FOI 25/26-1784

DOCUMENT 4

OFFICIAL

CHIEF EXECUTIVE BRIEF

Required Action: For execution

Critical Date: 27 August 2025

PDR: EC25-0003550

Div: COO

PROC-4807- CONTRACT EXECUTION – UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE

1. Purpose

1.1. To execute a contract with University of Melbourne

2. Background

2.1. On 14 August 2025, you approved the establishment of a contract with Melbourne University for the provision of support needs assessment tool(s) related operational services and an integration system (EC25-003464 refers).

2.2. The contract has been finalised, is signed by the University of Melbourne, and is ready for execution.

2.3. redacted: s42 - legal professional privilege, s47G - business information

2.4. redacted

2.5. redacted

2.6. redacted

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

FOI 25/26-1784

OFFICIAL: SENSITIVE

• The contract with the consortium includes services to support implementation of the tool in NDIA operations, including a workforce training and assessor accreditation model, as well as services to monitor, modify and continuously improve the tool during implementation.
• The ICAN v6 will be used alongside other questionnaires and assessments to form the future NDIS needs assessment, which will be agreed through the Category A rule-making process with states and territories.
• This is a significant milestone in implementing legislative reform and New Framework Planning, which will attract interest and scrutiny from NDIS stakeholders.

That the Minister provide a decision on either of the proposed options for announcing the tool to the public:

1. A Ministerial announcement; or
2. NDIA announcement

Key Issues:

1. From February 2025 the NDIA conducted a competitive Request for Tender process to select needs assessment tools for adults. The procurement panel included redacted: s47F - personal privacy

2. A contract has been executed with a consortium comprised of the University of Melbourne and the Centre for Disability Services (an affiliate of the University of Sydney). The contract provides for:

a. A perpetual enterprise licence for the NDIA (and representatives of the NDIA) to administer the I-CAN v6.

b. The provision of a range of operationalisation support services, including workforce training and accreditation programs, administration support materials.

c. Data analytics and quality assurance activities, and modifications to the tool to tailor the assessment approach to NDIS cohorts and purposes.

3. redacted: s47C - deliberative processes, s47E(d) - certain operations of agencies

4. The I-CAN v6 will be the core component of the future NDIS needs assessment for adult (16+) participants and will be used alongside a supplementary personal and environmental circumstances questionnaire, as well as additional assessment modules for participants requirement complex product-based supports such as high-cost assistive technology and home modifications.

5. The conclusion of this procurement enables a range of operationalisation activities to progress, including finalisation of other elements of the NDIS needs assessment for adults, the development of the budget method, workforce recruitment, training and accreditation, service design and ICT system transformation, etc.

FOI 25/26-1784

OFFICIAL: SENSITIVE

6. The training and accreditation programs purchased under the contract provide flexibility for the I-CAN v6 to be administered by assessors who are not qualified allied health professionals. However, a range of workforce and implementation decisions are required, including assessment modalities (i.e. proportion of assessments conducted face-to-face), which the NDIA and DHDA will engage you on through the MYEFO process.

7. The NDIA engaged the disability community on the scope of this procurement through the Disability Representative and Carer Organisations Forum and the NDIA’s co-design working groups. The announcement of this tool will attract significant interest and scrutiny. The communications plan provided at Attachment A may be adapted to support either a Ministerial or NDIA announcement.

Background:

• In August 2024, the NDIS Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Act, passed the Commonwealth Parliament. The Bill enables the creation of legislative instruments which give effect to new framework planning, which includes a new assessment and budgeting method.
• On 5 February 2025, the NDIA released a Request for Tender on AusTender in relation to adult needs assessment tools. redacted: s47G - business information
• The procurement panel included representatives from redacted: s47F - personal privacy
• The evaluation process was completed on 17 June 2025 and recommended that the NDIA enter into negotiations with the University of Melbourne to determine whether a value for money outcome could be achieved.
• Contract negotiations took place between 2 July and 27 August, when the contract was executed. Unsuccessful tenderers have been notified.
• The NDIA engaged Clayton Utz as external probity advisor, who provided confirmation that the procurement complied with the Commonwealth Procurement Rules and other relevant Commonwealth procurement policies.

Media considerations:

• The announcement of the tool will attract interest from media and stakeholders in the disability community. Potential criticism may relate to the type of tool selected, the timeframes for transition to New Framework Planning and limited opportunities for sector consultation. For example, Exclusive: ‘Catastrophic errors’ seen in rushed NDIS reform | The Saturday Paper

Sensitivities:

redacted: s47F - personal privacy, s47G - business information

FOI 25/26-1784

OFFICIAL: SENSITIVE

Financial Impacts:

• N/A

External Consultation:

• The consortium will be asked to provide input into the media release, either as an NDIA or Ministerial announcement.

Regulatory Implications:

• The needs assessment tool is integral to the roll out of new framework planning under the NDIS Act and will need to be specified in NDIS Rules.

Attachments:

A: Communications Plan

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

FOI 25/26-1784

OFFICIAL

With the announcement of I-CAN people have spoken about not having access to knowledge about the tool or information from previous versions. Specifically, people have raised:

• It is hard to find and understand information about what is in I-CAN and how it works.
• In a previous version of I-CAN people had concerns about how their information was shared and how it was used. It is unclear what will happen with the information participants share in this process.

Due to the nature of the I-CAN tool being developed through the University of Melbourne and Centre for Disability Studies, recent research and evaluations of the tool are hard to find. The publicly available validation research seems to be from 2009. Detailed information is not accessible unless it is paid for, and the training to be an I-CAN assessor is only available to certain professionals and at a cost.

The questions the disability community has on previous evaluations and validation of the tool are not being adequately answered or addressed.

It has been shared recently by the NDIA that there is a process being undertaken through a design hub with a small group of participants to test the I-CAN. This is good and it’s important that people can give honest and frank feedback in a safe environment. The DRCOs through their forums have also requested for NDIA to do a run through of the tool to see how it works, yet this has not yet occurred.

The disability community are seeking transparency about the tool itself and the process for making modifications to the tool. It has been acknowledged by NDIA and the Centre for Disability Studies that the I-CAN v6 forms the basis of the assessment and will be tailored as ongoing testing, evaluation and use occurs.

There is a mix of purposes in the use of the I-CAN tool as it seems it will be used to determine participants budgets from July 2026, while also being evaluated and modified by the Centre for Disability Studies. Participants need to know and give consent to how their information, and their reports are used for both these purposes.

Diversity of people and need

The IAC members and the disability community are very concerned that the I-CAN is not responsive to diverse identities, cultural considerations, and diverse communication.

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au 2

FOI 25/26-1784

OFFICIAL

The tool has not been culturally validated for working with First Nations participants and their communities. Current messaging seems to be that these groups may be left till the end of the roll out before trying, testing, modifying and validating the tool. This puts the participants within these communities at high risk of having a tool that misses their important needs. It also sends a message that First Nations participants can wait, rather than the NDIA proactively engaging with First Nations participants and researchers now to build a culturally validated tool.

Culturally and linguistically diverse participants and participants with diverse communication needs are also concerned that the conversation basis of the I-CAN will raise barriers rather than be a supportive focus on needs. There are concerns that people who have difficulty understanding the questions won’t provide detailed answers. This also applies when people with intellectual, cognitive or psychosocial disability may not have great understanding or insight into their needs.

The initial testing and engagement with the tool must be with a diverse group of participants to understand the range of ways the tool might need to be modified or supported with additional modules.

Co-design and feedback

There is an assessment and budgeting co-design working group that have been involved with providing ideas and feedback on assessment tools and what needs to be in the development of assessments. This group and other DRCOs have requested to see the I-CAN tool and try it, and to discuss the governance of the tool’s further development with the people that are running the program. That has not yet occurred and should happen as part of the transparency and feedback loops of the NDIA co-design process.

The assessment co-design group only heard about the design hub group trialling the I-CAN at the recent DRCO forum. This group should be involved in an ongoing way with the trialling and modifying of the assessment tools. They have also raised concern that the publicly available procurement information does not provide an obligation for the Centre for Disability Studies to engage with the DRCO forum or the assessments and budgeting co-design working group.

A large number of questions have been raised about the assessment tools and processes. More information has started to be shared about the proposed Support Needs Assessment process, and how the I-CAN is one part of the assessment. Feedback mechanisms at the DRCO forums and advisory groups need to be in place, consistent, and answer questions about what has happened with their advice.

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au 3

FOI 25/26-1784

OFFICIAL

They are seeking transparency. If something is yet to be worked on, it is okay to say so, and to ask for feedback on how to work on the things the NDIA does not have answers for yet.

More information must be shared on the way the Personal and Environment Questionnaire is part of the support needs assessment and how the budget will be generated from the reports.

Assessor training and qualifications

The assessor role potentially holds a significant amount of power. It is understandable that there are many questions and concerns being raised about who will be assessors and how they will be trained.

The I-CAN tool website states that Allied Health professionals should administer the tool, however the NDIA has said they will be getting staff trained to do the assessments. There is concern that assessors may miss skills that are expected in an Allied Health professional. There is also concern new staff from the NDIA and the trainers may have unconscious bias and expectations of people with disability that can impact assessment processes, particularly for those who cannot explain their needs and so may get less.

The disability community want assurance that the training of assessors will include an understanding of disability rights, the history of disability institutionalisation and abuse, and allow exploration of inclusion in practice and contemporary expectations.

There is concern that it has not yet been made clear whether assessors will be employed by the NDIA or contracted from third parties. It has been raised that when contracts for roles are given to large external organisations it is harder to ensure values are aligned with NDIS.

People with disability are expected to be both assessors and trainers of assessors. There are skilled and empathetic people with disabilities currently employed by the NDIA as well as Allied Health professionals with disability who could do these roles.

Correcting and reviewing the Support Needs Assessment

The IAC and the disability community are very concerned about how the NDIA manages the outliers where mistakes or decisions are incorrect. There are many examples of times when the NDIA staff have put the incorrect information into a plan or made a mistake with the figures in a budget.

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au 4

FOI 25/26-1784

OFFICIAL

When the Support Needs Assessment process is complete it then forms the basis of the budget and the plan to go to a delegate for decision making. If a person with disability or their family member cannot check that the information in the Support Needs Assessment is correct before going to that decision making step, the only option is to go for a review of the whole plan.

There should be the ability to view and provide corrections to the Support Needs Assessment report before it goes to the budget and decision-making phase. The NDIA will be repeating the same problems we currently have where incorrect information and planning decisions without input from the person continue to be the norm, if this step is not included.

The IAC and the DRCOs want the internal mechanisms for decision making to be co-designed. This includes the process for being able to get a new assessment done if there are problems, for example with bias from the assessor or missing information.

It has been noted that when the NDIA put in place expert panels to assist with reviews before people went to the Administrative Review Tribunal, it was successful.

Potential actions

• Communication with DRCOs on what has happened with the feedback they’ve given as well as continuing to involve the DRCO forum and co-design groups in all steps must be a priority for the NDIA.
• The DRCO Forum and other advisory groups need to see the I-CAN tool and the full Support Needs Assessment in practise so they can understand the process and provide feedback.
• As partners in the ongoing modification and design to meet the needs of different groups the Centre for Disability Studies team should be engaging with the DRCO forum and different advisory bodies of the NDIA including the IAC.

Prepared for Leah van Poppel, IAC Principal Member, by Samantha Jenkinson, Senior Independent Advisor.

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au 5