Hawaii Highway Commercial Parcel: 27 Issues Found

Summary: 15 indexed pages | 9 match | 6 minor mismatch | 0 mismatch | 0 missing Minor Mismatch (6): T-001: Expected: TITLE, DRAWING INDEX, ISLAND MAP, VICINITY MAPS, AND PLOT PLAN (T-001) | Actual: TITLE SHEET (T-001)(p1) | Reason: Sheet number matches exactly; actual title is a shortened/generalized version of the fuller index title for...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft: 📄 T-001 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 1

Summary: Construction Note 11 on sheet C-102 directs the contractor to 'CONSTRUCT 5'x6' CONCRETE LANDING W/ FLOOD BARRIER ALUMINUM PANEL. REFER TO DETAIL 1 C-106.' However, Detail 1 on sheet C-106 is titled 'CRM RIPRAP PROFILE' and shows a stepped riprap structure with CRM step energy dissipator, rock riprap specifications, and horizontal run dimensions...

Why it matters: This cross-reference mismatch means the contractor has no valid detail for constructing the 5'×6' concrete landing with flood barrier aluminum panel. Either the detail number in the construction note is incorrect, or the concrete landing detail was never included in the drawing set. This could delay construction, lead to an incorrectly built...

Suggested next step: Please clarify which detail provides the design for the 5'×6' concrete landing with flood barrier aluminum panel referenced in Construction Note 11 on C-102. Detail 1/C-106 currently shows the CRM Riprap Profile. Is the detail number in the construction note incorrect, or is there a missing detail that needs to be added to the drawing set?

RFI draft: Please clarify which detail provides the design for the 5'×6' concrete landing with flood barrier aluminum panel referenced in Construction Note 11 on C-102. Detail 1/C-106 currently shows the CRM Riprap Profile. Is the detail number in the construction note incorrect, or is there a missing...

Summary: C-101 Site and Drainage Plan shows Catch Basin #2 at STA. 0+20.25 with 885.91 TG and 877.40 INV. The C-104 plan view shows CB #2 at STA. 0+20.89 with 885.9 TG and INV.=887.4. The C-104 profile view shows CB #2 at STA. 0+20.25 with 885.70 TG and INV.=877.40. The station differs by 0.64' between C-101 and the C-104 plan. The top-of-grate differs...

Why it matters: An invert elevation of 887.4 shown on the C-104 plan exceeds the catch basin grate elevation, which would render the drainage structure non-functional and misrepresent the pipe depth and slope for Stormdrain-2. The 0.64-foot station discrepancy could place the catch basin in a different location, affecting the pipe length between CB #2 and CB...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct station, top-of-grate elevation, and invert elevation for Catch Basin #2 on Stormdrain-2. C-101 shows STA. 0+20.25, 885.91 TG, and 877.40 INV. The C-104 plan shows STA. 0+20.89, 885.9 TG, and INV.=887.4. The C-104 profile shows STA. 0+20.25, 885.70 TG, and INV.=877.40. Please confirm which values govern and issue...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct station, top-of-grate elevation, and invert elevation for Catch Basin #2 on Stormdrain-2. C-101 shows STA. 0+20.25, 885.91 TG, and 877.40 INV. The C-104 plan shows STA. 0+20.89, 885.9 TG, and INV.=887.4. The C-104 profile shows STA. 0+20.25, 885.70 TG, and INV.=877.40....

Summary: Sheet C-101 labels the second (non-DOT ROW) alignment start at station 0+00 as 'START ALIGNMENT WITHIN WALL FLOWLINE,' while Sheet C-102 labels the identical start point as 'START ALIGNMENT WITHIN SCHOOL PROPERTY.' The TBM tie notes on both sheets confirm these refer to the same physical point: TBM-3 to the start is 9.30' at 188° 31' 56' on...

Why it matters: This naming inconsistency will cause confusion for surveyors establishing the alignment in the field. They may not recognize that 'WALL FLOWLINE' and 'SCHOOL PROPERTY' refer to the same alignment, potentially leading to duplicate staking, misinterpretation of which alignment controls grading and wall construction, or incorrect profile...

Suggested next step: Request clarification on the correct name for the second (non-DOT ROW) alignment that begins at station 0+00. Confirm whether 'WALL FLOWLINE' and 'SCHOOL PROPERTY' refer to the same alignment, and request that all plan labels, profile titles, and TBM tie callouts on Sheets C-101 and C-102 be updated with a single consistent name.

RFI draft: Request clarification on the correct name for the second (non-DOT ROW) alignment that begins at station 0+00. Confirm whether 'WALL FLOWLINE' and 'SCHOOL PROPERTY' refer to the same alignment, and request that all plan labels, profile titles, and TBM tie callouts on Sheets C-101 and C-102 be...

Summary: C-103 Construction Note 1 directs the contractor to construct the 24-inch wide traffic-rated trench drain per Detail 1/C-201 and Detail 3/C-201. On C-201, Detail 1 (plan view) specifies the trench drain grating as W22-4 with 2.5'×28'×1/4' bearing bars, while a separate section detail on the same sheet specifies the same W22-4 grate with...

Why it matters: Bearing bar cross-section directly governs the structural load capacity of the grating. Since C-103 specifies this as a 'TRAFFIC RATED' trench drain serving a school driveway, correct bearing bar sizing is critical for vehicular loading. The grating supplier cannot fabricate and the contractor cannot order until the correct specification is...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct W22-4 grating bearing bar specification for the traffic-rated trench drain. Detail 1 on C-201 specifies 2.5'×28'×1/4' bearing bars while the trench drain section detail on C-201 specifies 3.5'×28'×3/8' bearing bars. Confirm which bearing bar size is correct for the required traffic rating and revise the conflicting...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct W22-4 grating bearing bar specification for the traffic-rated trench drain. Detail 1 on C-201 specifies 2.5'×28'×1/4' bearing bars while the trench drain section detail on C-201 specifies 3.5'×28'×3/8' bearing bars. Confirm which bearing bar size is correct for the...

Summary: C-104 Construction Note 3 directs the pipe work to '1/C-103' with 'CONSTRUCT 36\' DIA. DUAL WALL N-12 HDPE PIPE\nPER DETAIL\n1\nC-103,' and the C-104 profile is labeled 'PROFILE WITHIN DOT ROW.' However, the referenced C-103 detail is '1\nFLEXIBLE PIPE TRENCH SECTION\nNOT TO SCALE,' and Note 2 on that detail states '2. THIS TRENCH SECTION...

Why it matters: If the wrong trench section is used for right-of-way work, bedding, backfill, cover, and restoration requirements may not meet agency requirements, creating approval delays and field rework.

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether Detail 1/C-103 is intended for the C-104 work labeled 'PROFILE WITHIN DOT ROW,' or provide the correct right-of-way trench detail to use for Construction Note 3.

RFI draft: Please confirm whether Detail 1/C-103 is intended for the C-104 work labeled 'PROFILE WITHIN DOT ROW,' or provide the correct right-of-way trench detail to use for Construction Note 3.

Summary: On C-402, Note 2 calls for a 'CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE AND VEHICLE/EQUIPMENT WASH AREA W/ IMPERMEABLE-LINED BASIN' and references '1 C-401.' Note 3 calls for a 'CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WASH SEDIMENT BASIN W/ IMPERMEABLE LINER' and references '3 C-401.' The referenced 3/C-401 detail is titled 'CONCRETE TRUCK DRUM/CHUTE WASH WATER SEDIMENT BASIN,'...

Why it matters: The visual evidence confirms a mismatch between Note 3's description and the title of the referenced 3/C-401 detail, and it confirms different liner thicknesses in 1/C-401 and 3/C-401. The provided references do not establish that Notes 2 and 3 apply to the same exact physical basin, so the issue should be framed as a reference ambiguity rather...

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether C-402 Note 3 is intended to reference a general construction equipment wash basin detail or the concrete truck drum/chute wash water sediment basin at 3/C-401, and clarify where the 10 mil versus 6 mil liner requirements apply.

RFI draft: Please confirm whether C-402 Note 3 is intended to reference a general construction equipment wash basin detail or the concrete truck drum/chute wash water sediment basin at 3/C-401, and clarify where the 10 mil versus 6 mil liner requirements apply.

Summary: One cited view directs the reader to 'STORM DRAIN-2, SEE PLAN AND PROFILE ON SHEET C-104.' In the coordinated utility area, one view shows '(E)W6\' (INVERT VIF)' and '(E)W2\' (INVERT VIF)', while the referenced view shows '6\' WATERLINE TO BE PROTECTED' and '2.5\' WATERLINE TO BE PROTECTED.' The smaller waterline size conflicts: 2 inches versus...

Why it matters: If the smaller utility is not correctly sized, Storm Drain-2 clearance checks, protection requirements, and field decisions about excavation around the line could be based on the wrong pipe size.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct size of the smaller waterline associated with Storm Drain-2 and revise the affected plan/profile and utility protection notes so one size is used consistently.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct size of the smaller waterline associated with Storm Drain-2 and revise the affected plan/profile and utility protection notes so one size is used consistently.

Summary: Catch Basin #2 (C.B. #2) is shown on C-101 at STA. 0+20.25 with a top-of-grate elevation of 885.91, while on the C-107 Inset 2 detail the same catch basin is shown at STA. 0+20.89 with a top-of-grate elevation of 885.9. The station differs by 0.64 feet, and the TG elevation differs by 0.01 feet (885.91 vs 885.9). These are two representations...

Why it matters: A 0.64-foot discrepancy in the station of C.B. #2 could result in the catch basin being constructed at the wrong location along the drainage alignment, potentially affecting pipe connections, inlet capacity, and overall drainage performance. The contractor will not know which location to use—the site plan or the enlarged inset—and this...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct station and top-of-grate elevation for Catch Basin #2. C-101 shows STA. 0+20.25 and 885.91 TG, while C-107 Inset 2 shows STA. 0+20.89 and 885.9 TG. Please revise the drawings so both sheets reflect the correct, consistent values.

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct station and top-of-grate elevation for Catch Basin #2. C-101 shows STA. 0+20.25 and 885.91 TG, while C-107 Inset 2 shows STA. 0+20.89 and 885.9 TG. Please revise the drawings so both sheets reflect the correct, consistent values.

Summary: C-402 BMP Construction Note 3 calls for a construction equipment wash sediment basin and directs the contractor to Detail 3/C-401. However, Detail 3 on C-401 is specifically a concrete truck drum/chute wash water sediment basin, not a general construction equipment wash basin. This is a cross-reference mismatch between the plan note and the...

Why it matters: If the wrong BMP detail is followed in the field, the contractor could build a concrete washout facility where an equipment wash basin is intended. That can affect environmental compliance, inspections, and how wash water is contained and managed during construction.

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether BMP Construction Note 3 should reference Detail 3/C-401, or whether a separate equipment/vehicle wash sediment basin detail is required. If Detail 3 is intended, revise the note to match the concrete truck drum/chute wash water use shown on C-401.

RFI draft: Please confirm whether BMP Construction Note 3 should reference Detail 3/C-401, or whether a separate equipment/vehicle wash sediment basin detail is required. If Detail 3 is intended, revise the note to match the concrete truck drum/chute wash water use shown on C-401.

Summary: The BMP Plan notes state that removed vegetation and debris will be disposed of at the 'East Hawaii Sanitary Landfill.' However, the Civil General Notes specification (Solid Waste Notes) explicitly limits construction waste delivery to the 'South Hilo or West Hawai'i Sanitary Landfills.' The 'East Hawaii Sanitary Landfill' is not listed as an...

Why it matters: Disposing construction waste at a non-approved facility could result in violations of county solid waste regulations, potential fines, and project delays. The contractor may also need to obtain different 'Notice of Authorization to Dispose' documentation depending on the actual landfill used. This discrepancy must be resolved before...

Suggested next step: Request clarification on the approved disposal site for removed vegetation and construction debris. The BMP Plan references 'East Hawaii Sanitary Landfill' while the Civil General Notes Solid Waste Notes specify that construction wastes may only be delivered to the 'South Hilo or West Hawai'i Sanitary Landfills.' Please confirm the correct...

RFI draft: Request clarification on the approved disposal site for removed vegetation and construction debris. The BMP Plan references 'East Hawaii Sanitary Landfill' while the Civil General Notes Solid Waste Notes specify that construction wastes may only be delivered to the 'South Hilo or West Hawai'i...

Summary: On the plan view, Catch Basin #2 (CB #2) is annotated with an invert elevation of INV.=887.4 and a top of grate elevation of 885.9 TG. By definition, the invert (lowest internal point of the structure) must be well below the top of grate (surface-level grating). An invert 1.5 feet above the grate is a physical impossibility. The profile view...

Why it matters: If the contractor relies on the plan view invert elevation of 887.4 for field layout or elevation verification, the catch basin would be set at an impossible elevation above finished grade, preventing any drainage function. This 10-foot discrepancy between plan and profile could cause significant construction confusion, delays, and potential...

Suggested next step: Please confirm that the correct invert elevation for CB #2 is 877.40 as shown in the profile view, and revise the plan view annotation from INV.=887.4 to INV.=877.4(0) to match. Also reconcile the minor station discrepancy between plan (STA. 0+20.89) and profile (STA. 0+20.25) and the TG values (885.9 on plan vs 885.70 on profile).

RFI draft: Please confirm that the correct invert elevation for CB #2 is 877.40 as shown in the profile view, and revise the plan view annotation from INV.=887.4 to INV.=877.4(0) to match. Also reconcile the minor station discrepancy between plan (STA. 0+20.89) and profile (STA. 0+20.25) and the TG values...

Summary: Sheet C-102 includes a note at the existing water meter location reading '(E) WATER METER=886.2 REFER TO PHOTOS 1 & 2 ON SHEET C-301,' directing the reader to those specific photos for context about the water meter. However, on Sheet C-301, Photo 1 is annotated only with 'APPROX. LOCATION PROPOSED STORMDRAIN-1' and Photo 2 is annotated only...

Why it matters: During construction, field crews or inspectors directed to Photos 1 & 2 on C-301 to identify or verify the existing water meter location will find no relevant information in those photos. This could lead to confusion about the water meter's exact location, potential damage to the water meter during construction activities, or delays while crews...

Suggested next step: Please clarify which photos on Sheet C-301 are intended to show the existing water meter (ELEV. 886.2) referenced on Sheet C-102. Photos 1 and 2 on C-301 currently depict the proposed Stormdrain-1 location and the proposed reinforced concrete headwall, respectively, with no reference to a water meter. Please confirm whether the photo numbers in...

RFI draft: Please clarify which photos on Sheet C-301 are intended to show the existing water meter (ELEV. 886.2) referenced on Sheet C-102. Photos 1 and 2 on C-301 currently depict the proposed Stormdrain-1 location and the proposed reinforced concrete headwall, respectively, with no reference to a water...

Summary: On sheet C-402 (BMP Plan), the existing water vault callout reads '(E) WATER VAULT=884.2 REFER TO PHOTO 3 ON SHEET C-301' and is located adjacent to '(E) DRIVEWAY #3' on the east side of the site. However, Photo 3 on sheet C-301 (Civil Photos) depicts the west side of the school frontage and is annotated with 'EXIST. DRIVEWAY NO. 1,' along with...

Why it matters: During construction, the contractor or inspector referencing Photo 3 per the BMP Plan callout would be directed to a photo of an entirely different part of the site (Driveway #1, west frontage) rather than the Driveway #3 area (east frontage) where the water vault is located. This could lead to confusion in locating and protecting the existing...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct photo reference for the existing water vault (EL. 884.2) near Driveway #3 on sheet C-402. Photo 3 on C-301 shows the Driveway #1 area, not the Driveway #3 area. Should the reference be changed to Photo 7, which depicts the Driveway #3 vicinity? Please revise the cross-reference accordingly.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct photo reference for the existing water vault (EL. 884.2) near Driveway #3 on sheet C-402. Photo 3 on C-301 shows the Driveway #1 area, not the Driveway #3 area. Should the reference be changed to Photo 7, which depicts the Driveway #3 vicinity? Please revise the...

Summary: Sheet C-101 (Site and Drainage Plan) labels Catch Basin #2 at STA. 0+20.25 with a top-of-grate elevation of 885.91, while Sheet C-107 (Inset Plan, Inset 2 — the enlarged detail of this same area) labels the same Catch Basin #2 at STA. 0+20.89 with a top-of-grate elevation of 885.9. The station difference is 0.64 feet and the TG elevation...

Why it matters: A 0.64-foot discrepancy in station locates the catch basin at a different position along the alignment, which can affect pipe connection geometry, trench excavation layout, and inlet hydraulic performance. Field crews relying on the detailed Inset 2 plan (C-107) for construction layout would place the structure in a different location than what...

Suggested next step: Request the engineer to confirm the correct station and top-of-grate elevation for Catch Basin #2 and revise either C-101 or C-107 Inset 2 so both sheets are consistent.

RFI draft: Request the engineer to confirm the correct station and top-of-grate elevation for Catch Basin #2 and revise either C-101 or C-107 Inset 2 so both sheets are consistent.