Question:
Hello,

We have a query regarding Part E (Draft Contract). We would assume that this contract in a draft status does not need to be submitted at this stage until we confirm that we've proceeded to the next state of the tender process. Can you please confirm if this is correct?

Answered on 20/May/2026 10:16 AM:


The Draft Contract (Part E) is required to be reviewed as part of the submission. While a final or executed contract is not required at this stage, respondents must clearly identify and include any proposed departures or comments within their response.

Respondents are also required to complete the “3. Conditions” section in Part A, Section 2 – Supplier Response, confirming their position regarding the Contract Conditions and outlining any proposed alternative terms, where applicable.

Further consideration and, where appropriate, negotiation of contract terms may occur with shortlisted respondents. Any resulting contract will be subject to agreement of all terms between the parties.

Respondents are directed to the Supplier Submission Checklist in Attachment A to assist in ensuring a complete and compliant submission.

The deadline for submission of clarification questions is 2:00 pm (Brisbane time) on Monday, 22 June 2026. Additional information or addenda may be issued in response to clarification requests received.

Question:
Hi,

Is it a prerequisite to have the following credentials?

"Is the Supplier an authorised AFS Licensee or an authorised representative, including provision of their AFS Representative Number or equivalent authorisation details."

If so, can this be obtained at a later stage if successful, or is it required at the time of submission?

Please advise.

Answered on 22/May/2026 12:43 PM:


As outlined in the RFP, suppliers are required to confirm that they are an authorised AFS Licensee or an authorised representative, including provision of their AFS Representative Number or equivalent authorisation details.

This is a mandatory requirement of the RFP. Suppliers are expected to meet this requirement and provide the relevant details at the time of submission. Failure to do so may result in the proposal being considered non-conforming and not progressed further in the evaluation process.

This requirement reflects the nature of the services, which involve managing customer funds and financial transactions. It supports the Customer’s governance and risk obligations, particularly in safeguarding funds for vulnerable customers, and ensures suppliers operate within an appropriate regulatory environment.

Requiring this at the time of submission provides assurance that suppliers already have the necessary controls, oversight, and compliance capability in place.

Question:
When QPT says it "prefers a solution capable of operating on a customer-funded basis" with system-allocation to individual customer accounts, is hybrid pricing scored materially lower, or assessed neutrally against an overall value-for-money?

For example the cost of integration with QPT systems specifically could be scoped and costed to QPT while the ongoing costs of cards and monthly fee for transactions would sit with the customer.

Do you have a position on whether overall costs should be split among all QPT customers rather than carving out specific fees which are relevant to QPT operations?

Answered on 02/Jun/2026 12:46 PM:


QPT’s preference for a customer-funded model reflects its objective to minimise direct corporate funding impacts and ensure transparency of costs applied to individual customer accounts, noting that many customers may be from lower socio-economic cohorts.

However, proposals will not be down-scored solely for adopting a hybrid pricing approach. All pricing models—including hybrid—will be assessed holistically under the Cost and Value for Money criterion, taking into account:

• overall cost to customers

• transparency and simplicity of fees

• alignment with safeguarding and fiduciary obligations

• administrative efficiency

QPT does not require, and does not intend to pursue, system integration with internal systems as part of this procurement.

QPT does not mandate a specific approach to cost distribution (e.g. pooled vs specific fees), but prefers models that are transparent, proportionate, and minimise unnecessary cost impacts to individual customers.

Question:
What is QPT's expected growth trajectory beyond the current ~157 group-housing customers? Are there indicative volumes for the "other QPT customer types" expansion path?

Answered on 02/Jun/2026 12:50 PM:


QPT is unable to provide indicative future volumes.

While there is potential to expand the solution to other QPT customer groups over time, this is:

• subject to future business need

• not guaranteed

• not committed as part of this procurement

Suppliers should base their proposals on current volumes, while demonstrating scalability to accommodate potential future growth.

Question:
For CSO / concession pricing arrangements, are there any Queensland Government or QPT-specific frameworks (e.g., procurement policy categories, social procurement standards) that suppliers should reference when proposing them?

Answered on 02/Jun/2026 12:52 PM:


QPT has not prescribed any specific Queensland Government or QPT-specific framework for Community Service Obligation (CSO) or concession pricing in this procurement.

Suppliers may propose any relevant CSO, concession, or reduced-fee arrangements they consider appropriate, including those targeted at low-income or vulnerable customers.

Such proposals will be assessed as part of the overall Cost and Value for Money criterion, with particular consideration given to:

• affordability and cost impacts to individual customers

• transparency and simplicity of pricing

• alignment with QPT’s safeguarding and fiduciary obligations

Question:
What is the expected initial contract term and extension-option structure?

Can up-front costs be spread across the term of the contract?

Answered on 02/Jun/2026 12:53 PM:


QPT is seeking a long-term arrangement, with an indicative structure of:

• initial term of approximately three (3) years, with

• extension options of two (2) periods of two (2) years, for a potential total of up to seven (7) years

This structure is indicative only and may vary depending on the proposed solution and internal approvals.

Suppliers may propose pricing structures that smooth or amortise upfront costs across the contract term, provided that:

• costs remain transparent

• customer impact is minimised

• value for money is clearly demonstrated over the life of the contract

Question:
Does QPT envisage card issuance volumes (initial + replacement) and expected card lifecycle (years before expiry/reissue) that suppliers should design fee structures and partner SLAs around?

Answered on 02/Jun/2026 12:55 PM:


QPT currently supports approximately 157 active prepaid card customers, with:

• relatively expected stable volumes although we cannot commit to these volumes

• replacement cards issued on an as-needed basis (e.g. loss, damage, or expiry)

Suppliers should assume:

• a steady-state operating model with some replacement activity

• a preference for longer card expiry periods, where available, to reduce administrative burden and reissuance impacts

Suppliers should propose reasonable assumptions regarding issuance volumes, replacement rates, and card lifecycle, and clearly state these in their response.

Question:
"no app dependency" mandatory requirement, does this intend to restrict CAS and customers from having access to an app to check balance and submit receipts or complete check-out of debit cards?

Answered on 02/Jun/2026 12:56 PM:


The “no app dependency” requirement is intended to ensure that:

• all core functionality is available via a secure web-based administration portal for QPT staff; and

• the solution does not rely on mobile applications to operate.

QPT does not intend for customers or CAS staff to access card information (such as balances or transactions) via mobile applications or personal devices.

This position reflects:

• privacy and safeguarding considerations for vulnerable customers

• risks associated with storing or accessing customer financial information on personal or non-managed devices

• the need to maintain simple, low-complexity processes appropriate to the customer cohort, noting that some customers may have limited capacity to engage with banking tools

• the administrative burden and governance risks associated with managing user access across multiple external organisations

It is also noted that CAS staff typically rely on personal mobile devices rather than organisation-managed devices, which increases these risks.

QPT’s currently utilises a Debit Card Movement Register and paper-based receipt tracking to support monitoring and control of card usage.

Suppliers may offer optional app-based features; however, these must:

• not be required for operation of the solution; and

• not form part of QPT’s standard operating model.

Question:
Receipt capture is desirable but CAS staff are explicitly excluded from portal/app access. Would QPT consider a limited-scope receipt-only mechanism for CAS staff where they are authenticated users but it does not expose balances or admin functions?

Answered on 02/Jun/2026 12:58 PM:


QPT acknowledges that receipt capture functionality is desirable.

However, any solution requiring access by CAS staff would need to be carefully considered against:

• the administrative burden on QPT to manage user access

• variability in CAS staff access to suitable devices

• overall value compared to existing manual processes

QPT is open to considering low-friction, optional approaches, but this is not a priority requirement, and solutions should not assume adoption.

Question:
The "flag suspicious transactions over $40" example — is $40 a fixed threshold or per-customer configurable? Are there other heuristics QPT would want codified (frequency, MCC, geography)? Does the flag intend to block the transaction or just notify someone from QPT?

Do you have any examples of incidents that you could share with a successful appointee to ensure the real-life cases are covered.

Answered on 02/Jun/2026 01:03 PM:


QPT currently uses a $40 threshold as a standard indicator for review, which reflects typical customer spending patterns. While we currently use this threshold, this may change in the future.

QPT would prefer, where feasible and appropriate:

• Notifications for transactions exceeding this threshold as a baseline

• The option to apply higher thresholds for transaction blocking

• The capability to flag or block transactions based on type and geographic location

• Any exception reporting functionality

Configurability at a per-customer level is desirable, however:

• this should be available as part of a standard, configurable (off-the-shelf) capability, not bespoke development

Additional controls (e.g. frequency, merchant type, or location-based rules) may be considered where they are:

• easy to configure

• proportionate to risk

• aligned to an off-the-shelf solution

Flags are primarily intended to notify QPT staff, with blocking controls used selectively.

Example of Events

• Inadvertent use of customer card details where a card was added to, or stored in, a CAS staff member's personal digital wallet /QR code–based ordering platforms.

• Lost card used to result in unauthorised spending prior to deactivation. There were multiple declined transactions as the card’s limit had been exhausted.

Question:
Should the proposed solution replace the paper Debit Card Movement Register, is that a process managed by QPT internally in conjunction with CAS staff or is this managed external to QPT by CAS organisations. Should the cards work even if a Debit Card Movement Register is not completed?

Answered on 02/Jun/2026 01:04 PM:


The Debit Card Movement Register is a process managed externally by CAS organisations, not by QPT.

The proposed solution is not required to replace this process.

Cards must continue to function independently of whether the register is completed, to avoid impacting customers’ ability to access funds during approved activities.

Question:
If we were able to establish the QPT-dedicated BIN, could you commit to minimum volumes of cards and spend? Would you be willing to pay the up-front establishment fees of the BIN?

Answered on 02/Jun/2026 01:06 PM:


QPT is not in a position to commit to minimum volumes or spend levels as part of this procurement.

Similarly, QPT has not committed to funding upfront establishment costs associated with a dedicated BIN.

Suppliers may propose such options, including associated costs and benefits, which will be assessed as part of overall value for money, scalability, and customer impact.

Question:
Can you clarify what you mean with "MCC 8398 alignment" and what your understanding of the implications of this MCC is with interchange fees for the cardholder?

Your cardholders will be shopping at multiple merchants so they will get the interchange of the MCC they shop at. Whether or not we are MCC 8398 won't get the cardholder lower interchange rates. As the issuer, we have no control over interchange fees as they are calculated based on the merchant they are shopping at.

If your understanding is different could you please clarify?

Answered on 02/Jun/2026 01:07 PM:


QPT’s reference to MCC 8398 is intended to indicate an openness to program structures that may support lower fee outcomes or concessions where these are demonstrable and can be passed on to customers.

QPT acknowledges that:

• interchange fees are generally determined by the merchant’s MCC at the point of transaction, rather than the card program alone; and

• issuer influence over interchange outcomes may be limited or indirect.

QPT does not mandate a specific approach in relation to MCC alignment. Suppliers are invited to:

• outline their understanding of MCC-related fee structures; and

• identify any practical mechanisms within their solution that may reduce overall costs to customers, whether through interchange, program design, or other pricing efficiencies.

Proposals will be assessed based on demonstrated customer benefit, transparency of fee impacts, and overall value for money, rather than on a particular technical interpretation of MCC application.

Question:
What is your scope for migration from the current solution? Can you disclose the current solution? Do they have off boarding provisions to support migration?

Do you know the structure of the data from the previous supplier?

What is the desired user experience for QPT staff to access this historical data from the previous supplier? Will it be within QLD PT IT infrastructure or is it expected to be hosted and viewed within the chosen solution?

Answered on 02/Jun/2026 01:09 PM:


QPT’s current prepaid card solution forms part of an established operating model; however, details of the current provider are not being disclosed as part of this process.

QPT expects the appointed supplier to support a controlled onboarding of QPT as a new client, including:

• setup of customer accounts based on data provided by QPT;

• issuance of new physical cards; and

• configuration of the administration portal for authorised QPT staff.

This should be treated as onboarding to a new solution, rather than a system migration.

QPT will provide relevant customer data, required for account setup. QPT does not require full migration of historical transaction data into the new solution.

QPT will retain and manage historical data separately, outside of the proposed solution. As such migration, transformation, or ingestion of historical data is not in scope for this procurement

Suppliers should assume that any historical data retained by QPT will be managed internally in formats determined by QPT.

Question:
In Section 7.10 Budgeting & Transactions - History and Trends in Part B Scope of Work under Customer Utilisation, it states that approximately 157 customers are currently on prepaid card service. Can you please confirm that "customers" here refers to individual cardholders, and if so, it means that currently there are 157 cards in force. Further, if there are currently alternate methods of funds disbursement that are anticipated to be replaced by a future prepaid cards program, are you able to provide any indication of what the increase in use of prepaid cards would look like in terms of card numbers?

Answered on 15/Jun/2026 03:30 PM:


Yes, “customers” refers to individual cardholders. QPT currently has approximately 157 customers utilising prepaid cards, which corresponds to approximately 157 active cards in use.

QPT is unable to provide indicative future volumes. While there is potential to expand the solution to other QPT customer groups or to replace alternative disbursement methods over time, any such expansion is:

- subject to future business need

- not guaranteed

- not committed as part of this procurement

Accordingly, suppliers should base their proposals on current volumes, while demonstrating that their solution is scalable to accommodate potential future growth, should it occur.

Question:
Funding model

We understand the program is operating on a prefunded basis, with funds transferred to the provider and drawn down at the point of transaction. Could you please confirm if this applies across all customer segments, or if any alternative funding approaches are being considered?

Reconciliation & reporting

Noting the current reliance on portal-based reporting and the absence of API/SFTP integrations, would QPT be open to continuing with a secure reporting portal (with controlled access and export functionality) as the primary reconciliation method?

Spend controls

We understand there are controls in place such as budget limits, no negative balances, and restricted cash withdrawals. Are there any additional requirements around configurable controls (e.g. MCC restrictions, velocity limits, or exception handling)?

Scalability and growth projections

While the current scope references ~157 customers, are you able to share any expected growth over the next 3–5 years, as well as indicative transaction volumes?

Transition & migration approach

If there is a current provider in place, it would be helpful to understand the expected transition approach, including timelines and any key migration considerations.

AFSL / regulatory framework

We noticed the requirement around AFSL. Could you please confirm whether this program is expected to operate under a standard AFSL structure, or if any exemptions may apply (for example, low-value or limited-purpose prepaid use cases)? In the event that the selected solution includes a partner currently in the process of obtaining an AFSL, would QPT be open to a transition period where licensing is finalised prior to go-live?

Answered on 23/Jun/2026 11:09 AM:


Funding Model

Question:

We understand the program is operating on a prefunded basis, with funds transferred to the provider and drawn down at the point of transaction. Could you please confirm if this applies across all customer segments, or if any alternative funding approaches are being considered?

Answer:

QPT operates a prefunded model whereby funds are transferred to the provider and drawn down at the point of transaction.

This model supports QPT’s governance and fiduciary obligations by ensuring expenditure is limited to available funds and approved budgets.

QPT expects this model to apply across the relevant customer cohort.

While alternative commercial or fee arrangements (including hybrid pricing models) may be proposed, suppliers should not assume a shift to credit-based, post-funded, or deferred settlement models.

Any proposed approach must maintain strict budget control, real-time balance visibility, and appropriate safeguarding of customer funds.


Reconciliation & Reporting

Question:

Noting the current reliance on portal-based reporting and the absence of API/SFTP integrations, would QPT be open to continuing with a secure reporting portal (with controlled access and export functionality) as the primary reconciliation method?

Answer:

QPT’s current operating model relies on portal-based reporting, with transaction data extracted and used to support internal reconciliation processes.

QPT does not require system-to-system integration (e.g. API or SFTP) as part of this procurement and does not intend to pursue integration with internal systems. QPT does not require, and does not intend to pursue, system integration with internal systems as part of this procurement.

QPT would accept a secure web-based reporting portal as the primary reconciliation mechanism, provided it supports controlled access, reliable data export (CSV/Excel), and sufficient transaction detail and audit capability.


Spend Controls

Question:

We understand there are controls in place such as budget limits, no negative balances, and restricted cash withdrawals. Are there any additional requirements around configurable controls (e.g. MCC restrictions, velocity limits, or exception handling)?

Answer:

This has been previously addressed in prior clarification responses. Suppliers are to ensure they review all clarifications issued as part of this procurement.

QPT currently applies core controls including budget limits, prevention of negative balances, and disabled cash withdrawals.

QPT would prefer, where feasible and appropriate:

• notifications for transactions exceeding defined thresholds

• the option to apply higher thresholds for transaction blocking

• the capability to flag or block transactions based on type and geographic location

• exception reporting functionality

Configurability at a per-customer level is desirable; however, this should be available as part of a standard, configurable (off-the-shelf) capability and not bespoke development.

Additional controls (e.g. frequency, merchant type, or location-based rules) may be considered where they are:

• easy to configure

• proportionate to risk

• aligned to an off-the-shelf solution

Flags are primarily intended to notify QPT staff, with blocking controls used selectively.


Scalability and Growth Projections

Question:

While the current scope references ~157 customers, are you able to share any expected growth over the next 3–5 years, as well as indicative transaction volumes?

Answer:

This has been previously addressed in prior clarification responses. Suppliers are to ensure they review all clarifications issued as part of this procurement.

QPT is unable to provide indicative future volumes.

While there is potential to expand the solution to other QPT customer groups over time, this is:

• subject to future business need

• not guaranteed

• not committed as part of this procurement

Suppliers should base their proposals on current volumes, while demonstrating scalability to accommodate potential future growth.


Transition & Migration Approach

Question:

If there is a current provider in place, it would be helpful to understand the expected transition approach, including timelines and any key migration considerations.

Answer:

This has been previously addressed in prior clarification responses. Suppliers are to ensure they review all clarifications issued as part of this procurement.

QPT’s current prepaid card solution forms part of an established operating model; however, details of the current provider are not being disclosed as part of this process.

QPT expects the appointed supplier to support a controlled onboarding of QPT as a new client, including:

• setup of customer accounts based on data provided by QPT

• issuance of new physical cards

• configuration of the administration portal

This should be treated as onboarding to a new solution, rather than a system migration.

QPT will provide relevant customer data required for account setup. QPT does not require full migration of historical transaction data into the new solution. Historical data will be retained and managed separately by QPT.


AFSL / Regulatory Framework

Question:

We noticed the requirement around AFSL. Could you please confirm whether this program is expected to operate under a standard AFSL structure, or if any exemptions may apply (for example, low-value or limited-purpose prepaid use cases)? In the event that the selected solution includes a partner currently in the process of obtaining an AFSL, would QPT be open to a transition period where licensing is finalised prior to go-live?

Answer:

Suppliers are required to confirm that they are an authorised AFS Licensee or an authorised representative, including provision of their AFS Representative Number or equivalent authorisation details.

This is a mandatory requirement of the RFP. Suppliers are expected to meet this requirement and provide the relevant details at the time of submission. Failure to do so may result in the proposal being considered non-conforming and not progressed further in the evaluation process.

QPT has not identified any exemptions applicable to this procurement.

QPT will not provide for a transition period to obtain AFSL authorisation post-award. Suppliers must meet this requirement at the time of submission.