[Peetwo]

CASA, ASA & ATSB - Up for tender? 

The Ferryman poses some interesting QONs in his latest 'please explain' OP offering, off the BITN thread:  

Your truly – Confused.

P2 – “It's probably just me but for some reason I find the financial gains by some of the ICCPM group for what appears to be pretty rudimentary business services is quite obscene. Especially when you consider that many of those individuals just so happened to be affiliated with the successful OneSKY contractor Thales.”

It is strange little set up; and, although not remotely qualified to evaluate the ANAO audit, or even dissect, for value, the things we have paid out for, the whole ‘thing’ just feels "wrong" - 'off'; from the beginning. I know, for a certain fact, that not everyone who works for government is a dummy; there are some extremely well qualified, very bright folk there scattered throughout the various departments. I also know that the ‘government’ through various departments ‘evaluate’ and ‘negotiate’ some very complex contracts. I wonder why at least parts of the One Shy project were not farmed out to ‘government’ departments? Even if there was a fee to be paid, surely keeping the bulk of this project ‘at home’ would have many benefits.

Why, for example are the ASA management drawing ‘expert’ range salaries not capable of providing the expertise and knowledge to this project? Looking down the list of ‘services’ provided one has to wonder if the military and civil experts could not have provided the services paid for: there seems little mentioned there which required ‘outsourcing’.

Take the “Development of change management process and documentation  - integrated master plan etc (four down, top list)”  Seems to me that the best folk to develop ‘change’ management is the department itself, from policy to paperwork; it is after all “their” department and those employed there are (or should be) placed best to evaluate and manage any changes.

Is it the avoidance of responsibility that creates this need for ‘outside’ consult and counsel. It provides a handy scapegoat and ‘in Montreal’ alibi. Which makes it fine to bring in consultants as and when required – provided those employed within the ASA are not drawing ‘expert’ consultant type salary for not taking the responsibility the consultant does.

You see what I am driving at – position, title and big money carry very real responsibility in the real world and you must earn it and get it right – that’s why the big bucks are paid. But to pay big bucks to someone who will simply dial 1300 Consultant every time a project or contract needs evaluation or managing seems borderline stupid to me. No doubt real dealings in the big world have nothing to do with the way ASA operate and it’s only public money anyway; always plenty of that.

Toot (puzzled) toot.

Across the various Government Departments and their agencies there are probably 100s of classic examples, like the ICCPM OneSKY consultancy rort. However for our purposes let's focus on M&M's Dept. & the three stooges (CASA, ASA & ATSB).

From the last few years I can think of a couple of examples of consultancy tenders. With M&M's mob there was the KPMG 'Functional & Efficiency Review', which is still waiting a Government response. Part of that review looked at the possible efficiencies of privatising ASA, which somewhat ironically was something the industry suggested (in the 2016 TAAAF Policy: Reference BITN #398.) but subsequently ignored by the Government presumably on the advice of the Mandarins.

However, probably the most recent example of 'consultancy for tender' was initiated 3 weeks ago by CASA in response to yet another regulatory cluster-duck on CAO48.1/FRMS: 

ATM ID: 16/160
Agency: Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Category: 93150000 - Public administration and finance services
Close Date & Time: 9-Feb-2017 5:00 pm (ACT Local Time)
Show close time for other time zones
Publish Date: 9-Jan-2017
Location: ACT, NSW, VIC, SA, WA, QLD, NT, TAS, Overseas
Canberra, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Brisbane, Darwin, Hobart
ATM Type: Request for Tender

---

Multi Agency Access: No
Panel Arrangement: No

---

Description: The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) requires the services of a suitably qualified specialist or team of specialists independent of CASA to undertake a review of the latest fatigue rules for operators and pilots (CAO 48.1 Instrument 2013).

The fatigue rules for air operators and pilots have been updated as part of the CASA’s regulation reform program that seeks to align Australia with international standards, improve aviation safety, address known risks, and maintain our reputation for safety in aviation. The review will provide an informed basis on which CASA will complete the implementation of the new fatigue rules in the context of the current international and domestic regulatory environments.

The role of the specialist/s will be to:

• develop an appropriate methodology to fulfil the reivew Terms of Reference;
  
• implement all aspects of the required research and report on findings;
  
• make recommendations emerging from the findings including recommendations to support CASA to achieve the aim of the Terms of Reference.
  

Other Instructions: Please see the Terms of Reference for the conduct of an independent review of aviation fatigue rules for operators and pilots (CAO 48.1 Instrument 2013) document for further detail on the requirements for review

Conditions for Participation: Nil

Timeframe for Delivery: 10 September 2017
Address for Lodgement: AusTender at www.tenders.gov.au, in accordance with instructions in Request documentation
Addenda Available:
View Addenda

---

Fatigue management rules: latest news

20 January 2017

First step in fatigue rules review

Work to set up an independent review of the new fatigue rules has begun. CASA has finalised the Terms of Reference for the review and issued a tender to engage the services of a suitably qualified independent specialist, or team of specialists, to undertake a review of the latest fatigue rules for air operators and pilots. The independent review of Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Instrument 2013 will provide CASA with an informed basis on which to finalise reform of the fatigue rules.

Learn more about the independent review of the fatigue rules

&.. from Comardy's thread... : Fort Fumble under siege on CAO 48.1

First there was this from Wingnut in the latest CASA bollocks missive:

..I am pleased CASA has recently delivered on two ongoing commitments, with the release of the medical certification discussion paper in December and the first steps taken to conduct an independent review of the new fatigue rules....

...We have gone to tender for the conduct of the fatigue review and will look to have the selection process finalised by March 2017 and a report delivered in the second half of the year...

    
Hmm...will definitely have more to say on this tender because CASA and in particular the former DAS McComic, have a very chequered history when it comes to fatigue and FRMS - Hint: Think PelAir cover-up...


MTF?- Definitely..P2