Question:
Good morning

We would like to request an extension of time of 1 x additional week. This additional time will allow us to finalise key subcontractor pricing and provide a more detailed and comprehensive response.

We appreciate your consideration and look forward to your response.

Many thanks

Answered on 27/May/2026 03:51 PM:


The Shire advises that the due date for RFT Submissions has been extended to 2pm 17 June 2026

Question:
Good Afternoon,

We would like to request a 2-week extension to allow sufficient time to provide a submission. We appreciate your consideration. Thank you.

Answered on 27/May/2026 04:27 PM:


The Shire has extended the due date to 2pm 17 June 2026

Question:
Good afternoon, with confirmation of EOT to 17 June, can you please confirm that the the cut-off date for questions on this RFT will also be updated to 2pm AWST Wednesday 10 June 2026?

Answered on 28/May/2026 02:19 PM:


Given the Shire has extended lodgement of time for Tender submissions to 17 June 2026, we will also update the cut-off date for questions to 2pm Wednesday 10 June 2026.

Question:
The Principal noted that there will be stabilisation works on sections:

SLK 8.95 to SLK 9.62 = 670m

SLK 9.62 to SLK 13.95 = 4330m

Is it the Principal's intention to stabilize with cement the full length as stated above?

If not, what is the length of stabilisation for each floodway.

Answered on 03/Jun/2026 02:43 PM:


No it is intimated that it will be at the points of floodways for both lengths nominated

Question:
Will the Principal be able to provide the existing road surface survey?

Answered on 04/Jun/2026 06:40 PM:


A detailed survey or road surface survey will not be provided by the Principal. To comply or address Component 1 (See Attachment 1, Section 2 Scope, sub-section 2.1 Component 1, use of Drones to generate a DSM may provide surface modelling.

There are 1m contour layers available from Landgate

The Principal answered one of your queries where there were multiple questions. Please resend the remaining questions so they can be addressed

Question:
Can the Principal please confirm in section 3.5 of Attachment 1 there are missing information for the following:

SLK 8.52 to SLK 9.62 - What work needs to be completed here? It merely states the condition of the in-situ conditions.

SLK 9.86 to SLK 10.06 - What Type rock armor needs to be installed here?

SLK 11.84 to SLK 12.07 0 What is the size of the rock armor, what type of rock armor and how wide is the stabilisation supposed to be here (Full width / half)?

Throughout Appendix 1 it states that " Drains to be reconstructed with some rock and cement stabilisation" is it the intention of the Principal to stabilise the drains and then install the rock on top?


Can the Principal please confirm what (if any) drainage works needs to be completed between the SLK's for example between SLK 10.26 to SLK 10.32.

Answered on 04/Jun/2026 06:27 PM:


SLK 8.52 to SLK 9.62 - Refer to Attachment 1, 2. Scope of Works, 2.1 Component 2 numbers 1 and 2. The form of treatments area explained. They are focussed on two floodways within this section of road. Past armouring works were not keyed in properly and there has been impact on the stability of the road and the working of runoff drains and channels.

Question:
Can the Principal confirm if a concrete edge beam needs to be constructed on all the Type 3 floodways as specified on DWG 9831-5500-3. If so, please provide DWG 9831-5502.

Answered on 04/Jun/2026 06:07 PM:


'Edge beam' or edge wall will need to be included in Type 3 Floodway types where conditions best suit such a choice of floodway type. DWG 9831-5502 has been added as an Addendum as requested.

Bidders are reminded that within Attachment 1 - Section 2. Scope of Works, sub-section 2.1 Component 3 Civil Works, that " 'hard' civil treatments may be guided by the modelling of the nearby sub-catchment.." Meaning that the choice of Floodway types can be substantiated by evidence that may be derived from Component 1 work.

Question:
Can the Principal confirm whether the stabilisation works (Full width or half width) over the floodways is also to be 150mm deep, or will this be a 300mm deep stabilisation to floodways only ?

Answered on 04/Jun/2026 06:18 PM:


Could you reword your question to make clear what you are referring in terms of 'full' and 'half' width stabilisation works, noting there are various treatments, approaches and mediums for stabilisation of roads and near road profiles

Question:
Could you please confirm whether the chainage listed in Part 5 – Pricing Schedule (Pavement) as SLK 27.05 to 30.55 (3,500 m) is correct, or if it is a typo error and should instead be SLK 9.62 to 13.62?

Answered on 04/Jun/2026 10:02 AM:


The reference in Part 5 Pricing Schedule to SLK 27.05 to 30.55 is incorrect. It is also referred in the Table of Contents which is a mistake from not updating the TOC. As you have picked up the reference should be SLK 9.62 to 13.62

Question:
Could the Principal please confirm for Appendix 1 that identifies the chainage range as SLK 13.10–13.95 (850 m), however the length column indicates 40 m. Please confirm whether the intended treatment length is:

850 m (entire chainage range), or

a localised 40 m section within this chainage range.

Answered on 04/Jun/2026 04:37 PM:


There are low-medium level earthmoving works offroad along the section SLK 13.10 to SLK 13.62, as per Section 3.5 of the Appendix 1. The condition of the offroad profile is variable, but heavy grading would be needed to lift the road profile (i.e. crown) above the surrounding landscape, to ensure drains and edge profiles work.


Note to all: Within the prime RFT document at Section 2.2 Provided by Shire: the reference to the Gravel source is SLK 8.82 to the east. This is wrong it is to the west of the road, some 700m in.

Question:
The pricing schedule Item 4.1 (Subgrade Preparation) references works between SLK 9.62 and SLK 13.95, could the Principal please confirm whether Item 4.1 is to be priced for:

a) the full length of road between SLK 9.62 and SLK 13.95 (4.33 km); or

b) only the specific treatment locations identified in Section 3.5 and Appendix 1, treatment works are described?

Answered on 08/Jun/2026 07:44 PM:


A similar question has previously been answered. Subgrade preparation will involve reforming and re-sheeting the whole length of road between SLK 9.62 to SLK 13.95.

Section 3.5 of Attachment 1 and Appendix 1 describe additional specific treatments targeting floodways, drainage and water management.

Pricing schedule Item 4.1 should include both these costs elements, consistent with Section 2 Specification, 2.1 Scope of Works, No. 3 Implementation of civil works (pg 16 of the RFT Document)

Reference should be made to Section 3.6 Design and Civil Work Specs - Subgrade preparation where the following is stipulated:

[First dot point] "Reshape and reform the existing formation surface to a depth of approx.150mm and to approved/agreed sub-grade levels including table drains as per drawing WIL-ENG-001", and

[Fifth do point] "Ensure 150mm compacted subgrade to 95% MMDD and +- Optimum Moisture Content"

At a minimum this will require the road reformation and re-sheeting to an adequate profile 150mm above the present morphology of the road, so a crowned roadway is provided consistent with cross-sections referred. Windrowed materials or gravel from the designated pit shall be used in a manner that a 150mm sub-base is provided. Floodway stabilisation (including with cement), rock facing/amouring (keyed in), or other erosion and sedimentation controls combined with the reshaping of runoff channels tied in to finished levels of roadside spoon drains - is expected

Question:
Could you please confirm whether it would be acceptable for us to submit pricing for the bitumen spray seal component only?

Answered on 08/Jun/2026 07:52 PM:


Unfortunately, with this RFT supplying services for one component will result in a non-compliant submission.

It is best to canvas others to be a sub-contractor. By asking this question you may have stimulated others to reach out

Question:
Use of cutback on 1st coat and emulsion on 2nd coat doesn’t seem correct can you please clarify

Answered on 11/Jun/2026 03:56 PM:


The Principal confirms the treatment as in pricing and Attachment 1 Specifications is correct

Question:
Can the Principal please confirm if the intention is to construct a sub-grade, sub-base AND Basecourse. There are conflicting items in the SOW Section 3.6 where it talks to constructing a subgrade and basecourse, but the principal advised in previous answers to a sub grade indicates there are three layers. Section 3.6 specifies a gravel basecourse and not a subbase. Can the Principal also please confirm if the stabilisation will need to be 300mm deep, meaning that the basecourse and subbase will be stabilised together leaving the subgrade intact.

Answered on 12/Jun/2026 06:57 PM:


The Principal notes that a prior answer mentioning ‘sub-grade’ was in error. The prime focus of civil road works between SLK 9.62 to SLK 13.95 is an adequate road formation (consistent with cross section diagrams), tying in to reformed drainage features and a suitable base course (150mm), stabilised about pronounced and broad floodway areas. Between SLK 9.62 to SLK 13.62 the Base course shall be suitable for sealing for 4kms.

Question:
The pricing schedule Item 5.3 (Sealing Requirements 4,000 lineal metres) and Attachment 1: Project Scope & Specification (Seal Requirements) contain different descriptions of the sealing requirements.

It appears that different seal designs may be intended for the floodways and standard pavement sections.

Could the Principal please confirm the two sealing requirements and identify the applicable seal treatment for each treatment, clarifying binder types, BAR, and aggregate sizes?

Answered on 12/Jun/2026 06:59 PM:


This question has in part been answered previously. The reference to SLK 27.05 to SLK 30.55 (3500 metres) included in the Pricing Schedule Part 3 Component 2 is an error. This part of the Pricing Schedule should read SLK 9.62 to SLK 13.62 consistent with the scope and specifications of the RFT and Attachment 1 Specifications. If you are referencing whether the Principal requires different treatments at pronounced and broad floodways versus other pavement areas– this is the case. The specifications of these floodway treatments have been adequately described in the Attachment 1 Specifications and referred cross-sections.

Question:
In Part 4 pg. 19 #11, the Principal noted Limits of Accuracy for quantities for this contract, the Contractor notes that no official quantities, or surveys were supplied by the Principal. Can the Principal confirm that the LOA & Clause 3.3 (b) will apply to the total price for any portion of works. Meaning that should the Principal reduce or increase any or all works to the point where the LOA % has been met by calculating the difference in value for any portion of works, that the Contractor can execute its rights under the AS4000-2025?

Answered on 12/Jun/2026 07:00 PM:


Your referenced part of the RFT under section 3.1 General Conditions of Contract, mentions ‘quantities for which the Principal accepted’. It is not specifically tied to whether the Principal supplied ‘quantities or surveys’ as you intimate. Submitters are reminded of the need to ‘inform themselves’ consistent with Clause 1.5 of the RFT document. Contour information is available from Landgate (WA) and site observations has helped others who have visited the site.

Question:
Can you please clarify if extracting the gravel is to be allowed for in the tenderers pricing? Or will the gravel already be stockpiled? There is conflicting information in the documents.

Answered on 12/Jun/2026 07:01 PM:


Gravel source only (ie as in location and exposure of source) is provided. Winning material, stockpiling and cartage is at the cost of the Contractor.

Question:
Can the Principal please provide the diameter of the bore hole and the water table depth .

Answered on 12/Jun/2026 07:02 PM:


Bore hole diameter is 150mm. Standing water level is approx. 30meters

Question:
In Part 5 - BOQ on pg43 the heading of section 5 refers to SLK 27.05 to SLK 30.55 (3500 meters). Can the principal please advise if this is an additional portion of works not specified or, is the SLK for pavement works from SLK 9.62 to SLK 13.62.

Answered on 12/Jun/2026 07:03 PM:


In Part 5 - BOQ on pg43 the heading of section 5 refers to SLK 27.05 to SLK 30.55 (3500 meters). Can the principal please advise if this is an additional portion of works not specified or, is the SLK for pavement works from SLK 9.62 to SLK 13.62.

Question:
Can the Principal please advise where the concrete works for the Concrete cut off wall for the Type 3 Floodways must be priced in. There is no allowance for this work in the BOQ.

Answered on 12/Jun/2026 07:06 PM:


The Principal notes that Pricing Schedule Table A Part 4 Component 3 Reforming, re-Sheeting, Floodways SLK 9.62 to SLK 13.95 does not include lines for floodway works, stabilisation and associated rock armouring. This is an error. Lines to document pricing should be included in this Table A Part 4 similar to Pricing Schedule Table A Part 3 Component 2 which nominates line items ‘3.1 Floodway Stabilisation & 3.2 Rock facing, armouring ….where necessary’. Water management works consistent with the RFT Scope and Attachment 1 Specifications can thereby be accounted.

Question:
Can the Principal please advise where the rock for floodways must be priced, the BOQ does not have any other allowance for this other than in Component 2 between SLK 8.52 & SLK 9.62. The contractor notes the Specification calls for about 3 Floodways of which two is Type 3 and the other is not specified.

Answered on 12/Jun/2026 07:07 PM:


This answer is the same as regards a similar question, previously answered.

The Principal notes that Pricing Schedule Table A Part 4 Component 3 Reforming, re-Sheeting, Floodways SLK 9.62 to SLK 13.95 does not include lines for floodway works, stabilisation and associated rock armouring. This is an error. Lines to document pricing should be included in this Table A Part 4 similar to Pricing Schedule Table A Part 3 Component 2 which nominates line items ‘3.1 Floodway Stabilisation & 3.2 Rock facing, armouring ….where necessary’. Water management works consistent with the RFT Scope and Attachment 1 Specifications for this Component can thereby be accounted.