Search

Your responsibilities

To successfully meet this criterion, you need to: 

• establish a baseline for your service
• identify the right performance indicators
• measure, report and improve according to strategies

10.5 The opportunities to improve are summarised below: 

• Need for Greater Flexibility: Respondents identified that improved flexibility in licensing arrangements would enable reduction in costs and improve usability. Respondents identified that the arrangements require flexibility to accommodate the varying sizes and needs of agencies, and the evolving nature of technology offerings (one size doesn’t fit all). Responses also suggested that, in absence of SSAs, smaller agencies are unable to access the benefits that larger agencies receive due to their relative spend.
• Improvement to Processes and Terms: Respondents identified the need for standardised terms and conditions and streamlining of processes across agreements to simplify agency onboarding and engagement. This includes consistent structures, centralised management of procurement risks, and uniform performance reporting to improve operation of the agreements.
• Improved Negotiation of Terms: Respondents identified the need to address issues like minimum commitments, pricing, and the ability to effectively adjust software or licensing arrangements during the agreement term. Further, respondents identified that refinement to negotiation timing and processes could potentially enhance decision making and enhance opportunities to achieve efficiencies. This could include more regular review of the arrangements.
• Enhanced Transparency and Reporting: Respondents identified the need for greater transparency and reporting against agreement terms and conditions, including improved performance reporting (including consideration of KPIs against delivery outcomes), metrics associated with benefits, and centralised repositories for contract related information. Respondents also identified a need for clear eligibility criteria for SSA participation.
• Centralised Management and Coordination: Respondents identified that there is an opportunity for the DTA to better coordinate information sharing, manage procurement risks (e.g. Foreign Ownership, Control and Influence (FOCI)), and oversee seller relationships. A respondent noted that it is challenging to keep pace with the changes in products offered by Sellers.

• Improving the Strategic Partnership: Respondents identified the opportunity to strengthen the partnership with the sellers through balancing discounts against benefit or value provided through integrating objectives such as cyber security enhancement, increased collaboration between international and domestic suppliers, upskilling the workforce, addressing technology debt, and driving transformation in areas such as AI.

  Further respondents identified strengthening the partnership model to seek greater investment in the country or the public sector through initiatives such as innovation funds, skills development, and research and development with universities and public sector should be considered.

• Support ecosystem diversity: Respondents identified that incentivising use of local SMEs, Indigenous suppliers, and service-based delivery partners within SSA frameworks should be considered, with consideration of how to limit the impact on procurement costs and regulation to SSA holders. This is further considered in the section of local participation.
• Consideration of a Tiered or Scaled Model: Respondents identified that consideration could be given to a tiered or scaled SSA model that allows smaller and newer suppliers to participate. Current panel arrangements such as DMP2 were deemed to align with this approach.

10.6 In response to why SSAs should not exist, a respondent noted consideration should be given to having a small number of vendors under each agreement, ideally tiered to agency size so that large resellers could assist large agencies and small resellers could assist small agencies (with less complex requirements). The review considered this and also deemed this to align with the intent of existing panel arrangements. 

10.8 Respondents identified the following key themes noting that there are both positives, and opportunities for improvement against most aspects of the agreements.

• Cost Effectiveness: Responses highlight the financial benefits of the arrangements, including better pricing, volume discounts, and reduced individual agency expenses. Further, the consolidated bargaining power of the Commonwealth Government is recognised for enabling smaller agencies to access advantageous terms.
• Efficiency and Convenience: Feedback emphasises the streamlined processes and reduced administrative overheads. Responses highlight the ease of use, efficiency, effectiveness and time-saving aspects of the arrangements. A state government entity noted that the use of a specific Seller would not have been possible without the arrangement in place.

10.9 Responses identifying improvement opportunities:

• Complexity and Communication: Some responses point out the complexity of the arrangements, including difficult engagement processes, extensive documentation and challenges in understanding specific agreements and the offerings from the Sellers. Further, respondents identified that improvement to communication is required.
• Flexibility for Agency Requirements: Respondents noted that the SSAs often lack flexibility to meet specific agency requirements, necessitating additional negotiations. In some cases, the offerings do not align with agency needs as, when they are negotiated as a Whole of Australian Government approach, they fail to capture individual agency requirements. An example given identified that larger agency technology footprints and technology roadmaps are not accurately captured.
• Negotiation and Accessibility: Respondents identified that they have limited control or input to the negotiation process and that the timing and commitments can create challenges with regards to budget forecasting.
• Reporting Improvements: Respondents noted that information captured on AusTender relating to Open Tender approaches to the market relating to mandatory use of SSAs incorrectly identify the procurement as Limited Tender. 

10.11 Responses identifying improvement opportunities:

• Speed to change: Some responses identified that the mechanisms intended to allow adaptation to new and emerging technologies are often slow, administratively complex, and inconsistently applied. Overall, their ability to keep pace with fast-evolving technology and regulatory settings is currently limited. More flexible, modular agreements that adapt quickly to technology and regulatory changes were identified as a potential improvement opportunity. 

10.15 Other non-monetary benefits identified include the opportunity to engage with and share experiences and challenges faced by other buyers in working with the sellers with an SSA, along with reduced reliance on legal advice as contract terms and conditions have been agreed. This enables increased focus on value for money negotiation instead of focus on risk-assessing contract clauses.

10.22 Responses to the free text question regarding the unintended consequences of the SSA arrangements are summarised below:

• Cost Implications: Responses identified unexpected cost implications due to the timing of the SSA negotiations, and minimum commitments resulting in cost inefficiencies, and changes in arrangements that resulted in the inability to reduce license commitments. Further respondents identified a need for clarity on fees and recovery charges with the DTA. Some of these challenges were identified as being offset by the SSA providing the ability for procurement and contract management teams to invest time in high value procurement activities.
• Financial and License Entitlement Clarity: Respondents identified the need for greater clarity and visibility around applicable CAF or CRF savings fees to enable greater understanding of procurement costs. This extends to improved tracking and understanding of changes to license entitlements under renegotiated arrangements.
• Currency of Technology Offering: Respondents identified that without review, offerings under the SSA may include legacy products that are no longer fit-for-purpose and conversely may not accurately reflect new offerings and services. The responses also identified the need for consideration of SSAs for other market segments / products.
• Negotiation Challenges: Respondents identified their ability to influence and contribute to SSA negotiations is limited and includes minimal interaction, resulting in an inability to negotiate agency specific requirements and loss lesser ability to realise efficiencies. Further, respondents noted that the timing of the negotiations can have unintended consequences to agencies from a cost perspective.
• Education Requirements: Respondents identified that there can be misunderstanding of procurement rules with agencies assuming that the SSAs overrule competitive procurement requirements, and a perception of a buyer being locked into a seller. Further, respondents sought clarity on whether the SSAs are a procurement “green light” or “red carpet” for vendors who have an SSA.
• Communication and Understanding Issues: Responses identified a need for increased understanding of the rationale behind decisions relating to the way in which SSAs were designed and implemented, and a need for enhanced communication and clarity to improve understanding of decision making in the negotiation process, including improved collaboration.