions surrounding the OneSky tender process, particularly after Airservices contracted ICCPM in 2012 to establish the request for tender.
Specifically, the committee heard examples that could give rise to perceptions of conflict of interest.

The ANAO report, published on Wednesday, examined whether Airservices had effective procurement arrangements in place, with a particular emphasis on whether consultancy contracts entered into with ICCPM in association with the OneSky Australia program were effectively administered.

It said Airservices did not prepare a business case for its strategic partnership with ICCMP.

Moreover, the ANAO said “no performance indicators were established to enable monitoring and evaluation of whether the partnership was delivering the expected benefits”.

“A key shortcoming in Airservices’ procurement policies and procedures is that they do not give appropriate emphasis to the use of competitive processes,” the ANAO report said.
“In addition, Airservices routinely failed to adhere to its policies and procedures in procuring services from ICCPM. As a result, Airservices’ procurement of services from ICCPM, on an exclusively sole-sourced basis, did not deliver value for money.”
In September 2015, the Senate Committee heard Steve Hein, who was for a period of time Airservices’ executive general manager of future service delivery, worked previously at ICCPM. His wife Deborah Hein is chief executive of ICCPM. In one instance, the Senate committee heard Steve Hein signed a quotation from Deborah Hein for the cost of contracting two people from ICCPM that was being forwarded to the Airservices chief executive for consideration.

Also, the then chairman of ICCPM Chris Jenkins, was at the time was the managing director of the company that won the tender as the successful supplier to commence work on the Onesky project, Thales.

The report said Airservices had agreed to pay ICCPM total fees of more than $9 million under various contractual arrangements. Daily rates for individual contractors were between $1,500 and $5,000 for an eight-hour day.

The ANAO said Airservices “demonstrated a lack of organisational commitment to the effective implementation of probity principles in respect to the ICCPM arrangements”.
It was also “common” for Airservices to depart from its documented procurement policies and procedures for the various ICCPM procurements, with internal controls “regularly bypassed”.

“Where they were applied, the controls were often ineffective,” the ANAO said.

“In addition, the records made by Airservices of each procurement decision were often perfunctory. This approach to recording decisions to spend money, together with internal controls being bypassed, contributed to a lack of transparency over the decisions to procure services from, or through, ICCPM.”

The ANAO report included six recommendations, including that Airservices “address systemic failures in the adherence to the organisation’s procurement policies and procedures and the cultural underpinnings of those failures”, improve its procurement framework and enhance its procedures for managing probity in procurement processes.
Airservices said in a statement in response to the report it had accepted all the recommendations, noting actions to address each of the recommendations were near completion.

“Airservices acknowledges it can improve its procurement processes and better manage perceived conflicts of interest,” it said.

“While Airservices recognises improvements can be made with respect to procurement, we have full confidence in the tender evaluation process established for the OneSKY Australia program and are satisfied that the governance arrangements surrounding the tender evaluation were extremely robust.”

“We look forward to progressing the implementation of Australia’s next generation civil-military air traffic management system, which is critical for the continued growth of Australia’s aviation sector.”

The full report can be read on the ANAO website.

The ANAO would also examine in a second performance audit the conduct of the OneSky tender process “from initiation to finalisation of the election and contracting process, with a focus on the achievement of value with public resources in accordance with appropriate probity protocols”.

“The consideration of any probity impacts on the tender process will be examined within the scope of the second audit,” the ANAO said.

 
Couple that with the recently released (WOFTAM bollocks) CASA Hobart Airspace (TASWAM) review:

 

OAR TASWAM review - "Nothing to see here, move along"


This AM an elephant was sighted over Hobart Skies parked at approximately 8,500 feet... - WTF?  

Oh I get it now... Read this 43 page, glossy, arse-covering, load of bollocks from, Electric Blue and the Bus Driver Sir A's rubber stamp, the CAsA Office of (NFI) Airspace Regulation and you'll get the picture... :

Aeronautical Study of Hobart 2016

Description: Draft Aeronautical Study of Hobart 2016

Download aeronautical_study_of_hobart_2016.pdf (2.4 MB)

Date modified: 29/08/2016

12. CASA RECOMMENDATIONS

CASA applies a precautionary approach when conducting aeronautical studies and therefore the following recommendations are made:

Recommendation 1:

The existing airspace classification and architecture (apart from the one CTA step lower limit change, which is already the subject of an airspace change proposal) should remain unchanged.

Recommendation 2:

CASA should continue to monitor aircraft and passenger movements and incidents at Hobart over the next 24 months to determine whether the trend for growth continues. An aeronautical risk review should then be conducted if necessary.

Recommendation 3:

To improve efficiencies and predictability, taking into account PBN requirements Airservices should continue redesign work for flight routes into and out of Hobart, make improvements to existing Terminal Instrument Flight Procedures (TIFPs) and introduce STARs into Hobart.

13. NEXT STEP

Stakeholders are requested to provide feedback on the review to oar@casa.gov.au no later than 30 September 2016. CASA will consider feedback received to be public information and will normally attribute feedback, however requests to remain anonymous will be considered.

 
To summarise here is that happy little chappy from Tassie, via the Oz...  

No-change ruling ‘courts tragedy’ at Hobart airport
Matthew Denholm
The Australian
12:00AM August 31, 2016

Australia’s air safety regulator has decided against any serious change to Hobart’s air space, prompting claims it is courting tragedy and continuing a cover-up over Tasmania’s $6 million radar system.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority yesterday released the findings of a review of Hobart’s airspace, ordered after stories in The Australian about failures in the state’s radar system, known as TASWAM. The Australian last year revealed TASWAM was not being used to control aircraft to the ground but only as an extra tool for tower controllers providing “procedural separation”, which relies on visual observation and communication with pilots.

CASA responded to criticism, and a projected 30 per cent to 40 per cent increase in passengers over the next five years, by ordering an Office of Airspace Regulation review of Hobart airspace.

The report released yesterday rejects calls by pilots and Airlines of Tasmania for TASWAM to be used as they believed it was intended: to guide aircraft to the runway, rather than to 8500 feet as occurs now. Instead, it recommends continuing with local air tower controllers using procedural sep­aration below 8500 feet, calling this “appropriate”.

Aviator Dick Smith last night said it seemed CASA was continuing a “cover-up” of TASWAM and would not act until there was a death.

And the potential huge compensation payouts for ASA run airports, with identified PFOS/PFOA contamination: 

Drink it up Freddo??- According to latest revelations, courtesy of The Saturday Paper,  apparently Murky & his Defence Mandarin mates are on a mission to lessen the liability of the Government on the more than 30 year PFOS/PFOA contamination at many Defence & civil (Airservices Australia) airports throughout Australia.

I would suggest that Murky Mandarin and the photogenic filter Dazzling Dazza, have the potential for a powerful load of shite coming down the pipe in the very near future...  

Hmm...and that's just one of the three aviation safety stooges - TICK..TOCK miniscule TICK..TOCK indeed! 


MTF...P2