{"text_format":"1","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":3,"sheets":["Instructions","ISA Risk Tier Calculator","Lookups HVHR calc"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":0,"macros":1,"external_links":0,"defined_names":38,"comments":4,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900"}

{"sheet":"Instructions","index":0,"n_rows":58,"n_cols":14,"rows_kept":58,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[53,0,54,0],[55,0,56,0],[49,0,50,0],[3,0,3,1],[47,11,47,13],[47,0,47,1],[47,2,47,5],[47,6,47,10],[51,0,52,0]]}
["ISA Risk Tier Calculator – Instructions for Use"]
[]
["Purpose"]
["This calculator determines the Infrastructure SA (ISA) assurance tier for a project or program using the High Value High Risk (HVHR) methodology under ISA Assurance Framework 3.0."]
[]
["IMPORTANT – Editable cells only"]
[" Users must ONLY enter or change values in green cells"]
[" All other cells are locked and automatically calculated"]
[" Do not overwrite formulas or unlock sheets"]
[]
["Instructions"]
["1. Project / Program name"]
["Enter the full name of the project/program in the green input cell at the top of the calculator."]
[]
["2. State Government Investment ($m)"]
["Enter the State Government investment in millions (whole numbers or decimals, no $ symbol)."]
[]
["3. Non‑State Government Investment ($m)"]
["Enter the non‑State contribution in millions. Enter 0 if none."]
[]
["4. Assessment Date"]
["Enter the date this assessment was completed in the green date cell."]
[]
["5. Criterion ratings"]
["For each criterion, select the most suited rating for the project/program based on the descriptor from the dropdown list."]
[]
["6. National Significance"]
["Select Yes or No from the dropdown accordingly. This directly affects the assurance tier outcome."]
[]
["Read‑only outputs (auto‑calculated)"]
["ISA Tier – Tier 1 to Tier 4"]
["Profile – HVHR / HVLR / LVHR / LVLR"]
[]
[]
[]
["Good practice / when to re‑calculate \nRe‑run the calculator if there is a material change to:"]
["Project scope or solution"]
["Cost or funding profile"]
["Risk, complexity, or delivery approach"]
["National significance or Commonwealth funding intent"]
[]
[]
[]
["Support This calculator aligns with ISAAF 3.0 and Infrastructure SA assurance requirements."]
["ISAAF3.0 "]
["ISA Assurance Guide 2026"]
[]
["Tier Descriptor",null,"Minimum Project Reporting Frequency",null,null,null,"Assurance Review",null,null,null,null,"RAP Update Frequency"]
["Tier","Descriptor (value, risk and assurance expectation)","Planning (to Gate 2)","Pre Delivery (to Gate 3)*","Delivery (to Gate 4)","Post Completion (to Gate 5)","Gate 1","Gate 2","Gate 3","Gate 4","Gate 5","Critical ","Essential","Suggested"]
[1,"State-significant / mission-critical projects with the highest potential impact on service delivery, safety, reputation, budget and/or schedule. Typically characterised by one or more of: very large investment; high complexity (multi-site/multi-agency, novel delivery model, significant interfaces); material uncertainty (scope, market, approvals); and/or high consequence of failure.   \n","Bi monthly","Monthly","Monthly","By exception (6 monthly)","Yes","Yes","Yes","Yes","Yes","Monthly","Monthly","Quarterly"]
[null,"Assurance expectation: highest level of independent oversight and scrutiny; frequent reporting; proactive assurance to support key decisions and risk mitigation."]
[2,"High value / high risk projects with significant strategic importance and/or investment, and a risk profile that is elevated but more contained than Tier 1. Complexity and uncertainty are present (e.g., notable stakeholder sensitivity, procurement challenges, key dependencies), however impacts are generally less systemic and/or more manageable than Tier 1. ","Quarterly","Bi monthly","Monthly","By exception (min annually)","Yes","Yes","Yes","Yes","Yes","Monthly","Monthly","Quarterly"]
[null,"Assurance expectation: strong independent oversight at major milestones, regular reporting, and targeted assurance focused on the main drivers of risk (scope, cost, schedule, deliverability and stakeholder impacts)."]
[3,"High value or high risk projects where outcomes are important, but impacts are largely localised and risks are generally well understood and controllable using standard governance and delivery approaches. May include discrete complex elements, but without the scale, interdependencies, or consequence profile of Tiers 1–2. ","Quarterly","Quarterly","Quarterly","By exception (min annually)","Yes","Yes","HV/HR","HV/HR","Yes","Monthly","Quarterly","Quarterly"]
[null,"Assurance expectation: proportionate assurance (often milestone-based) and periodic reporting; escalation and additional assurance if risk profile changes."]
[4,"Lower value or lower risk projects that are routine, repeatable and/or well precedented, with low complexity and low consequence of failure. Delivery is expected to be achievable within existing capability with minimal dependencies and low stakeholder sensitivity. ","By agreement","By agreement","By agreement","By agreement (min annually)","Yes","Yes","No","No","Yes","Monthly","Quarterly","Quarterly"]
[null,"Assurance expectation: minimal, light-touch assurance and reporting (often “by agreement”); focus on exception-based escalation if issues arise."]
["*Pre Delivery includes the period from investment decision to commencement of main works construction."]

{"sheet":"ISA Risk Tier Calculator","index":1,"n_rows":87,"n_cols":30,"rows_kept":87,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[18,9,18,10],[21,0,21,3],[28,24,28,29],[38,2,39,2],[20,0,20,6]]}
["ISA Risk Tier Calculator "]
[]
["Project/Program Name:","PROJECT X"]
["State Government Investment / Impact ($m):",0,"ISA Tier:",{"$f":"IF(C17=\"Yes\", \"Tier 1\", C48)","v":"Tier 4"}]
["Non-State Government Investment ($m):",0,"Profile:",{"$f":"$C$39","v":"Low Value High Risk"}]
["Project / Program Total Capital Investment Value  ($m):",{"$f":"B4+B5","v":0},"Is project/program Nationally Significant?:",{"$f":"$C$17","v":"No"}]
["State Government Investment Percentage",{"$f":"IFERROR(IF(B6>=B4,B4/B6,\"N/A\"),\"\")","v":""}]
["Assessment Date:"]
[]
["Criterion","Criterion Description","Rating (Select from dropdown)","Rating Descriptor","Criterion Score","Weighting"," Weighted Score"]
[{"$f":"'Lookups HVHR calc'!A3","v":"V1. Government Priority "},{"$f":"VLOOKUP(A11,'Lookups HVHR calc'!$A:$B,2,FALSE)","v":"The extent to which the initiative is clearly aligned with government priorities, including endorsed strategies, policies, and plans, or is formally established through Cabinet or Ministerial direction, including initiatives that enable delivery of a mandated government priority project."},"Medium",{"$f":"VLOOKUP(TRIM($C11),'Lookups HVHR calc'!$A$4:$C$6,2,FALSE)","v":"Agency identified priority aligned to government objectives, supported by internal/agency endorsement and progressing to government consideration (e.g., submission/business case in development or lodged), but not yet publicly committed, formally endorsed by government, or mandated."},{"$f":"VLOOKUP(TRIM($C11),'Lookups HVHR calc'!$A$4:$D$6,4,FALSE)","v":0.33},{"$f":"'Lookups HVHR calc'!C3","v":0.25},{"$f":"E11*F11","v":8.2500000000000004E-2}]
[{"$f":"'Lookups HVHR calc'!A7","v":"V2. Service Criticality "},{"$f":"VLOOKUP(A12,'Lookups HVHR calc'!$A:$B,2,FALSE)","v":"The degree to which the initiative is critical to avoid adverse service impacts on the community from existing infrastructure, or to support service improvements through clearly identified demands."},"Medium",{"$f":"VLOOKUP(TRIM($C12),'Lookups HVHR calc'!$A$8:$C$10,2,FALSE)","v":"Addresses an identified or forecast service deficiency (or clear service improvement demand) where impacts are material but manageable in the near term through effective mitigations/workarounds, allowing delivery to be scheduled (not urgent), while still requiring investment within the planning horizon."},{"$f":"VLOOKUP(TRIM($C12),'Lookups HVHR calc'!$A$8:$D$10,4,FALSE)","v":0.33},{"$f":"'Lookups HVHR calc'!C7","v":0.25},8.2500000000000004E-2]
[{"$f":"'Lookups HVHR calc'!A11","v":"R3. Approvals and Interface Management "},{"$f":"VLOOKUP(A13,'Lookups HVHR calc'!$A:$B,2,FALSE)","v":"The degree of complexity arising from internal and external approvals and interfaces—across stakeholders, interdependent projects, contractors, and integrated systems—and the level of ongoing management required to mitigate schedule, cost, and scope impacts."},"High",{"$f":"VLOOKUP('ISA Risk Tier Calculator'!$C13,'Lookups HVHR calc'!$A$12:$C$16,2,FALSE)","v":"High interface and approvals complexity (multiple stakeholders and dependencies; several external approvals/permits), with potential for material impacts to schedule/cost/scope—requiring proactive, ongoing interface management but within a largely understood approval regime."},{"$f":"VLOOKUP(C13,'Lookups HVHR calc'!A12:D16,4,FALSE)","v":0.75},{"$f":"'Lookups HVHR calc'!C11","v":0.125},9.375E-2]
[{"$f":"'Lookups HVHR calc'!A17","v":"R4. Governance and Capability"},{"$f":"VLOOKUP(A14,'Lookups HVHR calc'!$A:$B,2,FALSE)","v":"The extent to which the project team has clear governance including decision making, demonstrated capability (experience), and adequate skilled capacity—or can access these—to plan, deliver, and sustain the proposed project or program effectively."},"Medium",{"$f":"VLOOKUP('ISA Risk Tier Calculator'!$C14,'Lookups HVHR calc'!$A$18:$C$22,2,FALSE)","v":"Defined governance and some relevant delivery experience (including comparable work), but capacity is constrained and/or key skills are limited—requiring proactive recruitment, partner support, or targeted capability uplift to deliver effectively."},{"$f":"VLOOKUP(C14,'Lookups HVHR calc'!A18:D22,4,FALSE)","v":0.5},{"$f":"'Lookups HVHR calc'!C11","v":0.125},6.25E-2]
[{"$f":"'Lookups HVHR calc'!A23","v":"R5. Complexity of obtaining Social Licence"},{"$f":"VLOOKUP(A15,'Lookups HVHR calc'!$A:$B,2,FALSE)","v":"The extent to which environmental, social, economic and cultural/heritage impacts are complex, interdependent and contested, and the project team’s capability to secure and maintain stakeholder acceptance and approvals."},"Medium",{"$f":"VLOOKUP('ISA Risk Tier Calculator'!$C15,'Lookups HVHR calc'!$A$24:$C$28,2,FALSE)","v":"Moderate impact complexity with some interdependencies and stakeholder sensitivities, manageable through active coordination, planned mitigations and consistent, targeted engagement. "},{"$f":"VLOOKUP(C15,'Lookups HVHR calc'!A24:D28,4,FALSE)","v":0.5},{"$f":"'Lookups HVHR calc'!C17","v":0.125},6.25E-2]
[{"$f":"'Lookups HVHR calc'!A29","v":"R6. Funding, Procurement & Delivery Complexity "},{"$f":"VLOOKUP(A16,'Lookups HVHR calc'!$A:$B,2,FALSE)","v":"The degree of complexity associated with funding arrangements, functional requirements, and sourcing activities—including scale, novelty, market constraints, interdependencies, and compliance obligations—and the extent to which these factors challenge procurement capability and impact delivery across project phases."},"Very High",{"$f":"VLOOKUP('ISA Risk Tier Calculator'!$C16,'Lookups HVHR calc'!$A$30:$C$34,2,FALSE)","v":"Highly complex funding and/or procurement (novel financing or contracting, significant compliance obligations, constrained market capacity) and/or technically complex requirements, with proven delivery difficulty—requiring intensive commercial and delivery management across phases."},{"$f":"VLOOKUP(C16,'Lookups HVHR calc'!A30:D34,4,FALSE)","v":1},{"$f":"'Lookups HVHR calc'!C23","v":0.125},0.125]
["National Significance",{"$f":"'Lookups HVHR calc'!B37","v":"Is the initiative proposing to seek $250m or greater of Federal Government funding and/or meets the definition of Nationally Significant ?\nInfrastructure Australia (IA) defines nationally significant infrastructure as proposals that require Australian Government involvement, and/or relate to national infrastructure networks; materially advance national priorities and productivity, economic, social, liveability or sustainability outcomes at a national or wide-reaching regional scale. \nThe Infrastructure Australia Act 2008 (the Act) defines nationally significant infrastructure as including “transport, energy, communications, water and social infrastructure in which investment or further investment will materially improve national productivity.” "},"No",{"$f":"VLOOKUP(C17,'Lookups HVHR calc'!A38:C39,2,FALSE)","v":"No, the proposal does not meet the definition."},{"$f":"VLOOKUP(C17,'Lookups HVHR calc'!A38:D39,4,FALSE)","v":"As per calculated Assurance Tier"}]
[null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"SUM(F11:F17)","v":1},{"$f":"SUM(G11:G17)","v":0.50875000000000004}]
[]
[]
["DO NOT change or delete these tables "]
["Tier Calculation",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"5*0.7","v":3.5}]
[]
["National Significance","Step 1 - Is it Nationally Significant?"]
["Yes","Tier 1"]
["No","Follow Steps 2, 3, 4"]
[]
[]
["Investment Value$","Step 2 - Investment Value Modifier",{"$f":"INDEX(B30:B34,MATCH($B$6,A30:A34,1))","v":0.2},null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"State Government Investment "]
[0,0.2,"$0-50m",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Weighted Score ","0-$15m","$15m-$30m","$30m-$50m","$50m-$75m","$75m-$100m",100]
[50,0.4,"$50-100m",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,0,4,4,3,2,2,2]
[100,0.6,"$100-250m",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,0.2,4,3,3,2,2,1]
[250,0.8,"$250m-500m",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,0.35,4,3,3,2,2,1]
[500,1,"$500m+",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,0.501,4,3,2,2,1,1]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,0.751,4,2,2,1,1,1]
[]
[]
["Modified Weighted Score","Step 3 - Total Weighted Score & Assurance Profile"]
["Weighted Value criteria (modified)",{"$f":"SUM(G11:G12)*C29","v":3.3000000000000002E-2},{"$f":"_xlfn.IFS(B39>=25%,\"High Value\",B39<25%,\"Low Value\")&\" \"&_xlfn.IFS(B40>=25%,\"High Risk\",B40<25%,\"Low Risk\")","v":"Low Value High Risk"}]
["Weighted Risk criteria",{"$f":"SUM(G13:G16)","v":0.34375}]
["Modified Weighted Score",{"$f":"SUM(B39:B40)","v":0.37675000000000003}]
[]
["High Value High Risk (HVHR)","Value >=25%; Risk >=25%"]
["High Value Low Risk (HVLR)","Value >=25%; Risk <25%"]
["Low Value High Risk (LVHR)","Value<25%; Risk >=25%"]
["Low Value Low Risk (LVLR)","Value<25%; Risk <25%"]
[]
["Tier Bands","Step 4 - Assurance Tier ",{"$f":"INDEX(B49:B52,MATCH(B41,A49:A52,1))","v":"Tier 4"}]
[0,"Tier 4"]
[0.45100000000000001,"Tier 3"]
[0.60099999999999998,"Tier 2"]
[0.80100000000000005,"Tier 1"]
[]
[]
["Value Range","Band","CAMMS projects split (Active & Complete)"]
["0-$50m",">=0",0.09]
["$50m-$100m",">=50",0.24]
["$100m-$250m",">=100",0.35]
["$250m-$500m",">=250",0.2]
["$500m+",">=500",0.12]
[null,null,{"$f":"SUM(C56:C60)","v":0.99999999999999989}]
[]
[]
[]
["Gate Reviews"]
["Tier","Gate 0","Gate 1","Gate 2","Gate 3","Gate 4","Gate 5"]
[1,"Yes","Yes","Yes","Yes","Yes","Yes"]
[2,"Yes","Yes","Yes","Yes","Yes","Yes"]
[3,"Yes","Yes","Yes","HV/HR","HV/HR","Yes"]
[4,"Yes","Yes","Yes","No","No","Yes"]
[]
[]
[]
["Minimum project reporting frequency"]
["Tier","Planning (to Gate 2)","Pre Delivery (to Gate 3)","Delivery (to Gate 4)","Post Completion (to Gate 5)"]
[1,"Bi monthly","Monthly","Monthly","By exception (6 monthly)"]
[2,"Quarterly","Bi monthly","Monthly","By exception (min annually)"]
[3,"Quarterly","Quarterly","Quarterly","By exception (min annually)"]
[4,"By agreement","By agreement","By agreement","By agreement (min annually)"]
["*Pre Delivery – commences from investment decision to commencement of main works construction"]
[]
["RAP update frequency"]
["Tier","Critical ","Essential","Suggested"]
[1,"Monthly","Monthly","Quarterly"]
[2,"Monthly","Monthly","Quarterly"]
[3,"Monthly","Quarterly","Quarterly"]
[4,"Monthly","Quarterly","Quarterly"]

{"sheet":"Lookups HVHR calc","index":2,"n_rows":39,"n_cols":5,"rows_kept":39,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[]}
["Lookups","from Gate 1 to Gate 4",{"$f":"SUM(C3,C7,C11,C17,C23,C37,C29)","v":1}]
[null,"Scoring guide","weighting"]
["V1. Government Priority ","The extent to which the initiative is clearly aligned with government priorities, including endorsed strategies, policies, and plans, or is formally established through Cabinet or Ministerial direction, including initiatives that enable delivery of a mandated government priority project.",0.25,"Score","Requirement"]
["Very High","Mandated government priority with explicit Cabinet/Ministerial/whole of government direction (e.g., Cabinet decision, Ministerial directive, Budget measure), including initiatives that enable delivery of a mandated priority, and subject to enhanced oversight/reporting.","Very High",1,"Descriptor"]
["High","Publicly announced and/or formally endorsed government initiative (e.g., published strategy/plan/policy commitment), with clear line of sight to stated government priorities but not requiring Cabinet/Ministerial mandate or additional central oversight/reporting beyond business as usual.","High",0.67,"Descriptor"]
["Medium","Agency identified priority aligned to government objectives, supported by internal/agency endorsement and progressing to government consideration (e.g., submission/business case in development or lodged), but not yet publicly committed, formally endorsed by government, or mandated.","Medium",0.33,"Descriptor"]
["V2. Service Criticality ","The degree to which the initiative is critical to avoid adverse service impacts on the community from existing infrastructure, or to support service improvements through clearly identified demands.",0.25,{"$f":"D3","v":"Score"},"Requirement"]
["Very High","Addresses an urgent and critical service delivery deficiency (or immediate capacity shortfall) with severe community/safety/regulatory consequences if not addressed now; limited practical short term workarounds.","Very High",1,"Descriptor"]
["High","Addresses a major service delivery deficiency (or significant demand growth) expected to cause substantial impacts if not addressed within the planning horizon; short term control measures/workarounds exist but are not sustainable.\n","High",0.67,"Descriptor"]
["Medium","Addresses an identified or forecast service deficiency (or clear service improvement demand) where impacts are material but manageable in the near term through effective mitigations/workarounds, allowing delivery to be scheduled (not urgent), while still requiring investment within the planning horizon.","Medium",0.33,"Descriptor"]
["R3. Approvals and Interface Management ","The degree of complexity arising from internal and external approvals and interfaces—across stakeholders, interdependent projects, contractors, and integrated systems—and the level of ongoing management required to mitigate schedule, cost, and scope impacts.",0.125,{"$f":"$D$3","v":"Score"},"Requirement"]
["Very High","Extremely complex approvals and interfaces across multiple external entities and integrated systems (e.g., regulators, multiple asset owners/operators, major interdependent programs), with high schedule/cost/scope exposure and continuous, intensive interface management required. ","Very High",1,"Descriptor"]
["High","High interface and approvals complexity (multiple stakeholders and dependencies; several external approvals/permits), with potential for material impacts to schedule/cost/scope—requiring proactive, ongoing interface management but within a largely understood approval regime.","High",0.75,"Descriptor"]
["Medium","Moderate interfaces and approvals (some key stakeholders; limited dependencies; routine permits), with manageable risk to schedule/cost/scope—requiring planned coordination and periodic management attention.","Medium",0.5,"Descriptor"]
["Low","Minor interfaces and approvals (few stakeholders; limited dependencies; standard approvals/permits), unlikely to introduce material schedule/cost/scope risk and manageable through business as usual processes with minimal additional coordination.","Low",0.25,"Descriptor"]
["Very Low","Minimal interfaces and approvals (internal approvals only; no external permits/consents) and no meaningful dependency on other projects, systems, or infrastructure; negligible interface management effort.","Very Low",0,"Descriptor"]
["R4. Governance and Capability","The extent to which the project team has clear governance including decision making, demonstrated capability (experience), and adequate skilled capacity—or can access these—to plan, deliver, and sustain the proposed project or program effectively.",0.125,{"$f":"$D$3","v":"Score"},"Requirement"]
["Very High","Robust governance (clear decision rights, established assurance) and business as usual delivery capability, with a strong track record and well established skilled capacity to plan, deliver, and sustain similar initiatives.","Very High",0,"Descriptor"]
["High ","Clear governance and proven delivery capability across multiple similar initiatives, with resourcing/capacity constraints that are present but manageable through active planning or access to specialist support.","High",0.25,"Descriptor"]
["Medium","Defined governance and some relevant delivery experience (including comparable work), but capacity is constrained and/or key skills are limited—requiring proactive recruitment, partner support, or targeted capability uplift to deliver effectively.","Medium",0.5,"Descriptor"]
["Low ","Governance is partial or still maturing (decision rights/assurance not fully embedded) and comparable delivery experience is limited, with significant resourcing constraints and/or inconsistent delivery performance—creating elevated delivery risk without substantial additional support.","Low",0.75,"Descriptor"]
["Very Low","Governance is not established (unclear decision rights/assurance) and there is little to no recent comparable delivery experience and/or major capacity constraints; delivery would rely on bespoke arrangements or significant external capability to succeed.","Very Low",1,"Descriptor"]
["R5. Complexity of obtaining Social Licence","The extent to which environmental, social, economic and cultural/heritage impacts are complex, interdependent and contested, and the project team’s capability to secure and maintain stakeholder acceptance and approvals.",0.125,{"$f":"$D$3","v":"Score"},"Requirement"]
["Very High","Highly complex, interdependent and contested impacts with multiple sensitive stakeholder groups, significant approval risk, and limited capability to effectively secure and maintain social licence.","Very High",1,"Descriptor"]
["High","Complex or sensitive impacts involving multiple stakeholder groups and potentially contentious approvals or conditions, requiring sustained engagement, specialist support and intensive management effort.","High",0.75,"Descriptor"]
["Medium","Moderate impact complexity with some interdependencies and stakeholder sensitivities, manageable through active coordination, planned mitigations and consistent, targeted engagement. ","Medium",0.5,"Descriptor"]
["Low","Low impact complexity with limited stakeholders and straightforward approvals, manageable through standard mitigations and routine enegagement. ","Low",0.25,"Descriptor"]
["Very Low","Minimal, well-understood impacts with few stakeholders and no contentious approvals, supported by strong capability and established processes to maintain social licence. ","Very Low",0,"Descriptor"]
["R6. Funding, Procurement & Delivery Complexity ","The degree of complexity associated with funding arrangements, functional requirements, and sourcing activities—including scale, novelty, market constraints, interdependencies, and compliance obligations—and the extent to which these factors challenge procurement capability and impact delivery across project phases.",0.125,{"$f":"$D$3","v":"Score"},"Requirement"]
["Very High","Highly complex funding and/or procurement (novel financing or contracting, significant compliance obligations, constrained market capacity) and/or technically complex requirements, with proven delivery difficulty—requiring intensive commercial and delivery management across phases.","Very High",1,"Descriptor"]
["High","Complex funding and/or procurement (non standard commercial model, challenging market conditions, or substantial compliance requirements) with elevated delivery risk and limited agency experience managing comparable complexity.","High",0.75,"Descriptor"]
["Medium","Moderate funding/procurement complexity (some non standard requirements, moderate market constraints, and/or additional compliance steps) using adapted or less common contract forms, requiring active risk allocation and commercial management.","Medium",0.5,"Descriptor"]
["Low","Low funding/procurement complexity using standard contract forms and routine funding arrangements, with minimal non standard requirements, low delivery risk, and strong agency experience delivering similar projects.","Low",0.25,"Descriptor"]
["Very Low","Minimal funding/procurement complexity (simple, low value sourcing and straightforward funding), presenting negligible commercial/compliance burden and delivery risk.","Very Low",0,"Descriptor"]
[]
[]
[{"$f":"'ISA Risk Tier Calculator'!A17","v":"National Significance"},"Is the initiative proposing to seek $250m or greater of Federal Government funding and/or meets the definition of Nationally Significant ?\nInfrastructure Australia (IA) defines nationally significant infrastructure as proposals that require Australian Government involvement, and/or relate to national infrastructure networks; materially advance national priorities and productivity, economic, social, liveability or sustainability outcomes at a national or wide-reaching regional scale. \nThe Infrastructure Australia Act 2008 (the Act) defines nationally significant infrastructure as including “transport, energy, communications, water and social infrastructure in which investment or further investment will materially improve national productivity.” ",0,"Risk Score"]
["Yes","Yes, the proposal is considered a nationally significant initiative and/or will seek $250m or greater funding from the Australian Commonwealth Government.","Very High","Tier 1"]
["No","No, the proposal does not meet the definition.","Very Low","As per calculated Assurance Tier"]