Dear Fire and Emergency New Zealand,

In ”Leader’s Update” issue #3 (15 March 2019) it was stated that:
- “In a large multi-agency event we will continue to use CIMS”;
- “FENZ is working on a system for managing our own large incidents”; and
- “AIIMS has been chosen as the best option for our organisation”.

Under the provisions of the official Information Act I request the following information:

1. The names of all of the incident management systems that were considered when the choice was made that AIIMS was “the best option”; and

2. A copy of the formal evaluation that was undertaken during this evaluation and selection including:
- the documented User Requirements (for the required incident management system);
- the evaluation criteria and weightings;
- the scoring for each of the systems evaluated against each criteria;
- the analysis and decision as to the “best option”; and
- the recommendation and supporting discussion as documented in the evaluation report.

3. In the unlikely event that a formal and considered evaluation of incident management systems was not undertaken, please provide copies of any documentation (eg reports, memos, emails, etc) that formed and supported the recommendation for AIIMS.as the "best option".

Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

Alan Thompson

Dear Ms Bleakely,

Thank you for the information provided in response to my OIA request. This comprised a series of papers prepared in 2017 prepared by an external contractor that undertook a comparative and functional analysis of CIMS, AIIMS and NIMS/ICS.

I have taken from this response that FENZ did not undertake a formal selection process when determining that AIIMS was the “best option” in that you have not provided any information as requested including:
- the documented User Requirements (for the required incident management system);
- the evaluation criteria and weightings;
- the scoring for each of the systems evaluated against each criteria;
- the analysis and decision as to the “best option”; and
- the recommendation and supporting discussion as documented in the evaluation report.

Please advise further if this assumption is not correct.

Yours sincerely,

Alan Thompson