Florida Office / Commercial Plan Review: 67 Issues Found

Summary: Both matchlines on sheet P-202 reference 'SEE SHEET xxx FOR CONTINUATION' instead of actual sheet numbers. At STA 14+25.00 (left matchline) and STA 18+25.00 (right matchline), the continuation sheet designations are placeholder text that was never populated with valid sheet numbers.

Why it matters: During permitting, the reviewing authority cannot verify plan continuity or confirm that adjacent sheets are consistent with this sheet's limits of work, roadway demolition, force main trench, and striping. During construction, the contractor cannot locate continuation sheets for the roadway improvements, which directly impacts phasing,...

Suggested next step: Request that all matchline references on sheet P-202 be updated with the correct continuation sheet numbers for STA 14+25.00 and STA 18+25.00, and confirm that the adjacent sheets are included in the plan set.

RFI draft: Request that all matchline references on sheet P-202 be updated with the correct continuation sheet numbers for STA 14+25.00 and STA 18+25.00, and confirm that the adjacent sheets are included in the plan set.

Summary: The pavement replacement is specified as a Superpave mix ('W/ 2' FDOT SP-12.5') and refers to Note 5. However, Note 5 requires compaction to 95% of the 'MARSHALL MAXIMUM LABORATORY UNIT WEIGHT'.

Why it matters: Superpave (SP) asphalt mixes are tested using Gyratory compaction methods. Specifying a Superpave mix but requiring Marshall QA/QC testing creates a physically incompatible testing standard, which will fail constructability and permitting code checks.

Suggested next step: Update Note 5 to reference standard Superpave testing requirements (e.g., maximum theoretical specific gravity) instead of the Marshall method, matching the specified SP-12.5 mix.

RFI draft: Update Note 5 to reference standard Superpave testing requirements (e.g., maximum theoretical specific gravity) instead of the Marshall method, matching the specified SP-12.5 mix.

Summary: The plan designates the primary scope area as 'PHASE 2-SEGMENT-8 WORK AREA' and visually depicts it using a cross-hatched pattern. However, the plan's legend explicitly defines the crosshatched rectangle symbol as 'WORK ZONE (BY OTHERS)'.

Why it matters: Assigning the 'By Others' graphic symbol to the primary Segment 8 work zone creates a major contractual and MOT design conflict. The contractor might interpret the drawings to mean the Segment 8 work area is excluded from their scope, resulting in unbidded work, significant schedule delays, and change order disputes during construction.

Suggested next step: Update the hatching in the plan or correct the legend to clearly differentiate the contractor's primary work zone from work performed by others, ensuring the Segment 8 work area is unmistakably identified as in-scope.

RFI draft: Update the hatching in the plan or correct the legend to clearly differentiate the contractor's primary work zone from work performed by others, ensuring the Segment 8 work area is unmistakably identified as in-scope.

Summary: Sheet P-200 contains plan view annotations indicating the concrete pavement section ends at STA. 11+25.00 and the asphalt pavement section begins at that same station. However, the same sheet P-200 shows a typical cross section from STA. 11+00.00 to STA. 11+79.00 that specifies an 8' THK. 4000 PSI concrete apron as the full roadway surface...

Why it matters: This conflict has significant impacts on MOT design and constructability. Concrete pavement and asphalt pavement require entirely different construction equipment, placement methods, and curing times. Concrete sections require extended lane closure durations for curing before traffic can be reintroduced, directly affecting MOT phasing and...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the pavement type between STA. 11+25.00 and STA. 11+79.00 on McCullough Avenue. Sheet P-200 plan annotations indicate asphalt pavement begins at STA. 11+25.00, while the typical cross section on the same sheet P-200 for STA. 11+00.00 to STA. 11+79.00 shows an 8' THK. 4000 PSI concrete apron as the full roadway surface. Please...

RFI draft: Please clarify the pavement type between STA. 11+25.00 and STA. 11+79.00 on McCullough Avenue. Sheet P-200 plan annotations indicate asphalt pavement begins at STA. 11+25.00, while the typical cross section on the same sheet P-200 for STA. 11+00.00 to STA. 11+79.00 shows an 8' THK. 4000 PSI...

Summary: The MOT plan contains a textual callout for 'TEMPORARY LANE SEPARATORS W/ OPPOSING TRAFFIC LANE DIVIDER PANELS (TYP.)' applied to the centerline separating traffic. However, the graphical symbol used along the centerline (black squares) is explicitly defined in the Legend as a 'CHANNELIZING DEVICE (DRUM)'.

Why it matters: A standard traffic drum is a distinct MOT device and does not meet the requirement of a continuous lane separator system with divider panels. This contradiction between the plan's textual requirement and the specified symbol creates ambiguity for the contractor, potentially leading to inaccurate pricing, improper field installation, and...

Suggested next step: Clarify whether the centerline channelizing devices should be standard drums (as indicated by the legend symbol) or a temporary lane separator system with divider panels (as required by the callout). Update the legend or plan symbols accordingly to resolve the discrepancy.

RFI draft: Clarify whether the centerline channelizing devices should be standard drums (as indicated by the legend symbol) or a temporary lane separator system with divider panels (as required by the callout). Update the legend or plan symbols accordingly to resolve the discrepancy.

Summary: On the east access road adjacent to Dick's Sporting Goods, the plan shows opposing direction arrows indicating intended two-way traffic flow along with a 'ROAD CLOSED' barricade sign blocking the same road. A note on the plan reads 'COORDINATE W/ DICK'S SPORTING GOOD AND ACCOMMODATE LOADING DOCK/TRUCK WELL ACCESS,' indicating that vehicular...

Why it matters: During construction, the contractor faces contradictory instructions: install a 'ROAD CLOSED' barricade blocking the access road while simultaneously accommodating loading dock/truck access. Without clarification, the contractor may either fully block loading dock access (disrupting business operations and violating the coordination...

Suggested next step: Clarify whether the east access road adjacent to the Dick's Sporting Goods loading dock is to be fully closed or maintained for truck access. If loading dock access is to be maintained, revise the plan to remove the 'ROAD CLOSED' barricade at that location and show appropriate channelization and signing for the access road. If closed, provide...

RFI draft: Clarify whether the east access road adjacent to the Dick's Sporting Goods loading dock is to be fully closed or maintained for truck access. If loading dock access is to be maintained, revise the plan to remove the 'ROAD CLOSED' barricade at that location and show appropriate channelization and...

Summary: On the plan at the N. Bumby Ave. north closure point, signs 1 (ROAD CLOSED, R11-2), 4 (DETOUR, M4-10R), and 2 (ROAD CLOSED TO THRU TRAFFIC, R11-4) are explicitly grouped together on the east side of N. Bumby Ave. Per the legend, sign 1 (R11-2) indicates a complete road closure prohibiting all traffic, while sign 2 (R11-4) permits local access...

Why it matters: R11-2 and R11-4 are mutually exclusive per MUTCD; either the road is fully closed or local access is permitted. Co-locating both at the same closure point creates enforcement confusion and could result in plan rejection during FDOT or local agency review. During construction, traffic control personnel will not know whether to allow local access...

Suggested next step: Clarify whether the N. Bumby Ave. closure is a full road closure (R11-2, sign 1) or closed to through traffic only with local access permitted (R11-4, sign 2). Remove the inapplicable sign from each closure point on the plan and revise accordingly.

RFI draft: Clarify whether the N. Bumby Ave. closure is a full road closure (R11-2, sign 1) or closed to through traffic only with local access permitted (R11-4, sign 2). Remove the inapplicable sign from each closure point on the plan and revise accordingly.

Summary: The Proposed Profile defines a 2.83% grade ascending from PVI STA:11+15.41 (Elev 112.70) to the next PVI at STA:12+00.53. Extending this 2.83% tangent over the 85.12-foot distance mathematically dictates an elevation of 115.11. However, the drawing labels this PVI ELEV as 115.26. The BVCE elevation of 113.94 perfectly aligns with the 115.11...

Why it matters: A 0.15-foot (1.8 inches) discrepancy in the profile's primary control points makes the vertical alignment geometrically impossible to construct as drawn. Automated machine control systems (GPS paving/grading) will fail to compile a smooth continuous profile from conflicting PVI and BVCE elevations, requiring field RFIs and potentially halting...

Suggested next step: Clarify the correct PVI elevation at STA:12+00.53. Confirm if the intended elevation is 115.11 to maintain the 2.83% tangent grade, and verify the resulting K-value and EVCE.

RFI draft: Clarify the correct PVI elevation at STA:12+00.53. Confirm if the intended elevation is 115.11 to maintain the 2.83% tangent grade, and verify the resulting K-value and EVCE.

Summary: In the upper plan segment near the Executive Center Dr. intersection, the plan simultaneously shows a 'RIGHT LANE CLOSED AHEAD' sign and a 'ONE LANE ROAD AHEAD' sign. These represent mutually exclusive FDOT traffic control strategies: 'RIGHT LANE CLOSED AHEAD' (W20-5R) is the standard advance warning for a multi-lane road lane closure where...

Why it matters: This conflict prevents the MOT contractor from determining the correct traffic control configuration to install. A lane closure setup uses channelizing devices to shift traffic within the existing travel direction, while a one-lane road setup requires flaggers or temporary traffic signals to alternate opposing traffic through one shared lane....

Suggested next step: Clarify whether the traffic control configuration at the Maguire Blvd work zone near Executive Center Dr. is a standard lane closure ('RIGHT LANE CLOSED AHEAD' per FDOT TTC Index) or a two-way one-lane operation ('ONE LANE ROAD AHEAD'). Remove the inapplicable advance warning sign and confirm the arrow panel mode, channelizing device layout,...

RFI draft: Clarify whether the traffic control configuration at the Maguire Blvd work zone near Executive Center Dr. is a standard lane closure ('RIGHT LANE CLOSED AHEAD' per FDOT TTC Index) or a two-way one-lane operation ('ONE LANE ROAD AHEAD'). Remove the inapplicable advance warning sign and confirm...

Summary: The Phase 2-Segment-7 work area notes dictate that the 'WORK AREA SHALL BE FULLY RESTORED TO TRAFFIC AT THE END OF WORK PERIOD' and that the temporary surface 'SHALL AT A MINIMUM CONSIST OF SMOOTHLY GRADED COMPACTED LIMEROCK'.

Why it matters: Opening a public roadway to live traffic with only a compacted limerock surface is generally prohibited by permitting authorities (such as the City of Orlando or FDOT) due to severe safety and constructability issues. Limerock surfaces create dust hazards, lack sufficient tire friction, cannot hold standard pavement markings, and pose a risk of...

Suggested next step: Confirm if smoothly graded compacted limerock is genuinely acceptable to the AHJ for a temporary running surface when restoring the road to live traffic, or if temporary asphalt is required. Revise the phasing notes accordingly to meet safety standards.

RFI draft: Confirm if smoothly graded compacted limerock is genuinely acceptable to the AHJ for a temporary running surface when restoring the road to live traffic, or if temporary asphalt is required. Revise the phasing notes accordingly to meet safety standards.

Summary: The plan annotation at the Phase 2-Segment-1 Work Area on N. Bumby Ave explicitly states 'KEEP SIDEWALK OPEN, PROVIDE PEDESTRIAN LCD,' indicating the sidewalk should remain accessible with Pedestrian Longitudinal Channelizing Device protection. However, sign 32 (defined in the legend as 'SIDEWALK CLOSED') is placed multiple times within the...

Why it matters: This conflict makes it impossible for the contractor to determine whether the sidewalk along the work area should remain open with LCD protection or be closed with pedestrians redirected to the opposite side. ADA-compliant pedestrian accommodation is a critical permitting requirement for MOT plans. If the sidewalk is to remain open, the...

Suggested next step: Clarify whether the sidewalk adjacent to the Phase 2-Segment-1 Work Area on N. Bumby Ave is to remain open with Pedestrian LCD protection or be closed with pedestrian traffic redirected to the opposite side. Update the Temporary Traffic Control Plan to remove the conflicting annotations or signs and provide a consistent pedestrian accommodation...

RFI draft: Clarify whether the sidewalk adjacent to the Phase 2-Segment-1 Work Area on N. Bumby Ave is to remain open with Pedestrian LCD protection or be closed with pedestrian traffic redirected to the opposite side. Update the Temporary Traffic Control Plan to remove the conflicting annotations or signs...

Summary: The Temporary Traffic Control Plan requires PCMS 1 to display an advance warning message two weeks prior to construction, but the required display dates are left as placeholder text ('XX/XX TO XX/XX').

Why it matters: Leaving placeholder text in the MOT plan instructions creates incomplete permitting documents, which can lead to permit rejection by the reviewing agency. During construction, the contractor will lack explicit direction on the exact dates to display or how to establish them, which can result in failing the local agency's 14-day advance public...

Suggested next step: Update the PCMS 1 message details to specify the exact construction dates, or add a plan note instructing the contractor to populate the display dates based on the approved project schedule and Notice to Proceed.

RFI draft: Update the PCMS 1 message details to specify the exact construction dates, or add a plan note instructing the contractor to populate the display dates based on the approved project schedule and Notice to Proceed.

Summary: Along the Cady Way Trail (a pedestrian/bicycle path), the plan designates the use of standard channelizing drums (indicated by black square symbols). The MOT Legend provides a specific symbol for a 'PEDESTRIAN LONGITUDINAL CHANNELIZING DEVICE (LCD)', but this ADA-compliant device is not utilized on the trail.

Why it matters: Standard traffic drums are not continuously detectable by cane, which violates ADA accessibility requirements and MUTCD safety standards when routing visually impaired pedestrians around work zones. Using standard vehicular drums instead of continuous Pedestrian LCDs along a recognized multi-use trail introduces significant safety hazards,...

Suggested next step: Revise the MOT plan to replace the standard channelizing drums along Cady Way Trail with continuous, ADA-compliant Pedestrian Longitudinal Channelizing Devices (LCDs).

RFI draft: Revise the MOT plan to replace the standard channelizing drums along Cady Way Trail with continuous, ADA-compliant Pedestrian Longitudinal Channelizing Devices (LCDs).

Summary: The MOT plan shows a 'ROAD CLOSED' sign (along with 'SIDEWALK CLOSED') at the east end of Fox St. at the Bennett Rd. intersection. However, at the west end of Fox St. near McCullough Ave., only a 'SIDEWALK CLOSED' sign is shown—no 'ROAD CLOSED AHEAD' or equivalent advance warning sign is provided. Fox St. therefore remains accessible to...

Why it matters: This creates a trap condition for eastbound motorists on Fox St. who enter from the west without any indication the road is closed ahead. Per MUTCD Section 6C.09, advance warning signs shall be used when a road is to be closed. During permitting review by the City of Orlando, this asymmetric sign condition would likely be flagged as a...

Suggested next step: Clarify whether Fox St. is intended to remain open from the west for local access or be fully closed to through traffic. If closed to through traffic, add a 'ROAD CLOSED AHEAD' or 'ROAD CLOSED TO THRU TRAFFIC / LOCAL ACCESS ONLY' advance warning sign at the west end of Fox St. near McCullough Ave. If the west end is intentionally left open,...

RFI draft: Clarify whether Fox St. is intended to remain open from the west for local access or be fully closed to through traffic. If closed to through traffic, add a 'ROAD CLOSED AHEAD' or 'ROAD CLOSED TO THRU TRAFFIC / LOCAL ACCESS ONLY' advance warning sign at the west end of Fox St. near McCullough...

Summary: PCMS 4 and PCMS 3 on N. Bumby Ave. are both programmed to display 'ROAD WORK ON N BUMBY' as Message 1 during construction. However, the plan places sign 1 (ROAD CLOSED, R11-2) at the N. Bumby Ave. closure points. 'ROAD WORK' implies the roadway is passable with possible delays, while 'ROAD CLOSED' indicates the road is impassable to all...

Why it matters: Motorists reading 'ROAD WORK ON N BUMBY' on advance PCMS signs may still attempt to use N. Bumby Ave., expecting delays rather than a full closure. Upon reaching the physical barricade, they would encounter an unexpected complete closure, necessitating U-turns and creating queuing and safety hazards at the closure point. FDOT requires PCMS...

Suggested next step: Revise PCMS 3 and PCMS 4 during-construction Message 1 from 'ROAD WORK ON N BUMBY' to 'ROAD CLOSED ON N BUMBY' or equivalent language consistent with the actual closure condition and regulatory signage shown on the plan.

RFI draft: Revise PCMS 3 and PCMS 4 during-construction Message 1 from 'ROAD WORK ON N BUMBY' to 'ROAD CLOSED ON N BUMBY' or equivalent language consistent with the actual closure condition and regulatory signage shown on the plan.