Question:
can you confirm which Digital Experience Platform (DXP) is currently in use, including vendor/product and key integration requirements?

can you confirm the total number of following device types: Desktops, Laptops, Servers (Physical and Virtual)?

What are the total number of Analysts that require access to the solution?

Answered on 16/Jul/2026 10:27 AM:


Please refer to Addendum 2 (15 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
To enable us to provide the most accurate and competitive pricing, could QUT please confirm the anticipated licensing requirements for the proposed solution? Specifically, could QUT advise the expected number of:

1 - Agent (technician) licences

2 - Requester/end-user licences (if applicable)

3 - Any expected licence growth over the initial contract term

If the exact numbers are not yet available, an estimated range would be greatly appreciated to assist suppliers in preparing an accurate and comparable commercial proposal.

Answered on 16/Jul/2026 10:30 AM:


Please refer to Addendum 2 (15 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
Hi

Can you kindly confirm the current ITSM solution & whether it includes ESM as well.

can you please confirm the number of users,admins,power users etc across each team (IT,Finance,HR etc)

can you please advise the technology stack/systems/integrations etc.

are you considering single phase project across all teams or sequential first team then second etc.

Many thanks

Answered on 16/Jul/2026 10:31 AM:


Please refer to Addendum 2 (15 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
We note the scope of services (Part 1 Summary Terms of Offer) includes "ongoing suport, maintenance and platform optimisation".   The 'Part 2 Business Requirements & Supplier Response' includes requirements on Operations which are ambiguous as to the exact scope of ongoing maintenance besides that inherent to a SaaS solution.  Does the University seek to procure a full managed service as part of this RFQ or would you accept a submission including an Implementation offer with training included?

Answered on 16/Jul/2026 10:32 AM:


Please refer to Addendum 2 (15 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
1. Can you provide the number of configuration items / assets that need to be managed in the CMDB?

2. Of these CIs, what % of them are end-user CIs (e.g. PCs/mobiles/tablets for employees) versus non end-user CIs?

Answered on 16/Jul/2026 10:33 AM:


Please refer to Addendum 2 (15 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
**Process and administration**

1. Part 1 states offers remain valid for 180 business days from close, while Annexure D item COM.1.02 asks suppliers to confirm 180 days. Please confirm the required validity period.

2. Please confirm whether the relative weightings of the general evaluation criteria will be disclosed.

3. Annexure I requires lodgement of confidential security artefacts, including third party penetration test reports (SQ.1.6), SOC assurance reports (SQ.9.67) and sub service organisation assurance reports (SQ.9.69). For hyperscale cloud platforms these documents are distributed only under non disclosure terms through the provider's trust portal and cannot be lodged in a tender box. Please confirm QUT will accept: (a) summary attestations and certificate listings with the response, and (b) full reports provided under NDA, or via NDA governed trust portal access, during evaluation or at the post shortlisting security assessment. Please also confirm the process and timing for executing the required NDA.

**Scope and volumetrics**

4. To support accurate and comparable pricing, please provide baseline volumetrics: number of service desk and resolver group staff requiring agent or fulfiller licences by team; total staff (headcount and FTE) and students requiring self service access; current monthly incident and service request volumes; number of request types and catalogue items in the current platform; number of endpoints, servers and network devices in scope for asset and configuration management; and the volume of historical records expected to be migrated.

5. Please confirm which ESM portfolios listed in Annexure C.3 are in scope for Phase 1, and whether pricing scenario P.SP.39 (ITSM only deployment) defines the Phase 1 baseline.

6. Please confirm QUT's expectations for migration of historical data from the incumbent platform, including whether closed records are required in the new platform or whether archival access outside the platform is acceptable.

7. Does QUT have a target go live date or window for Phase 1?

8. NF.IN.EM.40 refers to dedicated development and test environments. Please confirm how many concurrent non production environments QUT expects to operate.

**Architecture and integration**

9. HLB.ITSM.3 and ITSM.SSCR.84 require a single unified self service portal, while ESM.FD.01 and ESM.SD.07 indicate the Salesforce based Digital Engagement Platform remains the front door for the HiQ service desk. Please clarify the intended end state: which system is the primary entry point for staff and students, and which system holds the master record where a case spans both platforms?

10. HLB.INT.9 requires use of the Boomi integration platform where specified. Please confirm which integrations must be delivered via Boomi and whether native or vendor supported connectors are acceptable where available.

**Commercial and contract**

11. Module Order Form 3 item 3.4 contemplates the As a Service being supplied by the Supplier as a reseller of a third party provider. Where this structure applies, please confirm QUT will accept the third party provider's standard cloud subscription terms and service levels for the platform component, with the QITC contract governing implementation, integration and support services, and departures identifying the interaction between the two.

12. The Contract Details specify the Supplier's liability cap as "Not applicable". Please confirm whether QUT intends an uncapped liability position, or whether proposed caps will be considered through the departures process.

13. The Details state the price is fixed during the Term, with the price review item extending through extension periods, while Annexure D item COM.1.14 contemplates capped increases at renewal. Please confirm: (a) whether indexation or review mechanisms proposed for the extension periods will be considered; and (b) whether QUT would consider an alternative structure of a three year initial term with extension options preserving the same total potential term to 2035, given that fixed SaaS subscription pricing is generally committable in three year cycles. If so, should this be proposed as a departure or priced as an alternative offer under the non conforming offer provisions?

14. Please confirm that the insurance minimums listed as Highly Desirable criteria are required to be in place prior to contract execution rather than at submission, and that a broker confirmation of proposed cover is acceptable evidence with the response.

15. Annexure G requests three client references. Where the response comprises a platform vendor and an implementation partner, please confirm whether references may relate to the platform, the implementation partner's delivery, or a combination.

**Security**

16. Please describe the scope and format of the post shortlisting Information Security assessment, including whether it involves questionnaires, interviews or evidence review, so respondents can prepare appropriate personnel and artefacts.

Answered on 16/Jul/2026 10:34 AM:


Please refer to Addendum 2 (15 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
Hi Team,

Kindly requesting your responses to the clarification questions below.

1. Contracting / supply model

Part 3 Contract Details — Module Order Form 3 (Module 3 'As a Service'); Conditions cl. 3.4

Subject: Module 3 'As a Service' supply model. In the Part 3 Contract Details (Module Order Form 3), the item specifying whether the As a Service is supplied by the Supplier in the capacity of a Reseller (i.e. where the Supplier is not the Third Party Provider that owns the IP in the platform) is currently unselected, and the related hosting/third-party fields are marked 'To be confirmed'. Could QUT please confirm its preferred contracting model: (a) that the prime Supplier will provide the SaaS subscription directly under Module 3 (non-reseller model); or (b) that QUT is open to the reseller model under clause 3.4, whereby the Supplier facilitates a subscription contracted directly between QUT and the platform owner (Third Party Provider)? Confirmation will allow respondents to complete Module Order Form 3 accurately and price the subscription on a consistent basis.


2. Contracting / liability (optional)

Part 3B Conditions — cl. 3.4 (Reseller), cl. 19 (Liability), cl. 3.10 (Customer Data)

Where the As a Service is supplied via a Reseller under clause 3.4, will QUT's liability, indemnity and data-loss provisions apply to the Supplier's reseller/facilitation role rather than to the underlying platform, consistent with the Third Party Provider contracting directly with QUT for the subscription?

3. Delivery phasing — timeline

Part 4 Supplier Briefing Pre-read, p.3 (Delivery approach); Part 1 (Ivanti named, no expiry given)

QUT indicates delivery is expected to occur in phases, with Phase 1 focused on core ITSM and ITAM to replace the current platform. Could QUT confirm whether there is a required or target date for Phase 1 go-live / completion, and/or a date by which the incumbent platform (Ivanti Service Manager) must be decommissioned? This will allow respondents to align their implementation and transition plans and resourcing accordingly.


4. Delivery phasing — sequence & scope

Part 2 — priority (MoSCoW) only, no Phase column; Part 4 p.3; Part 1 (pricing aligns to 'phased delivery')

The requirements are prioritised (Must/Should/Could-Have) but not mapped to delivery phases. Could QUT confirm whether it has a preferred phase sequence or grouping of capabilities across phases, or whether respondents are expected to propose the phasing (e.g. Phase 1 = mandatory core ITSM/ITAM, with ESM and advanced automation in subsequent phases)? Confirmation will ensure our proposed phasing and scenario pricing align with QUT's expectations.

5. Requirements — SLA discrepancy

Part 2 C.4 Non-Functional (min 99% availability) vs Part 3 Schedule 8 (99.99% per month)

There appears to be an inconsistency in the availability requirement: the Part 2 non-functional requirements reference a minimum availability of 99%, while Schedule 8 of the draft contract specifies 99.99% per month. Could QUT please confirm the intended target availability service level that respondents should price and commit to?

6. Requirements — mandated integrations

Part 2 C.1/C.2 — HLB.INT.7 (Salesforce), HLB.INT.9 (Boomi iPaaS)

For the mandated integrations (bi-directional Salesforce and use of QUT's Boomi iPaaS), could QUT confirm whether integrations delivered via the platform's native integration tooling in conjunction with Boomi are acceptable, and whether QUT will provide the Boomi environment, licences and connector support required?

7. Current state — discovery / CMDB / assets

Part 2 C.2 (CMDB.45-50, HAM.60-65, SAM.54-59), C.5 System Landscape; B.7 SD.IDP.15

To allow accurate scoping of the ITAM/ITOM and CMDB components of Phase 1, could QUT provide current-state baseline information: (a) whether automated discovery is currently in place and via which tools (e.g. Intune, Jamf Pro, VMware, SCCM), and the approximate endpoint / device / CI coverage achieved; (b) the approximate number of configuration items, their current source of truth, and QUT's assessment of current CMDB data quality and completeness; and (c) the maturity of existing Hardware and Software Asset Management processes and data, including current tooling (e.g. Keysight/Sassafras for software licensing) and whether existing asset and licence data will be made available for migration? This information will allow respondents to scope discovery deployment, CMDB migration versus rebuild, and asset-data remediation accurately.

Answered on 16/Jul/2026 10:35 AM:


Please refer to Addendum 2 (15 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
Hi QUT Procurement,



We are currently reviewing the comprehensive information set provided as part of the tender and have commenced planning our response. To ensure we can submit a high quality proposal that fully addresses your requirements, we would like to request consideration of an extension to the submission deadline until 31 July 2026. This additional time would enable us to complete our response and ensure it reflects the level of detail and quality expected.

We appreciate your consideration of this request and understand if the procurement timeline cannot be adjusted. Please let us know if an extension would be possible.

Kind regards,

Answered on 16/Jul/2026 03:31 PM:


Please refer to Addendum 1 (10 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
Please confirm the minimum required Phase 1 go-live scope, including which ITSM, ITAM, CMDB, self-service, reporting, migration and integration capabilities must be live at initial production cutover, versus capabilities expected in later phases.

Of the systems listed in the System Landscape schedule, which integrations are mandatory for Phase 1 go-live, which are optional, and which are intended for future phases?

Please confirm the required Phase 1 scope for Salesforce DEP integration, including whether bi-directional synchronisation of ticket/case data, status updates, attachments, comments and reporting is required at go-live.

Please confirm QUT’s expected use of Boomi for integrations. Is Boomi mandatory for all integrations, preferred where available, or required only for specific nominated integration patterns?

Please provide indicative current-state data volumes for migration, including tickets/requests/incidents, changes, problems, knowledge articles, attachments, users, assets, configuration items, service records and audit/history records.

Please confirm the expected migration approach. Does QUT require full historical migration into the new platform, migration of active/recent records only, or archive/read-only access to historical Ivanti data?

Please provide expected user and licence volumes by role, including agents, administrators, approvers, asset managers, service owners, knowledge authors and end users/requesters.

Please provide expected ITAM/CMDB volumes and discovery scope, including hardware assets, software assets, cloud services, SaaS records, AV assets, endpoints, servers, applications, CIs and service relationships.

Please confirm whether QUT expects supplier-proposed service levels to distinguish between supplier-controlled services and underlying SaaS/OEM platform services, particularly for platform availability, major incident resolution, defect resolution and service credits.

Where a proposed solution includes optional AI-assisted capabilities, should suppliers exclude those capabilities from the base offer, disable them by default, or present them as optional future capabilities subject to separate QUT governance approval?

Answered on 16/Jul/2026 03:30 PM:


Please refer to Addendum 3 (16 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
Dear Team,

In advance of the supplier briefing that a representative from our business will be attending please could you advise as to:

1) How many agents are required to have access to the solution across QUT? Please provide the split across IT and any other service departments that should be included in the pricing schedule for evaluation.

2) What are the must have integrations? Please be explicit as any costed integrations will need to be included in the pricing schedule.

3) When would they like to start the project and be live? Starting with IT, what is the strategic direction and appropriate phases for other departments based upon the requirements?

4) There is also an issue with worksheet “B.7 – Service Delivery” from questions SD.IDP.10 to SD.IDP.15 as these are user selectable drop downs but assume they should be text based responses?

Thank you for your help.

Kind Regards

Answered on 16/Jul/2026 03:32 PM:


Please refer to Addendum 3 (16 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
Hi Team

In the "00013009_QUT_ITSM_Platform-Part_2_Business_Requirements_&_Supplier_Response" workbook, worksheet "C.5 - System Landscape" references the QUT landscape of current technology solutions in place and integration mechamisms the supplier provides for each. However, the "Instructions" worksheet suggest to provide a support option (assumed from a dropdown option) as to whether the current QUT solution can be replaced, integrated or cannot be integrated. Could you clarify what bidders should do here i.e. Should we simply describe the integration options as the vast majority of solutions specified you would not want to replace?

Kind Regards

Answered on 16/Jul/2026 03:33 PM:


Please refer to Addendum 3 (16 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
1. How many users are expected to have access to the platform (in terms of fulfiller users/agents, reporting/approving-only users, and other end-users)

2. We understand Phase 1 includes core ITSM and ITAM capabilities - can you provide more information on the expected scope of Phase 1? For example how many service request catalogue items, how many custom forms (incident, request) and relative complexity, approximate number of CIs, how many CI classes or asset types.

3. Which ITSM processes and system integrations are required in Phase 1, and which can be deferred to a later stage?

4. Should any non-ITSM/ITAM scope (eg. HR, facilities) be included in Phase 1?

5. Is any migration of data from legacy systems required? For example knowledgebase, open incidents, service requests, asset register etc.

Answered on 16/Jul/2026 03:34 PM:


Please refer to Addendum 3 (16 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
Does QUT required automated asset discovery to be quoted in the pricing or do QUT like intend solely to integrate with existing asset discovery in the system landscape i.e. SCCM (MECM), JAMF, Intune etc? If automated discovery is required please provide the number of endpoints required to be discovered and a breakdown of the numbers for each.

Kind Regards

Answered on 16/Jul/2026 03:34 PM:


Please refer to Addendum 3 (16 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
Could you advise how many IT related agents/technicians will be using this tool to manage requests, and how many non IT related agents/technicians will be using the tool to manage cases please?

Answered on 16/Jul/2026 03:35 PM:


Please refer to Addendum 3 (16 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
ServiceNow is planning on responding to this tender. We have a strong and diverse partner network, and many of our partners are keen and qualified to support QUT on the ITSM/ESM journey with ServiceNow. With our diverse partner network, there comes a number of options for QUT to commercially transact for a ServiceNow-led outcome. This will likely lead to QUT receiving multiple tender submissions. How would QUT prefer these responses be received? The likely scenarios are:

1. ServiceNow submits and includes a preferred partner. There would be 2-4 of these submissions, sent by ServiceNow utilising ServiceNow contract conditions. QUT would sign separate contracts with ServiceNow and the partner. 

2. Partner submits an end-to-end solution, including a quote to purchase ServiceNow through the partner via a resell motion. QUT would sign a single contract with the partner. 

3. ServiceNow submits a response utilising its own Expert Services team to deliver, incorporating partner resources where it delivers the best technical and commercial outcome for QUT. QUT would sign a single contract with ServiceNow. 

Is QUT okay with a mixture of these options being received? Is there a preference for legal/commercial separation between the software provider and the implementation partner?

Answered on 16/Jul/2026 03:35 PM:


Please refer to Addendum 3 (16 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
Question:



Clarification Question – Tab C.5, System Landscape Requirements

Tab C.5 asks suppliers to describe the solution's integration capability with each listed system (e.g. Planon, Oracle e-Business Suite, Appian, ALMA, Symplicity, InPlace, ELMO, Workday, Jira, OrbusInfinity, etc.), including whether the proposed solution could replace, partially replace, or integrate with each.

To provide an accurate and meaningful response rather than a generic statement of integration feasibility, we would appreciate clarification on the following for each system in scope:

1. Current version/edition in use (e.g. on-premise vs. cloud/SaaS, major version number), as integration methods and available APIs vary significantly between versions.

2. Current use case(s) and scope — specifically, which business processes, data objects, and user groups each system supports today (e.g. is Planon used only for space/asset management, or also for maintenance workflows and service requests?).

3. Direction and nature of data flow currently required or anticipated with the future ITSM/ESM platform (e.g. is Jira integration for two-way work-item sync, or one-way status updates only?).

4. Existing integration method, if any (e.g. API, middleware/iPaaS such as Boomi, flat-file/batch, manual), so we can assess whether a like-for-like integration approach is feasible or a redesign would be required.

5. Whether QUT anticipates retiring, retaining, or replacing any of these systems over the contract term, as this affects whether our recommendation should be "integrate" or "replace."

This information will allow us to provide a more precise, system-by-system assessment of integration complexity and effort, rather than a general capability statement that may not reflect QUT's actual operating environment.



Question: For ESM.FD.01, can you confirm which Digital Experience Platform (DXP) is currently in use, including vendor/product and key integration requirements?

Answered on 16/Jul/2026 03:37 PM:


Please refer to Addendum 3 (16 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
We note the period between the release of the tender and the current closing date is relatively short, particularly given the scope and complexity of the requirements.

To ensure we can provide a comprehensive and high-quality response that fully addresses your objectives, would the organisation consider extending the closing date by approximately two weeks?

We believe this additional time would enable respondents to conduct the necessary due diligence, engage key subject matter experts, and develop more robust and considered proposals.

Answered on 16/Jul/2026 03:38 PM:


Please refer to Addendum 1 (10 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
During the supplier briefing tomorrow, I expect to hear answers. However I am looking to better understand:

1) How does QUT expect that the new ITSM/ESM platform will significantly add value to students, staff and other stakeholders? Are there any specific financial and non-financial ROI measures? Where does this fit in strategic priorities for QUT?

2) Has this program business case been accepted? Is the program funded or is there still a chance that QUT will stay with the legacy system? (I note that RGPs' acquired subsidiary CloudGo responded to a similar RFP in 2019.

3) Can you provide a high-level description of scope - numbers of current users, or potential licenses/seats for future platform? Volume of service requests now or expected growth? Breadth of integrated applications and future growth plans for ESM?

Our Bid team is compiling a list of more detailed questions to allow us to provide a comprehensive and detailed response. We will submit as a spreadsheet after the Supplier Briefing.

Thank you

Shane Herbert

RGP Australia

www.rgp.com

Answered on 16/Jul/2026 03:38 PM:


Please refer to Addendum 3 (16 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
Would QUT like bidders to quote for services for all other departments specified outside of IT and ITAM e.g. HR, Campus Services, Facilities, Graduate Research Centre, IT, Learning & Teaching Unit, eResearch, Health Safety & Environment, Finance Business Solution as part of the pricing schedule? If so, per previous question could QUT advise on strategic direction phases i.e. IT and ITAM indicative start and go live and further departments start and go live dates to provide as realistic implementation timelines as possible? Please also advise on the number of agents requiring access to the solution and the same for each other respective department in order to provide complete pricing accurately.

Answered on 16/Jul/2026 03:39 PM:


Please refer to Addendum 3 (16 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
- What is the anticipated number of licensed/named agents and total end-user population across the ITSM/ESM scope (for licensing and sizing)?

- Which non-IT service portfolios currently run on Ivanti (e.g. HR, Facilities, Legal, Research) are in scope for this platform, and is a phased rollout (IT first, ESM later) acceptable?

- What is the volume of historical data (tickets, CMDB, knowledge articles) requiring migration, and over what retention period?

- What is the priority list of enterprise systems requiring integration (e.g. identity/SSO provider, student information system, HR/finance systems)?

- Is there a target go-live date or preferred transition timeline QUT is working toward?

- Is there a prescribed structure for the Executive Summary beyond the four listed topics (solution/capabilities, delivery approach, commercial model/TCO, value drivers/risks)?

- What format/timeframe should the Total Cost of Ownership model use the full 9-year term (5+2+2), or base term only with extension options modelled separately?

- Contract details document – At what stage would you like us to complete and submit "00013009_QUT_ITSM_Platform-Part_3_Proposed_Draft_Contract_(Contract_Details)(2)"? - Or at this stage, is just filling in the Excel file sufficient?

- Executive summary length – Should the executive summary be a maximum of 20 pages or 10 pages?

- Integrations scope – They've laid out a full list of integrations and apps. Do they want integrations with all of them as part of this project's scope, or just confirmation that each one can be done, with actual implementation left for a later stage?

Answered on 16/Jul/2026 03:40 PM:


Please refer to Addendum 3 (16 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
In order to provide QUT with the most accurate, competitive, and highly tailored commercial model, could the University please clarify the estimated baseline quantities expected for Phase 1 delivery? Specifically, we are seeking:

The total estimated number of managed endpoints/devices (including Windows, Mac, Linux, and servers) for the ITAM/discovery scope.

The total estimated number of IT Service Desk and ESM fulfillers/agents (concurrent or named) who will require licensing to work on tickets within the platform."*

Answered on 16/Jul/2026 03:40 PM:


Please refer to Addendum 3 (16 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
The business requirements say

Configuration Management and CMDB Must Have The solution must provide automated discovery and service mapping across on-premise, cloud, endpoint and hybrid environments, including scheduled and event-driven discovery, identification and reconciliation rules, dependency mapping, and controlled synchronisation with the CMDB to maintain accurate and current configuration data.

Our intended response:

If QUT IT already have a automated discovery and service mapping tool, our solution can integrate with your tool. Kindly confirm if QUT IT already have an automated asset discovery tool? If not, we will provide such a solution through a third party tool. Kindly confirm if we can provide this feature through a third party product and integrate with our solution?

Answered on 22/Jul/2026 05:06 PM:


Please refer to Addendum 4 (22 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
Hi, in response spreadsheet, tab "I - Security" - is the context of the questions about the proposed platform or the proposed partner who is implementing the partner? It reads more like a platform specific question, but just wanted to check. If it's combination, can you please call out which is platform and which is partner implementor? Thanks

Answered on 22/Jul/2026 05:06 PM:


Please refer to Addendum 4 (22 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
Hi, in the response spreadsheet, is "B8 - Supplier Risk" - from a platform vendor perspective or implementation partner? Thanks

Answered on 22/Jul/2026 05:07 PM:


Please refer to Addendum 4 (22 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
Following on from my previous question regarding QUT's preference on the way submissions are received, I would like to propose the following methods of submission. This comes from conversations with many ServiceNow partners to try and understand their preferred way to showcase their services, and hearing from QUT on the briefing call on Friday. 

ServiceNow will submit one direct response to the tender, detailing the ServiceNow SaaS capabilities and its suitability for QUTs functional and non-functional requirements. We will not propose the use of ServiceNow Expert Services for implementation and will leave implementation pricing sections incomplete. Instead, we recommend QUT choses from the implementations partners who offer their services via their own submissions. In this situation QUT would contract the ServiceNow licenses via a direct relationship with ServiceNow. 

Implementation partners will submit their own submissions utilising a shared package of ServiceNow SaaS capabilities, that ServiceNow will provide all partners. This allows QUT to see how each partner would implement the same capabilities and requirements. In this situation QUT would contract the ServiceNow implementation via a direct relationship with partner. This would create a 3-way partnership, and ServiceNow would support any and all partners to deliver success to QUT. 

Some ServiceNow partners are also resellers and may choose to provide their own packaging of ServiceNow SaaS capabilities and implementation services to create a bespoke experience. If QUT chose one of these submissions are their preferred option, you would contract for ServiceNow licenses and the implementation via the same partner. ServiceNow would support any and all partners to deliver success at QUT. 

Please advise if there are any issues with this approach. We appreciate the convenience of having all information contained within a single submission, however we feel this arrangement provides QUT with the most choice in product and implementation partners.

Answered on 22/Jul/2026 05:07 PM:


Please refer to Addendum 4 (22 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
1) Please could you advise whether additional appendices can be added to support any of the 250 word limited questions in "00013009_QUT_ITSM_Platform-Part_2_Business_Requirements_&_Supplier_Response", especially in the "Implementation" section as 250 words is an extremely short amount of space to answer some of these questions, where in some cases there are 5 questions within 1 e.g., SD.IDP.10, SD.IDP.11 etc. For example, Statement of Work, Project Plan etc.

2) Could you advise as to the must have requirements for the initial implementation of the ITSM and ITAM solution to ensure that bidders can price accordingly for implementation e.g., All processes referenced in HLB.ITSM.1 or should processes that are flagged as "Should Have" also be included e.g., DevOps, Information Security Management etc. Please feel free to outline whether QUT would like certain processes in phase one for an MVP and subsequent processes in future phases to be priced.

Answered on 16/Jul/2026 03:43 PM:


Please refer to Addendum 3 (16 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
Q1. Mandatory evaluation criterion 1 in Part 1 requires compliance with QUT's Must Have business requirements. The supplier briefing described this criterion as compliance with Must Have requirements for the ITSM solution, and confirmed that future ESM expansion is excluded from current scope and base pricing. On that basis, please confirm that the mandatory criterion applies to the ITSM requirements (Annexures C.1, C.2 and C.4), with the ESM requirements in Annexure C.3 assessed under the general evaluation criteria rather than as pass or fail.

Q2. Non functional requirement NF.SD.AC.01 requires WCAG 2.1 AA compliance. Please confirm whether published accessibility conformance documentation (VPAT/ACR) with documented exceptions and a remediation roadmap is an acceptable demonstration of compliance for this requirement.

Q3. Requirements HLB.CMDB.11 and ITSM.CMDB.47 require automated discovery and service mapping, and the supplier briefing noted there is no current discovery capability, limited service mapping maturity, and a preference to rebuild the CMDB. To allow suppliers to scope and price this capability accurately, please describe QUT's expectations in the following areas:

(a) Discovery scope at initial go live, by asset class: which of the published CI classes (desktops and laptops, mobile devices, physical and virtual servers, databases, business applications, integration processes, printers) must be populated through automated discovery at go live, and which may be populated through initial load and maintained through discovery thereafter.

(b) Whether the future growth classes identified in the briefing (approximately 5,500 network devices, 9,000 audiovisual devices, additional software assets, and cloud services) are within the initial implementation scope for discovery, or form part of the maturity roadmap.

(c) Whether automated population from QUT's existing management systems (for example Intune, Jamf Pro and VMware, as referenced in HLB.CMDB.11) constitutes acceptable automated discovery for the asset classes those systems manage, or whether QUT requires independent network based discovery in addition to those sources.

(d) Service mapping depth at go live: whether QUT expects curated service to CI relationship models for a defined set of priority services, or automated application dependency discovery across the estate, and approximately how many business services or applications require mapping at go live.

(e) Expectations for reconciliation across multiple discovery sources, and where data quality ownership sits between QUT and the supplier during and after implementation.

(f) The maturity trajectory QUT expects across the contract term, including any milestones the evaluation will assess against.

Q4. QUT operates approximately 300 IT request types. Does QUT support rationalisation of the request catalogue as part of the implementation, and should suppliers assume rationalisation or a like for like rebuild in their base pricing?

Q5. Please confirm QUT's expectations for parallel running of the incumbent platform during the delivery window, including any dual entry or synchronisation requirements between the incumbent and the new platform prior to cutover.

Q6. The Contract Details extend contract benefits to Beneficiary entities, including divested entities for up to 24 months. For the purposes of the Annexure D response, please confirm how Beneficiary usage should be treated in licence quantities and pricing scenarios.

Answered on 22/Jul/2026 05:14 PM:


Please refer to Addendum 4 (22 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
Hi Team,

Kindly requesting your responses to the questions below and a kind reminder on the answers for the questions submitted on 07/Jul/2026.

1. Part 4 Supplier Briefing p.9,12 (~300 IT / ~40 non-IT request types; OOTB, minimise customisation); Part 2 B.7 SD.IDP.15

Subject: Service catalogue scope for Phase 1.

The Supplier Briefing indicates approximately 300 IT request types and 40 non-IT request types in the current environment, alongside QUT's stated preference for standard, out-of-the-box practice with minimal customisation. Could QUT please confirm:

(a) whether it expects the current request types to be migrated on a like-for-like basis, or rationalised/consolidated into a smaller set of modern, workflow-driven catalogue items during Phase 1;

(b) whether QUT has an existing or target catalogue-item count for Phase 1; and

(c) whether existing request-fulfilment workflows and approval routing are documented and can be made available to inform the build?

This will allow respondents to size the service-catalogue build accurately and consistently.

2. Part 4 Supplier Briefing p.9 ('limited data migration'); Part 2 NF.D.DM.34, NF.D.DRA.29; E.2 Pricing P.OC.6

Subject: Data migration scope — historical records.

The Supplier Briefing refers to 'limited data migration'. Could QUT please confirm the expected scope of transactional data migration into the new platform: specifically

(a) whether only open/active records (incidents, requests, changes, problems) are to be migrated at cutover, or whether closed/historical records are also required;

(b) if historical records are required, the record types, approximate volume and retention period (e.g. 12/24/36 months) expected to be queryable within the new platform; and

(c) whether historical reporting can instead be satisfied via QUT's Enterprise Data Platform / data warehouse rather than in-platform migration?

This will allow respondents to scope and price data migration (pricing item P.OC.6) on a consistent basis.

3. Scope — Phase 1 integration set

Part 2 C.5 Systems Landscape (~35 systems); complements Q6 (Salesforce/Boomi)

Subject: Integration scope for Phase 1.

The Part 2 C.5 Systems Landscape lists approximately 35 systems. Beyond the mandated Salesforce and Boomi integrations, could QUT please confirm which systems require an integration to be delivered within Phase 1 (as distinct from later phases), and for each, the integration pattern and direction expected (for example: identity from Entra ID, worker/HR data from Workday and Ascender Pay, SMS notifications via MessageMedia, and discovery sources such as SCCM, Intune, Jamf Pro and VMware)?

This will allow respondents to scope the Phase 1 integration effort accurately rather than pricing against the full landscape."

Answered on 22/Jul/2026 05:15 PM:


Please refer to Addendum 4 (22 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
As our platform does not require you to license approvers in any way, only agents working on tickets, can you split out how many agents work on tickets etc in IT and the ESM instance please?

Answered on 22/Jul/2026 05:15 PM:


Please refer to Addendum 4 (22 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
Could you advise as to when the questions we have posed will be answered as the v2 clarification response does not include any of them, only if other vendors have asked similar questions? These are critical to formulating the response, and with only two weeks remaining, it would be great to receive answers ASAP.

Answered on 16/Jul/2026 10:43 AM:


Thank you for your question. QUT is currently reviewing a number of clarification requests and preparing responses. Clarification responses will be released to all suppliers via addendum as they become available. Please monitor QTenders for further updates.

Question:
We note clause 7.1 of the Terms of Offer addresses alternative non-conforming offers. Could you please confirm:

1. May a Respondent lodge two separate, fully conforming responses, each proposing a different solution, and would both be evaluated on their merits?

2. If so, does the VendorPanel portal technically support lodging two responses under the same supplier account, or is there a preferred way to structure this?

Answered on 16/Jul/2026 03:43 PM:


Please refer to Addendum 3 (16 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
Thank you for the addendum 3, this was very helpful.

In follow up to the increased word limit. Could you stipulate that this only extends to the implementation questions SD.IDP.10 to SD.IDP.15?

Increasing the word limit for every question to 1,000 word is 4 times as much and having been working on the tender for over 2 weeks, would require significant time to re-write, with less than 2 weeks before the deadline. This ensures fairness across all vendors. Please confirm

Answered on 22/Jul/2026 05:15 PM:


Please refer to Addendum 4 (22 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
How many assets and what types of assets need to be included?

Answered on 27/Jul/2026 04:51 PM:


Please refer to Addendum 5 (27 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
Annexure E.2 requests scenario pricing for P.SP.39 to P.SP.43. Clarification No.2 confirmed initial licence requirements of approximately 450 IT agents plus approximately 150 agents supporting existing non-IT (ESM) workloads, with the associated service request templates migrating as part of the implementation. To ensure scenario pricing is prepared on a consistent basis across respondents, could QUT please confirm the assumed volumes for each scenario, specifically: (a) whether the P.SP.39 Base (ITSM only) scenario should be priced on 450 agents or on 600 agents inclusive of the 150 agents supporting the migrated ESM templates; (b) the assumed agent count for the P.SP.40 Expanded scenario, or whether respondents should propose an illustrative volume; and (c) whether the P.SP.41 and P.SP.42 growth scenarios apply the 25% and 50% uplift to the Base scenario volumes.

Answered on 27/Jul/2026 04:52 PM:


Please refer to Addendum 5 (27 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
1. Based on the inputs provided we understand that there are 450 request types in the current catalogue, of which approximately 340 is needed to be migrated in the new ITSM. Can you confirm if the 40 ESM service request templates are included in the 340?

2. Have the Catalogue Items been assessed for consolidation/ rationalisation at any time?

Answered on 27/Jul/2026 04:52 PM:


Please refer to Addendum 5 (27 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
Addendum Clarification No 2 states the additional 16,000 items (network devices, AV devices and software) are in scope for the CMDB in the new platform, while Addendum Clarification No 3 describes them as in scope for future inclusion and the Supplier Briefing lists them as potential future growth. For pricing purposes, should suppliers include asset licensing & implementation for these 16,000 items in base Phase 1 pricing, or price them as a separately itemised optional extension?

Answered on 27/Jul/2026 04:52 PM:


Please refer to Addendum 5 (27 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
Regarding ITSM_Platform-Part_2_Business_Requirements_&_Supplier_Response document, I have two questions:

1. On tab B.7 Service Delivery, for SD.IDP.9 through 15 the requirements seem to be asking for a written response, but the response field is limited to a drop-down selection only. Are you okay with us changing these fields as needed to answer the questions in full?

2. Regarding the V1.1 tabs that were released last week for tabs B.7, C.4, and D, is QUT expecting that we complete both workbooks and submit both? Or should we replace the v1 tabs in our submitted version with the 1.1. text?

Answered on 22/Jul/2026 05:16 PM:


Please refer to Addendum 4 (22 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
HI Team,

I had originally asked the following on the 14th of July (see below). However, do note that some answers have been provided in response to similar questioning from other vendors:

Hi Team, I hope you're well. Thank you for the briefing session; however, we did have a few follow-up questions: 1. Integrations & Data Migration - Thank you for providing your 'core technology landscape/roadmap'; however, what integrations are required as part of the initial implementation? - Does QUT wish to migrate legacy data (open/closed tickets, etc)? If so, could you please provide volumes, including the estimated percentage that includes images and attachments? 2. Service Design Does QUT require assistance with redesigning or building its Service Design (Taxonomy)? 3. Workflows & Automation - As part of the initial phase, what key processes should be automated (e.g., user onboarding)? Please provide a breakdown of process complexity (e.g., 5 low complexity, 5 medium, 5 high) If possible, please share process diagrams - Do you have custom workflows for incident, request, problem, and change management? If yes, please send the process diagram for each (if available) - How many different approval workflows does QUT currently have (e.g., manager sign-off for certain requests)? If possible, please share workflow diagrams. 4. Forms & Custom Fields - What custom fields or forms are required for ticket submissions (e.g., New User Onboarding)? - How many custom forms do you currently use? - Do different user groups require different forms for service requests? 5. Reporting & Dashboards - Do you need customised reports or dashboards? If so, what are the requirements? 6. Licensing - Of the approximately 450 IT agents, how many would be considered power users (i.e. logged into the platform for the majority of the working day) versus occasional users who access the platform only as required? Similarly, of the approximately 150 non-IT (ESM) agents, how many would be considered power users (logged into the platform throughout the working day) versus occasional users?

Answered on 22/Jul/2026 05:17 PM:


Please refer to Addendum 4 (22 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
Hi Team,

We still have not received responses to the questions we submitted on June 15. This is a kind reminder regarding the outstanding responses.

Answered on 22/Jul/2026 05:17 PM:


Please refer to Addendum 4 (22 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
Implementation and system integration is included in the RFS response, would QUT consider a response from a vendor for the solution alone and allow SIs to reply directly with their implementation separately? Would it be considered a compliant response if a vendor replied solely for the ITSM Platform?

Answered on 22/Jul/2026 05:10 PM:
(edited on 22/Jul/2026 05:11 PM)


Please refer to Addendum 4 (22 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
Hi Team,

I hope you're well. Thank you for the briefing session; however, we did have a few follow-up questions:

1. Integrations & Data Migration

- Thank you for providing your 'core technology landscape/roadmap'; however, what integrations are required as part of the initial implementation?

- Does QUT wish to migrate legacy data (open/closed tickets, etc)? If so, could you please provide volumes, including the estimated percentage that includes images and attachments?

2. Service Design

Does QUT require assistance with redesigning or building its Service Design (Taxonomy)?

3. Workflows & Automation

- As part of the initial phase, what key processes should be automated (e.g., user onboarding)?

Please provide a breakdown of process complexity (e.g., 5 low complexity, 5 medium, 5 high)

If possible, please share process diagrams

- Do you have custom workflows for incident, request, problem, and change management?

If yes, please send the process diagram for each (if available)

- How many different approval workflows does QUT currently have (e.g., manager sign-off for certain requests)?

If possible, please share workflow diagrams.

4. Forms & Custom Fields

- What custom fields or forms are required for ticket submissions (e.g., New User Onboarding)?

- How many custom forms do you currently use?

- Do different user groups require different forms for service requests?

5. Reporting & Dashboards

- Do you need customised reports or dashboards? If so, what are the requirements?

6. Licensing

- Of the approximately 450 IT agents, how many would be considered power users (i.e. logged into the platform for the majority of the working day) versus occasional users who access the platform only as required?

Similarly, of the approximately 150 non-IT (ESM) agents, how many would be considered power users (logged into the platform throughout the working day) versus occasional users?

Answered on 22/Jul/2026 05:10 PM:
(edited on 22/Jul/2026 05:13 PM)


Please refer to Addendum 4 (22 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
Relating to question 30 of clarification addenda 4, QUT have stated you would like BOTH workbooks submitting (00013009_QUT_ITSM_Platform-Part_2_Business_Requirements_&_Supplier_Response and 00013009 QUT ITSM Platform - Part 2 Supplier Response - Annexures B.7, C.4, D (v1.1)_150726) however, we have copied the contents of the v1.1 tabs into the original worksheet tabs that they correspond to, to reflect the v1.1 changes made.

Is this permissible or would you like us to not insert any answers in B.7, C.4 and D of the original workbook (leave blank) and just insert the answers into the 00013009 QUT ITSM Platform - Part 2 Supplier Response - Annexures B.7, C.4, D (v1.1)_150726 and submit both excel workbooks?

Obviously, we're trying to minimise evaluators time in navigating between multiple excel workbooks.

Answered on 27/Jul/2026 04:53 PM:


Please refer to Addendum 5 (27 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
1. General Volumetrics: We note the monthly volumes provided for incidents and service requests, as well as the CMDB CI counts. Could QUT please provide the approximate expected volumes (daily or monthly) for Problems, Changes, and Knowledge Articles?

2. ITSM.CM.51: Please clarify the expected scope of synchronisation between the CMDB and continuity/recovery documentation. Specifically, is the expectation to automatically populate and maintain CMDB-derived configuration information within continuity plans, or to provide change notifications and review workflows when relevant CIs or service configurations change?

3. ITSM.CM.52: Our understanding is that this requirement relates to the creation, version control, maintenance, and export of continuity documentation (e.g., system recovery, disaster recovery, and business continuity plans), rather than the execution or orchestration of recovery activities. Please confirm if this understanding is correct.

4. ITSM.HAM.63: Please clarify whether the proposed ITSM solution is expected to integrate directly with supplier APIs, or through QUT's existing ERP/procurement platform? If direct supplier integrations are expected, please identify the suppliers (vendor names) and the approximate number of suppliers to be integrated.

5. ITSM.HAM.65: Thank you for clarifying the expected sources of asset inventory. Could QUT please clarify what is meant by "asset pools" in this requirement? For example, does this refer to physical inventory locations, logical lifecycle pools (e.g., spare, loan, repair, retired), organisational units, or a combination of these?

6. ITSM.RDA.72: While QUT has clarified the historical data migration scope (limited to 12 months), could you please clarify the expected ongoing data retention period for records generated and stored within the new platform?

7. ITSM.DO.114: Please clarify whether the proposed ITSM solution is expected to directly provision and manage infrastructure, or orchestrate existing infrastructure automation tools as part of the fulfilment workflow?

8. ESM.IS.09: Please clarify the expected scope of the information security capability. Specifically, is the proposed ITSM solution expected to provide governance and workflow management for security incidents, vulnerabilities, risks, and compliance activities through integration with existing security platforms, or is it expected to provide native vulnerability and security management capabilities?

Answered on 27/Jul/2026 04:53 PM:


Please refer to Addendum 5 (27 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
Q1. Question from Excel: Part_2_Business_Requirements_&_Supplier_Response

Ref: ITSM.IM.21

Does QUT have an existing on-call rostering and paging tool (e.g. PagerDuty or similar) that the solution should integrate with, or must the solution provide this capability? If a tool exists, please name it.


Q2. Question from Excel: Part_2_Business_Requirements_&_Supplier_Response

Ref: ITSM.SRM.07, ITSM.SMO.83

Until Workday arrives (~2029), which system is the authoritative source of staff manager and organisational hierarchy data for approval routing?


Q3. Question from Excel: Part_2_Business_Requirements_&_Supplier_Response

Ref: ESM.IS.09–15

Are the Information Security (SOC) requirements ESM.IS.09–15 in scope for Phase 1, or a future phase?


Q4. Question from Excel: Part_2_Business_Requirements_&_Supplier_Response

Ref: NF.CS.EN.07, NF.CS.AU.10

At go-live, does QUT require field-level encryption with customer-managed keys, or extended event-level audit retention, for any specific data classes? If yes, which classes and what retention periods? (These need separately licensed products, so this affects base pricing.)


Q5. Question from Excel: Part_2_Business_Requirements_&_Supplier_Response

Ref: ITSM.KM.66, NF.IN.H.44

Which external user groups (visitors, alumni, contractors, etc.) need authenticated portal access, roughly how many are there, and is publicly accessible knowledge (no login) required?


Q6. Question from Excel: Part_2_Business_Requirements_&_Supplier_Response

Ref: NF.OP.R.50, F.1

Does QUT have target RTO and RPO values for the ITSM service? If yes, please state them so suppliers can size backup and continuity options consistently.


Q7. Question from Excel: Part_2_Business_Requirements_&_Supplier_Response

Ref: Clarification No.2 — migration

Should the 12 months of historical data migration be included in base pricing, or priced as a separate option (base = open records and reference data only)?


Q8. Question from Excel: Part_2_Business_Requirements_&_Supplier_Response

Ref: Clarification No.2 — migration

Must attachments be migrated for open tickets, historical records and knowledge articles? If possible, please share approximate attachment volumes (count and size).


Q9. Question from Excel: Part_2_Business_Requirements_&_Supplier_Response

Ref: Clarification No.2 — licensing

Are the ~150 non-IT (ESM) agent licences needed from Phase 1 go-live, or should they be priced as a later option?


Q10. Question from Excel: Part_2_Business_Requirements_&_Supplier_Response

Ref: HLB.CMDB.10–11, ITSM.CMDB.45–50

Are the ~5,500 network devices and ~9,000 A/V devices to be onboarded into the CMDB during Phase 1, or after go-live?


Q11. Question from Excel: Part_2_Business_Requirements_&_Supplier_Response

Ref: Clarification No.2 — Boomi

Will QUT's Boomi integration partner be scheduled to the agreed implementation plan, and who is accountable for integration defects during testing and warranty?


Q12. Question from Excel: Part_2_Business_Requirements_&_Supplier_Response

Ref: Evaluation Criterion 7, E.2

Will QUT accept consumption-based pricing components (e.g. AI usage) if they are capped or committed with transparent unit rates, and should the capped amounts be included in the TCO for evaluation?

Answered on 27/Jul/2026 04:53 PM:


Please refer to Addendum 5 (27 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.

Question:
1) Implementation Blackout / Change-Freeze Windows (2027)

QUT has confirmed Phase 1 implementation during 2027 (largely complete by end 2027, Ivanti decommissioned by early 2028) and is open to supplier-proposed staged delivery. To finalise our migration, testing and production-cutover plan, please identify any academic-calendar or operational constraints across 2027 that suppliers should design around - for example exam periods, enrolment/census dates, semester commencement, and any IT change-freeze/blackout or peak-load windows during which go-live or major cutover activities should be avoided.

2) Accessibility — WCAG 2.1 AA Scope & Acceptance

NF.SD.AC.01 (Must) requires a minimum WCAG 2.1 AA standard and Part 3B ties Deliverables to the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. Please confirm: (a) whether the AA conformance obligation applies only to the end-user self-service portal, or also to the agent/fulfiller workspace and any supplier-configured or custom portal components delivered; and (b) whether QUT requires independent WCAG 2.1 AA conformance testing/certification of the delivered (configured) solution as a UAT/acceptance criterion, or whether product-level accessibility conformance evidence (OEM VPAT/ACR) for the base platform is sufficient.

Answered on 27/Jul/2026 04:53 PM:


Please refer to Addendum 5 (27 July 2026) for QUT's response to this clarification request and any related document updates.