The Authority uses this form to collect personal information. Do you consent to the Authority adding you to its industry-specific email database to send you future updates on procurement opportunities and activities?

Question:
When reviewing item 1.5 Procurement Process Timetable the Registration process closes 15th August @ 5PM.

On the Vendorpanel Website the ROI is set to close Wednesday 13th @ 5PM.

The date above also shows cut-off time for questions is Wednesday 13th @ 5PM.

Please confirm which is correct.

Thanks

Answered on 01/Aug/2025 02:50 PM:


Thank you for bringing this to our attention, I have now updated the closing date for the ROI to the 15 August 2025 at 5PM.

Question:
1. So that we can offer the best insight into capability and capacity, can GIICA please share any indicative timing or sequencing for the tendering and delivery of the 17 venues? This will facilitate a more informed assessment of resource availability and coordination over the multi-year program of works (and accordingly assist with our response to Items 1.9 and 1.10 of the Invitation Form).

2. Notwithstanding Clause 2.2 of the Invitation, Clause 1.1 outlines that GIICA intends to award contracts on a whole-of-Authority Venue basis, using a vertical delineation approach.

2a. Can GIICA confirm the extent to which this will apply to all design consultants and contractors?

2b. In the case of engineering, is GIICA ultimately seeking for one Applicant (ie a single organisation or JV or consortium) to exclusively provide all engineering services for a particular venue, or will separate Applicants be considered for separate engineering disciplines?

3. Clause 1.1 outlines that GIICA encourages early engagement and collaboration among parties who may wish to pursue integrated delivery solutions at the Authority Venue level.

3a. Is GIICA seeking Applicants to nominate any such teaming arrangements at this ROI phase? Noting that teaming would likely be different on each venue (dependent on timing, services required and available capacity as earlier venues are awarded).

3b. Should any such teaming arrangements consider cross-discipline consortia design delivery (ie an integrated consortia comprising of architecture, engineering and other consultants), or should those teaming arrangements be restricted to proposals to share any single service-offering (ie JV arrangements between two architects, or two engineers, and similar)?

4. Does GIICA intend on separately engaging supporting design consultants (including engineers) independently of the Principal Architect, or will architects be required to form full design teams?

Answered on 07/Aug/2025 01:43 PM:


1. GIICA is not in a position to be able to release specific venue information beyond that which is currently publicly available. We do recognise this impacts the ability for organisations to provide fully considered assessments of their internal resource availability and capacity.

2a. GIICA envisages that venue specific engagements will predominantly apply on a whole-of-Authority Venue basis for both design consultants and prime contractors.

2b. GIICA expects that different arrangements may apply for different venues depending on scope, nature and complexity of venue and that both scenarios described may eventuate.

3a. GIICA is seeking information via the ROI from the market in relation to design and construction services in the delivery of the program. Whilst the expectation is for responses to be provided by individual organisations, per Section 1.10 of Annexure A - Invitation Form, to the extent the respondent is willing to share their intentions in relation to teaming arrangements which may be different for different venues then they are encouraged to do so.

3b. Teaming arrangements that consider cross-discipline consortia are acceptable to GIICA.

4. Typically GIICA expect that the Principal Architect team will provide the full design team.

Question:
Hi, could we please ask that clarifications be provided for the following items? Thank you very much in advance for your assistance.

1. Is a procurement sequencing programme/order of procurement available for the venues? This would impact the order of preference/priority for the venues we select in our response.

2. Is it GIICA’s intention to use the ROI responses to then go through an EOI process for invited consultant only – shortlisted from the ROI responses? If so, what are GIICA’s selection criteria and could these be made available?

3. The “venues of interest for works” section (1.9) includes venues for which the EOI process is already closed. Are consultants to ignore those venues in their responses? Are those for contractors only?

Answered on 07/Aug/2025 01:46 PM:


"Part 1 - GIICA is not in a position to be able to release specific venue information beyond that which is currently publicly available. We do recognise this impacts the ability for organisations to provide fully considered assessments of their internal resource availability and capacity.

Part 2 - covered by Addendum #1.

Part 3 - Design consultants should ignore those four venues for which EOIs have now closed. Construction contractors are welcome to indicate their interest in delivering those venues."

Question:
• Could GIICA please provide more clarity around the ROI process and what the resulting applications will yield?

• Do GIICA wish to receive individual applications from single entities, single disciplines only (eg. Architecture, engineering/technical, construction)?

• Do GIICA wish to receive consortium / JV proposals with blended capability and capacity?

• Will a PVR process be run for Authority Venues? If an applicant is successful on this PVR phase of the project will they be precluded from the design and construction phases of the project?

Answered on 07/Aug/2025 01:47 PM:


"Part 1 - the intent of the ROI is covered in the ROI document.

Part 2 - covered by Addendum #1.

Part 3 - covered by Addendum #1.

Part 4 - GIICA expects that some form of PVR process may be run for those Authority Venues for which that process has not already been completed. GIICA will assess on a case by case basis any implication for consultants engaged on assisting with the PVR process in relation to the design and construction phases for each venue."

Question:
Good afternoon.

We have the following questions in regard to this ROI:

1. The Annexure A document, Annexure A returnable section does not provide an opportunity to nominate service to be offered by the respondent. Is there a specific area where this should be included?

2. The Annexure A doc – Section 1.8, requires the respondent to respond to organisational capacity to deliver against the prescribed time frames. No time frames appear to be provided. Please provide guidance for this response.

3. The Annexure A doc – Section 1.9, response table provides the option to nominate capability for individual delivery or JV / Consortium delivery. Please confirm if the JV / Consortium delivery relates to multi-disciplinary teams or to teams made up of different entities who will undertake the same discipline (i.e. would a structural consultant partnering with an architect constitute a Consortium or two separate individual delivery teams)?

Thank you.

Answered on 07/Aug/2025 01:53 PM:


"Part 1 - please provide in response to Section 1.7.

Part 2 - GIICA is not in a position to be able to release specific venue information beyond that which is currently publicly available. We do recognise this impacts the ability for organisations to provide fully considered assessments of their internal resource availability and capacity.

Part 3 -Teaming arrangements that consider cross-discipline consortia are acceptable to GIICA."

Question:
Could you please confirm if companies registered outside Australia or New Zealand are eligible to submit a ROI?(Without ABN/ACN/NZBN)

If yes, are there any special requirements for overseas applicants? Thank you.

Answered on 07/Aug/2025 01:55 PM:


GIICA welcomes responses from companies that are registered outside of Australia or New Zealand. No special requirements apply to respond to the ROI but overseas applicants must familiarise themselves with the various regulatory requirements that apply to deliver services for, or in, Australia.

Question:
Good Afternoon,

In regard to Annexure A - Do each potential Joint Venture partner/s need to submit a separate ROI, or is it suitable for only one party to submit and nominate the other potential JV partner/s.

Kind Regards,

Answered on 07/Aug/2025 01:56 PM:


Thanks for submitting your question/s to GIICA, an addendum has been issued to address the multiple questions received for this ROI to date as opposed to individual responses.

Question:
Request for Information: Project Timeline Limitation

To ensure a fair and competitive process that reflects the full capability and experience of prospective consultants and contractors, we respectfully request that the current limitation on relevant project examples be extended from 5 years to 10 years.

Many significant benchmark projects for this scale and typology fall outside the current 5-year window, despite their direct relevance to the scale and typology of the nominated venues. Given that major venue projects typically span 3–5 years in design and delivery, a 5-year limit significantly restricts visibility of each proponent’s broader expertise and proven track record in complex, large-scale developments.

An extended timeframe would allow proponents to provide a more accurate representation of their experience and capability, while also aligning with the long planning and construction horizons typical of Olympic-standard infrastructure.

Answered on 08/Aug/2025 05:00 PM:


GIICA notes and appreciates this considered clarification request and confirms that relevant project examples may be provided from the previous 10 years in responses.

Question:
Are we required to register interest on this tender if submissions have already been completed for Barlow Park & SC Stadium and MBISC & LISC tenders?

Answered on 08/Aug/2025 05:01 PM:


Design consultants should ignore those four venues for which EOIs for Principal Design Consultant have now closed. Responses to the ROI reflecting interest in delivering design or construction services for the remaining Authority Venues are encouraged.

Question:
Are BIM, Digital Engineering and Information Management consultants required to respond at this time? The addenda states that designers and contractors are only at the moment.

Answered on 08/Aug/2025 05:02 PM:


For clarity, we are seeking responses from design firms (principal architects, design consultants etc.) and construction firms (construction contractors and builders) with the requisite skills and experience in delivering design and/or construction services of a nature similar to that required for the 17 Authority Venues. Organisations interested in providing other services are encouraged to regularly visit the GIICA website and QTenders for future opportunities to support in the delivery of the Program.

Question:
Dear Procurement Officer, GIICA Venues ROI Team,

Could you please confirm whether projects that will achieve operational completion in 2026, where the superstructure is already complete and interior fit-out is progressing, may be presented as projects “delivered in the last five years” for the purposes of Section 1.13 of Annexure A?

Thank you very much in advance!

Kind regards

Answered on 12/Aug/2025 02:16 PM:


Applicants are welcome to demonstrate similar or relevant project experience which they believe would be beneficial in enabling them to deliver one or more Authority Venues. This may include projects which are in progress.

Question:
The GIICA has stated that you may register for the ROI as a non-registered Australian /New Zealand business. Therefore, does this mean that the answer to Section 1.6 of Annexure A – Invitation Form 1 does not apply, and that the main contact/ registered person can be based outside the host country

1.6 States 'Applicants should note that the primary contact and alternative primary contact must be located within Australia'

Answered on 12/Aug/2025 02:17 PM:


Applicants who are non-registered Australian / New Zealand businesses and do not a main contact / registered person based in Australia are welcome to provide alternative contact details for their main contact outside of Australia.

Question:
Previous Question: 3. The “venues of interest for works” section (1.9) includes venues for which the EOI process is already closed. Are consultants to ignore those venues in their responses? Are those for contractors only?

Your response: Design consultants should ignore those four venues for which EOIs have now closed. Construction contractors are welcome to indicate their interest in delivering those venues."

Can you please specifically list Venues to be excluded.

Answered on 12/Aug/2025 02:38 PM:


Barlow Park, Sunshine Coast Stadium, Moreton Bay Indoor Sports Centre and Logan Indoor Sports Centre

Question:
Q1: For the required item 1A.7 on similar project experience — if the project was completed by a wholly-owned subsidiary of the intended bidder, can it be considered as relevant experience owned by the bidder?

Q2:For bidders participating as a consortium, is it sufficient for one consortium member to provide the required similar project experience, or is it required that all consortium members have relevant experience?

Answered on 12/Aug/2025 02:26 PM:


Applicants are welcome to demonstrate similar or relevant project experience which they believe would be beneficial in enabling them to deliver one or more Authority Venues. Such experience may be drawn from the Applicant itself, its related entities, or consortium members, and may be demonstrated individually or collectively where participating as part of a consortium or other collaborative arrangement

Question:
Hi, for clarity can you please provider a response to the following queries after a review of the tender documents, addendum 1 and the 6 answered queries to date..

1) The 'Capacity to deliver individually' and 'Capacity to deliver in JV/Consortium' are still not clear.

a) Is an Architect responding and who is capable of completion all architectural services, required to tick 'Capacity to deliver individually' knowing that other disciplines will be required to fully complete a project?

b) Assumed an Architect responding and who with another architectural firm (same discipline), together are capable of completion all architectural services, is required to tick 'Capacity to deliver in JV/Consortium'?

c) An architect responding who would solely be lead consultant and assemble and lead a multi disciplinary team of Engineers, Landscape Architects, etc. and who together are capable of completion all project services, is required to tick 'Capacity to deliver in JV/Consortium'?

d) A large engineering firm responding who has all required disciplines in-house (needs no support from another firm) to complete all project services is required to tick 'Capacity to deliver individually'?

2) Submisison length - We understand that both Annexure A and Annexure B are to be returned completed. We understand that Annexure A plus any supporting documentation is to be a maximum of 10 pages. We assume that Annexure B is separate to the 10 page limit. Hence total Submisison Annexure A with 10 page limit plus Annexure B. Please confirm if these assumptions are correct.

3) ROI submission - The tender documents mention lodgment in the 'Data Room'. We note that the ROI has been released through Vendor Panel. When the tender documents mention 'Data Room', is this referring to Submisison using the Vendor Panel portal?

Thanks in advance.

Answered on 12/Aug/2025 02:29 PM:


"With reference to section 1.1 of the Invitation, GIICA intents to award contracts on a whole-of-venue basis. In the context of design, Applicants are therefore requested to advise whether they have the capacity to deliver all design disciplines for a whole venue (e.g. large engineering firm), or whether they have the capacity to deliver a subset of the overall design (e.g. architectural) and would require a JV or other arrangement with other design firms to deliver the complete design for one or more Authority Venues.

Regarding submission length, Annexure B is excluded from the 10 page limit.

Any references to Data Room shall be regarded as references to Vendor Panel."

Question:
Q1: Hi, could you please clarify the intended meaning of “delivered” in the following request in Invitation Form 1,7: “List major relevant projects delivered in the last five(now is ten) years, similar in type, scale, or complexity.”

Does "delivered" refer specifically to fully completed and constructed projects, or can it include projects that are designed, under construction, or at other significant stages? We would appreciate clarification on what qualifies as "delivered" in this context.



Q2: For section 1.6 of the Invitation Form, if the applicant is an overseas company without a registered office in Australia, does the nominated contact person still need to be located in Australia, or is it acceptable to provide contact person located outside of Australia in this case?

Thank you

Answered on 12/Aug/2025 02:37 PM:


Applicants are welcome to demonstrate similar or relevant project experience which they believe would be beneficial in enabling them to deliver one or more Authority Venues. This may include projects which are in progress.

Applicants who are non-registered Australian / New Zealand businesses and do not a main contact / registered person based in Australia are welcome to provide alternative contact details for their main contact outside of Australia.

Question:
Could we please clarify if clause 2(c) (Release) of the Deed Poll should be drafted as the postamble to the clause as follows:

“To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Applicant unconditionally and irrevocably releases the Beneficiaries (or any of them) from and against:

(a) any Claim against any Beneficiary by, or liability of any Beneficiary to, any person; or

(b) without being limited by clause 2(a), any liabilities, costs, losses or damages suffered or incurred by any Beneficiary, arising, now or in the future, in any way out of or in connection with the provision of, or the purported reliance upon, or use of, the Information Documents or the Procurement Process Documents, or any other act or omission of any Beneficiary in relation to the Procurement Process.”

Answered on 12/Aug/2025 02:30 PM:


Yes, that is correct

Question:
Hi,

Should we provide our response to the invitation in the Word document provided, or are we allowed to use our own format, as long as it reflects the same information required by the invitation form?

Answered on 12/Aug/2025 02:31 PM:


Either is acceptable, provided page limits are adhered to

Question:
Please can you confirm the requirements on pricing under the Response Wizard (Tab 5) and confirm that Returnable Annexures (A&B) and other appendices are uploaded to the 'Add files' Section (Tab 4)

Answered on 12/Aug/2025 02:34 PM:


Tab 5 can be skipped. Correct.

Question:
Good morning,

We have begun uploading our information to VendorPanel, and as we progress through the steps, we have reached the pricing section, which requests us to provide a price (options: Summary Prices / Detailed Prices). Our understanding is that a price is not required at this early stage.

Could you please provide clarification and further guidance?

Thank you

Answered on 12/Aug/2025 10:14 AM:


You are correct, you can skip this section.

Question:
Hi

The submission process via vendor panel is requesting pricing.

This is not possible for this ROI.

Please advise how we manage the Vendor Panel process.

Thanks

Nicole Jordan

Xzibit

Answered on 12/Aug/2025 02:09 PM:


You are not required to submit pricing for this ROI, this section should be skipped in Vendor Panel.

Question:
It is not possible to skip pricing section when submitting a response. Please advise how to manage.

Answered on 12/Aug/2025 02:32 PM:


Just put in $0 or Not applicable.

Question:
Can you please confirm if Federal Safety Commission(FSC) accreditation will be required to deliver the Minor Venues projects due to Federal funding being involved?

Answered on 15/Aug/2025 02:30 PM:


Yes, it is expected that builders will need to be accredited under the Australian Government Work Health and Safety Accreditation Scheme (the Scheme) in order to be contracted as head contractor for an authority venue (as defined in Schedule 1 to the Brisbane Olympic and Paralympic Games Arrangements Act 2021).

The Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016 requires head contracts for building work to be signed with builders accredited under the Scheme – this is subject to certain thresholds depending on whether the projects are directly or indirectly funded by the Australian Government. GIICA expects that the majority of the authority venues will be captured by these thresholds and therefore accreditation under the Scheme will be mandatory. Note also that where applicable, there are requirements in the “Federation Funding Agreement – Infrastructure” (accessible here: ffa_infrastructure.pdf) and the “Minor Venues Program – Schedule” (accessible here: Brisbane Olympics - Minor Venues Program | Federal Financial Relations) which require that financial contributions by the Australian Government to a building project or projects are only made where a builder or builders accredited under the Scheme are contracted.

Question:
Would it be acceptable to revise our submission and resubmit the ROI by 5:00 pm on August 15th?

Answered on 12/Aug/2025 05:22 PM:


Yes, this would be acceptable.

Question:
Is the intention for this ROI process to shortlist firms for specific venues, and only those shortlisted firms will be invited to the EOI stage?

Is GIICA able to share more on the timings on when EOIs for each venue will be released? Will they be released incrementally or all at once?

Answered on 14/Aug/2025 05:37 PM:


"Part 1: Information provided through this ROI process will help GIICA assess market availability, capacity constraints, and opportunities to optimise resource distribution over time to support efficient and coordinated delivery. GIICA does not intend to shortlist firms for specific venues based on this ROI, and anticipates that all Authority Venues will proceed to an open EOI process.

Part 2: GIICA is not in a position to be able to release specific venue information beyond that which is currently publicly available. We do recognise this impacts the ability for organisations to provide fully considered assessments of their internal resource availability and capacity."

Question:
Regarding 1.4 Participation in Other Roles in the Program – should we be successfully appointed, would we be precluded from participating in future project opportunities?

Answered on 14/Aug/2025 06:21 PM:


You will be welcome to participate in future processes, however GIICA will always review the individual circumstances for each project.