Question:
Software/Technology escrow

Greetings,

We are a software escrow services provider.

Software escrow helps manage the risk around implemented solutions (including in-development, bespoke applications and technologies, databases and interfaces) and the Supplier of those services. Whether the delivered solution is a standalone app or a SaaS deployment, the Licensee/User wants to know it has access to the application source code, and the relevant interfaces going forward. Software escrow helps to mitigate those risks.



As the documentation is silent on whether there will be a requirement for, or consideration of software escrow services, could you, if appropriate, let me know the following, …



1.
Has software escrow been considered as a risk mitigation strategy for this solution?



2.
If it has, has it been discarded?



3.
If software escrow is required, how will you go about selecting your software escrow agent, given the cost of software escrow services is typically modest?



Kind regards, Software Escrow Guardians

Answered on 28/Aug/2026 11:10 AM:


Thanks for your enquiry, we aren’t considering any escrow services as part of this tender.”

Question:
Good afternoon

We have reviewed the requirements and would like to know if you are interested in receiving guidance or advice from a vendor-independent Information Management Consulting practice. We specialise in providing record-keeping, information privacy, and information Security advice, and this often involves developing information architectures, security access models, and conducting in-depth assessments of systems and vendors.

We have delivered pre- and Post M365 Assessments including M365 Governance, selection of Third Party v Native controls, to ensure the M365 environment is aligned to legislative requirements.

In our experience, many MS Providers have the technical ability to deliver what you need. However, they often lack appropriate Information management knowledge, especially in a regulated environment.

We acknowledge your location, but for guidance, we would refer you to the NSW State Records and the Public Records Office of Victoria Guidelines on M365. These documents are similar because they are authored by the same person, but they can be helpful.

As we are a vendor-independent company, we would be pleased to have a discussion if this is felt helpful.


Regards

Mark

Answered on 31/Aug/2026 08:51 AM:


thanks for your query. We already have this capability in house and, as such, are only seeking services within the defined scope of the EDRMS procurement at this time.

Question:
I have several questions please if that is OK.

Q1: In Schedule 1 - Scope of Work Page 9 Section 17 Relevant Documents it states:

"The following documents are incorporated by reference into this Scope:

The Supplier must consider the following documents and requirements when preparing its response

and delivering the services:

• Business case and supporting context for the EDRMS and records migration project."

Will the document "Business case and supporting context for the EDRMS and records migration project." be provided.

Q2. How many users of the system will there be, and how many staff employed in the Port of Townsville? Given that capture is intended for email and other M365 apps will all users be required to interact either actively or passively with the EDRMS?

Q3. Does the Port of Townsville have a preference for on-premise, private cloud or public cloud deployment of the EDRMS solution?

Q4. If the preference is for On-premise or private cloud, will Port of Townsville be acquiring hardware or added private cloud capacity itself according to EDRMS vendore recommendations?

Q5. If the preference is for Public Cloud, are you looking for a full Platform as a Service (PaaS) offering?

Q6. Are there workflows developed already for business activities and are you looking for automation capabilities in the new EDRMS solution?

Q7. Do you have a need for Intelligent Document Processing (IDP) capability to capture information from port activities and submitted paperwork etc?

Thanks for any clarifications you can provide.

Regards

John

Answered on 31/Aug/2026 09:59 AM:


Q1 Yes, and this will be supplied to all respondents as an additional tender doc in the next few days.

Q2. The Port has approximately 185 staff. Our preference is for most staff to interact with the EDRMS passively through Microsoft 365 integration, with more active use by records administrators and nominated users.

3.Our preference is for a vendor hosted, fully managed public cloud solution.

4. na

5.The supplier would be responsible for the application, infrastructure, maintenance, patching, upgrades, and availability.

6.The Port has existing processes and workflows at different levels of maturity. Workflow implementation is desired, but initial use will be defined by cost (if any).

7.IDP is not a mandatory requirement, however, would be highly regarded.

Question:
Please confirm the insurance requirements applicable to this procurement. We have noticed discrepancies between those outlined in Schedule 2 and those in the Draft Contract.

Answered on 03/Sep/2026 07:35 AM:


Please ignore those listed in the draft contract, this is just a generic example template and will be amended to suit the outcome.

Question:
Please confirm the correct RFT/Contract reference number for this procurement. We have noticed a discrepancy between that listed in the Draft Contract and RFT and that in Schedule 1.

Answered on 03/Sep/2026 07:47 AM:


RFT000040 is the correct number -Schedule 1 has been amended to reflect.

Question:
To accurately estimate the effort, resources, and costs associated with the implementation of the proposed EDRMS solution, in particular the data migration element, we request clarification on the following technical matters. This information will help ensure our response is both comprehensive and reflective of the actual project scope.

1. What versions of TechnologyOne ECM (T1) and Objective are currently implemented?

2. Is the PoT (Port of Townsville) operating standard vendor supported deployments, or have there been any significant customisations or bespoke extensions?

3. Are the systems currently under active vendor support and maintenance agreements?

4. Will the PoT maintain vendor support agreements throughout the migration period and for an agreed post-migration warranty period?

5. Will the successful supplier be granted read access to the source repositories for migration and analysis purposes?

6. Can the PoT confirm whether T1 and Objective vendors have agreed to support extraction activities if required?

7. Have either vendor identified any restrictions relating to access, extraction, APIs, licensing or database connectivity?

8. Are APIs available for both T1 and Objective? (Note: Our experience indicates that some versions of T1 do not support APIs, and Objective may require an API keys)

9. If APIs are available, can the PoT provide API documentation?

10. Are vendor-supplied export utilities available for either platform?

11. Can the PoT provide an indication of the number of metadata indexes, custom fields or metadata profiles configured within T1?

12. Can the PoT provide an indication of the number of metadata indexes, classifications or schemas configured within Objective?

13. Are QAPs, retention schedules, disposal classes and business classification schemes currently managed within T1, Objective, both systems, or externally? The tender notes that QAPs, security groups, indexes and aggregation structures may need to be replicated, transformed or retired.

14. Is event history, audit history and record activity history expected to be migrated?

15. Does the current T1 implementation manage physical records, files, cartons or hybrid records? (Note: Our experience indicates that not all versions used to have an RM component and it was managed by indexes)

16. If yes, approximately how many physical record entities and associated metadata records exist?

17. Can you provide the number of records currently held within Objective?

18. Can you provide the number of document versions held within Objective.

19. Can you provide the average and maximum document sizes within each repository.

20. Estimated number of records containing unsupported, legacy or proprietary file formats.

Answered on 10/Sep/2026 01:51 PM:


1. What versions of TechnologyOne ECM (T1) and Objective are currently implemented?

TechnologyOne ECM is currently operating on version 2022A. The Objective version is 8.1. Both systems are hosted on-premises, with application files and databases residing on Port-managed server infrastructure.

2. Is the Port operating standard vendor-supported deployments, or have there been any significant customisations or bespoke extensions?

Both systems are predominantly standard implementations. Some configuration changes and customisations have been applied over time to support business requirements; however, these are not considered extensive bespoke developments.

3. Are the systems currently under active vendor support and maintenance agreements?

TechnologyOne ECM is currently supported through a third-party support arrangement rather than directly by TechnologyOne. Objective is not currently covered by an active support or maintenance agreement.

4. Will the Port maintain vendor support agreements throughout the migration period and for an agreed post-migration warranty period?

TechnologyOne ECM support arrangements are expected to remain in place throughout the migration period. As Objective is not currently under support, no vendor support arrangement is planned for that platform during the migration.

5. Will the successful supplier be granted read access to the source repositories for migration and analysis purposes?

Yes. Subject to standard security, confidentiality and access approval processes.

6. Can the Port confirm whether T1 and Objective vendors have agreed to support extraction activities if required?

Neither vendor has been formally approached regarding extraction support at this stage. Given the age of the implementations, particularly Objective, vendor involvement may be limited. Tenderers should assume migration activities will need to be planned based on the information and access available to the Port at the time of implementation.

7. Have either vendor identified any restrictions relating to access, extraction, APIs, licensing or database connectivity?

No restrictions have been identified by the Port to date.

8. Are APIs available for both T1 and Objective?

This has not yet been confirmed.

9. If APIs are available, can the Port provide API documentation?

API documentation is not currently available. Any documentation identified by the Port during ongoing discovery activities will be made available to the successful supplier where possible.

10. Are vendor-supplied export utilities available for either platform?

This has not yet been confirmed. Tenderers should assume export methods and tooling will require assessment during migration planning and implementation.

11. Can the Port provide an indication of the number of metadata indexes, custom fields or metadata profiles configured within T1?

see attachment

Refer to the metadata inventory spreadsheet provided with the clarification response. The inventory represents the Port's current understanding of the environment and will continue to be refined through ongoing discovery activities.

12. Can the Port provide an indication of the number of metadata indexes, classifications or schemas configured within Objective?

Refer to the metadata inventory spreadsheet provided with the clarification response. The inventory represents the Port's current understanding of the environment and will continue to be refined through ongoing discovery activities.

13. Are QAPs, retention schedules, disposal classes and business classification schemes currently managed within T1, Objective, both systems, or externally?

No

14. Is event history, audit history and record activity history expected to be migrated?

Yes.

15. Does the current T1 implementation manage physical records, files, cartons or hybrid records?

No

16. If yes, approximately how many physical record entities and associated metadata records exist?

N/A

17. Can you provide the number of records currently held within Objective?

Objective currently contains approximately 918,778 records.

18. Can you provide the number of document versions held within Objective?

No

19. Can you provide the average and maximum document sizes within each repository?

No

20. Estimated number of records containing unsupported, legacy or proprietary file formats.

This information is currently unknown.

The Port has not yet completed a comprehensive file format assessment. Tenderers should assume that unsupported, legacy and proprietary file formats may exist given the age and diversity of the source repositories. Assessment of file formats, migration compatibility and remediation requirements should be considered as part of the migration planning approach.

Question:
We are currently preparing our response and would like to request consideration of an extension to the tender closing date by an additional 2 weeks.

This request is based on two factors:

1. The Business case and supporting context for the EDRMS and records migration project, referenced in the tender documentation has not yet been provided, and we understand this document is intended to form part of the information available to respondents.

2. There are a number of clarification questions currently awaiting responses, which may materially influence our proposed approach and pricing.

To ensure all respondents have adequate time to review the outstanding information and prepare a comprehensive and informed submission, we respectfully request that the closing date be extended.

Answered on 10/Sep/2026 02:27 PM:


Business case uploaded

Question:
We would like to request an extension of the RFT submission deadline to 30 September please. Thank you for your consideration.

Answered on 10/Sep/2026 02:00 PM:


The Port is not in a position to extend the deadline at this point.

Question:
Section 8 of the RFT specifies that Schedules 2 and 3 are to be completed and returned. Could you please confirm whether the editable Schedules 5 and 6 included in the RFT package are also required to be submitted?

Answered on 09/Sep/2026 02:20 PM:


Yes, Schedules 2,3,5 and 6 must be completed and returned

Question:
Can you provide estimates of system users broken down by:

- Dedicated users (will use the system the majority of working days)

- Occasional users

- User who will only consume content and never edit

Answered on 14/Sep/2026 03:45 PM:


Approx numbers will be

100 Dedicated users (will use the system the majority of working days)

50 Occasional users

35 User who will only consume content and never edit”

Question:
Based on provided Project BIRD Business Case, can you please confirm that the expectation is to have the TechOne data migration (~3TB / +1 million documents) completed by 30 January 2027, so that the software can be decommissioned? If so, is this motivated by licensing / product support ending?

Answered on 14/Sep/2026 03:44 PM:


“The aim is to complete the migration and decommission TechOne by 30 January 2027. The product is no longer supported, so if that date is unachievable the Port will take mitigating measures.”