TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1) Safety … · 2019-07-05 · TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA . July 9, 2019 – Registration 9 to 10am . Meeting 10:00 am – 2pm

TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA July 9, 2019 – Registration 9 to 10am Meeting 10:00 am – 2pm EST Holiday Inn Tampa Westshore 700 N. Westshore Blvd. Tampa, FL 33609 Royal Palm Ballroom 1) Call to Order

a. Safety Briefing b. Pledge of Allegiance c. Attendance Roster ~ Please check in at the Registration Desk

2) Approval of Minutes from April 2019 meeting (Exhibit 2) 3) Chair Welcome – Doug Geiger

i) Expanded introductions by members

4) Executive Director Report - Allen Douglas

5) Subcommittee Reports

i) Liaison Committee – Nina Sickler • District Liaisons (Exhibit 5.1) • Next Liaison Committee mtg.

ii) Production Subcommittee – Paul Foley (Exhibit 5.2)

• Structures Subcommittee • Task Teams

(a) Consultant Grading (b) Design positions (c) 3D plans

iii) DBE/SBE Subcommittee - Aniruddha (Rudy) Gotmare

iv) CEI Subcommittee – Jennifer Olson (Exhibit 5.4)

v) Alternative Contracting Task Force / ACEC-FL FTBA Subcommittee - Robert Carballo

vi) Specification Review Subcommittee – David O’Hagan (Exhibit 5.6)

vii) PD&E / Planning Subcommittee – Silvia Beltrae (Exhibit 5.7)

https://www.ihg.com/holidayinn/hotels/us/en/tampa/tpacp/hoteldetail?cm_mmc=GoogleMaps-_-HI-_-US-_-TPACP

TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA July 9, 2019 – Meeting 10:00 am – 2pm EST Holiday Inn Tampa Westshore Page 2 of 2

viii) Expressway Subcommittee – Joe Gomez (Exhibit 5.8)

6) Relations Committee Items – Doug Geiger

i) 7/16/19 Meeting - upcoming • ACEC-FDOT Transportation Conf: 5/29 & 30/2019 • M-Core • Materials testing rates

7) Procurement Related Items – Doug Geiger

i) Discussion of Interviews ii) Exceptions

8) Check-in Items – Doug Geiger

i) Cap on Salaries ii) Escalation in Contracts iii) Identify negative inconsistencies for execution of work or selection

9) FDOT Regional Meetings – Nina Sickler 10) Next Transportation Committee Meetings

October 8 – Embassy Suites – Lake Buena Vista SOUTH – Room Block $152+tax

January 14 – Hyatt International Airport – Room Block $296.55+tax

11) Adjournment

https://book.passkey.com/event/49863091/owner/10810031/home

https://www.hyatt.com/en-US/group-booking/ORLAN/G-AF02

EXHIBIT 2

TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES April 9, 2019

Meeting Packet

The April 9, 2019 meeting of the ACEC-FL Transportation Committee was called to order by Doug Geiger, PE at 10:08 am.

Participating:

Angela Alba AREHNA Teresita Alvarez Atkins North America Burt Baldo Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc. Nicole Beasley RS&H Robert Behar R.J. Behar & Company Inc. Silvia Beltre Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Martin Benzaquen Gannett Fleming, Inc. Angela Bernace Pevida Highway Designers, LLC Steven Blount H.W. Lochner Inc. Carmine Borea Finley Engineering Group Jennifer Brockman Adaptive Consulting Engineers, LLC Alexandra Browne JMT Alfredo Budik NV5, Inc Darrel Burnett Metric Engineering, Inc. Evelio Chavez Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. Rick Chesser RS&H, Inc. John Dewey HNTB Corporation Paul DiGiacobbe Maser Consulting P.A. Sean Donahoo AIM Engineering & Surveying Inc. Bill Downey RS & H Harold Dubon Carnahan, Proctor and Cross Inc. Mark Dunn Patel, Greene and Associates, PLLC Mike Ehrhart Maser Consulting P.A. Karina Enrico K-Factor Benjamin Faust DRMP Steve Ferrell HDR Lee Flynn AIM Engineering & Surveying, Inc Paul Foley Kisinger Campo & Associates Corp. Ryan Forrestel American Consulting Engineers of FL Nick Gadbois ESA Douglas Geiger RS&H, Inc Joe Gomez Terracon Consultants Inc Edward Gonzalez RS&H, Inc Aniruddha Gotmare Scalar Consulting Group Inc. Gayle Grady American Consulting Professionals, LLC Nick Harrison American Structurepoint Inc. Richard Harrison Kisinger Campo & Associates Corp. Jacki Hart RS&H Thomas Hayden Environmental & Geotechnical Specialists Inc. (EGS) Charlie Herndon HNTB Corporation

https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.fleng.org/resource/resmgr/hobbs/TC_040919_meetingpacket.pdf

Frank Hickson Consor Engineers LLC James Kanter T.Y. Lin International Alan Klevens TranSystems Corporation Todd Laine WSP USA INC. Andre Lauzier HDR Engineering Inc. Alfred Lurigados BCC Engineering Inc. Jason Lyle RK&K George Martin Kisinger Campo & Associates Corp. Stephen McGucken Kisinger Campo & Associates Corp. Jessica McRory AREHNA Daniel Menendez ATKINS, Member of SNC-Lavalin Group Mark Moshier Keith and Schnars PA a division of KCI Technologies, Inc. Yassi Myers TLP Engineering Consultants Inc. Jeff Novotny American Consulting Engineers of FL Andrew Nunes American Consulting Engineers of FL Paula Olano Gannett Fleming Inc. Miguel Olivares K-Factor Jennifer Olson Consor Engineers LLC Mark Owen GAI Consultants Inc. Ed Palacio AECOM Hiren Patel Patel, Greene and Associates, PLLC Gus Pego HNTB Corporation Walfrido Pevida Pevida Highway Designers, LLC Herb Potter Adaptive Consulting Engineers, LLC Chaitali Prajapati PI Consulting Services LLC Randell Prescott KCI Technologies Inc. Gustavo Quesada New Millennium Engineering Coriann Salas WGI Sandy Scheda ESA Pat Senne Maser Consulting P.A. Steven Shaup TranSystems Corporation David Shearer STV Incorporated Nina Sickler Pond & Company Marc Silva HDR Construction Control Corporation David Stickles JMT Will Suero HDR Engineering Inc. James Sumislaski Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc. Manuel Then Wantman Group, Inc. Steven Wallace DRMP Wayne Waters BCC Engineering Inc. JD Whitaker Scalar Consulting Group Inc. Jeff Wilson Weston & Sampson Engineers Inc. Vay Zagardo AIM Engineering & Surveying Inc.

Others – Samantha Hobbs, ACEC-FL Director of Government Affairs and Executive Policy

There was a motion, it was seconded and carried unanimously to approve the January 8 minutes.

1) Chair Welcome – Doug Geiger i) Expanded introductions by members. ii) This is an Important meeting to attend as it only happens 4 times a year.

2) Subcommittee Reports

i) Liaison Committee – Nina Sickler • District Liaisons (Exhibit 4.1 – includes D1, 2, 5, 7, Turnpike)

• District 1-See Exhibit • District 2-See Exhibit • District 3-All meetings have been cancelled after the hurricane. Meetings will hopefully resume

shortly. • District 4-

• Meeting was held on January 11th • 3D Modeling- will be used on a case-by-case basis, they will look at the work

program and decide which projects make the most sense to have in 3D. • Using DOT Equipment for Presentations-would we like to do this? The point was

brought up we could preload them onto their computers the day before, but the idea was not favored as it would mean you would have to be done with your presentation the day before. Also, D4 had their computers down for a day recently, so what happens if there is an IT issue? Many would feel comfortable if an IT professional in the room, but the consensus was you would still want to bring your own equipment, just in case.

• There was an off-system project that was cancelled for the first time in many years by residents. This is not expected to happen frequently at all.

• Discussion on replacing key staff. The only reason you will be able to change out staff is if they leave your firm.

• Next meeting will be held on April 26th. • District 5-See Exhibit • District 6-

• Working on regional meeting that just happened, size of venue was biggest concern, they will find a large venue next time the hold the meeting to allow more attendance

• Next Meeting is May 8th • District 7-See Exhibit • Turnpike-See Exhibit

ii) Production Subcommittee – Paul Foley (Exhibit 4.2) –See Exhibit

iii) DBE/SBE Subcommittee - Aniruddha (Rudy) Gotmare

• BDI Projects- working on getting Traffic and Landscaping Firms jobs under these.

• Working on graduation and BDI program, often it takes 6-9 months to chase a project and by the time it is selected you might graduate from the program, need to define when BDI ends.

iv) CEI Subcommittee – Jennifer Olson (Exhibit 4.4) –See Exhibit

v) Alternative Contracting Task Force / ACEC-FL FTBA Subc. - Robert Carballo

• Report was emailed to the committee.

vi) Specification Review Subcommittee – David O’Hagan

• No report as no new specifications have come out.

vii) PD&E / Planning subcommittee – Silvia Beltre (Exhibit 4.7) –See Exhibit

viii) Expressway Subcommittee – Joe Gomez (Exhibit 4.8) –See Exhibit

3) Relations Committee Items – Doug Geiger

a. Replacement of Key Personnel • When you propose someone at 100% in two places (or if they are already 100% billable at the

same time) they will be removed from letter. • Going beyond districts, they are all taking to compare who is proposed. • Bubbling up to CO and they will overturn selections of TRC if they are made based on staff that

is not fully available. b. Still no assistant secretary or state construction engineer. c. GMAC- meet happened last week, Carla will be sending out AFP training. d. Geotech/Materials positions will be looked at next for a position review. e. ACEC-FL Transportation Conference

• Will not need more ACEC members to present. • District Operations will be in attendance, so please send Ryan and Andy your questions for

them. • Travel Restrictions have been lifted, 263 registrants.

f. New Design Positions- no pushback yet.

4) Procurement Related Items – Doug Geiger –no report

5) Check-in Items – Doug Geiger-no report

6) Next Transportation Committee Meetings –

July 9 – Holiday Inn Tampa Westshore – Room Block $129+tax

October 8 – Embassy Suites – Lake Buena Vista SOUTH – Room Block $152+tax

January 14 – Hyatt International Airport – Room Block $296.55+tax

7) Adjournment at approximately 1:30pm.

https://www.fleng.org/events/EventDetails.aspx?id=1113065&amp%3Bgroup

https://book.passkey.com/event/49863091/owner/10810031/home

https://www.hyatt.com/en-US/group-booking/ORLAN/G-AF02

FDOT D-1 / ACEC-FL LIAISON MEETING MEETING NOTES

April 11, 2019 Attendees:

Name Affiliation Phone No. Attended L.K. Nandam, PE FDOT District One - Secretary 863-519-2201 Yes John Kubler, PE FDOT District One – Director of

Transportation Development 863-519-2311 No

Jon Sands, PE FDOT District One – Construction Engineer

863-519-2223 Yes

Elizabeth Leopold FDOT District One – Professional Services Contracts Supervisor

863-519-2901 Yes

Keith Slater, P.E. FDOT District One –Director of Transportation Operations

863-519-2202 Yes

Kevin Ingle, PE D-1 Project Management Engineer 863-519-2302 Yes Herb Potter, CCM Adaptive Consulting Engineers 863-258-6540 Yes Paul Foley, PE Kisinger Campo & Associates Corp. 813-554-1905 Yes Mark Owens, PE G-A-I Consultants 321-319-3121 Yes Sean Donahoo, PE AIM Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 813-627-4144 Yes Ken Muzyk, PE Faller Davis and Assoc., Inc. 813-261-5136 Yes

This was the fifteenth meeting with District One. Discussion topics:

1. Last Meeting January 15. 2. Discussion of District One having favorite consultants 3. PD&E – RFP package would like to see date for scope clarification meeting date. May also

want to add date for fee proposal. 4. CEI – consideration of not paying for internet and phone service for field office 5. Staff Classifications for invoicing on Limiting Amount Projects for Design and PD&E versus

CEI 6. Average Rates for new Classifications seem backward (Chief Eng. 1 & 2, Sr Eng. 1 & 2). PM 1

& 3 and Eng. 1 & 2 seem ok. 7. ACEC mentioned District One Roundtable opportunities at our January 8 TC meeting. Have

any firms requested these? 8. ACEC / FDOT Outstanding projects award 9. New DB projects in the Horizon 10. Any potential to add addition projects to FY 20 work program

2. Favorites

o L.K. Nandam had asked for this topic to be on the agenda. ACEC noted we do track which firms are shortlisted and selected. The information is published on FDOT’s web site. There are a few firms that stand out as getting a lot of work when looking at the last four fiscal years. There are also firms that get work in both PD&E as well as design. Kevin asked if we consider BDI’s separately. ACEC did not break it out in that detail. Kevin noted that could sway some of our data. Most of the BDI’s are design related and there are only about 10 firms that submit/win BDI’s. It was also noted that there are only four BDI firms prequalified for PD&E. It is doubtful that they would get an adequate response if PD&Es were advertised as a BDI.

EXHIBIT 5.1

FDOT D-1 / ACEC-FL LIAISON SUMMARY NOTES January 15, 2019

Page 2 of 3

o Kevin did ask if we could discuss the number of BDI’s that are required to be advertised. BDI’s are based on a percentage of total contracts. For example, if there are not enough BDI firms prequalified for PD&E, can the PD&E projects be eliminated from the project count.

o Kevin noted that the TRC reviews letters and base their shortlisting on technical content. He stressed listening to the TRC about what is important to them and addressing it in your letter.

o An ACEC member brought up being selected and shortlisted again in the same selection meeting. Those things are noticed by consultants.

o It was noted that LK encourages the consultants to continue pursuing projects. ACEC noted that in some other Districts, it is one and done. Once selected, we may not go back to putting in letters of response for six months or even till the next FY.

o ACEC noted that a member said they do not believe a letter should be thrown out for a spelling or grammatical error. FDOT said they do not throw it out, but may consider it if there is a tie or the scoring is close.

o FDOT said it seems the firms that do not go back for a debrief are the ones who are complaining the loudest. Debriefs may change in the future. Whereas after the shortlisting, a firm could call the PM or TRC and get feedback on their letter, they may have to wait until after selection. ACEC noted this makes it tougher since you may submit many more letters in the meantime and the TRC is likely to forget details about the letter a month or two later.

3. RFP dates ACEC would like to see more dates in the RFP as there have been some confusion after shortlisting. Elizabeth noted that the RFP is a template document generated by Central Office. She also noted all dates are set when setting up the work program. She has a meeting with Central Office and other districts in the near future and will bring up the topic.

4. Internet and phone services for CEI field offices o ACEC said that there was a move to eliminate paying for internet and phone. Jon

Sands said Central Office recently sent out language as to what is utilities. Three weeks later, they changed it back to what it used to be.

o Jon also noted that there is no longer the classification of Sr. Bridge Inspector. They used to be an inspector for coatings and weldings. Now they will be considered a specialty inspector. All others will be classified as a Senior Inspector.

5. Staff Classification changes for LA contracts FDOT said they do not allow it unless they request the change per direction from Central Office.

FDOT D-1 / ACEC-FL LIAISON SUMMARY NOTES January 15, 2019

Page 3 of 3

6. New Classification average rates ACEC asked if they are using the data in the database yet and that some looks a little skewed. FDOT said they only have data from two contracts so they are not using it yet.

7. District One roundtable

ACEC noted it was presented at the Transportation Conference meeting and asked if any firms had taken advantage of it. Kevin said there had been 3 or 4 firms use it since last meeting. They have 3 or 4 more scheduled. He did clarify the roundtable was for firms that had not done work with the District or not done work for the District recently.

8. Outstanding Projects Award

The application date is passed and grading is underway. FDOT asked if an in-house project could be submitted. ACEC thought yes. Who pays the fee? Could it be waived? Could the CEI firm pay it? Will discuss with ACEC.

9. New Design Build Projects on the Horizon ACEC noted in a previous meeting a year or so ago, some D/B projects were added and LK said he wanted to add more in the future. Two new projects are being considered, River Road D/B at $70m in Sarasota County (FY 2021) and Adaptive Signal System for US 27 in Highlands County (FY 2021).

10. Additional projects for FY 2020 Always a potential but there is nothing in the works right now.

11. Unmarked aerials used for Q&A – new item ACEC said they had feedback from another district that aerials used in interviews had different scales and were a bit confusing. ACEC also noted on a PD&E concept which was somewhat complicated, not being able to reference the concept was difficult. Had the FDOT ever considered providing the aerial used in the interviews to all consultants? FDOT said they do not have the capability to produce that without GEC support. Paul noted that ACEC had significant input in the selection process and rules and making them consistent across all districts. To make changes, they need to be vetted through Central Office and ACEC.

12. Upcoming GEC contract – new item LK discussed the two upcoming GEC contracts. District One will be having a forum to discuss with the consulting industry. He said he could see a couple of midsize firms teaming together to pursue. As long as they have a strong program manager, he could see them as viable.

O:\PGF\FICE\D1\D-1 ACEC Liason 4-11-19notes.docx

ACEC-FL Transportation Committee Meeting July 09, 2019

District 5 Liaison Committee Report

ACEC-FL MEMBERS FDOT MEMBERS Edward Gonzalez, RS&H Michael Shannon, District Secretary Jennifer Brockman, Adaptive Consulting Engineers

Loreen Bobo, Director of Transportation Development

Rick Baldocchi, Avcon Alan Hyman, Director of Transportation Operations Xavier Arroyo, CORE Engineering Group Michelle Sloan, Procurement Manager Lorie Matthews, District Transportation Support Manager

The following summarizes the activities of this committee since the last ACEC-FL Transportation Meeting in April of 2019 and highlights items discussed:

• Meetings – Held two meetings on April 10th and June 25th, 2019. Topics discussed are below.

• Design Consultant Construction Grade (follow-up) o The District has an in-house team working on ensuring constructability grades are being

entered. It was brought up at the directors meeting in March. A procedure is being put in place. Making sure the FDOT PM is inputting the grade and involving the consultant in the process. There will be continuous follow-up and will provide an update in the next meeting.

• Procurement o Job Classification Task Team Update – Updated Negotiations Handbook with new

classifications is being used on new contracts. It will be approximately a year before any updates to at least the 4 that were updated. Adjustments appear to have started and numbers are being populated. District mentioned there has been no feedback at this point regarding the new changes in the classification. Nothing negative/positive, especially with the updates. There will be follow-up with the procurement staff to provide feedback.

o Currently working through issues with the PDS system. At the time of this meeting the System was projected to be implemented in August. However, based on further update by the District it appears the date may be closer to May.

o Procurement Development Application (PDA) system The PDA implementation was postponed for 2 months form the original June 24th

release. The new date is set for August 26th. Anticipation is that FDOT will allow a window of time submitting items such as LOR’s through email until the new PDA is fully integrated with consultants.

o Attendance for Events – As long as there is a fair share cost/rate that the FDOT employee can pay, the Governor is coordinating with the Secretary and FDOT participants will be allowed to start attending events again.

o Mandatory Training for In-House Consultant - New mandatory training is now affective in since March. Procedure Number is now 37500002. Program Office is regarding office that

ACEC-FL D-5 Liaison Report (07/09/19)

is managing the service. The consultant would have this done within 30 days. By May 10th everyone sitting in D5 is current. Monitoring will occur with new training after this date.

o Electronic Staff-Hour Forms - FTE is still leading the charge and progressing in coordination with Central Office. District 5 believes it will be 6 months out with the hopes of having something this year.

• FDOT ACEC-FL (Secretary Topics) o Liaison – Items discussed were innovations that lead to speed of the deliveries.

Timeline for the Liaison chairs to meet with Will Watts regarding the dates sent and the established meeting.

Internal Task Team looking at schedules going form 18-month to 12-month schedules. We are looking at using the In-house design teams to see if these schedules can be achieved vs. going out to the Consultant Industry.

Reduction of time can create more efficiency allowing the team to stay on the project full-time.

Part of the Schedule goal is looking at the tasks and evaluate what is really needed. Evaluate the risks involved when a task is not done. Then decide if the task should be eliminated.

Looking at several delivery methods based on the type of projects. Re-looking at everything, so looking for opportunities. They want consultants to look at these deliveries. Everything is on the table.

District 5 on the CEI side is D5 is looking at CEI lump sum again. District 5 is looking at the use of corridor modeling and other innovations and the

risks of implementing these fast deliverables. Capacity of computers and equipment to use these innovations.

• Other Items o District 5 will be implementing and Innovation Forum which would be about 3 sessions

quarterly through a lunch and learn. This will tailor to staff level engineers to discuss innovations and will be done through a webinar. This would be headed by Steven Buck, PE at D5.

• Upcoming Meetings: District Quality Forum 09/19/19 2019 Liaison Meeting Schedule:

• 09/03/19 – 2:00 pm • 10/14/19 – 11:00 am

MEETING MINUTES FDOT District Seven/ACEC Liaison Committee Meeting

May 31, 2019

1 | P a g e

FDOT District Seven/ACEC Liaison Committee Meeting Meeting Date: May 31, 2019

Attendees: Name Affiliation Attended Becky Schwarz Professional Services Manager David Gwynn District Seven Secretary – Tampa Tracy Hood District Consultant Project Management Engineer Allan Urbonas District Seven Design Engineer Richard Moss District Seven Director of Transportation Development Conrad Campbell District Seven Construction Engineer Angel Perez Administrative Services Manager Brian McKishnie District Seven Director of Transportation Operations Hiren Patel PGA Richard Harrison Kisinger Campo & Associates, Corp. Steve Blount LOCHNER John Dewey HNTB

Discussion Items: TOPIC Presenter 1. Consultant Surveys Tracy Hood 2. Consultant Audit Package after Selection Secretary Gwynn 3. When does post design authorization take place on projects? Hiren Patel 4. What is the D7 approach to updating the 5-year crash data on a project

during design? Hiren Patel

5. Does D7 allow their GECs to pursue design projects within the District? Richard Harrison 6. Why are firms allowed to pursue design projects when they are doing the

PD&E study? Richard Harrison

7. CEI-Contractor relations relative to contracts enforcement (Open Discussion)

Steven Blount

Meeting Notes, Decisions, Issues:

1. Consultant Surveys

Change to Presentation of Technical Qualifications (PTQ) format. a) A couple of consultants asked about this….simple changes, allow the use of PowerPoint, Q&A, etc. b) D7 decided that they're a high commodity meeting, we decided they could meet with staff c) Secretary Gwynn: why not let them decide how they want to do it? They might want to present

then do Q&A d) Why not let smaller firms come and do it too? Everyone was fine with that e) Need to start doing them in the executive room "cozier venue" f) We do them quarterly, maybe need to look at doing them more frequently to allow more frequent

touches g) Have had a lot of cancellations, need to let them know that if they cancel they go to the back of

the line


May 31, 2019

2 | P a g e

h) Could also coordinate with firms on the list if they can present on short notice if there's a cancellation

i) How far out are we? Tracy to talk to Becky about making them more frequent j) On the FDOT side…do they come as available? FDOT looks at which work types the firm will

target, then try to line it up that way k) Tracy lets PMs know that they need to plan to attend

2. Consultant Audit Packages after Selection

Streamlining projects/processes – (David)

a) Trying to find a way to move things quicker, review all items to getting projects completed early b) One way is to stage procurement, so they don't take so long c) Need to really look at completeness and accuracy of audit packages d) What D7 is finding is that there are a lot of packages that are incomplete (this particularly

relates to CEI subs) e) Is there a way to get a checklist from Becky for the firms? f) It would be good if information is easily identified (e.g., years of experience for chief engineer

highlighted in resume) g) Need to look at this as a deliverable (i.e., should reflect the firm's QC, etc.) h) A lot of issues related to resumes, work classifications i) Could we do a form that includes the relevant information? j) Whether it's a resume or form needs to rely on the ethical submittal of information k) Originally looking to develop some kind of database l) Central Office didn't want D7 dictating what the resume should look like m) Hoping that the task team really reduces how much information is expected n) Probably would be best for D7 to standardize this o) Becky will mention to Michelle as Michelle is on task team p) One of the things they discussed in executive staff meeting was the content of the plans, i.e.

how many plans reviews do we need? Will 3D plans help? Need to refine what gets coded as E&O

q) Part of this will involve getting EOR involved earlier and for the CEI to know the basis of design r) Should have design PM and PA talk about notification regarding claims (e.g., limited survey, etc.) s) FTBA is coming hard at CEI

• What incentive does CEI have for finishing early? • Could there be an incentive for CEI to accelerate schedule? • Steve recommends against this • Could there be LS CEI contracts? • Should there be more witness and hold points in construction? • Conrad said that's very feasible for structural work where there's a milestone, harder for

paving trains, etc. • Could conceivably do less inspection if the warranty is stronger


May 31, 2019

3 | P a g e

3. When does post-design authorization take place on projects? Should firms request post-design after a certain milestone (after final plans)? - (Hiren Patel)

a) Not currently a milestone for this…the issue is once Phase 62 is open, Phase 32 needs to be closed quickly per FHWA, tend to try to follow for state-funded projects

b) May want to include hours for pre-bid questions, etc. c) Why is post-design even an SA if the project is already known to be funded? d) A lot of it has to do with budgeting e) Consultant starts to coordinate with FDOT PM after Phase IV to make sure post-design is ready

on time

4. What is the D7 approach to updating the 5-year crash data on a project during design? (Hiren Patel)

a) When a project is started, is the expectation to update real time? b) Secretary Gwynn says analysis should be done one time c) If new crash data is available, the EOR should review this new data to confirm no new trends are

occurring. If so, then coordinate with FDOT

5. Does D7 allow their GECs to pursue design projects within the District?

If yes, what type of projects? And why are they allowed? (Richard Harrison)

a) D7 will probably be more equitable as far as spreading the work around, wouldn't say they're not going to shortlist but would be more of an exception

b) Will consider if there's work that's not "real" e.g. CDPs for TBNext

6. Why are firms allowed to pursue design projects when they are doing the PD&E study? Would this firm not have an advantage over the other firms pursuing the design? - (Richard Harrison)

a) What is industry's thought on it? Maybe not an advantage if the PD&E documents are public… b) Industry tends to think that on the whole it's an advantage to the firm c) Contact with outside agencies, etc. d) Tracy says it's beneficial to have a new set of eyes e) Secretary Gwynn not opposed to looking at this, says he'd like to see success rate of PD&E firms

winning final design f) Becky said they can run reports to get list of who's gotten contracts, Central Office could look at

this as well g) Would be a shortlist consideration since the statewide policy allows this h) Would say that if PD&E is still ongoing then the consultant would not be eligible to compete


May 31, 2019

4 | P a g e

7. CEI-Contractor relations relative to contract enforcement (Open Discussion)

(Steve Blount)

a) You do what you're supposed to do, then Conrad or others will get involved if necessary b) "compassion" if it's necessary c) Some of the discussions on this got pretty heated, not aware of CEI in D7 that are unreasonable d) Do we need to look at tightening up things like weather days? e) CFX gets a certain amount of weather days and you bid it appropriately f) If you keep pushing for more lenience, it may snap back and become legislative g) One piece of advice, plan for your email to get shared…perhaps with Ananth

Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise / ACEC-FL Liaison Subcommittee July 2019 Report

Subcommittee Members:FICE Nick Benedico (chair), Tetra Tech Liz Bartell, Patel, Greene & Associates Marc Silva, HDR Jim Sumislaski, Kimley-Horn Bo Sanchez, Volkert

Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise Paul Wai, Executive Director Christina Colon, Director of Transportation Development Maria Connolly, Director of Transportation Operations Sheree Merting, Professional Services

I. Activities since April 2019

A. The Liaison Subcommittee meeting scheduled for April 23rd was canceled. Discussion topics for

the next meeting are:

1. CEI Subcommittee Topics

2. Impact of Potential MDX Dismissal

3. Timeliness of Consultant Acquisition Plan

Consultants have expressed concerns over FTE’s CAP Industry Forum not being

“advertised” widely and projects not being on the Planned Project List until shortly before

advertising.

4. Field data collection for preparation of LOR and shortlist presentations

Other districts have emphasized that the consultant LOR should not contain field

measured information (cross slopes, geo boring, drone photography) that were taken in

the field and may have unsafely placed the consultant team in the travel way. They

discourage that and have said it will be not seen as innovative approach.

5. Precluding of Consultants

How can we expedite the determination of whether a firm is precluded from submitting an

LOR on a project due to conflicts of interest or involvement in other contracts?

6. New Subcommittee Member

Gus Quesada rotated off the subcommittee and was replaced by Marc Silva with HDR. FTE

concurred with Marc’s appointment.

7. Quality Assurance Reviews (QARs)

Christina asked whether other Districts share the Quality Assurance Reviews (QARs) with

the consultants. There is one design QAR per year and Christina thought the information

could be useful to consultants. It was discussed that this subcommittee could relay the

information to the consultants via ACEC Meetings.

II. Future Subcommittee Meetings:

1. July 23, 2019

2. October 2019

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONCONSULTANT SCHEDULE EVALUATION GUIDELINES WORKSHEET

Rev. 5/14/2019

FM No(s).:

Consultant Project Manager:FDOT Project Manager:FDOT PM Phone No:

evaluation within the FDOT Consultant Evaluation (CE) internal application: https://psice.dot.state.fl.us/

5 Outstanding Performance4 Above Satisfactory Performance3 Satisfactory Performance2 Below Satisfactory Performance1 Unacceptable Performance

Note: An overall score of 3 is considered satisfactory performance. The maximum score attainable is 5.

Date

A.

Score

5

4

3

2

1

Score:

Performance Measure GuidelinesProject Submittals far exceeded expectation (i.e., Met all critical dates and was able to significantly advance the project or make up delays due to others). Above expectations achieved with only minor assistance by FDOTProject Submittals often exceeded expectation (i.e., Met most critical dates, advanced submittal dates and provided the Department an opportunity to advance the project. Generally met the above expectations with some assistance by FDOT.Project Submittals consistently achieved expectation. Above expectations achieved with expected assistance by FDOT.Project Submittals sometimes achieved (i.e., Missed many submittal dates which impacted the project overall schedule due to consultant). Required substantial assistance by FDOT.Project Submittals consistently did not achieve (i.e., Missed most submittal dates including overall schedule due to consultant). Required significant assistance by FDOT.

Comments:

**{See specific performance measure guidelines within each evaluation item}**

Not RatedTOTAL WEIGHTED SCORE FOR ALL SCHEDULE CRITERIA:

NOTE: This worksheet provides guidance on the specific performance measures for the performance rating scale as it pertains to each evaluation item. This worksheet also serves as backup documentation for drafting and discussing the evaluations. The scores and comments must be transferred to the official

Consultant Contract #Project Title:Prime Consultant Business Name:

EXPECTATION:Generally maintained critical path items of work and submittal dates (i.e., Public workshops, draft documents, public hearing, final documents, BDR, PSR, BHR, Phase I, II, III, IV and Final, R/W maps, etc.) according to the baseline schedule unless a change was requested by the Department or a delay was caused by others. Meet the overall project schedule (i.e. production date, LDCA, etc.).

GENERAL PERFORMANCE RATING SCALE Instructions:For each item below, please select a numerical score from 1 to 5 ( 0.5 point increments ) in accordance with the performance rating scale for each item . Do not provide a rating for criteria that do not apply to this evaluation.

Select N/A if the item is not applicable. Comments must be entered for all items rated.

Project Submittals (70%)

FDOT Project Manager

SCHEDULE EVALUATION CRITERIA

Page 1 of 6

EXHIBIT 5.2

https://psice.dot.state.fl.us/



STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONCONSULTANT SCHEDULE EVALUATION GUIDELINES WORKSHEET

Rev. 5/14/2019

B.

Score

5

4

3

2

1

Score:

Not Rated

Status Reports/Schedule Updates consistently achieved expectation. Provided thorough and timely schedule updates for milestones as directed by the district. Generally provided look ahead for key upcoming tasks that need Department involvement. Offered suggestions to make up schedule delays caused by others when requested. Generally readdressed milestones due to Department and/or outside agency changes. Generally met the above expectations with expected assistance by FDOT.Status Reports/Schedule Updates sometimes achieved expectation. Sometimes provided thorough and timely schedule updates for milestones as directed by the district. Occasionally provided look ahead for key upcoming tasks that need Department involvement. Rarely offered suggestions to make up schedule delays caused by others when requested. Occasionally readdressed milestones due to Department and/or outside agency changes. Required substantial assistance by FDOT.

Status Reports/Schedule Updates consistently did not achieve expectation. Rarely provided thorough and timely schedule updates for milestones as directed by the district. Rarely provided look ahead for key upcoming tasks that need Department involvement. Rarely offered suggestions to make up schedule delays caused by others when requested. Rarely readdressed milestones due to Department and/or outside agency changes. Required significant assistance by FDOT.

Comments:

Total Weighted Score:

Status Reports/Schedule Updates often exceeded expectation. Always provided thorough and timely monthly schedule updates for all tasks as directed by the district. Generally provided look ahead for key upcoming tasks that need Department involvement. Generally offered suggestions to make up schedule delays caused by others when requested. Generally readdressed entire scheduling due to Department and/or outside agency changes. Above expectations achieved with some assistance by FDOT.

Performance Measure GuidelinesStatus Reports/Schedule Updates far exceeded expectation. Always provided thorough and timely monthly schedule updates for all tasks as directed by the district. Always provided look ahead for key upcoming tasks that need Department involvement. Always offered suggestions to make up schedule delays caused by others. Always readdressed entire scheduling due to Department and/or outside agency changes. Above expectations achieved with only minor assistance by FDOT.

EXPECTATION:Provide thorough and timely schedule updates as directed by the district. Provide look ahead for key upcoming tasks that need Department involvement. Offer suggestions to make up schedule delays caused by others. Readdress schedule due to Department and/or outside agency changes.

Status Reports/Schedule Updates (30%)

Page 2 of 6

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONCONSULTANT MANAGEMENT EVALUATION GUIDELINES WORKSHEET

Rev. 5/14/2019

FM No(s).:

Consultant Project Manager:FDOT Project Manager:FDOT PM Phone No:




Date

Consultant Contract #Project Title:Prime Consultant Business Name:


Not RatedTOTAL WEIGHTED SCORE FOR ALL MANAGEMENT CRITERIA:


GENERAL PERFORMANCE RATING SCALE Instructions:For each item below, please select a numerical score from 1 to 5 ( 0.5 point increments ) in accordance with the performance rating scale for each item . Do not provide a rating for criteria that do not apply to this evaluation.

Select N/A if the item is not applicable. Comments must be entered for all items rated.


Page 3 of 6





Rev. 5/14/2019

A.

Score

5

4

3

2

1

Score:

MANAGEMENT EVALUATION CRITERIAAdministration of Contract (weight = 30%)

Comments:

EXPECTATION:Submit an acceptable Quality Control Plan at the beginning of the contract and provided QC documentation as required. Meet DBE/SBE commitments. Ensure scope items were completed; keep Department aware of potential out of scope items as they became evident; keep the Department aware of issues that would cause cost and schedule overruns; submit properly documented invoices; pay subconsultant promptly; be responsive to requests of TWO development on Task Driven Contracts; process multiple department initiated contract amendments.

Administration of Contract consistently did not achieve FDOT expectations. Required significant assistance by FDOT. Submitted an unsatisfactory Quality Control Plan (or failed to submit one at all) and failed to provide QC documentation even after multiple requests. Did not use any DBE/SBE that was committed to (unless outside of Consultant’s control on Task Driven Contracts). Many scope items unresolved; required last minute supplemental agreements for out of scope items; failed to keep the Department aware of issues that would cause cost and schedule overruns; invoices submitted without documentation; subconsultants complained about not being paid timely; always slow to develop TWOs for Task Driven Contracts; always slow to process Department initiated contract amendments.

Performance Measure GuidelinesAdministration of Contract far exceeded FDOT expectations. Above expectations achieved with only minor assistance by FDOT. Submitted a thorough Quality Control Plan at the beginning of the contract and always provided documentation that it was being adhered to. Exceeded DBE/SBE commitments. Ensured all scope items were completed, always kept Department aware of potential out of scope items as they became evident, always kept the Department aware of issues that would cause cost and schedule overruns, always submitted properly documented invoices, always paid subconsultant promptly, was always responsive to requests of TWO development on Task Driven Contracts. Processed multiple department initiated contract amendments expeditiously. Administration of Contract often exceeded FDOT expectations. Above expectations achieved with some assistance by FDOT. Submitted a thorough Quality Control Plan at the beginning of the contract and provided most documentation that it was being adhered to. Met FDOT aspirational goal for DBE/SBE. Did all of the following except for a couple of occurrences: Ensured all scope items were completed; always kept Department aware of potential out of scope items as they became evident; always kept the Department aware of issues that would cause cost and schedule overruns; always submitted properly documented invoices; always paid subconsultant promptly; was always responsive to requests of TWO development on Task Driven Contracts; processed multiple department initiated contract amendments expeditiously. Administration of Contract consistently achieved FDOT expectations. Generally met the above expectations with expected assistance by FDOT. Ensured major scope items were completed; kept Department aware of potential major out of scope items as they became evident;Administration of Contract sometimes achieved FDOT expectations. Required substantial assistance by FDOT. Submitted a Quality Control Plan late and provided QC documentation after multiple requests. Did not use all DBE/SBE that was committed to and did not meet FDOT aspirational goal for DBE/SBE (unless outside of Consultant’s control on Task Driven Contracts). Failed to provide many of the following on multiple occurrences: Ensured major scope items were completed; kept Department aware of potential major out of scope items as they became evident; usually submitted properly documented invoices; usually paid subconsultant promptly; was generally responsive to requests of TWO development on Task Driven Contracts; processed multiple department initiated contract amendments timely.

Page 4 of 6


Rev. 5/14/2019

B.

Score

5

4

3

2

1

Score:

Performance Measure GuidelinesManagement of Issues and Resources far exceeded FDOT expectations. Above expectations achieved with only minor assistance by FDOT. Always kept Department aware of key issues and always provided information and recommendations to resolve them; brought in specialized staff to resolve complex issues when necessary; always coordinated with subconsultants and staff to minimize Department involvement; increased staff resources to advance project when requested or resolved negative float due to delays by others; obtained all permits in a timely and efficient manner; always met utility scope requirements for RGB's, work schedules and UWHC's.Management of Issues and Resources often exceeded FDOT expectations. Above expectations achieved with some assistance by FDOT. Always kept Department aware of key issues and provided information and recommendations to resolve most of them; worked with Department's specialized staff to resolve complex issues when necessary; always coordinated with subconsultants and staff to minimize Department involvement; increased staff resources to advance project when requested or resolved negative float due to delays by others; obtained all permits in a timely and efficient manner; always met utility scope requirements for RGB's, work schedules and UWHC's.Management of Issues and Resources consistently achieved FDOT expectations. Generally met the above expectations with expected assistance by FDOT.Management of Issues and Resources sometimes achieved FDOT expectations. Required substantial assistance by FDOT. Did not make Department aware of key issues and relied mostly on Department to resolve them; depended upon Department's specialized staff to resolve complex issues; usually coordinated with subconsultants and staff to minimize Department involvement; insufficient staff resources and barely met production dates as a result; obtained all permits to meet critical dates; met utility scope requirements for work schedules and UWHC's to meet critical dates.Management of Issues and Resources consistently did not achieve FDOT expectations. Required significant assistance by FDOT. Did not make Department aware of significant issues until late impacting schedule and costs; Department had to manage subconsultants and staff; had significant permit and utility issues due to fault of consultant.

Comments:

EXPECTATION:Keep Department aware of key issues and provide information and recommendations to resolve them; work with Department's specialized staff to resolve complex issues; coordinate with subconsultants and staff to minimize Department involvement; increase staff resources to meet critical dates or delays caused by consultant; obtain all permits to meet critical dates; meet utility scope requirements for Red-Green-Brown (RGB's), work schedules and Utility Work by Highway Contractors (UWHC's) to meet critical dates; and notify Department when Utility Agency/Owners (UAO's) are not responsive.

Management of Issues and Resources (weight = 35%)

Page 5 of 6


Rev. 5/14/2019

C.

Score

5

4

3

2

1

Score:

Not Rated

Communication, Documentation and Coordination consistently did not achieve FDOT expectations. Required significant assistance by FDOT. Did not notify FDOT PM aware of critical outstanding project issues and was rarely available to discuss project issues, rarely provided an agenda, never provided a sign in sheet, and rarely provided minutes of the meeting, rarely responded to public inquiries, rarely documented critical joint project decisions and never sent to FDOT PM for their record. Never provided timely historical documentation to FDOT when requested.

Comments:

Performance Measure Guidelines


EXPECTATION:Keep FDOT PM aware of outstanding project issues and, when appropriate, request meetings to address project issues in a timely manner, provide an agenda, sign in sheet, and minutes within 5 days of the meeting (or as detailed in the scope), be responsive to public inquiries within 5 days, document critical joint project decisions and send to FDOT PM for their record. Provide historical documentation to FDOT when requested within 5 days.

Communication, Documentation and Coordination (weight = 35%)

Communication, Documentation and Coordination far exceeded FDOT expectations. Above expectations achieved with only minor assistance by FDOT. Always kept FDOT PM aware of outstanding project issues and, when appropriate, requested meetings to address project issues in a timely manner, always provided an agenda, sign in sheet, and minutes within 2 days of the meeting, always assisted with response to public inquiries within 2 days, always documented all critical joint project decisions and always sent to FDOT PM for their record. Always provided historical documentation to FDOT when requested within 1 day.

Communication, Documentation and Coordination often exceeded FDOT expectations. Above expectations achieved with some assistance by FDOT. Did all of the following except for a couple of occurrences: Always kept FDOT PM aware of outstanding project issues and, when appropriate, requested meetings to address project issues in a timely manner, always provided an agenda, sign in sheet, and minutes within 2 days of the meeting, always assisted with response to public inquiries within 2 days, always documented all critical joint project decisions and always sent to FDOT PM for their record. Always provided historical documentation to FDOT when requested within 1 day.Communication, Documentation and Coordination consistently achieved FDOT expectations. Generally met the above expectations with expected assistance by FDOT. Generally kept FDOT PM aware of outstanding project issues and, when appropriate, requested meetings to address project issues in a timely manner, generally provided an agenda, sign in sheet, and minutes within 5 days of the meeting (or as detailed in the scope), was generally responsive to public inquiries within 5 days, generally documented critical joint project decisions and generally sent to FDOT PM for their record. Generally provided historical documentation to FDOT when requested within 5 days.

Communication, Documentation and Coordination sometimes achieved FDOT expectations. Required substantial assistance by FDOT. Kept FDOT PM aware of some outstanding project issues and, when appropriate, was available to discuss project issues, sometimes provided an agenda, sign in sheet, and minutes within two weeks of the meeting, responded to public inquiries within two weeks, sometimes documented critical joint project decisions and sometimes sent to FDOT PM for their record. Rarely provided timely historical documentation to FDOT when requested.

Page 6 of 6

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONSTRUCTURES CONSULTANT TECHNICAL EVALUATION GUIDELINES WORKSHEET

Rev. 6/25/2019

FM No(s).:

Prime Consultant Business Name:Sub Consultant Business Name:Engineer of Record:Design Firm:Consultant Project Manager:FDOT Project Manager:FDOT PM Phone No:




Date

GENERAL PERFORMANCE RATING SCALE


Not RatedTOTAL WEIGHTED SCORE FOR ALL QUALITY CRITERIA:


NOTE: If more than one Work Type is being evaluated, use a separate but identical evaluation form for each Work Type within Group 4.

General Comments:

Consultant Contract #Project Title:


Page 1 of 5



Rev. 6/25/2019

QUALITY EVALUATION CRITERIAInstructions:

A.

Score

5

4

3

2

1

Score:

Design personnel qualifications did not meet minimum FDOT expectations (i.e. little experience in designing similar bridge types).Design personnel qualifications significantly missed minimum FDOT expectations (i.e. no or inadequate experience in designing similar bridge types).

Comments:

EXPECTATION:Individuals listed as Engineer of Record, Designer and Design Checker are appropriate based on the bridge type and complexity of bridge being designed (Reference Rule 14-75). At least one individual active in the design (e.g. Engineer of Record, Designer or Design Checker) qualifies the Firm under the appropriate Work Group depending on the bridge type being designed. For this evaluation, qualifiers under Work Group 4.1.2 is acceptable for individuals designing substructure components except for components designed with post tensioning, consisting of structural steel or designed for ship impact.

Performance Measure GuidelinesDesign personnel qualifications far exceed FDOT expectations (i.e. significant experience in designing similar bridge types).Design personnel qualifications exceed FDOT expectations (i.e. substantial experience in designing similar bridge types).Design personnel qualifications met FDOT expectations (i.e. basic experience in designing similar bridge types).

DESIGN PERSONNEL (25%)

For each item below, please select a numerical score from 1 to 5 ( 0.5 point increments ) in accordance with the performance rating scale for each item . Do not provide a rating for criteria that do not apply to this evaluation. Select N/A if the item is not applicable. Comments must be entered for all items rated.

QUALITY EVALUATION CRITERIA

Page 2 of 5


Rev. 6/25/2019

B.

Score

5

4

3

2

1

Score:

QUALITY OF PHASE SUBMITTALS (25%)

Phase Submittals consistently achieved FDOT expectations, requirements and guidelines. Above objectives achieved with expected assistance by FDOT.

Phase Submittals often exceeded FDOT expectations, requirements and guidelines. Above objectives achieved with some assistance by FDOT.

EXPECTATION:1. Minimize number of Phase Submittals are necessary prior to plan approval by the Department. 2. Phase Submittals are accurate, complete, and in compliance with the Structures Design Manual, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Code, and the FDOT Design Manual.3. Plan Submittals demonstrate that a thorough Quality Control Process was followed prior to submitting. 4. Phase Submittals demonstrate knowledge of Department and District Procedures and demonstrate knowledge of the Structures Design Manual, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Code, and FDOT Design Manual requirements.5. Phase Submittals demonstrate properly coordination with other project design disciplines, and adjacent projects. 6. Minimize the number of major ERC comments. A major comment is defined as one that would result in a substantial change in the design.

In general, meeting the above objectives with minimal involvement by FDOT is desirable, however, comment resolution, communication and coordination between the bridge design firm and the Department is encouraged.

Performance Measure GuidelinesPhase Submittals far exceeded FDOT expectations, requirements and guidelines. Above objectives achieved with only minor assistance by FDOT.

Phase Submittals sometimes achieved FDOT expectations. Above objectives achieved with substantial assistance by FDOT. Phase Submittals consistently did not achieve FDOT expectations. Above objectives achieved with significant assistance by FDOT.

Comments:

Page 3 of 5


Rev. 6/25/2019

C.

Score

5

4

3

2

1

Score:

EXPECTATION:The proposed structural concept results in a solution that exhibits transparent structural behavior (e.g. stress flow and load distribution is clear). Design is based on good engineering practice. Calculations accurately accounted for the complexity of the structure being designed. Basis of calculations were properly coordinated and communicated in the plans. Calculations were checked, initialed, dated, signed and sealed as appropriate. Calculations included an index that was clear to follow. Design assumptions and design references were clearly stated.


Performance Measure GuidelinesDesign Calculations far exceeded FDOT expectations, requirements and guidelines. Above objectives achieved with only minor assistance by FDOT.Design Calculations often exceeded FDOT expectations, requirements and guidelines. Above objectives achieved with some assistance by FDOT.

Design Calculations sometimes achieved FDOT expectations. Above objectives achieved with substantial assistance by FDOT. Design Calculations consistently did not achieve FDOT expectations. Above objectives achieved with significant assistance by FDOT.

Comments:

CALCULATION COMPLETENESS AND APPROPRIATENESS (25%)

Design Calculations consistently achieved FDOT expectations, requirements and guidelines. Above objectives achieved with expected assistance by FDOT.

Page 4 of 5


Rev. 6/25/2019

D.

Score

5

4

3

2

1

Score:

Not Rated

PHASE SUBMITTAL CONTENT AND COMPLETENESS (25%)

EXPECTATION:The BDR/30%, 90%, and 100% Structural submittal content met the requirements of the FDOT Design Manual Chapter 121. Piece-meal submittals were minimized. Plan Submittals demonstrate that a thorough Quality Control Process was followed prior to submitting.


Performance Measure GuidelinesPhase Submittal Content far exceeded FDOT expectations, requirements and guidelines. Above objectives achieved with only minor assistance by FDOT.Phase Submittal Content often exceeded FDOT expectations, requirements and guidelines. Above objectives achieved with some assistance by FDOT. Phase Submittal Content consistently achieved FDOT expectations, requirements and guidelines. Above objectives achieved with expected assistance by FDOT.Phase Submittal Content sometimes achieved FDOT expectations. Above objectives achieved with substantial assistance by FDOT. Phase Submittal Content consistently did not achieve FDOT expectations. Above objectives achieved with significant assistance by FDOT.

Comments:


Page 5 of 5

a. 6/25/2019: Consultant Grading Task Team Notes 1. Roll Call

PRESENT: FDOT LEAD: Rob Quigley // [email protected] ACEC member: Michael Schwier (Mead & Hunt – D2 & 3) // [email protected] ACEC member: David Coleman (Inwood – D5 & Turnpike) // [email protected] FDOT CO: Alan El-Urfali // [email protected] FDOT D1 (Surv.): Dan Rutkosky // [email protected] FDOT CO: Daniel Strickland // [email protected] ACEC member: Joe Lauk (PGA – Districts 1 and 7) // [email protected] FDOT D4: John Olson // [email protected] FDOT CO: Paul Hiers // [email protected] FDOT CO: John Hazlip // [email protected] FDOT CO Procurement: Angela Matiyow // [email protected] ACEC LEAD: Paul Foley // [email protected] ACEC member: Will Suero (HDR – Districts 4 and 6) // [email protected] FDOT D3: Alaina Webb // [email protected]     NOT ONLINE: ACEC member: Nina Sickler (District 2 & DBE Chair) // [email protected] FDOT CO Procurement: Carla Perry // [email protected] FDOT CO Procurement: Bruce Lytle // [email protected] FDOT D2: Kathy Thomas // [email protected] FDOT CO: Brett Wood // [email protected] FDOT CO: Tom Andres // [email protected] FDOT CO: Tim Lattner // [email protected] FDOT D5: Suzanne Phillips // [email protected] FDOT D2: Ryan Asmus // [email protected] FDOT CO: George Massey // [email protected] FDOT CO: Sid Kamath // [email protected] - RETIRED  

2. Introduction a. Rob went over the Action Items from the May meeting minutes.  

3. Update on Sub Team Status a. WT 3.0 (Roadway) – John Olson, David Coleman, Will Suero

- No updates to report. b. WT 4.0 (Structures) – Tom Andres, Michael Schwier, David Coleman

- Rob cleaned up the Excel file for WT 4.0, and will send it out for internal review to the task team. Once any comments from the team are addressed, Rob will work with Procurement on getting the new evaluation criteria into the CE system. Rob will also post the guideline worksheet on the Production Support Office web page. Once the new WT4 grading is published in the CE system, we will run the pilot for an evaluation period for 3 to 6 months and solicit feedback from ACEC and FDOT PM’s. If the feedback on the new grading criteria/guidance is positive, we can publish the remaining evaluations in the CE system in January 2020.

c. WT 5.0 (Bridge Inspection) – Tom Andres, Michael Schwier - No updates to report.

d. WT 6.0 (Traffic Engineering & Operations Studies) – Alan El-Urfali, Will Suero - Alan submitted a draft file for review and discussed the guidance. It appears that each of the sections of WT6 will need their own worksheets.

e. WT 7.0 (Traffic Operations) – Alan El-Urfali, Will Suero - Alan indicated that this was more of a design group than Traffic Ops, and suggested that additional team members be added from design.

f. WT 8.0 (Surveying & Mapping) – Brett Wood, George Massey, John Hazlip, David Coleman - John indicated they did receive comments on the evaluation and will be meeting to discuss.

g. WT 9.0 (Geotech) – Tom Andres, Michael Schwier - No updates to report.

h. Schedule & Management – Rob Quigley, Paul Foley, Joe Lauk - No updates to report.

4. Other Discussion a. N/A  

5. Action Items a. Rob will send out WT4 worksheet to team for internal review. b. After task team review and any further edits are finalized, Rob will send WT 4

evaluation to Procurement for entry and 3-6 months of beta testing. c. Once published for test period, ACEC and FDOT PMs will be asked to review WT4

guidance. d. The teams for WT 6 and 8 still need to coordinate and update their files. e. Additional members needed from Design for WT 7. f. Rob will format WT 3 into Excel format. g. Rob will schedule future meetings and try to continue with the 4th Tuesday each month

through January 2020.  

6. Next Meeting: a. TBA

3D Subcommittee July 2019 Report

ACEC-FL Subcommittee Members:Nick Benedico, Tetra Tech Gene Howerton, Arcadis Tej Rana, Jacobs Chad Swanson, PHD Mark Lemieux, HNTB

Mike Donahue, Kimley-Horn Terry Walters, HW Lochner Steve Nolan, Metric Steve Kreidt, KCG

A. FDOT 3D Task Team

1. Led by Vern Danforth (CO)

2. Made up of consultants (9), contractors (4), and FDOT (34)

3. Continuation of 2016-2017 3D Task Team led by Tim Lattner

4. Scope of Services Revisions

5. Design Staff-hour Estimation Guidelines – Tab 36. 3D Modeling

6. Meets every two months – next meeting is on July 10, 2019

B. Central Office Updates

1. Pilot Projects

a. District 5 – Wekiva Trail

b. Turnpike – Polk Parkway

2. Design Software Implementation

a. AutoCAD FDOT 2019 Civil 3D was available on April 2, 2019

b. MicroStation SS4 Corridor Modeler – FDOT SS4 Maintenance Release Version 10 (MR10)

was available on April 2, 2019

c. FDOT SS4 to be converted to Bentley Open Roads Designer (ORD) Connect Edition and

FDOT Connect

d. FDOT Connect release planned for July 2019 (projects should not be migrated from SS4)

e. FDOT should have course guides available and begin training on ORD in January 2020

f. All FDOT projects will be mandated to be using ORD by January 2021

g. Bentley is no longer supporting SS4

h. FDOT will continue to provide Maintenance Releases for FDOT SS4 through January

2020 and project specific support thereafter.

3. NextGen Plans

a. What constitutes 3D Plans?

b. Abbreviated plans

c. Optional Large format plan (36x72) instead of scroll plots for all components to be used

for utilities, permitting, public meetings

d. Delivery will be digital

e. Use of Bluebeam (or other PDF software) - “Slip Sheet” function

f. Quality control checks can be done with five-step process or digital checking

g. To be included in FDM in November as a separate section.

h. Projects will be scoped for 3D delivery.

4. DPR-BPE rules updates for digitally signing 3D model files

a. Draft prepared for Rule Committee discussion in June

b. Broader definition of “Engineering Documents” to include models and other work

products

5. CEI Contract Revisions

a. Added personnel requirements for Experienced Design Modeler

b. Equipment, software, and training to field verify locations compared to model of record

(Rover)

c. As-built mark-ups on roll plot plans as normal, signed and sealed by Resident CEI PE

d. As-constructed Survey to be collected in a field book database and used to create the

As-constructed 3D model

OpenRoads Designer Connect Edition and FDOT Connect Workspace FAQ

Does the Florida Department of Transportation have a workspace for Bentley

OpenRoads Designer Connect Edition? FDOT’s Production Support Office | CADD has been developing and testing a brand new custom FDOT

workspace for Bentley OpenRoads Designer Connect Edition called FDOT Connect. As of publication time

of this document, FDOT Connect is in the final stages of Beta testing.

When will FDOT Connect be available for production use? FDOT Connect will be released for production use in July of 2019.

Can we start projects on Beta FDOT Connect before for the July release? Proceed with caution. We probably will not have another Beta version before the July release. Any

project files created with the workspace resources may have to be recreated, no guarantees. We

recommend slow walking the project until the July release. Keep us up to date on any findings and

reach out if you have any other questions.

Can projects started in FDOTSS4 be converted to ORD and FDOT Connect? If you start in SS4, you should finish in SS4. The CADD Office has no plans to support migrating projects

from SS4 to ORD and vice versa. To switch to ORD from SS4 will require you to start with new project

files and recreate the design with the ORD software.

Can computers have both SS4 and ORD loaded? Yes, there is no requirement to remove SS4. Both can be installed and co-exist on the same machine.

What about Legacy criteria files that ran earthwork quantities? How can earthwork quantities be re-run if the need arises during construction of the project assuming

that construction occurs after the Legacy criteria files are removed? There is no requirement to remove

SS4 or policy preventing the ability to re-run/create cross sections using the Legacy criteria. On projects

in the Construction phase, the district/consultant should keep the software intact on a machine during

construction if this is anticipated.

How long will FDOTSS4 and Power GEOPAK SS4 be supported by FDOT? FDOT will continue to provide Maintenance Releases for FDOTSS4 and the Select Series 4 projects

through January 2020. The CADD office will provide project specific-support after this date as needed.

When will projects be required to be started in FDOT Connect and OpenRoads? The Florida Department of Transportation’s Production Support Office will mandate that all projects

starting after January 1st of 2021 be designed using FDOT Connect and OpenRoads Designer Connect

Edition.

Can a Design Survey file created in FDOTSS4 be converted to FDOT Connect? The CADD Office has no plans to support migrating projects file from SS4 to ORD and vice versa. To

switch to ORD from SS4 will require you to start with new project files and recreate the design with the

ORD software. The field book file must be re-imported into newly created FDOT Connect design files

with OpenRoads Designer Connect.

Is there Bentley training available for OpenRoads Designer Connect Edition? Yes. The Bentley LEARN site has non-FDOT Bentley training for OpenRoads Designer Connect Edition and

other Connect Edition applications.

When will FDOT-specific training material be available? After the release of FDOT Connect in July of 2019, the Production Support CADD Office will begin

updating and re-designing its current training guides for the new OpenRoads Designer Connect Edition

and FDOT Connect workflow. Our plan is to have course guides available by January of 2020.

When will online FDOT training videos for ORD and FDOT Connect be available? The CADD Office plans to conduct webinars after July 2019. We are considering using these webinar

recordings to support of the FDOT CADD Certification program. Our plan is to have on-line training

available by January of 2020.

When will the FDOT Production Support CADD Office provide instructor-led training

for OpenRoads Designer Connect Edition? We have scheduled training classes for early 2020 in each of the Districts. These classes will include

three days of hands-on training for Survey, Design and 3D Modeling, Traffic, Drainage, Plan Production,

Automated Quantities, etc. These classes will be open to both District and Consultants working on an

active FDOT ORD project.

What other applications will work with FDOT Connect? Connect editions of MicroStation, OpenBridge Modeler.

What are some important dates regarding FDOT Connect and ORD? July 2019 – FDOT Connect initial production release for OpenRoads Designer.

January 2020 – FDOT begins District training on FDOT Connect and OpenRoads Designer.

January 2021 – All FDOT projects will be mandated to be using FDOT Connect and OpenRoads Designer

Connect Edition.

EXHIBIT 5.4

ACEC-FL CEI Sub-Committee Report

July 9, 2019

1. CEI Decision Making Survey a. 94 people responded, responses were well distributed throughout the districts b. Biggest takeaways from How to improve a CEI’s effectiveness:

i. Flexibility with staff/more staff, etc. ii. More authority to make decisions iii. Trust iv. Definition of Roles v. Streamlining processes

c. Potential value points to discuss with FDOT in July i. Each CEI District liaison will reach out to their respective DCE and find out specific

examples that they see occurring. ii. FDOT PM should be noting on CEI evaluation if they are not making decisions (if

the CEI is not meeting the FDOT’s expectation then they shouldn’t wait for the quarterly evaluation to occur)

iii. Propose small meetings with CEI representatives and DCE and other FDOT representatives. Discuss current issues, problems, etc.

iv. Similar small group meetings with the contractors (based on geographical Districts) and CEIs (no FDOT personnel). Discuss current issues and problems

v. FTBA’s request to incentivize the CEI – give us back the Lump Sum fixed fee

2. Current Issues being tracked a. Open items

i. 75th % Quartile 1. Recent summary of rates

a. Request information from CO about a QC of the districts putting in actual rates into the system

b. If CO is claiming that the CEI cost are increasing – ask for the information broken out per district.

ii. CQC rollback- on hold

3. Task Teams- Status Updates a. FTBA Asphalt Task Team: no new status

b. MOT team report

EXHIBIT 5.4

c. Scope team report-

i. Sent out the propose scope changes for the FDOT Hybrid Scope for the sub-committee comments

d. 3-D Design implementation in Construction:

i. District 5 pilot project – new scope for the 3D project in the grouping, Group 180

4. Old Business a. Central Office Final Estimates asking for the CSS to use Trimble for earthwork b. Certification requirements- are the districts insisting on inspectors and senior inspectors to

have all the certifications listed on the scope?

5. Upcoming 2019 ACEC CEI Sub-Committee Meeting Dates

Transportation Committee Meeting Date

CEI Sub-Committee Meeting immediately following

Location Proposed CEI Sub-Committee Teleconference Date

July 9, 2019 Tampa June 19, 2019

October 8, 2019 Kissimmee September 18, 2019

January 14, 2020 Orlando ???

1 of 1 Specs – Handout 1

FICE Transportation Committee Meeting

July 9, 2019 Specifications Subcommittee Report

1. FDOT Specifications for Review During the past six months, fifty-five (55) specifications and other related revisions were offered by the FDOT Specifications Office for comment. The material was being distributed to the Transportation Committee Membership with a few exceptions within one week of it being posted. See attached spreadsheet for complete list since last meeting.

MANY THANKS TO THOSE WHO PROVIDED COMMENTS!

2. FTBA News

FTBA’s Annual Convertion is August 8-11 at the JW Marriott on Marco Island. LESS Committee is scheduled to meet on at the Hyatt Regency in Orlando. The date of the next LESS Committee Meeting has not yet been set. Minutes to all LESS Committee Meetings may be found on the committee’s homepage: https://www.ftba.com/ftba-less-committee

3. Active Subcommittee Membership currently includes Al Schrumpf of DRMP, Gus Quesada of New Millennium Companies, Wayne Petrone of Peters and Yaffee, and David O’Hagan of Palmer Engineering Company. We have been unable to contact Sean O’Keefe. If anyone has contact information for Sean, please let David O’Hagan know ([email protected]).

END OF REPORT

EXHIBIT 5.6

https://www.ftba.com/ftba-less-committee

Specs - Handout 2

D. O'Hagan Handout2FICE_Record_of_SpecsReview_July2019.xls 1 of 7

Review No.

File No. Title Description & AssessmentComment Due Date

1 5210200 Concrete Barriers, Traffic Railings, and Parapets

To provide clearer identification of fill materials included in the 521 Pay Items, FDOT proposes adding two additional materials to Materials subarticle 521-2 ("flowable fill" and "concrete") and also mentions these as inclusions in the Basis of Payment, subarticle 521-9.

5/2/2019

2 7110400 Thermoplastic Pavement MarkingsRevises General section regarding removal and conflicting markings. Clarifies instructions for preformed markings.

5/9/2019

3 6490500Galvanized Steel Poles, Mast Arms, and Monotube

AssembliesClearer language propose for base plate installation steps. 5/9/2019

4 6490300Galvanized Steel Poles, Mast Arms, and Monotube

Assemblies

Clarifies the bolt tightening requirements for mast arms. Proposes including language from the RCSC Bolt Specification defining firm contact of faying surfaces in the snug tight condition and will replace the term full contact.

5/9/2019

5 9310101 Metal Accessory Materials for Concrete Pavement

and Concrete StructuresGrade 80 reinforcement has been added to ASTM A615. Grade 75 reinforcing steel will no longer be available as reinforcing steel.

5/30/2019

6 9290000 Pozzolans and SlagRe-titled “Supplementary Cementitious Materials” to reflect broader scope of specification.

5/30/2019

7 7050400 Object Markers and DelineatorsMinor change to allow for separate payment when replacing delineators on EXISTING barrier.

5/30/2019

8 5480206 Retaining Wall Systems Update the reference to section 346, mix design, and its terminologies, including highly reactive reactive pozzolans in lieu of silica fume, metakaolin and ultra fine fly ash.

5/30/2019

9 4500500 Precast Prestressed Concrete ConstructionTo include a shop drawing submittal requirement for products that will receive stainless steel and composite prestressing strand.

5/30/2019

10 4490200 Precast Concrete Drainage Products Update the reference to Section 929. 5/30/2019

1141003034070403

Precast Concrete Box Culvert andThree-Sided Precast Concrete Culvert

Update the reference to Section 346. 5/30/2019

FICE Specifications SubcommitteeFDOT Spec Revisions Proposed (January through June, 2019)

Specs - Handout 2


12 4001400 Concrete StructuresAdded language for use of the maturity meter for determining form removal strength. 400-14 and 400-17.4 removed sub-artificial references to Section 346.

5/30/2019

13 1050807 Contractor Quality Control General Requirements

In agreement with industry, the CTQP Concrete Field Tech Level 1 requirement is not needed for precast concrete pipe and drainage plants. They are not producing 346 concrete (except for cases where the plant produces box culverts, or the elements will be in extremely aggressive environments). The Department will accept alternatives to CTQP Batch Plant Operator certifications.

5/30/2019

14 0050900 Control of the WorkVery minimal wording change that requires the Contractor to provide means of boat transport and access to CEI personnel for bridge projects accessible only by boat for the duration of the Contract.

5/30/2019

15 SP0050900Control of the Work– General Inspection

Requirements – Cooperation by the Contractor

Special Provision 0050901 is being deleted; relevant language from the Special Provision requiring the Contractor to provide access to CEI personnel for bridge projects accessible only by boat is being inserted into Section 5.

5/30/2019

16

105-4.4 MM8.4v2

105-4.4 MM8.1v2

Contractor Quality Control General Requirements-Compliance with the Materials Manual

Type S admixtures have been identified in Section 924 of the 7/2019 Spec book, and the APL, thus, section 8.4.6.1(3) has been removed. A statement in 8.4.6.1(2) exists, which makes reference that the admixtures must meet Section 924.

8.1 has only existed as one volume, which has caused confusion on how the documents are presented on the website. The documents have been split to mitigate this confusion. The revision places the direction in Volume I (Department) and Volume II (Industry) as appropriate.

5/30/2019

17 9920102 Highway Lighting Materials Added requirements for Wildlife-Sensitive Conventional Luminaires. 6/6/2019

Specs - Handout 2


18 4550101 Structures Foundations

Requires the compaction around the piles/shafts is made with 6" max of compacted lifts. Requires short set-checks and re-drives (less than 24") to be instrumented unless the Engineer decides otherwise. Requires pipe piles to be watertight. Include the Instrumentation, Data Collection and report within the Load Test pay item for piles and drilled shafts. Removes pay item 455-129 from the Drilled Shafts specifications. Improves language for certification of polymer slurry in Drilled Shafts. Adds a requirement for the TITDS reports. Clarifies language for grouting requirements on the auger cast piles section.

6/6/2019

19

1050404-MM111V2

1050404-MM92V2

Contractor Quality Control General Requirements-Compliance with the Materials Manual

This is a new document. The current Chapter 11, Vol I addressed the Department and Fabricator requirements. State Materials wanted to create an appropriate document (Vol II) that spoke to the Fabricators, as well as update the Materials Manual with MAC.

Section 9.2 Materials Manual needs to be changed to correspond with the proposed changes in Section 346 of the Specifications; including concrete mix design approval/re-approval process, substitution of the concrete mix ingredients, and chloride testing resolution process.

6/6/2019

20 4600100 Structural Steel and Miscellaneous Metals

Changed the classification of overhead sign structures to be included in main or primary load carrying. Miscellaneous (metal) components list is revised to reflect current components. All fabrication categories, Structure Types and Accepted Accredation Programs, have also been changed. Lastly, implementation of plasma etching research is included.

6/6/2019

21 SP0080401Prosecution and Progress – Limitations of

Operations – Night Work Along Coastal Roads

For projects adjacent to sea turtle nesting habitat, all work zone lighting must be directed and shielded to prevent light trespassing onto the beach.

6/6/2019

22 99001100 Temporary Traffic Control Device Materials

Moved temporary traffic control device testing requirements out of Section 102 and into Section 990. Removed references to NCHRP 350. Made some minor adjustments and clarifications in Section 102 (i.e., pay items for work zone pavement markings)

6/20/2019

Specs - Handout 2


23 9600201 Post-Tensioning Components

The ETAG-013 document referenced in the 960 Specification has been superseded and replaced by the EAD 160004-00-0301 document. The modification will allow testing according to the updated EAD document. Vendors who have already tested to the procedure in ETAG-013 will not be required to retest.

6/20/2019

24 9330102 Prestressing Stand and BarListed cross sectional area, yield and breaking strength for two sizes of stainless steel strand; also specified elongation requirements.

6/20/2019

25 9260100 Epoxy Compounds

926-2 clarify requirements; allow NTPEP as an option not requirement, corrected FTIR language; 926-3 corrected Type AB requirements; 926-4, 926-5, 926-7, 926-10 corrected requirements, removed redundant language throughout

6/20/2019

26 9230000 Water for ConcreteUpdated accreditation requirements and equivalent chemical tests. Minor editorial changes.

6/20/2019

27 9160201 Bituminous MaterialsExisting high polymer binder may be blended in an asphalt producer’s storage tank to make a PG 76-22 binder. See Materials Bulletin 06-19 / DCE Memorandum 06-19.

6/20/2019

28 6770201 Equipment Shelter

677-2: Remove language that conflicts with other parts of spec. 677-2.4 677-2.5: adding language to help prevent mold formation in shelters. 677-3.1:adding installation language to help prevent the formation of mold in equipment shelters. Includes quick installation after delivery, dehumidification of the shelter, and adding a portable dehumifier if needed.

6/20/2019

29 6390303 Electrical Power Service AssembliesChange 639-3.3 to add "ITS" and "no smaller than No. 6 AWG" to the article.

6/20/2019

31 6350202 Pull, Splice, and Junction Boxes

The changes allow options for labeling pull boxes and splice boxes and the types of security bolts allowed. The change also updates the testing standard to current version. The change removes a reference to metal covers which were removed from the Materials section on an earlier spec change.

6/20/2019

Specs - Handout 2


32 6330101 Communication CableClarifying slack length for fiber optic drop cables. Extending calibration duration for splice equipment. Adding calibration duration for testing equipment.

6/20/2019

33 5600501 Coating New Structural Steel

NACE has presented an adequate program for the shop and field application of bridge coatings. Therefore, the language in the Specifications warranted a change to include the additional certification programs (NIICAP AS-1S and 1F)

6/20/2019

34 4150503 Reinforcing for Concrete

Allows for the use of non-metallic rebar fasteners in precast drainage structures and incidental precast products or when specified in the Contract Documents. The respective materials manual sections will be updated to describe a process for QC plan approval.

6/20/2019

35 3370302 Asphalt Concrete Friction CoursesIncorporates Materials Bulletin 06-19 / DCE Memorandum 06-19, which allow substituting high polymer binder in a mixture at no additional cost to the Department.

6/20/2019

36 3340202 Superpave Asphalt Concrete

Materials Bulletin 06-19 / DCE Memorandum 06-19 allows existing high polymer binder to be used on projects where high polymer binder was not specified. Delete language contained in Asphalt Binder for Mixes with RAP. A new Materials Bulletin will address the latest binder and mixture sampling requirements. LOTS may be left open longer allowing evaluation of complete LOTs rather than Small Quantities.

6/20/2019

37 3300302 Hot Mix Asphalt – General Construction

Requirements

The minimum ambient temperature for FC-5 mixtures without high polymer binder and containing warm mix technology may be reduced to 55ºF, if agreed to by both the Engineer and the Contractor. This would not apply to any FC-5 mixtures with high polymer binder.

6/20/2019

38 3000301 Prime and Tack Coats

A requirement is needed for cleaning the distributor tank and for verifying the distributor meter. Revision raises the tack rate for new-on-new construction from 0.04 to 0.05 gal./sq. yd. (0.05 is the lower limit for most equipment); requires complete and uniform tack coating; and bituminous materials to be heated to a temperature designated by the Supplier. Finally, the tack coat material is not to be diluted.

6/20/2019

Specs - Handout 2


39 1020901 Maintenance of Traffic

Moved temporary traffic control device testing requirements out of Section 102 and into Section 990. Removed references to NCHRP 350. Made some minor adjustments and clarifications in Section 102 (i.e., pay items for work zone pavement markings).

6/20/2019

40 9750000 Structural Coating MaterialsCorrecting errors and clarify requirements for consistency with standards methods.

6/27/2019

41 9480907Optional Drainage Products and Liner Repair

Systems

Changed references to coating liner in article 948-9.7 to "spray applied pipe liner." Added high-strength, low-porosity geopolymer materials to the list of acceptable materials for spray applied pipe liner (948-9.7)

6/27/2019

42 6650100 Pedestrian Detection SystemDeletes references to Thermal technology, article 1, 2.3; allow audible or visual indication, article 2.1.2; update NEMA reference article 2.6.

6/27/2019

43 5700308 Performance TurfAddresses how borrow needed for Treatment II in the Standard Plans 570-010 will be paid.

6/27/2019

44 5270201 Detectable WarningsFor applications on new concrete, use only products that may be applied during casting or to the concrete immediately after the cure period specified in 520-8.

6/27/2019

45 4300901 Pipe CulvertsSampling requirement “4” revised to, “Project quantity per for a pipe diameter is greater more than 100 linear feet, unless intended for use as cross drain.

7/4/2019

46 6590201Mast Arm, Span Wire, and Pole Mounting

Assemblies

Requires the signal/disconnect/hanger connection to include a fail-safe design to prevent turning once the standard serrated edge is compromised. Adds qualification loading testing based on research/testing performed at UF and FIU wind testing facilities. Requires manufacturers provide torque spec and contractors to install per the torque specs.

7/4/2019

47 6500202 Vehicular Traffic Signal AssembliesClarifies and updates references to Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Standard for Vehicle Traffic Control Signal Heads.

7/4/2019

48 5230202 Patterned Pavement

Updates the hyper-link to the adjusted Daytime Color Box for Green Bike Lanes. The nighttime color box has been eliminated. The new adjusted color box has some shifting of the X and Y axis for color. Cap Y values were not changed.

7/4/2019

Specs - Handout 2


49SP0090201LSSP0090201DB

Measurement and PaymentAllows asphalt pay quantity to be limited at 105% of adjusted quantity rather than 1 LS. Also, provides clarification that fuel and bituminous adjustments will be limited to the pay quantity.

7/4/2019

50 5610401 Coating Existing Structural SteelAddition of NACE NIICAP AS-1F certification program for the application of field coatings. Clarification for the qualification for the removal of hazardous coatings.

7/11/2019

5153602005360400

Guardrail

Subarticle 536-2: added Buy American requirement. Subarticle 536-4: removed Materials Certification and Certificate of Compliance requirements. This change will require removal of the guardrail Materials Certification and Certificate of Compliance in from the web link in Subarticle 6-1.3.1 Manufacturer Material Certification.

7/11/2019

52 4130302 Sealing Cracks and Concrete Structure SurfacesDeleted ASTM D4271 (it was withdrawn). Added language to clarify friction testing requirements. Changes made to reflect updated AASHTO T242 spec.

7/11/2019

53 6840101 Network Devices

1.2.1 Adding requirement for John McCain Defense Act. 1.2.2 updating references.1.2.5 change from telnet to secure shell, TFTP to SCP or SFTP, require RADIUS or TACACS+. 2.2.4 remove serial configuration.

7/18/2019

54 6820102 Video Equipment

1.2.1 Add requirement for John McCain Defense Act. 1.2.5 Changes for IP cameras to support either NTCIP or ONVIF. 1.2.9 Change to require multicast and unicast streams work using RTSP. 1.3 Simplifying cabinet reqs by saying listed on APL.

7/18/2019

55 3460000 Portland Cement Concrete

The Section title has been modified to "Structural Portland Cement Concrete." The concrete resolution process has been simplified. A request for an extra “hold cylinder” lessens the liability of the Contractor. The structural adequacy process of the in-place concrete in accordance ACI requirements has been included, providing a wider acceptance ranges for all classes of concrete greater than 5,000 psi.

7/18/2019

ACEC TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE PD&E/Planning Sub-committee Report by Silvia Beltre

July 2019 Quarterly Meeting

Next meeting of PD&E Sub-Committee scheduled for August 29. Please direct any issues or concerns that have come up from the main committee to my attention so we can be sure to include those items in the upcoming meeting.

Contact Information

Silvia Beltre, P.E. Direct: 305 445-2900 x 2237 Mobile: 786 502-0713 [email protected]

EXHIBIT 5.7

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

ACEC-FL CEI XWY Committee Meeting ReportJuly 8, 2019

1. No call held this quarter.

2. Second Quarter 2019 Reportsa. CFX: Second Industry Forum in 2019 to be held on July 16, 2019 at CFX

Headquarters. Information can be found at : https://www.cfxway.com/agency-information/plans-studies/five-year-work-plans/

b. JTA: Meetings scheduled with JTA staff as follows:i. July 18, 2019 at 10:00 AMii. October 24, 2019

c. MDX:i. Awaiting Governor’s action on HB 385. If bill is signed, MDX will be

abolished and replaced by Greater Miami Expressway Agency (GMXA)ii. MDX ‘s credit rating has suffered downgrade by S&P, Moody’s and Fitch.

Further downgrade is expected.iii. MDX/MDC may proceed with legal challenge.

d. THEA: The following meetings have been scheduled for 2019:i. May 9th at 11:00 AM – meeting minutes attachedii. August 8th at 11:00 AM

iii. November 14th at 11:00 AM

3. Upcoming Meetings Schedule

Transportation Committee MeetingDate

Location Proposed XWY Sub-CommitteeTeleconference Date

April 9, 2019 Ft.Lauderdale

No Call Held

July 9, 2019 Tampa No Call Held

October 8, 2019 Kissimmee September 23, 2019

January 14, 2020 Orlando January 7, 2020

EXHIBIT 5.8

THEA – ACEC FL Liaison Committee MeetingMay 9, 2019

Attendees:Christina KoppDavid MayMichael DixonPaul Foley

1. Design Build – Selmon West Updatei. How are things going?

ii. Feedback on review from Central Office & DOT.

David May explained the interchange is going well and the new alignment is starting to takeshape. The contractor is a little behind schedule but once they get the approaches completed,the production rate will improve tremendously and anticipate meeting the completion date.The public has been very receptive of the project except for the delay encountered at theWestshore intersection which will improve in the next phase when the left turn queue lengthscan be lengthened.

Central Office (CO) has been very involved in the oversight of this project.ACEC noted that they have a task team that has recently started to meet with Central OfficeStructures and CO Structures has some concerns with responsibility of temporary works andpeer reviews. CO will be requiring additional oversight and Independent Peer Reviews offuture projects including shop drawings and temporary works.

2. Hyde Park Gateway at Morrison Avenue RFQ was cancelled?

THEA received a bid from one contractor which they did not open (THEA’s standard practicewhen they only receive on bid) and a response from another contractor informing THEA thatthey will not be submitting a bid because they did not want to upset THEA by submitting a bidthat was too high. The issue is that the engineers estimate was done using the statewide averagefor standard concrete, but the Gateway design required the use of decorative concrete. THEAhas requested debriefs from both contractors to see what needs to be added to the contract tomake it more attractive.

3. Dynamic Message Sign (DMS) Structure Replacement cancelled?

No contractor bids were submitted for this contract. It is assumed that the contract was toosmall for anyone to bid on. It was only one sign replacement. The project has limited roomto work in and off-peak hours.

4. PD&E Whiting Street ELOI Process (selection was May 2nd)

Two consultants (KCA and H.W. Lochner) submitted letters for this project. It was aninteresting procurement process consisting of the selection being made solely off of a 5-pageextended letter of interest. The process seemed appropriate from the consultant and owner’sperspective. THEA may consider adding a Q&A process next time. THEA noted that futurePD&Es will likely include more survey in the scope in order to get a better cost estimate forthings like cross slope correction.

5. Feedback from SBE Opportunity Forum held on March 6, 2019

The turnout was very good, it almost filled the room, and there was good participation fromthose in attendance.

6. Opinion on the Legislature’s action towards MDX? Any concerns going forward?

There is some concern that the legislature is dictating the toll structure which could have ahuge impact on the coverage ratio and the tolling agencies ability to pay back their debt. THEAis much smaller than MDX and there is some concern that legislature may direct FTE to absorbTHEA’s facilities.

7. Misc. GEC Contracts:i. Planning & Traffic

ii. Design & CEI Servicesiii. Emerging Technologiesiv. Trail, Parks & Community Enhancement

The miscellaneous GEC contract was previously a large umbrella scope covering contractwhich selected 4 consultants. This time, the scope was broken down to 4 types of work andTHEA will select 3 consultants each. Consultants are encouraged to submit a letter for eachcategory they are prequalified for. A consultant’s selection for one contract does not precludethem from being selected on another.

8. Upcoming Advertisements:

It was noted that the attached “List of Future Projects 2018 – 2019” could be updated to revisedates as needed. Also, it would be good to define the type of contract, i.e. design, design-build.

9. Other.

10. Next meetings are scheduled for: (Donna Obuchowski at [email protected])i. 8/08/19

ii. 11/14/19

Central Florida Expressway Authority / ACEC-FICE Liaison Committee Meeting Notes

May 22, 2019

Attendees: Laura Kelley, Glenn Pressimone, Ben Dreiling, Chaitali Prajapati, Edward Gonzalez, Jay Nagle, Xavier Arroyo

• CFX Industry Forum -- Save the Date July 16, 2019 for WebEx teleconference for Work Plan Update

• CFX PPM – Document is being finalized and target release timeline is Fall.

• Electronic Signing & Sealing – Will Hawthorne is the internal coordinator for Electronic Sign and Seal utilizing the FDOT process. Implementation is pending

• Selection Debriefing – Timing of debriefings is to be confirmed. Jay Nagle will follow up on this item and coordinate with the FDOT process for holding debriefing meetings.

• Joe Berenis, Chief of Infrastructure, after 31 years retired from CFX on June 28th