This opportunity is closed for applications

The deadline was Friday 21 July 2017
Ministry of Defence Information Systems & Services

ISS Design as a Service

13 Incomplete applications

5 SME, 8 large

25 Completed applications

11 SME, 14 large

Important dates

Friday 7 July 2017
Deadline for asking questions
Friday 14 July 2017 at 11:59pm GMT
Closing date for applications
Friday 21 July 2017 at 11:59pm GMT


Summary of the work
Working with/for Design leads, advice/guidance/execute the creation/review of deliverables/assurance artefacts across following competencies:
•Architecture - Enterprise/Solution/Business/Information/Network/ Security/Communications/Infrastructure/Cloud/Applications Architects
•Assurance – Information Assurance, Security Assurance Case Officers, Security Accreditors, Penetration Testers and Security Assessment Architects
•Innovation – Architects in new/emerging technologies, User Experience Designers, DevOps Developer/Testers and Web Designer/Developers
Latest start date
Monday 2 October 2017
Expected contract length
24 Months with a 6 Month Option to Extend
South West England
Organisation the work is for
Ministry of Defence Information Systems & Services
Budget range
c£28m over the duration.

About the work

Why the work is being done
ISS’ Transformation has a key theme of being Design-led in the definition, implementation and operation of all of our programmes and services. Design as a Service will provide capability extension to the internal Design team, enabling this strategic outcome to be supported across Defence programmes. ISS requires partners who will work with us to ensure all deployed resources are trained, experienced and able to implement Defence policies, and strategies, and create high quality reports, blueprints and architectural deliverables.
Problem to be solved
ISS has historically procured design and architecture support individually, which has resulted in mixed results and prices. We are seeking a partner, or partners, to commit to working with us to enable a pool of architecture, innovation and assurance resources, who understand (collaborating with us) our processes, programmes and deliverables and artefacts, and work with us to deliver to our project and programme customers.
Who the users are and what they need to do
All defence programmes which require architecture, innovation and assurance support, these include ISS owned programmes, and the programmes where ISS is asked to support our Front Line Command and Major Business Unit customers. This will also include collaborating with end user and supplier stakeholders, and other Government departments (including the Cabinet Office), where required. Their need to provide artefacts, guidance and advice in implementing the Defence architecture and policies for their services and solutions.
Early market engagement
Any work that’s already been done
Policies, guidelines and high level architecture deliverables have been specified. Architecture tooling and blueprints for the various lifecycle stages are under development. A new target operating model for Design services is under development, and will provide the high level messaging to our customers for the services which our internal team can provide in conjunction with winning partner(s) for this procurement.
Existing team
ISS Design Architecture, Innovation and Defence Assurance and Information Security teams covering innovating new potential service to Defence, Architecting/Designing and assuring artefacts on existing projects and programmes, and assuring the security architecture and information assurance.
Current phase

Work setup

Address where the work will take place
ISS HQ MOD Corsham, with T&S budget provisioned for any alternate site travel required for the project /programme work.
Working arrangements
Work takes place Monday - Friday at ISS HQ MOD Corsham with T&S budget provisioned for any alternate site travel required for the project /programme work. Company and Personal Laptop are not permitted
Security clearance
SC Clearance must be in place prior to the contract starting due to the projects the team are required to work with, and site access. Develop Vetted resources will be required for certain programmes, DV resources are required across the roles described. BPSS & Disclosure Scotland are not permitted.

Additional information

Additional terms and conditions

Skills and experience

Buyers will use the essential and nice-to-have skills and experience to help them evaluate suppliers’ technical competence.

Essential skills and experience
  • TOGAF / Archimate v3.0 Experienced / Certified (8%)
  • Enterprise ICT experience (multi-million pound programmes and large scale (100k plus) end users (8%)
  • Defence/Security experience across Base/Fixed, Deployed, Tactical/Battlespace, and/or Above Secret/Intelligence domains (8)
  • Proven advisory, consultative and artefact delivery experience, working with customers internal IT and supplier stakeholders (8%)
  • Working in security cleared domains, across security classifications (8%)
  • Delivery of services to ITIL framework controls, and within ITIL service lifecycles (8%)
  • 7. Breadth of understanding through lifecycle architectural modelling, from enterprise and business views, through information, high/low level solution and technology views and service definition (8%)
  • Proven experience of up-skilling internal teams, and transitioning knowledge and deliverables to internal teams to endure/maintain (8%)
  • Proven experience of security assurance, accreditation and verification/validation of design artefacts and physical systems designs (8%)
  • Experience of creating technical & security elements of the ITT, including translating design into requirements for validation (8%)
  • Solution arch & Engineering management of design and testing (5%)
Nice-to-have skills and experience
  • Experience of solutions and architectures across the NATO and/or FVEY communities (5%)
  • Contribution and/or awareness of international standards across Defence, e.g. NATO STANAGs (5%)
  • Experience of migrating from customised processes and models to TOGAF Archimate v3.0 (5%)

How suppliers will be evaluated

How many suppliers to evaluate
Proposal criteria
  • Clear commitment to investing in education, collaboration, and continuous training and engagement of resources in Defence policies, blueprints, standards, models and ways of working (7.5%)
  • Ability to field experienced and skilled resources in the Defence/Security domain (7.5%)
  • Robust and proven model for securing and managing resources and teams for long term and short term engagements across multiple programmes and projects (7.5%)
  • Proven resource scaling and preparation model, to enable new resources to arrive on tasks with the requisite skills, experience and context for the task (7.5%)
  • Innovative approach to holistic account/engagement management with regular governance and collaboration included in the service (7.5%)
  • Commitment to quality of the deliverables, outcomes and experience of the resources, and rapid remediation / replacement if an issue occurs (7.5%)
  • Proven understanding of the complexities and architectures within Defence/Security, (enterprise scale ICT) (7.5%)
  • Proven long term partnership models implemented to ensure corporate knowledge is developed, maintained and not lost, and internal stakeholders are embedded into the delivery (7.5%)
  • Ability to provision resources across the specialised domains, (Fixed/Base; Deployed; Tactical / Battlespace; Above Secret / Intelligence) (7.5%)
  • Fixed/Base Specialisation; enterprise ICT, Mobility, Data/Voice and Cloud (5%)
  • Deployed Specialisation; autonomous coalition Apps, Hosting, Communications and Gateway capability (5%)
  • Tactical/Battlespace Specialisation; weapons platform centric-deployment and radio /satellite and specialised services / application hosting. (5%)
  • Above Secret Specialisation; Developed Vetted experience of architecture and assurance of intelligence coalition systems and services (2%)
  • Security Assurance and Accreditation Specialisation; security architecture, case officers and accreditors, penetration testers and security assessment architects (8%)
  • Innovation/Development Specialisation; experience of evaluating and defining strategy for leading edge technologies and tools, User Experience Design of candidate solutions, DevOps piloting and development/test of new solution technologies. (7.5%)
Cultural fit criteria
  • Able to assimilate and align to the Civil Service code of ethics and working practices
  • Agile working principles, including collaborative teams, daily activity assessments, focus on the outcomes and mutual accountability
  • Clear commitment to the successful outcomes defined for this service, and focus on partner behaviours to collaboratively address issues and concerns
  • Evidenced ‘one team’ approach with customers, team members and industry/suppliers
Payment approach
Capped time and materials
Assessment methods
  • Written proposal
  • Case study
  • Presentation
Evaluation weighting

Technical competence


Cultural fit




Questions asked by suppliers

1. The weightings across essential, nice to have and proposal criteria add up to more than 100%. Could you please provide a breakdown of how the essential, nice to have and proposal criteria aspects will be weighted to comprise the 65% technical score post shortlisting?
The essential/nice to have criteria will be used during the shortlisting phase in order to down select suppliers to a manageable number, only those selected will be asked to prepare a proposal document. To ensure the requirement is understood and to down select further (if needed), we will use the proposal criteria. At the shortlisting stage criteria will be scored using 2,1,0 this is calculated and weighted out of 100%.
At the proposal stage the proposal criteria will be used and the mark out of 100% will be worth 65% of the overall total technical marks awarded.
2. With regards to the Essential skills and experience criteria “Defence/Security experience across Base/Fixed, Deployed, Tactical/Battlespace, and/or Above Secret/Intelligence domains (8)”: Question – Can the Authority confirm that in order to provide an acceptable response, bidders will have to describe their experience in all 4 domains, and within 100 words?
As per DOS guidelines unfortunately yes, please give high level view.
3. Can you please confirm that the Essential skills and experience section which adds up to 100% equates to the ‘Shortlisting’ Phase and if so, whether/how it will form part of the final down-selection in Phase 2.
ISS use the Essential and Nice to Have skills to shortlist only - once we move on we use the Proposal criteria, the cultural fit and the price to determine who contract(s) are awarded to.
4. Could the Authority please clarify how the “Proposal criteria, Cultural fit criteria and Payment approach” will be assessed using the “Assessment methods of Written proposal, Case study, Presentation” to achieve the Evaluation weighting (Technical competence 65%, Cultural fit 5%, Price 30)? For example, will the “Written proposal, Case study and Presentation” themselves be weighted to provide a total score?
The written proposal, case study and presentation will all be scored using the proposal criteria listed. They will be marked out of 100% which in-turn will represent the 65% technical score.
5. Could the Authority please confirm its intended time-frames for the Proposal and Presentation elements of the competition?
At the moment the plan is as follows;

W/C 24th July - shortlisting and issue proposal template
W/C 11th August - proposal back to Authority
W/C 21st August - Feedback to Suppliers and successful suppliers given a presentation slot
W/C 4th September - Supplier presentations
W/C 11th September - Successful supplier(s) notified
W/C 2nd October - Framework Commencement

Please be aware that this is guidance only and is subject to change.

Also be aware that this is a call-off framework for the services required 'as and when'.
6. In order to make best use of time and ensure a comprehensive response is developed as a proposal, could the Authority provide details of how it will request bidders’ proposals to be structured. For example, will it be a single proposal with a 2000 word limit, a set of singular answers to specific questions with 100 word limits, or some other format?
Those that are successful against the Essential and Nice to Have Criteria will be asked to put together a proposal based on the criteria listed. We will have specific role information to give at this point.
The format has yet to be decided but you will have plenty of time to do this. At the moment if pressed for an answer it will be a 2000 word proposal. As soon as discussions have been held with CCS you will be notified asap.
7. Could you provide the spreadsheet that you intend to use for financial evaluation post-shortlisting now, in order for us to prepare ahead for the Proposal stage?
DOS does not allow us to do this. Initial shortlisting is based on the Essential and Nice to have criteria, this is scored first using 2 - Fully Met, 1 Partially Met and 0 Not met. We only use the price and cultural fit at the proposal stage.
8. Does the Authority intent to issue any further background information through the competition?
Those successful at the shortlisting phase will be given further information prior to the proposal.
9. MOD Statement in Advert: A new target operating model for Design services is under development, and will provide the high level messaging to our customers for the services which our internal team can provide in conjunction with winning partner(s) for this procurement. Clarification Questions Our understanding (based on the DOS guidance) is that any supplier is required to meet all the essential criteria to pass the initial assessment. Given the breadth of the requirement are we correct in our understanding that you are looking to contact a single supplier with one or more partners as part of its team?
We are open to contracting with one Supplier with many partners or have a few suppliers, which ever meets our needs.
10. Could you please clarify your response to CQ1 that states "At the shortlisting stage criteria will be scored using 2,1,0" that you do not intend to use a score of 3 that constitutes a response description of 'Exceeded' (as stated in the 'Buyers' Guide).
CCT, ISS do not use Exceeds in our evaluations, you have either met the criteria or not. Defining what 'exceeds' is very subjective.
11. How many FTEs do you envisage will be required to deliver this contract?
This will be an enabling contract and we will call off resources for the whole of ISS as and when needed. We are unable to say how many staff in the various disciplines will be required.
12. Can you confirm if the contract will be let to a single entity, will the programme of work be divided into different lots and let to multiple different suppliers?
For this to work efficiently my thoughts are that there will be multiple contracts possible 3-6 covering this requirement. When we then have a need to call-off e.g. for a data architect, the suppliers will be asked to provide a day rate for the duration and supplier will be selected on best price / CV.
13. Does the provision of personnel from Company X in Design as a Service preclude that company from participating in future work such as service provider/deliver partner ?
This would depend on the role they are doing - if the individual was helping shape and design a new service going forward then of course there would be an unfair advantage to other bidders and there is the possibility that they would be precluded.
14. Further to CQ12, is the Authority stating that it will award multiple contracts to different companies under this single requirement, rather than a single contract with one supplier or team?
If we feel that there are a number of companies that can offer us what we require then we will look at having a number of companies to drive best value for money.
15. How will tasks awarded under this contract be prioritised, agreed and allocated? Is there an existing process and governance for scoping and agreement of work with suppliers?
Enabling Arrangements will be in place for successful suppliers, when Business Units need to 'call-off' the agreement Commercial will issue suppliers with an SOR detailing duration, location, detail of task and deliverables; we will provide a price for that work. The supplier offering the best value for money will be awarded that contract. Individual contracts will be fed from one over arching framework contract. We are not looking for CVs or interview candidates, there is a default clause within the framework that allows the Authority to terminate with immediate effect should the individual not be up to standard required.
16. Is the Authority expecting support to manage and operate the task allocation process under this contract, or will that be entirely run by Authority personnel?
No we are not looking for support.
17. 1. Can you please confirm how you will evaluate suppliers’ pricing submissions? 2. All suppliers on the DOS Framework have an agreed rate card with MoD. Please state whether you want suppliers to submit a new rate card for this work at this stage, and in the future? 3. Where suppliers are partnering on this bid, do you want all the suppliers working as a team to be listed in the response at this stage? If so, does it need to be brought out in each answer which supplier will provide the services for each of the skills/experience listed?
The shortlist will be done on the ability to provide the Essential and Nice to Have Skills and experience. Once shortlisting is done the final down select will be on proposal criteria. No rate cards will be required at this stage. If partnering we want to know up front who is involved. Rates will be asked of successful bidders once we require to call-off the contracts.
18. 1. Can the Authority confirm if there is an existing incumbent supplier, supporting the Design service and if so, who that supplier is and if they are permitted to bid for this opportunity? 2. Will the supplier by responsible for any specific deliverables, in the context of a Time and Materials construct and the use of the 'Outcomes' framework? 3. Ref: Clarification Question 12. Does the Authority envisage a nominal workshare being agreed between the successful shortlisted and appointed suppliers?
There is no existing incumbent, this is a new requirement. Specific deliverables will be included with each work package request. The authority will be looking for VFM, all those successfully appointed to deliver via the framework will get the opportunity to bid for work, no one will be guaranteed work.
19. The Authority appears to have missed a question that has previously been asked: The problem to be solved section says “We are seeking a partner, or partners”. Could we bid to be a partner for only a subset of the competencies (listed in summary of work) or specialisations (listed in proposal criteria)? If yes, the key information needed is how will a bid for a subset of the requirement be evaluated alongside proposals from companies who could deliver the whole requirement - and therefore obviously gain a higher overall score against essential/nice to have criteria at the shortlisting stage?
We haven't missed it! I am waiting for answers from the Programme Managers for a number of questions, I will have answers on Monday and will publish all outstanding questions then.
20. The response to CQ17 states: "If partnering we want to know up front who is involved". When and how should we make the Authority aware of the partners in our team?
Please make it known on your portal application and you will be contacted directly once the advert has closed.
21. Current status of the service is described as 'Alpha'. Is MOD’s plan to mature the current service through Beta before initiation of the DaaS live operation? If so is there a further decision gate DaaS has to go through before the contract can be let?
No, the contract itself is a framework and therefore requires Nil funds to be let. Each individual business unit will be self-funding their requirements prior to the Commercial Branch 'calling-off'.
22. Please can the MoD confirm how many Contracts are anticipated to be let? If there are to be more than one, will these be let as each requirement arises or will all Contracts be let simultaneously?
Until we see the quality and number of the responses we have no idea how many contracts will be let. On a similar framework contract we have 6 suppliers. Every time there is a need to call-off the framework, each supplier will be given an SOR clearly detailing duration, locations, deliverables, deadlines etc. you will ALL be asked to provide a price for the work. Whoever provides best VFM will win that piece of work.
23. • Paragraph 3.15.5 in Section 3 - How Services will be bought of the DIGITAL OUTCOMES AND SPECIALISTS 2 FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT states "A Supplier must provide a positive response to all essential questions to proceed to the next stage." For the avoidance of doubt, can you confirm that bidders must be able to positively respond to all of the essential skills and experience questions in order to proceed to the next stage. We haves concern that a challenge may be made later in the process resulting in delay, and additional bidding costs if this is not clear from the outset.
In order to get through the initial shortlist phase, bidders are scored on the answers provided against ALL the essential and Nice to Have Skills and Experiences. You will lose marks if you fail to respond to ALL questions. Scoring will be 2 - Fully Compliant, 1 - Partially Compliant and 0 Non-Compliant. Only the top scoring bidders will be taken through to the proposal stage.
24. Re your response to 20, the portal only allows us to put in 100 word examples against each of the essential and nice to have criteria. There is no question about our team, so no box in the portal to put the answer into - how would you like us to tell you?
To make it easier everyone will be contacted once the advert has closed.
25. Re your response to 23 . Can you confirm that only suppliers who score 2 - Fully Compliant on ALL of the essential criteria questions will be taken through to the next stage. As you have stated that there is no "exceed" mark of 3 (Q7), this means that any supplier who scores less than the full 22 marks on essential will be rejected. All suppliers who meet the essentials will roll over 22 marks so we assume you then use the 3 nice to have questions to differentiate between bidders and reduce your shortlist down to the 5?
The top scoring suppliers will be taken through (this could include those scoring a 1) - at this stage we don't know if any will score top marks. The evaluation is done on both the Essential and Nice to Have Criteria, anyone scoring a 0 on the Essential Criteria will not proceed any further. We are not going to limit ourselves to 5, we are out to achieve best VFM and therefore if there are 10 bidders that all provide what we are looking for, we will not discount them for the sake of meeting numbers.
26. 'Security Assurance and Accreditation Specialisation'. Can the Authority confirm whether 'security architecture' is considered an assurance or design activity; if assurance, how does it differ from 'security assessment'?
It is in fact both, the development of Security Architecture designs during development and change, of services, and the assurance activities for services in test during change/development. Security assessment is typically conducted during Defence policy validation for services and applications to ‘join’ the Defence systems and networks.
27. 'Above Secret Specialisation'. Can the Authority explain why this is scoped to coalition intelligence systems as acquisition of these will rarely be within the remit of the ISS Design Authority?
Agreed, however coalition intelligence systems are utilised alongside sovereign assets and services, which are within our gift to architect and design, we also need to assimilate and design gateways and information exchange and handling models. It should not be forgotten that Above Secret covers Command and Intelligence capabilities, and whilst coalition services are developed internationally, UK capability and architecture/design is required.
28. 'Deployed Specialisation; autonomous coalition Apps...'. Can the Authority confirm that the requirement is only for hosting of coalition-sourced applications on deployed infrastructure? Isn't that rather restrictive in terms of deployed application architecture designs?
This describes at a high level, infrastructure, hosting, gateways, application deployment and run services, and the particular demands of austere/missing network bandwidth – Deployed is an umbrella term Defence uses for this.
29. 'Fixed/Base'. Does the requirement include development, delivery and hosting of applications?
Design and architecture of these, yes.
30. A weighting of 7.5% has been given to the criterion 'Ability to provision resources across the specialised domains'. Could the Authority confirm that this is referring to evidence of the proposer's resource management and delivery model (i.e. process and organisation) with subsequent criteria relating more specifically to the breadth and depth of specialist expertise that will be available (i.e. individual skills and experience)?
31. Against which of the Essential skills should we provide evidence of innovation capability?
Thank you for seeking clarification, a core focus of our innovation is on emerging digital technologies, and the use of industry innovation to Defence use cases. Big Data, Micro services, Blockchain, AI/intelligent agents are all subjects of interest.
32. • 'Solution arch & engineering management of design and testing...'. As written this would seem to be a multi-faceted requirement that is asking for evidence regarding (a) solution architecture (b) life-cycle engineering management (c) testing. Bearing in mind the weighting, did the Authority have in mind something more narrowly scoped?
This does have a narrow focus related to ‘Design’, it is the design/architecture inputs and governance in these processes. Developing lower level Solution rather than Service architecture artefacts, and inputs and collaboration during testing activities.
33. 'Experience of creating technical & security elements of the ITT...'. Is this referring to the need to provide evidence of ability to provide technical and security design artefacts?
34. 'Working in security cleared domains, across security classifications'. Is this referring to delivery of cross-domain solutions or just evidence that we have worked at each of a number of different security domains?
Cross domain experience would be useful, however the question is targeted at working in different security classifications.
35. Could you please clarify the role and expected extent of involvement of Small Medium Enterprises against this requirement?
Defence, like the rest of UK Government, has a target of a minimum of 25% of contract revenues should be targeted at SMEs. This is an open competition, and we would welcome bidders that either leverage SME partnerships in their offered services, or individual bids from SMEs where they have specialisations in areas we have described.
36. (1) Can the authority confirm whether all bidders who meet the essential and desirable criteria be invited to the proposal stage or will only a selection of those who meet the essential and desirable criteria be down-selected. (2) Can the authority confirm the maximum number of suppliers which will be assessed at the proposal and presentation stages
Bidders will be scored against each of the Essential and Nice to Have Criteria, you must enter statements against each in order to obtain marks. Only those with the highest marks will be taken through to the proposal stage, bidders are scored 2 - Fully Compliant, 1 – Partially Compliant and 0 – Non Compliant.
At present it is impossible to tell how many we will take through to the proposal and presentation stage.
37. In questions 1 & 12 the MoD refers to a particular enterprise architecture (EA) and tool. As a defence contractor we have a lot of experience in defence related EA such as MODAF, NAF and DODAF and the various toolsets that support these. Should this be included if we don't currently use TOGAF?
Yes please, but please note that TOGAF Archimate v3.0 will be our future architecture modelling requirement.
38. For question 9 please could the MOD clarify what is meant by validation? Is it, the assurance that a product, service, or system meets the needs of the customer and other identified stakeholders. It often involves acceptance and suitability with external customers. Or the evaluation of whether or not a product, service, or system complies with a regulation, requirement, specification, or imposed condition. It is often an internal process.
It is actually both, where customers, and policy, and functional/non-functional concerns are evaluated.
39. Can the authority please confirm how it will follow procurement policy on SME involvement through the down select and procurement process, and how it will ensure appropriate SME involvement in the awarded contracts.
All bids from SMEs and SME involvement in larger company bids are welcomed, and will be evaluated using the weighted criteria we have provided.
40. Does the phrase, “Experience of creating technical and security elements of the ITT, including translating design into requirements for validation” refer to the PROPOSAL CRITERIA listed later in this ITT or a separate ITT? If in a separate ITT, can that be shared?
Apologies for the ambiguous wording, this is Design/Architecture resources which have experience in reviewing suppliers’ ITT documentation to a design/architectural ‘ask’ from the Authority. It is not this ITT, but the work to review other ITT responses to Defence acquisitions.
41. May we ask if we will have visibility of the Target Operating Model at Proposal stage? Specifically we are interested in the Policies, guidelines and high level architecture deliverables that have already been specified or are being specified, as this may place constraints on the design of the service.
The Target Operating Model is maturing and will be released in August-17, for bidders down-selected to the Proposal stage, more detail will be provided in the request for proposal/presentation content.
42. What does the authority envisage when they say ‘enterprise and business views’. Given the PQQ questions are very much centred on ICT and technical delivery are the authority viewing enterprise and business views just in relation to hardware / ICT elements, or are they viewing it as encompassing people, organisation structure and models?
Our work will span working with our customers to defined the Business and Enterprise views for the business processes and requirements, hence the need to understand lifecycle modelling and design from vision to execution will be needed.
43. With regards to the Essential skills and experience criteria “Experience of creating technical & security elements of the ITT, including translating design into requirements for validation (8%)”: Question - can the Authority please confirm that this relates to the provision of customer friend type support for the development of ITT artefacts for subsequent issue to industry?
On occasion Design is asked to provide Architects into a Customer Friend functions, this question also refers to a need to review supplier ITT responses to a previously defined Authority Architecture, and/or Service for compliance to the need.
44. With regards to the Essential skills and experience criteria “Proven experience of up-skilling internal teams, and transitioning knowledge and deliverables to internal teams to endure/maintain (8%)”: Question - can the Authority please confirm what it means by ‘internal teams’ i.e. is it how a company does this internally or how it helps MOD to up-skill?
ISS Service Design crown servants (civil service and military), who will work with the Design as a Service providers.
45. From the information provided, it appears that the Authority is looking for bidders to be able to provide a pool of resources across a broad spectrum of skills and experience in order to demonstrate capability. Will you be asking for CVs or Work Histories to support bidders’ proposals, and if so at what stage and in what format?
No CVs or Work History documents will be asked for.
46. Given the breadth of the requirements, is it the intent to request case study material to support all of the essential, nice-to-have and/or proposal criteria elements; will a single case study per question/criteria be required or will it be possible to submit multiple case studies to prove breadth and depth? Could you provide details of the size and structure of what will be asked for in terms of case studies, for example will there be a 500 word limit per case study?
A 500 word case study per capability will be required.
47. The problem to be solved section says “We are seeking a partner, or partners”. Could we bid to be a partner for only a subset of the competencies (listed in summary of work) or specialisations (listed in proposal criteria)? If yes, how will a bid for a subset of the requirement be evaluated alongside proposals from companies who could deliver the whole requirement?
Equally to the ‘whole’ bids, our intent is to identify best of breed in the competencies, and if this is more than one partner working together, we will procure multiple partners.
48. Against the Proposal Criteria section we have the following question: “Ability to provision resources across the specialised domains, (Fixed/Base; Deployed; Tactical / Battle space; Above Secret / Intelligence) (7.5%)”: Question – can the Authority clarify how this differs from the next 4 bullets that appear to cover the same specialist areas?
This decomposition is intended to enable bidders with a more narrow specialisation to bid in their specific areas of expertise, versus a bidder across specialisations.
49. With regards to the Essential skills and experience criteria “Experience of creating technical & security elements of the ITT, including translating design into requirements for validation (8%)”: Question – Can you expand on what is meant by “the ITT”?
A supplier ITT which is being evaluated against and Authority defined architecture/service specification, for compliance and solution capability. Effectively this is evaluating supplier bids in a Defence acquisition competition.