Government's ICT Services panel due late 2011

 

Will require Cabinet approval.

The Federal Government’s proposed super IT services panel was likely be taken to Cabinet for approval later this year, according to industry sources.

Creation of a Whole of Government ICT services panel was proposed last year, rationalising 87 existing panels to four or less and proposing greater use of eNegotiation and reverse auctions.

Over 30 representatives from various IT suppliers, companies and industry associations attended a three-and-a-half hour closed meeting hosted by the Australian Government Information Management Office (AGIMO) in Canberra this week.

It was conducted under “Chatham House rules”, meaning that ideas discussed at the meeting could be revealed without attribution to specific attendees.

Sources told iTnews that because most parliamentary departments and agencies subject to the Financial Management and Accountability (FMA) Act would be required to use the new panel, the arrangement would require Cabinet approval.

To reach that point, the panel arrangement had to comply with various governance processes, including consultation with the Government’s CIO group, before it could be shepherded through the secretaries committee into Cabinet.

This implied a timeline for approval of "the latter half of the year", according to sources.

Auction fight

AGIMO set up the meeting in Canberra to address what it believed were industry misconceptions about how the new ICT services panel would operate.

While the IT industry was welcoming of the consolidation of existing panel arrangements, some attendees expressed reservations about the detail and impact of the plan, especially on small and medium enterprise (SME) suppliers.

The Australian Information Industry Association has previously raised concerns with the reverse auction arrangement, which could bias procurements on price alone.

“To AGIMO’s credit they took some of that early criticism on board,” one insider said.

“They are looking at various mechanisms that avoid turning the auction into a fight to the bottom on price.”

Among mechanisms discussed would be the ability to reveal both a mean price and standard deviation as well as the lowest price, in response to any quotation request.

“We will then have the ability to see where our price is,” another source close to the panel said.

“If it’s high then you have to ask yourself, 'Have we got the value differentiators that ensure that price we are putting forward that is high will still be competitive on a value for money basis?'”

“On the other hand if it tends to be on the low side, the question might arise whether the supplier has fully understood the requirements. 'Are there things we have missed?'”

Shortlisting suppliers

Government agencies were understood to have welcomed the savings from having fewer panels to manage but were concerned about the potential number of suppliers on the new panel.

More suppliers meant more time to process a larger number of responses from requests for tender.

Attendees at the Canberra meeting discussed at length the number of panellists to be admitted and the admission criteria.

“Clearly you’d need solid requirements upfront to weed out those that are not real companies based on financial analysis," one source said.

"But you don’t want to make it so hard [that] it’s too hard to get onto the panel."

The source told iTnews that there could be a requirement for suppliers to put a price range or maximum on a particular set of services to be offered.

Surprisingly, there was little time for discussion concerning AGIMO’s proposal of an annual entry fee for suppliers, as well as what the ceiling for deals should be - concerns raised in an AGIMO discussion paper in December.

AGIMO first assistant secretary John Sheridan described the discussions in Canberra as "full and frank" in a tweet directly following the meeting.

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


Government's ICT Services panel due late 2011
Parliament House pic
"As a starer, it would be useful if AGIMO reported by Department/Agency what percent of IT spending was with Australian-owned companies. That would at least highlight the problem, and shame some ..."
By Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu)
 
 
 
Comments: 4
deepthroat
Mar 10, 2011 8:09 AM
"Full and Frank?" - neither of these two blokes have worked for the public service for years. How many executives with deep industry experience work for AGIMO. And by experience I mean their personal success hinged on their ability to win government business. AGIMO is building a panel system that is designed by the wrong people.
Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu)
Mar 10, 2011 2:08 PM
I think AGIMO needs to consider "national interest", not just what is in the interest of the bureaucracy.

Of course charging a fee to be on a panel is good for the AGIMO budget, but it is bad policy generally - as having tenderers pay any amount has been shown to have a disproportionate contrary effect on seeking the best value contracts for public tenders.

And any impost (fee or otherwise) is a disproportionate disincentive against smaller SMB ICT players (vis-a-vis larger players).

Ever since the 1980s, most government initiatives have had the (unintended) effect of decimating Australia's own ICT industry. From the compulsory introduction of other imposts (QA certification onwards), the smaller but very efficient suppliers to government were forced out of the system. And as Telstra have proven, you can have the worst call-centre response, but still have QA certification.

That has meant that the Australian government spend on ICT has migrated towards overseas corporations, who may employ Australians in junior install roles, but where all IP is owned overseas, and all profit is remitted overseas. Even help desk roles have migrated offshore.

Now, government departments may claim that large foreign companies better suit their needs. But Australia has had a long history of successful IT start-ups. Some did OK with government (eg Tower/TRIM), but even there, if they were not a client-stipulated software package, the larger foreign companies (contract holders) would supply their own preferred solutions in that segment. Yet those same Aussie IT companies managed to obtain direct government contracts overseas, often more easily than in Australia.

It is not just IT either. Memtec was an Australian company with great water membrane technology, but failed to get a single government contract in Australia, but achieved lots of government contracts in the USA and elsewhere... so it was bought by a US company.
Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu)
Mar 10, 2011 2:09 PM
AGIMO needs to work out what 'positive steps' (affirmative action) it will take to get SMB IT companies favourable treatment, in that this is a required 'national interest' goal.

Having seen Australian entities positively 'frozen out' of government contracts over the past 30 years, I would now endorse the older Indian or newer Chinese requirement, that any foreign company wanting contracts has to have a 50% locally-owned partner. That gives far more boost and IP ownership to the local industry, than simply employing locals as install-techs for foreign multinationals. It would also lead to more listed local ICT companies.

ICT is arguably our WORST Current Account segment. It is where we have done worst in terms of having local entities compete. Yet there are lots of bright Aussies in IT, who could have success stories into the future. But we can't expect success when the Feds are backing only the foreigners. As the US knows so well, you get all sorts of local industry spin-offs when you pump government contracts back into domestic companies. In the US, defence spending is used to drive the whole US R&D industry, under-pinning US international competitiveness. It is almost impossible for foreign companies to get any share of that US defence spending. In Australia it is the opposite - it is almost impossible for Australian companies to get any reasonable share of major new projects out of Australian Defence contracts or Fed IT spending.
Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu)
Mar 10, 2011 2:10 PM
As a starer, it would be useful if AGIMO reported by Department/Agency what percent of IT spending was with Australian-owned companies. That would at least highlight the problem, and shame some departments into doing something pro-active. Next would be for AGIMO to work out how to short-cut ALL red-tape for Australian SMBs on any IT panel. On some contracts, where the contractor provides monthly services and gets paid by the government only some 150 days later, it is unclear what financial liability the department has to the supplier - more likely the supplier has to work out if it can afford to do business with the government.

Finally, any Australian-owned SMB with a history of having provided IT services to ANY Australian government for over three consecutive years ought be given a 'green light' to be automatically listed on any Australian government IT panel for that class of service/product that they currently supply to the public sector in Australia. That would limit the continuing destruction of Australian IT SMBs, by at least keeping them from being 'frozen out' of any new measures/panels. And if the states have chosen a cost-efficient supplier which is smaller than the Feds' preferred supplier, but is Australian, then why not open up the Fed departments to be able to avail themselves of these 'bargains' (or at least potential bargains) as currently utilised by the states (evidenced by renewals over multiple years). I suspect that the states (having smaller budgets and being more 'local') have a far better 'Buy Australian' record than the Feds... and it is the Feds who need to learn to do BETTER than the states, rather than worse on this 'national interest' measure.

The IT race is not over. There are many areas of new inventiveness to come. My old teacher
Prof Michael E Porter, inventor of the theory of international competitive advantage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Porter) has noted that for a country to be competitive in any particular industry, it needs the local contracts, like government ones, to go predominately to local entities, to foster innovation and economies of scale, to let that industry's local entrants to gain a competitive advantage to offer exports in that industry.

That is precisely the model the US uses, and the antithesis of Australian government practice. Let's hear from the AGIMO how it intends to redress the problem.
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
 
Top Stories
Australia turns to homegrown drones
Debating the finer points of unmanned aerial vehicle design.
 
The New Zealand telco problem
Opinion: Could Telstra save Kiwi telcos?
 
IT price probe to 'name and shame' gougers
Industry ducking the issue, committee claims.
 
Parliament House pic
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments
Polls
Should the Government enact new legislation to protect copyright holders in the digital age?

   |   View results
Yes
  20%
 
No
  80%
TOTAL VOTES: 516

Vote