Question:
RFIs:

1. General:

a. The tender documents refer to 3D data, principles (like cross sections at driveway) and vertical alignments, but there is no specific refence to a requirement for the paths (and other design features) to be designed in 3D. It is our anticipation that this required, and we’re seeking clarification confirming that a 2D design with alternative construction details/set out methodology is insufficient and does not meet the requirements of the brief.

b. There appears to be only Preliminary and Detailed quantities / estimating required. Can you please confirm that no formal concept stage estimating is required.

c. Pavement Design. There does not appear to be any geotechnical / pavement layer design requirement. Can you please confirm that council will provide the specific pavement designs (i.e. wearing course, pavement layers) for all pavements including paths, raised crossings and possible road works at raised crossings.

d. We are seeking to note that any site subject to a CHMP may make the required 27 Feb 2026 completion dates challenging.

2. Kennedy sites:

a. Can you please confirm the requirements for the Templeton Street site – is the existing partially raised intersection to be upgraded in full (i.e. raise the entire intersection, including works on east side of Kennedy Street)); or is it to be adjusted as applicable to the requirements of the SUP crossing point only (west side of Kennedy Street only)

b. Are there any other priority crossings (e.g. raised crossings) required along the alignment for e.g. other car park accesses?

3. All sites:

a. Various raised crossing locations are referred to at other sites. Are there any other considerations to raised priority crossings beyond those locations that should be incorporated into our submission?

b. Section 2.1 briefly refers to kerb and kerb outstands and also pram crossings. Is the expectation that currently un-kerbed intersections will typically remain un-kerbed, with at-grade path connections to bitumen; or is kerb and channel installation at most crossings expected / required?

Answered on 24/Sep/2025 09:49 AM:


1. General:

a. 3D Design Requirement Yes, a full 3D design is required. As outlined in Section 1.3 – Project Objectives and Section 3 – Technical and Design Requirements, this project involves delivering a complete footpath design for construction. The final design must include 3D modelling and associated digital setout information. A 2D design with alternative construction details or setout methodology will not meet the requirements of the brief.

b. Concept Stage Estimating Confirmed. Concept stage design quantities and costings are not required. Only Preliminary and Detailed quantities/estimating and costings are expected as part of the deliverables.

c. Pavement Design Footpath construction layers are to follow the Infrastructure Design Manual (IDM). Raised crossings will utilise existing base and subbase pavements. Council does not require geotechnical investigations unless specifically noted by the Consultant. If deemed necessary, this may be subject to a variation.

d. CHMP Considerations Noted. Council acknowledges that sites subject to a Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) may present challenges to meeting the 27 February 2026 completion date. This matter can be discussed further if the Consultant determines that a Cultural Heritage Assessment is required for the proposed footpath alignment.

2. Kennedy Sites:

a. Templeton Street Intersection The Templeton Street site is to be designed as a fully raised intersection, including works on both the west and east sides of Kennedy Street.

b. Additional Priority Crossings No additional raised crossing points are required at driveway entrances or exits along Kennedy Street beyond those already identified.

3. All Sites:

a. Raised Crossing Considerations No further raised priority crossings have been identified at this stage of the alignment and tender documentation. However, if the Consultant determines additional locations are necessary as part of a safe system approach or through findings in the Road Safety Audit (RSA), these can be discussed and considered by Council. For roads with inclines that may encourage increased vehicle speeds, speed reduction measures such as speed humps should be considered prior to pedestrian crossings.

b. Kerb and Pram Crossing Expectations At-grade path connections to bitumen are expected to remain only in front of driveways, unless otherwise noted or requested for consideration in the tender documentation. In areas within the heritage overlay, formal kerbed pedestrian crossing points may not be required, this will need to be determine in conjunction with our Heritage Advisor. These instances should be assessed on a case-by-case basis depending on the alignment proposed by the Consultant and adopted by Council. All other areas would be expected to have a formal kerbed pedestrian crossing and relevant DDA requirements.

DTP Considerations

Council has commenced liaison with the Department of Transport and Planning (DTP) regarding this project. However, Council has not received confirmation from DTP that a lower category of prequalification—such as Rural Roads and Simple Hydraulics—will be accepted for this project, even though it does not involve modifications to existing highway road lanes or road design.

If the consultant wishes to pursue a lower category of prequalification and include this in their tender submission, they are welcome to do so. Council will consider such proposals in the context of DTP’s requirements and the overall suitability for the project.

Question:
The Project Brief requires that Urban Road prequalification with DTP is compulsory for the project. Urban Road prequalification is a much more onerous requirement than Rural Roads and Simple Hydraulics.

Has Council begun the liaison process with DTP about this project and the prequalification requirements?

Does Council have confirmation that DTP is not willing to accept Rural Roads and Simple Hydraulics prequalification given a project of this nature which does not modify the existing highway road lanes / road design?

Answered on 24/Sep/2025 09:59 AM:


DTP Considerations

Council has commenced liaison with the Department of Transport and Planning (DTP) regarding this project. However, Council has not received confirmation from DTP that a lower category of prequalification—such as Rural Roads and Simple Hydraulics—will be accepted for this project, even though it does not involve modifications to existing highway road lanes or road design.

If the consultant wishes to pursue a lower category of prequalification and include this in their tender submission, they are welcome to do so. Council will consider such proposals in the context of DTP’s requirements and the overall suitability for the project.

Question:
Is Council willing to negotiate the milestone payments requirement of this tender?

Answered on 24/Sep/2025 09:46 AM:


Council may be willing to negotiate the milestone payments requirement of this tender, depending on the nature of the proposal. Tenderers are encouraged to include any alternative milestone payment arrangements as part of their submission for Council’s consideration.

Question:
Would Council consider splitting the delivery deadline for this project so that the DTP section of work can be completed at another date in the future and not the 27/02/2026?

Based on our recent experience negotiating projects with DTP, the approval processes can have long lead times and we do not believe this deadline is achievable for the DTP portion of work.

Answered on 24/Sep/2025 09:46 AM:


Council is unable to split the delivery deadline for this project beyond the date specified in the tender document, as strict grant milestone requirements must be met. Therefore, the DTP section of work must also be completed by 27/02/2026.

Question:
Currently a lot people park on the railway side of Kennedy St and it is currently designated at an unlimited parking zone. Has Council sought feedback from the local community to install the proposed share use path on that side of the road and impact the feasibility of carparking along Kennedy St?

Answered on 24/Sep/2025 09:49 AM:


Council has not undertaken community engagement regarding the proposed shared use path on the railway side of Kennedy Street or the potential impact on existing unlimited parking in that area. Community consultation is not required from the consultant for this section as part of this tender.

The primary stakeholder for this portion of the alignment is Council’s Parks and Open Spaces team, due to the presence of existing trees that are Council assets. The design must consider possible impacts to these trees, including root zone disturbance, distance from trunk, canopy clearance, and long-term health, which may influence the longitudinal and vertical alignment of the shared use path.