Question:
Following our review of the tender documentation, we would appreciate Council’s clarification of the following matters to ensure that our submission, methodology and fee allowance align with Council’s intended scope.

1.Tender dates - Volume 1 identifies the tender opening date as 2 September 2026 and closing date as 23 September 2026, whereas Volume 4 shows earlier opening and closing dates. Could Council please confirm that the dates stated in Volume 1 and VendorPanel are the current applicable dates?

2. Form of engagement / D&C terminology - Our understanding is that the successful consultant will be engaged under AS 4122-2010 to prepare a Tender Design Package for subsequent procurement of a Design & Construct contractor, rather than being engaged as the D&C contractor. Could Council please confirm?

3. Level of design development - The Scope states that the Tender Design Package is not intended to constitute an IFC design and that the typical designs do not need to be site-specific detailed designs. Could Council confirm that the consultant is required to establish sufficient design intent, typical details, performance requirements and quantities for D&C pricing, with final detailed design and construction certification remaining the responsibility of the future D&C contractor?

4. Survey information - The Scope indicates that detailed survey is not required. Please confirm whether Council will provide any available cadastral, LiDAR, GIS, aerial, rail-corridor or existing survey information, and that the consultant may develop the Tender Design Package using the information provided by Council supplemented by site observations.

5. Culvert assessment and design extent - Could Council please confirm that the consultant is expected to inspect and assess the relevant existing culverts within the approximately 5 km project corridor and nominate an appropriate treatment category such as retain, clean, repair, protect, extend or replace, rather than undertake detailed structural and hydraulic design of every culvert at tender-design stage?

6. Hydraulic assessment - The Scope states that detailed drainage modelling is not required. Could Council confirm whether the culvert and drainage assessment may therefore be qualitative / desktop based, supported by site observations and available catchment information, with detailed hydrologic and hydraulic modelling to be undertaken by the future D&C contractor where required?

7. Bridges and boardwalks - The technical details identify “Proposed Bridges – Nil”, while the wider scope refers to bridges, culverts, boardwalks or other required structures. Could Council please confirm that no new bridge or boardwalk design is presently anticipated and that any significant structure identified during the corridor assessment would first be referred to Council before additional design is undertaken?

8. Environmental documentation - The Scope refers to the approved REF, Biodiversity Assessment Report, Contamination Investigation and SAQP. Could Council please confirm that these documents will be provided to the successful consultant, and advise whether they are available to tenderers prior to tender close?

9. Environmental and heritage specialist services - Please confirm whether the design consultant is expected only to incorporate and respond to the recommendations and constraints contained in the existing environmental, biodiversity, contamination and heritage documentation, or whether Council expects new specialist environmental, ecological, contamination or heritage investigations to be commissioned as part of this consultancy.

10. Bombala Station heritage precinct - The supplied asset information identifies a number of heritage-listed rail assets within or near the Bombala Station precinct. Could Council please confirm whether the trail alignment and works are to avoid physical intervention to these heritage assets wherever practicable, and whether any separate heritage approvals or heritage-impact assessment will be arranged by Council or form part of the consultant’s scope?

11. Removal and storage of rail infrastructure - The Scope requires the consultant to assist in identifying a suitable location for retained rails and sleepers. Could Council please clarify:

whether the proposed storage location must remain within the existing rail lease;

whether Council/TfNSW will provide available candidate areas; and

whether the consultant is required to prepare a formal storage-area design, or only identify and recommend a suitable location.

12. Road crossings - Could Council confirm the intended level of design for road crossings? In particular, are typical concept treatments, signage and traffic-control requirements sufficient for the Tender Design Package, or are traffic counts, detailed traffic engineering, swept-path analysis and/or Road Safety Audits required?

13. Approvals responsibility - Annexure Part A currently identifies approvals to be obtained by the consultant as “TBC”. Could Council please identify any planning, heritage, TfNSW, rail-corridor, environmental, road authority or other approvals that the design consultant is expected to obtain, as distinct from approvals that are only to be identified for the future D&C contractor.

14. Construction programme requirement - The Scope requests that the consultant consider construction methodology, linkages and durations to assist with D&C tender evaluation. Could Council confirm that a high-level indicative construction programme identifying key activities, sequencing, dependencies and indicative durations will satisfy this requirement, rather than a fully resource-loaded contractor construction programme?

15. BOQ accuracy and measurement basis - Given that detailed survey and site-specific detailed design are expressly excluded from the Tender Design Package, could Council confirm that the Bill of Quantities is intended to be an indicative tender BOQ, developed from available corridor information, site observations and typical treatment assumptions, with those assumptions clearly documented?

16. Council review milestones - Could Council please advise whether it has nominated review stages, such as Draft / 80% / Final Tender Design Package, and the anticipated Council review period at each stage?

17. Deliverable formats - Please confirm the required native and issued formats for the final deliverables, including drawings, Design Basis Report, BOQ, performance specification, Safety in Design report, risk register and programme.

18. Bank guarantee / retention - Volume 4 requires the tenderer to indicate whether it can provide a bank guarantee or alternatively agree to retention requirements. Could Council please confirm whether a bank guarantee or retention is actually required for this professional consultancy engagement and, if so, the required amount or percentage and release conditions?

19. Professional Indemnity insurance period - The draft AS 4122 Annexure specifies a $10 million Professional Indemnity limit but the period for which the PI insurance must be maintained appears to remain uncompleted. Could Council please confirm the required post-completion PI insurance maintenance period?

20. Subconsultant approval - AS 4122 requires prior Council approval of subconsultants. Could Council confirm whether nominated specialist subconsultants may be identified in the tender and formally approved following award, particularly where their involvement is dependent on the outcome of the initial corridor assessment?

Answered on 09/Sep/2026 03:30 PM:


1. The correct closing date is 23/09/26.

2. Correct, the tenderer will be engaged to prepare a D&C Tender Package, NOT be engaged as the D&C contractor.

3. Correct, the consultant is required to establish sufficient design intent, typical details, performance requirements and quantities for D&C pricing, with final detailed design and construction certification remaining the responsibility of the future D&C contractor.

4. Council will provide the survey to the successful tenderer. Currently Council are working with TfNSW to gain permission to enter the corridor to undertake the survey.

5. Confirmed

6. This is acceptable. TfNSW may require a Hydrology Assessment as part of the aforementioned survey, but this has yet to be confirmed.

Tenderers may opt to provide a price for provision of a hydrology assessment report as a separate item in their submission for consideration should the hydrology assessment be required, however provision of this price will not affect Council’s assessment of your tender submission.

7. No new bridge or boardwalk design is presently anticipated. Any significant structure identified during the corridor assessment is to be referred to Council before additional design is undertaken.

8. Documents were uploaded to the tender portal.

9. The design consultant is expected to incorporate and respond to the recommendations and constraints contained within the reports which will be uploaded to this tender and ensure any requirements of these reports are met by the tender design package.

10. No works are permitted within the Bombala Station Heritage Precinct. The trail will begin opposite the Visitor Information Centre and continue for 5km. The heritage listed assets were provided for information only.

11. The consultant is to assist with determining the volume/number/quantity of rails and sleepers to be stored and to determine the area required for storage of that volume/number/quantity. Currently no candidate areas are identified as this will be informed by the volume/number/quantity and subsequent area requirement calculation.

The storage location must be within the SMRC LGA.

12. There will be two road crossings: on at the Monaro Hwy (just north of Townsend St) and Sandy Crossing Rd (just beyond the end of Mitchell St). Both of which are 60km/h roads. Road crossings and signage must be specified by the designer to comply with TfNSW requirements for roads of that speed. Traffic counts, detailed traffic engineering, and swept path analysis are not required.

13. No authority approvals are required for the purpose of this of tender, however design of the two aforementioned road crossings must be compliant with TfNSW requirements.

14. Yes, that is satisfactory.

15. An accurate BoQ is required for Council to procure the future D&C contractor. For the purpose of quoting for the preparation of the BoQ, tenderers are to base their tender submission on available corridor information, site observations and typical treatment assumptions. If the survey data provided later by Council differs demonstrably from the tender allowance that will be dealt with as a cost and/or time variation.

16. These review milestones are acceptable. Please allow 4 weeks for Council to review each milestone. Council will endeavour to respond quicker, however if at any point Councillor Approval is required then the 4 weeks will be required.

17. All are to be issued in editable (e.g. MS Word, MS Excel, CAD) and pdf.

18.This is not required.

19. Valid until the end of November 2027.

20. Tenderers are to list their subconsultants and their service in your tender submission. Any queries Council has regarding subconsultants will be discussed prior to engagement. Subconsultant selection only impacts on tender evaluation scores in the context of Council’s local contractor policy.

Question:
Can Council confirm if this is a Design only or Design and Construct? The tender title suggest design only, some wording include construct, and the contract is Consultant only.

Answered on 09/Sep/2026 03:30 PM:


The tenderer will be engaged to prepare a D&C Tender Package, NOT be engaged as the D&C contractor.

Question:
Dear Snowy Monaro Regional Council,

Can the council kindly provide us the following documents according to clause 6 in Volume 3.3 - Bombala Rail Trail Engineering & Design Scope of Works:

- Review of Environmental Factors (REF)

- Biodiversity Assessment Report

- Contamination Investigation

- Sampling and Analysis Quality Plan (SAQP)

Also can the council kindly provide the exact coordinates of start and end point of the rail trail.

Thank you.

Answered on 09/Sep/2026 03:31 PM:


Yes.

Question:
Is there cattle grids required for the project?

Answered on 11/Sep/2026 12:06 PM:


Council is in the process of applying for an access license to enter the rail corridor to determine the requirement for cattle grids. At this stage tenderers are to allow to provide a typical design details for cattle grids in the following settings:

• Where the rail trail is up on an elevated embankment

• Where the rail trail is within a cutting

• Where the rail trail is approximately level with the surrounding landform

Question:
1. Survey extent and design basis

Please confirm the expected survey extent, and level of detail, including whether it will cover the full trail alignment, road crossings, culverts, drainage features, existing rail assets and relevant corridor boundaries.

2. Corridor access for inspections

Council has advised that it is seeking TfNSW permission to enter the corridor for survey purposes. Please confirm that appropriate access permissions will also be arranged for the successful consultant to undertake required site inspections, and advise any rail-corridor safety, induction, supervision or access requirements.

3. Accessibility standard

The RFQ refers to an “accessible” pathway and use by other non-motorised users. Please confirm whether the trail is required to comply with AS 1428.1 or another agreed accessibility/shared-path standard, and whether this applies to the entire 5 km trail or nominated accessible sections and facilities only.

4. Trailhead and rest-area concepts

Is one representative trailhead concept and one representative rest-area concept sufficient for the tender-design stage, with typical details and mapped application elsewhere along the corridor?

5. Landscape visualisations and consultation

Is Council seeking landscape visualisations to support public consultation? If so, please confirm the required number, locations, anticipated consultation process and expected level of detail. Please also confirm whether consultant attendance at consultation sessions is required.

6. Wayfinding and interpretive signage

Please confirm Council’s expectations for wayfinding and interpretive signage. In particular, is the consultant to provide only standard trail wayfinding and regulatory-signage details/locations, or also an interpretive-signage strategy, cultural/content development, graphic design and visual mock-ups?

If interpretive signage is required, please identify the expected deliverables, whether Council will provide existing branding or content, and any required stakeholder, cultural or Traditional Custodian engagement and approval process.

7. Trail alignment and connection to Gunningrach Road

Photo 10 in the Engineering & Design Scope of Works appears to show the trail leaving the rail corridor at its northern end and following an existing trail to Gunningrach Road. Is this correct?

Please confirm the intended trail alignment and termination point. If the existing trail connection to Gunningrach Road is intended to form part of the project, please confirm whether the design package and BOQ are to include upgrades to that trail to provide the required connection.

Answered on 21/Sep/2026 11:26 AM:


1. TfNSW/UGL surveyor scope uploaded.

2. Confirmed; the successful tenderer will be able to access. Safety requirements will be provided by TfNSW/UGL Regional Linx but can be assumed to hi-vis, steel capped boots, long sleeved and long pants, a hat, sunglasses, and first aid kit that can be carried with you and contains a snake bite kit. No other induction or supervision is anticipated at this time.

3. Confirmed for the full 5km.

4. Yes.

5. Yes, allow for visualizations as follows:

a. Road crossing outside the Visitor Information Centre

b. Road crossing at Monaro Hwy (near Townsend St)

c. Road crossing at Sandy Crossing Rd

d. One on a cutting

e. One on an embankment

Council will organize the consultation process but allow to be present for one consultation meeting that will go for 2 hours. Allow any associated travel and accommodation.

6.Allow to provide graphic design and visual mock-ups for:

• 2x maps; one at the visitor information centre and another at the end of the trail. The maps are to clearly show key road crossings as well as the existing Bombala river walk path.

• Totem marker at km intervals.

• All road crossings signage required to satisfy TfNSW requirements.

Allow 2x $3,000 provisional sums for:

• Traditional custodian historical information signage along the trail.

• European and/or railway historical information signage along the trail.

7. Assuming Council can secure the requisite approvals it is planned that the trail will connect into Gunningrach Rd to create a loop for trail users. The trail will ‘terminate’ at the connection to Gunningrach Rd. This is to be allowed in the BOQ.

Question:
We request a two-week extension to the submission due date for this tender. We are currently managing a significant volume of tender opportunities, which has affected our capacity to prepare a well-considered submission within the current timeframe.

Answered on 21/Sep/2026 11:22 AM:


Granted.

Question:
Pricing Schedule / Schedule of Rates

Volume 1, Section 2.3 identifies Volume 4 as containing the Response Schedules, including a Schedule of Rates and Schedule of Prices, and the Conditions of Tender require respondents to complete and return the Schedule of Rates form.

Section 13 of Volume 4 is titled “Price Schedule”; however, the content appears to relate to preparation of the Bill of Quantities as a project deliverable for inclusion in the future Design & Construct tender package, rather than a schedule for pricing the consultancy services under this RFT.

Could Council please confirm the required format for submission of the tendered consultancy fee and provide the applicable Schedule of Prices / Schedule of Rates referred to in Volume 1?


REF and Supporting Environmental Documentation

Section 6 of the Scope of Works states that the engineering design is to comply with the conditions and obligations contained within the Review of Environmental Factors (REF), Biodiversity Assessment Report, Contamination Investigation and Sampling and Analysis Quality Plan (SAQP), and states that copies of these documents will be provided to tenderers.

These documents do not appear to have been included within the current RFT package. Could Council please provide the REF and supporting environmental documentation referred to in the Scope of Works, including the Biodiversity Assessment Report, Contamination Investigation and SAQP, to enable tenderers to fully understand the project constraints and appropriately scope and price the required services?


Survey Requirements

Can Council please confirm if surveying is required at this stage of the project.

Answered on 11/Sep/2026 12:23 PM:
(edited on 21/Sep/2026 09:19 AM)


An accurate BoQ is required for Council to procure the future D&C contractor. For the purpose of quoting for the preparation of the BoQ, tenderers are to base their tender submission on available corridor information, site observations and typical treatment assumptions. If the survey data provided later by Council differs demonstrably from the tender allowance that will be dealt with as a cost and/or time variation. The Schedule of Rate and Schedule of Prices are requested from the tenderers to enable Council to understand potential variation costs and adequately assess tender prices.

REF and Supporting Environmental Documentation - This have been uploaded

Question:
Hi Council,

Thanks for the recent clarifications and addendum documents. We just have a few further questions to confirm our scope and pricing:

1.Council has confirmed that the accessibility requirement applies to the full 5 km trail. Could you please confirm which accessibility/shared-path standard and design criteria should be adopted for the Tender Design Package, particularly for grades, crossfalls, rest areas/landings and the unsealed trail surface?

2. Council has uploaded the TfNSW/UGL surveyor scope together with the POSI and DPoSIO information. Can you please confirm whether the Registered Surveyor/POSI scope, including Survey Mark Removal applications, Survey Mark Audit Schedules, DPoSIO documentation, survey mark replacement and associated control surveys, will be undertaken through Council/TfNSW/UGL’s surveyor, with the Design Consultant only required to coordinate the design with the information provided?

3. Volume 1 refers to a “Schedule of Industrial Relations Information” as a mandatory requirement, however we could not identify a separate Industrial Relations schedule in Volume 4. Can you please confirm whether responding to the Compliance with Acts and Regulations section and providing our own short Industrial Relations statement will satisfy this requirement?

4. Council previously confirmed two road crossings at Monaro Highway and Sandy Crossing Road. The latest clarification also requests a visualisation of the road crossing outside the Visitor Information Centre. Can you please confirm whether this location requires a third technical road-crossing design, or whether only the consultation visualisation is required there?

thanks.

Answered on 23/Sep/2026 09:43 AM:


1.Council's intent is that the full trail be designed as an accessible shared path suitable for wheelchair users where practicable. Tenderers should adopt the relevant requirements of AS 1428 and applicable Austroads guidance for shared-use paths when developing the design, including consideration of grades, crossfalls, rest areas/landings and surface treatments. Any sections where site constraints prevent full compliance with the relevant accessibility requirements should be clearly identified, justified and discussed with Council during design development.

2.Correct, Council is arranging all surveying, the Design Consultant will only have to develop the design based on the survey data provided.

3. Responding to the Compliance with Acts and Regulations section and providing your own short Industrial Relations statement will satisfy this requirement.

4. Yes, this will require a third technical road crossing design as well.

Question:
With the latest answers to questions, the scope is a bid muddy and unclear. Can Council confirm the following changes to the Scope of Works document:

1) Amend the corridor assessment scope as it was no-detailed survey, now it is a survey to DPoSIO to satisfy TfNSW/UGL

2) New scope item of wayfinding and signage concept design; Including graphic design and copywriting drafts

3) New scope item being a presentation is to be attended (2 hour duration)

4) New scope item being a provisional item of $3,000 for 'Traditional custodian historical information signage along the trail' - How does a proponent cover their own costs if this is called upon?

5) New scope item being a provisional item of $3,000 for 'European and/or railway historical information signage along the trail' - How does a proponent cover their own costs if this is called upon?

6) Amend Project End Location from the provided Easting Northing of -36.879730, 149.21152 to be a junction point and a new Project End Location being -36.879730, 149.211520 at Gunningrach Rd (approximately an additional 1km)

Can Council please issue an updated 'Vol._3.3-Bombala_Rail_Trail-Engineering_&_Design-Scope_of_Works' document, as there are many discrepancies between the Engineering Design and what it is now appearing to be based on tender forum responses.

Answered on 25/Sep/2026 03:20 PM:


1. Tenderers ARE NOT being asked to conduct the survey. This was provided for the information of tenderers to understand the scope of the survey that Council would arrange.

2. This is not new scope, it is provision of more information to make the scope clearer.

3. This is not new scope, it is so that tenderers can understand the hours they can expect to expend on working on the project.

4. This is not new scope, it is an item that the project may be required to undertake. It is a "provisional sum" so that it is allowed for monetarily but does not adversely impact the tender comparisons. If the cost of delivering any works associated with this exceed $3,000 then the tenderer would be able to claim a variation.

5. This is not new scope, it is an item that the project may be required to undertake. It is a "provisional sum" so that it is allowed for monetarily but does not adversely impact the tender comparisons. If the cost of delivering any works associated with this exceed $3,000 then the tenderer would be able to claim a variation.

6. Uploaded.

7. Rev 2 uploaded.