OneSKY blow-out to $1.5 billion? - anonymous document
Thread Starter
OneSKY blow-out to $1.5 billion? - anonymous document
I’ve recently been sent an anonymous document – along with the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition and lots of others – which claims there is “corruption and incompetence with management of the OneSKY project for Australian civilian and military air traffic control services”.
Among the dot points it mentions as follows;
• Look to the original tender and contract provisions and note how these are now diluted.
• Look to a Project in collapse before it has started in earnest.
• Look to the system that was evaluated, preferred, and this has regressed to one that has little discernible difference to the current ATC system. One that does not satisfy the next-generation requirements for Airservices Air Traffic control and does not support the current or future functionality of Military Air Traffic Control.
• Look to Millions of Dollars for barely-resembling the original bid.
• Look to the blow-out in cost, before the project even starts as rumoured to be of the order from $300M to $1.5B – achieved in months not years.
• Look to who were the people implicated, those responsible, the decision-makers, persons of influence.
• Look to process and illegitimate influence, probity breaches and benefits.
• Look to what the involved were then, where they are now and how they personally gained.
• Look to greed and corrupt activities.
• Look to breaches of Public Service Regulations and Civil Law.
• Look to the qualification of ICCPM as a not-for-profit organisation.
Anonymous documents are just that and really hard to know where the truth lies.
I ask the person who prepared the document that if you are genuine, why not contact me directly? Leave a message at the Dick Smith Foods office (you’ll find the number somewhere) and I’ll get back to you.
Very happy to treat any information confidentially as of course it’s really important that we don’t have another Super Seasprite disaster where $1.4 billion of hard earned tax payer’s money was lost.
Personally I’ve always found it difficult to believe that it’s possible to build a successful radar system that works satisfactorily for both civilian and military ATC.
Among the dot points it mentions as follows;
• Look to the original tender and contract provisions and note how these are now diluted.
• Look to a Project in collapse before it has started in earnest.
• Look to the system that was evaluated, preferred, and this has regressed to one that has little discernible difference to the current ATC system. One that does not satisfy the next-generation requirements for Airservices Air Traffic control and does not support the current or future functionality of Military Air Traffic Control.
• Look to Millions of Dollars for barely-resembling the original bid.
• Look to the blow-out in cost, before the project even starts as rumoured to be of the order from $300M to $1.5B – achieved in months not years.
• Look to who were the people implicated, those responsible, the decision-makers, persons of influence.
• Look to process and illegitimate influence, probity breaches and benefits.
• Look to what the involved were then, where they are now and how they personally gained.
• Look to greed and corrupt activities.
• Look to breaches of Public Service Regulations and Civil Law.
• Look to the qualification of ICCPM as a not-for-profit organisation.
Anonymous documents are just that and really hard to know where the truth lies.
I ask the person who prepared the document that if you are genuine, why not contact me directly? Leave a message at the Dick Smith Foods office (you’ll find the number somewhere) and I’ll get back to you.
Very happy to treat any information confidentially as of course it’s really important that we don’t have another Super Seasprite disaster where $1.4 billion of hard earned tax payer’s money was lost.
Personally I’ve always found it difficult to believe that it’s possible to build a successful radar system that works satisfactorily for both civilian and military ATC.
The document rings true.
If Thales cannot quadruple the budget estimate for the project then they aren't trying.
I have tediously explained how this inflation process works before.
The only solution is to break the project into a series of logically complete chunks and issue them out for tender one after the other on completion of the previous package.
If Thales cannot quadruple the budget estimate for the project then they aren't trying.
I have tediously explained how this inflation process works before.
The only solution is to break the project into a series of logically complete chunks and issue them out for tender one after the other on completion of the previous package.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canberra
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The same rumour is doing the traps. People involved in the project have had to sign all sorts of docs. Onesky could soon become upgradesky and rolloutskitaaats (raaf version). As I said in the past, any new system is not a leap in technology. The same can be achieved (at a saving of some $1.2B) by upgrading the AsA hardware and rolling TAAATS out to the raaf.
All I can say is watch what gets delivered v the original announcement and watch the spin doctors at work.
All I can say is watch what gets delivered v the original announcement and watch the spin doctors at work.
Thread Starter
I will get legal advice on how to make the present AsA Board members totally accountable if they do nothing now and then huge amounts are lost because this document is factual.
Remember what happened to the Chairman of the National Safety Council.
Remember what happened to the Chairman of the National Safety Council.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, I had nothing to do with OneSKY, but saw some of the early machinations before I retired.
OneSKY, IMHO, was the result of intense pressure being applied externally. And Goof-off ministers feeling the heat and demanding that 'something be done.'
From my perspective, AsA and Defence 'circled the wagons' in respect of the pressure and came up with something that sounded 'convincing' at the time.
Unfortunately, and just my view, the people on the cost-side of the equation got stampeded through external pressure. Read into that what you will.
As regards managing this stuff, Sunny has a few clues; but when the cattle are stampeded, rational thought goes out the window:
Sage advice.
Ain't that the truth!
OneSKY, IMHO, was the result of intense pressure being applied externally. And Goof-off ministers feeling the heat and demanding that 'something be done.'
From my perspective, AsA and Defence 'circled the wagons' in respect of the pressure and came up with something that sounded 'convincing' at the time.
Unfortunately, and just my view, the people on the cost-side of the equation got stampeded through external pressure. Read into that what you will.
As regards managing this stuff, Sunny has a few clues; but when the cattle are stampeded, rational thought goes out the window:
The only solution is to break the project into a series of logically complete chunks and issue them out for tender one after the other on completion of the previous package.
Personally I’ve always found it difficult to believe that it’s possible to build a successful radar system that works satisfactorily for both civilian and military ATC.
So are there any constructive ideas from anyone on how the project can be put back on track?
Defence think they are experts because they spend so much money. But that's easy when it's not yours and most people think that any money spent by Defence somehow increases defence capabilities.
Airservices think they are the smartest guys in the room because they make so much money. But that's easy when you're running a monopoly.
The mind boggles at the thought of those organisations 'negotiating' with each other to settle the specification and commercial terms.
These days I'd look to New Zealand to find some project management experts with no baggage or background in Airservices or Australian DOD and ADF. Can't see any government doing that, anytime soon, though. Must focus on the work of spending billions on both kinds of infrastructure: road and rail.
how many RAAF/ASA staff have made overseas study trips at the recommendation of Thales? how many have been entertained by Thales during these visits? how many have been taken to lunch by Thales?how many, from the ministers and their advisors down, have accepted Thales hospitality in any form?
my guess is that the answer to each of those questions will be "heaps".
my guess is that the answer to each of those questions will be "heaps".
