Dear Ministry for Primary Industries,

Please outline what was the tender process used to select SalesForce as a replacement for the previous InformationLeader platform.

Yours faithfully,

Herve Thevenon

Dear Ministry for Primary Industries,

The response received on 1 May 2018 reduces a tender process to the act of bargaining the cost of a licence fee. This is a part of the whole.

Please **outline** the process that led to selecting SalesForce as the next best Lego block to build the verification and enforcement online system. This may include, but is not limited to, a list of functional and non-functional requirements, that may have been produced before or after the previous platform was rejected, as well as the complete business case submitted to release the funds and resources required to carry on with the internal implementation of the project.

Please be professional.

Yours faithfully,
Herve Thevenon

Dear Director Food Regulation,

I asked for a professional response and I acknowledge some improvement, although unsatisfactory.

I would like the following to be remediated in your future responses:
i) I am increasingly concerned that the supporting documentation does not look like original documents: dates, job titles of the contributors and their responsibility in the elaboration of the document, and revisions are missing. It is an insult to the tax payers to provide drafts instead of the real document.
ii) Answers remain sketchy and incomplete. Activities are provided without dates, durations, or even the job title of the people involved.

1. Users stories are the starting point of a project run using a Agile-type methodology. I note these are not proper users stories since they mix technical requirements and functional requirements. They could have at least been split and sorted in domains. Draft at best. Please confirm this is the document that was sued for the decision process outlined in your response.

2. These user stories do not provide the reader about the scope of the process known as Food Act verification and enforcement that is actually covered by MPI, and what will not be covered by MPI. I asked for functional requirements, and this information should be included in a functional requirement document, at least as a reference to an enterprise architecture document. Please provide documents that can be authenticated.

3. Your citation of the Food Act provided in your last 2 paragraphs is not an answer to the question regarding the decision process and any study performed that have informed and supported MPI's decision to implement and operate the verification and enforcement system instead of delegating it to third parties. The timeframes have not been established yet. Please provide a full account of the dates for all the events mentioned in your latest response.

4. I am still waiting on a break down of the costs involved, for both developments. Public servant do not work for free, whether they are employees or contractors of MPI.

Yours sincerely,
Herve Thevenon