DPSC GO8264 — Six-Application Dossier

Prepared: 11 Jun 2026 · Closes: 2:00pm AEST Wed 2 Jul 2026 (21 days) · Questions close: 25 Jun Status: concepts drafted by parallel agents, adversarially refereed (verdicts in §3), NOT yet locked by Lukas/Scott. Module: live at /p/grants-pipeline/ in the PATH Planner (branch feat/grants-pipeline, not yet deployed).

1. The portfolio at a glance

*Concept-agent self-rating, pre-refuter. Portfolio total ask: ~$4.3M/yr peak, ~$20.8M over grant lives. All figures working placeholders.

Solo apps (1, 3, 5) are the bankers — remote-gap structural fit, modest asks, DAS-deliverable. Consortium apps (2, 4, 6) are the upside — bigger money, partner-dependent, all hinge on partner confirmation within ~1 week.

2. The frame (locked)

• §5.4 makes advocacy delivery ineligible. Every concept pitches capability PWD use themselves: self-advocacy, peer support, org capability, information. The expertise sells the bid; the PWD does the acting.
• Pitch infrastructure, not projects. DPSC is permanent ($150M/yr ongoing from 2029-30, landscape-verified). 5-year concepts framed as standing capability.
• Under-65s only (Thriving Kids carve-out for 0-8s). No aged-care adjacency anywhere.
• DAS leads with its own incumbency: “Speaking Up in Central Australia and the Barkly” ($580,164) is on the department’s official ILC recipient list. We are not an outsider bidding in — we’re the regional incumbent scaling up.
• Stream 3 banned words: platform / portal / navigator (navigator reform is live and unsettled; read as complementary/feeder).

3. Refuter verdicts (three adversarial passes — full charge sheets in refuter-*.md)

No concept was killed. Every concept took wounds. All fixes are specified.

The must-do fixes per concept:

1. Speak Strong NT — fix travel (under-costed ~3x) + peer wage lines; defend the CB&PLG/PATH ILC-duplication line explicitly; name + demarcate Inclusion Australia’s “Speaking up in the Bush” (it delivers in Alice via Inclusion NT!); assemble the Mar–Jun 2026 restructure run-rate evidence in week 1 (the answer to the Speaking Up underspend); reconcile the §4.4 CfP position with the S3 brief; soften “SDM coaching for individuals” phrasing.
2. Workbench — REFRAME “build my own review case file” (the deepest §5.4 wound: individual advocacy minus the advocate → reposition as preparation-not-case); descope to 5-6 warm partners + §3.2 18-month scale path; stage Y1 to ~$900k; declare build consolidation with S1A (its six pathways = S1A’s six modules in front of the same panel); send a Grant.ATM clarification by ~20 Jun.
3. Open Doors — split the “obliged to undertake” DDA-compliance reading explicitly; demote the public access map to a by-product feeding existing platforms (Accessible Australia / WheelEasy named); split the vehicle-lease budget line; lock the ACCO in-principle or soften cultural-safety dependency; add a recruitment line.
4. Inclusion Engine — stop selling the AI build (Photosymbols EasyMaker already sells it by subscription); sell paid lived-experience QA with veto + Australian/First Nations content layer + practice sprints; name and price EasyMaker as the tool-agnostic baseline; drop “Partner E (TBC)” or lock in writing; SACID repair conversation before naming them.
5. CDIS — the flagship. DAIS additionality must be airtight (criterion text + budget disclosure + pre-briefed NT funder — the one checkable-fact collision in the portfolio); name NPYWC’s $1.11M IAR grant + state the country/language/mode demarcation; fix first-language production + outreach circuit costing (under-costed 2-3x vs its own SLAs); kill “walks alongside” phrasing.
6. Remote Reach — salvage to minimum-viable NT-anchored shape (Anyinginyi/Congress/DCLS/IADA spine); NPYWC in-principle in writing by ~25 Jun or they come OUT (they’re the incumbent writing their own renewal — partner-or-compete); fix the $28k/yr-to-administer-$450k/yr-of-sub-grants management line; ARDS contests “no in-language products” in the Top End — narrow the claim to Central/Western Desert languages.

Portfolio-level (the biggest hole): all six budgets assume exclusive use of the same finite inputs — one part-time technologist (six platform builds, ~$446k Y1 of tech lines), one ~30-person peer pool counted six times, one GM. Any 2+ win outcome currently degrades every program at once. Fixes: a funded ops/management layer in every budget, staged build timelines, an identical concurrency-disclosure paragraph in all six, one shared budget workbook/rate card, single “Lived Experience Workforce” + single “First Nations Governance Group” framings reused across applications, and a board-resolved acceptance hierarchy (S1A → S3A → S2A → S2B → S1B → S3B) with descope/decline authority.

Cheapest cross-cutting win: one SACID/Inclusion NT demarcation-and-referral letter de-risks four of the six concepts.

Integrity hard line (all consortium apps): no application names a partner without written in-principle commitment.

4. Evidence bank (deduped, citable — full URLs in concept files + landscape scan)

Remote NT need:

• 51.9% of NT NDIS participants are First Nations — highest of any jurisdiction; highest average plan budgets (~$170k/yr) (AIHW/NDIA 2025)
• Very remote plan utilisation ~52% vs >70% metro; remote service gaps 27%→40%+ (NDIS Review remote paper)
• First Nations disability prevalence 1.5×, severe/profound 2.0× (AIHW HPF 1.14)
• 58.5% of NT Aboriginal people speak an Indigenous language at home; 77.6% Pitjantjatjara on APY Lands (ABS)
• DRC Vol 9: remote access failure framed as neglect; expand community connectors; fund community-controlled orgs
• Central Australia: highest brain-injury + cognitive-disability rates in the country, no neuropsych services, no LACs (draft NT proposal, past-apps digest)

Community/attitudes (Stream 2):

• 44% of PWD aged 15-64 avoided situations due to disability; 1 in 3 discrimination sources = goods/services provider (AIHW)
• Only 53% of PWD felt valued and respected (2024) — flat since the Strategy began; employer positivity regressed 77%→74% (ADS Outcomes Framework)

Gateway gap (Stream 3 differentiation):

• The Gateway’s own evaluation: light-touch desk service; warm referral only a “consider” recommendation; “more on the ground community engagement is needed to reach remote and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities”; TIS-only interpreting (Central Australian languages sit with NT AIS)

DAS track record (Criterion 2):

• Funded through NDAP + NT Government for 25+ years; 30-year history (winning Speaking Up framing)
• Previous ILC participants became paid co-facilitators, then gained employment delivering the program — the single strongest line we own
• Live consortium delivery: NDIS Q&S Commission Safeguarding project with DCLS + IADA
• Peer support lineage continuous since 2016 (CAPS → Leadership Group → Revised Lived Experience Framework, Mar 2026)

Costing kit (Criterion 3 / budgets): SCHADS casual L5.1 $61.60 / L6.3 $70.28 / L3.1 $46.69; 12% super; 10% management fee; 3.2% indexation; $200/$150/$100 per-session unit costs (won Inclusion NT quote).

5. Competitive landscape — collisions to pre-empt

6. Past-applications lessons (full digest: past-apps-digest.md)

1. The GO6984 cautionary tale: likely lost after going in with an empty Project Plan table, prompt text left in Criterion 3, near-blank consortium table. RULE: nothing submits without a full proofread pass + zero placeholder text. (It’s on the war-room checklist.)
2. The winning voice: first-person plural, casework-grounded, modest-but-vigorous (“we are a small organisation with limited resources but are vigorous…”). Keep the register; impose 2026 evidence density; fill every character limit (past apps used ~50%).
3. Don’t overclaim throughput — DEX shows underdelivery on three live grants. Track record = continuity + lived-experience employment outcomes, not volume.
4. Budget format that won: SCHADS rates + on-costs + management fee + indexation, per-session unit costs (see costing kit above).

7. Portfolio risks + decisions needed

1. Partner herding is the critical path. Workbench needs 8 (3 cold via DANA); Remote Reach needs NPYWC (long pole) + 5; Inclusion Engine needs a SACID repair conversation before naming them. Scott’s week-one job.
2. The July double-header (VERIFIED 11 Jun): DASP GO8390 “Service Delivery” — $184M, open competitive, closes 16 Jul 2026 2pm ACT — is the NDAP successor. New program launches 16 Nov 2026; NDAP extended only to 31 Jan 2027; no automatic rollover — DAS must win GO8390 or core advocacy funding ends. 6-yr grants (to Jun 2032) for strong applicants; ACCOs explicitly invited (new NT competition). GO8391 Helpline + GO8392 Sector Strengthening are closed non-competitive (not for DAS). If capacity binds, DASP outranks DPSC — it’s the existing business, no §5.4 inversion needed, and incumbency + 25 yrs counts directly. Guidelines are GrantConnect-login-walled: pulling them is tomorrow’s first job. Dual-holding DASP+DPSC: unverified but strongly implied fine (DAS already holds NDAP+ILC concurrently).
3. Personnel double-counting: six budgets can’t all name the same two people. Refuter verdict pending; expect dedicated-FTE lines as the fix.
4. §4.4 CfP: a Stream 1 win terminates Speaking Up ILC (clean handover, 1 business day before commencement). Unspent-funds roll-in question drafted for the funder (funder-questions-draft.md) — send before 25 Jun.
5. Descriptions/titles are form-fitted (all ≤1,000 / ≤250 chars — already trimmed and verified). Criteria responses are NOT yet written — that’s the next phase after concepts lock.

8. Calendar

9. Artefact index