Summary of Evaluation Criterion 5 Outcomes - Environmental Sustainability Plan (SESP) | FOI document library

DISCLOSURE 2026-86525/26-0450 OFFICIAL

4.3.5 Summary of Evaluation Criterion 5 Outcomes — Environmental Sustainability Plan (SESP)

In response to questions relating to the Tenderers’ commitment to addressing environmental sustainability:

The Tenderer demonstrated its commitment to supporting environmentally sustainable practices and plans in the overall delivery of services. It is dedicated to reducing its environmental impact through certified systems, sustainable policies and innovative practices. It is committed to environmental sustainability through their ISO 140001:2015 certified Environmental Management System (EMS) and consistently achieve NABERS Energy ratings, reflecting their ability to optimise building energy performance.

redacted: s47G - business information provided several projects at redacted: s47G - business information redacted: s47E(d) - certain operations of agencies where they have demonstrated these achievements.

Risk Level: Low - Environmental Management System in use to minimise environmental impact.

Score: redacted: s47E(d) - certain operations of agencies Risk Rating: redacted: s47E(d) - certain operations of agencies

The Tenderer demonstrated its commitment to supporting environmentally sustainable practices and plans in the overall delivery of services.

redacted: s47G - business information redacted: s47E(d) - certain operations of agencies is a holistic approach to project delivery across their teams. At the heart of the framework are redacted: s47G - business information as detailed in the submission.

redacted: s47G - business information has embedded environmental sustainability within its service delivery approach, having developed redacted: s47G - business information redacted: s47E(d) - certain operations of agencies This is detailed in the Sustainability template, dashboard and attending policies of the submission. Further they cited examples of works / process at redacted: s47G - business information with examples of diversion statistics, emissions reduction and EPD certified materials.

ndis.gov.au Evaluation Report - PROC-5000 15

Page 85 of 151 OFFICIAL

DISCLOSURE 2026-86525/26-0450 OFFICIAL

Risk Level: Low - redacted: s47G - business information have detailed policies and process for overall management of projects.

Score: redacted: s47E(d) - certain operations of agencies Risk Rating: redacted: s47E(d) - certain operations of agencies

4.3.6 Summary of Evaluation Criterion 6 Outcomes — Indigenous Participation Plan (IPP)

In response to questions relating to the Tenderers’ commitment to address increasing Indigenous participation and past MMR compliance:

The Tenderer has a comprehensive Indigenous Participation Plan (IPP) that demonstrates their commitment to supporting Indigenous economic and workforce development. As a redacted: s47G - business information redacted: s47E(d) - certain operations of agencies has a deep understanding of the objectives and expectations outlined in the Commonwealth’s Indigenous Procurement Policy (IPP).

Risk level: Low - IPP in place and MMRs target exceeded.

Score: redacted: s47E(d) - certain operations of agencies Risk Rating: redacted: s47E(d) - certain operations of agencies

redacted: s47G - business information

Risk level: Low - Extensive programs across the business firmly embedded and expanding with demonstrable targets.

Score: redacted: s47E(d) - certain operations of agencies Risk Rating: redacted: s47E(d) - certain operations of agencies

redacted: s47G - business information

ndis.gov.au Evaluation Report — PROC-5000 16

Page 86 of 151 OFFICIAL

DISCLOSURE 2026-86525/26-0450 OFFICIAL

redacted: s47G - business information

Risk level: Low - Extensive programs across the business firmly embedded and expanding with demonstrable targets.

Score: redacted: s47E(d) - certain operations of agencies Risk Rating: redacted: s47E(d) - certain operations of agencies

4.4 Stage 3 — Financial Evaluation Process and Outcomes

Stage 3 was conducted in accordance with the Evaluation Plan.

The Evaluation Team considered each Submission by considering the whole of life costs, forecast budget, and any associated risks. The expected contract values are shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Financial comparison

| Tenderer | redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material | Parramatta (GST Incl.) | Chatswood (GST Incl.) | Total (GST Incl.) | Caveats / Notes | | — | — | — | — | — | — | | redacted: s47G - business information, s47E(d) - certain operations of agencies | | | | | |

Table 5 provides a summary of the scores and risk ratings relating to Evaluation Criterion 7.

ndis.gov.au Evaluation Report - PROC-5000 17

Page 87 of 151 OFFICIAL

DISCLOSURE 2026-86525/26-0450 OFFICIAL

Table 5: Evaluation Criterion 7 scores and risk ratings

ndis.gov.au Evaluation Report — PROC-5000 18

Page 88 of 151 OFFICIAL

DISCLOSURE 2026-86525/26-0450 OFFICIAL

redacted: s47E(d) - certain operations of agencies

4.5 Solvency, compliance, and NDIA Procurement Policy requirements

In accordance with the Evaluation Plan, consideration was given to other matters which were unweighted or have not already been taken into account in Stage 2 and Stage 3 to develop a risk profile.

The Evaluation Team considered each Tenderer’s response to questions on whether:

a) the Tenderer had any conflicts of interest in providing a response. i. Neither Tenderer identified any conflicts of interest.

b) the Tenderer had any information it would like to be kept confidential. i. Neither Tenderer identified any confidential information.

c) the Tenderer complied with Contract Terms, Statement of Work, NDIA Procurement Policy, Procurement Connected Policies or relevant legislation. i. redacted: s47G - business information did not identify any non-compliances ii. redacted: s47G - business information stated they were compliant with the draft Schedule 12 WO/Contract Terms, however proposed an amendment to Liquidated Damages section. redacted: s47G - business information

4.6 Verification Activities

ndis.gov.au Evaluation Report - PROC-5000 19

Page 89 of 151 OFFICIAL

OFFICIAL

In accordance with the Evaluation Plan, the Evaluation Team further undertook the following verification activities:

a) Referee checks: the Evaluation Team agreed that referee checks were not required as both Tenderers have performed recent work for the NDIA to a compliant standard with low risk.

Clarification questions: the Evaluation Team did not seek clarifications from the

tenderers.

In accordance with the Probity Protocol, the Tenderers were not permitted to make

material changes to their Submissions.

b) Security checks – Successful Tenderer to provide a register of all attendees and sub-contractors prior as per the agency contract, which shall be vetted and approved by the NDIA security team.

4.7 Stage 4 - Value for Money Process

As provided in the Evaluation Plan, Stage 4 considered:

a) the technical evaluation outcomes under Stage 2, including the evaluation outcomes for Evaluation Criterion 4 (Disability Commitment) and

b) the pricing evaluation outcomes under Stage 3

The Evaluation Team also considered other matters (as identified in Sections 4.5 and 4.6) which are unweighted to develop a risk profile for each Tenderer. A detailed risk profile is at Appendix B.

Table 6 provides a high-level summary of the Submissions, pricing and ratings.

ndis.gov.au Evaluation Report – PROC-5000 20 Page 90 of 151 OFFICIAL

OFFICIAL

Table 6: Comparison of individual evaluation ratings

redacted: s47E(d) - certain operations of agencies

ndis.gov.au Evaluation Report – PROC-3350 21 Page 91 of 151 OFFICIAL

DISCLOSURE 20@6-86525/26-0450

OFFICIAL

5. Value for Money Determination

Through the Value for Money process, the Evaluation Team found that:

redacted: s47G - business information

redacted: s47E(d) - certain operations of agencies

redacted: s47G - business information

redacted: s47E(d) - certain operations of agencies

ndis.gov.au Evaluation Report — PROC-3351

Page 92 of 151

OFFICIAL

DISCLOSURE 20@6-86525/26-0450

OFFICIAL

6. Compliance of the evaluation process with

NDIA policies

The procurement was conducted in accordance with the NDIA Procurement Policy, the Probity Protocol and the Evaluation Plan for this procurement.

During the evaluation process, there were no probity matters raised.

In signing this Evaluation Report, Evaluation Team members confirm that in relation to this evaluation that they:

a. have read and complied with the Evaluation Plan,

b. have no undisclosed conflicts of interest, and

c. are aware of their ongoing confidentiality obligations.

7. Recommendations

redacted: s47E(d) - certain operations of agencies

Name:	Role	Signature	Date
Lawrence `redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material`	Chair	`redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material`	14/02/2025
Le `redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material`	Team member	`redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material`	14/02/2025
Rebecca `redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material`	Team member	`redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material`	17/02/2025

ndis.gov.au Evaluation Report — PROC-5000 23

Page 93 of 151

OFFICIAL

DISCLOSURE 26/G6-66525/26-0450

OFFICIAL

14/02/2025

Name:	Role	Signature	Date
Bride `redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material`	Team member	`redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material`	14/02/2025

Appendix A — Scoring Guide

The following ratings were applied to Evaluation Criteria 1-6. The descriptions are intended to act only as guidance on assessing ratings. They are not intended to be wholly exhaustive of the issues to be considered and are to be interpreted broadly.

Note a ‘Poor or ‘Unsatisfactory’ rating for one or more evaluation criteria will exclude the Potential Supplier from further participation in the procurement process.

Table 6: Technical Scoring Matrix (Evaluation Criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6)

Description	Score
The response satisfies the evaluation criterion to a very high standard. The
Tenderer’s claims were fully supported by the information provided and
exceeds all requirements in the Scope of Work.

The Tenderer demonstrated to a very high standard its experience in providing services highly consistent with the Scope of Work, with its claimed experience supported by clear examples of where it had provided these services before.

The Tenderer provided details of its proposed key personnel, which demonstrated, to a very high standard, that they retain extensive relevant experience and expertise in delivering the required services. Further, it demonstrated that it has significant capacity to undertake the Scope of Work within the required timeframe.

The Tenderer demonstrated its commitment to supporting people with disability to be more independent, engage more socially and economically, and build genuinely connected and inclusive communities to a very high standard.

Referees supported all of the Tenderer’s claimed experience.

The Tenderer is compliant with all ATM requirements and has no caveats on its response. | 5 - Very Good

Risk level: Low
– Represents
minimal or no
risk to the NDIA | | The response satisfies the evaluation criterion to a high standard meeting or in some instances exceeds the Scope of Work requirements.

The Tenderer demonstrated to a high standard its experience in providing services consistent with the Scope of Work and supported its claimed experience by including clear examples of where it had provided these services before. | 4 – Good

Risk level:
Low –
Represents
minimal or no
risk to the NDIA. |

ndis.gov.au Evaluation Report — PROC-5000 24

Page 94 of 151

OFFICIAL

DISCLOSURE 2OCE-B4525/26-0450

OFFICIAL

Description	Score
The Tenderer provided details of its proposed key personnel, which
demonstrated to a high standard that they retain relevant experience and
expertise in delivering the required services. Further, it demonstrated that it has
the capacity to undertake the Scope of Work within the required timeframe.

The Tenderer is compliant with all ATM requirements and has no material caveats on its submission.

Referees supported the majority of the Tenderer’s claimed experience. | | The response satisfies the evaluation criterion to a satisfactory degree, adequately demonstrating that the Tenderer could meet the Scope of Work requirements. However, there were some minor deficiencies and shortcomings in the information provided.

The Tenderer demonstrated to an acceptable standard its experience in providing services consistent with the Scope of Work, with its examples providing evidence of experience that is broadly aligned with the Scope of Work.

The Tenderer adequately demonstrated that it has the capacity and key personnel to undertake the Scope of Work within the required timeframe, although it did not demonstrate it has access to a depth of supplementary resources.

The referees generally supported the Tenderer’s claimed experience.

The Tenderer is broadly compliant with the ATM requirements; however, some aspects of its response represent a risk to the NDIA and/or it has some caveats on its response that require negotiations. | 3 –
Satisfactory

Risk level:
Medium –
Represents an
acceptable level
of risk to the
NDIA. | | The response barely demonstrated the Tenderer’s understanding of, or ability to deliver, the Scope of Work, and/or there were major deficiencies in the information provided.

The Tenderer did not demonstrate to an acceptable standard its experience in providing services that were consistent with the Scope of Work, with the examples provided not demonstrating experience that was consistent with Scope of Work. | 2 – Poor*

Risk level: High
– Represents
some degree of
unacceptable
risk to the NDIA. |

ndis.gov.au Evaluation Report— PROC-5000 25

Page 95 of 151

OFFICIAL

DISCLOSURE 2OCE-B4525/26-0450

OFFICIAL

Description	Score
The Tenderer did not demonstrate to an acceptable standard that it has the
capacity or key personnel to deliver the Scope of Work within the required
timeframe.

The Tenderer did not demonstrate its commitment to supporting people with disability to be more independent, engage more socially and economically, and build genuinely connected and inclusive communities to an acceptable standard.

Inadequate information was received from the referees to support the Tenderer’s claimed experience, or the services described were inconsistent with the Scope of Work.

The Tenderer is partially compliant with the ATM requirements and has a number of material caveats on its response that may not be resolvable to the satisfaction of the NDIA. | | The response does not satisfy the evaluation criterion, and the Scope of Work requirements have not been met. The proposed approach did not demonstrate that the Tenderer understood the Scope of Work and / or was unworkable.

Inadequate information was provided to allow the Evaluation Team to assess the Tenderer’s capability / capacity / experience to provide the Scope of Services to the Agency.

The Tenderer is noncompliant with the majority of ATM requirements and has a substantial number of material caveats on its response that would require negotiations and are not expected to be resolvable to the satisfaction of the NDIA. | 1 –
Unsatisfactory*

Risk level:
Critical –
Presents an
unacceptable
level of risk to
the NDIA. |

ndis.gov.au Evaluation Report— PROC-5000 26

Page 96 of 151

OFFICIAL

DISCLOSURE 2OCE-B4525/26-0450

OFFICIAL

The following ratings were applied to the pricing (Evaluation Criterion 4):

Table 7: Financial Scoring Matrix (Evaluation Criterion 7)

Description	Score
• Pricing is among the lowest compared with other submissions, where this
can be determined. • Pricing does not contain unacceptable conditions, assumptions, and
risks. • Pricing contributes favourably to value for money.	Favourable Risk level: Low – Represents minimal risk to the NDIA.
• Pricing contains conditions and assumptions, but these present an
acceptable risk to the NDIA. • Pricing is comparable with other submissions, where this can be
determined. • Pricing contributes to value for money to an acceptable level.	Acceptable Risk level: Low – Represents an acceptable level
of risk to the NDIA.
• Pricing is notably higher than other submissions and does not currently
contribute to value for money. • Pricing contains ambiguous conditions and assumptions. • It is anticipated that negotiations could deliver an acceptable position for
the NDIA. • Pricing does not contribute to value for money.	Not acceptable Risk level: Medium – Represents some degree of unacceptable risk to the NDIA.
• Pricing is considerably higher than other submissions. • Pricing is not considered viable. • Pricing contains unacceptable conditions, assumptions, and risks. • It is anticipated that pricing negotiations would be difficult, and it may not
be possible to achieve an acceptable position for the NDIA. • Pricing does not contribute to value for money.	Highly unacceptable Risk level: High – Presents an unacceptable level of risk to the NDIA.

ndis.gov.au Evaluation Report — PROC-5000 27

Page 97 of 151

OFFICIAL

DISCLOSURE 2OCE-B4525/26-0450

OFFICIAL

Assessment of risk

Risk was assessed in accordance with the NDIA’s risk management process as provided on the intranet: Risk Enablement (ndia.gov.au).

Table 8: Risk Rating Matrix

Consequence	Likelihood
	Rare Less than 5 percent likelihood of the risk occurring in the next year
Extreme	Medium
Major	Medium
Moderate	Medium
Minor	Low
Insignificant	Low

ndis.gov.au Evaluation Report— PROC-5000 28

Page 98 of 151

OFFICIAL

Appendix B – Assessment of Risk

The Evaluation Team identified the following risks associated with the Submissions:

redacted: s47G - business information

redacted: s47E(d) - certain operations of agencies
The submission was evaluated as representing a minimal level of risk to the Agency overall.

redacted: s47G - business information

redacted: s47E(d) - certain operations of agencies
The submission was evaluated as representing an acceptable level of risk to the Agency overall.

ndis.gov.au Evaluation Report – PROC-5000 29

Page 99 of 151

OFFICIAL