Defence: Amphibious Watercraft Project

Senator Hogg asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 26 April 2002:

1. How many tenderers were there.
2. Who were the tenderers.
3. Was the proposed platform to interface between the LPAs and the bow of the amphibious watercraft a factor in the selection of the preferred tenderer for this project.
4. Had the stability of the platform in the successful tender been proven before selection of the preferred tenderer was made; if not (a) why was the platform not tested prior to the selection; (b) whose decision was it not to test the platform prior to the selection of the tender, and (c) on what basis was that decision made.
5. (a) If the platform was taken out of the successful tender, would the throughput rate be the same as per the successful tender document or would the throughput rate be more comparable to that of the other tenders; and (b) would some vehicles have to be taken by crane over the side of the LPA under this contention.
6. What is the value (in dollar terms or in a Defence ranking scheme if one exists) of the through-life cost referred to in the successful tender over the through-life costs of other tenders.
7. Have the tests on the stability of the platform been completed; if not, why not and when will they be completed.
8. If the trial has been completed what did the results show.
9. Has this led to any modification of the contract; if so, what is the modification.
10. If the basis on which the tenders were decided has changed, will the tenders be recalled.

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

1. Seven.
2. Tenderers are not normally disclosed without their agreement.
3. A top level specification that was endorsed by the Australian Defence Force end users, and that detailed essential, important, desirable and advice on operational and technical requirements, was released to industry as part of the Request For Tender. In this context, the marriage with the LPA stern ramp in at least Sea State 2 was described as an Essential requirement. The Interface Pontoon proposed by the preferred tenderer, promises the transfer of heavy vehicles without expensive and time intensive modifications to the LPA.
4. The seakeeping ability of the preferred tenderer's proposed Amphibious Watercraft during marriage operation with the LPA was trialed on a 1/25th-scale model in the Model Test Basin in the Australian Maritime College. The modelling was undertaken prior to the selection of the preferred tenderer. The test program included benchmark tests on the existing landing craft (LCM8) to which the results from the proposed landing craft could be compared. The results indicated that the Interface Pontoon may experience some limitations in higher Sea States (ie Sea State 2 and above) and this was more likely in other than ahead seas, for example bow quartering seas. The Selection Board noted that the Interface Pontoon was a useful element of the preferred tenderers solution, although it was not a key discriminator in assessing the compliance to operational/technical criteria.
5. 1. Further analysis post Source Selection was undertaken to establish whether the Tender Evaluation process would be compromised should the Interface Pontoon prove not to be viable or not meet the operational requirements. The analysis recommended that the conclusions and recommendations approved in the Source Selection Report remain extant. The through put would have been similar to other tendered solutions in the context of transfer from LPA to Watercraft but not in the context of overall system performance.
   2. In the event that the pontoon was taken out of the tender, there are other remedies including modification to the LPA stern door that would retain the throughput. In the unlikely event that none of these remedies work, then heavy vehicles such as tanks would need to be craned over the side of the LPA, as would be done now.
6. It should be noted that the pricing for through-life cost provided by all tenderers was incomplete and adjustments were made to adjust them to a common baseline for six vessels. The preferred tenderer provided the lowest estimated whole of life costs of owning and operating and maintaining the craft. It was clearly lower in price, both for acquisition and separately for in service support, compared to the tender rated second overall.
7. Hydrodynamic Modelling Tests on the optimisation of the Interface Pontoon have not been completed. A preliminary report will be completed in mid May 2002, with the final report to be completed late May 2002, prior to the Project Board reviewing the results of contract negotiations with the preferred tenderer.
8. The results of the tests are Commercial in Confidence and subject to Non Disclosure provisions.
9. No.
10. The basis on which the tenders were decided has not changed.

close