Page 4541 - Week 10 - Thursday, 23 September 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
short term and long term deflections due to dead load or any other relevant action, and pre-camber specified to compensate for long term deflection, (iii) bearing/expansion joint loads and movements, (iv) bearing inspection and replacement criteria and procedures, (v) service conduits in relation to differential thermal movements and possible vertical dislocations at joints etc or (vi) the steel reinforcement schedule.
(20) In relation to the changes listed in part (19), were site inspections made to verify any changes.
(21) Was a pre-construction condition audit undertaken of the Stage 1 bridge as part of the design submission process.
(22) In relation to both bridges, (a) when was the post-tender meeting, where did it take place and who was present, (b) what record-keeping did the consultant agree to undertake, (c) when was the Project Quality Plan submitted to the Project Officer, were any changes made to it, was any quality surveillance or audits undertaken; if so, when, (d) regarding monthly reports (i) how many were submitted and when were they submitted and (ii) were any problem areas, quality assurance or other issues identified, (e) were variations made in accordance with AS 2124, (f) how many routine variations were made to the contract and when did the variations arise and when were they submitted, (g) how many ‘non-routine’ variations were made to the contract and when did the variations arise and when were they submitted and (h) were any variations submitted with regard to the girders or the girder design; if so, on what dates were they submitted.
(23) Was information about the spacing and loading requirements and falsework pre-camber of the Stage 1 bridge given to the contractors working on the Stage 2 bridge.
(24) In relation to both bridges, (a) on what date were complete design drawings and formwork documentation of falsework beam submitted, (b) was any information about the proposed splicing arrangements, bolt grades and sizes and torque setting submitted to the ACT Government; if so, when were they lodged and by who.
(25) Did anyone from the ACT Government inspect the splicing arrangements, bolt grades and sizes and torque settings at any time; if so, when did the inspections take place.
(26) Was information about the splicing arrangements, bolt grades and sizes and torque setting used on Stage 1 given to contractors working on Stage 2.
(27) When will the Stage 2 bridge be complete.
(28) What is the expected financial cost to the Territory.
(29) How many meetings took place with officers from Procurement Solutions and TAMS to discuss the progress of the tender or construction of Stage 1 or Stage 2.
(30) How many officers from Procurement Solutions (a) were involved in the project management of both Stage 1 and Stage 2, (b) were involved in only Stage 1 and (c) were involved in only Stage 2.
(31) What bodies, for example, teams, committees, working groups, working on Stage 1 and Stage 2 involved officers from Procurement Solutions and TAMS and what were their job titles and roles on the body.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video