Question:
Good morning,

Should we be successful with this piece of work, does this prohibit us from bidding on future work related to the Investigation Management System?

Kind Regards

Damien

Answered on 12/May/2026 07:17 AM:


Thank you for your question.

Please see the updated document "Q&A - Review of Investigation Management System - RSHQ.2026.272_1105" with our response included.

Thanks

RSHQ Procurement

Question:
Greetings,


We are a software escrow services provider.

Given software escrow is about managing risk around the software/database/interface platforms, and the supplier of those services. Whether the delivered solution is a standalone app or a SaaS deployment, the licensee/User wants to know the developer/supplier will be able to provide services in the future for the core application and also, 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 modest?



Kind regards, Software Escrow Guardians

Answered on 12/May/2026 07:17 AM:


Thank you for your question.

Please see the updated document "Q&A - Review of Investigation Management System - RSHQ.2026.272_1105" with our response included.

Thanks

RSHQ Procurement

Question:
In our experience, independent critical system assessments can be extremely sensitive to deliver due to potential internal tensions on the subject. To help us understand how to best navigate the potential stakeholder landscape complexity, we would like to know:

who is sponsoring the review

has the business already proceeded with an internal assessment/exploratory work before going to market?

whether some replacement options were already suggested.

Answered on 12/May/2026 07:17 AM:


Thank you for your question.

Please see the updated document "Q&A - Review of Investigation Management System - RSHQ.2026.272_1105" with our response included.

Thanks

RSHQ Procurement

Question:
• Can RSHQ confirm the current platform and underlying technology used for the investigation management system (e.g. COTS product, custom-built solution, or specific vendor/platform)?

• Is the current system a custom-built solution or based on a commercial off-the-shelf product?

• Is the system hosted on-premise, in a private cloud, or public cloud (e.g. Azure)?

• What key systems does the investigation management system integrate with (e.g. document management, evidence systems, CRM, data platforms)?

• How many users currently access the system and what are the primary user roles?

• What are the primary challenges or limitations RSHQ is experiencing with the current system?

• What level of reporting and analytics capability currently exists, and are there known gaps in data quality or accessibility?

Answered on 12/May/2026 07:17 AM:


Thank you for your question.

Please see the updated document "Q&A - Review of Investigation Management System - RSHQ.2026.272_1105" with our response included.

Thanks

RSHQ Procurement

Question:
Will suppliers engaged to undertake this review be eligible to participate in any subsequent procurement process for system implementation?

Answered on 12/May/2026 07:17 AM:


Thank you for your question.

Please see the updated document "Q&A - Review of Investigation Management System - RSHQ.2026.272_1105" with our response included.

Thanks

RSHQ Procurement

Question:
We are in the process of preparing our response and seek clarification regarding the submission of pricing.

Part C, Section 8.1(a) requests confirmation of completion of a "Price Response Schedule," however we are unable to locate this as a standalone schedule within the Part C document or attachments. We note that Part B, Schedule 2 contains a pricing table, but Part B is not intended to form part our response submission (other than confirmation and/or departures).

Can you please clarify how pricing should be submitted?

Answered on 12/May/2026 07:18 AM:


Thank you for your question.

Please see the updated document "Q&A - Review of Investigation Management System - RSHQ.2026.272_1105" with our response included.

Thanks

RSHQ Procurement

Question:
The Q&A doc issued on Tuesday 5 May had two references to a 6 week window and a 6 week work period. But schedule 1 of Part B Contract details issued 27 April has an 8 week period in the requirements. Please clarify what has changed.

Answered on 12/May/2026 07:18 AM:


Thank you for your question.

Please see the updated document "Q&A - Review of Investigation Management System - RSHQ.2026.272_1105" with our response included.

Thanks

RSHQ Procurement

Question:
1 What are the major pain points with the current investigation management system?

2 Are there any known limitations or operational challenges already identified by SIIU investigators?

3 Can you share the current 2023 PRS document and any related architecture/integration documentation?

4 Are there any mandatory compliance or regulatory requirements beyond AGIS that the future solution must support?

5 What are the current integrations with other RSHQ systems or external systems?

6 How are evidence management, disclosure material, compelled material, and legally privileged material currently handled?

7 What reporting and analytics capabilities are currently missing or insufficient?

8 Are there any performance, scalability, or usability issues faced by investigators?

9 What level of workflow automation is expected in the future-state solution?

10 Does RSHQ prefer a SaaS-based solution, configurable platform, or custom-built approach?

11 Are Microsoft 365 and Power Platform solutions considered strategic technologies within RSHQ?

12 What is the approximate number of users, investigators, and support staff who use the current system?

13 Are there any data migration challenges or historical data retention requirements we should consider?

14 What are the key security and access control expectations for the future solution?

15 What are the expected timelines and priorities if a future procurement phase proceeds?

16 What level of stakeholder engagement is expected during the review process?

17 Are there any existing vendor relationships or constraints we should be aware of during the market assessment?

18 Are there any budget expectations or indicative funding constraints for future implementation?

19 Will access be provided to current users for workshops, interviews, and system demonstrations?

20 Are there any confidentiality or data access restrictions that may impact the review activities?

21 What is the current investigation management platform being used by SIIU, and how long has it been in use?

22 Was the current system implemented as a COTS product, customised platform, or internally developed solution?

23 What were the original reasons for selecting the current platform?

24 What are the top 3 operational frustrations investigators currently face on a daily basis?

25 Which activities in the investigation lifecycle are still heavily manual today?

26 Are there any duplicate data entry processes across systems?

27 What is the average investigation volume handled annually?

28 What types of evidence are commonly managed (documents, emails, images, videos, audio recordings, mobile extractions, etc.)?

29 Are there specific retention, archival, or evidentiary preservation requirements?

30 Are there any recurring issues with disclosure preparation or prosecutor handover?

31 Does the current system support role-based access controls and segregation of sensitive material effectively?

32 Are there concerns around handling legally privileged or compelled material in the current solution?

33 Are there any requirements for offline capability or mobile access for investigators in field operations?

34 What are the expectations around search capabilities, indexing, and retrieval of investigation records?

35 Are there any known data quality issues within the existing system?

36 Does RSHQ currently use structured investigation templates, evidence matrices, or standard workflows?

37 How are document production notices currently managed and tracked?

38 What reporting metrics are most important for leadership and operational teams?

39 Are there any existing dashboards or BI tools integrated with the current platform?

40 What are the biggest gaps in current reporting and analytics capabilities?

41 Are there any expected future increases in investigation volumes or regulatory scope?

42 What are the key non-functional requirements for the future solution (availability, scalability, security, performance)?

43 Does RSHQ have preferred hosting or cloud requirements (Azure, AWS, Government cloud, on-premise)?

44 Are there any restrictions regarding offshore hosting or support arrangements?

45 What cybersecurity standards or Queensland Government security classifications must the future solution comply with?

46 Does RSHQ require alignment with any enterprise architecture standards or ICT governance frameworks?

47 Are APIs or integration capabilities considered mandatory for future solutions?

48 Is single sign-on (SSO) or identity federation required?

49 What level of configurability is preferred versus custom development?

50 Are there expectations for AI-assisted capabilities such as search, summarisation, transcription, or document classification?

51 Does RSHQ expect the reviewer to conduct product demonstrations with shortlisted vendors?

52 Should the options analysis include scoring criteria and weighted evaluation models?

53 Are implementation partner ecosystems and vendor support models important evaluation criteria?

54 Does RSHQ expect reference checks with existing customers of proposed platforms?

55 Is there a preferred transition approach if a replacement platform is recommended (phased, parallel run, big bang)?

56 What level of training and change management support would RSHQ expect for a future implementation?

57 Who will be the primary business owner and decision-maker for this review engagement?

58 Are there any critical milestones, board meetings, or procurement deadlines that the review outputs must align to?

59 What level of access will be provided to investigators and operational stakeholders for workshops and interviews?

60 Will sample investigation data or anonymised case records be available for assessment?

61 Does RSHQ expect the final recommendation to identify a single preferred option or multiple viable options?

62 What level of detail is expected in the implementation roadmap (high-level vs detailed phased plan)?

63 Does RSHQ require support in preparing procurement documentation for the optional second phase?

64 What are the key success criteria that would define this engagement as successful from RSHQ’s perspective?

65 Are there any political, organisational, or stakeholder sensitivities we should be aware of during the review?

Answered on 12/May/2026 07:18 AM:


Thank you for your question.

Please see the updated document "Q&A - Review of Investigation Management System - RSHQ.2026.272_1105" with our response included.

Thanks

RSHQ Procurement

Question:
• Is 31 July 2026 a hard deadline, or can the indicative timeframes be extended?

• Attachment C - Item 3.4 Security Requirements references 'Part B: Contract Details, Section 1 – General Information, Item 16 – Security Requirements', which doesn't align with information in the Part B we received. Could you please clarify which security requirements Item 3.4 in Attachment C should refer to?

Answered on 12/May/2026 07:18 AM:


Thank you for your question.

Please see the updated document "Q&A - Review of Investigation Management System - RSHQ.2026.272_1105" with our response included.

Thanks

RSHQ Procurement