Question:
With reference to EC3 - Supplier's ability and experience - Is the the Buyer open to alternative responses? Given the poor performance of DFV outcomes in Australia across all States and Territories in the past 5 years, it would seem like there is an opportunity to instead look for ability and experience in successfully applying effective integrated risk management approaches more generally rather than specifically looking for DFV examples.

Answered on 02/Apr/2025 01:30 PM:


Entities are welcome to use examples that may not be DFV specific, however they are encouraged to demonstrate how it aligns with nuanced approaches and responses required for DFV.

Question:
Could the Department confirm that the due date is 21 April - Easter Monday? Would you consider extending this to 22 April?

Many thanks

Answered on 26/Mar/2025 02:58 PM:


This has been updated to Tuesday to take into account Easter Public Holidays

Question:
Hello team, I am just hoping to confirm that the deadline for submissions is Monday, 21 April 2025, 2pm AEST. Part A Section 1.3 lists 2:00pm Australian Eastern Standard Time on Thursday 17 April 2025 as the deadline, but everywhere else indicates it's the 21st. Thank you!

Answered on 26/Mar/2025 02:59 PM:


The closing date has been updated to Tuesday 22nd April, to take into account Easter. Please note the incorrect date on the form. Closing date is Tuesday 22nd April.

Question:
Hi team, sorry, one more initial question just as we begin to read through the documentation. In Part B, Section 1.2.2, can you clarify this clause around travel costs? Are we reading it correctly in that suppliers can budget for travel relating to stakeholder engagement, but not for meeting attendance or any other purposes outside of stakeholder engagement? And can you clarify about the stipulation that any travel expenditure is to be organised and booked by the customer? Does this mean the department would organise and book all travel relating to the project? Thanks again for your help

Answered on 02/Apr/2025 01:32 PM:


Q- Are we reading it correctly in that suppliers can budget for travel relating to stakeholder engagement, but not for meeting attendance or any other purposes outside of stakeholder engagement?

A- Suppliers are encouraged to include all budgeting needs within their tender, not exclusively those related to stakeholder engagement.

Q- And can you clarify about the stipulation that any travel expenditure is to be organised and booked by the customer? Does this mean the department would organise and book all travel relating to the project?

A- Apologies, it should state ‘supplier’ rather than ‘customer’ in Specifications 1.2.2. With this amendment, the customer is required to approve the stakeholder engagement, however the supplier is to organise and book all travel relating to the project.

Question:
Would providers who have supported the development of the CRASF Tool be able to participate in the evaluation of the Framework?

Answered on 02/Apr/2025 01:32 PM:


Yes,

Question:
1. Can you provide any more information around what you are expecting as part of the validation process? Are you looking for a more complex statistical analysis of data or a validation with stakeholders on the accuracy and reliability of the tools?

2. What kind of data sets and information do you expect to be available for input into the validation?

3. What is the scope of the stakeholder consultations? Will these include consultations across regional areas and will these be required to be delivered in person?

Answered on 08/Apr/2025 12:03 PM:


1. A – Suppliers are encouraged to articulate an approach to validation, that may include methodology to:

a. Identifying how to collect, monitor and analyse data from completed risk assessment tools (including periodic reassessment over time)

b. Collect, and analyse qualitative and quantitative data

c. Measure the accuracy of victim-survivor risk assessments and effectiveness of safety management

d. Measure the accuracy of PuV risk assessment, ability to track visibility of the PuV and effectiveness of safety management responses.

As the tools are not intended to predict risk, suppliers are encouraged to adopt a ‘prevention-based paradigm’, rather than a ‘prediction-based’ one. All expectations for validation from the customer are outlined in the ITO or above.

2. A – Suppliers may have access to qualitative and quantitative information from stakeholders, completed risk assessment tools, safety management plans and High Risk Team referrals.

3. A – It is expected consultation will occur with services across Queensland and capture feedback from rural, remote and urban communities. Suppliers are encouraged to articulate how they would appropriately engage with stakeholders as per their methodology.

Question:
We note that the RFQ suggests that the validation process adopt a ‘prevention-based paradigm’ rather than a ‘prediction-based’ one. Is there an expectation that specific datasets (e.g. police data) will be drawn on to quantitatively validate the tools?

Answered on 09/Apr/2025 12:40 PM:


As suppliers have been asked to propose a methodology for validation of the suite of tools, this should include the type of data required, how the data may be obtained and sustainable data collection recommendations for future reassessments.

Question:
Due to the client level data required for the validation process - are you expecting the methodology for this project to be reviewed and approved by an Ethics Committee? If yes do you have a preferred Ethics Committee that understands the issues associated with domestic and family violence that you would prefer to use?

Answered on 09/Apr/2025 12:41 PM:


Suppliers are encouraged to include any ethical considerations or requirements to engage with ethical committees (including when working with data), with information reflecting timeframes, requirements, rationale for engagement and recommended committees. The only Ethical Committee consideration for the Customer is that they are registered with the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Question:
For the purposes of validation you have identified that the CRASF is used at three levels; do you have any data on the number of providers that use the CRASF at Level 1; Level 2 and Level 3? or the numbers of individuals who have undergone a risk assessment at each level?

Similarly you are interested in understanding how the CRASF works for priority cohort groups including First Nations peoples; people from CALD backgrounds; LGBTQIA+ people; people with disability, older people and people living in regional and remote communities - do have any service user data on these cohorts to guide the design of the validation process? Similarly do you have any service provider data on these priority cohorts to inform the validation design or is this something you are expecting the evaluation to produce?

Answered on 09/Apr/2025 12:43 PM:


An information sharing platform, Infoxchange, is used for the Queensland High Risk Teams. The level 2 victim-survivor tool is used to refer into the High Risk Team and the level 3 completed during case coordination and closure. Data may be drawn from this platform to assess who has undergone the assessment. Note, the level 1 risk assessment is not completed in this environment due to its nature of being a screening tool.

Outside of the High Risk Team environment, there is less oversight of providers that use the CRASF tools, however, qualitative information can be provided to the successful supplier. Suppliers are encouraged to reflect how they may engage with stakeholders to obtain quantitative and qualitative information for the evaluation and validation of the CRASF and suite of tools, particularly since the Person using Violence and Young Persons tool are not currently used on Infoxchange.

The customer is interested in understanding how the CRASF and suite of risk assessment tools works for priority groups and would encourage suppliers to reflect how they may engage with stakeholders form these cohorts to capture qualitative and quantitative data. Note, in Queensland stakeholders use their own information sharing platforms to collect data, record assessments and complete case notes.