Henk Joustra is a seasoned tender evaluator. Assistant Director
of Information Technology for the Australian New South Wales Attorney
General’s Department, Joustra has seen numerous successful tender
responses, and has also witnessed first-hand the embarrassing blunders
respondents can make. The following interview was conducted
by Jordan Kelly – Bid Strategist, Writer & Coach.
ne of the Department’s largest Why three times?
programs to come into Joustra’s care
was “CourtlLink”, a $40 million “Because the NSW Government has
initiative designed to provide “new a preference to buy rather than build,
generation” case management for and when we first went out there
New South Wales’ Supreme, District (in 1992), the technology we needed
and Local Courts. simply wasn’t there,” he said.
“CourtLink has been a massive “The geographical spread and the
software acquisition project,” Joustra volume of our work (130 courthouses
says, “and also a process around the state) made it difficult for
improvement project. IT architectures in the pre web-enabled,
client server days of the early and
Henk Joustra has a sense of “We’re not just customising the mid-nineties.
humour. He has to. Spending
months evaluating responses system to suit the way we’ve always
to 400-page Request-for-Tender “If it’s a large and complex IT project, don’t waste our time documents can be about as
much fun as respondents or yours with unproven, ‘bleeding edge’ technology.” Henk Joustra NSW Attorney General’s Dept
have answering them.
“Born in the public service” he was
“found under a memo”, he says.
He joined the Attorney General’s
Department in 1979 and, with
academic qualifications in strategic
planning, he soon became heavily
involved in large IT acquisition
programs. Developing RFPs, RFTs,
RFQs, and evaluating responses, has
been a core part of his job ever since.
done things, we’re also looking to
improve the way things are done
and how we provide services.”
Acquiring the CourtLink solution –
a milestone finally passed in 2001 –
came only after a lengthy and
challenging selection process.
“We had to go out to the IT marketplace
three times.”
“The solutions we were offered just
weren’t robust enough and we knew
they weren’t going to work.
“It was nearly a decade before the
technology caught up with our needs.”
In the course of the 10 years and
three rounds of tenders, what were his
key observations of t
“Throughout the process, we were
always looking for successful
reference sites for the solutions that
were being proposed to us. When
you’re out there looking for a largescale, complex solution there’s a lot of
components to it and you need to see
sites where the components have
been integrated successfully.
“With the unsuccessful bids, there
were never any reference sites for us
to look at.”
He says the message for IT companies
in a similar tendering process is:
“In our case that meant not going with
cobbled-together technology but
waiting until someone could come to
us with a complete solution that could
do what we needed it to do,” he says.
“IT is one of those areas which,
if you throw enough money at it,
will work.
“There are a lot of ‘workarounds’ that
you can do to make something hang
together, but it will end up being poor
value and difficult to maintain.
“If that’s the nature of the solution
a company is offering, they should
be sure that we see that for what it is.
“Cost is not the most important thing, contrary
to popular belief.”
“If you’re proposing the solution to a
large and complex IT project, don’t
waste our time or yours with
unproven, ‘bleeding edge’ technology.
“The State Government has an obligation
to the people of New South Wales not
to undertake projects with a large
degree of risk attached. We don’t
want to be overly conservative but –
as a custodian of the public purse –
we need to know that what we
purchase is going to work.
“And if you feel your technology is
going to work, then find a way to
prove it. If you can’t offer existing
proof of concept and the RFT hasn’t
specifically sought a pilot phase –
propose one. You get plenty of
opportunity to discuss the potential for
this before the formal bid phase.”
He suggests IT companies without
reference sites propose a low-risk pilot
project which, if unsuccessful, will
allow the client to step out of the
agreement at that point.
If they’re successful, on the other
hand, the pilot sets the scene for
moving to the next stage.
Joustra stresses the fact that
a government agency also has
a responsibility to ensure value
for money.
“We could have gone with the client
server technology and thrown a lot of
money at it to make it work, but we’d
still be developing CourtLink today.”
General Advice
With the experience gained from
CourtLink and many other IT tendering
processes, Joustra has the following
items on his advice list.
State your understanding
but don’t “parrot”
“When you’re responding, be sure to
first state your understanding of our
requirements, along with any
assumptions on your part.
“It’s important, when we’re evaluating,
to know you understand what it is that
we need and want. A decent part of
the score we give you is based on
how we rate your understanding of
our needs.
“But demonstrating your understanding
doesn’t mean parroting what’s in the
RFT, or ‘cut-and-pasting’ large chunks
of our RFT back into your own response.
“It means communicating what you
think about our needs after you’ve put
them through your own thought
processes.
“This is why it’s important to take full
advantage of opportunities to meet
the prospective client and ask
questions.
“If we have say, 20 responses to
a complex RFT, we really have to
shortlist. And one of the major bases
upon which we will do this is your
understanding of our requirements.
“If you can’t do this it doesn’t matter
how competitive your price is.
“Cost is not the most important thing,
contrary to popular belief. Frequently,
in fact, cost is way down the list,
because it’s not an indicator of true
value.”
Be upfront about risks
“If you know there are risks in your
proposal, be upfront and address
them. Don’t gloss over them. Not only
is this transparent, but we will not
waste resources pursuing you for
answers and reassurance. You’ll just
get put aside.
“We expect you to take the initiative
and provide us with a level of comfort.
We respect and expect an honest
upfront relationship with people we do
business with.”
Identify the business need
“When we go out to tender, we’re out
to satisfy a business need, not a
technology need.
“And that’s how we evaluate a
response. The technology is just the
means of meeting the business need.
So if you’re responding to a
technology RFT, don’t lose sight of
the underlying business driver . . .
the technology is only the solution.
“If you fail to address the need from
this perspective, you will not have
successfully argued that you
understand the client’s needs.”
A good Executive Summary
is priceless
“A good Executive Summary will
determine if the evaluator reads on
with a heavy heart or with genuine
interest and a receptive frame of mind.
© Jordan Kelly 2007 www.bidstrategist.com.au | www.bidstrategist.com | www.bidstrategist.co.nz | www.bidstrategist.c
