Comment: Why agencies skirt tender guidelines

 

Blame it on Uncle Sam.

An exclusive iTnews investigation into the proportion of Federal Government agencies sourcing large IT contracts direct raised some eyebrows in Canberra this week - copied to the front page of the Canberra Times and sparking some angry emails from agency procurement officers already stifled by too much red tape.

The report found that 38.9 percent of Government contracts worth over $80,000 signed since December 2007 - some $42 billion worth of business - were sourced direct from vendors, despite mandatory requirements for contracts of that size to be subject to the rigour of an open market tender.

Procurement officers were naturally concerned that the report could lead to a Department of Finance crack down on the practice.

"There's not much you can buy with 80k - a contract for professional services for a technical consultant over two months will cost more than that," said one respondent, in a tersely-worded letter to iTnews editor Brett Winterford.

"Do you suggest governments run an open tender to recruit a consultant? An open tender needs to be publish for at least 25 days, and a whole myraid of documentation and process accompanies it (RFx documents, evaluation plans, confidentiality documents, risk assessments, legal involvement, recommendation memos)."

This got the iTnews team thinking - perhaps if the $80,000 threshold was raised to a more palatable number, and the tender process streamlined, blatant breaches of the guidelines would stand out from those cases in which procurement officers were genuinely attempting to avoid red tape.

But after some digging around, I discovered that the lifting of such a threshold is more complicated than you might think.

It's hard to believe, but the so-called $80,000 cut-off figure for mandatory procurement was an outcome of the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement (AUS-FTA).

Enacted on 1 Jan 2005, Chapter 15 covered Government Procurement.

Specifically, "covered procurement" of goods and services in the agreement included thresholds for federal entities in Australia and the United States of A$81,800 and US$58,550 respectively. (These figures derived from the International Monetary Fund's special drawing rights values).

Finance opted for an $80,000 figure in its 2005 mandatory procurement guidelines. From time to time the figure is reviewed by US and Australian officials, but there has been no need to amend the figure to date as the Australian dollar has more or less kept pace with the broad parity values.

So there is no easy way out of the $80,000 figure. It was set as part of a treaty that can only be changed at a very high level. If it is changed there may be consequences for other aspects of the Treaty less attractive to other industries.

So folks, it looks like the $80,000 figure is unlikely to be changed for a long time.

The link is best reflected by comparing the "covered procurement" guidelines of the AUS-FTA (Articles 15.2 to 15.7) with the current "mandatory procurement" guidelines - they are almost identical.

The treaty anticipated that the dominant impact of these guidelines would be to increase the number and scope of procurement opportunities offered to the full market by Australian Government agencies.

Being an international treaty, it was designed to free up Australian and US Government markets to more competition and access to each other's economies.

We are nonetheless determined at iTnews to continue to research the extent of direct procurement within Australian Government. There is huge amounts of dollars at stake and ultimately Governments should be accountable when guidelines are breached for the wrong reasons.

So today I give you my latest contribution - a table of IT procurement during the 2010 calendar year by agency.

Copyright © iTnews.com.au . All rights reserved.


Comment: Why agencies skirt tender guidelines
"@peterhau IntACT is a massive waste of money. If you don't trust qualified employees from making decisions and love wasting tax payers money, then sure, its a great idea."
By Mark D
 
 
 
Comments: 15
deepthroat
Feb 7, 2011 10:24 AM
Typical government excuse - here's a question. Would any of you buy something for $80,001 without getting at least two quotes? Didnt think so. These public servants are free and easy with the money because they are not accountable for it. The issue of recruiting consultants is covered by creating a panel of prefered suppliers in which case the procurement becomes 'select' not direct. Poor planning, poor management, poor governance = massive waste.
Ace
Feb 7, 2011 12:41 PM
@deepthroat, there is no suggestion that agencies did not get 1, 2 or even 3 quotes. It simply says they didn't go out to open tender. Open Tenders are a whole different ball game, and can easily cost thousands of dollars to put together and publish as well as taking a lot longer to get through. This is exactly the beaurocratic red tape they are trying to cut through. And in reality, an $80K tender is barely worth responding to, given the vendor cost as well.
peterhau
Feb 7, 2011 1:38 PM
time for a 3 quote response? same week. time for an open tender response? between 1 and 3 months. how would you like the departments to save you money? cheapest option from an administrative perspective is for a 3-quote system. but it must be noted, that it isn't always 3 quotes. It could be 5 or 10 or 15.

mtsports
Feb 7, 2011 1:40 PM
If anyone would like to do a review of the situation, what they will find is that an open tender process can cost a Department in excess of $100K per tender, and delays any procurement by up to 3 months. This is the key reason for Government Departments to circumvent the system.

So any purchase of more than $80K taken to open tender will have added costs of up to $100K on top of the purchase. Any one suggesting that Government is being wasteful, has not worked with these purchasing officers and officials. They are trying to get the best value for money, and this sometimes means avoiding an open tender process and running with 3 quotes to achieve these savings. I would suggest that if every one of the purchases over $80K had been taken to open tender, there would be no cost savings achieved, and in fact the process could create further costs through delays, and legal fees. An open tender process also means a contract at the other end of the process and most legal requirements for Departments are now outsourced.

You are correct on the $80K FTA requirement that was brought in to allow US companies to competitively bid on Australian government business. However this is for FMA Departments only. CAC Agencies can buy up to $400K without going to tender. Whether the whole thing has worked is debatable, as most US IT companies that wish to bid for business are already represented directly in Australia.


deepthroat
Feb 7, 2011 1:50 PM
@Ace - you are wrong. The departments can either source via the rules or against them. I dont agree with the 80k limit either. That is however a seperate argument. Bit like not agreeing with the 110kph speed limit on a freeway - maybe it could be higher - not an argument that will get you out of a speeding fine. Fact is that the 'speed limit' is flaunted by the departments regularly, they just dont get fined - we do.
deepthroat
Feb 7, 2011 1:56 PM
@peterhau - dont you get a bit worried that departments can be so badly organised that they have sudden requirements to buy stuff for more than 80 grand? Dont they plan ahead? And before you fire back with the disater relief argument - that is covered by the CGP's and is a perfecly valid requirement to direct source. Suddenly needing a completely new, never-sourced-before gizmo or service is code for incompetance.
deepthroat
Feb 7, 2011 2:00 PM
@mtsports - maybe I do work in procurement. Maybe even contract management. Maybe even for a federal department. Select sourcing supports planned business, open sourcing supports value for money, direct sourcing covers arses.
pragmatic45
Feb 8, 2011 8:19 AM
Thanks for the thoughtful comments.

There are broadly two alternatives to open tender for purchases over $80K.

One is to use panels. The other is to direct source via an approved list of some 16 exemptions set out in the AUS-FTA and mirrored in the mandatory procurement guidelines.

The transparency issue arises when there is little independent checking of whether a direct source decision of a "covered procurement" complied with these exemptions.
Ace
Feb 8, 2011 11:47 AM
I'm not sure which bit you think is wrong @deepthroat? That the article said departments dont get quotes? Where (paragraph). That tenders don't cost thousand of dollar to put together and respond to? That an $80K tender is barely worth responding to because of the cost to the vendor? The rest of your comment (after the first sentence) is a little incomprehensible -or at least I can't see what it relates to.

With your regard to your response to @peterhau, $80K is a pittance for many types of purchase - for example, software services (given we're on ITNews here). If you're spending less than $80K, it's probably a sign the department is less organsied, not more (or simply buying a copy of MS Office). And it's hard to work out what you mean by 'sudden'. Do you mean all of a sudden over the last 15 years....?
peterhau
Feb 8, 2011 12:40 PM
15 years?? more like 20+. the industry has developed over time, but it seems that the departments are hampered by illogical procurement guidelines - written just after the end of the PE Contract period, or as I call it, the darkest days. The ESA at least allowed some sort of regulation as to who could and couldn't sell to government, if you weren't on the agreement, you couldn't sell to government and the innovative approach at the time was to align with someone who could.

Partnerships, consortia and massive wins in the SME space were attributed to collaboration. Fast forward to today, there is no ESA, no regulation, and the departments receive a slew of offers about a multitude of technologies that may or may not benefit their stakeholders, who if you think about it are actually us, the taxpayer.

As for purchasing never sourced gizmos, don't kid yourself, these products go through strenuous testing and identification in the tender process, called the shortlisting period, and if the item doesn't stack up to the hype in your response, you don't see it implemented.

pushing it further back, the initial approach to market is the EOI, then the RFP, then, when they have a decent idea of the limitations of a technology, out to RFT. technology is evaluated in concept, in planning and in go to market.

if the supplier gets the scope wrong, it won't appear on any desks any time soon.

Panels limit innovation, they limit technology diversity and they potentially cut technology out of a chance to show value.

Never thought I would say this, but the best example of a structured procurement process with accurate evaluation and deployment mechanisms is IntACT - the ACT Government procurement and deployment department model. This is what AGIMO needs to become, a reinvention of the DAS procurement system that isolates all purchases through a centralised hub, and eliminates cowboy purchasing, as it procures for all departments.

deepthroat
Feb 8, 2011 12:48 PM
@Ace - the article does not mention multipule quotes - so you decided that all of these direct procurements got them??

a covered procurement (80k +) requires a process -getting a "few quotes" is not part of that process. The reasons are several:
Who decides which vendors will get asked to provide a quote?
Who will decide if the responses are compliant and best value for money?
How will vendors in a given sector be advised that quotes are required?
How can the department be certain they hve not missed a better deal?

This is why when spending public money rules have been insituted. They are supposed to reduce waste and eliminate the opportunity for corrupt behaviour.

80k is low, no question about it. What should it be? 800k? 8million?, 80million? How high should it be before we get worried about direct sourced deals?

Re your second paragraph
How is spending less than 80k a sign that a department is less organised?
and
All agencies are required to publish their forward estimates for covered procurements. This is updated every few months. So 'sudden' means something that was not forecast.
Ace
Feb 8, 2011 6:11 PM
Not so much "thought" @deepthroat. I know of it in areas of government I have been involved in (not exactly expansive -I'll give you that). As for "who decides", the public service has quite senior people who are quite smart, and know their business pretty well. And there is typically more than one person involved in in any decision to spend more than a few $K. I see no reason why (ignoring the guidlines for a moment) they shouldn't be able to exercise their judgement when they see fit when risk is relatively low.

I strongly doubt that open tenders have any better success rate for 'better deals' or 'successful outcomes' than any other procurement. All they provide is public transparency.

80K is low, but as the article points out, little can be done about it. Why is spending less than $80K (potentially) less organised? Because in particular purchases (ie: IT services), it smells of doing little bits at a time to come in under the radar rather than solving a problem up front through proper design/architecture and consultation etc.
deepthroat
Feb 9, 2011 8:00 AM
@Ace - The senior people in the public service are the problem. The SES is a sheltered workshop that has become 'in-bred'. The only thing that matters is the illusion of process and probity. Risk is a personal thing and commerical commonsense doesn't exist.

Your comment about transparency says it all.
BaysNet
Feb 9, 2011 9:01 AM
Peter is spot on about the InTACT succesful model that should be adopted by AGIMO but as deep points out the SES is riddled with process and probity driven individuals whose only aim is to avoid personal responsibility for any decision in case it goes wrong. The process does drive procurement to a select few who can afford the investment in the EOI, RFP, RFT song and dance.
Mark D
Feb 15, 2011 9:04 AM
@peterhau
IntACT is a massive waste of money. If you don't trust qualified employees from making decisions and love wasting tax payers money, then sure, its a great idea.
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
Top Stories
ATO commits to complexity
Greater demand, fewer apps.
 
Photos: AusCERT 2013 day two
The second day of the Queensland security conference.
 
The illusion of cognitive computing
Opinion: IBM's Watson is a marketing success.
 
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Bankwest builds continuous delivery capability
Bankwest builds continuous delivery capability
To automatically deploy test/dev sandboxes by mid-year.
Veterans' Affairs sets sights on modernisation
Veterans' Affairs sets sights on modernisation
Data safe with Human Services, CIO says.
Citi Australia drops platform customisations
Citi Australia drops platform customisations
Technology chief shifts focus from building to leveraging systems.
VicRoads restructures IT team
VicRoads restructures IT team
Department moves to align with industry benchmarks.
Zurich Australia extends IT team offshore
Zurich Australia extends IT team offshore
Malaysian staff served from Australian data centres.
Leigh Berrell - Utilities CIO of the Year
Leigh Berrell - Utilities CIO of the Year
Yarra Valley Water CIO Leigh Berrell accepts his Benchmark Award for Utilities CIO of the Year.
Wayne McMahon - Retail CIO of the Year
Wayne McMahon - Retail CIO of the Year
Domino's Pizza CIO Wayne McMahon accepts his Benchmark Award for Retail CIO of the Year.
Inside Perpetual's ongoing IT transformation
Inside Perpetual's ongoing IT transformation
CIO Jenny Levy discusses how outsourcing will help the firm "simplify, refocus and grow".
Managing Complexity - Defence's Daniel McCabe
Managing Complexity - Defence's Daniel McCabe
Daniel McCabe, Assistant Secretary of Australia's Department of Defence, provides the audience at the iTnews Data Centre Strategy Summit with a deep dive into the organisation's data centre consolidation program.
How Facebook designed the data centre from scratch - Marco Magarelli
How Facebook designed the data centre from scratch - Marco Magarelli
The full keynote by Facebook data centre architect Marco Magarelli at the Australian Data Centre Strategy Summit. Magarelli details the design considerations behind the social network's Prineville, Oregon; North Carolina and Luleå, Sweden data centres.
Modernising Legacy Data Centres - Telstra's Jon Curry
Modernising Legacy Data Centres - Telstra's Jon Curry
Telstra general manager of managed data centres Jon Curry guides the audience at the iTnews Australian Data Centre Summit through the build of the telco's Clayton, Victoria data centre.
NSW Government launches NABERS data centre rating tools
NSW Government launches NABERS data centre rating tools
Matthew Clark from the NSW Department of Environment guides facilties managers through the details of the new NABERS data centre energy rating tool at the Australian Data Centre Strategy Summit.
NABERS launch panel: Australian Data Centre Strategy Summit
NABERS launch panel: Australian Data Centre Strategy Summit
Matthew Clark (NSW Dept of Environment), Greg Boorer (Canberra Data Centres), Glenn Allan (National Australia Bank), Mike Andrea (Strategic Directions) and Bob Sharon (Green Global Consulting) discuss the impact of the NABERS data centre rating.
Judges notes: Fortescue Metals [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: Fortescue Metals [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss Fortescue Metals 'New World of Work" project, one of three shortlisted finalists for the Industrials category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Judges notes: Retail [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: Retail [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss the shortlisted finalists for the Retail category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Judges notes: Pacific Aluminium [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: Pacific Aluminium [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss Pacific Aluminium's lightning fast service desk refresh, one of three shortlisted finalists for the Industrials category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Judges notes: Domino's Pizza [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: Domino's Pizza [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss Domino's Pizza's shift to hosted services, one of three shortlisted finalists for the Retail category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Judges notes: McDonald's Australia [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: McDonald's Australia [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss McDonald's Australia's new self-service portal for employees, one of three shortlisted finalists for the Retail category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Judges notes: ING Direct [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: ING Direct [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss ING Direct's 'Bank in a Box', one of three shortlisted finalists for the banking and finance category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Judges notes: Yarra Valley Water [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: Yarra Valley Water [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss Yarra Valley Water's insourcing project, one of three shortlisted finalists for the Utilities category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Latest Comments
Polls
Do you prefer the Coalition's NBN policy?

   |   View results
Yes
  19%
 
No
  81%
TOTAL VOTES: 1730

Vote