So, you submitted a response to a Defence RFI. Great! As per the post about efficient ways to respond, it’s good for your company and it’s good for Defence.
But apart from the AusTender auto-email, that's all you heard. Maybe the project team sent a generic email stating they received your response.
Technically Defence has no obligation to respond or give any detail for RFIs. One reason for this is because there is no such thing as a ‘wrong’ response.
So what happens to all your hard work? I’ll explain at least what happened on project teams I worked on as project support.
Save the files in secure document management area
Defence procurement is always under scrutiny. Absolutely every project I worked on was serious about probity and Conflict of Interest (CoI). Even at the pre Gate 1 stage, every meeting, conversation, visit, and email is documented.
My task was to cross-check against the AusTender file list and ensure all files ended up in a secure and limited access area of the document management system.
Only those who had been through probity training and who had no declared CoI were allowed to view the responses, and even then, some were only allowed access to relevant files, for example, only the commercial team could see any files relating to costs. Yes, even for RFIs. The engineering team and ILS team just accessed their respective folders.
The project management team, which included me, would check all content was classified correctly, including for commercial sensitivity. It is highly unlikely that an RFI respondent will provide content that is considered Secret, but if that happens, it needs to be stored on the Defence Secret Network (DSN). There is a whole rigmarole of getting such documentation to the project team in the first place, because AusTender can’t handle it.
Kick-off meeting
The project manager gathers together the respective experts (engineering, ILS, commercial) and reminds them of probity and reinforces what each person’s role is.
It’s also at this stage that the PM informs the delegate (usually the EL2s of the SPO) of general goss like how many responses, who are the companies, what is the quality of the responses.
Analysis
Note that I use the word ‘analysis’ and not ‘evaluation’ here. This is because there is no weighted rating and no elimination. At this stage of the project, key documentation like the FPS is not finalised.
Something that helps save time for the experts in the team is to have an ‘apples to apples’ spreadsheet. It had headings such as ‘IP restrictions’ ‘past experience’ ‘power source’ ‘maintenance strategy’, and that’s where I would summarise non-C-in-C information from each response. This is so the engineers can go straight to their relevant info, ILS team to theirs etc.
The analysis groups (engineering, ILS, commercial, project management) look at the summary and individual responses while keeping in mind several aspects: how much Australian content is reasonable to expect in a solution? Is the technology ready for what the ADF needs? What are reasonable parameters to set for performance? What would be the optimum procurement approach?
Experts from the relevant area of the Defence Science and Technology Group (DSTG) review the technical aspects and report if any claims from the RFI are questionable/not within realms of possibility.
The analysis team might also want to find out some more information from the RFI respondent. For example “in section 2 of your response you state that the X achieved 400 hours constant operation. In which environmental conditions and which power source was this achieved?” Thus, the RFI point of contact may email you with this question. You do not need to respond. You are still able to say ‘we’ll save that answer for the RFT’, that is, if there will be one.
Summary and recommendations
When all analysis and follow-up questions are complete, the project manager writes a summary report. This report can be ‘de-identified’ for broader dissemination outside the ‘cleared’ team. For example “Respondent X reported that all maintenance can be done in Australia”, “5 of the 7 respondents state they have no ability to customise the solution due to licencing restraints”. The report typically includes findings, conclusions and recommendations.
Conclusions may be:
· Not enough/any solutions at TRL9 (off the shelf)
· Customer (e.g. Army, Navy, Air Force) is asking for the impossible (phrased more diplomatically of course)
· Solutions exist but they are not sovereign (we don’t want a repeat of the BMS fiasco)
· Partial solutions exist, e.g. mobility, but no surveillance (so there may be need for a system integrator)
· Plenty of solutions at TRL9
· Solutions exist at TRL9 but they are exclusive to allies
· Potential solutions exist, but they are at TRL5-8
· More money is required than is already budgeted
The recommendations could be any one or more:
· Follow up with allies about claims from Respondent X
· Proceed to open procurement or restricted procurement
· Pause/defer to future project
· Pursue Innovation Hub development
· Pursue possible FMS: availability, conditions, quantity, support
· Update the draft FPS to add, delete or revise specifications, such as criticality and measurement
No really, why does it take so long?
The de-identified report mentioned earlier is so it can accompany the document suite at key internal reviews, and then at external reviews such as by the Department of Finance. Note that there is a period of MONTHS to go through all these reviews. So the RFI you submit say in April of one year, might not lead to a Gate 1 decision until April the next year, and even then if the decision is to go with open procurement, it takes another six months or more to even prepare and release the ASDEFCON documentation. Why so long? Well that’s because the ASDEFCON suite are part of many ‘documents’ that the project team need to work on; there is need to finish the OCD and FPS, ILS plan, Personnel plan and then there is the day-to-day project management. Oh yes, and the customer changes every two years due to the posting cycle. The original RFI documents from the project team should include indicative timelines of when these key decisions should happen, but projects never go to plan, so that’s why it’s INDICATIVE.
So can you contact Defence after the RFI closes?
At pre Gate 1, it is allowed for companies to give unsolicited pitches to project teams. So by all means, use that RFI point of contact email address to stay in touch, say for example if you have some news like improvements to performance, successful use of solution by allies in operations and increase of Australian content. You may not get a reply, but don’t take that personally. Project personnel change a lot, so someone may no longer be monitoring the RFI inbox.
WTF do I tell the big cheese?
Maybe it’s weekly you get hassled, or at quarterly meetings or at your annual performance review. ‘We spent 150 hours on this RFI response and for what?!’ Business Development Managers only survive if they actually develop some business, right? I get it. But for the big machine that is CASG, your next bonus is background noise to the CASG project manager’s daily grind of overflowing inboxes, changing personnel, constant meetings and whatever is the latest deceased feline thrown over the fence. I wish communication by CASG to the private sector was better, but it is how it is. Probity and arm’s length etc.
So, in summary, a lot happens with your RFI response after you submit it. But you may not hear any updates for months if not years (if ever!).