the whole "evaluation" and "tender" debate is just nonsensical
what it does hilight is that the SA Senator has got NFI about what he thought he secured
I suspect that he has slowly worked this out as well but is now stuck with having to save face
Love the fact that he learnt something "new" to paraphrase. "Defence doesn't do tenders, they do evaluations"
I obviously work in a different procurement and evaluation universe to the one he was told about
In yesterday's The Age a story by Max Blenkin cited that a "defence industry conference in Canberra heard competitive evaluation was often used when a full or limited tender process wasn't thought necessary.
"It was recently used to replace Vietnam War-era Caribou transport planes."
Having been directly involved in the C-27J vs C295 comparison process which CDG/RAAF undertook in 2011/12, I can assure you there was no competitive evaluation of any sort.
Alenia and Airbus were each given a 3-4 page list of questions to answer and asked to provide ROM costings. A desktop analysis of sorts by Defence followed but it was clear at the outset which way it would swing. Competitive it was not. Whitewash being a more apt description. Crucially, neither of the respondents bound by the information they supplied, unlike in an RFT.
The RAAF had in fact decided what it wanted some years beforehand and indeed got what it wanted. The C-27J is a fine aircraft and will fulfil the capability well, although the C295 was a clear winner over the C-27J in a number of key capability areas.
However, the excessive cost for 10 aircraft ($1.4 billion) was never explained, and the decision not to go to tender (potentially) cost the taxpayer at least $200-$300 million. The total cost of that project (Air 8000 Ph 2) should never had exceed $1.1 billion.
The key difference between Air 8000 Ph 2 and Sea 1000 is that both aircraft were absolutely MOTS - they were in service everywhere and operationally proven (TRL 9) in the same configuration that would have met RAAF requirements. Contrast this with the candidate submarine solutions under Sea 1000.
I'm staggered that all week not one of these talking heads has mentioned the term "restricted tender". Has the PM's or DEFMIN's advisors not whispered this in their respective ears? Surely!
The terminology being thrown around at the moment over the Future Submarine procurement process raises huge red flags. Not a good sign.