Question:
Good morning,

- Please confirm of alternative materials will be considered or if Council are only excepting either timber or HDG steel bridges?

- Please confirm the intended design life of the new pedestrian bridges.

thank you,

Answered on 07/May/2026 10:08 AM:


Tenderers are able to provide another solution if they wish to – it’s up to them.

In terms of design life, the current structures are 40+ years old. We are aiming for something similar.

Question:
Please confirm if the bridges are to be designed to AS 5100 or if AS 2156 is acceptable.

Answered on 11/May/2026 09:30 AM:


Good morning,

Apologies for the delay in answering.

The AS2156 is acceptable.

Thanks

Question:
could the principle please advise whether there may be opportunities for specialist subcontractors to take on the structural steel fabrication and welding component associated with the bridge replacement works.

Answered on 11/May/2026 12:58 PM:


Good afternoon,

Sorry, but no.

Council will be appointing a contractor who will be responsible for the full scope of works and subsequently they will become the PCBU under the contract.

Question:
Good afternoon, can we please request a 1-week extension to allow our prefabricated bridge manufacturer to conduct a thorough assessment and submit their pricing.

Answered on 14/May/2026 08:27 AM:


Good morning, Council is happy to extend the close date for 1 week until the 3rd June 2026.

Question:
We note within the tender documentation that the existing bridge foundations are proposed to remain and may require remediation works. However, no existing foundation drawings, geotechnical information, or structural capacity assessments appear to have been provided within the tender documentation.

Further, Schedule 2C and Schedule 2D reference that the existing foundations are to be “validated”.

To ensure consistent tender pricing and risk allocation across all tenderers, can Council please clarify the following:

1. Is the Principal accepting the risk that the existing foundations at both Mill St and Mary St bridges are structurally adequate to support the proposed replacement bridge loads?

2. Is the validation of the existing foundations intended to form part of the Contractor’s scope of works?

3. If foundation validation is required by the Contractor, can Council please clarify:

3.1. the extent of investigations and engineering assessment required;

3.2. whether destructive investigations/testing are anticipated;

3.3. whether temporary removal of existing elements is expected;

3.4.whether any geotechnical verification is required; and

3.5.under which BOQ / pricing item this scope is to be included.

4. In the event that the existing foundations are found to be inadequate for the proposed bridge loads, will rectification or replacement works be treated as a variation to the Contract?

5. Can Council also confirm whether concrete remediation works to the existing abutments are intended to be included within the bridge replacement scope and tender pricing?

6.If remediation works are to be included, please confirm the anticipated extent of works, noting this may include:

6.1 local crack injection;

6.2 concrete spalling repairs;

6.3 patch repairs; and/or

6.4 protective treatment/coating systems.

Answered on 26/May/2026 12:28 PM:


Sorry for the delay. Please see the below answers to questions.

1. Is the Principal accepting the risk that the existing foundations at both Mill St and Mary St bridges are structurally adequate to support the proposed replacement bridge loads?

Answer - No, the bridge foundation/abutment should be verified by the contractor.

2. Is the validation of the existing foundations intended to form part of the Contractor’s scope of works?

Answer - Yes, it should be included as part of the scope of work.

3. If foundation validation is required by the Contractor, can Council please clarify:

3.1 the extent of investigations and engineering assessment required.

Answer - Yes, the Contractor is expected to undertake investigations and engineering assessments to verify the suitability of the existing foundations for the proposed loads.

3.2. whether destructive investigations/testing are anticipated.

Answer - Destructive testing may be required where non-destructive methods are insufficient to confirm foundation condition and capacity. The extent shall be determined by the Contractor.

3.3. whether temporary removal of existing elements is expected.

Answer -Temporary removal of elements may be undertaken where required to facilitate inspection, testing, or validation. All such works shall be reinstated to an acceptable standard.

3.4. whether any geotechnical verification is required; and

Answer -All structural and geotechnical requirements as required by the designers.

3.5. under which BOQ / pricing item this scope is to be included.

Answer - All costs associated with investigation, assessment, and validation of the existing foundations shall be deemed to be included within the relevant lump sum or provisional items for bridge replacement works.


4. In the event that the existing foundations are found to be inadequate for the proposed bridge loads, will rectification or replacement works be treated as a variation to the Contract?

Answer - In the event that the existing foundations are found to be inadequate, the Contractor shall promptly notify the Principal. Subject to Contract provisions, any additional works required for rectification or replacement may be treated as a variation.


5. Can Council also confirm whether concrete remediation works to the existing abutments are intended to be included within the bridge replacement scope and tender pricing?

Answer - Unless specifically stated otherwise, concrete remediation works to the existing abutments are considered part of the bridge replacement scope and shall be included in the tender pricing


6.If remediation works are to be included, please confirm the anticipated extent of works, noting this may include:

6.1 local crack injection;

6.2 concrete spalling repairs;

6.3 patch repairs; and/or

6.4 protective treatment/coating systems.

Answer - Where remediation is required, the Contractor shall allow for typical concrete repair works.

Question:
Would you be able to provide a Geotech report for both sites? Thanks.

Answered on 26/May/2026 12:29 PM:


Good morning, unfortunately, no Geotech reports are available.

Question:
Within the Price Schedule for Mill St Rosewood, there is a reference to MRTS14.1, however this document cannot be located within the tender documents provided.

Specifically, the reference relates to:

“Removal and re-erection of road furniture, as listed in Clause 4 of Annexure MRTS14.1.”

Could Council please provide the MRTS14.1 document, or advise where it can be located within the tender package?

Thank you.

Answered on 29/May/2026 11:35 AM:


Good morning,

The reference is incorrect and there is no Annexure to be provided. The item noted in the drawing to be removed and reinstated (if Damaged) is the existing sign and bin (Drawing INF05354 -101 A).

Thanks

Question:
Good afternoon,

Can you please advise if Items G10C9010.01, G3020101.02, G40C9271.01 & G40C9272.01 for Mary St portion of the project should be lump sum items due to the nature of contract?

Answered on 02/Jun/2026 02:51 PM:


Items G10C9010.01, G3020101.02, G40C9271.01 and G40C9272.01 are to remain as currently stated. These items form part of the lump sum contract and are included as presented to provide a cost breakdown and to support progress payment assessment where applicable.