Lights blue touchpaper and stands well back ...........

Cheap Choice Derails Graves Project

BANG

What's the long-term weather forecast like? Hope it's not more rain - that's all they need to cope with

Sunshine and ......... showers.

V.

Glasgow should have got the job in the first place ! I cringed when I first heard they were NOT awarded the job...looks like my fears are going to be well founded...why oh why...does it always come down to the same thing....cost...and yet we continue to waste so much of it on pointless, worthless projects elsewhere. As they say " you get what you pay for "

I've used this site to register a protest - just said I was disgusted and added a link to the article

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/ContactU...terThankYou.htm

Seems that Tony Robinson could have done a better job.

I think that was more than a BANG!!
It was a KABOOOOOOOMMMMMM!

This article (although at times edited) appeared in all major newspapers across the country.

This is a short response from the Australian Govt that appeared on the WA Newspapers website.

http://www.thewest.com.au/aapstory.aspx?StoryName=585642

Bright Blessings
Sandra

Worth also reading the rebuttal on the CWGC website today- its says 60 remains have been found

Richard

http://www.cwgc.org/fromelles/?page=englis...view/news060709

Oooo dear. That does not sound good.

According to the rebuttal article only three of the over 60 individual recovered remains have not had artefacts found on them that directly associated them with the Army they fought for, either the Australian or British. It would be interesting to know what the current split is between the two.

Marc

Well, the fur is certainly flying if the egregious Mr Rudd has joined the fray:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/06/2617627.htm

Perhaps a quote is called for from Mr Browngabe.

& he would have done it in 3 days

Seriously though, this is quite worrying

Andy

The Sydney Morning Herald news article, highlighted by V, seems to tie in more with a conversation I had with one of the CWGC officials at Fromelles earlier this year in that the bids were about £100,000 pounds difference, as he did mention the difference between the bids was about 6 figures.
However, in the light of what we are seeing here I really am wondering why Oxford were given the contract and not GUARD who are familiar with the site having done the initial exploratary dig. I was led to believe in the same conversation that one of the reasons was that Oxford were a little more up to speed on the DNA side of things. However, it would appear from these press reports that the DNA side of this operation is not included in the contract???? which leads me more to wonder even more why this was awarded to Oxford, we can only assume (and it is an assumption) that it was for financial reasons purely.

I can only say the same as Andy in the previous post in that "this is quite worrying"

Andy

Minister for Veterans’ Affairs Mailing List.

VA057 Monday 6 July 2009

Fromelles Project - archaeological excavation

Greg Combet, Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science, and Alan Griffin, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, today corrected the public record in response to media reporting regarding the Fromelles Project archaeological excavation.

“The Government wants to ensure that the recovery of these remains is conducted in a professional and sensitive manner and that the appropriate respect and reverence is paid to these men in all steps of the exhumation and reinterment process,” said Mr Combet.

“The choice to engage Oxford Archaeology to undertake the excavation was an international decision, reached using an open and transparent tender process that was aligned with Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines.”

“Oxford Archaeology’s services represented the best value for money to the Australian and United Kingdom Governments. The Government is advised that the recovery operation is being conducted with the utmost professionalism and reverence for the soldiers buried at Pheasant Wood.”

As one of the largest independent archaeology and heritage practices in Europe, Oxford Archaeology has nearly 400 specialist staff. It also has up to 30 highly experienced specialists including anthropologists and archaeologists on site at all times, and has the capacity to surge additional specialists from within its extensive team to assist the recovery operation at Pheasant Wood as is necessary.

“Oxford Archaeology is also very experienced with post war and post warlike archaeology, having conducting recovery operations from a WWII site in France, as well as from other sites in Iraq, Kosovo, Bosnia and Guatemala,” Mr Combet said.

“A minor delay with the project was caused by very heavy rain in late May this year. However, the project remains on the agreed schedule.”

The Fromelles Management Board has advised the Government that no remains or artefacts were compromised by the weather event and that Oxford Archaeology has strategies and options to mitigate against ground water and toxic waste.

“All possible care is being taken to ensure that the maximum number of individual remains are able to return a positive DNA reading and allow matching with living relatives,” said Mr Combet.

“Also contrary to media reports, Oxford Archaeology has recovered over 60 individual remains from Pheasant Wood. These remains are currently in the on-site temporary mortuary, and only three have not had artefacts found on them that directly associated them with the Army they fought for, either the Australian or British.”

Further, contrary to the media reporting there was no ‘crisis meeting’ held at the site. The meeting referred to in the reports was held on 29 June and is a regular monthly meeting of the Fromelles Management Board to discuss project matters and provide guidance to the project managers, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.

Minister Griffin said that the Commonwealth War Graves Commission are also overseeing construction of the cemetery which will be the final resting place for those soldiers recovered from Pheasant Wood.

“Construction of the Fromelles (Pheasant Wood) Military Cemetery commenced in May, and I am advised that it is on schedule to receive the soldiers’ remains in early 2010.”

“I have recently seen aerial photographs which show the cemetery is taking shape. The classic, simple hexagonal design and grave rows radiating out from the centre are now clearly visible.”

“It is important these soldiers are given a proper burial place and that relatives, and visiting Australians, have somewhere to pay their respects and honour the sacrifice of these men.”

The Fromelles Project is of great importance and remains a priority to Defence and the Australian Government.

The Australian Government will continue to closely monitor the progress of this project and will keep the Australian community advised of developments.

The official Fromelles Project website can be found at the official Defence website, www.army.gov.au/fromelles, and contains regular updates.

Media contact: Rod Hilton (Greg Combet) 02 6277 7620 or 0458 276 619
Belinda Cole (Alan Griffin) 02 6277 7820 or 0437 863 109
Defence Media Liaison: 02 6265 3343 or 0408 498 664



Minister for Defence Media Mail List
------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE HON. GREG COMBET MP
Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science



FROMELLES PROJECT - ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATION

Greg Combet, Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science, and Alan Griffin, Minister for Veterans' Affairs, today corrected the public record in response to media reporting regarding the Fromelles Project archaeological excavation.

"The Government wants to ensure that the recovery of these remains is conducted in a professional and sensitive manner and that the appropriate respect and reverence is paid to these men in all steps of the exhumation and reinterment process," said Mr Combet.

"The choice to engage Oxford Archaeology to undertake the excavation was an international decision, reached using an open and transparent tender process that was aligned with Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines."

"Oxford Archaeology's services represented the best value for money to the Australian and United Kingdom Governments. The Government is advised that the recovery operation is being conducted with the utmost professionalism and reverence for the soldiers buried at Pheasant Wood."

As one of the largest independent archaeology and heritage practices in Europe, Oxford Archaeology has nearly 400 specialist staff. It also has up to 30 highly experienced specialists including anthropologists and archaeologists on site at all times, and has the capacity to surge additional specialists from within its extensive team to assist the recovery operation at Pheasant Wood as is necessary.

"Oxford Archaeology is also very experienced with post war and post warlike archaeology, having conducting recovery operations from a WWII site in France, as well as from other sites in Iraq, Kosovo, Bosnia and Guatemala," Mr Combet said.

"A minor delay with the project was caused by very heavy rain in late May this year. However, the project remains on the agreed schedule."

The Fromelles Management Board has advised the Government that no remains or artefacts were compromised by the weather event and that Oxford Archaeology has strategies and options to mitigate against ground water and toxic waste.

"All possible care is being taken to ensure that the maximum number of individual remains are able to return a positive DNA reading and allow matching with living relatives," said Mr Combet.

"Also contrary to media reports, Oxford Archaeology has recovered over 60 individual remains from Pheasant Wood. These remains are currently in the on-site temporary mortuary, and only three have not had artefacts found on them that directly associated them with the Army they fought for, either the Australian or British."

Further, contrary to the media reporting there was no 'crisis meeting' held at the site. The meeting referred to in the reports was held on 29 June and is a regular monthly meeting of the Fromelles Management Board to discuss project matters and provide guidance to the project managers, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.

Minister Griffin said that the Commonwealth War Graves Commission are also overseeing construction of the cemetery which will be the final resting place for those soldiers recovered from Pheasant Wood.

"Construction of the Fromelles (Pheasant Wood) Military Cemetery commenced in May, and I am advised that it is on schedule to receive the soldiers' remains in early 2010."

"I have recently seen aerial photographs which show the cemetery is taking shape. The classic, simple hexagonal design and grave rows radiating out from the centre are now clearly visible."

"It is important these soldiers are given a proper burial place and that relatives, and visiting Australians, have somewhere to pay their respects and honour the sacrifice of these men."

The Fromelles Project is of great importance and remains a priority to Defence and the Australian Government.

The Australian Government will continue to closely monitor the progress of this project and will keep the Australian community advised of developments.

The official Fromelles Project website can be found at the official Defence website, www.army.gov.au/fromelles, and contains regular updates.


Media contact:

Rod Hilton (Greg Combet)
02 6277 7620 or 0458 276 619

Belinda Cole (Alan Griffin)
02 6277 7820 or 0437 863 109

Defence Media Liaison: 02 6265 3343 or 0408 498 664

I think the problem is knowing who to believe...........the media or the government?????

Personally, I'll take both claims and find the middle ground and that way I'm probably close to the truth.

Cheers,
Tim L.

Hey....if its in either the Fairfax or Newscorp press it has to be the truth! But there again, with 747 Kev not being home that much to make a valid observation, his spin doctors would be feeding him the genuine lines!

Almost guaranteed, Andy.

UK Government agencies (and, I assume, Australian ones) are bound by very tight procurement rules designed to ensure that there is no "dirty dealing" on the one hand and, on the other, that the taxpayer gets value for money.

Without going into the full details of this, it is perhaps sufficient to say that a possible supplier may be excluded from a tendering process on technical grounds (i.e. there is evidence that they could not do the job - I doubt John Hartley Enterprises Ltd would win a ship-building contract, for instance). However, once a list of possible tenderers has been agreed and tenders invited, it is very difficult for a procurement mnager to not accept the lowest of what will have been a sealed bid process. I have to say that I think that is entirely the right way for public bodies to proceed - most of the time it works in everyone's interest; occasionally it doesnt.

As to whether I tend to believe a newspaper report or the statements of CWGC's representative is another matter which I'm not going to get into, except to say that it would be very, very worrying if an independnent body such as CWGC was telling porkies.

John

I don't think it's a matter of anyone telling lies John, just that we have two sets of 'spin' based on the same set of circumstances.

You're right about the tender process but I sometimes wonder whether the old adage "you get what you pay for" has been totally forgotten.

Cheers,
Tim L.

I was amazed that a time limit was imposed at all. After 90 odd years, I would prefer it done correctly no matter how long it took.
As for who I believe, well, err ......
Put it this way - a recent report in a newspaper mentioned my granddaughter winning an orienteering race - it began 'He is the youngest........'
sm

I think it also worth reading todays update on the CWGC website on their blog page

It now says nearly 100 individuals have been recovered- link below.

It also talks about hand excavation and gives pictures of items recovered. All remains in Grave 2 has been recovered, Grave 1 by the end of next week, Graves 3 and 4 have been started. (How many graves were there to be excavated?). If the Oxford team has experience in such places as Bosnia they will be knowledgeable in whats required. From whats been posted today there does seem to be little evidence to show thats its either rushed or that artefacts are not being recovered too to assist in identification.

http://www.cwgc.org/fromelles/blog/?p=373

Richard

Tim

You may be right, mate.

In my last but one job before I retired I was the procurement manager for the local Probation Service, so have some years of experience. All you can do is write the specification for the contract to the best of your ability and invite the tenders. It is rare, on a sealed bid contract, that you would ever take other than the lowest bid. I can only recall doing it once in something like 10 years - it was a contract where we'd asked tenderers to also specify how many staffing hours they were going to devote to the work and we concluded it just couldnt be done in the time, so went for next cheapest.

In this one, I think the cost differential is around 5% between the two lowest so I am not at all surprised that the lowest won it. Any buyer (even one privately favouring the other contractor) would have been hard pushed to have justified any other decision.

John

Tim

For some reason, I suspect that there was someone in the Department of Defence who had a vision of him or her self sitting before the Senate Estimates Committee and trying to think of an answer to the question "Why didn't you choose the cheapest tenderer?"

Gareth

And the enterprise was thrown into confusion by there being more rain than expected - where have I heard that before!

The 'roos appear to be hopping around the paddock

http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=c...&Itemid=200

What pi&&es me off very considerably about this article is that Grant Tiffett, Convenor of the Fromelles Discussion Group invokes the name of the Great War Forum to support his views saying that the GWF would support a certain course of action. I do not know what the Fromelles Discussion Group is , although Mr Tiffett claims that is is the "only platform to raise concerns about the rights of Australain war dead". Yeah, right.

Is it possible to display a greater arrogance? Or lack of understanding about the nature of internet discussion boards?. How does he have the brass neck to claim to speak on behalf of the many thousands of our members? Or, indeed, on behalf of the Forum's Trustees?

Does he post here under his own name or a user name? Has he invited us to discuss, debate and reach a consensus? Has he asked if he can then represent that consenus (if there was one) to the media on our behalf? Has he done any of these things openly? Of course, you already know the answer.

We're an internet discussion board not a single entity with a single view. Only I speak for me - and not some unknown bloke on the other side of the world, who does not know my or your views on this or any other subject, nor, clearly, does he care to find out what they are.

John

John,

Most interestingly, Grant Triffett and the Fromelles Discussion Group have labelled our research group (Fromelles Descendant Database) as "an appendage of the Great War Forum". This comment can be found in an article on their website.

I would therefore suggest that their reference to the Great War Forum in this latest publication presumably again refers to our research group.

On several occasions I have emailed Mr Triffett and politely advised him that his imagined affiliation between the two groups is totally incorrect and that there is no association other than several of us are members of the GWF (I also pointed out that several were members of the FFFAIF, Light Horse Forum, assorted genealogical societies and an Australian rules football club but that we were not appendages of any of these either).

I again emailed him today to reaffirm my stance that we are not affiliated with any other groups and in response Mr Triffett stated, "From my viewpoint "appendage" was appropriate and remains so." Apparantly, he knows more about our group than myself who founded the concept nearly two years ago.

As such, I have responded and suggested he makes at least a basic enquiry with the owners of the GWF to confirm what I have been trying to tell him but I doubt that he will do so because it appears he doesn't like to be proved wrong.

Strangely he intimated in his email that I was inappropriately privy to private communications between himself and Chris Bryett so I had to inform him that there not-so-private emails were publicly published on the website as both Mel and yourself have seen.

Furthermore, Mr Triffett had made claims about the beliefs and stance of various groups including ourselves (referencing us as the GWF) but has never bothered to actually ask us for an opinion. Where he gets his facts are somewhat questionable and highly fanciful.

Ultimately, the lack of foundation and obvious glaring errors that they refuse to acknowledge reflects very poorly upon the credibility of the information being put forth by the Fromelles Discussion Group and in my view suggests they are nothing more than hopeful conspiracy theorists.

Cheers,
Tim L.

I spent almost 40mins on the phone with Martial on Weds evening He is very upbeat about the progress, he went on at great length to assure me that everything is going well with the recovery, he told me about many of the personal items that have been recoverd and that all items conected with remains are logged to that person. He seems more than pleased with the profesionalism of the team doing the recovery. He explained in some detail how the drainage system has been set up and is working fine, with the help of the local farmers I may add. Suffice to say, by the time I came off the phone I had calmed down somewhat ! There was a lot more said between us, I did once again make my views known about the way things had been dealt with, but what was said would take too long to put up on here. All things considerd though I was much happier by the time I put the phone back on the reciever, Amen !

Colin Stalgis

John

I remain a great admirer of your righteous indignation

Mel

And I of your tongue-in-cheek humour

I do like a subject that is a bit controversial and it was always likely that Fromelles would be such.

I have to agree that if you have a tender process and spec it properly, you have to go with the lowest quote - especially when public money is concerned.
I think we have to trust that a good job is being done for those blokes.

I still think we will be visiting a new cemetery some time pretty soon with a good number of known graves.

John Hartley,

Bravo! (massive delete of ribald and slanderous text directed at plonkers that would have got me banned from the GWF)

Tim L, Unfortuantely you can't reason with ...............

Such a pity that the efforts of the Fromelles Discussion Group in constantly (apparently) emailing politicians and others is not better used in finding the next group of missing.


Cheers,
Hendo

On behalf of GWF Ltd. might I state that GWF Ltd. has no connection with, or affiliation to, any of the organisations or individuals referred to in this thread, or to any individual or organisation involved at Fromelles. Mr. Triffett is incorrect in his assumptions and assertions.

The views expressed on this forum are those of individual contributors and do not necessarily correspond to the views of other members or the trustees of GWF Ltd.

The GWF Trustees are considering the comments made elsewhere and, when further information is received, will take any appropriate action.

The 'roos appear to have received a bit of a bashing in the paddock.

http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=c...&Itemid=201

Ashes?

Thanks for the link, Mel.

Just goes to show one shouldnt always believe what one reads in the newspapers. Not often one sees an unreserved apology from the press. And, hopefully, the professionals can now be allowed to get on with doing their job.

Mel,

Thank you for the link, but unfortunately I doubt this has been repeated in the newspapers, rather than just this online newsgroup "australia.to". So much of the damage done to the publics perception of the good work of Oxford Archeology and the "bureaucrats" will remain.

Nevertheless I am glad to see that Oxford Archeology defended their reputation and do agree with JH that the professionals be allowed to get on with the job, instead of having to counter disingenuous and uninformed gossip.


Kindest,
Hendo

There seems to have been a lot around. One has to wonder if the attacks on "current arrangements" having simply been as you describe or if disinformation has been spread about for, say, commercial interests. Or am I danger of being as bad as those I criticise in seeing a conspiracy?

I think there might be an element of truth in that John.

Several weeks ago we had the newspaper article criticising the DNA schedule and talking up a particular forensics company as an alternative. This did seem a little odd and suggested a commercial interest.

From there a journalist has apparantly used quite a lot of licence based on very little fact to describe some minor occurances at the site itself and spin them into a developing catastrophe of monumental proportions.

Unfortunately, this reporting has then been seized upon by Mr Triffett and his Fromelles Discussion Group as an absolute truth to help feed his insatiable desire to criticise and alledge governmental conspiracy at every opportunity.

Cheers,
Tim L.

With my deduction skills, I shoulda been a copper. Or not.

Have a troll around that australia.to site and you will find some other wonderful conspiracies.