Tasmanian Government ICT Tenders

Changes from 1 July 2021

The Government Information Technology Conditions and the ICT Professional Services Panel will be retired on 30 June 2021.

This follows a review of the way Tasmanian Government agencies procure information technology.

A contemporary information technology procurement framework will be implemented on 1 July 2021, to better connect suppliers and Tasmanian Government agencies.

For more information on the new framework go to the Tasmanian Government's purchasing website.

Tasmanian Government ICT Tenders – common mistakes and reasons for failure

Assessment of responses to Tasmanian Government ICT Tenders is undertaken by departmental Evaluation Committees which take a very structured approach in assessing compliant tender responses against the evaluation criteria and any weightings specified in the request for tender (RFT) or request for quotation (RFQ) documentation. The Committee produces a report documenting the evaluation process, factors considered in making their decision and to confirm compliance with the Government’s purchasing principles, policies and procedures throughout the evaluation process.

The Evaluation Committee will not consider information or documentation that is not submitted in, or as apart, of a respondent’s quotation/tender submission.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that the main reason that some potential providers are unsuccessful in winning ICT tenders is that the Evaluation Committees reject the bids because they fail to meet part, or all of the requirements specified in the RFT or RFQ documentation.  Key areas of concern can include any of or a combination of the following.

• Failure to comply with the mandatory criteria including:
  • a properly completed Quotation Form signed by appropriately authorised persons (for example in accordance with section 127(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cwlth))
  • provision of Certificates of Currency to confirm the required insurances (as specified in the RFQ or RFT) are valid
  • names and contact details for the prescribed number of referees.
• Failure to address each of the qualitative criteria separately.
• Failure to adequately demonstrate a deep understanding of the Department’s requirements (without regurgitating it) and how the proposed approach will provide value.
• Poor alignment of the offer to the qualitative (non-cost) evaluation criteria.
• Unsubstantiated claims of experience and/or capability.
• Questions that arise in relation to:
  • the suitability, adequacy and attractiveness of the company’s relevant skills and previous experience including the nominated personnel (such as number to be involved with delivering the contract, their relevant experience, skills and knowledge)
  • the company’s financial viability, qualifications, referee reports and/or past performance
  • the suitability, adequacy and attractiveness of the company’s administrative, management systems and/or quality assurance processes
• the control mechanisms to be applied to manage sub-contracting.
• Cost/price/value for money in comparison to other bids (noting that value for money does not necessarily mean the cheapest price will win the tender).
• Failure to fully identify and/or adequately address the potential risks or constraints identified in the proposal.
• The impact of the proposal on local SME industry (for procurements with a value of over $50 000 and up to $2 million, or up to $5 million at the discretion of the agency).
• Poorly-written proposals that are poorly structured, inconsistent and lack supporting information.

Recommended reading:

Tendering for Government business and particularly the Government’s Tendering Handbook.