K-12 / Education Plan Review: 375 Issues Found

Summary: General Note 8 on sheet C5.0 states that all drain lines shall be RCP unless otherwise noted. However, General Note 8 on sheet C5.3 specifies that drain lines 12' and smaller shall be HDPE unless otherwise noted, with only 15' and greater being RCP. Since C5.0 is the overall drainage plan and C5.3 is a detailed drainage plan within the same...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: Sheet C5.0 Note 8 states all drain lines shall be RCP unless otherwise noted. Sheet C5.1 Note 8 states drain lines 12' and smaller shall be HDPE unless otherwise noted, and only drain lines 15' and greater shall be RCP unless otherwise noted. These are directly contradictory default pipe material specifications for the same drainage system....

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: The Grading Plan C3.1 labels the outer wetland buffer as '50 FOOT WETLAND BUFFER' west of the athletic field, while the Drainage Plan C5.1 labels the same buffer zone as '100 FOOT WETLAND BUFFER' in the same location. Both sheets also independently show an inner 'WETLAND DO NOT DISTURB BUFFER,' confirming that the outer buffer line is the one...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: Sheet C1.3 identifies the existing building to remain undisturbed as 'LT. PETER M. HANSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL' ('2 STORY BRICK') and includes ''THE HANSEN SCHOOL' SIGN'. However, Sheet C2.2 identifies the building footprint in the same location as 'WILLIAM GALVIN MIDDLE SCHOOL' ('3 STORY BRICK') and proposes a 'GALVIN MIDDLE SCHOOL' SIGN IN...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: The Grading Plan (C3.1) repeatedly labels the athletic field surface as 'GRASS' and implies a natural turf surface with standard spot grades and painted lines. In contrast, the Drainage Plan (C5.1) designates the identical area as a synthetic 'TURF FIELD' with a crushed stone base and a massive underground stormwater storage volume (94,155 CF).

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: The Overall Utility Plan (C4.0) and Utility Plan 3 (C4.3) show entirely different existing site conditions and abutting property owners for the same geographic area in the southeast portion of the site. C4.0 depicts the 'LT. PETER M. HANSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL' and lists abutters such as 'EDWARD J. & JEAN A. MARSHALL' north of the S50°02'33'E...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: The Athletic Field ADA Loading Area Accessible Route plan shows a slope of 8.8% within the accessible route grading design. The specification requires that site grades conform with ADA and MAAB requirements and that accessible ramps be designed per ADA and MAAB guidelines. Under ADA standards, the maximum slope for an accessible ramp is 8.33%...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: Drawing C3.6 designates a '30 FOOT WETLAND DO NOT DISTURB BUFFER' overlapping the northwest corner of the field. However, the drawing also places the 'LOD' (Limit of Disturbance) and actual construction features like the 'SOCCER PAINT STRIPE SWL (TYP)' directly inside this zone. Showing disturbance limits and field construction within a buffer...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: Across multiple test pit data points on the site plan (e.g., TP-8, TP-9, TP 12-2), the recorded 'MIN GW ELEV' is numerically higher than the 'MAX GW ELEV'. Groundwater elevation is measured in feet above sea level, meaning the maximum elevation must be higher than the minimum elevation. The drafter likely confused 'Depth' with 'Elevation',...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: Drawing Note 17 states the contractor shall provide '1 WEEK NOTIFICATION FOR ANY POSSIBLE DISRUPTION OF SERVICE' for active utility lines including water. However, Specification Section 33 10 00 §1.8.A.1 explicitly requires the contractor to 'Notify Owner in writing no fewer than 2 weeks in advance of proposed interruption of service.' The...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: Drawing Note 16 dictates that when sanitary lines cross water lines with less than 1.5' of clearance, both utilities should be encased in flowable fill. It also implies that no special protection is required if the vertical clearance exceeds 1.5'. However, Specification Section 33 10 00, 3.2.W expressly states that sewer lines crossing under...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: The drawing General Notes (Note 12) and Layout Notes (Note 3) both state that detectable warning panels shall be cast iron. However, Specification Section 32 13 13 clearly specifies a 'surface applied polyurethane tactile mat' (REP Tile) system with detailed installation procedures for embedding into fresh concrete. Cast iron panels and...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: Drawing Note 17 states that for 'ACTIVE UTILITY LINES (INCLUDING SEWER, WATER, AND DRAINAGE), CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE 1 WEEK NOTIFICATION FOR ANY POSSIBLE DISRUPTION OF SERVICE.' This language implies that sewer service may be disrupted provided notification is given. However, Specification Section 33 30 01 §1.8.A explicitly states...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: Spec 02 41 00 Section 3.1.G explicitly mandates that 'Sanitary materials shall be reused onsite.' However, the Demolition Plan explicitly directs the contractor to remove and dispose ('R&D') of the 'EXISTING SANITARY LINE & STRUCTURES'. This creates a direct textual contradiction regarding the handling and disposal of sanitary utility components.

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: The Grading Plan identifies an 'OIL TANK THIS AREA' but fails to specify its demolition or removal. This contradicts Specification 02 41 00, which requires all underground structures and tanks to be completely demolished and removed in their entirety.

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft: