(1)   Further to the answer to question No. 740 (Hansard, 23 May 2005, Page 145), what evidence is there to refute concerns that the tender document was written with one product in mind i.e. the product supplied for trial.

(2)   Can the Minister explain how the request for tender was performance-based, rather than product-based.

(3)   Was the request for tender for the Jet Engine Air-Start Units different from similar tenders in previous years; if so, what were the differences and why were they made.

Note: The answer to Question On Notice No. 740, part (10), (Hansard, 23 May 2005, Page 145) stated that MONZ Australia was the successful tenderer for the Air Start Unit (ASU) contract. Rhinemetal Landsysteme GmbH was, in fact, the successful tenderer. MONZ Australia is its Australian agent.

(1)   An ASU ‘functional specification’ was included in the technical purchase description section of the Request for Tender (RFT) document to allow all technologies to tender for the Defence capability requirement. This is evidenced by the fact that five of the ten evaluated tender responses offered diesel ASU and the other five offered gas turbine ASU.

(2)   During drafting of the RFT, the technical purchase description for the ASUs was subjected to numerous levels of review and scrutiny within Aerospace Systems Division. These reviews were focussed on numerous aspects of the draft RFT, but particular scrutiny was given to the specification to ensure that it was functional and not product specific. Review action assured that the specific statements were validated against Australian Standards, United States Military Standards and general market capabilities. One result of this scrutiny was the constraining of essential criteria to eight requirements, to ensure maximum potential market competition.

(3)   No.