Provision of ICT Support Services
Likely Incumbent & Re‑compete Intelligence
This appears to be a re‑compete of CN3891245 — held by Datacom Systems (AU) Pty Ltd, valued $5.4M, 3 Feb 2023 – 2 Feb 2026. Scope wording and mandatory staffing profile are near‑identical to the incumbent contract, and DAFF's ICT operating model has not materially changed.
Consequence for you: the incumbent has 3 years of embedded knowledge and named personnel already SC‑cleared. Your differentiation needs to be sharper than "same service, cheaper".
Pricing Benchmark
Based on 12 comparable AusTender awards, matched on UNSPSC 81111800 (Software or hardware engineering), Commonwealth agencies in the Agriculture/Environment cluster, contract terms of 24–48 months, awarded 2022–2025.
Decoded Evaluation Criteria
- Technical capability & methodology40%
Stated. Panel wants to see a named service management framework (ITIL v4) with clear runbooks — not a generic capability statement.
- Personnel & security clearances25%
Stated. SC clearance mandatory at contract start; NV1 desirable for 30% of the team. Named CVs required, not role placeholders.
- Value for money (price + non‑price)25%
Stated. Fixed monthly base + capped T&M pool. Watch for the 3% year‑on‑year cap in Attachment C (p.28).
- Indigenous procurement & local benefit10% (inferred)
Not weighted explicitly, but 3 pages of the SoR reference the Indigenous Procurement Policy — infer meaningful weight.
Requirements Compliance Checklist
Every mandatory and desirable requirement, extracted with page reference. In the live product, export this as XLSX to work through with your bid team.
| # | Requirement | Type | Page |
|---|---|---|---|
| M1 | Supplier must hold DTA ICT‑LSP Panel membership (SON3413842). | Mandatory | p.3 |
| M2 | All personnel accessing DAFF systems must hold Baseline vetting at contract start; SC within 60 days. | Mandatory | p.15 |
| M3 | Compliance with the Protective Security Policy Framework (PSPF) INFOSEC‑8. | Mandatory | p.16 |
| M4 | 24×7×365 P1 incident response, MTTR ≤ 4 hours. | Mandatory | p.19 |
| D1 | ISO/IEC 27001 certification. | Desirable | p.17 |
| D2 | Demonstrated Essential Eight Maturity Level 2 across the delivery environment. | Desirable | p.17 |
| D3 | Local presence in Canberra with named on‑site staff. | Desirable | p.6 |
PESTEL — grounded to this RFQ
The 2024 Machinery‑of‑Government changes folded parts of the former DAWE back into DAFF; expect internal ICT rationalisation to be a live pressure. Recent Senate Estimates questions to DAFF have focused on ICT spend transparency (Feb 2025 SE).
Commonwealth ICT spend under downward pressure post the 2024 audit of external labour; the RFQ's 3% p.a. price cap (Attachment C, p.28) reflects that mood — build fixed‑price efficiency into your model.
DAFF's dispersed regional workforce (biosecurity officers) requires field‑support scenarios not present in a pure Canberra HQ contract; SoR §4.3 (p.11) reflects this.
DAFF's stated destination is a Microsoft 365 GCC‑High‑equivalent and Essential Eight ML2 environment; Attachment B lists ServiceNow and Azure AVD as the target platforms.
Contract references APS Net Zero 2030 emissions reporting for delivery operations (p.22) — a small clause but a differentiator if you have credible data.
RFQ explicitly invokes the Commonwealth Procurement Rules (CPRs) §10 value‑for‑money test and the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act) §16 (p.3, p.24).
ANAO Audit Intelligence
DAFF and its predecessor agencies have been criticised in recent years for weak value‑for‑money documentation on ICT panel arrangements, and for over‑reliance on incumbent labour‑hire against fixed‑price outcomes. Evaluators will be defensive on these two fronts. A bidder that structures its pricing narrative as an evidenced VFM justification and offers outcome‑based pricing with a clear labour‑versus‑outcome split makes the evaluator's compliance job easier.
- Management of the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment's ICT ContractsReport No. 24 of 2023–24
Found weak documentation of value‑for‑money assessments across major ICT panel drawdowns; recommended tighter linkage between contract objectives, KPIs, and payment mechanisms.
What this means for your bidExpect DAFF evaluators to demand explicit, evidenced VFM narratives — not just a competitive price. Include a VFM traceability table in your response.
- Procurement of Consultancy and Contractor Services Across the Australian Public ServiceReport No. 8 of 2024–25
Cross‑entity audit criticising heavy use of labour‑hire on ICT panels and lack of transparent conversion to fixed‑price outcomes.
What this means for your bidFrame your offer as fixed‑price service outcomes with clearly capped T&M pools, not open‑ended labour hire.
- Implementation of the Essential Eight Cyber Security Mitigation StrategiesReport No. 31 of 2022–23
Commonwealth entities including DAFF's predecessors were assessed as sub‑ML2 on several controls; ANAO recommended tighter contractor obligations.
What this means for your bidAssume the panel will grade Essential Eight ML2 claims strictly. Provide evidence, not assertions — audit reports, SOC 2 mappings, or ACSC certifications.
- Probity in Australian Government ProcurementReport No. 14 of 2023–24
Identified inconsistent probity practices where incumbents held informational advantage during re‑competes.
What this means for your bidDo not assume the incumbent has been given a free run — ask the contact officer (see below) for the probity plan and clarify how bidder‑neutral briefings will be handled.
Red Flags & Watch‑outs
- Uncapped liability for cyber eventsClause 22.4 (p.31) removes the standard PSA liability cap for cyber incidents — get your insurer's opinion before pricing.
- Very tight response window5 business days from Q&A close to submission (p.2) — build your response plan around the Q&A dates, not the closing date.
- Named personnel lock‑inAttachment D (p.35) prevents personnel substitution for the first 12 months without agency written consent — creates real risk if your named team turns over.
- Ambiguous 'ancillary services' scope§3.7 (p.10) allows the agency to direct 'reasonable ancillary services'. Push for a defined scope or a T&M gate.
Questions to Ask the Contact Officer
- 1Please confirm the probity plan for this procurement and how incumbent‑held information is being levelled across bidders.
- 2Can you clarify the intended split between fixed‑price service outcomes and T&M in the pricing schedule (Attachment C)?
- 3Are the mandated response SLAs (MTTR ≤ 4h for P1) inclusive of triage time, or from ticket acceptance?
- 4Will DAFF entertain deviations to Clause 22.4 (cyber liability) via a supplier‑proposed cap and insurance evidence?
- 5For §3.7 'ancillary services', what governance gate applies before additional work is directed?
- 6Will personnel substitutions during the first 12 months (Attachment D) be reasonably approved where equivalent qualifications and clearances are demonstrated?
- 7Does DAFF have a preferred ITSM tenancy (ServiceNow instance) that the supplier must integrate with, or is a supplier‑hosted instance acceptable?
Analyse your real RFQ next.
Upload the RFQ you're working on. First analysis is free. No sign‑in required.
Analyse an RFQ free