Aligning panels and single seller arrangements (SSAs)
6.7 Some sellers and buyers identified discrepancies in the terms and conditions between the SSA and the procurement panel / marketplaces, creating challenges in post-procurement contract closure.
6.8 As buyers typically default to the panel terms and conditions when engaging in procurement, misalignment with SSA terms and conditions could lead to gaps in contract execution, requiring additional adjustments to reconcile differences. Addressing these inconsistencies will strengthen contract transparency, facilitate smoother procurement processes, and ensure buyers have a clear understanding of seller obligations. Engagement with Finance also indicated SSA sellers effectively respond to a request for quote (RFQ) under a panel aware they are subject to a differing set of terms and conditions (i.e. those per the SSA) compared to those under the panel. Yet all other tenderers will respond under the terms and conditions outlined under the panel. This means the response and subsequent evaluation is undertaken under different pretences, however, the materiality of these are subject to the RFQ being undertaken. Further, the review noted other sellers can:
- Include any departures from the terms and conditions included in the request for tender / quote as per standard market practice.
- Negotiate their contract, and specific terms and conditions, if they are successful following evaluation.
6.9 Further, a mapping of SSA contractual clauses to panel clauses will highlight key differences to aid agency decision-making prior to approaching the market. This comparative analysis would provide buyers with critical insights into the implications of selecting an SSA seller, ensuring they understand how contractual obligations may differ from standard panel arrangements.
6.10 The Digital Transformation Agency (DTA) should address the differences in terms and conditions between panels and SSA contracts, for example, by making available a list of key points of difference.
Updating key websites and branding
6.11 Ensuring accuracy and clarity in publicly available procurement and contractual information is essential for effective engagement with government arrangements.
6.12 A fundamental distinction exists between SSAs and procurement mechanisms, yet this difference is sometimes conflated in publicly accessible resources. Maintaining consistency helps with transparency. Examples of information sources requiring alignment to reflect the appropriate categorisation of SSAs as standing orders are Department of Finance whole of Australian Government panels content, AusTender Standing Order Number listings, and BuyICT information.
6.13 Additionally, the DTA manages a range of arrangements, including both SSAs and panels, which could benefit from clearer differentiation to support understanding. Of note, the SSAs differ from other Coordinated Procurements in that, broadly, there is not an active market for the specific products provided by most of the SSAs. This is distinct to the other panels with a single seller in place, all of which are services based and have established competitors in the market. It is important the classification of SSAs on the Coordinated Procurements website reflects their actual function, to prevent misconceptions about their purpose and usage (i.e. for use following a procurement activity, rather than as a procurement pathway).
6.14 Collaborating with Finance, the DTA should refresh the publicly available content on SSAs to correctly reflect them as a contracting framework, including how SSAs are reflected on Finance’s Coordinated Procurement website.
6.15 Further, it is apparent from stakeholder engagement that the terminology “Single Seller Agreement” is creating confusion in the market about the intent of the SSAs. The DTA can address this by updating the names of “Single Seller Agreement” and “Volume Sourcing Agreement” to reflect their true intended purpose, which is a whole of Australian Government contracting framework.
6.16 The DTA should rename the “Single Seller Arrangements” to reflect the reality of the use of the SSAs as a contracting framework.