GICCA’s first Delivery Contractor tender gives us a steer on its preferred delivery model
The Queensland Government’s Olympic Games infrastructure delivery agency - GIICA - has recently commenced the procurement process for a Delivery Contractor for its first of 17 venue construction/upgrade contracts.
The volume of contracts to be awarded, coupled with immovable Games deadlines and market capacity concerns, will drive GIICA towards a largely standardised procurement and contracting approach across most of its venues program. Variants are likely to be limited to site-specific, stakeholder and legacy-use issues unique to each project. As such, the Invitation for Prequalification for the National Aquatic Centre provides us with a steer on the delivery model GIICA is likely to prefer for many of these projects.
GIICA’s first Delivery Contractor IFP is not just about the National Aquatic Centre – it is a template for how risk, market capacity and design control will be managed across the entire Venue Program.
D&C contract with dual ECI phase
The contracting model adopted is a design-and-construct contract, coupled with a ‘dual’ Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) phase. GICCA proposes to shortlist two tenderers based on capability and experience to proceed to the ECI Development Phase, during which D&C offers will be developed.
Whether the D&C contract will incorporate a lump-sum price or an incentivised target-cost arrangement has yet to be announced. GICCA will no doubt express its preference during the ECI phase.
Importantly, GIICA will have already appointed the Principal Architect prior to the commencement of ECI activities. During the ECI Development Phase, the Principal Architect will lead design progression, with the ECI contractors contributing construction input, sequencing advice and value engineering. Following contract award, the Principal Architect may be novated to the Delivery Contractor or retained directly by GIICA, at GIICA’s discretion.
This is a material qualification for the “D&C” label. While construction risk will ultimately sit with the Delivery Contractor, design control during ECI will remain client-led. The critical commercial questions for bidders will be how and at what point design risk is expected to transition from a client-led ECI environment to a contractor-held D&C position, and what warranties the architect will provide to the Delivery Contractor under the novated design contract.
3-phase procurement process
The procurement process proposed for the initial project involves 3 phases:
Phase 1: Invitation to Prequalify
Phase 2: Invitation to Offer
Phase 3: Dual ECI Development Phase.
The terminology for Phase 2 is curious. Ordinarily, this phase would involve shortlisting two prequalified tenderers to proceed to phase 3 based on their experience, capability and capacity, rather than their proposed commercial terms.
However, the reference to an ‘Invitation to Offer’ suggests that GIICA may seek early confirmation of key commercial positions (such as pricing approach and risk allocation) as part of Phase 2 – an approach that is unusual in the Australian ECI market and may prove difficult to operationalise before design and risk are sufficiently developed.
The shortlisted tenderers will be expected to sign GICCA’s ECI Agreement at the commencement of Phase 2, but this agreement can’t lock in price or other commercial terms at this early stage. Rather, that will occur at the end of Phase 3.
GICCA proposes to contribute to the costs incurred by the losing ECI contractor during Phase 3. The extent of the proposed contribution will be included in the Phase 2 Invitation to Offer. Phase 2 is expected to take 4 - 5 months. Phase 3 is expected to take 8 – 10 months. GICCA has expressed a desire to select a sole preferred tenderer 6 months into Phase 3, but bidders should expect GICCA to take both ECI contractors to fully detailed contract offers.
This structure signals a willingness to invest in competitive tension through to a high level of design and pricing maturity, notwithstanding the cost and resourcing implications for bidders.
Mandatory Criteria and Eligibility Criteria
To be invited to proceed to Phase 2, Applicants (which may be a joint venture or consortium) must satisfy the Eligibility Criteria and the Mandatory Criteria:
The Eligibility Criteria are:
Applicant includes an entity that has delivered an aquatic centre or comparable sporting building project with a contract value of at least A$300m in the last 15 years;
Applicant includes an entity that has delivered comparable sporting infrastructure projects in Australia under an ECI model, or other comparable collaborative procurement model, with a contract value of at least A$300m in the last 15 years; and
Applicant includes a participant who has delivered building or large-scale integrated precinct projects within Australia with a minimum value of $400m in the last 10 years that involved
multiple assets, major civil works and complex interfaces;
managing planning considerations, such as heritage assets; and
delivery within the Australian regulatory, planning and industrial relations environment.
Accordingly, relevant Australian experience is essential. These criteria also point to a deliberate weighting in this project, due to the nature of this site, towards bidders with demonstrated capability in managing heritage, planning, and stakeholder complexity.
The Mandatory Criteria are:
Compliance with Queensland Procurement Policy, including the Queensland Government Supplier Code of Conduct;
Registration with the Queensland Building and Construction Commission;
Compliance with the Commonwealth Fair Work Act and Industrial Relations legislation; and
Previous projects that demonstrate compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act, the National Construction Code and the Queensland Development Code.
Procurement Process Deed Poll
GICCA’s Procurement Process Deed Poll, which every Applicant must sign, also provides an early indication of GICCA’s preferred risk profile. For example:
Statutory functions of GICCA, the State and other yet to be notified entities are unfettered, and don’t constitute an act or omission under the deed poll;
Information Documents cannot be relied upon;
Applicants have no right to appeal or make a claim against GICCA or the State in respect of the procurement process;
Applicants must indemnify GICCA and the State from liabilities arising from ‘anything GICCA does or fails to do’ as part of the Procurement Process;
The liability of bidders that bid as a consortium or joint venture is joint and several.
Site constraints and sustainability commitments
The National Aquatic Centre site presents an unusually complex risk profile for a major aquatic project. The site is constrained by heritage‑listed assets, proximity to rail infrastructure, flood planning overlays, geotechnical interfaces and significant stakeholder sensitivities associated with Victoria Park. These constraints help explain GIICA’s preference for a dual ECI model and its emphasis on collaborative risk development.
In addition, GIICA has embedded firm sustainability requirements into the project. The National Aquatic Centre must achieve a minimum 5 Star Green Star Buildings rating and is targeting a 6 Star outcome. Sustainability performance is therefore not merely aspirational, but a defined project parameter that will limit the scope of value engineering during ECI.
Other roles?
Unsurprisingly, GICCA’s Delivery Partners – Laing O’Rourke and AECOM – are precluded from bidding for the Delivery Contractor roles.
But any entity identified as a sole preferred ECI contractor for the Brisbane Stadium Project must seek GICCA’s permission to participate as an ECI contractor for the National Aquatic Centre project.
More broadly, the IFP makes clear that participation across multiple venue procurements is permitted in principle, but subject to strict probity management and GIICA’s sole discretion. Entities proposing to bid with different partners for different projects within the program will need to carefully consider how they will manage the probity issues that may arise from this.
What this means for bidders?
-
GIICA will retain design leadership through its appointed Principal Architect during ECI. Bidders should plan for a collaborative but client‑directed design environment.
-
The dual ECI model, coupled with GIICA’s stated intention to take both bidders to detailed offers, implies a long and resource-heavy competitive phase.
-
Participation in multiple venue procurements is possible, but only with careful probity planning and transparent disclosure.
-
The eligibility criteria and site constraints indicate that heritage and regulatory risk management is as important as aquatic construction credentials.
-
With a minimum 5 Star Green Star requirement and a 6 Star target, ECI innovation will need to work within fixed sustainability parameters.
Conclusion
There are presently 17 projects – 7 new builds and 10 upgrades – within GICCA’s Venue Program.
Industry participants wishing to bid for any of these would be wise to study GICCA’s Invitation for Prequalification for the National Aquatic Centre.
More importantly, bidders should treat the NAC procurement as an early signal of how GIICA intends to balance speed, risk transfer, design control and market capacity across the wider venues program. Understanding that balance early will be critical to structuring competitive and credible bids as the program accelerates.
For bidders targeting multiple venues, early alignment of bid strategy with this model may be as important as technical capability.
This commentary is based on the publicly released Invitation for Prequalification and does not address project‑specific matters that may emerge during the ITO or ECI phases.
