Question:
Good morning,

We submit this RFI to respectfully request an extension of time of 1 week to the current tender submission deadline.

A number of our key subcontractors have advised that, due to current workload constraints, they require additional time to finalise and provide their quote for this project. Allowing this additional time will enable us to receive complete and competitive subcontractor pricing, which in turn will ensure our tender submission is accurate, comprehensive and reflective of the project requirement.

We appreciated your consideration of this request and kindly ask that you advise whether a one-week extension can be accommodated.

Thank you

Answered on 06/May/2026 09:10 AM:


Good morning,

Rockhampton Regional Council will extend the closing date to 20/05/2026 2:00pm.

Kind regards,

Contracts and Tenders

Question:
Subject: STERLING TRFI-001



May I please request acknowledgment and further information on the following:



Tennis Section:

Can clarification please be provided regarding the existing footpath slab dimensions between the two courts (AS-Constructed Plans)

Can you please provide all 3D Design Models?

Can confirmation please be provided as to whether the rusted net posts and likely other old court furniture identified on tender walk are required to be replaced? Would you consider a provisional sum for court furniture for commercial fairness?

Drainage Section:

For the 675mm Class 2 RCP culvert, is there a preferred joint type between rubber ring joint and flush joint?

Can the existing surfacing/pavement details be provided for Sir Raymond Huish Street please be provided, as the documentation references reinstatement to existing specifications?

For the 1200x300mm precast headwall, the quantity within the BOQ totals approximately 9.8m, however our calculations indicate approximately 11m. Could this discrepancy please be clarified (missing the 1.2m RCBC Crown Unit)?

Is sub-soil drainage required for the 1200x300mm reinforced box culvert to be connected into the wingwall? Run centrally underneath the structure? Run along one side of the structure?

Regarding the new inlet chamber, can confirmation please be provided on the required size, as the BOQ references 600x900 whilst the IFC drawings indicate 900x900? Can the Type of Field Inlet also be confirmed (Type 1 or Type 2)?

General:

May I please request an additional weeks extension to work through procurement and the above clarifications, obviously pending further clarifications as the work is broken down.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sterling Infrastructure

Answered on 15/May/2026 09:30 AM:


Good morning,

Please refer to Addendum # 2 in response to your questions.

Question:
Good Morning,

We are seeking clarification regarding the fencing that surrounds tennis courts.

May we please have standard drawings or as con drawings for the fencing, as it is unclear of type of post, wall thickness and length of the post including footing detail.

Without this information we are unable to accurately complete our program.

Answered on 15/May/2026 09:31 AM:


Good morning,

Please refer to Addendum # 2 in response to your questions.

Question:
Re access - at the site meeting it was indicated that the access for the tennis court recontruction, could be off Sir Rayond Huish drive, this would involve extensive construction of an all weather access roadway. The alternative is to acces the works via the carpark from Graeme Acton Way. Given the extensive nature of the works, this would require the closing of the carpark at least until the end of the asphalt installation. Addititonally given the number of truck movements and the condition of the existing asphalt, there will be a requirement to carryout carpark repairs. the extent of which will be difficult to quantify until the completion of the Civil phase of works.

Does the council have a considered preference?

Answered on 14/May/2026 02:55 PM:


Preference is access via Sir Raymond Huish Drive as access needs to be maintained for tennis Court operations.

Question:
Good afternoon.

Just confirming, the provided drawing "129-21-22 - Victoria Park Survey.dwg" for the whole site is for existing elevations only.

Can we please have a CAD file including the proposed elevations for the drainage?

Thank you.

Answered on 21/May/2026 08:16 AM:


Drawings are issued from MCE in PDF format and consequently, the PDF document attached (R1292122 - Drainage Channel.dwg) contains the issued data. Any accompanying 12d, CAD, document image or supplementary support file(s) is issued for information only. Where discrepancies arise, the PDF document will take priority.

Question:
Good afternoon.

Pit on the southern courts as per dwg A-0003, near Graeme Action Way (lower right of the southern courts), are we supposed to include it in the BOQ?

Currently not in the BOQ but it is shaded as green (as per dwg A-0003).

Thank you.

Answered on 20/May/2026 07:56 AM:


Please do not include this inlet in the tendered scope.