Have you submitted a completed and signed ITO Response Schedule?

Have all the mandatory criteria been met for your tender to be considered conforming?

Have you provided a copy of all relevant licenses and insurance?

Have you read and acknowledged all clarifications, RFIs, and addenda posted for this tender (if any)?

Have you provided a Pricing Proposal?

Question:
Thank you for this. May we know the name of the existing LMS/SMS please?

Will data need to be migrated from it?

Answered on 04/Aug/2026 02:10 PM:


Thank you for your question. Yes data migration is required.

Could you please advise the rationale for your request to identify the existing system? This information will assist us in understanding your query and determining whether any additional information can be provided to all tenderers.

Question:
Mandatory criterion (f) requires evidence of successful implementation within at least two Australian RTOs of comparable size, while Schedule A section 2.8 asks for experience with "Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) or comparable organisations". Where a vendor's implementations to date are with comparable Australian government and public-safety organisations (including live, production-equivalent evaluation environments operating at a substantially larger scale than this engagement) rather than two completed commercial RTO contracts, will the Customer accept, as evidence against criterion (f): (a) listing on the NCVER AVETMISS Compliant Software Register with AVS-validated NAT export; (b) those comparable-organisation implementations and evaluations; and (c) hands-on evaluator access to a fully populated tenant, so the evaluation panel can verify capability directly rather than by reference alone?

Answered on 04/Aug/2026 02:05 PM:


Thank you for your question.

No. The mandatory criterion is to remain unchanged. Racing Queensland has included this requirement to minimise implementation and operational risk associated with procuring a business-critical LMS/SMS. While we acknowledge the alternative evidence proposed, including AVETMISS compliance, implementations within comparable organisations, and access to a live demonstration environment, this does not satisfy the requirement for evidence of successful implementation within at least two Australian Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) of comparable size. As this system will underpin our student management, training delivery, compliance and regulatory reporting functions, Racing Queensland requires the assurance that comes from proven implementation experience in comparable Australian RTO environments.

Question:
The Specification mandates strong de-risking mechanisms for the migration: a test migration on sample data, parallel runs, user acceptance testing, compliance testing evidence including AVETMISS reporting validation, and a minimum 12-month warranty on implementation deliverables. Could the Customer confirm that demonstrated performance through these mechanisms, together with the optional Supplier Showcase, will be weighed alongside criterion (f) in assessing delivery risk?

Answered on 04/Aug/2026 02:06 PM:


Thank you for your question.

No. The implementation and de-risking mechanisms form part of the contractual requirements for the successful respondent and do not replace the mandatory requirement under criterion (f). As the LMS/SMS is a business-critical system underpinning our compliance and operations, Racing Queensland requires the assurance of proven implementation experience within Australian RTOs of comparable size. This criterion will remain unchanged and will be applied consistently to all respondents.

Question:
Section 3.7 of the Specification states "The initial term is three (5) years", while the Invitation to Offer timetable states a 5-year principal term with two 2-year extension options. Could the Customer confirm the intended initial term?

Answered on 04/Aug/2026 02:08 PM:


Thank you for your question.

Apologies for the discrepancy. Confirming that the initial term is indeed five (5) years + 2 x two-year optional extension.

5+2+2

Question:
The mandatory requirements specify that vendors must provide evidence of successful implementation within at least two Australian Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) of comparable size.

Could the evaluation panel please clarify whether demonstrated successful implementation of comparable digital learning platforms for large Australian sporting organisations and national sporting bodies—with similar scale, user volumes, enterprise integrations, governance requirements, learning management functionality, security requirements and stakeholder complexity—would be considered as equivalent evidence of capability?

Or is prior implementation within at least two Australian RTOs a strict mandatory requirement for eligibility?

Answered on 04/Aug/2026 02:13 PM:


Thank you for your question

The requirement for tenderers to demonstrate successful implementation within at least two Australian Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) of comparable size is a mandatory requirement of this procurement.

Question:
Hi RQ Procurement Team,

Hope you're well!

We understand RQ currently uses a combined SMS/LMS environment, and may be considering a similar model for the replacement solution. We are interested in submitting an offer for the LMS component. In our experience, separate SMS and LMS platforms can provide a best-of-breed outcome, provide clearer separation of data and responsibilities, and reduce reliance on a single system.

Could RQ please confirm whether it will accept and evaluate an LMS-only submission, with the SMS procured or delivered separately?

Best regards,

Catalyst IT Australia

Answered on 04/Aug/2026 02:12 PM:


Thank you for your question.

Racing Queensland is seeking a solution that addresses both the Student Management System (SMS) and Learning Management System (LMS) requirements outlined in the tender documentation. Accordingly, standalone LMS-only submissions will not be considered as they would not meet the full scope of the procurement.

Question:
1. The specification refers to ATTF reporting. Please confirm whether this is intended to mean AQTF Quality Indicator reporting, another state funding-reporting requirement or a separate reporting regime.

2. Please describe the specific approval workflow required, including the role, decision point, record to be approved and expected audit trail.

3. Please identify the priority dashboards, users, data measures, refresh expectations and whether a standard role-based dashboard plus scheduled Fast Reports and Power BI-ready export will meet the requirement.

4. Please confirm the business processes that require each interface at go-live, the relevant data objects, direction of synchronisation, preferred timing, source-system owner and whether custom integration is within the current budget.

5. Please confirm whether a mobile-responsive browser experience is sufficient or whether Racing Queensland requires a dedicated native mobile application.

Answered on 26/Aug/2026 09:54 AM:


Hi,

Please see below response to question:

1) This is Tasmania State funding (Apprentice Trainee Training Fund)

2) An example from LMS; unit/s submission - being check by compliance, prior to claiming. An example from SMS, would be enrolments submitted - compliance checks

3) Dashboards ideally should show in graph form, movements of progression, overdues (unit, training plans, ERA), submissions, revenue. Points of movement in student journey. If not possible, alternate avenues would depend on available custom reporting and the extend of available use of reports.

4) Could you please, explain further? I am assuming they are referring to integration of systems. We are hoping for Netsuite (Finance) and Salesforce (CRM). However, this does not explicitly make or break, depending if we can import based on student ID. This is obviously to import payment and revenue against funding and CRM comms to student file. There is money in the budget but we also don't usually get charged extra for this "custom integration" it either is possible or not, that is the identifier in the question.

5) Mobile-responsive browser experience is sufficient.

Thank you