Have you submitted
(a) Part 4 - Response Schedules.docx

Have you submitted
(b) Attachment 1 – HSW Prequalification.docx

Have you submitted
(c) Attachment 2 – Pricing Schedule.xlsx

Have you submitted
(d) Insurance policies

Have you submitted
(e) Occupational Health and Safety Management System (if required)

Have you submitted
(f) Quality Management System (if required)

Have you submitted
(g) Environmental Management System (if required)

Have you submitted
(h) Business Continuity Plan (if required)

Have you submitted
(i) Construction Management Plan / Project Plan (if required)

Have you submitted
(j) Traffic Guidance Scheme (if required)

Have you signed
(k) Signed Tenderer Declaration

Question:
Hi, can you please clarify the "Charging as a Service" definition i.e. confirm if Council is responsible for a capex purchase of equipment and installation, or is the vendor required to build, own and operate - and Council pays for the charger use over an agreed term?

thanks

Answered on 27/Jan/2026 02:54 PM:


To clarify “Charging as a Service" definition does indeed require the vendor to build, own and operate the charging infrastructure, and this could be via a subscription over an agreed term.

Question:
Is EVSE able to organise a site inspection time to look at the switchboards, the cable run pathways and site requirements so we can scope an accurate solution?

Answered on 29/Jan/2026 03:34 PM:


Thank you for your correspondence.

Please refer to Addendum 1 regarding the On-Site briefing.

Question:
Hi Team, after reviewing the tender documentation, we have a few questions:

Site Supply Capacity: Tender documentation references 400 A, however the site SLD indicates 120 mm² mains, suggesting ~250 A available with ~160 A spare. Can Council confirm the actual available capacity and whether utilisation of the spare capacity with Active Load Management is acceptable?

EVDB outside or inside, please clarify if an indoor EVDB can be suggested?

The tender scope requires intensive civils work will the council consider alternative options.

Comms as per council concerns about cyber security is a segregated EV charging comms, to be submitted separately.

Answered on 05/Feb/2026 11:53 AM:


"Site Supply Capacity: Tender documentation references 400 A, however the site SLD indicates 120 mm² mains, suggesting ~250 A available with ~160 A spare.



Answer: Ascertaining actual supply is difficult. The main switch is 400A but can have been oversized at install. Site supply is limited by the DNSP supply cable to the meter board.



The specified 250A subboard with active load management on the main board will still protect circuits if actual supply is lower than the 400A.



According to Ausnet for the NMI at 32 PYKE ST BAIRNSDALE it is three phase from a 500kVA substation "PYKE-NICHOLSON" 2116035000 - max used approx.200kVA shared with street circuit customer 95.

Can Council confirm the actual available capacity and whether utilisation of the spare capacity with Active Load Management is acceptable?

Answer: Yes active load management of AC chargers is specified and should be a requirement for the site and for any submissions. This is a hardware/ software solution as there are CT clamps that go on cables to measure actual consumption.



If actual supply is 250A, the specified 250A sub board with active load management is valid.

Answer: EVDB Location:

At this stage, EGSC are only considering an outdoor EVDB. However, EGSC have a site inspection scheduled with the EVSE next Thursday, and EGSC would be happy to consider an indoor EVDB option at that time it meets all relevant standards and requirements.

Answer: Civil Works / Alternative Option:

Regarding the intensive civil works noted in the tender scope, Council would require a detailed proposal outlining the proportionate internal works, as this would constitute a change to the current scope.

If the intent is to reduce trenching, alternative cable routing options—such as running cables through building walls—may be considered, provided they fully comply with applicable safety requirements and standards.

Answer: Communications are all to be executed via VendorPanel. Please submit detailed drawings, methodology, and any supporting compliance information for review.

Question:
Can Council confirm whether an adapted wall-mounted DC charger installed on a free-standing pedestal (i.e. a pedestal-mounted configuration) would be acceptable in lieu of a purpose-built free-standing charger, provided all technical, safety, and performance requirements are met?

Answered on 03/Feb/2026 12:20 PM:


Yes, we can confirm that a wall-mounted charger installed on a free-standing pedestal is acceptable in lieu of a purpose-built free-standing charger, provided it meets all relevant technical, safety, and performance requirements in accordance with applicable standards.

In addition, both DC and AC wall-mounted chargers may not be installed directly to a wall or fence within the property.

A pedestal-mounted installation is only permitted where the pedestal is located within the concrete footing space shown on the approved civil drawings (Please refer to the attachment) and complies with the specified dimensions and structural requirements.

Question:
Hi Team, the tender documentation references a floor-mounted EVDB. Would Council consider a wall-mounted EVDB as an alternative? This approach would provide a more cost-effective solution and simplify the installation civils and routing to the EV chargers.

Answered on 04/Feb/2026 02:41 PM:
(edited on 04/Feb/2026 03:09 PM)


Yes, Council would consider a wall-mounted EVDB as an alternative to a floor-mounted EVDB, provided it meets all relevant standards and compliance requirements. This option may be accepted where it offers a cost-effective solution and simplifies installation, including associated civil works and cable routing to the EV chargers.

All proposals will be assessed on compliance with applicable standards and overall suitability for the site.

Question:
Hi Team, please find our RFIs:

Pricing Schedule vs Scope: Items 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 under Electrical and Installation do not align with the Scope of Works.

Can Council confirm whether pricing should follow the Pricing Schedule or the scoped documentation where discrepancies exist?

Concrete Pad (Item 6.1): Can Council confirm the required concrete pad dimensions and load assumptions, noting typical DC charger footprints may not align with the geotechnical report footprint?

CaaS Term: Can Council confirm the Charging-as-a-Service (CaaS) contract term, including any extension options?

Site Supply Capacity: Tender documentation references 400 A, however the site SLD indicates 120 mm² mains, suggesting ~250 A available with ~160 A spare.

Can Council confirm the actual available capacity and whether utilisation of the spare capacity with Active Load Management is acceptable?

EVDB Location: Can Council confirm whether an indoor EV Distribution Board is acceptable?

Communications / Cyber Security: Can Council confirm whether a segregated EV charging communications network (separate from Council IT) is required and acceptable to satisfy cyber security requirements, including Clause 3.3.6?

Answered on 04/Feb/2026 02:48 PM:
(edited on 06/Feb/2026 01:45 PM)


Pricing Schedule vs Scope (Items 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 – Electrical and Installation)

The Scope of Works includes both electrical and civil works under these items. The intent is that pricing aligns with the Scope of Works.

The only variation is under Item 3.3, where the connection pit is to be an internal connection pit rather than an AusNet connection pit. All other requirements remain consistent with the scoped documentation. Where discrepancies exist, pricing should follow the Scope of Works.

Concrete Pad (Item 6.1)

Council has provided a standard concrete pad dimension within the specifications under the concrete works section. Council is happy to accept a smaller pad dimension where required to suit the specific charger console being proposed. However, the pad dimensions must not exceed the maximum dimensions stated in the specifications.

The concrete pad should be designed to suit the loading requirements of the nominated charger and comply with relevant standards.

Can Council confirm the Charging-as-a-Service (CaaS) contract term, including any extension options?

The minimum request is a 3 years contract term, with optional 2 years extension. Council is open to proposals which are longer in duration, or offer an annual base fee.

Site Supply Capacity: Tender documentation references 400 A, however the site SLD indicates 120 mm² mains, suggesting ~250 A available with ~160 A spare.

Ascertaining actual supply is difficult. The main switch is 400A but can have been oversized at install. Site supply is limited by the DNSP supply cable to the meter board. The specified 250A sub-board with active load management on the main board will still protect circuits if actual supply is lower than the 400A.

According to AusNet for the NMI at 32 PYKE ST BAIRNSDALE it is three phase from a 500kVA substation "PYKE-NICHOLSON" 2116035000 - max used approx.200kVA shared with street circuit customer 95.

Can Council confirm the actual available capacity and whether utilisation of the spare capacity with Active Load Management is acceptable?

Yes, active load management of AC chargers is specified and should be a requirement for the site and for any submissions. This is a hardware/ software solution as there are CT clamps that go on cables to measure actual consumption. If actual supply is 250A, the specified 250A sub board with active load management is valid.


6/2/2026

Communications/cyber-security:

Can Council confirm whether a segregated EV charging communications network (separate from Council IT) is required and acceptable to satisfy cyber security requirements, including Clause 3.3.6?

That would be an acceptable even preferred design solution, provided that when they refer to “segregated” it is truly segregated.

That said, simply segregating the EV network from the Shire network would not remove the requirement to meet our cyber security and privacy obligations.

Question:
Can the Council please confirm the submission closing date? Part 1 – Conditions of Tendering states that submissions close at 2:00 pm on Wednesday, 18 February 2026, while VendorPanel indicates that submissions close at 2:00 pm on Wednesday, 25 February 2026.

Answered on 09/Feb/2026 01:00 PM:


Good Afternoon

Council confirm the closing date is 2:00pm 25 February, 2026.

Question:
Hello, a Traffic Management Plan is not outlined in the scope requirements or any particular section of the response document (like the Construction Plan is) but is mentioned in Part 1 as a Document to Be Submitted and Part 4 within the "Tender Checklist".

Is this required for a compliant submission? Or can we include this as a preliminary deliverable should the project be awarded?

Thank you.

Answered on 17/Feb/2026 09:38 AM:


The Traffic Management Plan is not required as part of the tender submission for compliance. It can be submitted as a deliverable once the tender has been awarded.

Question:
Question 1:

The tender documentation indicates a 250A EV distribution board supplied from the existing MSB. Site verification confirms the MSB main protective device is rated at 250A and supplies other building loads. Installing a 250A sub-main on a 250A upstream device is not compliant with AS/NZS 3000:2018 Clause 2.5.7.2 and may result in the upstream device operating during a downstream fault, contrary to Clause 2.5.7.1.

A spare 160A MCCB is available within the existing MSB. Utilising this device maintains compliance with AS/NZS 3000 and provides appropriate coordination with the 250A main switch.

Please confirm if we can use this 160A MCCB and proceed on this basis.



Question 2:

Following site inspection and review of the EV layout drawings, we have identified dimensional constraints within both the lower and upper parking areas that differ from the nominated bay configuration in the tender documents. The available lower section length appears insufficient to accommodate seven 3000mm-wide bays inclusive of separators, and the upper section clearances between the aisle and parking edge may require adjustment. Additionally, the proposed fast charger requires a larger concrete pad footprint to suit its free-standing installation requirements, which may impact the current parking layout configuration.

Could you please confirm the minimum permissible parking bay dimensions and aisle clearances under the applicable standard, and advise whether bay widths, overall bay numbers, and the fast charger concrete pad size may be adjusted to suit the existing site constraints. Clarification will allow us to finalise a compliant layout prior to detailed design and pricing.

Answered on 17/Feb/2026 02:23 PM:


Question 1: Answer

Reducing the new circuit breaker that supplies the new EV charging distribution board, to 160A is acceptable, as the dynamic load management system in the switchboard will ensure that it does not trip.

Question 2:

Under the applicable standard, parking bays are required to be 2.6m to 3.0m wide and 5.4m in length. These dimensions must be maintained for compliance.

In addition, As mentioned the concrete pad for the fast charger cannot exceed 600mm x 300mm. A larger free-standing pad footprint would not be supported as it would impact the approved parking layout configuration.

Please review the layout accordingly and adjust within these parameters.