guidelines for selecting providers from the adhc … providers from the adhc ... the guidelines for...

Guidelines for selecting providers from the ADHC Supplier Directory

Selecting providers from the ADHC Supplier Directory 2

Document approval

The Guidelines for selecting providers from the ADHC Supplier Directory has

been endorsed and approved by:

___________________________________

Stephen Chanphakeo

Director, Funding Operations, Community

and Sector Engagement, ADHC

Approved: 17 March 2016

Document version control

Document name:

Guidelines for selecting providers

from the ADHC Supplier Directory

Version:

Version 2

Document status:

Current

Authoring unit:

Community and Sector Engagement

Date:

March 2016


Table of contents Principles ................................................................................................................. 4 1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 4

1.1 When should these Guidelines be used? .............................................. 4 1.2 Context ................................................................................................. 4 1.3 What is the ADHC Supplier Directory? .................................................. 4 1.4 What services can providers be selected to deliver? ............................. 5 1.5 The ADHC Supplier Directory and HSNet ............................................. 5 1.6 Managing risk ....................................................................................... 5

2 Selecting a provider..................................................................................... 6 a) Direct Allocation ......................................................................................... 6 b) Single Invited Proposal .............................................................................. 7 c) Multiple Invited Proposal ............................................................................ 9 d) Non standard processes ............................................................................ 9

3 What if a client chooses a non-Supplier Directory provider? ................. 10 4 What if there are no suitable Supplier Directory providers available? .. 10 5 Appendices ................................................................................................ 11

Appendix 1: ADHC Service Categories ........................................................ 11 Appendix 2: Glossary ................................................................................... 12 Appendix 3: Flowcharts for determining sourcing method ............................ 13 Appendix 4: Shortlisting from the ADHC Supplier Directory.......................... 15 Appendix 5: Running Multiple Invited Proposals........................................... 16 Appendix 6: Sample RSP email ................................................................... 19 Appendix 7: RSP Cover Page ...................................................................... 20 Appendix 8: RSP Application Form .............................................................. 21 Appendix 9: Addressing Assessment Criteria ............................................... 25 Appendix 10: Proposal Assessment Form.................................................... 26 Appendix 11: Summary Assessment Report ................................................ 27 Appendix 12: Correspondence to Unsuccessful Providers ........................... 28 Appendix 13: Correspondence to Successful Providers ............................... 29 Appendix 14: Record of Decision and Provider Recommendation ............... 30


1 Introduction

1.1 When should these Guidelines be used? These Guidelines are to assist FACS staff in managing the selection of providers from the ADHC Supplier Directory.

1.2 Context

In the lead up to NDIS implementation, FACS has consolidated all specialist disability

funded service providers into a single Supplier Directory from which specialist disability

funded services are sourced.

1.3 What is the ADHC Supplier Directory?

The Supplier Directory is a way of consistently applying rules to the management and

selection of service providers to achieve the best outcomes for people with disability

their families and carers. The Directory prioritises client choice and supports service

users to identify suitable organisations in their local area. It also guides FACS

decision-making where client choice is not the driving force, such as services where

block funding is still in effect.

Guidelines governing listing of service providers on the Directory and the selection of

providers to deliver services aim to reduce complexity for FACS staff and for service

providers. It also creates a greater level of transparency and accountability in funding

decisions.

Principles

People with disability, their families and carers are at the centre of the service system.

FACS must consider and balance flexibility quality, sustainability and innovation of the provider market in making decisions.

FACS decision-making processes are fair, impartial, transparent and accountable.

FACS’ funding processes are streamlined and their administrative requirements are proportionate to the value of the funds being allocated.

Repeated competitive procurement processes are unnecessary where FACS has previously tested and has a good understanding of the market.

FACS will always refer to the ADHC Supplier Directory in the first instance to identify providers to provide specialist disability services.

Service providers are transparent and open about their ability and capacity to provide services.


Funding Operations staff are available to provide advice and support to districts with

the guidelines and processes. Districts should send an email in the first instance to

[email protected].

1.4 What services can providers be selected to deliver?

The ADHC Supplier Directory covers all specialist disability services. The service

types are divided into categories. Organisations that are permitted to deliver one

service in a particular category will be permitted to deliver all of the services in that

category all over NSW, except where this is otherwise stated. A more detailed

explanation of these categories is at Appendix 1.

Where a service user wishes to use an organisation to deliver services other than

Category C services and that organisation does not already deliver services of that

type, the relevant program area will need to assent to the organisation being assessed

to deliver those services. Until this is done, they are not able to deliver that service

type.

1.5 The ADHC Supplier Directory and HSNet

The ADHC Supplier Directory is a mechanism that gathers relevant information about

specialist disability funded service providers in one place. It is supported by the

Supplier Directory database.

In order to increase transparency and enable people with disability to be at the centre

of decisions about service provision, the content of the Supplier Directory database

has been made available to the public via the Human Services Network (HSNet) at

https://www.hsnet.nsw.gov.au/. HSNet is a tool to give both FACS staff and service

users knowledge about what services are available in their local area and allows staff

to gain additional oversight of their local specialist disability market.

Service users are able to search HSNet for ADHC Eligible Providers. These are

organisations that either have a Funding Agreement with ADHC to deliver specialist

disability services, or have been assessed as eligible to enter into a Funding

Agreement with ADHC. HSNet contains information about these organisations,

including where they deliver services, the services that they can deliver, accessibility

of premises, any applicable costs and how referrals are accepted.

1.6 Managing risk

The organisations listed on the ADHC Supplier Directory are, with a few exceptions

(such as where a provider has already been successfully assessed as eligible but has

not yet entered into a funding agreement), organisations that already hold an ADHC

Funding Agreement and are therefore subject to ADHC’s monitoring and quality

processes. Because of this, there is no need to continually test and retest their

soundness or fitness to deliver services in known locations and service types.

Under the Supplier Directory, direct allocation is the preferred means of allocating new funding, with client choice as the primary driver.

mailto:[email protected]

https://www.hsnet.nsw.gov.au/


The Guidelines for Selecting Providers from the ADHC Supplier Directory is a

principles-based document. Without being prescriptive or attempting to anticipate

every contingency, it supports staff to make decisions centred on the needs of the

individual.

2 Selecting a provider

FACS staff have three main options in selecting a provider from the Supplier Directory.

a) Direct Allocation

b) Single invited proposal

c) Multiple invited proposals

In limited cases the Supplier Directory may not identify a provider that can deliver the

required supports or services. In these circumstances a different process for sourcing

a provider will be required. See Section 4 of these Guidelines for more information.

a) Direct Allocation

When should Direct Allocation be used as a sourcing method?

Direct allocations should be used in situations where:

The client has chosen the service provider;

The client or group of clients has specialist needs that can best be met by a particular provider;

The market has been recently tested and a suitable service provider identified;

There is only one provider of that service type in that location;

It is a continuation of an existing service; or

It is an emergency situation.

And

Consideration will be given to these three funding allocation methods in this order to determine the most suitable allocation method for the available funding.

For example, staff must demonstrate why direct allocation is not the most appropriate funding allocation method for the specific client(s) for whom they are purchasing before moving on to consideration of a single invited proposal.

A flow chart that illustrates this process is at Appendix 3.


The selected provider is currently providing (or is eligible to provide) services of the category being sourced in the location in which they will be used; and

The provider has current capacity to provide the services within a reasonable timeframe.

If these conditions are met, proceed to a direct allocation. If they are not met, proceed

to consideration of a single invited proposal.

How should a provider be selected through Direct Allocation in the case of client choice?

Either service users or FACS staff will search HSNet and identify the providers who

may fulfill the client’s needs in terms of service type, location and specialisation. The

client or their family or carers can then make a choice of provider.

If the client is unable to identify their preferred provider consideration should be given

to whether there are further grounds for undertaking a direct allocation, such as the

market already having been recently tested.

How should a provider be selected through Direct Allocation in other situations?

FACS District staff will search HSNet to identify the providers who fulfill the client’s

needs in terms of service type, location and specialisation. Based on this and local

knowledge they will then contact providers until the most suitable provider that has

capacity can be identified. Appendix 4: Shortlisting from the ADHC Supplier Directory

can assist in narrowing down the field of suitable providers until one that is both

suitable and has capacity can be identified.

How will the allocation of funding to providers in the Supplier Directory be recorded?

Once a suitable provider has been identified, the relevant sections of the Record of

Decision form (Appendix 14) will be completed. Completed Records of Decision forms

should be filed according to existing local procedures. Actions on FMS to initiate the

funding should be completed in line with established business processes.

What happens if a provider can’t be identified for direct allocation?

Consideration should then be given to a single invited proposal. If this is not suitable, a multiple invited proposal will then be considered.

b) Single Invited Proposal

When should a single invited proposal be used as a sourcing method?

Direct allocations must always be made within financial delegations and according to program guidelines (where applicable).


A single invited proposal should be considered when the criteria for a direct allocation are not met or if the provider selected by the client has not been funded to deliver services of that type in that location previously.


How will a single invited proposal be undertaken?

Once a suitable provider has been identified, FACS district staff will contact the provider to ensure that the chosen organisation has the current capacity and willingness to respond to a Request for Service Proposal. When confirmation has been received, the provider will be supplied with electronic copies of the proposal documents. These may include de-identified client data and a Description of Service (Appendices 6-8).

The provider should be given up to two weeks to respond unless there are compelling reasons to compress the timeframe or both parties agree to this. Two staff should review the proposal, seeking clarification where warranted. It is recommended that, where possible, the client should have the opportunity to review the proposal and consider whether the service provider is an acceptable choice.

Assessment should be informed by the guidance contained in Appendix 9: Addressing Assessment Criteria and recorded in detail on Appendix 10: Proposal Assessment Form, and summarised by panel assessors in a Summary Assessment Report (Appendix 11). Recommendations should then be made to the District Director using the relevant sections of the Record of Decision form (Appendix 14).

Where the proposal cannot be accepted, purchasing staff will approach the next most suitable provider on the shortlist and undertake this process again.

c) Multiple Invited Proposal

If neither direct allocation nor single invited proposal is the most appropriate method for allocating funding, a multiple invited proposal should be considered. This is the most appropriate means of identifying a suitable service provider where:

The conditions for a direct allocation or single invited proposal have not been met; and

There is more than one provider in the Directory that can provide the specific service and the value or complexity of the allocation is such that testing of the market is warranted; and

The budget is greater than $250,000.

It should be noted that a budget greater than $250,000 does not in itself create a requirement for a multiple invited proposal to be undertaken. Consideration must be

given to other allocation methods before a multiple invited proposal is undertaken.

How will a multiple invited proposal be undertaken?

For information on running a multiple invited proposal, refer to Appendix 5.

d) Non standard processes In situations where standard allocations processes are not appropriate, FACS

Strategic Procurement should be contacted for advice and guidance.


3 What if a client chooses a non-Supplier Directory provider?

In this case, the potential provider must first be assessed for listing on the Supplier

Directory using the Guidelines for Listing on the ADHC Supplier Directory.

4 What if there are no suitable Supplier Directory providers available?

In some cases the ADHC Supplier Directory may not identify any suitable providers.

Such circumstances include where there is no provider in the Supplier Directory that

has offered or is capable of providing an outcome or service:

In the geographic location required

Of the service type required

To the service group required (e.g. CALD, Aboriginal, age group, program,

classification type); or

With the accreditation/s required to deliver the specified service.

In the first instance the District should:

Survey the ADHC Supplier Directory, starting locally, for a provider that may have

the capacity to meet the criteria of the output or service to be acquired but has not

nominated the program or location where the output or service is to operate. If no

local provider can be identified, the search will then be expanded to surrounding

locations.

Make informal contact with a potential provider (i.e. telephone/email) to confirm

whether the identified provider consents to submitting a Request for Service

Proposal.

In the case of emergencies, and where there are no ADHC Supplier Directory

providers available, the District Director may approve a non-Directory provider for a

short term interim placement using a direct allocation process.

If the scope of the service being sought is outside that of the ADHC Supplier Directory, consideration should be given to alternative means of meeting clients’ needs, including sources outside the specialist disability system.


5 Appendices

Appendix 1: ADHC Service Categories

Category Program areas

A Providers of asset based accommodation models, including:

Group homes

Centre-based respite.

B Providers of the following specialist services1:

Transition to Work2

Community Justice Program

Statewide Behaviour Intervention Service

Integrated Services Program

C

Providers of other non-asset-based services, including:

Life skills, employment and respite

Non-asset based accommodation models

Community Support Program3

Community Care Support Program

Family support

Individual Funding – “Intermediary organisations”

D Providers of specialist Aboriginal services4, for example:

Services our Way

Aboriginal Flexible Respite

1 In all cases, determination of who can provide these services will continue to be undertaken by the program

area. There is a barrier between each of these service types unless the relevant program areas determine otherwise. 2 Transition to Work (TTW) is a specialist employment program. It is not intended to expand the TTW market and potentially impact on the TTW outcomes being achieved by the existing TTW providers. Contact the program area for more information. 3 Providers seeking to deliver Community Support Program services will be required to undertake additional assessments to determine their ability to deliver support to clients with high personal care or medical needs. 4 Providers delivering specialist Aboriginal services will be permitted to deliver services to the broader community however, providers of services in categories A-C will be required to undertake additional assessment to deliver specialist Aboriginal services.


Appendix 2: Glossary

Capacity When approached the provider confirms the capacity to deliver

the service.

Complexity of the service(s)

The support or service required is highly specialised or

incorporates a number of support needs or has additional non-standard requirements for flexibility..

Continuation of

existing service provision

The service required is a continuation of a service already

provided by the supplier

Direct allocation With the provider’s consent, funding is supplied directly to the

provider for the provision of services to a specific client or group

of clients.

Emergency

Circumstances There is an emergency situation where a suitable service

provider must be sourced immediately. Emergency

circumstances include situations where a delay would threaten

public health and safety, damage the environment, or create a serious legal or financial risk to the agency or the government.

Individual choice The person with a disability, their family or carer selects or

agrees to the selection of a specific provider

Market Analysis Canvassing the existing market to determine the availability of

suitable services and the capacity of providers to deliver those

services prior to formally approaching providers. This can be

done through informal contact with providers, contact with

ADHC contract managers, evidence from previous assessment

processes for the same or similar services, informal approaches to the providers themselves, or via other methods.

Multiple invited

proposal After shortlisting from the Directory, up to four providers are

approached (with their prior consent) to respond to a request for service proposal for a specific client or group of clients.

Organisation

status/standards The organisation is meeting its compliance requirements,

Including being or becoming compliant with the NSW Disability

Services Standards. This is evidenced by information held by

ADHC as part of Quality Framework Reporting and Annual

Compliance Returns.

Previous testing of

the market Previous market analysis (and possibly previous sourcing

attempts) identified the providers with the necessary skills.

Service Performance

Based on information held by ADHC, this is evidenced by the

organisation’s history of performance, including consideration of

its previous delivery of required outputs and the appropriateness of any underspent funding.

Single invited proposal

With the provider’s consent, a request for service proposal is

sent to a provider to assess its capacity to provide services to a specific client or group of clients.


Appendix 3: Flowcharts for determining sourcing method Client choice

Is the provider an ADHC Eligible

Provider?

Yes

No

Assess provider using Guidelines for Listing providers on the ADHC Supplier

Directory

Does the provider currently deliver services in that

category?

No

Yes

Undertake Single Invited Proposal

Proceed to a direct allocation

When the client chooses the

provider


Non-client choice

If the client did not choose the service

provider

Is there only one provider that can deliver the service in the local area?

YesProceed to Single Invited Proposal

No

Is it a high value allocation?

No

Yes

Shortlist up to four suitable providers and run a Multiple

Invited Proposal


Appendix 4: Shortlisting from the ADHC Supplier Directory

When considering service providers, staff should take into account the following

factors:

Whether the organisation is complying with its Funding Agreement (if it has one).

The performance level of the organisation.

Whether the organisation specialises in, or is known to provide, positive outcomes

for people who fit the profile of the client(s) purchasing the services or on whose

behalf services are being purchased.

Whether the proposed service provider has the capacity to take on a new client or

clients.

Information on evidence that may be used to support these considerations is below.

Criterion Detail Evidence

Organisation status / standards

• The organisation is complying with its Funding Agreement (where relevant)

• Existing information held by ADHC regarding compliance with the Funding Agreement.

Service performance

• The organisation has a history of good performance, delivering the outputs required and not spending funding inappropriately.

• The organisation has a track record of providing good outcomes for people who have similar characteristics or support needs as the client/s

• Existing information held by ADHC including:

• FMS generated Service Provider Health check

• FACS Risk Assessment outcomes

• Feedback (Individual and ADHC)

• Complaints (specific to the relevant service type)

• Contract Manager feedback

District strategic goals

• The use of the provider supports local strategic goals. This includes consideration of the level of supply in the market and complexity of the service.

• Existing information held by FACS, including any analysis of the market conducted as part of planning processes.

Capacity • The provider has the capacity to deliver the service, including taking on new clients and (where necessary) commencing new services

• Direct conversation with the provider


Appendix 5: Running Multiple Invited Proposals

Selecting ADHC Supplier Directory providers for a Request for Service Proposal (RSP)

Staff will make an initial enquiry of HSNet to identify ADHC eligible providers that operate in the location

and can deliver the required service type. To assist in the short listing, staff will utilise Appendix 4:

Shortlisting from the Directory. The resulting list will provide the District with all ADHC eligible providers

who may be suitable. No more than the four providers assessed as most suitable should be invited to

submit an RSP, although the number can be determined by the District subject to the circumstances.

Requesting a Service Proposal

Short listed ADHC Supplier Directory providers invited to make a proposal

Unless they are seeking proposals for block-funded services, purchasing staff will contact short listed providers directly, via phone or email, to ascertain their willingness to receive a request for service proposal.

Service proposals will be emailed to providers that have consented to receive them. The RSP invite package will consist of:

A cover email (Appendix 6)

RSP Cover page (Appendix 7)

Service Proposal Application Form (Appendix 8)

FACS Standard Conditions of Tendering

Descriptions of Service

De-identified client data (optional, depending on circumstances and requirements).

Closing Date and Time

The closing date should be set so that the provider has at least two weeks to complete the service proposal. There may be occasions where this will need to be either be extended or reduced.

Contact Person

The Contact Person should be the FACS staff member who has carriage for the purchase of the support and/or service. The Contact Person should be available for the duration of the process, able to respond to queries and offer assistance as required whilst maintaining probity and confidentiality throughout the process.

Assessment Process

Assessment will be undertaken by at least two district staff

Receipt of the Service Proposals

An email acknowledging receipt of the proposal should be sent to the applicant/Supplier Directory provider within five days. It should include an indication of the timeframe for the assessment and approval process.

Following the return of the service proposal to the District, the assessment should ideally be undertaken within two weeks of the closing date.

Late Returns

A service proposal needs to be delivered to the stipulated email address by the closing date and time.

Late applications will not be considered except when it is clear that the cause of lateness was beyond the applicant’s control and FACS is satisfied that the integrity of the RSP will not be compromised.

Additional Information

Assessment staff may consider the information provided in the completed Application Form and in any attachments requested as part of the service proposal to inform the assessment of the proposal.


Scoring Service Proposals

There are three assessment criteria:

Describe how your organisation will meet the needs of, and intended outcomes for, this specific client/group of clients. Your response should consider the client’s physical, social, emotional and cultural needs, including how changing needs will be identified and responded to. It should also identify how your organisation makes effective use of existing community service networks, professional services and facilities.

The implementation plan to commence delivering the service is appropriate and timeframe is achievable.

The cost effectiveness of the proposed budget for the services.

While additional unsolicited material submitted, such as Annual Reports, should not form part of the

assessment, applicants are encouraged to supply supporting information that depicts their service

offerings in an accurate way, for example including detailed costings where appropriate.

Service proposals will be assessed against the assessment criteria on the basis of the following scoring system:

Scoring Rationale Score

Outstanding - requirements are exceeded in key areas, claims are all very well substantiated and proposals are of a very high standard. Negligible errors or omissions. Substantial and enduring high benefits.

6

Very Good - requirements met to a very high standard in all areas, claims are well substantiated in all areas and proposals are of a high standard. Minor errors or omissions. Enduring high benefits.

5

Good - requirements are met to a high standard in all areas, claims are well substantiated in key areas and proposals are sound. Some errors or omissions. Enduring benefits.

4

Fair - requirements are met to a reasonable standard in all areas, with no major shortcomings, all claims are well substantiated in most areas and proposals credible. A number of errors or omissions. Some benefits.

3

Marginal - requirements are not fully met, some claims are unsubstantiated while others are only adequate with some proposals being unworkable. More than a few errors or omissions. Limited benefits.

2

Poor - requirements are poorly addressed in some areas or not at all, claims are largely unsubstantiated and the proposals are generally unworkable. Numerous errors or omissions. No apparent benefits.

1

Non-Compliant – failure or refusal to provide a response. 0

Each proposal will be assessed against the criteria listed and ranked according to their score.

A minimum average score of at least 3 will be required to qualify for consideration for approval. A score of 1 or less for any criterion, or more than two criteria scoring 2, should result in rejection of a service proposal. There is no weighting for selection criteria.

Completing the Proposal Assessment Sheet

Guidance on addressing assessment criteria can be found at Appendix 9. Each proposal must be assessed individually using the Proposal Assessment Form (Appendix 10), and must be assessed on its own merits in relation to the requirement and assessment criteria, rather than used as a point of comparison with other responses using .

The reasons should generally relate back to the scoring rationale, i.e. the degree to which specification requirements have been met, the degree to which claims are substantiated and whether proposed approaches appear appropriate and workable. Reasons should reference examples from the proposal, e.g. ‘the response did not adequately demonstrate an understanding of clients with complex needs and


gave no mention of the requirement for clinical support’ or ‘the applicant demonstrated an excellent understanding of the issues impacting on CALD clients and their need for connection to family’, etc.

Clarification

Assessment staff may seek clarification of certain matters to obtain a better understanding of some aspects of the service proposal. The provider will be required to respond to requests for clarification in writing within five business days. In the event of requesting any clarification, assessment staff should ensure that procedural fairness is maintained throughout the process.

Completing the Summary Assessment Report

Once the assessment is complete, assessors will meet to complete a Summary Assessment Report (Appendix 11). It lists the recommended Supplier Directory provider/s in sequential order of merit along with the special conditions if applicable, and whether they are recommended or not recommended to receive funding for the service to be acquired.

The Summary Assessment Report shows the decisions reached by the Assessors:

Recommended Proposal: the most suitable proposal.

Other Qualifying Proposals: in sequential order (where applicable).

Ineligible Proposals: proposals that have not achieved the minimum score.

Any Special Conditions related to the proposal or the ADHC Supplier Directory provider, if applicable, are to be recorded on the Report and elsewhere as appropriate.

Record of Decision Provider Selection from the ADHC Supplier Directory Recommendations

On selecting a provider the panel convener is required to fill out a Record of Decision form (Appendix 14).

This completed Records of Decision is then endorsed by the District Director and actioned in line with normal procedures.

Notice of Recommendations All of the ADHC Supplier Directory providers involved in the RSP should be notified via email of the outcome of the assessment process. Sample letters to successful and unsuccessful applicants are included at Appendix 12 and 13.

Feedback

The assessors will assess all the components of each proposal, even in cases where a criterion has been given a score of zero, one or two. While the proposal will be deemed not to have met the assessment criteria, the information may be used to provide feedback to providers so they can improve their service provision or ability to respond adequately to selection criteria. In that context, feedback sessions should be offered to successful as well as unsuccessful applicants.

Complaints about the Request for a Service Proposal Assessment Process

If there is a complaint with regard to the assessment process by one of the invited Supplier Directory providers, it should be lodged in writing and within 21 days of receipt of the notice of the assessment outcome.

The complaint should be sent to the relevant District Director.

Any formal complaint should be acknowledged in writing within five days of receipt. Complaints should be investigated by FACS officers who are independent of those involved in the actions leading to the complaint. The outcome of the investigation should ideally be advised to the complainant within 14 days of receipt of the written complaint depending on the complexity of the case.


Appendix 6: Sample RSP email

Dear As discussed, you are invited to submit a service proposal for the provision of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx services. The Request for Service Proposal (RSP) for the provision of xxxxxxxxxx for XXXXXXXX is now open. The RSP documents have been attached. RSP ID: _________________ RSP Title:______________________ Please contact me on (02) xxxx xxxx or if you are having any difficulties opening any of the documents with this process. Kind regards,


Appendix 7: RSP Cover Page

REQUEST FOR SERVICE PROPOSAL (RSP) DETAILS

RSP Number

Title

Closing Time & Date

CONTACT DETAILS

All enquiries relating to this RSP should be directed to the Contact Officer between the hours of 9.30am and 3.30pm (Sydney time, business days only) as follows:

Contact Officer

Telephone Facsimile

Email [email protected]

RFT PACKAGE

The following documents comprise the RSP package. Only the Application Form is lodged by the Tenderer.

1. RSP Cover Page (this document)

2. Description of Service

3. Application Form

4. De-identified Client data

5. Additional documents if applicable

6. FACS Conditions of Tendering

[NOTE TO USERS: Delete any of the above documents if they are not being supplied as part of the RSP process.]

BRIEFING DETAILS

Date Time

Location xxx

xxx

[NOTE TO USERS: Delete the above Briefing table if there is no briefing.]

LODGEMENT DETAILS

Proposals must be lodged by the closing time and date, in electronic form only, to the following email address. Submissions in hard copy or sent to another website will not be given consideration.

Email Address

[NOTE TO USERS: Where appropriate, a summary of the requirement or any other key information can be added.]


Appendix 8: RSP Application Form

ADHC Service Proposal (RSP) Application Form The Service Proposal Application Form is to be completed by the nominated service providers.

Upon completion it is to be return to the contact person listed on the cover letter of this

proposal.

The questions in this form pertain to the specific service to be purchased, its match to the

client/’s support needs, the organisation’s operations, the cost and the delivery plan.

ADHC reserves the right to obtain further information and/or clarification from your

organisation at any time during the selection process, if required.

Claims against assessment criteria are word limited.

Assessment Criterion 1:

Word limit (< > words)

Describe how your organisation will meet the needs of, and intended outcomes for, this specific client/group of clients. Your response should address the client’s physical, clinical, social, emotional and cultural needs, including how changing needs will be identified and responded to. It should also identify how your organisation makes effective use of existing community service networks, professional services and facilities.


Describe your implementation plan to commence delivering the service using the template provided at Appendix A.


Please provide a proposed budget for your service model using the template provided at Appendix B.

You may add categories and rows to this document so that it accurately depicts your organisation’s proposed budget.

Funding Reference No. :


PART 4: DECLARATION

This declaration should be signed AFTER completing the application form. It must be signed

by person/s identified in your organisation’s constitution, or holding a position that is iden tified as being authorised to commit your organisation to the conditions as described in any contract or Funding Agreement with ADHC.

I acknowledge and certify that:

the organisation has read and understood the request for proposal;

the organisation is required to inform ADHC of any actual or potential conflict of interest that exists or may arise from participation in this tender process;

the information in this document is true and correct;

none of the organisation’s office bearers, employees or agents have been charged or convicted of committing a criminal offence which will reasonably affect the ability of the organisation to undertake service delivery.

I, also declare that (tick appropriate option):

the organisation, its staff members, management and board members, have no known actual or perceived conflicts of interest in being the approved provider.

the organisation wishes to declare the following known actual or perceived conflict of interest in submitting this proposal in the table below.

Name of relevant staff / board / management

member

Nature of actual or potential conflict of interest

Strategy your organisation will implement to manage actual or

potential conflict of interest

Name and Title

Signature

Date


APPENDIX A

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

OBJECTIVE STRATEGY PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

TIMEFRAME

What are you going to achieve

How will you do this - tasks

Outcomes & Outputs By when



APPENDIX B

Proposed Annual Service Budget ITEM $ Per Annum

A. INCOME

Grants (ADHC)

Other Income (state source)

Total

B. SERVICE COSTS

Programme Costs

Other

Total

C. MANAGEMENT COSTS

Total

Note: Please add or delete rows in the above tables, as required to best demonstrate how your budget will meet the needs described in the RSP package.



Appendix 9: Addressing Assessment Criteria

Criterion Assessment

The proposed service will meet the needs of, and intended outcomes for, this specific client/group of clients.

This will be assessed on the organisation’s approach to the individual service user or group of users and how their needs and goals are integrated into service planning and provision

The response should address the clients’ physical, clinical, social, emotional and cultural needs, including how changing needs will be identified and responded to. It should also address issues of independence, community integration and family involvement.

If the clients have a CALD or Aboriginal background, this needs to be considered during the assessment.

It should also identify how the organisation makes effective use of existing community service networks, professional services and facilities.

The Implementation Plan to commence delivery is appropriate and timeframe is achievable.

The Implementation Plan needs to demonstrate the capacity of the organisation to set up and commence delivery of the service within an appropriate timeframe and the necessary steps involved in the process. Where regions/districts have requested timeframes within the specification, these should be addressed in the plan.

The plan needs to be realistic and able to be complied with in order to deliver the service in a timely manner.

The services provided are cost effective.

This criterion will be assessed to determine if the budget supports the proposed service model and required outputs.

Where a single invited proposal is being considered, the organisation should provide the service at a competitive rate.

Where multiple proposals are being considered, assessors will consider significant variances in costs between applications. Clarification of variances may be sought from applicants prior to the finalisation of the assessment process.

Confirm proposal and allocation is within unit price under existing arrangements and total value of allocation determined.

Applicants may add rows or categories to the template as required in order to assist them to fully express how they propose to budget for service delivery.


Appendix 10: Proposal Assessment Form

ADHC < Service Delivery Reference Number > Request for a Service Proposal

Name of Provider:______________________________________________________Consortium Y/N_______________

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA REASONS FOR SCORE SCORE

OUT OF 6

1 How will the organisation meet the needs of, and intended outcomes for, this specific client/group of clients. Response should address the client’s physical, social, emotional and cultural needs, including how changing needs will be identified and responded to. It should also identify how the organisation makes effective use of existing community service networks, professional services and facilities.

2. Implementation plan to commence delivering the service is appropriate and timeframe is achievable.

3. Cost effectiveness of proposed budget for the services.

TOTAL SCORE Comments: Special Conditions:

________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Sign/date Assessor one Assessor two


Appendix 11: Summary Assessment Report

ADHC <Service Delivery Reference Number > Request for Service Proposals

TRIM No

Supplier Directory Member/Consortium Name

Total Score

Special Conditions

Recommended Proposal (Above the Minimum Score and Preferred Proposal)

No

Other qualifying proposals (Above Minimum Score)

Ineligible Proposals (Below the Minimum Score) Comments

Insert additional rows if needed

ASSESSOR CERTIFICATION ASSESSOR ONE Print name ___________________________________________ Sign______________________________________ Date______________________ ASSESSOR TWO Print name ___________________________________________ Sign______________________________________ Date______________________


Appendix 12: Correspondence to Unsuccessful Providers

Dear <Insert RSP Title> This is to inform you that Family and Community Services (FACS) has decided not to accept the offer from your organisation in response to the above Request for Service Proposal. Should you request it, a post-proposal debriefing can be arranged. It should be noted that the purpose of such a debriefing is to discuss aspects of your proposal with the object of enhancing future performance, and not as an opportunity to contest the result. Please contact the undersigned if you wish to have a post-proposal debriefing arranged. FACS appreciates the time and effort your organisation has devoted to responding to the above Request for Proposal. Yours sincerely <Insert Name of Procurement Coordinator> <Insert Position> <Insert Business Unit> <Insert Telephone number>


Appendix 13: Correspondence to Successful Providers Dear <Insert RSP Title> Closing Date: <Insert RSP Closing Date>

I am writing to advise you that your organisation has been successful in the Family and Community Services (FACS) Request for Service Proposal (RSP) [insert RSP title and RSP ID number]. Thank you for your proposal. A representative from the District will be in touch shortly to finalise the funding agreement and plans to implement the new service. A post-proposal debriefing can also be arranged if you feel that this would be useful to the organisation. The purpose of such a debriefing is to provide feedback on your proposal with the object of enhancing future performance. Please contact the undersigned if you wish to have a post-proposal debriefing arranged. Yours sincerely <Insert Name of Procurement Coordinator> <Insert Position> <Insert Business Unit> <Insert Telephone number>


Appendix 14: Record of Decision and Provider Recommendation

1. Funding Allocation Method

2. Allocation Details

Service Provider ID: Provider Name:

Description of Services (DofS) ID: Description of Service Name:

Outlet ID: Funding Start Date:

3. Risk Assessment Outcome (where relevant)

Briefly describe

4. Service Provider Selection Evidence

a. Direct Allocation

Briefly describe what the decision to directly allocate funding was based on

Other provider(s) considered and reasons for not proceeding

Organisation name Reason(s) for not proceeding

b. Single Invited Proposal

On what basis was the provider approached for a single invited proposal?

Organisational status / standards

Sub Program (Service Type)

Budget Initiative: TRIM reference:

Funding amount (recurrent): $ Funding amount (non-recurrent): $

LGAs: Target group and special conditions:

Service Delivery Reference No:

Client name (where relevant)

Direct Allocation Single Invited Proposal

Multiple invited proposal


Service performance

Capacity Confirmed? Yes No

Responses to assessment criteria

Acceptable? Yes No

Other provider(s) considered and reasons for not proceeding

Organisation name Reason(s) for not proceeding

c. Multiple Invited Proposal

Attach signed copies of:

Summary Assessment Report for the multiple invited proposal process.

Proposal Assessment Sheet for recommended provider.

Capacity Confirmed? Yes No

Responses to assessment criteria

Acceptable? Yes No

Manager I endorse the assessment and recommendation for allocation to this service provider:

District Director

guidelines for selecting providers from the adhc … providers from the adhc ... the guidelines for...

Documents