We conclude that the procurement process used for the development complied with the required VGPB and PV policy and guidance.
We also conclude that there were no material scope changes to the core project and that interactive bidding and structured negotiations assisted the State to refine the proponents' bids. The post-tender project scope change (integration of South Wharf into the project precinct) has not had any material impact on the tender put to market, and a fair tender process was maintained.
We further conclude that risk allocations in the contract are consistent with the allocations recommended in PV guidance and that the contract for the facility protects the State's commercial and residual interests.
On the issue of probity of the process, we found that:
• probity was enforced and maintained through all key procurement stages, including structured negotiations
• the State used a probity auditor to review and report on the conduct of the procurement process
• probity and other relevant procurement requirements were met
• appropriate records on the procurement are being maintained.