Have you completed all sections of the Market Invitation?

Question:
· RLF: Can more detail be provided as to the definition of 'early-stage, innovative and technologically driven' FPOs? (pg2) Do these three points create a defined eligibility criteria for participation?

· RLF: Pg 19: "IDP is required to find a partner to fund capability uplift, and/or co-invest in recoverable grants". To what extent and at what stage of the program design/approval is this commitment required?

· RLF: Are IDPs committing to work with a total number of participants at the outset or on an annual, deal by deal basis? And are loan/capacity building funds paid to FPOs by OSI on approval, or managed by IDPs based on a committed pipeline (e.g.: # of participants/year)?

· RLF: How are IDPs paid for services – is this through the capacity building funding, agreed fee structure or another mechanism?

· General: Is further clarification available as to OSI's proposed role/ways-of-working with IDPs, noting "At a minimum, OSI is seeking to retain responsibility for identified impact areas of the RLF and FGF, fund design and strategy, investment oversight, monitoring and reporting, and approvals outside of fund strategy".(pg5) Is there a planned mechanism for this interface or is this to be proposed by IDPs?

· FGF: For Concessional loan co-investing opportunities– does the approved IDP present the proposed transaction to the FGF for approval? If so, what is the expected timeline for this process?

· FGF: If FGF approves a co-investing opportunity with an IDP would the agreement (and fund flow) be directly with the FPO versus with the IDP?

· FGF: Apart from an interest rate cap, what additional terms are expected to be covered in the Service level agreement between IDP and OSI?

· FGF: Is the $12 million of possible concessional loans from the FGF available per year or in total over the 4 years i.e. 3m per year?

Answered on 19/Dec/2025 03:43 PM:


1. RLF: Can more detail be provided as to the definition of 'early-stage, innovative and technologically driven' FPOs? (pg2) Do these three points create a defined eligibility criteria for participation?

The RLF is targeted at early stage FPOs which leverage innovation or technology to address OSI’s social impact areas.?Eligibility and assessment criteria have not been finalised and will be agreed with the chosen IDP/s. OSI considers the innovation, or technology must be at a functional prototype stage. Eligibility criteria for participation may include:

• Delivery of social benefits in Queensland (RLF and FGF)

• Theory of change and/or business plan with trading revenue (or within three years for RLF)

• Use of innovation and technology (RLF only) – could include innovative solutions to existing problems and/or deployment of technology new to Queensland



2. RLF: Pg 19: "IDP is required to find a partner to fund capability uplift, and/or co-invest in recoverable grants". To what extent and at what stage of the program design/approval is this commitment required?

Proposals will be assessed on ability to maximise co-investment and demonstrate external investor commitment.

For RLF, matched co-investment is sought, which is preferably directed toward capability uplift. Based on feedback from the market engagement, this is a potential partnership area for philanthropic groups.

The Market Invitation is seeking to gauge investment readiness of the IDP and its partners. A funding commitment is required only when the IDP, with OSI, determines which may be following the market scan.



3. RLF: Are IDPs committing to work with a total number of participants at the outset or on an annual, deal by deal basis? And are loan/capacity building funds paid to FPOs by OSI on approval, or managed by IDPs based on a committed pipeline (e.g.: # of participants/year)?

IDPs are not required to commit to a fixed number of upfront transactions. OSI is seeking a reasonable estimate of FPO numbers that aligns to effort and a delivery approach to developing a pipeline. Final number of participants supported will depend on investment structure, fees and co-investment.



Provision of funds is subject to final negotiation. Options include:

• For RLF – Funds may be provided upfront to the IDP or in tranches; and

• For FGF – Funds held by OSI and drawn as required, a guarantee or loan value cap may be allocated per IDP.



4. RLF: How are IDPs paid for services – is this through the capacity building funding, agreed fee structure or another mechanism?



IDPs will be paid for activities via a negotiated fee structure. That is, OSI: is flexible in the fee structures proposed by IDPs; and will assess proposed fee structures based on value for money. OSI recognises there will be costs for deal sourcing, due diligence, and investment structuring. The Market Invitation is seeking a breakdown of the expected activities based on an IDPs approach to developing an investment pipeline for RLF and FGF.



5. General: Is further clarification available as to OSI's proposed role/ways-of-working with IDPs, noting "At a minimum, OSI is seeking to retain responsibility for identified impact areas of the RLF and FGF, fund design and strategy, investment oversight, monitoring and reporting, and approvals outside of fund strategy".(pg5) Is there a planned mechanism for this interface or is this to be proposed by IDPs?



The IDP is to propose an interface mechanism that aligns to their proposed strategy and investment structure. At a minimum, OSI would seek to approve the operating strategy / fund rules after the completion of the market scan to ensure alignment to OSI objectives. Any variations outside of this strategy during delivery would need approval.



6. FGF: For Concessional loan co-investing opportunities– does the approved IDP present the proposed transaction to the FGF for approval? If so, what is the expected timeline for this process?

FGF funds are expected to be held by OSI and approved on transaction basis under a strategy or business plan put forward by the IDP. The approval process and timing can be agreed with the IDP as part of the governance approach. OSI has a dedicated team and expects to be responsive to investment opportunities.



7. FGF: If FGF approves a co-investing opportunity with an IDP would the agreement (and fund flow) be directly with the FPO versus with the IDP?



With FGF, OSI intends to reserve funding and approve on a transaction basis. Flexibility exists on the agreement form and flow of funds.

• Using a guarantee, OSI would hold funds until required. Loans would be guaranteed on a transaction level and not on a portfolio basis.

• Using concessional loans, funds would be provided directly to the FPO (with a master service agreement to the IDP) or through the IDP (via a contribution agreement).



8. FGF: Apart from an interest rate cap, what additional terms are expected to be covered in the Service level agreement between IDP and OSI?

Where guarantees are considered, lending terms are expected to be negotiated directly between the lender and FPO. OSI will negotiate an interest rate cap in an agreement with the IDP. The IDP agreement will cover (but is not limited to) the following - operating strategy / fund rules, investment structure/s, co- investment arrangements, funds flow, governance including decision making authority, reporting requirements and the loan guarantee claims process



9. FGF: Is the $12 million of possible concessional loans from the FGF available per year or in total over the 4 years i.e. 3m per year?

Yes, if drawn as concessional loans, $3 million would be available per year. Timing and size of each payment tranche is subject to final negotiations with the chosen IDP/s and investment opportunities.

There is potential to generate a greater capital allocation to the sector by utilising capital that is unlocked through the guarantee. For example, up to $12 million in guaranteed support over four years (inclusive of fees), could enable the deployment of up to $48 million in capital, based on a 50% guarantee of underlying loans and 50% provisioning of the guaranteed amount.

Question:
To maximise scale and reach to institutional investors, would OSI be receptive to a proposal that unites RLF and FGF under a centralised strategy/Fund, while maintaining the funding allocation ratio between the two strategies as outlined in the Market Invitation?

Answered on 22/Dec/2025 10:49 AM:


OSI is open to considering various models for delivering the funds, including the possibility of a single Investment Delivery Partner (IDP) managing both the RLF and FGF. The deliverables for each fund are outlined in the Key Terms tables provided in the briefing materials. For an IDP proposing to deliver both RLF and FGF, the structuring and management of these strategies, including the potential unification under a centralised fund, can be discussed and negotiated.

Question:
Although it may be beyond the current scope, would you consider a proposal that incorporates potential participation in Partnering for Impact as the mainstream capital component of that strategy?

Answered on 22/Dec/2025 10:51 AM:


The Partnering for Impact fund is outside the scope of this Market Invitation and is not being considered as part of this process.

Question:
RLF and FGF: Do FPOs need to be a registered Australian Company (Pty Ltd) to be eligible?

RLF: Is there leeway around the requirement for the FPO to “leverage innovation or technology to address OSI’s social impact areas.”

RLF: What happens when a recoverable grant(s) is not able to be fully recovered?

RLF: Can repayments be recycled indefinitely? Can recycling be applied outside of QLD, and/or the RLF?

FGF: Is the 50% guarantee of underlying loans and 50% provisioning of the guaranteed amount based on the original amount borrowed or the current balance?

Answered on 29/Jan/2026 02:05 PM:


RLF and FGF: Do FPOs need to be a registered Australian Company (Pty Ltd) to be eligible?

It is OSI’s preliminary view that other legal entities besides registered companies may be eligible to receive funding. Generally, applicants are required to provide an Australia Business Number (ABN). It is anticipated that sole traders, individuals, government agencies, government owned corporations, and universities will not be eligible to apply.



RLF: Is there leeway around the requirement for the FPO to “leverage innovation or technology to address OSI’s social impact areas.”?

The RLF is intended to support early stage FPOs that use innovation or technology in some form to address OSI’s eight social impact areas. However, the interpretation of what constitutes “innovation or technology” is not fixed at this stage. The detailed definition, including the degree of innovation required and how it may be demonstrated, will be refined in consultation with the nominated IDP as part of finalising the fund’s delivery approach. OSI’s intent is to support FPOs examining new or more efficient ways to provide social impact.



RLF: What happens when a recoverable grant(s) is not able to be fully recovered?

The approach to repayment, including the circumstances in which repayment may be activated, will be developed in collaboration with the appointed IDP(s) and participating FPOs. The recovery of grants is expected to be tied to achievement of specific goals, which indicate that the FPO is in a financial position to repay the grant.

RLF: Can repayments be recycled indefinitely? Can recycling be applied outside of QLD, and/or the RLF?

Within the initial 4-year term of the IDP(s) contract, the intention is to recycle payments within Queensland and within the RLF. After this period, OSI will negotiate with the IDP(s) any potential changes to these conditions.

FGF: Is the 50% guarantee of underlying loans and 50% provisioning of the guaranteed amount based on the original amount borrowed or the current balance?

The 50% guarantee is based on the current balance of the underlying loan, enabling the recycling of the guarantee as loans are repaid. Similarly, the 50% provisioning, which is an estimate of the potential call on the guarantee, is also applied to the current balance.

Question:
Hi

• Is there an expectation the amount granted by OSI is the same as the amount provided by the IDP co-investment partner? If so does the amount have to be the same for each FPO or at a portfolio level? Do both contributions (recoverable grant and capability uplift grant) have to be agreed upon and delivered at the same time? e.g. to further explain these questions: in our model, we would decide on a recoverable grant allocation following the capability uplift as this work would give us additional insights about how the grant would be best used.

• Is the Grant payable to the FPO expected to be accounted for on the FPO’s balance sheet as a 0% loan and converted to a grant by the FPO if they are unable to service the loan?

• Will the ‘Repayable Grant”/loan be funded directly by OSI to the FPO?

• If the Grant/Loan is funded by the IDP we understand the grant component would not be tax deductible or count towards minimum distributions obligation of the Grantor/ PAF if:

o The FPO has DGR status but repays the grant/loan

o The grant Is lent to an FPO that does not have DGR status.

• If the loan/grant is funded directly by OSI to an FPO without DGR status would the ‘converted grant’ be recorded as NANE income for tax purposes by the recipient?

Answered on 29/Jan/2026 03:41 PM:


• Is there an expectation the amount granted by OSI is the same as the amount provided by the IDP co-investment partner? If so, does the amount have to be the same for each FPO or at a portfolio level? Do both contributions (recoverable grant and capability uplift grant) have to be agreed upon and delivered at the same time? (e.g. to further explain these questions: in our model, we would decide on a recoverable grant allocation following the capability uplift as this work would give us additional insights about how the grant would be best used).

There is no requirement for OSI funding to be matched dollar for dollar by any co investment partner. However, OSI has a strong preference for external co investment across both the RLF and FGF and is seeking to maximise co-investment. This should be reflected in the design of the investment structure, including the ability to accommodate philanthropic contributions where appropriate. Co investment may be structured at a portfolio level rather than on an individual FPO basis, provided it aligns with the objectives of the fund.

The timing and sequencing of funding components is intended to remain flexible. Recoverable grants and capability uplift may be staged to reflect insights gained as FPOs progress, including learnings from capability building activities and this is reflected in statements in Attachment A of the Market Invitation.

• Is the Grant payable to the FPO expected to be accounted for on the FPO’s balance sheet as a 0% loan and converted to a grant by the FPO if they are unable to service the loan?

Recoverable grants under the RLF are not intended to operate as conventional loans. The legal, accounting and tax treatment of funding, including balance sheet classification, tax deductibility, and the implications of repayment or conversion, will depend on the final structure adopted and the circumstances of each FPO or IDP. These matters will be considered during implementation, and relevant parties are expected to seek their own independent accounting and tax advice.

• Will the ‘Repayable Grant”/loan be funded directly by OSI to the FPO?

The funding flows, including whether funding is provided directly by OSI or via an appointed IDP and associated treatment will be confirmed as part of finalising the delivery arrangements for the RLF and FGF. Subject to tax and accounting treatment, the intent is to provide upfront funding to the IDP as part of administering RLF, and FGF would be funded on a transaction basis.

• If the Grant/Loan is funded by the IDP we understand the grant component would not be tax deductible or count towards minimum distributions obligation of the Grantor/ PAF if:

o The FPO has DGR status but repays the grant/loan

o The grant Is lent to an FPO that does not have DGR status.

• If the loan/grant is funded directly by OSI to an FPO without DGR status would the ‘converted grant’ be recorded as NANE income for tax purposes by the recipient?

The funding flows, including whether funding is provided directly by OSI or via an appointed IDP and associated treatment will be confirmed as part of finalising the delivery arrangements for the RLF and FGF. OSI is open to exploring alternative funding approaches to support compliance with tax or regulatory requirements and minimise potential adverse implications for FPOs or IDP(s). Parties will need to seek professional advice on treatment of funding arrangements.

Question:
FGF: For the concessional loans, is the QLD Gov expecting a return on their investment?

Answered on 30/Jan/2026 08:52 AM:


• FGF: For the concessional loans, is the QLD Gov expecting a return on their investment?

The primary objective of the Concessional Loans is to provide fit-for-purpose capital that enables For-Purpose Organisations to scale. The loan terms will be designed to offer repayment flexibility and below-market interest rates, reflecting the program's focus on social outcomes rather than commercial returns. Consequently, while a social return on investment is expected, financial returns may be below market rates in alignment with the program's strategic intent of supporting social impact.

Question:
RLF: Can part of the co-investment be a provision of pro bono support (as part of the capability uplift program) provided by a corporate partner?

Answered on 30/Jan/2026 02:44 PM:


• RLF: Can part of the co-investment be a provision of pro bono support (as part of the capability uplift program) provided by a corporate partner?

Pro bono work could be an acceptable alternative to direct funding for capability-building, provided it achieves outcomes for the FPO comparable to those achieved through equivalent grant funding. It would be essential that the pro bono support aligns with the FPO’s needs and produces tangible results that uplift capacity and social impact. It is worth noting that OSI prefers proposals that introduce co-investment in hard dollar terms. A pro bono contribution combined with a hard dollar commitment would likely be preferred over the same proposal with only a pro bono commitment.

Question:
Regarding the Financing Growth Fund (FGF), is it the Department's expectation that a certain interest earned on concessional loans should be returned to the Consolidated Fund?

Answered on 10/Feb/2026 04:26 PM:


•Regarding the Financing Growth Fund (FGF), is it the Department’s expectation that a certain interest earned on concessional loans should be returned to the Consolidated Fund?

Any interest generated through concessional loans would be recycled within Queensland and within the FGF.

Question:
As a National organisation we have staff across multiple states. Do we need to provide workers compensation details for all states we work in or will exclusively Queensland details be sufficient.

Answered on 09/Feb/2026 01:45 PM:


As a National organisation we have staff across multiple states. Do we need to provide workers compensation details for all states we work in or will exclusively Queensland details be sufficient?

For organisations operating across multiple states, providing Queensland workers’ compensation details will suffice.

Question:
RLF/ FGF

Are we expected to use the Quote Builder on the VendorPanel's response wizard or can we rather provide a budget as an attached file?

Answered on 06/Feb/2026 03:18 PM:
(edited on 06/Feb/2026 03:31 PM)


RLF/ FGF- Are we expected to use the Quote Builder on the VendorPanel's response wizard or can we rather provide a budget as an attached file?

We expect most interested parties will want to provide budget information through attaching their own documentation. Submissions will be accepted and assessed whether or not the Quote Builder is used.

Question:
Please can you clarify the permitted format of response - it states 'offers should be submitted in Microsoft Word/Excel 2003 or later and/or a pdf version'. Does reference to pdf being an option mean that we can submit in pdf'd Powerpoint? Thank you.

Answered on 11/Feb/2026 04:22 PM:


•Please can you clarify the permitted format of response - it states 'offers should be submitted in Microsoft Word/Excel 2003 or later and/or a pdf version'. Does reference to pdf being an option mean that we can submit in pdf'd PowerPoint? Thank you

.Yes, PDF submissions are acceptable, including PDF versions of PowerPoint.

Question:
RLF: Key Terms: At least $100,000 available per FPO...Capability grant funding of at least $50,000...Recoverable grant up to $50,000. Can you please confirm (1) the minimum investment per FPO needs to be $100k; up to $50-$100k capability and $0-$50k recoverable grant

RLF: Key Terms: Co-investment - IDP is required to find a partner to fund capability uplift, and/or co-invest in recoverable grants. What minimum % of co-investment is acceptable/expected - i.e. for the $4M OSI investment, are you expecting a further $4m in co-investment (minus fees)? What is the minimum you expect across the portfolio?

FGF: Key Terms:

- Guarantees (or credit assurances) and concessional loans designed to unlock co-investment of private capital. For both the guarantees and concessional loans, what minimum % of co-investment is acceptable/expected per transaction?

- Best endeavours to secure and administer grant funds to provide capability support per FPO as needed. Can you please quantify 'best endeavours' and elaborate on 'as needed'?

Answered on 13/Feb/2026 05:34 PM:


•RLF: Key Terms: At least $100,000 available per FPO...Capability grant funding of at least $50,000...Recoverable grant up to $50,000. Can you please confirm (1) the minimum investment per FPO needs to be $100k; up to $50-$100k capability and $0-$50k recoverable grant.

OSI is investing up to $4 million over four years inclusive of fees under RLF. Beyond that, there is no minimum investment under RLF; however, OSI has a strong preference for external co-investment into RLF. This means at least $100,000 is available per FPO in:

• Capability Grant funding of at least $50,000 to uplift skills, and

• Recoverable Grant up to $50,000 used to fund working capital.

The presence of external co-investment will add to the above funding pool available to support FPOs under RLF.

•RLF: Key Terms: Co-investment - IDP is required to find a partner to fund capability uplift, and/or co-invest in recoverable grants. What minimum % of co-investment is acceptable/expected - i.e. for the $4M OSI investment, are you expecting a further $4m in co-investment (minus fees)? What is the minimum you expect across the portfolio?

There is no defined minimum level of co-investment required. However, as noted above and in the Market Invitation, OSI has a strong preference for external co-investment into both RLF and FGF. Any co-investment will add to the funding pool available to support FPOs under RLF.

FGF: Key Terms:

- Guarantees (or credit assurances) and concessional loans designed to unlock co-investment of private capital. For both the guarantees and concessional loans, what minimum % of co-investment is acceptable/expected per transaction?

There is no minimum acceptable level of co-investment per transaction for FGF noting that for Loan Guarantees, OSI will provide a guarantee of 50% of the underlying loan amount per FPO. OSI has a strong preference for external co-investment into FGF. OSI is seeking for IDP’s to use best endeavours to secure grant funding from co-investors of at least $50,000 per FPO for capability uplift support. Should the IDP’s wish to utilise Loan Guarantees as an instrument, the IDP need to secure the underlying loan.

Best endeavours to secure and administer grant funds to provide capability support per FPO as needed. Can you please quantify 'best endeavours' and elaborate on 'as needed'?

The context of ‘best endeavours’ is that OSI expects the IDP to actively and diligently pursue co-investment opportunities to secure and administer grant funds leveraging their existing relationships and network. The reference to ‘as needed’ refers to the IDP assessing the capability uplift needs of each FPO and allocating grant funding strategically to address those needs.