12 Questions for Collab X

Attending Collab X today? Want to ask a hard-hitting question but not sure what to ask? Here are 12 suggested discussion topics to inspire you.

Question 1: What if Defence Imagery was unlocked for Industry Marketing and Talent Attraction?

It's a question I've often pondered as we navigate the challenges of expanding our market capacity. The goal is clear: we need to enhance our appeal to not only attract more businesses to become defence-ready but also to entice top talent to our industry.

In a digital age where visuals are key to capturing attention, the importance of compelling imagery cannot be overlooked.

The challenge we often face is creating marketing materials that resonate. Authentic, high-quality images that reflect our industry's essence are hard to come by. And while the Defence Image Library is filled with professional-grade photos, access for commercial use is tightly regulated, reserved mostly for Defence's own publications and media outlets.

What if this scenario changed? Imagine the possibilities if industry players were encouraged to use these images to promote their services within the Defence sector and to attract skilled professionals. This could significantly elevate the quality of our marketing efforts and help position our businesses more favourably in a competitive landscape.

Question 2: What if we could tap into offshore resources for non-sensitive design work?

As we constantly look for ways to enhance our industry's capabilities, one untapped opportunity that stands out is the potential use of offshore resources for non-sensitive design work. Our current challenge lies in the limited talent pool available with the necessary clearances, which naturally caps our capacity to deliver on the Defence Estate's needs.

The prevailing requirement for Australian citizens to undertake all design work, with limited exceptions, restricts our ability to leverage global talent.

However, the benefits of offshoring are hard to ignore: cost reduction, time savings, and the infusion of diverse ideas that drive innovation.

Notably, all major design firms servicing the Defence Estate have access to offshore resources located in low-cost centres. Yet, these resources remain untapped for Defence projects. The sole venture into this space that I am aware of, using South African resources in 2019, was unfortunately short-lived due to largely poor execution. This has led to a concentration of design work within three or four major houses, risking an echo chamber effect that could stifle innovation, limit scalability, and push prices up.

Interestingly, the Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group (CASG), despite dealing with arguably more sensitive aspects, routinely relies on offshore solutions. This poses the question: Could we establish a framework that allows for the safe use of offshore resources for non-sensitive design work within our domain?

Such a framework could potentially open the doors to a wealth of global talent and ideas, enriching our design processes and output, all while maintaining the integrity and security of sensitive information.

Question 3: What if we leveraged design competitions and hackathons?

In our ongoing quest to achieve design excellence within the Defence Estate, isn't it time we explore the potential use of design competitions and hackathons? These platforms can serve as a catalyst for innovation, inviting fresh perspectives and groundbreaking solutions to the forefront of our industry.

Design competitions and hackathons, by nature, encourage a wide range of participants to tackle specific challenges within a short timeframe.

This approach not only generates a diversity of ideas but also fosters a culture of creativity and rapid problem-solving.

Imagine the innovative solutions and creative designs we could uncover for the Defence Estate through such collaborative, competitive events.

An isolated example a few years ago was the competition to develop a solution to the PFAS problem, which was promoted on AusTender and harnessed numerous innovative ideas.

The benefits are clear: these events can help us identify untapped talent, bring in new design methodologies, and potentially reduce costs through efficient, innovative solutions. Moreover, they create an environment where collaboration and competition drive the pursuit of excellence, breaking away from conventional approaches that may limit our vision.

Given the complex needs of the Defence Estate, incorporating design competitions and hackathons could also offer a public engagement strategy, enhancing the perception of Defence as a forward-thinking, innovative sector. This could attract not only designers and technologists but also the broader community to contribute to and feel invested in our Defence infrastructure.

Question 4: Can somebody please clarify Early Contractor Involvement (ECI)?

There has been a recent trend within the Infrastructure Division to leverage Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) in our major projects. For builders, this shift presents both opportunities and challenges, particularly in understanding the extent of involvement expected by the design team.

One of the core challenges of the ECI delivery method is quantifying the level of involvement that the design team desires from contractors during the ECI phase. This ambiguity can lead to disparities in tender submissions, where the depth and breadth of proposed involvement may vary significantly between contractors.

Moreover, with the ECI contractor often positioned to secure the construction contract for the project, there's an inherent temptation to underprice the ECI tender. This strategy, banking on recouping costs during the delivery phase, introduces a risk of creating an uneven playing field among tenderers.

If cost intelligence is the objective, why not hire an experienced cost consultant to conduct market research on behalf of the design team?

To address these concerns, I propose a more structured approach to ECI tenders. By specifying the level of involvement required from contractors more clearly, we can ensure a fairer and more competitive tendering process. This clarity would not only help contractors tailor their proposals more accurately but also mitigate the risk of underpricing, ensuring that tenders are both competitive and realistic.

Implementing this change would require a collaborative effort to define the specific expectations and contributions needed from contractors during the planning phase. This could involve detailed guidelines on the scope of work, milestones, and the extent of collaboration expected with the design team.

I believe that by making ECI tenders more specific about the level of involvement required, we can foster a more equitable environment for all parties involved. This would not only improve the quality of our project planning and execution but also enhance the integrity of our tendering process.

Question 5: Why not implement feedback-driven improvement in the tender process

Reflecting on the tender processes used within the Security & Estate Group, I've been contemplating the idea of instituting a feedback mechanism from tenderers on various aspects of the tendering process. This initiative could serve as a tool for continuous improvement, ultimately benefiting not just the internal processes of the procurement agency but the broader competitive landscape and, by extension, the taxpayers.

The feedback could cover critical areas such as:

• Quality and Timeliness of Advance Notice: Assessing if the notice provided is sufficient for tenderers to prepare effectively.
• Quality and Volume of Written Briefing Documents: Evaluating the clarity, comprehensiveness, and accessibility of briefing documents.
• Effort Required to Submit a Tender: Understanding the costs tenderers face in compiling and submitting their proposals.
• Duration of the Tender Period: Gauging if the timeframe is reasonable, providing enough time without being excessively long.
• Quality of Responses to Questions from Tenderers: Evaluating how well and how promptly we address the queries from potential bidders.
• Quality of Industry Briefing: Assessing the effectiveness and added value of attending the briefing session.
• Timeliness of Contract Execution: Measuring the efficiency of moving from tender award to contract execution.
• Quality of the Debrief: Evaluating how informative and constructive the debriefing sessions are for unsuccessful tenderers.

By soliciting feedback across these domains, Security & Estate Group can not only open a channel for learning and improvement but also demonstrate a commitment to transparency and engagement with industry partners.

This approach could lead to a more streamlined tendering process, reducing the overall costs associated with tender submissions. In turn, a more competitive market emerges, ensuring that the taxpayers receive better value for money.

The feedback mechanism would require careful planning and implementation, including the development of a standardised feedback form, a confidential submission process, and a commitment to reviewing and acting on the insights gained.

I propose initiating a pilot feedback program on a select tender to refine this approach, to be rolled out more broadly across all tender processes if successful.

Question 6: Best Practices for Establishing RFT Shortlists: Market Sounding vs. ITR

Let's talk about an essential aspect of the tendering process—establishing shortlists for Requests for Tender (RFTs). Specifically, I'm keen to explore the merits and drawbacks of two distinct approaches: Market Sounding vs the Invitation to Register (ITR) process.

The ITR process is used for its formality and rigour. It requires tender administrators to set assessment criteria upfront and to prepare a detailed report recommending which respondents should make it onto the RFT shortlist. This method demands a considerable investment of time and effort from both sides but stands out for its transparency.

On the flip side, Market Sounding presents a less formal, quicker alternative that demands less effort to execute. Its informality, however, brings about questions of transparency and potential criticism. Market Soundings can be conducted openly, with public notifications inviting input (an open market sounding process), or more discreetly, without public announcements (a closed market sounding process).

I believe both methods have their place within the Defence Estate ecosystem, depending on the context and objectives of the tender process.

But as we strive for efficiency, fairness, and clarity in our procurement activities, it's crucial to weigh these approaches carefully.

Question 7: What if we benchmarked project risk for defence estate projects?

Working on Australia's Defence Estate introduces a unique set of challenges for design consultants. The task of preparing design documentation is fraught with uncertainties: unclear project scopes, unpredictable timeframes, unfamiliar locations, and unknown facilities. These variables make quoting for such projects a high-wire act of precision and speculation.

Traditionally, design effort estimation involves a bottom-up calculation, subsequently cross-referenced with a top-down approach for sanity checks against established benchmarks. But the crux of the matter lies in setting these benchmarks. They're influenced by two primary factors: the project's size and its complexity.

Project size is often proxied by cost, a figure that remains nebulous until a project's completion, necessitating reliance on estimated or 'target project budgets' for early quoting phases. This practice, while necessary, introduces a layer of guesswork that can skew the accuracy of benchmarks.

A study I conducted, reviewing over 1,000 past Defence Estate projects, revealed a correlation between average design fees and project costs, encapsulated by a rational equation. However, this equation doesn't factor in project complexity, a significant oversight given the vast difference in design costs between simple and complex projects.

To address this, I propose considering seven factors to gauge project complexity: coordination requirements, environmental and heritage considerations, stakeholder uncertainty, location challenges, availability of existing information, technical complexity (requiring more experienced designers) and delivery factors (such as urgency and degree of budget constraint).

Each of these factors contributes significantly to the overall complexity and, by extension, the risk profile of a project.

Acknowledging these complexities, I suggest the development of a Design Risk Framework that incorporates a Complexity Factor (CF) to adjust the expected design cost, offering a more nuanced understanding of project risk.

Question 8: What if we established a basic competency framework for junior leaders working in the Defence Estate sector?

This could offer a structured pathway to enhancing leadership qualities, ensuring that these leaders are well-equipped to handle the unique challenges of the Defence environment, as well as promote retention of corporate knowledge within the sector.

Such a framework might focus on both the technical competencies required for specific roles and the soft skills necessary for effective leadership. Here's a conceptual outline of what this framework could include:

Technical Competencies

• Project Management: Understanding of project lifecycle, budgeting, scheduling, risk management, and quality control specific to Defence projects.
• Regulatory Compliance: Knowledge of the legal and regulatory frameworks governing Defence estate activities, including environmental, health, and safety standards.
• Technical Expertise: Proficiency in the specific technical disciplines relevant to the Defence estate, such as engineering (civil, mechanical, electrical), architecture, or environmental science.

Leadership and Management Skills

• Strategic Thinking: Ability to align project objectives with broader Defence strategies, demonstrating foresight and planning capabilities.
• Decision Making: Competence in making informed decisions under pressure, considering the implications and outcomes of various courses of action.
• Team Leadership: Skills in motivating, guiding, and managing team members, fostering a collaborative and productive work environment.
• Communication: Strong verbal and written communication skills, including the ability to clearly convey technical information to non-specialists and effectively negotiate with stakeholders.

Personal Attributes

• Adaptability: Ability to respond flexibly to changing circumstances and challenges, demonstrating resilience and resourcefulness.
• Ethical Integrity: Commitment to upholding ethical standards and conducting oneself with professionalism in all Defence-related activities.
• Continuous Learning: Willingness to engage in ongoing professional development and stay abreast of new technologies, methodologies, and industry best practices.

Creating such a framework would not only enhance the capabilities of junior leaders but also contribute to the overall effectiveness and efficiency of Defence Estate operations. It would ensure a consistent standard of leadership quality across the estate, aligning individual competencies with the strategic goals of the Defence organisation. Moreover, by fostering a culture of continuous improvement and professional development, the framework would help to attract, retain, and develop talented individuals committed to serving the Defence Estate community.

Question 9: What if we establish a technical forum for discussing Environment, Heritage, and Estate Engineering matters specific to the Defence Estate?

This could significantly enhance collaborative efforts, knowledge sharing, and innovation within this specialised field by serving as a centralised platform for professionals to exchange insights, best practices, and emerging trends relevant to the unique challenges of managing the Defence Estate.

Benefits of a Technical Forum

• Enhanced Collaboration: The forum would facilitate stronger networks among professionals, fostering collaborative solutions for complex challenges.
• Knowledge Sharing: It would serve as a repository of case studies, research findings, and expert advice, helping members stay informed about the latest developments.
• Innovation and Problem Solving: By encouraging the exchange of ideas, the forum could stimulate innovation, brainstorming and development of novel solutions.
• Standardisation and Best Practices: It would help develop and disseminate best practices and standards, ensuring consistent management across the Defence Estate.
• Training and Development: It could offer educational resources, webinars, and workshops, aiding in continuous professional development.
• Policy Influence and Advocacy: The collective expertise within the forum could provide a voice for influencing policy decisions and advocating for sustainable practices within the Estate.

Implementation Considerations

• Membership: Open to professionals working within the Defence Estate, including engineers, environmental scientists, heritage consultants, policymakers, and project managers.
• Platform: Utilise a digital platform that supports various forms of interaction, such as discussion boards, resource libraries, live chats, and webinar hosting.
• Governance: Establish a steering committee to guide the forum's activities, ensuring content relevance and adherence to a code of conduct.
• Engagement: Regular events, discussions, and content updates to keep the community engaged.
• Partnerships: Collaborate with academic institutions, industry organizations, and government bodies.

Challenges and Solutions

• Engagement: Maintaining active participation. Regularly scheduled events, highlighted discussions, and recognition of contributions can help keep members engaged.
• Quality Control: Ensuring the accuracy and relevance of shared information. A peer-review system for content approval could mitigate misinformation.
• Security and Confidentiality: Discussions may involve sensitive information. Implementing strict access controls and guidelines for information sharing can protect confidentiality.

By establishing such a forum, the Defence Estate community can significantly enhance its capacity to manage complex environmental, heritage, and engineering considerations, ultimately contributing to the sustainable and responsible stewardship of the Defence Estate.

Question 10: When to use the Estate Resources Information Kiosk (ERIK) in the preparation of tenders and proposals.

Since the retirement of the Defence Estate Quality Management System (DEQMS) in mid-2023, public access to crucial information regarding the Defence Estate has significantly diminished. This reduction is particularly noticeable in the availability of site maps and details on environment and heritage issues, which are essential for tenderers to fully comprehend the challenges of a project and to propose effective mitigation strategies.

The scarcity of such information inadvertently privileges incumbent contractors and those with access to the Estate Resources Information Kiosk (ERIK), creating an uneven playing field in the tendering process.

To address these concerns, I would like to see that

• all tenderers be provided with access to the relevant GFIS CAD survey model of the project site, along with relevant estate base plan(s) and recent environment & heritage reports. This would enable all parties to have a fair understanding of the site-specific challenges and requirements.
• clear guidelines on the appropriate use of ERIK should be explicitly stated within the tender conditions, ensuring transparency and fairness in the use of Defence Estate information resources during the preparation of tenders and proposals.

Question 11: Shouldn't we be making better use of the Planned Procurements list on AusTender?

This could significantly enhance transparency, efficiency, and engagement between the Security & Estate Group and industry, especially within Capital Facilities and Infrastructure (CFI) Branch.

The current utilisation disparity between the Estate Works Program and the CFI Branch highlights a missed opportunity for effective communication and strategic planning. Here are some suggestions for improving the use of the Planned Procurements list:

• Frequent Updates: PMCAs should commit to regularly updating the planned procurements list to reflect the most current information. This could be enforced through a policy that mandates updates at minimum quarterly or more frequently as project details change. Regular updates ensure the information remains relevant, helping companies plan their bidding strategies more effectively.
• Integration with Industry Briefings: While industry briefings are invaluable for detailed project insights and networking, they should complement rather than replace the information on AusTender. The register could include schedules for upcoming briefings and links to summaries or recordings of past events, creating a comprehensive resource hub for industry participants.
• Status Updates and Media Releases: The register could be enhanced by including status updates for each procurement, such as milestones reached or changes in timelines. Links to media releases related to specific procurements could provide additional context and insights, making the platform a one-stop source for all procurement-related information. This approach would also streamline communication, reducing the need for industry stakeholders to directly contact CFI staff and PMCAs for updates.
• Feedback Mechanism: Implementing a feedback mechanism on AusTender where industry participants can submit inquiries or suggestions regarding planned procurements can help identify gaps in the information provided and improve the relevance and utility of the register.
• Training and Awareness for PMCAs: Ensuring that PMCAs are well-versed in the strategic importance of the Planned Procurements list and trained in how to update and manage the listings can improve compliance and consistency in the information provided.
• Enhanced Search and Notification Features: Improving the search functionality and offering customizable notification options for industry users can make it easier to track procurements of interest, encouraging more active engagement with the platform.

By making these improvements, the Planned Procurements list on AusTender can become a more dynamic and useful tool for both Defence and industry stakeholders.

This would not only improve the fairness and transparency of the procurement process but also foster a more engaged and informed industry community, ultimately leading to more competitive and innovative procurement outcomes.

Question 12: Can we please improve the descriptions of contract notices on AusTender?

Analyzing contract notices from Security & Estate Group over the past five years reveals a wide variety of services and projects on the Defence Estate. SEG has announced more than 2400 contracts worth over $33Bn in this time. However, the inconsistency in describing these contract notices poses challenges in extracting actionable insights and identifying trends.

This is a missed opportunity for attracting new entrants and promoting competition.

Implementing standard categories for describing contract notices could significantly enhance the clarity, efficiency, and strategic value of this data. Here are some key insights and how standardising descriptions could improve clarity and analysis:

• Specific vs. Broad Descriptions: Some descriptions are very specific, such as "Electrical Works" (26) and "Demolition Works" (16), while others are broader, like "Support Services" (25) or "Professional Contractor Service" (11). This variation can make it challenging to aggregate data or identify trends across similar services.
• Duplication and Overlap: There are instances of likely duplication or overlap in descriptions. For example, "Project Management Services" (62) and "Project Management" (215) could potentially be combined for a clearer overall picture. Similarly, "Domestic leasing" (112), "DOMESTIC LEASES" (31), and "Domestic Lease" (17) indicate inconsistency in naming conventions.
• Granularity Level: The granularity of some descriptions could either be too broad or too specific, making it hard to draw comparisons. For instance, "Building Construction and Support Services" (18) vs. "Building Construction Support Services" (2) show a potential for consolidation.

Advantages of Standardised Descriptions

• Enhanced Comparability: Standardising descriptions would allow for easier comparison across similar contracts, enabling stakeholders to identify trends, budget allocations, and areas of high demand more efficiently.
• Reduced Duplication: Standardising descriptions would help eliminate redundancies, making the data cleaner and analysis more straightforward.
• Improved Data Analysis: With standardised descriptions, it would be simpler to perform quantitative analysis, such as identifying which types of contracts are most common or tracking changes in government spending priorities over time.
• Better Strategic Planning: Clearer insights into contract types and locations can aid in better resource allocation, strategic planning, and identifying gaps in services or areas for investment.
• Streamlined Reporting: For reporting purposes, both internal and public, standardised descriptions would facilitate a more straightforward, understandable, and transparent way of presenting contracting activities on the Defence Estate.