Decommissioning of the ICT Management Consultants Multi Use List (MCL) and the ICT Multi Use List (ICT MUL)
- 05
- Nov
On 30 August, 2012, I announced that a review was undertaken to understand the effectiveness and patronage of the ICT Management Consultants Multi Use List (ICT MCL) and the ICT Multi Use List (ICT MUL).
The review is now complete and Finance would like to thank all agencies and suppliers for their time and effort in participating in this review process.
As part of the review a simple survey was sent to Financial Management and Accountability (FMA) Act and Commonwealth Authorities and Companies (CAC) Act agencies as well as 661 suppliers to the ICT MUL and 214 ICT MCL suppliers. From this, 47 FMA Act and 2 CAC Act agencies returned responses along with 218 suppliers.
The findings of the review are summarised as follows:
The review found that agencies’ use of the two MULs is low, and suppliers consider the MULs provide little value.
Of the agencies that responded, 57% indicated that they did not use the MULs or that they did not know if they used the MULs. Of the agencies who responded that they had used the MULs, 38% indicated they hadn’t sourced services as a result and a further 38% indicated they only sourced services once a year or less.
Only 37% of industry respondents indicated that they had been invited to quote while being a supplier to the MULs and, of those, less than half indicated that they had actually received business as a result.
The establishment of a number of agency-owned IT Panels along with the proliferation of a number of mandatory-to-use coordinated procurements in the ICT sphere have reduced the need for the MULs. These panels provide agencies access to the goods and services available on the MULs, without having to approach the market. This for the most part has rendered the MULs redundant.
Consequently, Finance has elected to decommission both MULs as of Monday 5 November 2012. After this time agencies will no longer be able to utilise the list of suppliers to engage in a pre-qualified tender process.
Should you require information about the MULs in the future, these lists will be archived and information can be accessed by request to ICTProcurement@finance.gov.au.
loading...
Please keep us posted when the new arrangement comes in place. I believe previous ESA system was better as this used to provide us a window into smaller projects. Based on current experience in Victorian Government, I can safely say that departments are more comfortable in using systems like ESA than an openly structured MUL.
loading...
This is very disappointing. Not as disappointing as the reluctance of many agencies to utilise the MUL though.
This MUL provided a vehicle for new / start-up small business to deal directly with government in an open and fair way. Now these businesses will have to wait for panels to be released to the market, which only happens every four years or so. The most likely alternative for small business to engage with government is for them to partner with a larger more established company which increases cost and reduces opportunity to build a brand name.
loading...
Hi Garth,
We didn’t make this decision lightly and only did so after considerable research. I agree that a MUL can have the effects you describe – which is why we have just initiated the Data Centre as a Service MUL for cloud and cloud-like services. Unfortunately, if something just simply isn’t being used, then we need to ensure our resources are being utilised efficiently, leading to this decision.
Thanks for your comment.
Regards,
John
loading...
regarding the recent decision to dismantle the MUL based on lack of use by the Agencies, this may be the case re the low use by the agencies but now, as a small supplier of specialised equipment, I don’t have any avenue of sales to any of the Departments where they can actually find me unless I knock the door down, annoy them with consistent emails, work through the tender opportunities which unfortunately are mainly for larger projects, or work through any of the panels which, in the long run actually costs the Government money.
I add a commission to the sale to the panel and the panel member then adds his own fee which then ends up to cost more than if I had been originally able to sell direct.
A recent case in turn without mentioning the Departments were
Case 1 – I was requested by a panel member to ...
... quote to supply some equipment – I added a mark up and then I know the panel member added a mark up which I know will work out to be at least 15% more than if purchased through me and I really did not require the panel as it was strictly a box sale
Case 2 – I have been requested to supply a quote for equipment and I know there was a second quote requested which I have no issue with. I know that my price will always be lower than the larger organisation because I have lower overheads
Both these are customers I have dealt with in the past so easy for them to find me.
So, whilst I’m still in the hat for case 1 and 2, I wonder how much I am missing out on when they cant find me easily other than via my web site or my contacts list.
The panels are fine for large contract items but for one off rats and mice sales, they actually cost the Government money and I don’t believe don’t achieve what they have been set up for.
This is another nail in the coffin of the smaller enterprises that are already struggling to survive.
loading...
Hi,
Can AGIMO please articulate to the thousands of small businesses out there, what it believes is the best approach for SMBs to sell to the government and for the government to buy off a SMB ?
loading...
Hi Adam
Thank you for your comment. The findings of the review and the subsequent decisions are derived primarily from the experience of 218 supplier respondents who consider the MULs provide little value as previously noted by John Sheridan.
Finance publishes guidance to companies such as yours at Selling to the Australian Government. It contains useful information on how to use the Australian Government’s procurement information system, AusTender which provides centralised publication of Australian Government business opportunities, annual procurement plans, multi-use lists and contracts awarded.
There are other MULs on AusTender which accepts applications from time to time, many of which have multi agency access provisions.
loading...
Hi,
How can one figure out how this would exactly impact small businesses.
Thanks
loading...
Hi Rowena,
Thank you for your comment.
As noted by John Sheridan previously, AGIMO consulted widely prior to making the decision to decommission both MULs. This consultation involved, 218 Industry participants who provided feedback to AGIMO on the value of the two MULs.
The decision to decommission the MULs was based on industry feedback, which showed a strong preference for Government and Industry to engage via other methods of procurement.
AGIMO will continue to engage with industry on information and communication technology related matters.
loading...
There still needs to be an option for SMBs beyond panels and tenders for the sub $80K market.
loading...
“..This consultation involved, 218 Industry participants who provided feedback to AGIMO on the value of the two MULs..”
Of course existing participants would be more than happy to remove any avenue for additional participants to join. But it hardly bodes well for fair competition and more importantly value for the public purse.
loading...
Hi Gordon,
I’m afraid I don’t agree with your analysis. If existing members of the lists had wanted to keep any exclusivity applying, they would have been better advised to say the lists were very worthwhile. Discontinuing the lists did not narrow opportunities as the survey showed the lists were not being used. Vendors that had been listed did not retain any benefit.
Value for money has not been affected by this decision. A multi-use list can be used to down-select potential tenderers but the evaluation of an RFT is still required and that is where the value for money decision must be made.
Regards,
John
loading...
Hello Tony,
Thank you for your response.
The issue is not that the suppliers how participated in this discussion were or were not members of the removed MULs.
The issue is that the outcome has handed huge commercial advantage to existing agency panel members now that the only avenue for SMBs to sell to government agencies has been removed. So I confer that those most in support of the removal of these MULs would have been panel members.
loading...
Comments on this post have been closed in line with our moderation policy. Please let us know if you would like to further discuss this content.
You may find further information on this topic by clicking on the category or associated tags.
Nathan
Blog Admin
loading...