Did a representative from your company attend the mandatory site inspection?

Ability to complete all works within the off-season window (September 2026 – February 2027)

Acceptance of the AS2124-1992 Contract Terms without material departures

Tenderer holds the appropriate QBCC licence covering the required scope (drainage, structural retaining walls, pavement/asphalt works).

Question:
Afternoon ICC Team,

Can you please provide clarification to the following query in relation to the clearing & earthworks scope.

1. CLEARING SCOPE - The scope notes that the existing surface is to be pulverised then ripped and blended into the existing surface prior to compaction and the geo composite layer. If this is the case can council advise when the earthworks are meant to be conducted, if at all as this process does not lend to earthworks scope unless the material is stockpiled and then reinstated once the earthworks is completed.

2. The earthworks plan notes cut & fill volumes that don't correspond significantly with the volumes as per the pricing schedule, appreciate if council can clarify this. (we note that the quantity in the BOQ is a provisional allowance = 4572.80m3)

Answered on 27/Mar/2026 08:08 AM:


If construction methodology requires stockpiling prior to reinstating then this should be stated in the response, any stockpiling would need to be carried out in accordance with the environmental management plan produced for the site.

Please rely on plan volumes for cut and fill volumes, amended BOQ will be released.

Question:
Good Morning ICC Team,

As noted in the Sport Eng Technical Specification - 200.3 Existing Site Information can council provide the following as part of the tender package

1. Site survey

2. Geotechnical investigation report

3. Environmental investigation report

Answered on 27/Mar/2026 08:15 AM:


The following files shall be uploaded as an addendum.

INF04747 Limestone Netball Courts Resurface - Geotechnical Report PTG (A12692515)

INF04747 Limestone Netball Courts Resurface - Soil Characterisation Report ADG (A12692484)

INF04747 Limestone Park Netball Courts Resurface G5443.1 AA SPORTENG (A12722648)

Question:
Dear City of Ipswich,

Could you please extend the tender response time by at least two weeks? Due to current international circumstances, the supply chain is volatile for all petroleum-based products: asphalt (bitumen) and PVC, to name two. Our suppliers are unable to price these works at current market rates.

Answered on 27/Mar/2026 08:18 AM:


The request for extending the closing date for the tender was considered at the time of this RFI, Council provided a 1 week extension to 7 April 2026

Question:
Dear City of Ipswich,

Considering the nature of the contract, it is a lump sum. Could you confirm whether a departure from the tender general conditions, requesting provisional items with rise and fall, will be accepted?

This request concerns supply chain issues in global markets, particularly in asphalt works for this project.

Answered on 27/Mar/2026 11:40 AM:


As stated in the Request for Tender, this is a lump sum contract under AS2124, and individual departures seeking general rise and fall pricing will not be accepted.

However, Council acknowledges current global volatility affecting petroleum based products, including asphalt binders and PVC components. To ensure a fair and competitive tender environment, Council will be issuing an Addendum introducing a limited, controlled adjustment mechanism applicable to all tenderers.

This mechanism will apply only to specified petroleum based inputs and will utilise the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) bitumen price adjustment formula:

D = (C – B) × A

Where:

• A = approved design binder content × asphalt quantity

• B = TMR Class 170 bitumen price on 15 March 2026 (month prior to tender closing date of 7 April 2026)

• C = TMR Class 170 bitumen price on the 15th day of the month in which the work is performed

The contract otherwise remains lump sum. Full details will be provided in the forthcoming Addendum # 4.

Question:
The request for tender item 7 Project Budget and market testing notes “Tenderers should price all works strictly in accordance with the 100% detailed design BOQ issued for tender. Council may request revised pricing from shortlisted Tenderers based on the Issued for Construction BOQ”

Please confirm we are to price as per BOQ and quantities as provided or are we to adjust quantities where there is a discrepancy noted or add additional items if required? Please can you reconfirm.

Answered on 27/Mar/2026 02:23 PM:


Price as per the estimate to guarantee a conforming tender.

Submit an RFI for any specific items, if required an amended BOQ document will be released.

Pricing should be adjusted or alternate offers provided where a tenderer feels something may have been omitted.

Question:
Q1 - As per today's site meeting, It was discussed that the current specification for the asphalt pavement being guaranteed against containing iron pyrites is highly unlikely to be able to be achieved throughout the QLD region.  

Q2 - It was also discussed that material suppliers will be very unlikely to warranty the surface for 7 years. Most warrant up to a standard 5 years.

Q3 - BOQ line item 48 says the following: 'Landscaping to existing garden beds including: light vegetation clearing, ripping to 150mm depth, supply & spread 100mm topsoil, Hoop pine mulch, 4 plants /m2.'   What does it mean by 4 plants/m2 as we cannot find it on the planting schedule?

Answered on 27/Mar/2026 02:28 PM:


The commentary around iron pyrites is based on commentary within the Netball Australia National Facilities Policy. The specification relates to staining of the court surface cause by seepage of pyrites. Refer P79. If a tenderer feels the specification is not achievable that should be noted in the submission.

https://netball.com.au/sites/default/files/2019-07/PDF-web-version-Netball-Australia-National-Facilities-Policy_mar16.pdf

For asphalt warranty periods specified, tenderer is suggested to supply a confirming tender where possible and note an alternate if needed.

Agreed, there is a discrepancy between density on BOQ and landscape plans, BOQ will be amended to 3 plants/m2 and re-released.

Question:
on landscape plan: 750A, it mentions explore option extend the sandstone block wall along the northern court edge (approx. 20m) is this something to be priced and included in the tender?

Answered on 30/Mar/2026 07:54 AM:


Please submit price for consideration, the intent is to price as an option for consideration of inclusion in the project scope. BOQ will be updated with the line item relocated to separable portions for clarity.

Question:
Good Morning ICC Team,



Following the site meeting & review of the tender documentation, scope & deliverables we respectfully request an extension of time until 5:00pm, Tuesday 14.03.26.

We understand and appreciate the time-sensitive nature of the project and the importance of a complete and reliable submission.

The basis for this EOT request will allow us and additionally Council to complete the following, ensuring a comprehensive, competitive, and accurate tender submission is provided, ensuring the best value to the client and all stakeholders concerned.

• Council to respond to RFIs and update documentation for review by contractor

• Creating & sending out sub-contractor RFQs and respond to contractor RFIs

• Allowing time for return pricing from sub-contractor and suppliers

• Allowing time to review return quotes and confirm that the full scope of works is accurately captured.

• Pricing of the project deliverable.

• Returnable non-price criteria

Thank you for your understanding & consideration on the matter

Answered on 30/Mar/2026 08:27 AM:


Response to this RFI at point in time, Tender was extended to 7 April 2026.

There have been further RFI's surrounding this and weather additional time can be granted, which Council will reply to shortly.

Question:
1. Please provide requirements for the backfill material required for the following item “backfill with earth backfill material to [description] -492m3"

2. Some items are missing on BOQ such as type 2.1and ACO drain- K100& K300. Can council please update the BOQ to include these?

3. Can council please provide the 12d model for the new design and the existing?

Answered on 10/Apr/2026 11:11 AM:


Backfill material to be suitable for the type of work outlined in the documents.

a. Eg. behind/under retaining walls, under court surface etc.

b. Value is the 204+288 for cut fill - The nominal fill amount is to be allowed for in case the insitu fill is found to be contaminated and cannot be reused onsite

Some updates and clarification, amended BOQ to be released:

a. Refer to the Pit schedule on page F320 Rev D – this page refers contractors to pits, sumps and what grates go where.

b. Pits 11-01,12-01 & 13-01 are located within the grated trench and do not need a K300 grate as they fall under the grated trench quantities.

c. K100 Grate - only referenced a quantity of 2 in the BOQ – this should be 5 in total to capture all pits located in the spoon drain.

ICC generally do not provide design files during tender period, please submit any specific questions for a response to be provided.

Question:
Good Morning ICC Team,

Excluding the tree removal scope of works will Council be providing a project arborist for the remaining Arborist requirements including site inspections?

Answered on 30/Mar/2026 08:29 AM:


The contractor will be required to provide an arborist as necessary to complete the works onsite.

A Council arborist may provide assistance for design queries only. They will be involved with site inspections as required to confirm compliance with project conditions.

Question:
Q1 - Is there an existing geo technical report that can be issued?

Q2 - The BOQ line item 11: Supply and installation of PP (SN8) drainage pipe, 300mm dia. This seems to conflict the stormwater drainage layout plan F300 Rev D. Where the drainage line is indicated to be as 375mm dia pipe. Are we to assume the 375mm dia pipe on the plan is correct over the BOQ 300mm??

Answered on 30/Mar/2026 08:33 AM:


Geotech report has been released as an addendum. Refer addendum 3

Please use 375mm drainage pipe as per the design plans, the BOQ will be amended to correct the discrepancy.

Question:
Morning Team,

Based off the site meeting, Council are undertaking additional geo tech works with the project and still need to provide responses to RFI's that have been lodged.

Could council please provide an EOT until the 14th of April.

Answered on 30/Mar/2026 08:38 AM:


Geotech report was released as an addendum. Refer addendum 3

Response to this RFI at point in time, Tender was extended to 7 April 2026.

There have been further RFI's surrounding closing date of 7 April 2026 and weather additional time can be granted.

Question:
1. Please confirm if the ACO K100 runs the full length of the spoon drain located in front of the amenities building and from eastern side of pavilion towards the corner and return to full eastern side of the court or just at the sump pit SP-ACO- K1-901G and GT2-ACO K1-0103?

2. Dwg F350D long section shows the SP 15-02 and SP 16-02 as ACO K1-901G. Should it be detail ACO K1-0103 as per note 4 on dwg F320D

Answered on 31/Mar/2026 08:03 AM:


The ACO K100 does not run the full length of the spoon drain located in front of the amenities building.

Correct, SP 15-02 and 16-02 should be referencing GT2 - ACO K1-0103 Detail as per note 4 on dwg F320D.

Question:
Please can we request a 2 week extension of time thank you

Answered on 30/Mar/2026 09:07 AM:


Response to this RFI at point in time, Tender was extended to 7 April 2026.

There have been further RFI's surrounding this and weather additional time can be granted, which Council will reply to shortly.

Question:
Good Morning ICC Team,

Can council confirm and clarify the following:

1. Location in the BOQ of the 230mm WIDE CONCRETE EDGESTRIP as per plans F200 & F651, as this appears to be potentially noted as Concrete kerb, ICC Type SM3 which is not reflective of the IPWEA detail in relation to the plan detail requirements.

2. Understanding of when the RFIs submitted will be responded to considering that the cutoff date is noted as the 27.03.26 and to date have not received any feedback from council in relation to the previous RFI requests and updated documentation in order to proceed with this tender

Answered on 31/Mar/2026 03:55 PM:


insert pricing for the 230mm Wide concrete edgestrip to line item 17 of the estimate schedule

Question:
is it possible to get photos of the distribution section of the switchboard, showing existing breakers and current lighting control configuration? Access to the board was not possible during the site meeting.

Answered on 31/Mar/2026 12:29 PM:


Refer Addendum 8 MSB Photos.

Question:
Morning ICC Team,

Can council confirm and clarify the following from one of our electrical contractors:

1. The Detailed specification documentation Outlines The post construction requirements.

All documents evidencing compliances, Including all copies of test results - Electronic files (PDF)

Does the council require Lux testing to be carried out and reported? as this is not clearly specified

2. The plans E01 shows the Main switchboard Distribution section Schematic with Cabling feeds from the new 40A CBs as 35mm2 and 50mm2 respectively.

However, the Bill States 495m of 16mm2 cable. Can you please clarify what the electrical engineer requires?

3. We also would like to clarify that all existing conduit/pits & cabling etc are being removed and discarded off, the only retained materials are the light poles and fixtures?

Answered on 10/Apr/2026 11:17 AM:


Yes, lux testing is required to be completed and submitted to Council to confirm compliance with required lighting levels. Ensure court numbers are shown on the plan.

BOQ has been updated to reflect accurate quantities from V4.

All redundant conduits and cabling to be removed where possible, if collapsed or stuck, seek permission from project manager to cut and leave in ground. Redundant pits to be removed in the first instance or if not possible filled in and concreted over or remedied to match the surface i.e concrete or soil.

Question:
Drawing F351-B (Stormwater Drainage Long Sections - Sheet 2 of 2) has reference to structures 19 - 24. Please can you confirm where they are on plan and if they are to be included .The structure numbers are 02-06, 19-01, 02-05, 20-01, 02-04, 21-01, 02-03, 22-01, 02-02, 23-01, 02-01 and 24-01

Answered on 31/Mar/2026 08:04 AM:


Please disregard sheet F531B (Stormwater Drainage Long Sections - Sheet 2 of 2), these pits were deleted from the scope but removal from the plan set has been overlooked. There are no drainage pits other than what is currently shown on the plan views.

Question:
Morning ICC Team,

Can council confirm and clarify the following from one of our electrical contractors:

1. Please confirm pit type, size & load rating

2. Please confirm switchboard details, breaker type/specification, and whether testing, shutdowns, and any modifications are included +/or required.

Answered on 31/Mar/2026 03:51 PM:


1. refer to ICC Electrical Specification for Parks and Facilities, section 6. https://www.ipswich.qld.gov.au/Services/Planning-and-Building/Standard-Drawings-and-Other-Technical-Specifications#ElectricalRequirements

2. refer Addendum 8 for photos of recently completed lighting upgrade works

Question:
Q 1 - The stormwater drainage details and pit schedule on sheet F320 revD, has a cross section for GT-2-ACO K1-0103 half metre grated trench in 600mm spoon drain typical detail. This detail shows a 150mm PVC drainage pipe coming out of the bottom of the trench drain, where does this pipe connect?

Q 2 - In the BOQ there is a provisional QTY for the excavation/ disposal of unsuitable material with individual excavation greater than 10m3. The provisional QTY is precise at 4572.8m3. What is this allowance for?

Q 3 - There is another item in the BOQ which is backfill with earth backfill material to, allowance is 492m3. What is this for?

Q 4 - at the site meeting, there was an indication that there may be a provisional sum supplied by council for oil inspired cost rises after tender date or a clause that related to this issue. Is this going to occur?

Answered on 31/Mar/2026 03:46 PM:


Q1

The schedule states it connects to the End cap of the GT2 Trench as also shown on the plans these inline sump pits connect into the GT2. This is specifically for 15-02 and 16-02.

Q -2

4,572.8m3 =2858*1.6 (this was quantified as 2858 tonne from our original cost estimate)

1,588m2 Turf and Organic Material to be stripped

Disposal allowance only provided if material is deemed – “not suitable” for reuse on site after contaminated land results/testing

Q -3

This is for the fill is based on the figures shown on Drawing F150 D, 492m3 is the maximum fill that should be required.

Q - 4

Refer addendum 4 Petroleum Based Products Price Adjustment Mechanism

Question:
We request an EOT of two weeks.

Feedback from key local subcontractors & suppliers, who, like the entire industry at this time, require additional time re-evaluating their positions in light of the global fuel situation.

That, in conjunction with the upcoming disruption of the Easter break and school holidays makes a two week EOT practical to skip clear of this disruption in order to be able to provide Council with the most competitive offer for these works.

Answered on 01/Apr/2026 08:15 AM:


The RFT closing date has been extended to 15 April 2026

Question:
Note 8 on drawing F100D has a note to strip and pulverize asphalt to max 20mm stone. ICC and Sporteng need to provide a methodology and company that can offer that service. We cannot find a company that offers this service and we have tried various asphalt profilers and stabilising companies.

In regards to profiling the asphalt it will lift in pieces in excess of 20mm which would then require screening possibly off site to achieve the smaller than 20mm size for reincorporation. Would ICC and Sporteng be open to allowing for material bigger than 20mm for reincorporation or the disposal of the asphalt off site?

Please can you also provide the depth of the existing asphalt playing surface

Answered on 31/Mar/2026 03:53 PM:


Existing conditions/depths are outlined in the Soil Characterisation Report and Geotechnical reports. If you believe something is not achievable then please state in your response the reasons why and provide recommendations, demonstrate and price alternate management methods. ICC is open to recommendations based on previous experience and outcomes delivering similar projects. It is recommended that where possible a price for what has been requested is provided to ensure a conforming tender but understand if your experience and knowledge indicates that what has been proposed is not a feasible option that a price may not be possible.

Question:
Tree assessment and protection plan 702 Rev 1 has a note for root control to SP106. Please can you confirm location and lin m of root control required. The note is also pointing to Corymbia tessellaris but references a fig tree and the building which are in different locations. The extent of where rootbarrier is required is not clear

Further to above can you confirm where you require provision for articulated joints as per BSD-5204.The pavement in tpz notes on the same drawing refer to pavements near trees and 1m past the TPZ. The extents of the articulated joint system needs to be clarified.

Answered on 02/Apr/2026 02:09 PM:


Note should read: ‘Preference is to arrange all new elements, such as walls and service connections tightly around the proposed courts to avoid root damage’

Confirming that extensive root control to SP.106 is not required as tree previously requiring it (Fig to north) have been noted for removal.

In relation to articulated joints, there does not appear to be any proposed concrete path aligned within the TPZ of any retained trees. Netball courts do not apply as remove and replacement of existing extents.

Question:
The specification calls for netball post podding to be supplied. Please can you confirm both netball posts option 1 and 2 require the post padding as its not noted on the BOQ? Option 1 on the BOQ notes Grandslam only sleeves please confirm this is correct in the absence of details/information on these existing netball posts.

Answered on 30/Mar/2026 09:12 AM:


Post padding will be required for both options. Please price for padding to suite the poles that will be installed.

The existing in ground sleeves are Grandslam, ICC is supportive of using an alternate brand for the sleeves and posts as long as the proposed product conforms with required standards.

Question:
Dear City of Ipswich,

F200 and subsequently F651, 652 and 653 detail retaining walls. Plan 750 details landscaped batters.

Please confirm which detail is to be priced?

Answered on 02/Apr/2026 02:11 PM:


There will be scenarios of Double terracing, single terracing and embankment.

The plans show a combination of sleeper retaining walls and sandstone blocks in the north east corner, we would like the contractor to provide a provisional price for additional sandstone wall to extend around the corner to cater for additional retaining for runoff, please refer to detail shown as Section E and it is shown in the estimate as “additional sandstone”.

Please price as per the design and provide an alternate solution as a proposal where deemed necessary to ensure a conforming tender.

Question:
At the site brief you mentioned reissuing a new BOQ please can you provide this as soon as possible.

We have also noted some discrepancies on the following as some examples

Garden area on plan 680 m2 vs 200m2 on the BOQ

Mulch area on plan 439 m2 vs 1200m2 on the BOQ.

Turf area on plan 923 m2 vs 1588 m2 on the BOQ.

Handrail 140m on plan vs 223m on the BOQ

Tactile 11 m2 on plan vs 31.68 m2 on the BOQ

Please advise if stripped site soil or imported soils are to be used for under turf and gardens. We note that there is a provisional allowance for imported soil 107.25 m3. Can you confirm where this allowance comes from so we can allow for the correct quantities of soil for under turf and gardens.

Answered on 02/Apr/2026 02:15 PM:


Garden area on plan 680 m2 vs 200m2 on the BOQ Plan Area is correct, cannot verify 200m2 in the BOQ.

Mulch area on plan 439 m2 vs 1200m2 on the BOQ. Mulch Areas should be 1200m2- mulch areas include the areas of gardens as well of areas of just mulch below trees.

Turf area on plan 923 m2 vs 1588 m2 on the BOQ. Plan quantities correct- note there is usually a requirement to returf areas greater than what is shown on plans due to area of disturbed by contractors – so a contingency will be required turf seeding is not acceptable in this project/site due to the public nature of it.

Handrail 140m on plan vs 223m on the BOQ – Plan quantities correct – BOQ will be updated

Tactile 11 m2 on plan vs 31.68 m2 on the BOQ – Plan quantities correct – BOQ will be updated

Imported topsoil is acceptable for underturf and gardens.

Question:
Morning ICC,

Could you please confirm the below:

Shelters with bench seats – Is there any electrical within these?

Answered on 30/Mar/2026 09:13 AM:


No electrical (lighting) required for these shelters.

Question:
The specification requires 80mm HD conduit to be run to the base of the light posts. As these are existing footings it won't be possible to get the conduit to the base of the pole. Existing conduits appear to be 32mm HD x2 to the base of each pole. Terminations are expected to be made within the base of the pole. The existing conduit will not be large enough for the new cabling. What the expectations around this?

Answered on 10/Apr/2026 11:22 AM:


The response below is provided for clarification of design intent only.

No design responsibility is accepted, and this response does not constitute a redesign or confirmation of compliance.

Existing Conditions

Existing light poles are supplied via 2 × 32?mm conduits cast into the concrete footings per contractor inspections.

Cutting or drilling of light poles or structural footings is not acceptable.

Design Intent Interpretation

The intent of the documents is that existing conduits into the poles are to be reused where present.

The requirement for 80?mm conduit at the base of poles is not achievable without structural modification and is therefore interpreted as not applicable to existing poles.

Connection Arrangement

New main cabling is to terminate in adjacent pits, not within pole footings.

Any transition from aluminium to copper conductors is to occur within the pit, using approved bi metal connectors/joints.

Copper conductors installed within the existing conduits are to be selected, sized, and verified by the contractor.

Clarifications & Exclusions

No confirmation is provided that the existing conduits are suitable for:

• Cable sizing

• Installation method

• Thermal conditions

• Voltage drop

• Fault levels

Contractor is responsible for:

• Verifying conduit capacity

• All cable sizing calculations

• Compliance with AS/NZS 3000, AS/NZS 3008, and project requirements

• Any departures from documented design intent or any requirement for redesign must be referred back to the designer for instruction.

Summary

No pole modification.

No footing modification.

Reuse existing conduits where present.

Aluminium to copper transition outside structural elements.

Contractor retains full responsibility for compliance and constructability.

Question:
The electrical drawings reference the Ipswich City Council Electrical Specification For Parks & Facilities (v9.0), however they have not been completed to that specification.

Paragraph 6.4 of the specifications states: An 80mm diameter HD conduit must be installed to the centre of each sport light pole. A minimum of two (2) spare 80mm conduits must be installed between the main board and each pit that feeds the sport light poles.

Paragraph 6.10.1 of the specifications states: Parallel to the electrical pit and underground system, a communication system must be run with its own designated communication pits of minimal size “P5” near the main switchboard, each sport light pole and wherever the underground changes direction. A minimum of two (2) communication underground conduits with a minimum size of 50mm must be run in between the pits. A single communication underground conduit with a minimum size of 80mm must provide access from each sport light pole to its nearest communication pit.

Can you please confirm if the above is required?

Answered on 02/Apr/2026 02:28 PM:


In relation to paragraph 6.4.

• 1x80HD electrical conduit from last pit to the centre of the pole - Drawings conform

• 2x80mm HD spare – has been omitted from the documentation.

INSTRUCTION: provide 2x80mm spare electrical HD conduits between all pits leading to sports poles per note 6.4

In relation to paragraph 6.10.1. Comms conduit has been omitted from the drawings in error.

INSTRUCTION: provide 2x50mm spare comms conduits and required pits per 6.10.1. Provide a single 80mm HD comms conduit into each sports pole

Question:
Good afternoon ICC Team,

Further to Council’s response regarding the earthworks query, we kindly request additional clarification on the following items:

1. If additional material is required to be imported to site, please confirm that this has been allowed for within the BOQ. The current earthworks drawings and table indicate a shortfall, with a balance of approximately 288m3. (If import is not required, please clarify how this volume is to be sourced on site)

2. Please confirm whether the 4,572.8m3 represents a provisional allowance for the removal and replacement of unsuitable subgrade material, as this volume is not clearly reflected within the current earthworks plans and associated tables.

If adjustments to the BOQ is required appreciate if this can be updated accordingly

Clarification on the above will assist in ensuring our pricing accurately reflects the project scope.

Answered on 02/Apr/2026 02:31 PM:


Agreed, provisional Quantity of 4,572m3 is incorrect.

Council has reviewed the quantities :

17,396m2 Pulverisation (Extent of existing courts)

1,588m2 Site Stripping

17,396+1,588= 18,984

18,984m2 = 2,847m3 (150mm depth across the site)

Excavation & disposal of Unsuitable Material with individual excavation 10 m3 (Provisional Quantity as directed) should read 2,847m3 instead of 4572.8m3

Amended BOQ will be released.

A fill amount of 492m2 has been included into the schedule as fill in the event that material is deemed unsuitable and cannot be reused onsite. Fill is based on the figures shown on Drawing F150 D.

Question:
Good afternoon ICC Team,

Further to our previous correspondence, we note that the tender documentation outlines a methodology aimed at minimising excavation by raising existing levels, retaining the existing asphalt layer in situ, and subsequently pulverising it into the underlying CBR layer prior to placement of the geocomposite material and new pavement layers.

Could you please clarify whether the bulk earthworks are intended to be completed prior to the installation of the geocomposite material? At present, the sequencing of these works is unclear, and we would appreciate confirmation to ensure our understanding aligns with the intended construction methodology.

There appears to be some inconsistency in the current approach, and we would appreciate your guidance to confirm whether we may be misinterpreting the intent.

Answered on 02/Apr/2026 02:44 PM:


Contractors should propose their own methodology if they don’t agree with the designed documents or methodology.

Question:
Electrical drawings reference the Ipswich City Council Electrical Specification For Parks & Facilities v9.0, they have not been completed to that specification.

Paragraph 6.4 of the specifications state : An 80mm diameter HD conduit must be installed to the centre of each sport light pole. A minimum of two (2) spare 80mm conduits must be installed between the main board and each pit that feeds the sport light poles.

Drawing E02 Rev G shows 1 x 80mm conduit in some locations please confirm if we are to allow for the above?


Paragraph 6.10.1 of the specifications state : Parallel to the electrical pit and underground system, a communication system must be run with its own designated communication pits of minimal size “P5” near the main switchboard, each sport light pole and wherever the underground changes direction. A minimum of two (2) communication underground conduits with a minimum size of 50mm must be run in between the pits. A single

communication underground conduit with a minimum size of 80mm must provide access from each sport light pole to its nearest communication pit.

Please advise if contractors are to allow for communication conduit and installation of P5 pits. If these are required and in the absence of revised drawings and tender time frame can ICC nominate an allowance for these should you deem them required?

Answered on 02/Apr/2026 02:45 PM:


In relation to paragraph 6.4.

• 1x80HD electrical conduit from last pit to the centre of the pole - Drawings conform

• 2x80mm HD spare – has been omitted from the documentation.

INSTRUCTION: provide 2x80mm spare electrical HD conduits between all pits leading to sports poles per note 6.4

In relation to paragraph 6.10.1. Comms conduit has been omitted from the drawings in error.

INSTRUCTION: provide 2x50mm spare comms conduits and required pits per 6.10.1. Provide a single 80mm HD comms conduit into each sports pole

An additional line has been included in the BOQ for communications pits.

Question:
Various Council response regarding earthworks don't make sense.

Buyer response 31 March, Q-2. The corresponding pay item reads

Excavation & disposal of Unsuitable Material with individual excavation 10 m3 (Provisional Quantity as directed)

This is a common item for this sort of task but, usually, being PQ, a nominal round number would be applied (50/100/200m3) and not subject to a take-off from plan, as it is an unknown until works start.

However, Councils response must still have an error. The response states that it is related to stripping turf and organic material, 1,588m2 that somehow equals 4,572.8m3. That would require 2.8m depth over that area of 1,588m2 to generate that volume.

The demo plan note 3 states that 150mm is depth of topsoil/organic material is to be stripped, the legend on that plan also states the area of turf as 1,588m2. At 150mm depth that is only 238.2m3

that is a long way different to 4,572m3 but moreover this item should be a nominal quantity as it is unknown until construction/testing is underway.

Council needs to review their response to the above mentioned RFI

Further to this query is that in the BOQ 2 items above is this one in question is this item - "Stripping of topsoil (Provisional Quantity as directed) 204m3"

??

Please advise ASAP

Answered on 02/Apr/2026 02:47 PM:


Agreed, provisional Quantity of 4,572m3 is incorrect.

Council has reviewed the quantities :

17,396m2 Pulverisation (Extent of existing courts)

1,588m2 Site Stripping

17,396+1,588= 18,984

18,984m2 = 2,847m3 (150mm depth across the site)

Excavation & disposal of Unsuitable Material with individual excavation 10 m3 (Provisional Quantity as directed) should read 2,847m3 instead of 4572.8m3

Amended BOQ will be released.

The line item in the BOQ shown as 204m3 for the provisional quantity of material for disposal – including the court material and site stripping.

Question:
Regarding Council response 27 march 8.07, an amended BOQ to be released was part of that response. Please issue this BOQ.

In doing so please also reconsider earthwork item as it currently reads "Backfill with earth Backfill material to [description] 492 m3"

Backfilling is not cut and filling earthworks it is backfilling typically to a wall of some description. The 492m3 quantity does however obviously match the volume on the bulk earthworks plan

Therefore in the amended BOQ to be released, Council should adopt the traditional items for earthworks, cut to fill ***m3, import fill ***m3

Answered on 02/Apr/2026 02:47 PM:


Comments are noted and amended BOQ will be released today.

Question:
Electrical Questions:

Q1 - Line item 68 on the BOQ has 495m of item 1x 4c 16mm2 XLPE_PVC_E, We have not been able to identify it in the plans, can you advise what it is for?

Q2 - Plan sheet E01. Rev G, shows the cabling to court light poles 4 & 5 to be 4x1c+E 35mm2, cabling to court light poles 2 & 3 to be 4x1c+E 50mm2, cabling to court light poles 1 & 6 to be 4x1c+E 35mm2. This does not appear to be an item on the BOQ, therfore where does it need to be included?

Q3 - the scope requires an 80mm conudit to be installed in the base of each light post, the current set up into the base of the light posts is 2 x 32mm conduits. I would not think that cutting the side of the post for this conduit would be recommended, nor cutting a concrete footing. How is the connection to the existing pole to be acheived?

Q4 - the scope does not appear to mention switching control. How are the lights to be switched?

Q5 - the scope does not appear to mention the PA speakers, the cabling for the speakers will most likely need to be replaced. Is there an instruction regarding the PA system?

Q6 - There are power outlets on posts 3 & 4, as the wiring for the power outlets will most likely be removed as per the scope to remove the existing cables, will there need to be n item for new cabling for the existing power outlets or are they to be removed?

Answered on 10/Apr/2026 11:21 AM:


Q1 It has been deleted from the BOQ, refer BOQ V5.

Q2 Please add a line to the BOQ for submission if you feel an item has been overlooked.

Q3 The response below is provided for clarification of design intent only.

No design responsibility is accepted, and this response does not constitute a redesign or confirmation of compliance.

Existing Conditions

Existing light poles are supplied via 2 × 32?mm conduits cast into the concrete footings per contractor inspections.

Cutting or drilling of light poles or structural footings is not acceptable.

Design Intent Interpretation

The intent of the documents is that existing conduits into the poles are to be reused where present.

The requirement for 80?mm conduit at the base of poles is not achievable without structural modification and is therefore interpreted as not applicable to existing poles.

Connection Arrangement

New main cabling is to terminate in adjacent pits, not within pole footings.

Any transition from aluminium to copper conductors is to occur within the pit, using approved bi metal connectors/joints.

Copper conductors installed within the existing conduits are to be selected, sized, and verified by the contractor.

Clarifications & Exclusions

No confirmation is provided that the existing conduits are suitable for:

• Cable sizing

• Installation method

• Thermal conditions

• Voltage drop

• Fault levels

Contractor is responsible for:

• Verifying conduit capacity

• All cable sizing calculations

• Compliance with AS/NZS 3000, AS/NZS 3008, and project requirements

• Any departures from documented design intent or any requirement for redesign must be referred back to the designer for instruction.

Summary

No pole modification.

No footing modification.

Reuse existing conduits where present.

Aluminium to copper transition outside structural elements.

Contractor retains full responsibility for compliance and constructability.

Q4 Retain existing arrangements.

Q5 Any works to the existing PA system are out of scope for this project. Condition assessment of the existing PA network should be included as part of the dilapidation report prior to any works commencing to ensure that the current condition is maintained at completion of the project works.

Q6 Retain the power outlets in the poles per existing arrangements.

Question:
Councils response to the query regarding the excav and removal of unsuitable is still inconsistent with Councils tender documents. Has Council confirmed these questions with the consultant SportEng?

this is part of the response

"Agreed, provisional Quantity of 4,572m3 is incorrect.

Council has reviewed the quantities :

17,396m2 Pulverisation (Extent of existing courts)

1,588m2 Site Stripping

17,396+1,588= 18,984

18,984m2 = 2,847m3 (150mm depth across the site)

Excavation & disposal of Unsuitable Material with individual excavation 10 m3 (Provisional Quantity as directed) should read 2,847m3 instead of 4572.8m3"

the existing courts are described on the drawings, BOQ etc as being incorporated into its immediate subgrade

as per our question we pointed out that the bulk earthwork drawing note 3 states - "DEPTH OF TOPSOIL/ORGANIC MATERIAL: 150mm"


therefore why does councils response inlcude the 17,00m2 of existing asphalt courts in the above maths?

Answered on 10/Apr/2026 02:56 PM:


Amount is provisional only, it is the upper limit of the volumes expected if the worst case scenario of materials requiring needing to be removed and replaced is realised.

Question:
Regarding the 492m³ of imported fill material referenced in the tender documents. we seek confirmation of the intended placement location(s) — whether this is required beneath the netball court playing surface, within the sleeper wall construction zones, at the access ramp location, or a combination thereof.

We raise this query as our proposed methodology does not anticipate imported fill beneath the existing court areas. As the approach involves profiling the existing asphalt and reincorporating the reclaimed material into the subbase layer, utilising the inherent CBR value of the existing pavement structure, which negates the fill requirement in this location.

We would appreciate Council's response at the earliest opportunity

Answered on 07/Apr/2026 03:17 PM:


The nominal fill amount is to be allowed for in case the insitu fill is found to be contaminated and cannot be reused onsite. The locations for the fill will be varied and as per the plans.

Question:
Good Morning ICC Team,

Can ICC please confirm that the current BOQ quantities for the 600mm & 900mm inlet pits matches the pit schedule? At present there appears to be a discrepancy between the provided and amended BOQ in comparison to the stormwater schedule table on plan F320. If adjustments are necessary, please provide an amended BOQ asap

Answered on 10/Apr/2026 11:15 AM:


Please refer to amended BOQ, version 5.

Question:
Q1 - are we double counting grassy top soil? the BOQ line item 31: Stripping of topsoil (Provisional Quantity as directed) - court material and site stripping QTY 204m3, and now the calculation to get the BOQ line item 33: Excavation & disposal of Unsuitable Material with individual excavation 10 m3 (Provisional Quantity as directed) QTY of 2847m3.    (17396m2 pulverisation + 1588m22 site stripping). 

Q2 - BOQ item 32: Subgrade preparation - pulverisation and reuse of existing surface, (we are assuming this is where we pulverise the existing asphalt for reuse)

There is also BOQ line item 36: Preliminary pulverisation [location]. What is this item for? 

Both line items have a different m2 QTYs also (17396m2 & 17171m2) which is correct?

Answered on 14/Apr/2026 08:55 AM:


Q1.

Line 33 is regarding the disposal of the material only should it not be suitable for reuse – provisional item only.

The stripping is related to the area of the bulk earthworks.

These numbers below are what the quantities relate to:

204m3 = Bulk Earthworks Numbers Sheet J150

1588m2 = The stripping area = same area of turf quantified eg. trenches, adjacent paths, areas disturbed, court surfaces, make good etc.

Q2.

The new court footprint is not the same footprint of the existing court footprint – hence the variance in numbers.

17396m2 – existing court surface

17171m2 – extent of new Court extents

Question:
we would like more clarity on the comms system specification. The vendor panel previous Q&A instruction, indicates a requirement for 2 x 50mm spare comms conduits. Does this mean there needs to be 3 x 50mm conduits, 1 active and 2 x spare?

It does not mention cabling. Are we to assume new cabling will be supplied as required for the comms system to work?

The instruction says provide a single 80mm HD conduit into each sports pole, is this 80mm from the adjacent pit to the pole only? Or is it the active cable conduit?

As per our previous statement on the electrical system, the 80mm conduit is larger than the existing pole penetration. Are we to allow for conduits and cabling to suit the existing pole penetration? It would seem to us that the requirements of 6.10.01 are for constructing a new system and may not be appropriate for upgrading the existing system.

Can you please confirm the required specification.

Answered on 10/Apr/2026 03:03 PM:


Q1 2x 50 for comms running in new trench system including comms conduit into the relocated post.

Q2 Any works to the existing PA system beyond the connection to the relocated pole are out of scope for this project are out of scope for this project. Condition assessment of the existing PA network should be included as part of the dilapidation report prior to any works commencing to ensure that the current condition is maintained at completion of the project works.

Q3 This is to install 80mm HD conduit from adjacent pit into the new pole only – existing footings have 2 x 32mm electrical conduits

Q4 The response below is provided for clarification of design intent only.

No design responsibility is accepted, and this response does not constitute a redesign or confirmation of compliance.

Existing Conditions

Existing light poles are supplied via 2 × 32?mm conduits cast into the concrete footings per contractor inspections.

Cutting or drilling of light poles or structural footings is not acceptable.

Design Intent Interpretation

The intent of the documents is that existing conduits into the poles are to be reused where present.

The requirement for 80?mm conduit at the base of poles is not achievable without structural modification and is therefore interpreted as not applicable to existing poles.

Connection Arrangement

New main cabling is to terminate in adjacent pits, not within pole footings.

Any transition from aluminium to copper conductors is to occur within the pit, using approved bi metal connectors/joints.

Copper conductors installed within the existing conduits are to be selected, sized, and verified by the contractor.

Clarifications & Exclusions

No confirmation is provided that the existing conduits are suitable for:

• Cable sizing

• Installation method

• Thermal conditions

• Voltage drop

• Fault levels

Contractor is responsible for:

• Verifying conduit capacity

• All cable sizing calculations

• Compliance with AS/NZS 3000, AS/NZS 3008, and project requirements

• Any departures from documented design intent or any requirement for redesign must be referred back to the designer for instruction.

Summary

No pole modification.

No footing modification.

Reuse existing conduits where present.

Aluminium to copper transition outside structural elements.

Contractor retains full responsibility for compliance and constructability.