Question:
Good afternoon,

Will the DTMR prequalification requirements be mandated? Or, will consideration be made to competitive tenders from those without the prequalification status?

Kind Regards.

Answered on 03/Sep/2025 04:35 PM:


Yes, consideration will be made to competitive tenders without DTMR prequalification who demonstrate previous experience and capability with similar types of projects and address the evaluation criteria.

Question:
Good evening,

Would Council be in a position to grant an EOT of 2 additional weeks for this tender?

There are a number of projects out to market at the moment which is causing delays across the industry.

Answered on 16/Sep/2025 07:05 PM:


The tender submission closing date has been extended until 5:00pm Wednesday the 8th of October 2025.

Question:
Good afternoon, is there a Geotechnical Report for this project available for review?

Answered on 09/Sep/2025 04:46 PM:


Hello,

The request has been updated to include attachment VP476578 - GUANABA ROAD LANDSLIP REMEDIATION - SITE 2 - Part C2 - DESIGN REPORT Rev1

Question:
Good Afternoon, would it be possible to get the geotechnical report that includes Boreholes ARO1 & ARO2?

Answered on 16/Sep/2025 07:05 PM:


Hello, ARO1 and ARO2 are local survey control points and not boreholes.

Question:
Would Council be in a position to grant a 2 week extension to this tender?

Answered on 16/Sep/2025 07:06 PM:


Answered in previous response

Question:
Section 3.3. Specific Requirements in Part C Specifications mentions the applicable Annexures for Main Roads Specifications can be found in Appendix F; however, we are unable to locate this Appendix F. Could Council please advise in which document that we could find this appendix.

Answered on 01/Oct/2025 08:27 AM:


The documents have been updated to include the relevant specifications

Question:
Hi,

Will a completed cost assessment be included in the documents for Site 5 & 6?

Thanks

Answered on 01/Oct/2025 08:28 AM:


No cost assessment will be provided

Question:
In light of new addenda information received today the 1st of October and the upcoming King's Birthday long weekend on the 6th of October, we would like a request a 1-week extension to the closing date for this tender from the 8th of October 25 to the 15th of October 25.

Answered on 01/Oct/2025 09:24 AM:


Yes, an Extension of Time of 1 week will be granted and the new Tender Submission closing date will be the 15th October 2025

Question:
With reference to the "Bottom Retaining Wall Elevation", on drawing No. ARO0439-C12, and the retaining wall cross section at chainage 5, on drawing No. ARO0439-C13, there appears to be an error where the bottom retaining wall height shown on the cross sections does not match the heights shown on the elevation. This is with particular reference to Chainage 5 and Chainage 10. The height of the bottom retaining wall as shown on the elevation at Chainage 5 and 10 is scaled 2.8m and 2.2m respectively. However, on the cross sections at Chainage 5 and 10 the height of the bottom retaining wall is scaled at 1.4m and 1.6m respectively.

Can you please confirm which is correct as this may have a significant impact on the measured quantities and construction methodology.

Answered on 07/Oct/2025 05:12 PM:


C12 (Elevation) – The levels shown are the base of the wall levels at the chainages but it has been identified that they don’t line up with the location of the piles and the base of the wall.

For example, Ch5.0 level is the base level of the panel prior to chainage 5.0 before it drops down at Ch5.0 and so there has been some confusion presented.

We do note the wall heights noted on the elevation are correct.

C13 – The cross-section design surface levels are to the finished surface of the track, not the top of pile.

We do accept that the pile in the sections has not been depicted as accurately as possible.

To remove any uncertainty, we will review the elevation and the cross sections and provide additional information where required to reflect this more accurately and reissue. Tenderer’s are to note an updated design will be reissued as soon as possible.

Question:
With reference to the pricing schedule, Type A Piles [600mm dia piles] Items 70510 and 70513, can you please confirm the quantity associated with these items? Our estimate is showing this to be approximately 26m3 as opposed to 7.46m3 in the pricing schedule (almost 250% more than shown).

Answered on 09/Oct/2025 12:45 PM:


TYPE A (TOP WALL) 70510 AND 70513

1.86m3 per pile x 10 piles
= 18.66 m3

TYPE A (BOTTOM WALL) 70510 AND 70513
1.86m3 per pile x 4 piles
= 7.46m3

Total
= 26.125 m3


TYPE B (BOTTOM WALL) 70510 AND 70513


= 47.71m3

Question:
With reference to Part C - Specification Scope of Work, Section 3.3 Specific Requirements states "Piling works specifically shall include the use of liners to 50% of the piling length to assist in constructability purposes. Liners are to be permanently installed at a depth determined by the Contractor, and as agreed by the Superintendent.".

In light of this, should the quantities in the pricing schedule for items 70501 and 70503 for the 600 diameter in the top wall be 10 as opposed to 5, and for the bottom wall 4 as opposed to 2?

Answered on 10/Oct/2025 10:55 AM:


The steel liners are required for constructability purposes only and not required to be installed permanently depending on the ground conditions provided the contractor can construct the pile to the correct specifications, depth and dimensions.

The Superintendent and Contractor will determine whether steel liners will remain permanently in the ground or reused to construct other piles

Council requires the Contractor to order and supply to site half of the TOTAL liners required to save on lead times during the construction period and expedite the program

• This was on the basis that there was limited geotechnical information, or ability to assess hole stability

o If, during Construction it was found that it ground conditions were stable during drilling and the steel liner was not required to construct the pile then the steel liner it is not required.

o If the ground conditions were poor and they were required for each of the piles, then the Contractor could remove and re-use the existing liners.

If the steel liner can be reused for the construction of the other piles good (and remained stable during drilling – Contractor shall leave the casings in the ground as permanent liners.

Again, we would leave the casing for the piles in the ground at the end.

? In the event that liners were required for ALL of the holes, then a variation was to be calculated and issued, with a residual quantity of 50% maximum.

For the Upper wall – there are a total of 10 piles.The BOQ is based on assuming that only half of the holes end up with liners (i.e. the holes are stable). On that basis the quantities are OK/ Correct.

Half of 10 piles in the upper wall = 5 piles (fixing bands, handling and pitching, supply of steel liners, excavation etc.)

Bottom wall

Same Approach/ Theory (as outlined above) - again. On the basis of the approach taken - the numbers are right in the existing BoQ

(50% of 4 piles (600mm dia)= 2)

In both cases - there is the potential for the values to increase - depending on ground conditions.

Question:
With reference to the "Typical Retaining Wall Foundations" detail on project drawing ARO0439-C12, can the designers please confirm what the minimum pile socket depth is in the two different material types nominated in the pricing schedule? Namely; XW Rock or Soils, and Rock (UCS70MPa).

Answered on 09/Oct/2025 12:42 PM:


Response as follows:

Socket lengths

Type A Piles (600mm dia)

XW Rock / Soils -6600mm or

Rock - Min 3m


Type B Piles (900mm dia)

XW Rock / Soils -12500mm

Rock - Min 6m

Question:
With respect to Item No 6.04 "Supply all plant, material and labour required to install ECC3 - High Performance Turf Reinforcing Matting in accordance with manufacturers instructions and recommendations" in the pricing schedule, should this be a per m2 rate? or is this for each 2.4m x 34.3m roll?

Answered on 14/Oct/2025 11:19 AM:


An error has been identified with the Revision 3 Pricing Schedule; Revision 4 is now attached to replace it.

Question:
With reference to project drawing ARO0439-C20, The layout plan and typical cross section of Site 5 show, approximately, 150m of where the Contractor is to maintain the existing formation width. However, from our site investigations, it appears that there is no existing formation for the last approx. 60m of the fire trail and the slope on this alignment is somwhere between 1V:2H and 1V:1H.

In light of the above, we believe that in order to construct this last 60m of fire trail significant earthworks will be required. The impact of these earthworks cannot be estimated without a proper design.

Can you please confirm how we are to estimate this last 60m of fire trail?

Answered on 14/Oct/2025 08:33 AM:


It is noted that

• A fire-trail previously existed in the location.

• There are downslope failures, which would need to be re-instated / bulk filled to allow for the fire-trail to be reinstated.

• The extent of the downslope fire-trail is unclear (I can’t see where it links up to).

The Tenderer shall provide the costings per the schedule (s).

• Item 3.02 – Detailed Excavation

• Item 3.08 – Backfill with Earth fill.

The Extent of works will be assessed and instructed on site with the Superintendent.

• Costings will be assessed in accordance with Costs / Items outlined in the Costing Schedule, and Clause 36 Variations.