Question:
Good afternoon. We respectfully request a one-week extension to the current tender closing date. With the high number of competitive tenders presently in the market, additional time is needed to properly engage our supply chain and develop a well-considered submission. This will ensure our submission receives the level of attention required to deliver a robust and competitive outcome. Thank you, we appreciate your consideration.

Answered on 25/May/2026 01:14 PM:


One-week extension has been approved.

Question:
Hi

We have several queries as follows:

Site 7

1. Due to the currently excessive lead times for supply of Steel-reinforced Concrete Pipe Culverts from suppliers listed as approved suppliers on the DTMR Registered Precast Concrete Suppliers List for Steel-reinforced Concrete Pipes, can Council please confirm if RCPs supplied from interstate suppliers that meets the requirements of Australian Standards AS/NZS 4058:2007 will be accepted for item 30251.21P on the provided BOQ?

2. Item 40404P on the provided BOQ describes as “Plant-mixed Heavily Bound Pavement, [RCP reinstatement, 6%C by Weight] (Provisional Qnty, if ordered)”. However, the General Arrangement Plan on Drawing ARO0583-C61 shows “IN-SITU CEMENT STABILISED PAVEMENT, 6% BY WEIGHT, TREATED TO 300MM DEEP”. Can Council please confirm if this is to be In-situ Cement Stabilised or Plant-mixed Heavily Bound? Noting that a PLANT MIXED option will be more suitable for the application in the area as shown on the drawing.

3. Can Council please provide details for the Project Signs as required under item “50061P Supply, erection and removal of project signs (Provisional Item, if ordered)”?

Site 8

1. Can Council please provide the SIGNAGE LAYOUT PLAN that clearly specifies the required signs for SITE 8? This is required to enable the pricing of items “50053P Supply of regulatory, warning and hazard sign faces, [sign type] (Provisional Item, if ordered)” and “50057P Installation of regulatory, warning and hazard signs, [number of posts] (Provisional Item, if ordered)” as listed on the BOQ. Alternatively, please specify the sign Type, required size for each sign, and required number of posts for each sign.

2. Can Council please provide details for the Project Signs as required under item “50061P Supply, erection and removal of project signs (Provisional Item, if ordered)”?

Site 9

1. Due to the currently excessive lead times for supply of Steel-reinforced Concrete Pipe Culverts from suppliers listed as approved suppliers on the DTMR Registered Precast Concrete Suppliers List for Steel-reinforced Concrete Pipes, can Council please confirm if RCPs supplied from interstate suppliers that meets the requirements of Australian Standards AS/NZS 4058:2007 will be accepted for item 30251 on the provided BOQ?

Sites 10, 11, 12

1. Can Council please provide specific details to describe the locations of Sites 10, 11 and 12? Locality Plans for these sites have not been provided on the drawings. There were also no information within the provided “Attachment C – Design Reports” that describes the location of these sites.

Thanks

Answered on 26/May/2026 03:51 PM:


Site 7

1. Due to the currently excessive lead times for supply of Steel-reinforced Concrete Pipe Culverts from suppliers listed as approved suppliers on the DTMR Registered Precast Concrete Suppliers List for Steel-reinforced Concrete Pipes, can Council please confirm if RCPs supplied from interstate suppliers that meets the requirements of Australian Standards AS/NZS 4058:2007 will be accepted for item 30251.21P on the provided BOQ?

This is acceptable, with the quality of the product , and compliance of the RCP with the AS/NZS 4058:2007 to be certified by the Contractor's RPEQ.


2. Item 40404P on the provided BOQ describes as “Plant-mixed Heavily Bound Pavement, [RCP reinstatement, 6%C by Weight] (Provisional Qnty, if ordered)”. However, the General Arrangement Plan on Drawing ARO0583-C61 shows “IN-SITU CEMENT STABILISED PAVEMENT, 6% BY WEIGHT, TREATED TO 300MM DEEP”. Can Council please confirm if this is to be In-situ Cement Stabilised or Plant-mixed Heavily Bound? Noting that a PLANT MIXED option will be more suitable for the application in the area as shown on the drawing.

The material is to be plant mixed as per the BOQ, not in-situ stabilised.

3. Can Council please provide details for the Project Signs as required under item “50061P Supply, erection and removal of project signs (Provisional Item, if ordered)”?

Under item 50061P, the Contractor is to allow for the supply, erection, maintenance and removal of two (2) project signs per site, each a 900 mm × 600 mm corflute sign.

The design and wording of the project signs will be provided by the Superintendent, and the Contractor shall be responsible for fabrication, installation in suitable and visible locations (as approved by the Superintendent), maintenance for the duration of the works, and removal upon completion.

This requirement is in addition to any Contractor signage, including site contact details and safety signage which remain the responsibility of the Contractor.

Site 8

1. Can Council please provide the SIGNAGE LAYOUT PLAN that clearly specifies the required signs for SITE 8? This is required to enable the pricing of items “50053P Supply of regulatory, warning and hazard sign faces, [sign type] (Provisional Item, if ordered)” and “50057P Installation of regulatory, warning and hazard signs, [number of posts] (Provisional Item, if ordered)” as listed on the BOQ. Alternatively, please specify the sign Type, required size for each sign, and required number of posts for each sign.

No regulatory, warning and hazard signage is required for Site 8.

2. Can Council please provide details for the Project Signs as required under item “50061P Supply, erection and removal of project signs (Provisional Item, if ordered)”?

Refer to the response for site 7 please.

Site 9

1. Due to the currently excessive lead times for supply of Steel-reinforced Concrete Pipe Culverts from suppliers listed as approved suppliers on the DTMR Registered Precast Concrete Suppliers List for Steel-reinforced Concrete Pipes, can Council please confirm if RCPs supplied from interstate suppliers that meets the requirements of Australian Standards AS/NZS 4058:2007 will be accepted for item 30251 on the provided BOQ?

This is acceptable, with the quality of the product , and compliance of the RCP with the AS/NZS 4058:2007 to be certified by the Contractor's RPEQ.

Sites 10, 11, 12

1. Can Council please provide specific details to describe the locations of Sites 10, 11 and 12? Locality Plans for these sites have not been provided on the drawings. There were also no information within the provided “Attachment C – Design Reports” that describes the location of these sites.

In reference to Section 2.1 of the RFT document, site locations are provided by way of coordinates and road chainages in a table. It is acknowledged that the individual site numbers (Sites 10–12) are not labelled. However, the sites are listed sequentially, and rows 5 to 7 correspond to Sites 10, 11 and 12 respectively.

Tenderers are to use this information in conjunction with the project drawings to identify the relevant site locations.

Question:
With regards to the DTMR Prequalification, we currently have R5 B3 F150 in South Australia and have an application in with DTMR for mutual recognition - would this be accepted while the application is underfoot?

Answered on 26/May/2026 08:28 AM:


'TMR prequalification (as nominated) must be in place at the time of evaluation and prior to contract award. Applications for mutual recognition currently in progress will not satisfy this requirement until formally approved.'

Question:
Hi

We have several queries as follows:

Site 9

1. Similar to previous query for Site 7, Item 40404P on the provided BOQ describes as “Plant-mixed Heavily Bound Pavement, [RCP reinstatement, 6%C by Weight] (Provisional Qnty, As Directed)”. However, the “SECTION” shown in the “CROSS SECTION AND MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS” i.e. Drawing ARO0583-C82 shows “IN-SITU CEMENT STABILISED PAVEMENT, TREATED WITH 6% BY WEIGHT, INSITE STABILISATION OF PAVEMENT : 300MM DEEP”. Can Council please confirm if this is to be In-situ Cement Stabilised or Plant-mixed Heavily Bound? Noting that a PLANT MIXED option will be more suitable for the application in the area as shown on the drawing.

2. Item 32407 on the BOQ describes as “Backfill with lean mix concrete to Rockfill - Inlet Rock Protection (Flowable Fill, Min f'c=28MPa)” and “Backfill with lean mix concrete to Rockfill - Outlet Rock Protection (Flowable Fill, Min f'c=28MPa)”. Noting that Clause 19.2.13 of MRTS04 specifies that Lean Mix Concrete shall have a minimum strength of 5MPa at 28 days, and Clause 18.4 of MRTS70 describes flowable fill as “Controlled low strength material” where “Slump shall be nominated as between 180 and 200 mm” and Clause 3 of TN187 specifies that the 28-day compressive strength is in the range of 1.5 – 2 MPa. A common product that has a min f’c=28Mpa would typically be a N32 or S32 concrete. Can Council please clarify what is the mix required for this item?

Sites 10, 11, 12

1. In reference to Council’s previous response to a query on the locations of Site 10, 11 and 12, a reference has been made to “Section 2.1 of the RFT document”. Can Council please confirm which document is the “RFT document” being referenced here from all the documents being provided? Please confirm the file name of the document.

Thanks

Answered on 01/Jun/2026 09:11 AM:


1. Similar to previous query for Site 7, Item 40404P on the provided BOQ describes as “Plant-mixed Heavily Bound Pavement, [RCP reinstatement, 6%C by Weight] (Provisional Qnty, As Directed)”. However, the “SECTION” shown in the “CROSS SECTION AND MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS” i.e. Drawing ARO0583-C82 shows “IN-SITU CEMENT STABILISED PAVEMENT, TREATED WITH 6% BY WEIGHT, INSITE STABILISATION OF PAVEMENT : 300MM DEEP”. Can Council please confirm if this is to be In-situ Cement Stabilised or Plant-mixed Heavily Bound? Noting that a PLANT MIXED option will be more suitable for the application in the area as shown on the drawing.

Confirming that the material is to be plant mixed as per the BOQ, not in-situ stabilised.

2. Item 32407 on the BOQ describes as “Backfill with lean mix concrete to Rockfill - Inlet Rock Protection (Flowable Fill, Min f'c=28MPa)” and “Backfill with lean mix concrete to Rockfill - Outlet Rock Protection (Flowable Fill, Min f'c=28MPa)”. Noting that Clause 19.2.13 of MRTS04 specifies that Lean Mix Concrete shall have a minimum strength of 5MPa at 28 days, and Clause 18.4 of MRTS70 describes flowable fill as “Controlled low strength material” where “Slump shall be nominated as between 180 and 200 mm” and Clause 3 of TN187 specifies that the 28-day compressive strength is in the range of 1.5 – 2 MPa. A common product that has a min f’c=28Mpa would typically be a N32 or S32 concrete. Can Council please clarify what is the mix required for this item?

The required mix for this item shall be a Special Class 32 MPa (S32) concrete with a nominated slump of 180mm – 200mm. The Bill of Quantities description remains unchanged, but shall be priced on the basis of this S32 high-slump specification.

Sites 10, 11, 12

1. In reference to Council’s previous response to a query on the locations of Site 10, 11 and 12, a reference has been made to “Section 2.1 of the RFT document”. Can Council please confirm which document is the “RFT document” being referenced here from all the documents being provided? Please confirm the file name of the document.

The document is titled 'VP506660 - Knapp Ck Rd Landslips - Part C Specifications'.

Question:
Hi

We have another query as follows:

Site 12

1. Item 30658P on the BOQ describes as “Concrete batters [Repair site with flowable fill, f'c = 28MPa (min), Allowance for 20m long x 3m wide x 0.15m deep] [PROVISIONAL QNTY, AS DIRECTED]”. Note that Clause 18.4 of MRTS70 describes flowable fill as “Controlled low strength material” where “Slump shall be nominated as between 180 and 200 mm” and Clause 3 of TN187 specifies that the 28-day compressive strength is in the range of 1.5 – 2 MPa. Common product that yields a min f’c=28Mpa would typically be a N32 or S32 concrete. Also noting the conditions of the site where the slope is relatively steep and adjacent to a water, a concrete mix with relatively high slump (as specified in MRTS70) may not be suitable. Can Council please clarify what is the mix required for this item?

Thanks

Answered on 05/Jun/2026 09:54 AM:


Please refer NTT dated 5 June 2026.

Question:
Hi

We have another query as follows:

Sites 10, 11 and 12

1. In the BOQ for Sites 10, 11 and 12, items for Landscape and Revegetation Works had not been scheduled for any of these sites. Note E1 on the drawing for GENERAL NOTES i.e. drawing no. ARO0583-C94 specifies that "BATTERS 0.5m HIGH ARE TO BE REVEGETATED AT COMPLETION OF EARTHWORKS". Can Council please confirm if revegetation works are required and if so, what revegetation measures will be required i.e. Hydromulch, Turf or any other measures? Please also confirm the extents of the required revegetation at each site if they will be required.

Thanks

Answered on 02/Jun/2026 12:04 PM:


Council confirms that landscape and revegetation works are required for all batters and any disturbed areas at Sites 10, 11, and 12, in accordance with General Note E1 on Drawing No. ARO0583-C94.

The approved treatment for these areas is hydromulching over 50mm layer of imported topsoil, in compliance with MRTS16 (General Landscape Works).

Question:
Hi

Can Council please confirm if VMS boards will be required as part of Temporary Traffic Management? Item 5.2 in the provided Annex MRTS02.1 had been left blank. If VMSs are required, please also confirm the locations and if they are required prior to commencement and after completion of works on site.

Thanks

Answered on 01/Jun/2026 09:10 AM:


Council confirms that a minimum of two (2) Variable Message Signs (VMS) is required for these works, deployed at each approach/end of the project limits. These boards must be operational for at least two weeks prior to mobilisation and two weeks after mobilisation, or as otherwise directed by the Contractor's qualified Traffic Management Designer (TMD).

Question:
Site 7 and 9 has insitu stabilised pavement specified.

Site 7 = 26.4m3

Site 9 = 18.00m3

Back calculating these qtys reveal this is less than 10 lineal meter sections of insitu or plant mixed stabilised pavement.

Issue 1:

MRTS7B.1 Clause 6.4.2 specifies a ride count is required post completion of works. This upgraded sections are not long enough to complete this test. Can SRRC please remove this requirement?

Issue 2: MRTS08.1 Clause 2.1 specifies paver placed CTB. Due to the lengths of the stabilised sections, there is nil quality benefit of using a paver. Using a paver will disproportionately add cost for no benefit. Can SRRC please remove this requirement.

Answered on 02/Jun/2026 12:03 PM:


Answer 1: It is acknowledged that the extent of stabilised pavement at Sites 7 and 9 is insufficient to undertake ride quality testing (the bump test) and it will not be required. Acceptance of pavement smoothness and finish will instead be subject to assessment by the Superintendent. There will be no relaxation to any other quality assurance testing or measurements.

Answer 2: The tenderer may propose an alternative placement methodology which must be detailed in their tender, provided that it demonstrates that the required standards of surface finish, uniformity and ride quality can be achieved. Any such methodology shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Superintendent prior to commencement of the works.

Question:
Site 9 drawings state Cast insitu headwalls.

The BOQ for site 9 states precast headwalls.

Can SRRC please confirm precast headwalls will be accepted?

Answered on 03/Jun/2026 04:56 PM:


Council confirms that precast headwalls will be accepted noting that they must be compliant with DTMR standards.

Question:
Dear Council,

We are currently reviewing the tender documentation and seek clarification regarding the requirement for R2 TMR pre-qualification.

Our understanding is that the proposed works are located on Scenic Rim Regional Council-controlled roads, rather than state-controlled roads, and are predominantly on rural gravel road networks. As such, we were seeking confirmation that the R2 requirement has been correctly specified for this Contract.

We note that an R2 requirement may unnecessarily limit the participation of otherwise suitably qualified local contractors who hold R1 accreditation, despite having extensive experience delivering similar works on local government road networks.

Could Council please confirm whether the R2 accreditation requirement is mandatory for this project, or whether contractors holding R1 accreditation would be considered acceptable given the nature and location of the works?

We appreciate your clarification and look forward to your response.

Answered on 03/Jun/2026 04:56 PM:


The requirement for R2 TMR prequalification is confirmed as mandatory for this Contract. TMR prequalification must be in place at the time of evaluation and prior to contract award.