Question:
Hi

can you please advise on below:

number of IT agents

current incumbent provider

data migration requirements

technology stack & required integrations

number of IT managed assets

Thanks

Answered on 26/Aug/2026 01:52 PM:


Thank you for your query.

Please See Addendum 1 - ITSM Platform Review - VP521761 for response.

Question:
ServiceNow is supporting enquiries from our partner network for this tender. It sounds like University of Southern Queensland (USQ) is seeking a single vendor approach to this, with provision of the platform, implementation services, and support services delivered by a single vendor. ServiceNow works with 30+ universities across Australia, and all universities procure their licenses for the SeviceNow ITSM platform directly from ServiceNow, and contract with their implementation and partners separately. This provided the most flexibility to the universities, as they can choose the partner/s best able to deliver each specific service or project outcome. A direct relationship with ServiceNow also opens up preferential commercial options for universities, with a CAUDIT-aligned master ordering agreement and EFTSL-based price book that is beneficial for universities.

Is USQ open to a similar arrangement of a direct platform relationship with ServiceNow?

As the leading ITSM platform in the market, we will happily support USQ and our partners in the market, with whatever option best supports USQ's needs.

Answered on 26/Aug/2026 01:53 PM:


Thank you for your query.

Please See Addendum 2 - ITSM Platform Review - VP521761 for response.

Question:
Does the current Ivanti Endpoint Manager and software asset management capability remain, or is the ITSM platform required to replace it?

Are agentless discovery and dependency service mapping required as native platform capability, or is an integrated third party product acceptable?

What is the in scope fulfiller count and the annual ticket volume?

Is 1 April 2027 a fixed institutional commitment, or an objective open to phased delivery?

Will UniSQ specify a liability cap for loss of Customer Data under Module 3 clause 3.10, and at what value?

Is Schedule 7 performance guarantee required for this engagement, and in what form?

Answered on 26/Aug/2026 01:53 PM:


Thank you for your query.

Please See Addendum 3 - ITSM Platform Review - VP521761 for response.

Question:
Hi there,

Can you please confirm the total number of licensable resolvers intended to use the ITSM platform (that being anyone who will be required to fulfil tickets in the system). Including a breakdown of both IT users and any non-IT users, for example HR, Facilities, Payroll etc.

Can you also please confirm if the intent is for respondents to provide pricing for End-point Discovery solutions, and if so, can you please provide the total number of managed endpoints within the environment?

in summary:

- Total licensable user base:

- Any non-IT fulfilment users:

- Estimated number of managed end-points (Cis) for discovery tooling pricing

Answered on 27/Aug/2026 11:12 AM:


Please See Addendum 4 - ITSM Platform Review - VP521761 for response.

Question:
Can UniSQ please confirm whether New Zealand-registered companies are eligible to submit an offer for this opportunity, provided they meet all mandatory and contractual requirements?

Answered on 27/Aug/2026 11:13 AM:


Please See Addendum 5 - ITSM Platform Review - VP521761 for response.

Question:
Can UniSQ please provide the anticipated number of users for the proposed ITSM platform, including:

Users who will manage and resolve requests and incidents

General employees who will submit or track requests

System administrators

Any external users

Please also include any expected growth in user numbers over the proposed contract term.

Answered on 27/Aug/2026 11:13 AM:


Please See Addendum 6 - ITSM Platform Review - VP521761 for response.

Question:
Are UniSQ open to the delivery of the project with a combination of onshore and offshore resources?

Answered on 27/Aug/2026 11:14 AM:


Please See Addendum 7 - ITSM Platform Review - VP521761 for response.

Question:
Hi UniSQ Team,

We would like to request a short extension of two weeks to the submission deadline please. We are keen to bring in the right specialists to provide a complete and comprehensive response to ensure the very best outcome for the University.

Answered on 27/Aug/2026 11:15 AM:


Please See Addendum 8 - ITSM Platform Review - VP521761 for response.

Question:
Two clarification queries to UniSQ before the 7 September cut-off:

1: Whether a co-managed model, where the supplier holds the platform licence and UniSQ's IT staff operate within it, is acceptable under Streams A and G.

2: Whether the ITO permits alternative or non-conforming offers, and whether a conforming offer must be lodged first.

Answered on 28/Aug/2026 01:30 PM:


Thank you for your query.

UniSQ's response has been provided in Addendum 9.

Please refer to the addendum for further details.

Question:
Hi

Appreciate your clarification on the questions below:

ID Part B Ref Requirement / Context Question to UniSQ Priority

1. CURRENT PLATFORM, CUSTOMISATION AND DATA MIGRATION

1 8.1 Addendum 1: data migration "should be addressed through the respondent's proposed implementation methodology". Is the current ITSM platform deployed on-premises or as a hosted/SaaS service, and does it integrate to on-premises systems that would require network connectivity or a secure gateway from the new platform? P1

2 5.1 Section 5.1 asks how the platform supports standardisation "while minimising customisation". Approximately how many custom forms, custom fields, scripts and point integrations exist in the current platform that would need to be reproduced or rationalised in the new solution? P1

3 8.1 Section 8.1 requires an implementation approach and timeline. For data migration, could you please indicate the approximate volume and retention expectation for: open tickets, closed ticket history and the number of years to be retained, attachments, knowledge articles, CMDB records, and service catalogue and workflow configuration? P1

4 8.1 Addendum 3 Q4 confirms phased delivery approaches may be proposed. Is full historical data migration required at go-live, or is a phased approach acceptable where in-flight and recent records migrate before cutover and the historical archive follows in a second pass? P1

2. IDENTITY AND ACCESS

5 7.1 Section 7.1 requires enterprise identity and access management integration. Which identity provider is used for staff, and is the same directory used for students, or are staff and student identities held in separate directories? Which SSO protocol is required (SAML 2.0 or OIDC), and is SCIM provisioning required in addition to single sign-on? P1

6 7.1 / 6.5 Section 6.5 requires configurable approval workflows. Where user attributes such as department, cost centre, manager, campus and location are used for approval routing and entitlement, which system is the authoritative source for those attributes? P1

7 7.1 Section 7.1 covers identity and access management. Beyond permanent staff, which populations must be supported for access and request fulfilment, for example casual and sessional academics, contractors, honorary and adjunct appointments, research partners, and alumni? Is student identity provisioning driven by the enrolment or student management system? P2

3. INTEGRATION LANDSCAPE

8 5.4 / 6.8 ITO scope refers to integration with "IAM, ERP and monitoring tools". Addendum 1: "Respondents should outline their recommended technology architecture and integration approach." Could you please provide the list of systems that must integrate with the ITSM platform, indicating which are mission-critical for go-live and which are desirable in a later phase? P1

9 6.8 Section 6.8 covers out-of-the-box integrations and integration architecture. For each system in scope, is the requirement read-only visibility (status, notifications, approvals), or full read-write action execution (submitting requests, triggering provisioning, updating records)? P1

10 6.8 Section 6.8 covers integration architecture. Does UniSQ operate an integration platform, middleware or API gateway (for example Boomi, MuleSoft or Azure API Management) that third-party platforms are expected to route through, or are direct API and webhook integrations acceptable? Are there restrictions on direct system-to-system calls? P1

11 5.4 Section 5.4 requires enterprise platform integration. For the ERP and finance systems, what are the intended use cases for integration, for example asset procurement and receipting, cost centre validation for approvals, or chargeback and internal recovery of IT costs? P2

12 5.4 / 6.6 Section 6.6 (Mandatory) requires request fulfilment workflow. Which HR or payroll system triggers joiner, mover and leaver events, and is onboarding and offboarding orchestration in scope for the initial deployment? Does offboarding orchestration extend to student accounts at completion or withdrawal? P1

13 5.4 Section 5.4 requires enterprise platform integration. Is the student management system in scope for integration, and if so which service scenarios are expected, for example student IT account issues, enrolment-driven access provisioning, or lab and software entitlement? P2

14 5.2 / 6.8 Section 5.2 requires a self-service portal as a single entry point. Is the learning management system in scope for service desk support and integration, and should teaching-related incidents be raised, triaged and reported within the ITSM platform? P2

15 5.2 / 7.5 Section 7.5 covers ongoing technical service delivery. Is telephony or contact centre integration required for the service desk (for example screen pop, click to dial, call logging), and which telephony platform is in use? How many shared or functional mailboxes require email-to-ticket intake? P2

4. CMDB, ASSET MANAGEMENT AND DISCOVERY

16 6.3 Addendum 3 Q1 confirms Ivanti Endpoint Manager and software asset management are in the current environment. Addendum 3 Q2 confirms native or integrated third-party discovery is acceptable. Should the proposed platform ingest asset and configuration data from Ivanti Endpoint Manager and the existing software asset management capability, or is the expectation that the ITSM platform assumes responsibility for discovery? If the Ivanti tooling is being retained, please confirm the intended period of coexistence. P1

17 6.3 Section 6.3 covers CMDB and asset management. Which endpoint and mobile device management tools are deployed across the estate (for example Microsoft Intune, Jamf or equivalent) for Windows, macOS, iOS and Android, and should the ITSM platform ingest compliance and configuration data from each? P1

18 6.3 Section 6.3 requires CMDB capability. What level of CMDB capability is required: asset and configuration inventory with ownership and lifecycle, or full dependency and service mapping supporting impact analysis for incident and change? Which CI classes are in scope (end user devices, servers, network, applications, business services, cloud resources)? P1

19 6.3 Section 6.3 covers asset management scope. Which asset categories fall within scope beyond standard end user computing, for example teaching and computer lab fleets, audio visual and classroom technology, research computing and instrumentation, and library or loan equipment? Are student-owned devices in scope for support or asset records? P2

20 6.3 Section 6.3 covers asset lifecycle. Is the ITSM platform expected to act as the system of record for asset financials such as purchase value, depreciation and warranty, or should it ingest that data from the finance or procurement system? P2

5. SERVICE CATALOGUE, WORKFLOW AND AUTOMATION

21 6.4 Section 6.4 requires a service catalogue structure. Approximately how many service catalogue items and request types are in scope for initial delivery, and how many distinct fulfilment teams or resolver groups will they route to? P1

22 6.5 Section 6.5 requires configurable workflows and catalogue governance. How many active workflows and automations exist today, and what is the expected approval complexity: single-level or multi-level, sequential or parallel, and are approvals typically role-based, cost-centre-based or delegation-based? P1

23 6.5 Section 6.5 covers configurable workflows. Is Microsoft Power Automate or another orchestration tool currently used to drive approvals or automation? Should the new platform trigger those existing flows, or handle orchestration natively and replace them? P1

24 6.6 Section 6.6 Request Fulfilment Workflow is a mandatory requirement. Which request types does UniSQ most want automated end to end at go-live, for example account and access provisioning, software entitlement, hardware requests, or shared mailbox and distribution list changes? P1

6. PROCESS DESIGN

25 6.2 Section 6.2 requires core ITSM process management including change enablement. Which change models are in use (standard, normal, emergency), what is the approximate monthly change volume, and what is the CAB structure and meeting cadence? Are change freeze or blackout periods aligned to semester and examination cycles? P2

26 6.2 Section 6.2 requires core ITSM process management including major incident handling. What is the current major incident process, which channels are used for war room collaboration and stakeholder communication (for example Microsoft Teams), and is mass notification to affected staff and students required from the platform? P2

27 6.2 Section 6.2 requires service level management. Could you please confirm the SLA and priority matrix in use, the business hours calendars that apply including any variation across campuses, semester periods and examination windows, and the escalation rules expected at go-live? P2

7. CHANNELS, EXPERIENCE AND REPORTING

28 5.2 Section 5.2 requires a secure self-service portal as a single entry point for users. Which intake channels are required at go-live (portal, email, Microsoft Teams, telephone, walk-up, mobile), and is the self-service portal intended for staff only or for students as well? Is the same catalogue presented to both populations, or are separate experiences required? P1

29 5.3 Section 5.3 requires reporting and executive dashboards. Which operational and executive reports are required at go-live, and does UniSQ have a preferred business intelligence platform (for example Power BI) that ITSM data should be exported to for institutional reporting? P2

30 5.3 / 8.1 Section 8.1 requires an implementation approach with measurable outcomes. Can UniSQ share baseline operational metrics for the population in scope, such as average handle time, mean time to resolution, first contact resolution and current satisfaction scores, so that proposed improvement targets can be benchmarked against a real baseline? P2

8. ENVIRONMENTS AND SERVICE CONTINUITY

31 7.4 Section 7.4 covers environment management. How many non-production environments are required (development, test, user acceptance, training), and is a separate training environment with representative data expected? P2

32 7.3 Section 7.3 covers disaster recovery, business continuity and resilience. Does UniSQ have specific recovery time and recovery point objectives that the platform must meet, and are there defined availability or maintenance window requirements, including periods such as enrolment and examinations where change must be restricted? P2

9. COMMERCIAL AND CONTRACT

33 8.6 The pack includes both QITC Schedule 1 (Price and Payment Terms) and QITC Schedule 2 (Project Implementation and Payment Plan). Schedule 1 states it is not required where Schedule 2 applies. Could you please confirm which schedule is the authoritative pricing vehicle, and whether UniSQ will issue a pricing template? Is there a preferred pricing basis, for example per employee, per agent, or tiered by population band? P1

34 8.6 Addenda 1 and 3 confirm agent numbers, ticket volumes and asset counts are not disclosed and that respondents should identify assumptions. As these volumes are not disclosed, could UniSQ confirm the total staff population expected to have access to the platform, and whether students are included in that population for licensing purposes? Where respondents price against stated assumptions, can pricing be reconciled at contract formation if actual volumes differ materially? P1

35 7.5 / 8.5 Section 7.5 covers ongoing technical service delivery; the ITO scope refers to "managed service requirements". Could you please clarify whether the ongoing support requirement covers platform support and administration only, or a managed service desk including L1 staffing? If L1 is in scope, what coverage hours, channels and volumes should respondents price against? P1

36 8.5 QITC Schedule 8 (Service Levels) is supplied as a blank template. Should respondents propose the complete service level regime, including availability target, severity definitions, response and restoration targets and the service credit mechanism? Does UniSQ have minimum expectations against any of these measures? P2

37 2.2 Section 2.2 requires insurance details. The QITC General Contract Details leave insurance amounts and liability cap values unpopulated. Could you please confirm the minimum insurance levels required for professional indemnity, public liability, workers compensation and cyber liability? P2

38 Evaluation timetable The ITO indicates demonstrations may be held October to November 2026. Could you please confirm whether demonstrations will be required and, if so, the indicative format, duration and audience, and the specific service scenarios UniSQ would like demonstrated? Will UniSQ provide representative data and scenarios, or should respondents use their own demonstration environment? P2

Many thanks

Answered on 28/Aug/2026 03:38 PM:


Thank you for your query.

UniSQ's response has been provided in Addendum 10. Please refer to the addendum for further details.

Question:
1. Please confirm whether each of the seven capabilities listed under “Request Fulfilment Workflow [Mandatory]” is individually mandatory, or whether the requirement is assessed at the capability-group level.

2. Please confirm whether a capability delivered through standard configuration/low-code workflow (without bespoke product development) is considered compliant with this mandatory requirement.

3. For “Multi step approvals”, please confirm the expected maximum/typical number of approval levels and whether sequential, parallel, conditional and delegated approvals are required.

4. For “Role based routing” and “Cross team fulfilment”, please confirm whether UniSQ expects routing/hand-off between multiple support groups with different roles, queues or approval authorities, including parallel fulfilment tasks.

5. For “Delegation and escalation”, please confirm the required scenarios: temporary delegation during absence, automatic escalation on SLA breach, reassignment, and/or management escalation.

6. For “Policy based fulfilment decisioning”, please confirm whether conditional rules based on request type, user, department, cost, risk, service, priority or other attributes are required to automatically determine approvals/routing/fulfilment steps.

7. For “Reusable request models”, please confirm whether UniSQ expects catalogue items/templates that can be reused across multiple services and modified through configuration without coding.

8. Please confirm what evidence is required to demonstrate compliance with this mandatory item: written description, screenshots, live demonstration, reference customer, test script, or all of these.

9. Please confirm whether partial compliance on one of the seven sub-capabilities results in failure of the mandatory requirement, or whether UniSQ will score the individual capabilities and allow compliant configuration/integration as the remedy.

Answered on 04/Sep/2026 09:41 AM:


Thank you for your query.

please see Addendum 13

Question:
#



RFP Section Reference



Questions


1] Stream C — Data Migration



Could UniSQ please confirm the existing ITSM platform from which data will be migrated, including the specific data entities (e.g., incidents, problems, changes, knowledge articles) and approximate data volumes (number of records per entity) in scope for migration?


2] Stream D — Integrations



Could UniSQ please provide details of the specific enterprise platforms and tools that are in scope for integration (e.g., Identity Provider, ERP system, monitoring/observability tools, CI/CD pipeline tools, collaboration platforms), including product names and versions where known?


3] General — Resourcing



Does UniSQ have any restrictions or preferences regarding the use of offshore or nearshore delivery resources for implementation and/or ongoing managed services, or is there a requirement for all resources to be Australian-based?


4] Stream G — Managed Services



Could UniSQ please confirm the intended initial contract term and any extension options for the ongoing Managed Services engagement (e.g., 3+1+1 years)?


5] Scope Confirmation



Could UniSQ please confirm whether the following ServiceNow modules are in scope for the initial implementation: (a) IT Service Management (Incident, Problem, Change, Request, Knowledge, Service Catalogue); (b) Event Management; and (c) Discovery / Service Mapping?


6] Current State — Discovery



Does UniSQ currently utilise a Discovery or network scanning tool for automated asset/CI population (e.g., ServiceNow Discovery, BMC Helix, Qualys, Lansweeper, or similar)? If so, please advise the product and version.


7] Volumetrics — Infrastructure



To enable accurate platform sizing and licensing, could UniSQ please provide approximate volumes for: (a) Infrastructure assets — servers, network devices, storage devices; (b) Cloud instances (if applicable — e.g., AWS, Azure, GCP); (c) Number of ITSM Fulfiller/Agent users (licensed resolvers); and (d) Number of Approver users?


8] Current State — ITSM Platform



What is UniSQ's current ITSM platform (product name, version, and approximate duration of use)? This information is required to accurately scope the data migration effort and assess data quality/transformation requirements.

Answered on 09/Sep/2026 01:47 PM:


Thankyou for your query

Please see addendum 17

Question:
Does the University want a SAAS solution or an on-premise solution? Our ESM/ITSM solution can be deployed either way. Our assumption is SAAS as you have included the Module 3 as-a-service QITC document but not the Module 2, which is for software. Please clarify as it impacts our architecture and the way our presales consultants will answer most of the questions. We are happy to bid either SAAS or on premise, but do not have scope to bid both in the time frame.

Answered on 04/Sep/2026 09:41 AM:


Thank you for your query.

please see Addendum 11

Question:
Available on the attachments are QITC Schedule 1 (Price and Payment Terms) and QITC Schedule 2 (Project Implementation and Payment Plan). Can you confirm if these are the Pricing Schedule mentioned on this statement: Respondents should complete and submit the Pricing Schedule issued as part of the Invitation to Offer documentation.

Answered on 04/Sep/2026 09:42 AM:


Thank you for your query.

please see Addendum 12

Question:
Given the strategic nature of the ITSM platform procurement, would the University consider extending the RFT response deadline by 7 days to enable respondents to provide the most comprehensive and competitive response possible?

Answered on 07/Sep/2026 12:28 PM:


Please see Addendum 14

Question:
We note that you have already said that you are not considering extensions at this time via your response in Addendum 8. However, we would also be grateful for an extension if USQ is able to consider it, given the scope of the required response. Thank you for your consideration.

Answered on 07/Sep/2026 12:29 PM:


Thankyou for your query

please see addendum 14

Question:
Hi there,

Reference Document: ITSM-ITO-Part-B-Supplier-Response-HUB#115850_ITSM.docx

Section: 4 – Response Checklist and Applicability

The checklist references the following three items as part of the required response set:

1) Pricing Schedule: Customer supplied

2) QITC Contract Departures Schedule (where departures/qualifications are proposed) – if applicable

3) Security / Privacy / Compliance Evidence – if applicable

Pricing schedule is mentioned in the other places of the document.

None of these templates have been provided as separate files with the ITO documents. Could you please confirm whether standard templates exist for these items, or whether we can use the following sections to provide the response?

1) Section 8.6 - Whole-of-life Commercial and Cost Model, of the same document, to respond to the Pricing Schedule requirement.

2) Section 4.1 Mandatory Compliance Schedule Stage 1 - Column 3 of the table (Supplier response / reference) may be used to provide Contract Departures if applicable?

2) Section 7.2 - Security, Data Protection and Compliance may be used to satisfy Security / Privacy / Compliance Evidence requirements.

We would appreciate your clarification on the above at your earliest convenience.

Thank you.

Answered on 09/Sep/2026 01:31 PM:


Thankyou for your Query,

Please addendum 16

Question:
Hi there,

We tried locating the Pricing Schedule that we have to fill in as mentioned on the Addendum 12. But we cannot see it. Can you please confirm if it has been attached as a separate document or included in one of the attachments?

Thank you

Answered on 07/Sep/2026 02:15 PM:


Thank you for your Query

Please see addendum 15

Question:
Q1: CMDB migration scope - Addendum 17 provides indicative migration volumes for knowledge articles, problems, incidents and development or project records, and separately advises that the University's CMDB contains approximately 36,000 CI records populated from Intune and NinjaOne. Could UniSQ confirm whether CI records are within the anticipated initial migration scope, or whether the CMDB is expected to be established in the new platform from existing Intune and NinjaOne data sources?

Q2: Agent access population - Addendum 17 advises approximately 988 people are configured with some degree of Agent access, approximately 740 approver users, and that a number of processes require only in-time or infrequent Agent access. To support consistent licensing assumptions across respondents, could UniSQ indicate approximately how many of those users create or update records as part of their role, as distinct from approving, viewing or reporting?

Q3: Evidence attachments against the page limits - Part B applies a 10 page limit to the Supplier Narrative and a 2 page limit to Differentiators. Addendum 13 confirms supporting evidence may include screenshots, process flows and configuration examples. Could UniSQ confirm whether supporting evidence attachments referenced under Section 11.2 count towards those page limits or sit outside them?

Q4: Privileged access management - Section 7.1 refers to privileged access management. Could UniSQ clarify whether this refers to privileged access management controls within the ITSM platform itself, or to integration with an enterprise privileged access management solution?

Answered on 14/Sep/2026 01:08 PM:


Thank you for your Query

Please see Addendum 19

Question:
Good afternoon,

Can we please get clarifications to the following questions please.

Licensing and user counts

Addendum 17 notes approximately 15 named and 178 concurrent agent licences, with approximately 988 people configured with some degree of agent access. Could UniSQ indicate the approximate number of users requiring simultaneous full agent capability at peak, and the approximate split of the 988 between daily, weekly and infrequent use?

Of the approximately 740 approver users, do any require capability beyond submitting requests, approving requests and changes, and viewing the status of their own items?

Of the approximately 988 users with some agent access, approximately how many need to create, update and resolve tickets, as distinct from completing assigned fulfilment tasks or viewing records?

Volumes and service levels

Could UniSQ provide indicative annual or monthly incident and service request volumes, and any known seasonal peak profile such as enrolment or semester start?

Addendum 17 lists indicative migration volumes for knowledge articles, problems, incidents and development or project records. Could UniSQ confirm whether change records are also in migration scope, and provide an indicative volume?

Are data or configuration from the line of business and custom developed Ivanti modules within migration scope, or will those capabilities be retired or addressed separately?

Integrations

Of the integration points listed in Addendum 17, are all required to be operational at go-live, or can any be delivered in a later phase? A priority order would assist accurate scoping and pricing.

For PeopleSoft 9.2, could UniSQ indicate which of Campus Solutions, HCM and Global Payroll, and FSCM require integration, and the intended purpose and direction of data flow for each?

Is single sign-on brokered through F5 APM to Microsoft Entra ID, and would UniSQ expect the ITSM platform to authenticate via F5 APM or directly against Entra ID?

Scope and response

Addendum 17 confirms Event Management and Discovery and Service Mapping are outside the current implementation scope. Should respondents mark the corresponding requirements in the Part B Supplier Response Schedule as not applicable?

Answered on 14/Sep/2026 01:09 PM:


Thank you for your Query

Please see Addendum 19

Question:
Hi team - thank you for providing additional information.

In response to addendum 17 - ITSM Fulfiller / Agent Users + Approver Users, can you please confirm:

- Whether the 750 approvers are included within the 988 users or are additional.

- Whether those 750 are approver-only, or whether some also view, manage or fulfil records.

- Approximately how many individual users access the platform under the existing 178 concurrent licences.

- How many users actively fulfil or are assigned work, compared with those who only approve

- Whether there are any additional non-IT fulfilment users anticipated under the current or future-state scope.

Answered on 17/Sep/2026 08:19 AM:


Thank you for your Query,

Please see Addendum 20

Question:
Based on our read of the addendums 17 and 18, we have the following questions:

1.Infrastructure & Cloud Assets: The list of 36,000 Configuration Items (CIs) does not appear to include servers or virtual machines (VMs). Can you please confirm whether these are included or will be additional.

2. Please clarify which cloud data sources are in scope (for example, AWS, Azure, etc.).

Answered on 17/Sep/2026 08:20 AM:


Thank you for your Query,

Please see Addendum 20

Question:
Would you be open to a hybrid onsite/offshore delivery model to achieve greater scalability, cost efficiencies and overall value for money?

Answered on 17/Sep/2026 08:20 AM:


Thank you for your Query,

Please see Addendum 20

Question:
Can UniSQ provide an approximate split of the 36,000 configuration items between the following: desktops / laptops, laboratory equipment, specialised hardware, mobile devices, motor vehicles, software assets and Servers, VMs.

Answered on 17/Sep/2026 08:20 AM:


Thank you for your Query,

Please see Addendum 20

Question:
Please clarify below .

1. Is migration of historical/closed records required within the initial engagement or priced as an option, and what retention period (date range) applies?

2. Of the Addendum 17 integrations, which must be operational at go-live versus a later phase, and for each PeopleSoft 9.2 module (Campus Solutions, HCM/Payroll, FSCM), what is the use case and data-flow direction?

3. Can UniSQ indicate the approximate number of catalogue items/request types and fulfilment groups for initial go-live, or confirm respondents should price a stated bundle reconcilable at contract?

Answered on 18/Sep/2026 03:35 PM:


Thankyou for your Query

Please see addendum 21

Question:
1. In the documents provided by customer we have only Module Order Form 3,4 & 7. However in document 'qitc-schedule-8-service-levels-v2026.01_(1)' there are certain section which are to be filled in accordance with Module Order Form 1B, 2B, 5 & 6. But these documents are not available. Are we missing these documents?

2. What kind of support would be there, Is it 24*7 or 16*5?

3. Are you using single instance or multiple instances?

4. Could UniSQ please confirm whether the existing ITSM processes are documented, mature and operational? Should suppliers assume a like-for-like migration of existing processes, or is process assessment, redesign and optimisation expected as part of the implementation?

5. Could UniSQ please confirm the intended post-implementation operating model? Specifically, does UniSQ have an internal process management and service management function that will continue to own and operate processes such as Incident Management, Problem Management, Change Management and Request Management, or is the supplier expected to provide any ongoing ITSM process management services beyond platform support and maintenance?

6. Is Provider expected to manage their own IT Service Management processes for provider scope of work or is there any in house IT Service Management team to help out with the same? If yes, please highlight the specific challenges UniSQ is facing with respect to Service Management processes in the current environment.

7. Is UniSQ looking for dedicated or shared instance model for ITSM product?

8. Is there an existing CMDB or asset repository? How do you currently maintain infrastructure inventory?

9. What are the different CI types (Servers, Network Devices, Storage, Cloud, Databases, Applications & Containers/Kubernetes) in scope? Provide the distribution for on-premises and cloud as well? What is the approximate number of CI's in each category? Are there any current discovery tools in use?

10. Do you have any additional storage entitlements procured beyond standard allocation?

Answered on 18/Sep/2026 03:35 PM:


Thankyou for your Query

Please see addendum 21

Question:
Q1. Volumetric basis for the now-confirmed Discovery & Service Mapping scope

Addendum 17 published the ~36,000 CMDB CI count and volumetrics alongside a scope table that excluded Discovery & Service Mapping; Addendum 18 then corrected that table to confirm Discovery & Service Mapping is in scope. Can UniSQ confirm the volumetrics published in Addendum 17 remain the correct sizing basis for Discovery & Service Mapping now that it is confirmed in scope, or whether supplementary information will be issued specific to that capability?

Q2. Go-live sequencing for the remaining named integrations

Addendum 19 confirmed that only SSO (via F5 APM) and scheduled CSV/Excel imports are necessary at go-live. For the remaining systems named in Addendum 17 - PeopleSoft 9.2 (Campus Solutions, HCM & Global Payroll, FSCM), OpenText Content Manager, NinjaOne, Microsoft Intune, the Microsoft 365 suite, Fillout, Kutt URL Shortener, SMSGlobal and PaperCut - can UniSQ indicate, even at a simple “go-live / later phase / not required” level per system, which are expected to be operational at go-live?

Q3. PeopleSoft integration direction

Addendum 19 noted UniSQ could not yet confirm which PeopleSoft 9.2 modules require integration or the direction of data flow. Ahead of solution design, can UniSQ confirm the direction of data flow expected for each PeopleSoft module (for example, the ITSM platform reading identity or cost-centre data from PeopleSoft, versus PeopleSoft consuming data from the ITSM platform)

Q4. Timing of the legacy Ivanti line-of-business module decision

Addendum 3 (Q1) and Addendum 19 (Q2) both leave open whether the custom-developed / line-of-business modules within the current Ivanti Neurons platform are to be retired, migrated or run in parallel. Irrespective of data volume, can UniSQ confirm whether a decision on the future of these modules will be made before or after contract award, and which party is expected to make that determination?

Q5. Change-control mechanism for volumetric variance

UniSQ has repeatedly confirmed that the published user, licence and CMDB figures are indicative estimates only and not guaranteed or contractual quantities (Addendum 17). Would UniSQ accept a commercial model where core implementation pricing is fixed against the assumptions stated in a respondent's offer, with a pre-agreed rebaseline or change-control mechanism if actual volumes are found to differ materially once validated during early discovery?

Q6. Managed Services minimum term expectation

Addendum 17 confirms UniSQ has not prescribed a contract term or extension structure for the ongoing Managed Services component (Stream G). To help align competing proposals for evaluation purposes, can UniSQ confirm whether there is a minimum or preferred initial term (for example, aligned to the As a Service subscription period under Module 3) that proposals should be structured against, even if renewal and extension terms remain open to respondent proposal?

Answered on 18/Sep/2026 04:53 PM:


Thankyou for your query

Please see addendum 22

Question:
Would it be possible to extend the RFP deadline until the end of September?

A bit of extra time would help us finalise everything and make sure we can submit a complete response.

Answered on 25/Sep/2026 12:51 PM:


Thank you for your Query

Please see Addendum 23

Question:
Q1: Event Management (Part B 6.2 item 6; Addendum 18)

Does UniSQ expect the ITSM platform to receive alerts from its existing monitoring tools by webhook or API and create, update and close incidents from them, with correlation staying in the monitoring tools, or to act as the event console that correlates raw events itself? Can the monitoring tools in use send alerts by webhook or REST?

Q2: Discovery scope and prerequisites (Part B 6.3; Addenda 17, 18, 20) & Service Mapping (Part B 6.3; Addendum 18)

At go-live, is Discovery expected to cover the infrastructure not held in Intune and NinjaOne (servers, virtual machines, network devices, databases, cloud resources), with endpoints continuing to come from those feeds, or to re-discover the whole estate?

Can UniSQ provide a Windows server inside its network to host an agentless discovery application, read-only credentials (WMI, SSH, SNMP, virtualisation and cloud subscription read access) and firewall rules to the target ranges? If not, is a lightweight discovery agent on servers permitted?

At go-live, does UniSQ require dependency maps for an agreed priority set of business and application services, or for every service in the service catalogue?

Q3: CMDB migration (Addendum 19 Q1)

Are the "selected CMDB data elements" to migrate from Ivanti limited to attributes not held in Intune or NinjaOne (owner, location, cost centre, lifecycle status, purchase and warranty dates) and complete records for items with no feed (vehicles, laboratory equipment, specialised hardware, software assets), or do they also include CI relationships and historical change or audit records?

Q4:Custom modules (Addenda 17, 18)

Is the Addendum 18 scope table the complete implementation scope, so that the line-of-business and custom-developed Ivanti modules are reproduced only where they implement one of the listed processes, or must those modules be re-created at go-live?

Q5:Section 6.2 items 7 and 9

Are AI-driven proactive problem identification (item 7) and CI/CD pipeline integration for change and release records (item 9) required at go-live, or acceptable in a later release?

Q6:Go-live integrations (Addendum 19 Q7)

Are the scheduled CSV and Excel imports needed at go-live the people and organisational data extracts from PeopleSoft (HCM and Campus Solutions) and asset files?

Is a live API integration to any PeopleSoft module required at go-live?

Q7:Workflow migration (Stream C)

Does "workflow migration" mean re-creating current automations, approval rules and notifications in the new platform, or migrating in-flight records with their workflow state so they continue mid-process after cutover?

Q8:Attachments and history (Addendum 17)

Must attachments and embedded images on the records in the initial migration scope migrate with them, or only record text and metadata? May pre-migration history be reported from an extract in UniSQ's reporting environment rather than migrated into the platform?

Q9:Existing automations (Addendum 17)

Are the automations involving Fillout, Kutt, SMSGlobal, PaperCut and Microsoft Forms to be re-created in the new platform at go-live, or retained as they are with the ITSM platform triggering them?

Q10:Process standardisation (Part B 5.1)

Where UniSQ's current incident, request, problem and change practices differ from the platform's standard ITIL process designs, will UniSQ adopt the standard designs, or must the platform reproduce current practice?

Q10: 'Ask UniSQ' and unauthenticated access (Part B 5.2)

Should the new self-service portal replace Ask UniSQ for IT services at go-live, replace it in a later phase, or coexist with it? Must any part of the self-service experience, such as a public knowledge base or request submission, be available without authentication?

Q11: Policy enforcement and records (Part B 5.5)

Does "policy enforcement across services" cover ITSM process policies, information security policies, or both? Must service management records be managed as public records inside the platform (retention rules, legal hold, audited disposal), or will those obligations be met by export to OpenText Content Manager?

Q12: Joiner, mover and leaver fulfilment (Part B 6.6, 5.4)

Should the ITSM platform execute provisioning and deprovisioning in target systems through integrations, or raise and track fulfilment tasks while UniSQ's identity processes perform the actions?

Q13:WCAG 2.1 AA (Part B 6.9)

Does the WCAG 2.1 AA requirement apply to the employee and student self-service surfaces only, or also to the fulfiller and administrator console?

Q14:Data protection add-ons (Part B 7.2)

Does UniSQ require any of the following, each separately licensed: encryption at rest with UniSQ-managed keys; audit trail retention beyond twelve months (and for how long); user activity monitoring streamed to UniSQ's security monitoring service; handling of health, research, payment card or other regulated data in tickets or attachments?

Q15:Certifications and penetration testing (Part B 7.2)

Are the platform provider's ISO 27001, SOC 2 Type II and IRAP assessments sufficient evidence with the offer, or does UniSQ require a completed HECVAT (Full or Lite)? Does UniSQ require the right to conduct its own penetration testing, or will it accept the provider's independent attestations?

Q16:AI governance (Part B 9.2; Module 3 clause 3.9)

Does UniSQ have an AI policy the solution must comply with, and which standards should the AI Governance Arrangements meet? Is autonomous resolution of low-risk requests by AI agents acceptable at go-live, or is human approval of AI-initiated actions required initially? Are AI-drafted knowledge articles acceptable if published after human review?

Q17:Data residency (Part B 7.2; Contract Details clause 16)

Does the Australian data residency requirement apply to storage and backups only, or also to transient processing such as vendor support access and AI model inference? Would UniSQ give the clause 16 consent at contract execution for processing under the provider's published sub-processor arrangements?

Q18:Backup (Part B 7.3)

Does UniSQ require customer-controlled backups with record-level restore and a backup copy held in UniSQ's custody, and for what retention period?

Q19:Software licence compliance (Part B 6.3)

Is software licence compliance (entitlements reconciled against installed software, with compliance reporting) required in the ITSM platform at go-live, retained in existing tooling with results consumed by the platform, or out of scope?

Q20:Timetable (Addendum 17)

With contract commencement to be adjusted from January 2027, does the 1 April 2027 implementation objective move by the same amount, or does it stand?

Answered on 25/Sep/2026 12:50 PM:


Thank you for your Query

Please see Addendum 23

Question:
Question 1 — contract commencement and the implementation date

Addendum 17 indicates that the intended contract commencement and subsequent procurement dates will be adjusted to reflect the revised Closing Date and Time. Could UniSQ confirm the anticipated contract commencement date, and whether the 1 April 2027 implementation objective referred to in the evaluation criteria remains unchanged?

Question 2 — existing Atlassian entitlements

Does UniSQ currently hold any Atlassian subscriptions or entitlements, whether for Jira, Confluence or related products, that are either in scope for this procurement or could be consolidated under a resulting agreement?

Answered on 25/Sep/2026 12:50 PM:


Thank you for your Query

Please see Addendum 23