OFFICIAL:Sensitive
1.
APPENDIX 1 - COMPLIANT RESPONSE EVALUATION
Section 47, Section 47G
Page 1 of 7
Evaluation Report – Compliance response evaluation
OFFICIAL:Sensitive
OFFICIAL:Sensitive
Bright Consulting
EVALUATION CRITERIA
OVERALL EVALUATION
Meets Requirement
Proven Capacity
Total Costs
Value for Money Assessment
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Act
• Meets our requirements
• They have provided several
• They have provided a day
• They have provided some
case studies of recent and
rate for the team of 4 of
good case studies
• Some good case studies
FOI
current work.
$4,800
• They are half the price of the
• Lacking depth?
• They are explicitly program
• Which wil be a total of
other proposals, which is a
• Lower cost – does this raise
management, but have led
$648,000 exGST over the
concern
an issue
Cyber and IT projects and
135 work days from 11 Dec
programs
to 30 June 2021.
•
under
• This is a very cheap amount,
not sure why it is half the
amount of the other
proposals.
Released
DECO
Page 2 of 7
Evaluation Report – Compliance response evaluation
OFFICIAL:Sensitive
OFFICIAL:Sensitive
EVALUATION CRITERIA
OVERALL EVALUATION
Meets Requirement
Proven Capacity
Total Costs
Value for Money Assessment
Poor
Poor
Satisfactory
Poor
Section 47
ct
• They seem to have provided • The 2 people identified have •
• They seem to have provided
a lot about their generic
good experience, I don’t
a lot about their generic
quality system but not much
believe that a team of 2
quality system but not much
substance on what they wil
people with a small
• This is for a team of 2 plus a
substance on what they wil
be doing for us.
secretariate support role wil
secretariat for less than half
be doing for us.
be enough to cover the
the time.
• Pinned everything on
breadth of the requirement
• The cost is approx. the same
defence
• Their costs are in line with
for this program
as the other proposals
other proposals
• High level security/cyber
• Would the strong focus on
• They have only identified 2
under F
work
defence mean they are
people to undertake the
program
• Not a lot of substance of how
narrow focused or would it be
they would meet
a unique perspective
requirements
• Only small team
Released
Page 3 of 7
Evaluation Report – Compliance response evaluation
OFFICIAL:Sensitive
OFFICIAL:Sensitive
Deloitte
EVALUATION CRITERIA
OVERALL EVALUATION
Meets Requirement
Proven Capacity
Total Costs
Value for Money Assessment
Good
Good
Satifactory
Good
Act
• Their proposal meets the
• Proposing a core team of 4 (I • Quote is $175,895, or total
• Well documented proposal
requirements
think)
$1,231,262 (exGST), this is
that outlines how they wil
FOI
based on start of 7th Dec.
manage program
• They have identified a way
• They seem to have the
management
forward to delivery the
appropriate level experience • To assess the 135 days from
program
11th Dec to 30 June 2021,
• A core team of 4 is a
• I’m not sure what they mean
I’ve divided the total amount
reasonable number
• Strength in available assets
by: Our fees assume
by 140 days and multiplied
under
supporting up to 4 large
• The quote is approx.
• Only cyber experience with
by 135. Giving a
Programs for the Cyber
comparable with the majority
industry and air services?
comparison total of:
Program Hub with a view to
$1,187,288.36.
of the other proposals
• Well documented proposal
have an 'Account Manager'
that outlines how they wil
like structure across each
• I assume this is for a full time
manage program
program for tailored
team of 4, with minimal direct
management
stakeholder engagement
support from the 2 partners
Released
Page 4 of 7
Evaluation Report – Compliance response evaluation
OFFICIAL:Sensitive
OFFICIAL:Sensitive
Section 47, Section 47G
Page 5 of 7
Evaluation Report – Compliance response evaluation
OFFICIAL:Sensitive
OFFICIAL:Sensitive
Organisations that didn’t respond
• 4 Birds
• Project Assured
• Actavium Group
• Project Management Partners
• Bench 100
• Projects Delivered Australia
Act
• Clarity Business and IT Solutions
• IMA Management & Technology
• Focused Business Solutions
• Shearwater
FOI
• Strategic Enterprise Services
under
Released
Page 6 of 7
Evaluation Report – Compliance response evaluation
OFFICIAL:Sensitive
OFFICIAL:Sensitive
Evaluation Ratings
The evaluation criteria are weighted.
The following ratings were applied to each of the evaluation criteria:
Very Good: The Response satisfies the evaluation criterion to a very high standard and presents minimal or no risk to the Commonwealth and
its claims are fully supported by the information provided.
Good: The Response satisfies the evaluation criterion to a high standard and/or presents limited risk to the Commonwealth. The Tenderer’s
Act
claims are supported by the information provided.
Satisfactory: The Response satisfies the evaluation criterion to a satisfactory degree and/or presents an acceptable level of risk to the
Commonwealth. There are some minor deficiencies and shortcomings in the information provided.
FOI
Poor*: The Response barely satisfies the evaluation criterion and/or presents some degree of unacceptable risk to the Commonwealth. There
are major deficiencies in the information provided.
Unsatisfactory*: The Response does not satisfy the evaluation criterion and/or presents an unacceptable level of risk to the Commonwealth.
* A ‘Poor’ or ‘Unsatisfactory’ rating for one or more evaluation criteria wil exclude the Potential Supplier from further participation in the
under
procurement process.
Released
Page 2 of 7
Evaluation Report – Compliance response evaluation
OFFICIAL:Sensitive
Document Outline
