Question:
Good morning,

Could you please confirm whether a TMR prequalification is required for this tender?

Additionally, could Council please provide the design models to enable us to undertake our own quantity take-offs?

Regards,

Answered on 30/Apr/2026 10:48 AM:


Good morning,

The TMR Pre-qualification is not required for the tender submission, however should be called out in the tender submission if the Contractor does hold these pre-qualification’s.

Design Models will be uploaded shortly.

Thank you for your query.

Contracts & Tenders

Rockhampton Regional Council

Question:
Good Morning,

Could council please respond to the following RFI's:

1. To allow for increased accuracy of material take-off, is council able to provide copies of the dxf's please?

2. Is it possible to confirm if the precast stormwater culverts products are principal supplied items, and if these have already been procured by council?

Answered on 30/Apr/2026 10:50 AM:


Good morning,

Design Models will be uploaded shortly.

Council has not procured any culverts for this project at this present time.

Thank you for your query.

Contracts & Tenders

Rockhampton Regional Council

Question:
HI team,

Can quantities please be provided by the design team, eg. qty’s of excavation, embankment, excess excavation materials, topsoil strip, topsoil placement, subgrade treatment, GST, pavement quantities by type, hydromulching, spray seal, asphalt.

Can full seal design be provided, eg product type, litres per m2, stone size per m2.

Answered on 11/May/2026 01:12 PM:


Good afternoon,

Please find response to your query - 16659_Addendum # 2 and zip folder '16659 Pavement String Models'.

Kind regards,

Rockhampton Regional Council

Question:
Hi,

Please see below items where further information is required:

- Due to the nature of the alignment and level differences - is Council allowing outside of working hours single lane reversable flow traffic management to be implemented?

- Confirming Council will be providing a quantified BOQ?

- Has Council confirmed a Spoil Location?

- Are there any design details around the Service Relocation item?

- In Section 1 at Chainage 225 for example - the cross section shows that the 2 layers of pavement are not crossing the entire alignment (where as the plan arrangement shows the 2 layers across the entire width) - please confirm if the 2 layers of pavement are across the entire alignment.

- Similarly in Section 1 at Chainage 225 there is a section of pavement between the new pavement layers and the top of existing seal - what did council propose to place in this location? Also what treatment of the existing seal needed to be applied prior to placing material above this.

Answered on 13/May/2026 12:49 PM:


- Due to the nature of the alignment and level differences - is Council allowing outside of working hours single lane reversable flow traffic management to be implemented?

The Council acknowledges that there may be a need for outside of working hours single lane traffic management, however this should be minimised to limit the impact to the community.


- Confirming Council will be providing a quantified BOQ?

No this will be contractor responsibility.


- Has Council confirmed a Spoil Location?

All spoil is intended to be reused onsite during the project works. If there is any spoil to be removed, there is a yard at Showground Rd in Mt Morgan that can be used.

- Are there any design details around the Service Relocation item?

All design details have been provided.


- In Section 1 at Chainage 225 for example - the cross section shows that the 2 layers of pavement are not crossing the entire alignment (where as the plan arrangement shows the 2 layers across the entire width) - please confirm if the 2 layers of pavement are across the entire alignment.

- Similarly in Section 1 at Chainage 225 there is a section of pavement between the new pavement layers and the top of existing seal - what did council propose to place in this location? Also what treatment of the existing seal needed to be applied prior to placing material above this.

Response to two above as interrelated.

The intent of the design is to maximise the use of existing pavement as the Sub Base where possible in order to minimise construction costs. Full depth pavement is required on the widening, with T2.3 used as make-up gravel where possible to achieve the required level to the underside of base course.

The existing 2 coat seal in section 1 will need to be removed, with rework of the existing pavement anticipated.

Question:
Good Afternoon,

To ensure we can present a well-considered and high-quality proposal, we kindly request an extension of 1 week to the current closing date. This additional time will allow us to further refine our methodology, engage with key stakeholders, and ensure compliance with all tender requirements.

Answered on 12/May/2026 10:45 AM:


At this stage, the closing time for Tender 16659 remains unchanged and is set for 2:00?pm on 20 May 2026.

Question:
Dear Council

Please assist with the following queries:

1) The design model does not include the string line for pavement; therefore, It is not possible to estimate the cut fill and to have a subgrade model. Can council provide a cut fill volume?

2) At the time of Site Meeting, It was asked to council about construction water supply , could council confirm about the construction water to be supplied by Principal

3) Council has not nominated any designated Lay down area , would council able to provide or guide a contractor for possible laydown area?

4) Spoil Management – Does council have any nearby facility which a contractor can utilise for spoil disposal?

5) If a contractor proposes 10/4 Roster to have better productivity , would Principal accept Sunday as working day ?

6) Can contractor propose Detour?

Thank you

Answered on 11/May/2026 03:05 PM:
(edited on 11/May/2026 03:09 PM)


1) Please refer to Addendum # 2. Pavement String Model zip folder.

2) All construction water to be supplied by the Contractor. Contractors can apply for a standpipe from Council to connect to hydrants however all water usage is to be paid for by the contractor

3) Contractor to propose suitable lay-down area in site management plan. As long as this is in the road reserve and does not require the removal of any trees it will be considered.

4) Majority of spoil should be reused onsite.

5) Standard working hours apply to the contract in accordance with EPA Act 1994. Should after hours or Sunday work be required it would be assessed on a case by case during the construction.

6) Expectation is that majority of work will be completed under single lane closure only to minimise impact to the community. If a detour is required it will be assessed on a case by case basis, the time for this detour should be minimised to prevent disruption to the community.

Question:
Good Afternoon,

Thank you for the opportunity to meet and attend the site inspection yesterday morning. Wondering if council can confirm the following as discussed during the inspection please?

1. We await confirmation pertaining to the supply of construction water.

2. Spoil location, it was discussed that council may issue additional advice as to a suitable spoil location?

3. Quantities, it was discussed that council were prepared to provide BOQ quantities to assist in compiling estimates, is it possible to confirm this please and when we may expect to receive a BOQ?

4. Confirming that the MRTS annexures provided within the tender documentation are blank, wondering if council could confirm if this is intentional? and if council could furnish tenderers with project specific annexures for MRTS02 Traffic, MRTS12 Sprayed bituminous emulsion Surfacing, MRTS14 Road Furniture please?

Thank you,

Answered on 11/May/2026 03:07 PM:
(edited on 11/May/2026 03:14 PM)


1. All construction water to be supplied by the Contractor. Contractors can apply for a standpipe from Council to connect to hydrants however all water usage is to be paid for by the contractor

2. Majority of spoil should be reused onsite.

3. Please refer to: Addendum # 2 Pavement String Model.

4. TMR Standard Spec with no annexures is required for project.

Question:
1. BOQ Item 3.1 Alteration to existing driveways – Please clarify the scope of works to be included under this item. We note that BOQ Item 3.9 already includes Pavement Type B, which appears to cover the pavement treatment for driveways.

2. BOQ Item 3.17 Relocation / Alterations to roadside existing Drainage – Please clarify the scope of works to be included under this item. We note that BOQ Item 3.2 appears to cover the drainage alteration works associated with the project.

3. BOQ Item 3.18 – Relocation / Alterations of Existing Services (Communications, Electrical, Gas, Water, Sewerage) – Please confirm whether this item is intended to be treated as a Provisional Sum at this stage. Relocation of existing services may require further investigations, detailed design, and coordination with relevant service authorities, which can involve significant lead times. Please also advise whether Council has identified any existing services that may require relocation. If so, kindly provide any available details or supporting information.

4. Will RRC be providing meeting minutes to the site visit?

5. Please confirm that chainage sections -75 to -52.011 and 520.802 to 550 required resealing in section 1.

Answered on 15/May/2026 08:44 AM:


1. Intent was for this to cover all other work associated with existing driveway alterations, excluding the supply place and compact of Type 2.5.

2. Item 3.2 is relating to culverts and headwalls. 3.17 is relating to longitudinal road corridor drainage. These are shown on the drawings.

3. Any services not nominated as requiring alterations and/or relocation on the drawings can be captured as a provisional sum. Reimbursement made on contractors actual costs.

4. No.

5. No, as per the long sections, pavement is intended to match to existing concrete floodway.

Question:
Could Council Confirm what Pay item 3.10 is for ?

3.10 Supply, Place & Compaction Item

Answered on 15/May/2026 08:44 AM:


This is for the supply place and compaction of local gravels.

Question:
Morning,

Can Council confirm the following:

1. Are we able to haul gravel across from Bouldercombe via Poison Creek Road? Understand there are restrictions in place. This route will reduce cost of import.

2. Can you please supply the below to support the current model provided and allow a comprehensive take-off in dwg or 12da format;

- Road Alignment Strings

- Road Design Strings

3. Can Council confirm a stab sand mix that is intended to be used as backfill?

Answered on 18/May/2026 09:03 AM:


1. Haulage of material and route is the responsibility of the Contractor.

2. Pavement strings have been provided, all other take-off should be from this.

3. Stabilised Sand shall comprise Sand in a mixture of (by volume) 12 parts Sand and 1 part of either Type GP or Type GB (as per AS 3972) cement mixed with the minimum quantity of water sufficient to allow ease of placement and compaction using concrete placement techniques.

Question:
The current data provided is not sufficient to accurately determine earthworks volumes. We request that the Principal provide the following earthworks volume data:

• 3D strings

• Alignment strings

This information is required to establish reliable quantities and enable accurate volume calculations for the works.

Due to the insufficient detail currently available to undertake the necessary calculations and verification of quantities, we hereby request an extension of time of one (1) week for submission of tender.

This extension will allow adequate time to properly assess the additional information once received and ensure a complete and compliant submission.

Answered on 21/May/2026 09:12 AM:


Good morning,

To assist with this query Council has included Addendum # 3, this includes update model from the civil design team.

Question:
Hi, please provide clarification on 4 x questions below -

1. No criteria have been provided for the stabilized sand backfilling of the existing water mains. Could the client please clarify the length of the water mains that are required to be backfilled with the stab sand or provide us with the criteria where stab sand backfill will be required.

2. No clear indication for box culvert base slab type has been provided in the design drawing. Could the client please confirm these base slabs are to be precast base slabs?

3. Could the client please confirm all precast units including precast headwall and box culvert are to be TMR compliant.

4. It has been advised by the pipes & precast supplier that the current lead time for TMR compliant products is 12-14 weeks. Could the client please advise if the October timeline for practical completion is to be strictly maintained. With the current extension for tender submission & considering the precast lead times, the practical completion date seems to be unrealistic.

Answered on 25/May/2026 09:01 AM:


Hi Lauren,

Please see previous responses for answers to these queries.

Question:
Hi, is it possible that an Extension to the closing date could be allowed by at least 1 week, preferably 2 weeks to allow reviewing and understanding of latest addendums, and allowing suitable time for suppliers to update pricing.

kind regards,

Answered on 25/May/2026 08:50 AM:


No further extensions will be provided.

Question:
1. The previous query response regarding the watermains backfill does not address our RFI. Could the client please advise on the following:

a. The typical section shows the backfill replacement on section 1 (Ch. -52 to 520) only (please refer to the snippet below). Furthermore, the scope of work also does not clarify if only one section requires backfill replacement. Please advise if backfill replacement is required in section 1 only.

b. Furthermore, the typical section shows the depth of the replacement from design surface up to 150mm above the pipe overt. Is this to be followed throughout the full length of section 1 or is there any criteria (such as depth above 1m) where backfill replacement would not be required.

2. The previous query response regarding the culverts does not address our RFI. The TMR specification specifies all box culvert base slab to be insitu cast however the design drawings do not provide any details if the base slab is insitu cast or precast. Could the client please advise if precast base slabs are acceptable.

Answered on 26/May/2026 11:25 AM:


1a. Backfill replacement is required across the entire project where the water main is shown under the new pavement and road shoulder. Where the water main will be trafficable.

1b. Stabilised sand backfill will need to be provided from 150 above top of pipe to the underside of sub-base layer of new pavement. This will be applied across the project as stated above.

2. Typically Insitu base slabs and head walls are to Council and Australian standards are specified as in this case, however if precast base slabs and headwall meet these Council and Australian standards and road loading requirements then these also would be acceptable.