Senator Chris Evans asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 December 2003:

With reference to the Air 9000 project:

(1)  (a) When was the decision taken to issue a request for proposal (RFP) for the project; and (b) who made that decision, i.e. was it Cabinet, the Minister and/or the Australian Defence Organisation.

(2)  When was the RFP issued.

(3)  Prior to the release of the RFP was there any consideration of selecting a supplier without the tender process.

(4)  Did the Minister or his office request advice on the implications of selecting a supplier without tender process; if so, when.

(5)  With reference to the three companies bidding for the project, how many times has the Minister met with representatives from each company to date, indicating the date on which each meeting was held.

(6)  (a) How many amendments were issued to the RFP; and (b) when was each of these amendments issued.

(7)  With reference to version 1.1 amendment: (a) why was the requirement 1.1.3.3 changed from “Guidance' to `Essential', i.e. the specification that there be two troops of four helicopters; (b) who made that decision; and (c) what was the justification for this change.

(8)  (a) Given the different capacity of the aircraft being considered, doesn't the specification of the number of aircraft deliver different levels of capability; and (b) for each of the three aircraft being considered, how many troops could be carried by four aircraft.

(9)  Why has the capability been defined in terms of platform numbers rather than capacity or capability.

(10)  With reference to the recently reported investigation into the Air 9000 tender process: (a) when were concerns first raised; (b) when was the Minister first informed of these concerns; and (c) when was the investigation initiated.

(11)  (a) Under what legislation is the investigation authorised; (b) what powers did this investigation have to compel: (i) Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel, and (ii) people outside the ADF, to provide evidence; and (c) were any people outside the ADF interviewed by the investigation.

(12)  Has the investigation been completed; if so, when; if not, what is the latest estimate on when it will be completed.

(13)  Will the report and findings of this investigation be made public; if not, why not.

(14)  Will the three tenderers for Air 9000 have full access to the report and findings of the investigation.

(15)  Will the report and findings of the investigation be provided to the Minister.

(16)  Given the delay caused by the investigation, when will a decision be made about the RFP.

(17)  When will the additional trooplift helicopters enter service.

Senator Hill —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:

(1)  (a)  The decision to proceed with release of the RFP was made on 30 March 2003.

(b)  I made the decision on advice from the Defence Materiel Organisation with concurrence from the Prime Minister.

(2)  The RFP was released to industry on 7 May 2003.

(3)  It is normal practice to consider options for an acquisition strategy including open competition and sole source. In the case of Air 9000, it was decided to proceed with an RFP.

(4)  See (3) above.

(5)  I have met regularly with a wide range of industry representatives, including companies involved in the Air 9000 process. At such meetings, the broad spectrum of Defence business is discussed, of which Air 9000 is generally only one part.

(6)  (a)  The document was amended three times with a total of 60 changes made. Most amendments were very minor - correcting formatting or typographical errors, or improving cross-references within the document.

(b)  Amended version 1.1 was issued on 4 June 2003, version 1.2 was issued on 7 July 2003 and version 1.3 was issued on 11 July 2003.

(7)  (a)  The amendment was identified by staff in Capability Systems Division as a correction after staff re-read the RFP following its release. The amendment reflected Capability Systems' original intent and did not result from a change of thinking.

(b)  Capability Systems Division staff identified the correction and the project office made the amendment to the document.

(c)  The change was the correction of a drafting error.

(8)  (a)  The RFP evaluation addressed both capacity of individual aircraft and the capability of various total fleet sizes for each aircraft type.

(b)  Seat loadings vary with different configurations for each aircraft platform. The RFP responses include the following typical troop seating layouts:

Four Sikorsky S70M  40 troops in crashworthy seats

Four Australian Aerospace MRH90  72 troops in crashworthy seats

Four AgustaWestland EH101  96 troops in crashworthy seats

Information on other configurations is available in the companies' publicity material.

(9)  The RFP addressed both capacity of individual aircraft and the capability of various total fleet sizes for each aircraft type.

(10)  (a)  The concerns referred for investigation were first raised with the Secretary of the Department of Defence on 24 October 2003.

(b)  I was informed shortly thereafter.

(c)  A review of the Request for Proposals evaluation process was initiated on 24 October 2003.

(11)  (a)  The review was conducted as an administrative process.

(b)  (i) and (ii) The review had no powers to compel Australian Defence Force personnel, or people outside the Australian Defence Force to provide evidence, nor was compulsion required to elicit the facts.

(c)  Yes.

(12)  The review was completed on 9 December 2003.

(13)  No. See answer to Senate Question on Notice No. 591 asked on 28 August 2002, regarding investigations by the Inspector-General.

(14)  No.

(15)  Yes. I have been provided with a copy of the report.

(16)  Agusta Westland has been released from the process. Evaluation of the proposals of Sikorsy and Australian Aerospace is continuing.

(17)  Given the Prime Minister's announcement of an accelerated acquisition, the aircraft will be introduced into service as soon as practical after contract signature. The actual date of entering service will be subject to the outcomes of contract negotiations.