It's the $1 billion question - who will build and run the government's visa platform, processing more than 9 million applications each year?
There are just two contenders remaining - one a partnership between Australia Post and tech consultants Accenture, the other a consortium called Australian Visa Processing.
Australian Visa Processing includes PwC, Ellerston Capital, the National Australia Bank, Oracle, Qantas Ventures and Pacific Blue Capital.
Pacific Blue Capital's chief executive is Scott Briggs - a friend of Prime Minister Scott Morrison and former colleague of Immigration Minister David Coleman. Both Morrison and Coleman have recused themselves from decisions over the procurement, but the link has been fuel for one line of attack from Labor, which promised to can the project if it had won government.
Whoever wins the contract is expected to spend more than $1 billion on building a single IT system to receive, process and provide visas for the more than 9 million visa applicants a year.
According to the tender documents, the company will make that money back through a service fee charged on each visa application, adding up to more than $300 million a year and set to grow as the number of visa applications grows to 13 million.
Making a profit from migrants isn't anything new - they currently tip around $2 billion a year into government coffers through visa application fees - and that's before the huge amount of money international students, tourists and other migrants contribute to the Australian economy.
According to the Home Affairs Department, this solution will allow the government to retain control over decision-making, protect the revenue created by the program and make getting a visa quicker and easier.
But the opposition, the public sector union and migration experts have sounded the alarm on the plan - claiming there are too many risks, and such an important government service should remain in public service control.
Opponents call it privatisation, a term hotly contested by department officials. Deputy secretary Malisa Golightly explained to a Senate committee this week that the private provider would only be supplying a platform, not making decisions.
What isn't in dispute is the case for change - Home Affairs' visa processing system currently consists of around 50 different computer systems, two of which are more than 25 years old.
The new platform would mean staff wouldn't have to log in to 15 or 16 disparate systems, undertaking a large amount of manual work.
Home Affairs secretary Michael Pezzullo has told Senate estimates he doesn't plan for any job losses as part of the contract, but rather for simple applications to become mostly automated to free up staff to work on complex applications.
But are we on the right road? Should decisions usually made by bureaucrats be automated? And is this the right way to pay for it?
The government believes this model will allow it to leverage the newest technology and share the risk of investment with a private partner.
John Coyne, head of strategic policing and law enforcement at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, argues this kind of model is the way forward - the days of a government department paying tens of millions for one set of software that will go on to last decades is well and truly over.
That's not to mention the cost overruns. Home Affairs is also dealing with the hangover of an IT project initially approved in 2006 called "Systems for People" - its initial $495 million price tag increased multiple times in the years after it was started, and Pezzullo has told senators it "didn't deliver its full potential".
This funding model means cost increases would be borne by the private provider, although advocates are concerned its profit motives would lead to revenue creation through the on-selling of other services, and even of customer data.
While the department maintains applicants' data will be held to the highest security standards and won't be used for profit, other commercial opportunities are on the table.
Applicants will be able to move through the process without seeing an advertisement or being presented with commercial propositions, but what about once someone clicks "submit"? Is that when a pop-up window will offer an international student a National Australia Bank account? It could be health insurance or a phone plan - whatever a new arrival might need.
The Migration Institute of Australia is concerned about the commercialisation of premium services, warning if costs become too high it could risk making Australia less attractive to migrants. The main issues. according to assistant national secretary Michael Tull, are the threats to job security, and the possibility that decisions are in reality being made by computer systems.
"It is clear that the private provider will have immense discretion to determine who is issued a visa," Tull said earlier this week.
The union is also concerned up to 3000 jobs in visa processing could be lost, pointing to budget papers showing a $150 million cut in employee benefits.
Ms Golightly told senators on Friday the budget line wasn't related to visa processing and the new platform was intended to be a savings measure.
There are also concerns about what could happen down the track - if the winning tenderer doesn't deliver, how difficult would it be to go with a new provider, or bring the platform under government control? It's this question Labor has asked the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to test, to see if the size of the contract would create an anti-competitive monopoly.
On Friday at a Senate committee hearing investigating the delivery of government services, many questions were asked of Home Affairs officials.
The closed tender process and the unreleased business case were covered, but the question that wasn't asked is whether government services should be delivered in this way.
It's not an easy question to answer, and even more so in a period of political debate where complex questions are reduced to being with us or against us.