Section 5 Quality Control (1)

8/12/2019 Section 5 Quality Control (1)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/section-5-quality-control-1 1/38

SECTION 4.1.2

J J Jooobbb SSSpppeeeccciiif f f iiiccc QQQCCC PPPlllaaannn

Table of Contents1.0 Project Quality Control Plan. ......................................................................... 3

1.1 Definitions of Quality ........................................................................3

1.2 Quality Requirements........................................................................3

1.3 Quality Goals........................................................................................4

1.4 Quality Expectations.......................................................................... 4

1.5 Quality Policy....................................................................................... 4

1.6 General Project Quality Control Process.....................................4

1.7 Quality Production .............................................................................5

1.8 Project Staffing List.............................................................................8

1.9 Participant Responsibilities .............................................................9

1.10 Submittal Reviews (Submittal Checking) ...................................9

1.11 Standard Checking Procedure ........................................................9

1 12 Project Coordination Reviews and Meetings 10



1 12 Project Coordination Reviews and Meetings 10

Job Specific Quality Control Plan

Tables, Exhibits and AttachmentsTable 1 ..............................................................................................................................................8

Exhibit 1 .........................................................................................................................................12

Exhibit 2 .........................................................................................................................................13

Exhibit 3 .........................................................................................................................................15Exhibit 4 .........................................................................................................................................18

Exhibit 5 .........................................................................................................................................18

Exhibit 6 .........................................................................................................................................19Exhibit 7 .........................................................................................................................................21Exhibit 8 .........................................................................................................................................23

Attachment A - QC/QA Log................................................................................................A-1

Attachment B - Quality Control Review Log ..................................................................B-1Attachment C - Approved Peer Reviews/Project Executives ...................................C-1

Attachment D - Level 1 Check print Sign -off Sheet ......................................................D-1Attachment E - Level 2 Review Memorandum .............................................................. E-1

Attachment F - Preliminary Audit Worksheet.................................................................F-1Attachment G - Secondary Audit Worksheet .................................................................G-1Attachment H - Quality Tips 2003-10 ...............................................................................H-1

Attachment I - Quality Tips 2003-11.....................................................................................I-1Attachment J - Quality Tips 2004-01.....................................................................................J-1

Attachment K- Quality Tips 2004-02..................................................................................K-1Attachment L - Quality Tips 2004-03 .................................................................................L-1




11..00 PPrroo j jeecctt QQuuaalliittyy CCoonnttrrooll PPllaann This document describes the Project Quality Control Plan that Jacobs Civil Inc. (Jacobs)

and their subconsultants will follow to ensure that all design, public involvement andenvironmental elements developed for the I -75 at SR 80 Interchange Reconstruction Project

conform to FDOT’s standards and criteria and minimize errors. The project documentationprepared by Jacobs will comply with all applicable FDOT’s manual and guidelines, as well

as related state and federal laws, executive orders and regulations.

The Jacobs Project Quality Control Plan is based on the philosophy that:

n

Quality is achieved by adequate planning, coordination, supervision and technicaldirection; proper definition of job requirements and procedures; understanding thescope of services; the use of appropriately skilled personnel; and by individuals

performing work functions carefully, including paying strict attention to avoidance of

errors and omissions.

n Quality is assured through checking, reviewing and surveying of work activities byindividuals who are not directly responsible for performing the initial efforts.

n Quality is controlled by assigning a manager to perform Quality Control (QC)

functions consisting of surveying and evaluating the work and the proceduresfollowed while performing the services.

n Quality is verified through independent reviews by a qualified staff of the processes,

procedures, documentation, supervision, technical direction, and staffing associatedwith project development.

1.1 Definitions of Qualityn

DICTIONARY – “the degree of excellence a thing possesses, excellence, superiority.”n FEDERAL GOVERNMENT – “meeting the requirements, need and expectations the

first time and every time.”

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) “conformance to




1.3 Quality Goals

Jacobs is committed to providing quality professional services that will help the FDOTobtain the goal of ZERO DEFECTS. Our efforts will be focused on the creation of

accurate, complete work without errors and omissions and meeting our contractual

obligations and commitments.

1.4 Quality ExpectationsA quality work deliverable is one that meets our contractual requirements with the FDOTand is prepared in accordance with accepted standards of professional practice. It is the

responsibility of the project team to plan and execute assignments so that qualitydeliverables are produced to meet these requirements. Quality is achieved when the work

is planned, assigned, executed, and checked. It is expected that quality work will beproduced and that Responsible Professionals (RPs) and Quality Reviewers (QRs) will

check all work for conformance to requirements.

1.5 Quality Policy

Jacob’s professional services will be based on sound principles, will meet the standards ofprofessional practice and will satisfy the quality requirements of the Scope of Services.

The Project Manager (Ron Glass) will distribute copies of the Project Quality Control Planto all project team members, including subconsultants. All project team members are

required to use the Project Quality Control Plan production and review process and

procedures described herein. Each team member must understand the project objectives,apply sound principles, and produce correct and complete work.

1.6 General Project Quality Control ProcessProduction quality is achieved through the careful development of the work and the

continuous checking, concurrence (backchecking), and verification of changes on all workand documents during their preparation and review The Quality Control Team includes




n The Project Manager conducts a kick-off meeting with appropriate members of the

project team before any project begins. The Project Work Plan, the Project Quality

Control Plan and the project instructions are presented by the Project Manager anddiscussed.

n As the project proceeds, RPs and their supporting staffs produce the work. PRs

continuously check the work during production. QRs, working under the direction ofthe Quality Manager, as integral members of the project team, check the work at

critical points during the production process.

n The QRs perform the submittal reviews in accordance with the procedures described

herein. However, the ultimate responsibility for quality rests with the RPs.

n Before a deliverable is released to the FDOT or others, the Quality Manager (QALeader) performs the quality assurance review and quality control verification. The

verification determines whether required production and review quality control

procedures have been used and that the work produced conforms to the appropriatestandards.

n The review documentation, which is developed during the production of review of the

work, is to be retained in the project files for Quality Assurance (QA) review and audit

purposed and to demonstrate that the Project Quality Control Plan requirements have

been met.

1.7 Quality ProductionProject quality is “built-in,” not added on. Quality work is the direct result of careful,

properly sequenced production and continuous RP checking of each work element forcompletion and correctness. This process also includes the concurrence of the designated

QR on concepts and presentation of each work element. The RPs and the supportingengineers, environmental scientists, designers and technicians working under the RPs

direct supervision will originate the designs, plans and/or reports using thorough,quality-oriented production and review methods for the development, completion and

checking of the work. The RPs perform detailed checks for accuracy, errors and omissions

prior to substantial completion and before each phase submittal review The RPs will




n Biological Assessment Technical Report

Bridge Designn Bridge Development Report

n 30% Bridge Plans

n Structural Calculations

n 60% Bridge Plans

n 60% Noise Wall Plans (if required)

n 90% Bridge Plans


n Computation Book


n 100% Bridge Plans

Roadway Design

n Typical Section Package

n SR 80 Operational Analysis Study Report

n Phase I Plans Package

n Phase II Plans Package

n Phase III Plans Package

n Phase IV Plans Package

n Specification Package

n Final Plans Package

Lighting Design

Li h i A l i R




n Phase III Signal Plans

n Phase IV Signal Plans

Landscape Design

n Tree Permits (If Required)

n Landscape Site Analysis Report

n Phase II Landscape Plans

n Phase III Landscape Plans

n Landscape Maintenance Agreement

n Computation Book

n Pjase IV Landscape Plans

1.8 Project Staffing ListThe project team dedicated to the production and review of all project elements, tasks and

deliverables is shown in the project-staffing list (see Table 1). The PM will obtain theapproval of the FDOT Project Manager if any changes in key project team personnel areunavoidable.




ELEMENT/TASK

Deliverable Respons ibl e Profess ion al (RP) Quality Reviewer (QR)

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT TASKS

Public Involvement

Public Involvement Activities

Coordination Ron Glass Gene Keeler

Public Involvement Noise Wall Public InvolvementWin Lindeman

Environmental Science

Associates

Gene Keeler

Public InvolvementPublic Information Meeting

Materials CoordinationRon Glass Gene Keeler

Public Involvement Website Material Gene Keeler Ron Glass

ENVIRONMENTAL TASKS

Permit Permit Application Packages David LandersScheda Ecological

Bill Veon

Cultural Resources Cultural Resource AssessmentMarion Almy

Archeological ConsultantsGene Keeler

Noise Noise Barrier Design Report

Win Lindeman

Environmental Science Associates

Gene Keeler

Wetlands Wetland Evaluation Report

David Landers

Scheda Ecological Gene Keeler

ContaminationContamination ScreeningEvaluation Report

John BarkerUniversal Engineering Sciences

Gene Keeler

TABLE 1

Project Staffing ListQuality Control Team Leader: Bill Little




1.9 Participant ResponsibilitiesThe responsibilities of the participants in the production of quality work and the quality

control process are defined as follows:

Public Involvement and Environment Quality Control Team Leader

Bill Little, PE – Mr. Little will function as Quality Control Team Leader (QC Leader) and

will be responsible for monitoring the overall quality control process during production

and review. He will ensure that the project professional and technical support staff follow

established FDOT standards and regulations and have the required experience andeducation to meet the high expectations of the FDOT.

Project Manager

Ron Glass, PE, AICP - Mr. Glass will be the overall Project Manager. Mr. Glass will

supervise the activities of the entire Jacobs Team and subconsultants. Mr. Glass will be the

single point of contact for District One and will be involved with the Team to coordinateactivities, confirm milestones, monitor potential bottlenecks, ensure manpower loading,

and partner with our Public Involvement and Environment Task Manager, Gene Keeler, toassure a successful Process.

Public Involvement and Environment, Task Manager

Gene Keeler - Mr. Keeler will lead the day-to-day Public Involvement and Environment

effort, including planning, training, and coordination. He will be responsible to the ProjectManager, Ron Glass to ensure that proper work planning and technical resources are

applied to the project, schedules are met, and quality control procedures are followed.

Quality ReviewerThe quality reviewer’s (QR’s) for various project deliverables are shown on Table 1.

1 10Submittal Reviews(Submittal Checking)




n RPs to concur with all comments and revise document if necessary.

n RPs to check in incorporation of all agreed revisions.

n QRs to verify the proper incorporation of all agreed changes.

n QA Leader to verify the process was followed.

n Project Manager and QCO will retain check sets for QA and audit reviews.

1.12 Project Coordination Reviews and MeetingsThe PM and RPs are responsible for reviewing all documents for correctness and cross-

references among disciplines. The QRs will check various documents.Regular coordination meetings will be held. The project coordination items will bediscussed at weekly meetings as necessary, to achieve complete project coordination.

1.13 Subconsultant Quality ControlThe PM will furnish all subconsultants with a copy of the project quality control plan. The

sub-consultants will be directed to follow the approved procedures, document their

quality control activities, and make their documentation available for a compliance audit.

Subconsultants will use the project quality control plan processes and procedures,including the quality control logs for each element of their work to certify that both

production and review was performed in accordance with the approved project quality

control plan. The quality control activities shall be documented, filed and retained asprovided herein.

In addition, the Jacobs Project Manager, Ron Glass, PE, and the QC Leader, Bill Little, PE

will conduct periodic quality assurance reviews of subconsultants work to check for

adherence to the project quality control plan.

1.14 Studies and ReportsSt di d t h i l lit t l i t Th RP d QR f th I




report to the FDOT or other review agencies and for the retention of all files, supporting

documents, calculations, drawings, graphics and reference material.

The QR will complete the checklists for each technical report element and establish that:

n The scope and objectives have been established and achieved.

n The appropriate technical criteria have been used.

n The approach is satisfactory and follows established methodology.

n Appropriate date has been acquired, referenced and retained.

n Methods and procedures used for calculations and analyses were appropriate.

n Assumptions are reasonable and clearly defined in accordance with establishedprinciples.

n Theories are applicable and are properly supported by back -up data.

n Conclusions are reasonable and based on sound professional judgment.

n The report format and presentation are appropriate and consistent with the requireddocuments and manuals.

n The text is grammatically correct and has been checked according to the project quality

control plan by the technical writer.n Graphics have been checked according to the project quality control plan.

n The QRs comments are properly recorded, addressed and verified on the checkingdocument.

n The RPs and the QRs have resolved any problems revealed by the review and have

signed the quality control log.

22..00 DDeessiiggnn QQuuaalliittyy CCoonnttrrooll LLeevveellss –– DDeef f iinniittiioonnss aanndd PPrroocceedduurreess




EXHIBIT 1

Level One Check

items and provides guidance for checking, review, coordination, verification, or Client

surveys. While it attempts to cover all components of the design, it is still the engineer and

reviewer’s responsibility to efficiently insure that all work has received the level of qualitycontrol they deem necessary.

The components of the Design Quality Control Matrix include:

1. Project submittals to FDOT including maps, reports, design drawings, design

calculations, specifications, and other documentation;2. Reviews of subconsultant deliverables submitted to Jacobs Civil;

3. Peer Reviews;

4. Coordination Reviews;

5. Constructability Review;6. CADD File Reviews;7. Plan-in-Hand Field Reviews;

8. Level of Management Reviews;9. Interactive Coordination Meetings;

10. Checking Final plots to verify all CADD levels turned on;

11. Back checking outside reproduction;12. Client Expectation Survey;

13. Client Surveys;

14. Certification by responsible professional that the Quality Control Review wasconducted.

The Design Quality Control Matrix includes the anticipated review dates, anticipated

originators and reviewers, and Level of review required. Work products within thesecomponents, may be originated by delegates, however the responsibility for accuracy and

quality of these work products remain unchanged from the matrix. As schedules andresources are changed/updated, the matrix should also be changed/updated by the

project manager. All necessary

parties will be notified ofchanges by a formal PPM/PCD

revision.

L l1A




EXHIBIT 2

QC Color Code

Documentation for Level 1A Checks is provided by

the color-coded checkprints developed by the

checking process and by the checkprint signaturestamp or yellow signoff sheet with signatures ofappropriate personnel involved in the checking

process. If it is necessary to transmit unchecked

documents to the contractor or the Department, thedocuments must be stamped "Unchecked. Do Not Use

For Construction."

Level 1A—100 Percent Document Check

The Level 1A Check provides a complete conceptsuitability, theory applicability, and numbers check

and is performed by a technically qualified individualother than the Originator. The process is described in

Exhibit 2 and the ensuing discussion.

The Originator is the qualified individual who is

responsible for the development of the document in itsoriginal form. The Originator develops the document

in accordance with the PCD. For design work,document development shall be based on checked

input material (i.e., design analysis is based onchecked design criteria, and drawings are based on

checked design analysis). The Originator must

identify and make accessible all references and backupmaterials for the Checker’s use. The Originator is

responsible for completing the work accurately in allrespects before releasing the document for checking and/or review.

Following completion of the original document, the Originator must sign (not initial),date, and make a copy of the document, add and complete the checkprint signature stamp

or sign-off sheet (see Exhibit 3), and deliver the document to the designated individual forcontinuation of the QC process




The Checker must not be unduly influenced by personal opinion about the presentation or

approach of the document; however, the document must be able to be interpreted without

further explanation. If further explanation is required, the document must be returned tothe Originator for further work.

All correct lines, dimensions, and written text shall be marked in yellow on the checkprint.

All necessary corrections, additions, or deletions shall be marked in red. Comments ornotes not intended to be incorporated into the original document must be made in a color

other than red, yellow, or green.

Significant corrections, additions, or deletions that potentially void a portion of the work

must be resolved prior to continuing with the checking process. Irreconcilable differences

between the Originator and Checker shall be referred to the Discipline Leader or theDesign Services Manager for further action.

At the completion of the check, the Checker shall sign (not initial) the checkprints as

appropriate, sign and date the sign-off sheet or checkprint stamp in the space marked“Checker”, and return the document to the Discipline Leader for continued processing.

Following completion of the checking process and final updating of the originaldocuments, the checker shall sign the original document (if applicable) in the appropriate

location.




EXHIBIT 3

Discipline Signoff Sheet

Notes:

1. The Originator of a document

is the individual responsiblefor the technical content and

accuracy of the document. For

example, a typist who types areport or specification or aCADD technician who

performs the drafting on a

drawing is not the originator.

2. By definition of the Level 1Checking process, a minimum

of two set of qualified Jacobs

eyes are to be involved in thechecking process. The design

manager will determine thequalification requirements of

all participants in this checkingprocess.

3. In the case of drawings, theOriginator of the calculations

upon which the drawing isbased should be involved in

the checking process as eitherthe drawing Originator,




The Backchecker is the qualified individual responsible for verifying corrections made to

Notes

1. For documents that are predominantly text such as reports and specifications, itis not necessary to yellow-in each individual line of text. A yellow mark througheach correct paragraph is acceptable.

2. For contract drawings, the Checker must verify that the drawings are inaccordance with the appropriate checked calculations used to develop the

drawings. All drawing lines, dimension, text, and other information shall beyellowed or red-marked to indicate status. It is not sufficient to simply strike a

yellow mark through an area of the drawing such as a section or detail.

Checkprints shall be created for distinct phase submittal of a drawing, andcheckprints for each of these phase submittals shall be maintained in the project

files. The final checkprint for each phase must have all lines, dimensions, andtext yellow marked. Drawing information that was developed in prior phase

shall be compared to the checked drawings from the prior phase to verifycontinuity and that the information is still complete and correct. For example, if

call-outs or notes from a prior phase had to be moved to accommodate newdrawing elements, verify that the call-outs or notes still appear on the drawing,

that the leaders still point to the appropriate elements, and that there were no

typographic errors made in any retyping.

3. Where multiple disciplines contribute to development of a particular document,multiple sign-off sheets or stamps are required to be used to document the

check. The Checker must note by the stamp or sign-off sheet the discipline or

portion of the document being checked. The Design Services Manager shalldesignate an individual for the overall review of the QC process for a multiple-

discipline document.

4. Spreadsheets (except those that are pre-validated) shall be given a thoroughLevel 1A Check, on a printed copy.




available, an individual with qualifications comparable to the Originator may be

substituted. The Originator should be notified of any changes to the original document

before it is updated.The Updater shall update the original document in accordance with the checkprints. Toindicate that the original has been updated, the red-marked areas of the checkprint with

green check marks are circled in green as the Updater goes along.

At the completion of the update, the Updater shallsign and date the sign-off sheet or checkprint stamp

in the space marked “Update” and forward the

document to the designated individual for continued

processing. The Updater is also responsible forverifying that the Checker’s signature is added to theoriginal documents as necessary.

The Rechecker is the qualified individual responsiblefor verifying that corrections have been made to the

original document by the Updater and in accordancewith the backchecked checkprints. If possible, the Rechecker should be the Checker and

must be a Jacobs employee. This allows a time-efficient checking process and confirms thatthe changes were made correctly. However, if the Checker is not available to perform as

the Rechecker, an individual with comparable qualifications may be substituted.

The Rechecker shall verify that all updates on the original document have been made in

accordance with the backchecked documents. The Rechecker compares the agreed-tochanges/modifications/corrections with the updated original and highlights them in

yellow on the checkprint if the original has been accurately corrected. If the original hasnot been properly updated, the Rechecker must coordinate the process of agreement and

update with the Backchecker and Updater.

At the completion of the recheck, the Rechecker shall sign and date the sign-off sheet orcheckprint stamp in the space marked “Recheck” and return the document to thedesignated individual for continued processing.

Level1B—100PercentInputCheck

Notes

For drawings, green checks shouldbe provided for each red mark on

the drawing to indicate agreement.It is not sufficient to provide agreen check applicable to an entire

section, detail, or other portion of adrawing.




EXHIBIT 4

Level 1B—100 Percent Input Check

EXHIBIT 5

Level 1C—Spot Check




logical, has followed the required procedures, and has used the correct specifications. The

reviewers(s) apply their accumulated experience and professional judgment to verify that

the work is being performed to the established standards of the Department, thecontractor, and Jacobs.

The Reviewer may be a project team member, an employee who has not worked on the

project, an employee who is an expert in a specialized area of expertise, or a team of peerreviewers for specific work processes.

The Level 2 Review is documented by a memorandum to the project file identifying action

steps that need to be taken (if any), rather than using the red-yellow-green color code used

for Level 1 checks.

Level 2A—Concept ReviewThe Level 2A Concept Review verifies that the concept and approach are correct and meet

the requirements. It is a review for approach suitability, consistency with codes and clientrequirements, and good engineering practice.

For highway design, the Level 2A Review must be performed by one of Jacobs’ approved

peer reviewers. The Design Services Manager will identify the appropriate person or team

and coordinate their participation.

For other disciplines, the Level 2A Reviews shall be performed by any senior Jacobsengineer experienced in the discipline being reviewed. An efficient approach is for the

person who will ultimately perform the Level 1 Check to perform the Level 2A Review.

The process for a Level 2A Review is described in Exhibit 6. The Level 2A Review is

performed early in the project once the concept and approach are defined, but prior to thesignificant development of the drawings. It is documented by the appropriate signature(s)

and review findings in the form of either a memorandum to the project files or a more

formal report identifying action steps that need to be taken. After the review is completed,the appropriate Discipline Leader or the Design Services Manager shall prepare an action

plan to address the review findings and recommendations and to indicate compliance ornon-compliance, along with appropriate explanations.




A Level 2B Review shall also be performed by each discipline to verify coordination

between calculations, drawings, and specifications within that discipline, and to verify that

the design meets the requirements as outlined in the PROJECT PROCEDURES MANUALand the PCD. This review process shall include a review of the drawings by the Originatorof the calculations if the originator was not part of the Level 1 checking process for the

drawings. The discipline Level 2B Review shall also verify the reasonableness of technical

reports, studies, and the output of spreadsheets and computer programs used in thatdiscipline’s design process.

A final Level 2B Review shall be performed to verify coordination between all project

disciplines and to provide a review of the final package submittal or of any package being

released for construction.

The Discipline Leader or his/her designee from each discipline shall participate in this

review, even those disciplines which may not have any design elements in the packagebeing reviewed.

Level 2B Reviews shall be documented with appropriate signatures and review findings in

the form of a memorandum to the project files or a more formal report. After the review is

completed, the appropriate Discipline Leader or the Design Services Manager shallprepare an action plan to address the review findings and recommendations and to

indicate compliance or non-compliance, along with appropriate explanations.

Level 3

Level 3 Reviews are required on the PROJECT PROCEDURES MANUAL, the PCD, and

the Initial Project CADD Setup for this project. These reviews are performed by Project

Principal or his designee to verify that the documents are complete, logical, and havefollowed the required procedures. They provide the review required to obtain a signature

for these documents before they can proceed to be used in the work process.

Level 3A—Level of Management ReviewA Level 3A Authorization requires the signature of someone from management before the

document can proceed in the process. This Review is performed to verify all requiredLevel 1 Checks and Level 2 Reviews have been completed. The documentation for the




EXHIBIT 7

Level 3A—Level of Management

Review

Level 3B—Company Officer AuthorizationA Level 3B Authorization requires the signature of a Jacobs Civil officer before thedocument can proceed in the process. Level 3B Authorization examples include proposals,

contracts, subcontracts, and purchase orders that must be signed by a company officerprior to being mailed. The document for this level of authorization is the document itself.

2.1 Routine Quality Control

Technical Coordination Review

A Technical Coordination Review (TCR) is a Level Two review conducted to gain conceptapproval of a particular design segment before a great deal of effort is spent on final

design. It is a review for approach, suitability, consistency with codes and client

requirements, and good engineering practice. This coordination will take place in theweekly design progress meetings and will include discipline leaders, construction

personnel, and the Design Project Manager. If the complexity or importance of thesegment warrants, or issues arise that require lengthy discussion, a review team chosen by

the Design Project Manager may do the review offline.

The Discipline Leader must present the segment design criteria and any development

done to date in writing prior to the meeting. Potential conflicts with other disciplines or




questions will be the goal of these first reviews. The intent of this procedure is not so much

to check, but rather to promote coordination and prevent errors from happening.

DCR will be recorded in the progress meeting minutes. The latest DCR documents will bepreserved through project completion for audit and informational purposes, but may notbe retained in permanent files.

2.2 Responsibility for Design Quality ControlAs the Design Project Manager, Ron Glass, has the oversight responsibility for

coordinating the various engineering design disciplines.

A qualified technical leader has been assigned for each discipline to be responsible fordesign criteria, design quality, accuracy, consistency of approach, and responsiveness for

meeting project criteria and owner requirements for the represented discipline. The

discipline leaders, listed below, will be responsible for developing design criteria and forcoordinating with other discipline designs. To facilitate coordination, multi-discipline

(weekly) reviews will be scheduled and conducted.

Bill Little, PE, will perform the Level 3A QA/QC audit to ensure that the team is following

the process as required in this Job-Specific Quality Plan.

Structures Steve Zendegui, PE

Roadway Rick Rocktoff, PE

Drainage & Permitting Bill Veon, PE

Maintenance of Traffic Bill Little, PE

Signing and Pavement Marking Rudy Gotmare, PE

Lighting Mike Cahill, PE

Traffic Signals Erbie Garrett, PE, PTOE






The procedures and requirements for each of the QC levels are included in the

definitions section of this volume.

Peer Review/ Final Package Review

Prior to a submittal to the Department, a peer review will be performed by

individuals not involved in the development or checking. This review is also knownas a Final Package Review. The Final Package Review (FPR) is a Level Two overall

coordination review of a package of construction documents in final form

performed just prior to their submission to Department and prior to release forconstruction. It is a final check that the package is complete and ready for

construction. It is to verify that all documents have been checked according to theQuality Control Procedures and that discipline sign-off sheets/stamps have been

properly signed. A Final Package Review will be mandatory for all constructionpackages and other deliverables (such as reports and studies requiring a Level One

check).

Documentation

Documentation for the Design QA/QC process will consist of meeting minutes,Level One Check prints, sign-off sheets, Peer review comments, and quarterly audit

reports. These documents will be stored in the Tampa Office in the central filingarea dedicated to the I-75 at SR 80 Interchange Reconstruction Project.

Design Criteria

Reviewers are required to have all of the latest editions of the following criteria

available for checking:

Technical Proposal Governing Regulations

All Disciplines

Scope of Services




Roadway Discipline

n Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, AASHTO

n FDOT Project Development and Environment Manual

n Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards for Design, Construction, and

Maintenance For Streets and Highways

n FDOT Access Management Standards – Rule 14-97

n FDOT Bicycle Facilities Planning and Design Manual, Rev. Edition 1982

n Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)n Elder Road User Policy

n FDOT Flexible Pavement Design Manual, 2002

n Pavement Type Selection Manual, 2002

n Florida’s Level of Service Standards and Guidelines Manual for Planning

n (No. 525-000-005)

n

Equivalent Single Axle Load Guidelines (No. 525-030-121)n Design Traffic Procedure (525-030-121)

n K-Factor Estimation Process

n Project Traffic Forecasting Guidelines

n District One Utility Coordination Manual

n FDOT Handbook for the Preparation of Specifications Packages, 2004

n Guidelines for the Use of Florida Highway Patrol

n Memorandums for District One Practice

n Added Requirements in plans when using Gravity Wall




Drainage Discipline

n FDOT Drainage Manual, 2003

n FDOT Drainage Handbook Temporary Drainage Design, October 2001

n Drainage Connection Permit Handbook, 1987

n Drainage Handbook: Cross Drain, 1996

n Drainage Handbook: Erosion and Sediment Control

n Drainage Handbook: Hydrology, 2000

n Drainage Handbook: Optional Pipe Materials, 1999

n Drainage Handbook: Storm Drains, 2000

n Drainage Handbook: Stormwater Management Facilities, 1999

n Drainage Handbook: Temporary Drainage Design

n Chapter 373, Part IV, Management and Storage of Surface Waters, FloridaStatues, Rules of the South Florida Water Management District (Chapters 40E-4,

40E-40, and 40E-400, FAC

n Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899,

n Section 404 of the Clean Water Act

n US Coast Guard Bridge Permit Application Guide (Commandant PublicationP16591.3)

Structures Discipline

n FDOT LRFD Structures Design Guidelines

n AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design (1998) Specifications with Supplements

n FDOT Structures Detailing Manual

n AASHTO Standard Specification for Structural Supports for Highway Signs,




Design Quality Control During Construction

Naturally, all QC measures followed during the design phase will be followed in the

shop drawing review and plans revisions. Requests for information (RFIs) will beanswered by responsible discipline leaders and have concurrence by the post design

project manager.

Staff Training

Jacobs Civil is committed to insuring that only qualified staff perform all work

activities on our Clients projects, especially those elements of a project that require

mandated training such as preparation of Traffic Control Plans and preparation ofFDOT Specifications Packages. FDOT is a progressive Client with continuous

improvements in the way technology is utilized. The staff at Jacobs Civil willcontinue to be trained in all areas necessary to meet or exceed the FDOT’s

expectations for project delivery. Verification and status of staff training will berequired for this project. Certifications for special FDOT training are included in

Appendix A.

33..00 EElleeccttrroonniicc DDeelliivveerryy QQAA//QQCC PPrrooggrraammKey FeaturesRegional CADD Standards Committee of proactive leaders sets criteria.

Project CADD Leader reviews CADD Journals weekly and prior to submittals.

Jacobs Common Plotting Solution ensures only verified symbology and project

resources are available for use.

Project CADD Leader back checks finished plots for symbology compliance.

Project CADD Leader checks Project Directory weekly. Project Technology

Coordinator verifies accuracy prior to each submittal




Manager. The Regional CADD Standards Committee is comprised of practice

leaders in each discipline throughout the state and ensures that our productionmethods adhere in every way to the guidelines contained in the FDOT CADD

Manual, the FDOT CADD Production Criteria Handbook and the Plans PreparationManual as well as other FDOT criteria.

Standard Project Directory Structure

In order to ensure complete compliance with FDOT guidelines, the project must becreated using the standard project directory structure. Typically, the District will

create a SEED Project Directory, authenticate it and deliver it to Jacobs Civil, Inc. Inthe event the District does not provide a SEED Project Directory, Jacobs will createone in accordance with the FDOT CADD Production Criteria Handbook and this

will be submitted to the District for review and approval.

Electronic Journal and Index

Journaling and Indexing shall be accomplished using the tools provided by the

FDOT. Each CADD Technician will be responsible for journal entries as key designdecisions are made. The Project CADD Leader will review the CADD Journals

weekly and prior to submittals.

Content and Format

The Regional CADD Standards Committee verifies all symbology and projectresources for each project. These files are then implemented on the project storage

area for each office as necessary. The Jacobs common plotting solution ensures thatonly these verified resources are available to each project. The Project CADD

Leader is responsible for back checking the finished plots for symbology

compliance.Organization of Data

In order to comply with all the requirements of the District, each electronic file mustb t i d ithi th t di t It i th ibilit f th P j t




3.2 QA/ QC PersonnelProject Manager, Ron Glass, PE

Mr. Glass is currently the PM and/or EOR for two Electronic Delivery Projects. Mr.

Glass has had the FDOT Electronic Delivery Training.

Project Technology Coordinator, Timothy Lyvers

Tim has completed the FDOT Electronic Delivery Training and is the PTC on all

Jacobs Civil FDOT projects.

Project CADD Leader, Scott Dixon

In addition to being the Project CADD Leader on numerous FDOT ElectronicDelivery Projects, he is also chairperson of the FDOT District Seven Graphic Users

Group. Scott has had Electronic Delivery Training.



No. Component Originator

Level 1

Review

Level 2 or

FPR Review

Level 3 or

FPR Review Comment

1 Design Survey Phase A

AIM Engineering &

Surveying 2B

Compare to raster image and spot check in field to

verify all survey complete. Verify electronic survey

files meet FDOT standards.

2 Design Survey Phase B

AIM Engineering &

Surveying 2B

Compare to raster image and spot check in field to

verify all survey complete. Verify electronic survey

files meet FDOT standards.

3 Jurisdict ional Survey

AIM Engineering &

Surveying 2B

Spot check against wetland flag map developed in

field to evaluate all flagged points are shown in

survey. Verify electronic files meet FDOT CADD

standards.

4 Level B Ut il ity Survey AIM Engineering &

Surveying 2B Verify electronic files meet FDOT CADD standards.

5 Geotechnical Boring Survey

AIM Engineering &


6 Pond Site Survey

AIM Engineering &

Surveying 2B

Perform field review to compare elevations in field to

check for reasonableness. Verify electronic files meet

FDOT CADD standards.

7 R/W Survey

AIM Engineering &


8 SUE Survey

AIM Engineering &


9 30% R/W Map AIM Engineering &


10 90% R/W Map

AIM Engineering &


11 100% R/W Map

AIM Engineering &

Surveying 2B

Verify electronic files meet FDOT CADD standards.

Compare to plans to verify lastest R/W shown

properly in plans.

Survey

Right-of-Way Mapping

I-75 at SR 80 Interchange Reconstruction Project

FPID 411042 1 32 01

Lee County

ATTACHMENT ADESIGN QUALITY CONTROL MATRIX

A-1




Level 1

Review

Level 2 or

FPR Review

Level 3 or

FPR Review Comment


FPID 411042 1 32 01

Lee County


12 Structures Design Criteria Jacobs 1A

13

Phase I Structures Geotech Report

Package A Universal 2B

Check report to verify that all geotechnical information

required for BDR/30% structures design is included in

report before acceptance. Verify that subs QC

documentation was provided along with report.

14

Phase I Structures Geotech Report

Package B Universal 2B


required for BDR/ 30% structures design is included in



15

Phase II Structures Geotech Report

Packages A & B Universal 2B


required for 60% structures design is included in



16

Preliminary OH Sign and Signal Pole

Geotech Report Universal 2B


required for structures design is included in report

before acceptance. Verify that subs QC


17Final Structures Geotech ReportPackages A & B Universal 2B


required for structures design is included in report


documentation was provided along with report. VerifyFinal Report is signed and sealed by EOR.

18 BDR/ 30% Bridge Plans Package A Jacobs 1A

19 BDR/ 30% Bridge Plans Package B Jacobs 1A

20 60% Structures Plans Package A Jacobs 1A

21 60% Structures Plans Package B Jacobs 1A

22 90% Structures Plans Package A & B Jacobs 1A

Structures

A-2




Level 1

Review

Level 2 or

FPR Review

Level 3 or

FPR Review Comment


FPID 411042 1 32 01

Lee County


23 100% Structures Plans Package A&B Jacobs 1A

24

Phase III Structural Design OH

Cantilever Sign Jacobs 1A

25

Phase IV Structural Design OH

Cantilever Sign Jacobs 1A

26

Phase III Structural Design Mast Arm

Signal Pole Design Jacobs 1A

27

Phase IV Structural Design Mast Arm

Signal Pole Design Jacobs 1A

28 Prel Sound Barrier Control Drawings Jacobs 1A

29

Complete Sound Barrier Control

Drawings Jacobs 1A

30 Roadway Design Criteria Jacobs 1A

31 Drainage Design Criteria Jacobs 1A

32 Preliminary Typical Sect ion Package Jacobs 1A

33 Final Typical Section Package Jacobs 1A

34 Base Clearance Water Elevation Jacobs 1C

35

Design Variations/Exceptions

Document Jacobs 1C

36 Updated Public Involvement Plan Jacobs 1C

37 Noise Wall Analysis

Environmental

Sciences 2B

Resonableness check to verify the approach that was

defined in the scope of services is being met.

38 Prel Pavement Design Package Jacobs 1B

39

Phase I Roadway Design/ Plans/

Documentation Jacobs 1A

40 Phase I TCP Plans Jacobs 1A

41 Seasonal High Water Data Universal 2B

Check data to verify that all SHW information required

for 15% line and grade design is included in letter

before acceptance.

Phase 1

A-3




Level 1

Review

Level 2 or

FPR Review

Level 3 or

FPR Review Comment


FPID 411042 1 32 01

Lee County


42 Stage I Pavement Evaluation Report Universal 2B


required for preliminary pavement design is included

in report before acceptance.

43 Stage II Pavement Evaluation Report Universal 2B


required for final pavement design is included in report



44 Prel Roadway Geotech Report Universal 2B


required for Phase I roadway design is included in



45 Prel Pond Geotechnical Report Universal 2B


required for pond designs is included in report before

acceptance. Verify that subs QC documentation was

provided along with report.

46 Contamination Report Universal 2B

Check report to verify that all contamination testing

information required for pond design site evaluations

is included in report before acceptance. Verify that

subs QC documentation was provided along with

report.

47 Draft Cultural Resources Report

Archaeological

Consultants 2B

Check report to verify that scope requirements have

been met. Verify that subs QC documentation was


48 Final Cultural Resources Report

Archaeological

Consultants 2B

Check report to verify that scope requirements have

been met. Verify that subs QC documentation was


49 Updated Pond Siting Analysis Report Jacobs 1A

50 Finalized Pond Siting Analysis Report Jacobs 1A

51

Prel Phase I Drainage Analysis/

Drainage Map Jacobs 1A

52 Prel Phase I SWPPP Jacobs 1A

53 Phase I Roadway Peer Review Jacobs 2A

54 Phase I Drainage Peer Review Jacobs 2A

A-4




Level 1

Review

Level 2 or

FPR Review

Level 3 or

FPR Review Comment


FPID 411042 1 32 01

Lee County


55

Phase I Plans Package Ready for

Submittal Jacobs 1C 3A

Check plans assembly for missing sheets, numbering

of each sheet, and plan sets from printer for

orientation of sheets and complete copies.

56

Resolution to FDOT Phase I Review

Comments Team 1C

57 Document Coordination Review Team 2B

Document Coordination Review with Jacobs and Subs

Representatives prior to start of Phase II

58 Final Pavement Design Package Jacobs 1B

59 Phase II Roadway Peer Review Jacobs 2B To be scheduled toward end of Phase II.

60

Phase II Roadway Design/ Plans/


61 Phase II Traffic Control Design/ Plans/Documentation Jacobs 1A

62 Preliminary Ut il ity Adjustment Plans Jacobs 1A

63

Phase II Drainage Analysis/ Plans/


64

Phase II S&PM Design/ Plans/


65 Phase II Traffic Signal Plans Review Faller Davis 2B

Spot check of details and plans to ensure consistency

with roadway parts and there are not any conflicts with

Jacobs and subs design.

66 Phase II Summary of Pay Items Jacobs 1C

67 Phase II SWPPP Jacobs 1C

68 Alternative Mitigation Plans Scheda 2B

69 Complete Mitigation Plans Scheda 2B

70 ERP Permit Application Jacobs 1C

71 Preliminary NPDES Permit Application Jacobs 1C

72

Final Roadway and Pond Geotechnical

Report Universal 2B


required for Phase II roadway and pond design is

included in report before acceptance. Verify that subs

QC documentation was provided along with report.

Verify report is signed and sealed by EOR.

73

Phase II Plans Package Ready for


Check plans assembly for missing sheets, numbering

of each sheet, and plan sets from from printer for


Phase II

A-5




Level 1

Review

Level 2 or

FPR Review

Level 3 or

FPR Review Comment


FPID 411042 1 32 01

Lee County


74

Resolution to FDOT Phase II Review

Comments Team 1C



Representatives prior to start of Phase III

76 Phase III Coordination Review Team 2B To be scheduled toward end of Phase III

77 Phase III Constructability Review Jacobs 2B To be scheduled toward end of Phase III

78

Phase III Roadway Design/ Plans/


79

Phase III Traffic Control Design/ Plans/


80 Phase III Utility Adjustment Plans Jacobs 1A

81 Phase III Drainage Design/ Plans/Documentation Jacobs 1A

82

Phase III S&PM Design/ Plans/


83 Phase III Traffic Signal Plans Review Faller Davis 2B




84 Completed NPDES Permit Application Jacobs 1C

85 Phase III Complete SWPPP Jacobs 1C

86 Computation Book (Complete) Jacobs 1C

87 Phase III Summary of Pay Items Jacobs 1A

88 Proposed Technical Special Provisions Jacobs 1A

89

Phase III Plans Package Ready for


Check plans assembly for missing sheets, numberingof each sheet, and plan sets from from printer for


90

Resolution to FDOT Phase III Review

Comments Team 1C



Representatives prior to start of Phase II

92

Phase IV Roadway Design/ Plans/


93

Phase IV Traffic Control Design/

Plans/ Documentation Jacobs 1A

Phase III

Phase IV

A-6




Level 1

Review

Level 2 or

FPR Review

Level 3 or

FPR Review Comment


FPID 411042 1 32 01

Lee County


94 Phase IV Utility Adjustment Plans Jacobs 1A

95 Utility Conflict Matrix Jacobs 1C

96

Phase IV Drainage Design/Plans/


97 SWPPP (Complete) Jacobs 1C

98

Phase IV S&PM Design/ Plans/

Documentation Jacobs 2B

99 Phase IV Traffic Signal Plans Review Faller Davis 2B




100 Phase IV Summary of Pay Items Jacobs 1A

101 Computation Book (Complete) Jacobs 1C

102

Phase IV Plans Package Ready for


Check plans assembly for missing sheets, numberingof each sheet, and plan sets from from printer for


103

Resolution to FDOT Phase IV Review

Comments Team 1C

104 Initial Specifications Package Jacobs 1C

105 Final Plans for Mailing Jacobs 1C

106 Complete Specifications Package Jacobs 1C

Project Completion

A-7



APPROVED QC REVIEWERS

Structures Roadway Drainage

David Panlilio, PE, Jacobs Civil Inc. Bill Little, PE, Jacobs Civil Inc. Richard Bobletz, PE Jacobs Civil Inc.John Hartland, PE, Jacobs Civil Inc. Brian Flynn, PE, Jacobs Civil Inc. Meiying Gu, PE, Jacobs Civil Inc.

Rudy Pein, PE, Jacobs Civil Inc. Paul Hiers, PE, Jacobs Civil Inc.

Gautam Ghosh, PE, Jacobs Civil Inc. Anniruddha Gotmare, PE, Jacobs Civil Inc.

Don Hammond, PE, Jacobs Civil Inc.

LEVEL 2 REVIEWS

No. Component

Level of

Review

Date of

Review

Review

Leader

1 Design Survey Phase A 2B

2 Design Survey Phase B 2B

3 Jurisdictional Survey 2B

4 Level B Utility Survey 2B

5 Geotechnical Boring Survey 2B

6 Pond Site Survey 2B7 R/W Survey 2B

8 SUE Survey 2B

9 30% R/W Map 2B

10 90% R/W Map 2B

11 100% R/W Map 2B

12 Phase I Structures Geotech Report Package A 2B

13 Phase I Structures Geotech Report Package B 2B

14 Phase II Structures Geotech Report Packages A & B 2B

15 Preliminary OH Sign and Signal Pole Geotech Report 2B

16 Final Structures Geotech Report Packages A & B 2B

17 Noise Wall Analysis 2B

18 Letter for Scour Considerations 2B

19 Seasonal High Water Data 2B

20 Stage I Pavement Evaluation Report 2B

21 Stage II Pavement Evaluation Report 2B22 Prel Roadway Geotech Report 2B

23 Prel Pond Geotechnical Report 2B

24 Contamination Report 2B

25 Draft Cultural Resources Report 2B

26 Final Cultural Resources Report 2B

27 Phase I Roadway Peer Review 2A

28 Phase I Drainage Peer Review 2A

29 Phase II Document Coordination Review 2C

30 Phase II Traffic Signal Plans Review 2B

31 Alternative Mitigation Plans 2B

32 Complete Mitigation Plans 2B

33 Final Roadway and Pond Geotechnical Report 2B

34 Phase II Roadway Peer Review 2A

35 Phase III Document Coordination Review

36 Phase III Traffic Signal Plans Review

37 Phase IV Traffic Signal Plans Review

Review Team Members

ATTACHMENT BQUALITY CONTROL REVIEW LOG


FPID 411042 1 32 01

Lee County



Documents

Section 5 Quality Control (1)