AFP pitch example: a full worked two-page pitch with commentary.
AFP pitches have specific structural rules that don't apply to standard APS pitches: a strict two-page limit, integrated examples that address multiple criteria together rather than one example per criterion, and an explicit ban on dot points. The worked example below shows a complete pitch for an internal promotion to Senior Federal Agent, calibrated to the AFP's format, with commentary on the structural decisions behind each section.
Four things that make an AFP pitch different.
The AFP pitch is not a standard APS pitch with different content. It's a different document with different rules, and candidates with APS experience routinely lose points by submitting a generic federal pitch into an AFP application. Four structural features set the AFP pitch apart and need to be respected explicitly.
The AFP Applicant Guide is explicit: submit a pitch longer than two pages and it reads as a candidate who hasn't crafted a succinct and highly relevant response. The Selection Advisory Committee (SAC) reads many pitches per role. Going over two pages signals that the candidate can't write to constraint, which is itself a capability concern for a policing agency. Standard formatting (11- or 12-point font, reasonable margins) is expected; shrinking the font or narrowing the margins to fit more content reads worse than running over, not better.
This is the structural feature most APS-trained candidates get wrong. The AFP explicitly instructs applicants to use one or two work-relevant examples that address all criteria, rather than a separate example for each criterion. The technique is to choose examples rich enough that a single operation, investigation, or piece of work demonstrates multiple capabilities simultaneously. A complex investigation can demonstrate communication, judgement, stakeholder management, and adherence to AFP values in the same case study. Splitting these into separate examples per criterion produces a longer, more repetitive, and less integrated pitch.
The AFP Applicant Guide explicitly tells applicants not to use dot points. The pitch is a written argument, not a list of capabilities. Dot points compress evidence into fragments that the SAC has to expand back into meaning; substantive prose carries the evidence in the form the SAC can assess. Candidates who lean on dot points typically do so because they're trying to fit more content into the two pages; the better answer is to choose fewer, richer examples and write them in flowing paragraphs.
The AFP Applicant Guide reminds candidates that the resume carries career history and the pitch demonstrates suitability. Walking through chronological work history in the pitch wastes the two pages. The pitch should reference the resume and add what the resume can't show — the reasoning behind decisions, the way the work was approached, the contribution to AFP values, the suitability for the specific role. Pitches that read as resume prose are a common failure mode.
The Selection Advisory Committee assesses the pitch against three things: the selection criteria, the role requirements, and the Work Level Standard for the position's classification. The strongest pitches show clear evidence against all three dimensions in an integrated piece of writing — not just the selection criteria with the work level standards treated as background context.
A worked AFP pitch example.
The pitch below is a composite, anonymised example for an internal AFP promotion application: a Federal Agent (Band 6 / Senior Constable equivalent) applying for a Senior Federal Agent role with team leadership scope within an investigation portfolio. The candidate is presented as "Daniel Harrison" — the case details and identifying information have been changed to protect the real client this composite draws from, while preserving the structural choices that made the original pitch successful.
Read through the pitch first — the commentary that follows explains the structural decisions section by section.
Daniel Harrison — Two-page pitch
Senior Federal Agent · Investigations · AFP Vacancy Reference #XXXX
Opening claim
I am applying for the Senior Federal Agent position in Investigations because the role's combination of complex case management, team coaching, and operational decision-making aligns directly with the capability I have built across six years of investigative work in the AFP, including the past 18 months operating at the next level on temporary assignment. My pitch demonstrates that capability against the role's selection criteria, the Work Level Standard for the position, and the AFP values, drawing on two recent investigations that together show the breadth of what the role requires.
First integrated example — Operation [redacted], 2024–2025
I was the lead investigator on a 14-month transnational serious and organised crime investigation involving a syndicate moving methamphetamine precursors through three Australian ports of entry. The investigation involved 23 affected entities, three partner agencies (Australian Border Force, AUSTRAC, and a state police service), and two international liaison partners. As lead investigator I held responsibility for case strategy, evidence sequencing, brief preparation, and the day-to-day coordination of a team of four investigators, three intelligence analysts, and one financial investigator.
The investigation involved sustained judgement under pressure. Early in the case I identified that one strand of evidence we were developing carried significant risk of compromising a parallel ABF operation. I escalated the conflict to my Team Leader and to the ABF liaison the same day rather than continuing the line of investigation; we restructured the evidence-gathering approach within 72 hours to protect both operations. The restraint cost two weeks of case progression but preserved both investigations. The ABF national manager subsequently noted the escalation explicitly in a cross-agency review of the matter.
Communication discipline was central to the operation's coordination. I held twice-weekly case conferences with the team, structured around a standing agenda that distinguished operational matters (decisions needed this week) from intelligence development (longer-cycle analysis) so that case decisions weren't displaced by analytical interest. I drafted the case strategy paper for the Operations Manager and presented it to the relevant Coordinator at the operational briefing, which informed resource allocation for the following quarter. When the investigation reached brief preparation, I worked closely with the CDPP officer assigned to the matter, including renegotiating the brief structure when initial CDPP feedback indicated the evidence sequencing didn't yet support the charges we were proposing. The renegotiated approach was successful at committal.
The integrity dimension of the work was continuous. Throughout the investigation I maintained the documentation standard required for matters that may proceed to court, including disclosure obligations. I declined hospitality offered by one source we were liaising with informally, and I recorded the offer and refusal in a file note that subsequently became relevant when that source became a witness. I treated every operational decision as one that might be scrutinised in subsequent review, and several were — the matter is subject to ongoing legal proceedings.
The operation resulted in seven arrests with charges, the seizure of $2.4M of precursor materials, and the disruption of two distinct supply chains. The case is referenced in an AFP submission to the relevant Parliamentary Joint Committee. My contribution to the case is documented in my resume and was specifically acknowledged in my performance assessment for the period.
Second integrated example — Team coaching, 2025
Across the same period I have been informally coaching two junior investigators on case strategy and brief preparation, at the request of my Team Leader. This work demonstrates the team leadership and capability development dimensions of the Senior Federal Agent role, as well as the AFP value of investment in our people.
My approach to coaching is structured around the investigators' actual cases rather than abstract training. We work through their live investigations together — case strategy options, evidence sequencing, the structure of the brief, the points where decisions need escalation. I am explicit about my own reasoning, including the trade-offs I'm weighing, rather than presenting decisions as conclusions. I check their understanding by asking them to explain their case strategy back to me, and I correct misunderstandings before they become ingrained. I treat coaching as a delivery accountability of my role, not as time taken from "real work" — the work the team does in three years' time depends on the development of the investigators currently coming through.
Both investigators have progressed substantively. One has taken on lead-investigator responsibility for a matter she would not previously have led; the other has been recommended for the next AFP Investigators Course. My Team Leader has cited the coaching practice in two performance reviews and has asked me to extend it to a third investigator joining the team next quarter.
Why this role
The Senior Federal Agent position calls for a candidate who can combine complex investigation leadership with team development and the operational judgement to make decisions that uphold AFP values under pressure. The two examples above demonstrate that combination in operational practice across the past 18 months. My resume shows the broader investigative experience that supports them, including prior work on cybercrime and financial investigations. I would bring to the Senior Federal Agent role the same approach that succeeded in Operation [redacted] and in the coaching work: explicit reasoning, disciplined escalation, structured communication, and an investment in the development of the team I'm part of. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss the application with the panel.
That's the pitch in full — approximately 730 words, fitting cleanly within two pages at standard formatting. The commentary below explains the structural decisions behind each section.
Section-by-section commentary.
One operation, five capabilities demonstrated
The Operation [redacted] example is the heart of the pitch. Across approximately 400 words it demonstrates five distinct capabilities the role tests for:
Complex investigation management — 14-month investigation, three partner agencies, two international liaison partners, mixed team of four investigators plus analysts plus financial investigator. The scope is established in the first paragraph and shown rather than claimed.
Judgement under pressure — the parallel ABF operation conflict and the decision to escalate rather than continue. This is the example's strongest paragraph because it shows a specific decision where the wrong call would have been easy and the right call had a cost.
Communication and coordination — the case conference structure, the case strategy paper, the briefing to the Coordinator. The detail (twice-weekly, standing agenda distinguishing operational from intelligence development) signals operating discipline.
Stakeholder management — the work with the CDPP officer, including renegotiating the brief structure when feedback indicated the evidence sequencing didn't yet support the charges. This is more useful than asserting "strong stakeholder management" because it shows what good stakeholder management actually looks like in operational practice.
Integrity — the hospitality refusal, the file note that subsequently became relevant, the treatment of every decision as potentially reviewable. The detail is what makes this credible. Generic claims to integrity don't demonstrate the value; specific behaviours do.
One example. Five capabilities. The technique scales: a senior investigator's pitch might cover six or seven capabilities in two examples, where a junior officer's pitch might cover three or four. The principle is the same.
A different kind of evidence, deliberately
The coaching example is structurally different from the operations example, and that's deliberate. The pitch needs to demonstrate that Daniel can do the team leadership and capability development work the Senior Federal Agent role requires — not just the operational work that's clearer from his current role.
The coaching example is shorter (around 170 words) because it doesn't need to do the same heavy lifting as the operations example. Its job is to evidence one substantive dimension of the role that wouldn't be visible from the operations example alone.
The example is also specific about how Daniel coaches, not just that he does. Working through live cases, being explicit about reasoning and trade-offs, checking understanding by asking the investigator to explain back, treating coaching as a delivery accountability rather than overhead. These are specific behaviours another candidate might not exhibit, which is what makes the evidence distinguishing.
A close that frames the candidate's contribution forward
The closing paragraph names what the role requires and then states what Daniel would bring — the same approach demonstrated in the examples. This is a stronger close than "I would be excited to discuss" or "thank you for your consideration" because it links the evidence the SAC has just read back to the role they're filling.
The reference to broader investigative experience (cybercrime and financial investigations) flags content in the resume that the pitch hasn't expanded on. This is the right place for that signal — the SAC is now thinking about the candidate as a whole, not just about the two examples.
The closing line invites discussion. It doesn't beg for it ("I would be grateful for the opportunity") or assume it ("I look forward to interview"). It treats the panel as a professional audience.
Common AFP pitch mistakes.
Six failure modes the SAC sees repeatedly across AFP applications.
Submitting a federal-style pitch with per-criterion examples
Candidates with prior APS experience routinely structure their AFP pitch with one example per selection criterion, signalled by criterion headings. This is the federal APS convention; it's not the AFP convention. The AFP Applicant Guide specifically asks for one or two integrated examples that address all criteria. Submitting separate examples per criterion signals that the candidate hasn't read the AFP guidance.
Running over two pages
The two-page limit is hard. Pitches longer than two pages signal the candidate can't write to constraint. The remedy is not to shrink the font or narrow the margins — the AFP Applicant Guide specifically calls this out as a tactic that makes the pitch harder to read. The remedy is to choose fewer, richer examples and write them more efficiently.
Using dot points to compress content
The AFP Applicant Guide tells candidates not to use dot points. The pitch is a written argument, and dot points fragment the argument into pieces the SAC has to reassemble. Use flowing paragraphs that carry the evidence in the form the panel can read directly.
Treating the AFP values as a list to be name-checked
The AFP values — integrity, commitment, excellence, accountability, fairness, respect, trust — appear in role descriptions and selection criteria for almost every position. Candidates often respond by listing the values verbatim in the pitch and asserting alignment with each. This reads as performative. The values should be demonstrated through the specific behaviours in the examples, not asserted in a separate paragraph. The hospitality-refusal detail in Daniel's pitch demonstrates integrity without claiming it; the escalation of the ABF conflict demonstrates accountability without claiming it. Show the values; don't list them.
Restating the resume in prose
The pitch is not a chronological walkthrough of the candidate's career. The resume does that. Pitches that read as resume content in paragraph form waste the two-page allowance on information the SAC already has. The pitch should add reasoning, approach, and decision-making to what the resume shows — not repeat the chronology.
Generic operational language that could apply to any candidate
"Strong communication skills," "results-focused," "team player," "deliver outcomes under pressure" are filler phrases that don't distinguish one candidate from another. The SAC will read 40 pitches with the same phrases. What distinguishes Daniel's pitch is the specific behaviour: the case conference structure with a standing agenda, the renegotiated brief structure with CDPP, the hospitality refusal documented in a file note that became relevant. Specific behaviour beats generic claim in every section of every pitch.
Calibration by AFP classification.
The pitch structure carries across AFP classifications, but the kind of evidence and the scope of the examples shift between levels. Three reference points.
Constable / Federal Agent (Band 4–5)
Operational deliveryPitches at this level demonstrate operational capability and judgement within defined investigations or duties. Examples typically describe specific operational tasks, the candidate's contribution within a team, and the application of AFP values in routine policing or investigative work. The two-page format applies the same way; the scope of each example is more localised than at senior levels. Evidence of learning and developmental trajectory matters at this level — the panel is assessing not just current capability but capacity to grow into the next level.
Senior Federal Agent / Sergeant (Band 6–7)
Team leadership · Complex investigationThe level Daniel's example pitch is calibrated to. Pitches demonstrate the combination of substantive operational responsibility (lead investigator on complex cases, or specialist functional accountability) plus team leadership and capability development. Examples need to show judgement on matters where multiple defensible options exist, not just delivery of defined tasks. The integrated examples should cover both the operational capability and the people leadership dimensions, as Daniel's pitch does.
Inspector / Superintendent (Band 8 and above)
Strategic leadershipPitches at this level shift emphasis from operational delivery to strategic stewardship of operational portfolios. Examples describe leadership of teams of teams, allocation of resources across competing operational priorities, engagement with senior AFP leadership and external counterparts at executive level, and accountability for capability and culture within a portfolio. The two-page format still applies; the scope of each example is broader and the time horizon longer. Pitches at this level often include explicit reference to AFP strategic priorities and contribution to organisational direction.
The AFP also employs substantial unsworn staff in technical, analytical, and corporate functions — intelligence analysts, financial investigators, ICT specialists, lawyers, policy officers, communications staff, HR practitioners. These roles sit on AFP Band classifications equivalent to APS levels, with the same two-page pitch format, the same integrated-example expectation, and the same writing rules. The evidence in the pitch reflects the function rather than sworn operational work, but the structural principles are identical.
Want us to write your AFP pitch?
We write AFP pitches across sworn and unsworn classifications, calibrated to the specific role's selection criteria, Work Level Standard, and the AFP values. One-hour information-gathering session, drafts within three business days of payment, 14-day editing window with unlimited revisions. We work with serving AFP members on internal promotion applications and with external candidates moving into the AFP from state policing, defence, intelligence, and broader Commonwealth backgrounds.
A direct statement of suitability and the structure that follows
The opening does three things in two sentences. It states why Daniel is applying (the role's specific combination of responsibilities matches what he's built across six years plus 18 months operating at the next level). It signals that the pitch will demonstrate capability against three dimensions explicitly — selection criteria, Work Level Standard, AFP values. And it tells the SAC that the evidence will come from two integrated examples, which manages their reading expectation up front.
What it doesn't do: open with "I am writing to apply for." That's a wasted sentence in a two-page document. Don't introduce; claim.