Question:
Good morning. We would like to register to attend a site inspection for week beginning Monday 1st June. Can you please advise suitable times? We will be travelling from Brisbane. Thank you.

Answered on 25/May/2026 09:38 AM:


Thank you for expressing your interest.

Please confirm dates and persons attending with contact below:

Brian Weeks - Deputy Director of Engineering

brianw@quilpie.qld.gov.au

0491 718 957

Thank you

Question:
Hello, please disregard our previous message - we will respond via email. Thanks.

Answered on 25/May/2026 09:38 AM:


Thank you

Question:
Hi

We would like to register our interest to attend the site inspection. We will be travelling from Brisbane. Exact person attending the inspection is to be confirmed.

Regards,

Answered on 25/May/2026 08:39 AM:
(edited on 25/May/2026 09:33 AM)


Thank you for expressing your interest.

Please confirm dates and persons attending with contact below:

Brian Weeks - Deputy Director of Engineering

brianw@quilpie.qld.gov.au

0491 718 957

Thank you

Question:
Is there any possibility of obtaining the final design surface CAD file for this project?

Answered on 28/May/2026 11:27 AM:


The dwg files in Appendix D should contain this information.

Thank you

Question:
Good Morning,

Can I please request 2 of our employees to attended site. Can you please advise best time to visit.

Regards,

Answered on 28/May/2026 11:28 AM:


Thank you for expressing your interest.

Please confirm dates and persons attending with contact below:

Brian Weeks - Deputy Director of Engineering

brianw@quilpie.qld.gov.au

0491 718 957

Thank you

Question:
Hi, the RFT's don't appear to indicate the Federally funded financial amounts and more specifically whether or not Tenderers'/ Principal Contractors require Federal Safety Accreditation for these works?

Answered on 01/Jun/2026 06:05 AM:


Please refer to Section 13 for funding sources and refer Mandatory Accreditation requirements for Safety in Section 18.

Question:
The culvert identified under Item G on the Pricing Schedule is a non-standard size. If full replacement is required, can the Contractor elect to use a standard upsized culvert in lieu of the specified size?

Answered on 02/Jun/2026 10:56 AM:


The replacement of the culvert is required, the Contractor may propose an alternative culvert size, being a standard commercially available size, is ssubject to the following:

• The proposed culvert must provide hydraulic capacity equal to or greater than that of the specified culvert, with no adverse impact on flow conditions, flood levels, or adjoining properties.

• The proposed culvert must be fit for purpose and comply with all relevant standards, including structural and durability requirements.

• The Contractor must submit full details of the proposed alternative, including design calculations, drawings, and specifications, to the Superintendent for assessment.

• The alternative shall not be implemented without prior written direction from the Superintendent, which may be issued as a Variation in accordance with the Contract.

Unless otherwise agreed, any costs associated with the Contractor’s proposed alternative, including design and documentation, shall be deemed to be included in the Contract Sum.

Question:
Good afternoon,

Please assist with the below

BOQ item L2 – Flight Test for CASA Approval – please provide details of the test/s that are required

Thanks,

Answered on 08/Jun/2026 06:30 AM:


We are pleased to provide clarification to this query, as outlined in the newly attached file included in the tender documents, for the benefit of all tenderers.

Tenderers are advised that the amended Bill of Quantities (BoQ), issued under a separate addendum, has been updated to reflect this clarification.

Question:
Hi,

Would it be possible to get an Extension fo Time of 1 week for this tender, extension to 29 June 2026??

Thanks

Answered on 03/Jun/2026 11:44 AM:


At this stage, Council intends to maintain the current tender timetable and does not propose to extend the closing date.

As you would appreciate, it is important for us to keep the procurement and evaluation process aligned with our scheduled reporting timeframes, with a view to progressing the award decision to Council in July or August at the latest.

In addition, opportunities to undertake site inspections have been made available through previous addenda, and we encourage your team to take advantage of these arrangements if you are considering submitting a bid.

There remains approximately two and a half weeks until the tender closes, and we believe this provides adequate time for interested parties to finalise their submissions.

We welcome strong industry participation and aim to achieve a competitive tender outcome with a robust field of submissions

Question:
1. Plan Discrepancies – Appendix D Tender Drawings D0103-DRG-DP-0000.pdf

There appears to be a discrepancy between the pavement drawings:

Plan PV-0023 Cross Section shows stabilisation finishing at approximately -75 mm.

Plan PV-0024 appears to show all stabilised areas extending up to the final surface.

Please confirm the correct stabilisation depth and finished level requirements.

2. Culvert Standard Sizes

The BOQ references a 350 mm × 900 mm RCBC culvert. However, the nearest standard culvert sizes commonly available are 900 mm × 300 mm and 900 mm × 375 mm.

Could the Designer please confirm the required culvert size and advise whether a 900 mm × 300 mm, 900 mm × 350 mm, or 900 mm × 375 mm culvert is intended for the works? This confirmation will assist tenderers in preparing accurate pricing.

3. Appendix A File Error

The file titled “Quilpie Airport Rehabilitation - 100% DDR Appendix A - Existing Grandfathered Non-Conformances.pdf” appears to be corrupt or unable to be opened.

Could you please reissue this document?

4. 3D CAD Cross Sections

The supplied 3D CAD file contains 3D contours, however the cross sections appear to be 2D only.

Are 3D cross sections and line work available within the design file, or can these be provided?

5. Council Supplied and Processed Gravel

As Council is supplying and processing the gravel, please confirm who is responsible for ensuring the gravel conforms to the project specification.

If the contractor is responsible for conformance, what control will the contractor have over Council’s gravel processing operations?

6. Plane Tie Downs

Please confirm the scope for the existing plane tie downs.

Are they to be removed, reinstalled, or renewed?

If renewal or reinstatement is required, please provide design details including dimensions, footing requirements, and set-out plans.

7. Fuel Tank Services

Please confirm whether the contractor is required to install electrical conduit to the new fuel tanks.

Please also confirm whether a water line or fire hydrant service is required for the new fuel tank area.

8. Airport Facilities

Please confirm that the contractor is permitted to use the airport facilities for a site office and toilet facilities during the works.

9. Camp Setup Near Council Depot

Following discussions with Brian Weeks, please confirm whether the contractor is permitted to establish a camp beside the Council depot.

If permitted, please advise what approvals are required and services are available, including water, sewer, power, and any other relevant site services.

10. Airport Lighting Relocation

Please provide clarification regarding the airport lighting relocation requirements. The Bill of Quantities includes allowance for six (6) airport lighting relocations, however Drawing EL0711 appears to indicate only two (2) relocations.

Please confirm the number of airport lighting relocations required under the contract. In addition, please provide any available plans, connection details, conduit requirements, cable replacement requirements, and indicative distances for the proposed conduit runs.

Answered on 09/Jun/2026 01:55 PM:


Query 01 – Plan Discrepancies – Appendix D Tender Drawings D0103-DRG-DP-0000.pdf

There appears to be a discrepancy between the pavement drawings:

Plan PV-0023 Cross Section shows stabilisation finishing at approximately -75 mm.

Plan PV-0024 appears to show all stabilised areas extending up to the final surface.

Please confirm the correct stabilisation depth and finished level requirements

Response QSC

Refer notes PV-0024 detailing stabilising to extend to the new sealed surface level and for Pavement Type 2 and 6 stabilising to be 370mm deep including 75mm Town Common material.

Query 02 - Culvert Standard Sizes

The BOQ references a 350 mm × 900 mm RCBC culvert. However, the nearest standard culvert sizes commonly available are 900 mm × 300 mm and 900 mm × 375 mm.

Could the Designer please confirm the required culvert size and advise whether a 900 mm × 300 mm, 900 mm × 350 mm, or 900 mm × 375 mm culvert is intended for the works? This confirmation will assist tenderers in preparing accurate pricing

Response QSC

Refer Buyer Query and Response dated 2 June 2026 which advises following:

A replacement culvert is required and the Contractor may propose an alternative culvert size, being a standard commercially available size, subject to the following:

• The proposed culvert must provide hydraulic capacity equal to or greater than that of the specified culvert, with no adverse impact on flow conditions, flood levels, or adjoining properties.

• The proposed culvert must be fit for purpose and comply with all relevant standards, including structural and durability requirements.

• The Contractor must submit full details of the proposed alternative, including design calculations, drawings, and specifications, to the Superintendent for assessment.

• The alternative shall not be implemented without prior written direction from the Superintendent, which may be issued as a Variation in accordance with the Contract.

• Unless otherwise agreed, any costs associated with the Contractor’s proposed alternative, including design and documentation, shall be deemed to be included in the Contract Sum.

Query 03 - Appendix A File Error

The file titled “Quilpie Airport Rehabilitation - 100% DDR Appendix A - Existing Grandfathered Non-Conformances.pdf” appears to be corrupt or unable to be opened.

Could you please reissue this document?

Response QSC

Checked and opened uncorrupted and this may relate to file length.

A copy has been attached to Addendum.

Query 04 - 3D CAD Cross Sections

The supplied 3D CAD file contains 3D contours, however the cross sections appear to be 2D only.

Are 3D cross sections and line work available within the design file, or can these be provided?

Response QSC

No further 3d CAD information is available to what has been provided and this was used to determine the indicative BOQ quantities.

Query 05 - Council Supplied and Processed Gravel

As Council is supplying and processing the gravel, please confirm who is responsible for ensuring the gravel conforms to the project specification.

If the contractor is responsible for conformance, what control will the contractor have over Council’s gravel processing operations?

Response QSC

As noted in the RFT the Principal Supplied Material will be either screened and stockpiled material from the Town Common or supplied and stockpiled Type 2.3 material from Lesdale Quarry (Charleville).

Council will be responsible for supplying material that conforms to the project specification, with the contractor verifying this (refer Item B2 in the Indicative BOQ).

As noted in the RFT the insitu Town Common has had full geotechnical testing with UCS Testing being the used as the basis for the design and the Lesdale Quarry material has Geotechnical testing for compliance to TMR specification and has been deemed as suitable for the proposed design, subject to UCS Testing which would need to be included as part of the material verification if this material is selected.

Where the Contractor proposes an alternative Stabilising design then additional UCS Testing may need to be undertaken.

Query 06 - Plane Tie Downs

Please confirm the scope for the existing plane tie downs.

Are they to be removed, reinstalled, or renewed?

If renewal or reinstatement is required, please provide design details including dimensions, footing requirements, and set-out plans.

Response QSC

As the as the apron is to be stabilised, the tie downs will need to be replaces and in addition new tie downs will be required in the refuelling parking area. Tie downs shall meet CASA and Australian Standard requirements.

Contractors are to make a Provisional Sum allowance for 20 tie downs based on $1,000 per tie down, with the design and location to be provided to the successful Contractor.

Query 07 - Fuel Tank Services

Please confirm whether the contractor is required to install electrical conduit to the new fuel tanks.

Please also confirm whether a water line or fire hydrant service is required for the new fuel tank area.

Response QSC

The Contractor shall allow for the provision and/or installation of services within refuelling area including electrical and water such as hydrant or supply line.

These works will be treated as a variation to the Contract and paid under Item F2.5.

Query 08 - Airport Facilities

Please confirm that the contractor is permitted to use the airport facilities for a site office and toilet facilities during the works.

Response QSC

Refer RFQ Item 11

“As it is proposed to close the Airport during construction the Contractor will have the option of utilising the Terminal and/or services for a site office/facilities.”

Query 09 - Camp Setup Near Council Depot

Following discussions with Brian Weeks, please confirm whether the contractor is permitted to establish a camp beside the Council depot.

If permitted, please advise what approvals are required and services are available, including water, sewer, power, and any other relevant site services.

Response QSC

Refer RFQ Item 11

“As it is unlikely that sufficient commercial accommodation will be available in Quilpie during the works the Contractor will need to provide a dedicated Camp facility during the Project and Council will provide the successful Contractor with a site to establish a Camp for Project staff and base their operations during Construction.”

Please note that the area next to the Depot shown to Contractors on the Site Inspection may be being used by others and Council propose making the old Council Depot (see Aerial attached) available for Contractors for a Camp facility.

Please note this site is serviced for water, sewer and power and the Contractors will be responsible for arranging connections to meet Council requirements and make a Provisional Sum allowance of $10,000 for the connections to these services.

Query 10 - Airport Lighting Relocation

Please provide clarification regarding the airport lighting relocation requirements. The Bill of Quantities includes allowance for six (6) airport lighting relocations, however Drawing EL0711 appears to indicate only two (2) relocations.

Please confirm the number of airport lighting relocations required under the contract. In addition, please provide any available plans, connection details, conduit requirements, cable replacement requirements, and indicative distances for the proposed conduit runs.

Response QSC

The AGL Schedule has been developed based on the current design levels to inform anticipated treatments. With the exception of new offset tuning nodes, where some fittings may require relocation or replacement, the overarching design objective is to minimise the extent of airport lighting relocation, replacement, raising, or lowering wherever practicable. Localised trimming works may be required to achieve compliance.

Accordingly, the quantities for Items J1, J4, J5, J6 and J7 in the Indicative BOQ are to be regarded as Provisional Quantities,

For reference attached to this Addendum is the AGL Upgrade Schematics and details from 2019. No additional plans, connection details, conduit requirements, cable replacement information, or indicative conduit run distances are available beyond this and what has already been provided in the Tender Documents.

The points and responses have been posted as a separate document included in the files attached to this request

Question:
Please clarify the following:

1. BOQ Item C6.6 (under the RESA & Blast pavements section) refers to stabilisation of an area of 472.41m2, please confirm the specific area to which this item applies.

2. BOQ Items C6.7 to C6.9 (under the RESA & Blast Pavements section) refer to Blast Pavements for Runways 9 and 27; the stated quantities appear inconsistent with the referenced areas on the drawings.

Please confirm whether these quantities should be doubled to reflect both runway ends.

3. BOQ Items C6.8 and C6.9 (under the RESA & Blast Pavements section) specify a two-coat seal of 14/10 mm. Please confirm whether this should be 14/7 mm, in line with the remainder of the project.

4. BOQ Items (under the Cross Runway 18/36 Pavement Tie-In section) currently refer to Pavement Type 3 only, with no mention of Pavement Type 7.

Please provide a corresponding BOQ item for Pavement Type 7 to enable pricing of the seal.

Answered on 10/Jun/2026 06:49 AM:


Query 01

BOQ Item C6.6 (under the RESA & Blast pavements section) refers to stabilisation of an area of 472.41m2, please confirm the specific area to which this item applies.

Response QSC

This item is to allow for stabilising of any new pavements in the blast areas (shown orange – RUNWAY BLAST PAVEMENT in the plans). This item is to be changed to a Provisional Quantity.

Query 02

BOQ Items C6.7 to C6.9 (under the RESA & Blast Pavements section) refer to Blast Pavements for Runways 9 and 27; the stated quantities appear inconsistent with the referenced areas on the drawings.

Please confirm whether these quantities should be doubled to reflect both runway ends

Response QSC

This quantity is on the basis that the Blast Pavement for Runway 9 is already sealed and only the Blast Pavement for Runway 27 requires sealing.

In addition, the Design Report Section 4.7 states that Blast Pavement will receive a single-coat S15E seal with the following application rates:

Prime: AMC00 at 1.0lt/m2

Binder: 1.8 L/m² with an aggregate spread rate of 135 m²/m³

Accordingly Item C6.8 is to be removed and for quantiles Items C6.7 and C6.9 to be changed Provisional Quantity of 4632 m2.


Query 03

BOQ Items C6.8 and C6.9 (under the RESA & Blast Pavements section) specify a two-coat seal of 14/10 mm. Please confirm whether this should be 14/7 mm, in line with the remainder of the project.

Response QSC

Further to and in alignment with Query 02 the Blast Pavements will only have a single coast-seal SE15 with 10mm aggregate nominated. Contractors may propose an alternative single coat seal using a 7mm aggregate, subject to design requirements being met.

Query 04

BOQ Items (under the Cross Runway 18/36 Pavement Tie-In section) currently refer to Pavement Type 3 only, with no mention of Pavement Type 7.

Please provide a corresponding BOQ item for Pavement Type 7 to enable pricing of the seal

'

Response QSC

Pavement Type 7 has been included in Items I1.1 and I1.2

Item I1.1 Reads - Pavement Type 3 & Type 7 Cut and fill existing pavement to DSL with cut material and selected Principal supplied material and compact to 97% STD - 3,999m2 [Cut = 0] [Fill = 134m3]

Item I1.2 Reads - Pavement Type 3 & Type 7 Insitu Stabilise/Modify the upper 150mm of pavement with 1.7% Cement incl all compaction to 97% STD

Noting that Design Report Section 4.7 states that the cross-runway tie-in will be sprayed with Polycom as a dust suppressant, with no seal designed for this area.

Notwithstanding Contractors are to follow the drawings which show a sealed tie-in area and an unsealed tie-in area and Items I2.1, I2.2 and I2.3 are to be Provisional Quantities of 1,194m2 and a new Item is to be added:

I2.4 – Seal cross-runway tie-ins with Polycon or suitable alternative with a Provisional Quantity of 2,805m2

Question:
Good afternoon. We kindly request clarification on the following RFIs:

1). Section 5 states material will be principal supplied in stockpile. Section 7 states the material is required to be hauled and incorporated. Can you please confirm this would be in relation to onsite haulage of material only (ie for option 1, town commons to site, or option 2, from onsite stockpile location – also assumed town commons)

2). With regards to the 2 principal supplied material options, the options will change the proposed stabilisation design. The design is required to be RPEQ by the contractor.

a) Has a pavement design been completed on the material from the Lesdale quarry?

3). Lead time on the 2 materials is stated as 16/8 weeks. Is this from contract award or is this awarded separately and should be from an earlier date?

4). With regards to the 2 pavement options, should the tenderer price both options as we are unaware of the principal costs of obtaining the material.

5). Will the tenderer need to engage a WSO or provide an MOWP with airport being closed?

6). Wagners binder products have been specified throughout the current pavement design and is a bespoke mix design. Is there any preference to use this material?

7). Is any Marco rolling required – not noted in the specified documents as road pavement specifications have been provided

8). MRTS 07B.1 states that material not suitable for stabilisation are to be removed and replaced. No items in the BOQ are provided for this.

9). MRTS05.1 states that intelligent rollers are required for compaction of unbound materials. Are the ‘un-stabilised’ principal supplied pavement materials classed as unbound as per this spec and are IC rollers required?

10). The BOQ has provided a PSUM for principal supplied material. Is this to be paid by the contractor and if so what works does this cover?

11). Other works items L1 & L3. Can you please provide a specification/scope for these works – specifically access tracks for staging.

12). AGL works have duplicate options for items J2/J3 and J4/J5/J6/J7 – Can you please specify how these items would be used?

13). The aggregate spread rates stated in the BOQ do not match those in the supplied AAPA specification. The BOQ lists 7mm aggregate at 230 m2/m3 and 14mm aggregate at 150 m2/m3, whereas the AAPA specification (and AFPA specification) both state 180 m2/m3 for 7mm and 90 m2/m3 for 14mm. The drawings refer the reader back to the specification. Additionally, the AFPA specification notes that the use of heavier spread rates in 14/7 seals designed for interlock is not recommended. Can you please confirm the correct spread rates to be applied for tendering purposes? Note that we believe similar discrepancies may exist in the binder rates, however a detailed review has not yet been undertaken.

14). Is any initial pavement/subgrade testing required prior to starting works? Noting the pavement is designed on a CBR7%.

Answered on 11/Jun/2026 09:29 AM:


Query 01

Section 5 states material will be principal supplied in stockpile. Section 7 states the material is required to be hauled and incorporated. Can you please confirm this would be in relation to onsite haulage of material only (ie for option 1, town commons to site, or option 2, from onsite stockpile location – also assumed town commons)

Response QSC

As noted in Item 5 of the RFT the Principal Supplied Material will be supplied be either screened and stockpiled material from the Town Common or supplied and stockpiled (at an agreed location within the Aerodrome or Town Common) Type 2.3 material from Lesdale Quarry (Charleville).

Council will be responsible for supplying and stockpiling material that conforms to the project specification, with the contractor verifying this (refer Item B2 in the Indicative BOQ).

The Contractor will be responsible for loading and haulage from stockpile and incorporation of material into the upgrade works and pavements.

Where Council requires the Contractor to assist with the supply of material or to undertake additional works or activities or coordination for this, then these works will be treated as a variation to the Contract and paid under Item B1.

Query 02

With regards to the 2 principal supplied material options, the options will change the proposed stabilisation design. The design is required to be RPEQ by the contractor.

a) Has a pavement design been completed on the material from the Lesdale quarry?

Response QSC

As noted in the RFT Item 5 the insitu Town Common has had full geotechnical testing with UCS Testing being the used as the basis for the design and the Lesdale Quarry material has Geotechnical testing for compliance to TMR specification and has been deemed as suitable for the proposed design, subject to UCS Testing which would need to be included as part of the material verification if this material is selected.

Where the Contractor proposes an alternative Stabilising design then additional UCS Testing may need to be undertaken.

Query 03

Lead time on the 2 materials is stated as 16/8 weeks. Is this from contract award or is this awarded separately and should be from an earlier date?

Response QSC

The intent is for the supply of material to align with the Contractors program and will be subject to which design and material is adopted/used.

While the Lesdale Quarry material will have a shorter lead time, it will require UCS Testing and if an alternative design is adopted using the Town Common material, then new UCS Testing may be required.

Council is prepared to be flexible in the approach will either arrange for the agreed material to be supplied to meet the Contractors program or engage the Contractor to arrange supply of agreed material as a variation to the Contract and paid under Item B1.

Query 04

With regards to the 2 pavement options, should the tenderer price both options as we are unaware of the principal costs of obtaining the material.

Response QSC

Supply and stockpiling of material is a Provisional Sum Item, but Council would welcome budget costings as part of the Tender submission for either winning and screening of the Town Common material or supply of Lesdale material to stockpile on site.

Query 05

Will the tenderer need to engage a WSO or provide an MOWP with airport being closed?

Response QSC

Council has not nominated a mandatory inclusion of a WSO for the Project, but the Contractor must demonstrate that they have appropriately qualified personnel to manage the Project to CASA, Air Services, WHS and Council requirements and this may include the completion of a MOWP and other CASA documentation.

Query 06

Wagners binder products have been specified throughout the current pavement design and is a bespoke mix design. Is there any preference to use this material?

Response QSC

Contactors may nominate alternative binders, subject to these meeting all Project design and specification requirements.

Query 07

Is any Marco rolling required – not noted in the specified documents as road pavement specifications have been provided

Response QSC

If macro rolling has not been specified in the design or specification, then it is not required.



Query 08

MRTS 07B.1 states that material not suitable for stabilisation are to be removed and replaced. No items in the BOQ are provided for this.

Response QSC

Refer to Item C5.1 in the Indicative BOQ.

Query 09

MRTS05.1 states that intelligent rollers are required for compaction of unbound materials. Are the ‘un-stabilised’ principal supplied pavement materials classed as unbound as per this spec and are IC rollers required?

Response QSC

If the Contractor can meet all requirements of the design and specification the non IC Rollers will be acceptable.

Query 10

10). The BOQ has provided a PSUM for principal supplied material. Is this to be paid by the contractor and if so what works does this cover?

Response QSC

Refer Query 01 and 02.

Query 11

Other works items L1 & L3. Can you please provide a specification/scope for these works – specifically access tracks for staging.

Response QSC

L1 – All existing vegetation will be cut to ground level and disposed of to Council requirements.

L3 – This Item is for where the Contractor considers it necessary to provide access tracks to complete or stage the works and their extent, construction and reinstatement is to be determined and met by the Contractor and approved by Council.

Query 12

AGL works have duplicate options for items J2/J3 and J4/J5/J6/J7 – Can you please specify how these items would be used?

Response QSC

The AGL Schedule has been developed based on the current design levels to inform anticipated treatments. With the exception of new offset tuning nodes, where some fittings may require relocation or replacement, the overarching design objective is to minimise the extent of airport lighting relocation, replacement, raising, or lowering wherever practicable. Localised trimming works may be required to achieve compliance.

Accordingly, the quantities for Items J1, J4, J5, J6 and J7 in the Indicative BOQ are to be regarded as Provisional Quantities

Query 13

The aggregate spread rates stated in the BOQ do not match those in the supplied AAPA specification. The BOQ lists 7mm aggregate at 230 m2/m3 and 14mm aggregate at 150 m2/m3, whereas the AAPA specification (and AFPA specification) both state 180 m2/m3 for 7mm and 90 m2/m3 for 14mm. The drawings refer the reader back to the specification. Additionally, the AFPA specification notes that the use of heavier spread rates in 14/7 seals designed for interlock is not recommended. Can you please confirm the correct spread rates to be applied for tendering purposes? Note that we believe similar discrepancies may exist in the binder rates, however a detailed review has not yet been undertaken.

Response QSC

It is envisaged that Contractors will either confirm use of the proposed seal design or propose an alternative to ensure that the Airport design and AFPA requirements can be meet and Contractor may use this in their Tender pricing.

Council is open to and welcomes practical and well-considered innovations that deliver value for money, maintain quality outcomes, and improve project delivery efficiency while complying with the project specifications and safety requirements.

Query 14

Is any initial pavement/subgrade testing required prior to starting works? Noting the pavement is designed on a CBR7%.

Response QSC

The Contractor should review the Geotechnical Testing undertaken and provided and subject to them either using the proposed design or an alternative design, determine what additional Geotechnical Testing is required and allow for this in their Tender pricing.

Again, Council is open to and welcomes practical and well-considered innovations that deliver value for money, maintain quality outcomes, and improve project delivery efficiency while complying with the project specifications and safety requirements.

Question:
Good morning

Could you please send through a list of any suggested Local Subcontractors / Suppliers for the Quilpie region: specifically Plant Hire, Accommodation, Support services (mechanical etc).

with thanks

Answered on 11/Jun/2026 02:19 PM:


Thank you for your enquiry.

Quilpie Shire Council does not typically provide or endorse specific subcontractor or supplier recommendations as part of our procurement process.

Respondents are encouraged to undertake their own market research to identify suitable local or regional suppliers.

Information on available services in Quilpie (e.g. plant hire, accommodation, and mechanical support services) can be readily sourced through online searches or local business directories.

Council’s pre-qualified supplier arrangements are not exhaustive and include both local and non-local providers.

Question:
Good afternoon. We kindly request a three (3) day extension of time to the tender submission deadline. Additional time will allow us to strengthen engagement with key subcontractors within the region, as well as undertake a thorough assessment of design-related risks. This will ensure our submission is comprehensive and delivers a well-considered and competitive outcome. We appreciate your consideration of this request and look forward to your confirmation.

Answered on 15/Jun/2026 11:57 AM:


A small EOT has been applied.

The request is now set to close 2pm Thursday 25th June 2026.

Question:
Good Morning,

We have the following queries we would like clarification on please:

1. Can the culvert replacement be constructed using precast base slabs, or will base slabs need to be cast in-situ?

2. MRTS07B annexure references compaction requirements for Bottom and Top layers of Treatment Type 2. Is the expectation that the contractor will remove the upper layer of the existing pavement to stabilise the lower layer before re-placing the upper layer and stabilising it, or are we going to be allowed to stabilise the full 370mm depth in 1 operation?

Thank you

Answered on 15/Jun/2026 11:35 AM:


Query 01

Can the culvert replacement be constructed using precast base slabs, or will base slabs need to be cast in-situ?

Response QSC

Precast base slabs are acceptable, subject to these meeting all Project design and specification requirements.



Query 02

MRTS07B annexure references compaction requirements for Bottom and Top layers of Treatment Type 2. Is the expectation that the contractor will remove the upper layer of the existing pavement to stabilise the lower layer before re-placing the upper layer and stabilising it, or are we going to be allowed to stabilise the full 370mm depth in 1 operation?

Response QSC

Refer to Tender Drawings D0103-DRG-DP-0000 and Quilpie Airport Rehabilitation - 100% Design Report - For Tender [Rev A] and noting the following sections in the Design Report

Extract from 3.5.1 Material Mix Design

“The optimised rehabilitation of the runway, taxiway and apron requires a deeper modification of the pavement in one pass and the use of a triple blend binder, which was necessary to extend the working time and for treating the potential of high-plasticity insitu materials”

4.1.1 Central Runway Treatment (Chainage 325–875 m)

•
Pre-pulverise the existing pavement to a depth of 150 mm to break up and blend the existing seal with the underlying gravel.

•
Undertake a Cut to Fill exercise to achieve a compacted level of -75mm from DSL. The fill material required can be imported Town Commons material as required in the nominated locations.

•
Import and place a 75 mm layer of screened Town Commons material.

•
In-situ modify the upper 150 mm using a 70/20/10 GP cement/fly ash/lime blend at 1.7% to achieve a UCS of 1.0–1.5 MPa.

•
Compact the upper 150 mm to 97% modified compaction.

•
Apply a prime coat followed by a two-coat 14/7 S15E seal.



4.1.2 Runway Ends 09 and 27 – Proposed Treatment

•
Pre-pulverise the existing pavement to a depth of 150 mm to break up and blend the existing seal with the underlying gravel.

•
Undertake a Cut to Fill exercise to achieve a compacted level of -75mm from DSL. The fill material required can be imported Town Commons material as required in the nominated locations.

•
Import and place a 75 mm layer of screened Town Commons material.

•
Undertake in-situ modification to a depth of 370 mm using the 70/20/10 GP cement/fly ash/lime blend at 1.7% to achieve a UCS of 1.0–1.5 MPa.

•
Compact the blended layer to achieve 97% modified compaction.

•
Apply a prime coat followed by a two-coat 14/7 S15E seal.

Question:
Good morning,

We would like to request an EOT for one week. Would council consider extending the closure date to 26/09?

Answered on 15/Jun/2026 11:57 AM:


A small EOT has been applied.

The request is now set to close 2pm Thursday 25th June 2026.

Question:
1. Please confirm if the existing pavement has been stabilised before.

2. The 100% Design Report and tender drawings indicate stabilisation of a single 370mm layer for pavement type 2, whereas MRTS07B.1 Annexure specifies separate compaction requirements for a 170mm lower layer and a 200mm upper layer.

Please confirm whether the design intent is to construct the stabilised pavement in two layers in accordance with MRTS07B.1, or as a single 370mm layer.

Answered on 18/Jun/2026 02:09 PM:


1. Geotechnical Testing did not indicate that there had been any previous Stabilising and Council has no record of any Stabilising in the recent past.

2. Please refer to attached documents, 'Design queries' which relates to a similar query. Also noting that while MRTS078B.1 refers to different compactions standards at different depths, the advice we have from the Designers and Stabilising Companies is that the Pavement Design objectives can be met on the basis of a single layer of stabilisation. This approach was used to save cost and time, but Contractors will need make their own assessment on the methodology required to achieve the Design objectives