Plan Review: 54 Issues Found

Summary: 71 index entries | 47 perfect matches | 3 mismatched | 21 missing Mismatched (3): G-01: Expected: COVER SHEET ISD (G-01) | Actual: COVER SHEET (G-01)(p1) C-04: Expected: EXISTING CONDITIONS & DEMO PLAN (C-04) | Actual: EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN (C-04)(p6) D-10: Expected: PUBLIX DETAILS (D-10) | Actual: GENERAL UTILITY DETAILS (D-10)(p50) Missing (21), listed in draw...

Why it matters: Addressing this before construction prevents rework and supports code compliance.

Suggested next step: Review drawings and specifications to resolve before construction.

RFI draft: Please clarify: Drawing Index Audit: 21 missing, 3 mismatched out of 71 sheets

Summary: The Type C Bubbler Box Structure detail on sheet D-02 shows a 48" (4 ft) vertical dimension from the inside bottom floor of the structure to the pipe invert in both Section A-A and Section B-B. However, the Drainage Structure Tables on sheet C-10 consistently show a 2 ft (24 in) difference between the lowest pipe invert elevation and the BOTTOM elevation for every Modified Type C Bubble Up stru...

Why it matters: This discrepancy directly affects excavation depths, concrete quantities, formwork sizing, and precast structure specifications for every Modified Type C Bubble Up structure on the project. If the 48" sump shown on the detail is correct, all BOTTOM elevations in the structure table would need to ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct sump depth (vertical distance from the lowest pipe invert to the inside bottom floor) for the Modified Type C Bubble Up (Bubbler Box) structures. The detail on D-02 shows 48" in both Section A-A and Section B-B, while the structure table on C-10 cons...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct sump depth (vertical distance from the lowest pipe invert to the inside bottom floor) for the Modified Type C Bubble Up (Bubbler Box) structures. The detail on D-02 shows 48" in both Section A-A and Section B-B, while th...

Summary: The Master Drainage Plan (C-09) depicts a continuous gravity storm drainage network connecting various structures. However, the Drainage Structure Tables (C-10) list Invert OUT elevations that are higher than the Invert IN elevations for several of these structures, indicating impossible uphill flow. For example, structure D2-G2-b4 lists an INV IN of 20.00 and an INV OUT of 25.22. Structure D2-...

Why it matters: Gravity storm systems cannot function if outgoing pipes are installed higher than incoming pipes. If constructed per the elevations in the schedule, water will pool inside the catch basins and back up the system, completely compromising the site's drainage capacity and causing localized flooding.

Suggested next step: Please review the Drainage Structure Tables and revise the invert elevations for affected structures (including D2-G2-b4 and D2-G4-d1) to ensure positive downstream gravity flow (Invert OUT must be lower than or equal to Invert IN).

RFI draft: Please review the Drainage Structure Tables and revise the invert elevations for affected structures (including D2-G2-b4 and D2-G4-d1) to ensure positive downstream gravity flow (Invert OUT must be lower than or equal to Invert IN).

Summary: General Construction Note 7 states that field changes require 'PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE OWNER AND NOTIFICATION TO THE ENGINEER OF RECORD.' However, the Babcock Ranch DSM (the governing specification) explicitly requires prior District written approval for any field changes or deviations, submitted through the ACA Portal. The drawing's field change procedure directs changes through the Owner and En...

Why it matters: If the Contractor follows the drawing's Note 7 and obtains only Owner approval for field changes without District written approval via the ACA Portal, the District may reject the unapproved work upon inspection. Per DSM Section 1.3.2.11, violations of District approval requirements can result in ...

Suggested next step: Request revision of General Construction Note 7 to explicitly require prior District written approval via the ACA Portal for all field changes and deviations from design, in accordance with DSM Sections 1.3.2.6 (Deviations) and 1.3.2.7 (Variances), in addition to Owner and Eng...

RFI draft: Request revision of General Construction Note 7 to explicitly require prior District written approval via the ACA Portal for all field changes and deviations from design, in accordance with DSM Sections 1.3.2.6 (Deviations) and 1.3.2.7 (Variances)...

Summary: The utility plan details multiple gravity sanitary sewer manholes with physically impossible invert elevations where the outlet is higher than the inlet. For example, MH 29 shows an IN of 15.55 and an OUT of 15.65. MH 28 shows an IN of 15.19 and an OUT of 15.29. MH 27 shows an IN of 14.00 and an OUT of 14.10. Additionally, the 'MH BY OTHERS' shows a 10" IN at 12.55 and an 8" OUT at 13.70. In al...

Why it matters: Constructing the sanitary sewer system as dimensioned on these drawings will result in immediate catastrophic failure. Sewage will not drain properly, causing backups into the connected buildings and manholes. Resolving this post-installation would require massive excavation and complete replacem...

Suggested next step: Please review and revise the sanitary manhole schedule and callouts (specifically MH 29, MH 28, MH 27, and MH BY OTHERS) to reflect correct invert elevations that ensure positive gravity flow (INV OUT must be lower than INV IN). Additionally, verify that the listed cardinal di...

RFI draft: Please review and revise the sanitary manhole schedule and callouts (specifically MH 29, MH 28, MH 27, and MH BY OTHERS) to reflect correct invert elevations that ensure positive gravity flow (INV OUT must be lower than INV IN). Additionally, veri...

Summary: The Grading & Drainage plan contains critical drafting errors regarding storm drain pipe slopes. A 30" RCP segment specifies a negative slope (-0.27%), and a 24" RCP segment contains a malformed slope value (0.30.94). These errors render the stormwater design defective and contradict the specification requiring that all work be non-defective.

Why it matters: A negative slope on a gravity-fed storm drain prevents proper drainage and leads to backwards flow or ponding, while a malformed slope value provides unbuildable instructions. If installed as currently annotated, the stormwater system will fail, resulting in flooding and requiring costly rework.

Suggested next step: Please provide a revised grading and drainage plan that corrects the 151 LF 30" RCP to a positive gravity-flow slope and provides a valid slope percentage for the 103 LF 24" RCP.

RFI draft: Please provide a revised grading and drainage plan that corrects the 151 LF 30" RCP to a positive gravity-flow slope and provides a valid slope percentage for the 103 LF 24" RCP.

Summary: Structures D2-G1 g4 (4' DIA. JUNCTION BOX) and D2-G2-a3 (TYPE C INLET) are detailed in the structure table with multiple incoming pipes ("INV IN") but completely lack any outgoing pipes ("INV OUT"). This configuration creates non-functional, dead-end structures.

Why it matters: Without an outlet, these structures will trap stormwater until it overtops the rim, creating a high potential for localized flooding. This is a critical drafting/design error that fails to provide functional drainage structure information, which will stop pipe laying and require immediate design ...

Suggested next step: Please verify the flow design and provide the missing "INV OUT" elevations and directional designations for structures D2-G1 g4, D2-G2-a3, and any other dead-end structures shown in the schedule.

RFI draft: Please verify the flow design and provide the missing "INV OUT" elevations and directional designations for structures D2-G1 g4, D2-G2-a3, and any other dead-end structures shown in the schedule.

Summary: The schedule details standard inlets where the "INV OUT" elevation is significantly higher than the lowest "INV IN" elevation. For instance, structure D2-G2-b4 lists an INV IN of 20.00 and an INV OUT of 25.22. Structure D2-G5-c3 lists an INV IN of 20.40 and an INV OUT of 22.33.

Why it matters: Placing an outlet pipe several feet above the inlet pipe in standard gravity inlets creates an unintended sump that will permanently trap up to 5.22 feet of water. This contradicts typical stormwater management design and gravity flow mechanics, leading to system backups and failure.

Suggested next step: Please review and correct the inverted inlet and outlet elevations for structures D2-G2-b4, D2-G5-c3, and any others where the INV OUT is specified at a higher elevation than the INV IN.

RFI draft: Please review and correct the inverted inlet and outlet elevations for structures D2-G2-b4, D2-G5-c3, and any others where the INV OUT is specified at a higher elevation than the INV IN.

Summary: Sheet C-07.1 Note 1 specifies SDR 26 for all sanitary sewer gravity pipes (with the only exception being SDR 14 for the pipe between the first upstream manhole and lift station wet well). This means shallow pipes at depths of 0-4 feet would be SDR 26. However, Sheet D-10 detail notes on both GS-10 (Typical Cleanout Detail) and GS-08 (Typical Sewer Service) specify that sanitary gravity sewer pi...

Why it matters: This conflict directly impacts material procurement and installation. If the contractor follows C-07.1 and installs SDR 26 pipe at shallow depths (0-4 feet), the pipe may lack adequate wall thickness to resist external loads from traffic or surface activity, risking pipe failure. If the contracto...

Suggested next step: Please clarify which pipe specification governs for sanitary sewer gravity pipe at burial depths of 0-4 feet: SDR 26 as stated in the C-07.1 Utility Plan notes, or DR 18 as specified in the D-10 detail notes for GS-10 (Typical Cleanout Detail) and GS-08 (Typical Sewer Service)...

RFI draft: Please clarify which pipe specification governs for sanitary sewer gravity pipe at burial depths of 0-4 feet: SDR 26 as stated in the C-07.1 Utility Plan notes, or DR 18 as specified in the D-10 detail notes for GS-10 (Typical Cleanout Detail) and...

Summary: The Grading & Drainage Plan on sheet C-10.4 shows the 'CONCRETE TRUCK WELL' drained by a gravity system, utilizing structure 'D2-G1 g4' connected to '57 LF 15" RCP @ 0.50%'. However, sheet D-05 provides a 'TRUCKWELL SUMP PUMP DETAIL' which explicitly requires a '36"Ø R.C.P. SUMP', a 'SUMP PUMP', and '2" PVC BY PLUMBER TO STORM DRAIN'. The civil plan contradicts the detailed sump pump requirement.

Why it matters: Gravity drainage is typically preferred over pumped systems when site topography allows. However, the Publix prototype detail explicitly mandates a sump pump system and notes that the catch basin or sump should not be eliminated without prior approval from the civil engineer. This discrepancy cre...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the required drainage design for the Concrete Truck Well. Should it be installed as a gravity system utilizing the 15" RCP as shown on C-10.4, or must it use a sump pump system with a 2" PVC force main discharge as detailed on D-05? If gravity is approved, pleas...

RFI draft: Please confirm the required drainage design for the Concrete Truck Well. Should it be installed as a gravity system utilizing the 15" RCP as shown on C-10.4, or must it use a sump pump system with a 2" PVC force main discharge as detailed on D-05?...

Summary: Sheet C-07.4 calls for '(2) 1500 GALLON GREASE INTERCEPTORS' and references sheet D-12. The sizing calculation on sheet D-12 confirms this requirement, calculating a needed capacity of 2837.5 gallons and explicitly stating 'Use (2) 1500 Gallon Grease Interceptors'. However, the interceptor cross-section detail on D-12 lists individual compartment capacities of 905.75 and 418.25, which total onl...

Why it matters: If the installed grease interceptors only hold 1324 gallons each as detailed in the section view, the total system capacity (2648 gallons) will fail to meet the 2837.5-gallon minimum required by the plumbing code sizing calculation provided on the same sheet. This contradiction can lead to reject...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required grease interceptor capacity. Should the cross-section detail on sheet D-12 be revised to reflect true 1500-gallon compartment capacities to align with the utility plan and sizing calculation?

RFI draft: Please clarify the required grease interceptor capacity. Should the cross-section detail on sheet D-12 be revised to reflect true 1500-gallon compartment capacities to align with the utility plan and sizing calculation?

Summary: The profile section on sheet C-08.1 (page 22) shows Manhole 21 with RIM: 30.22 and (NE) INV IN: 16.36. However, the plan views on both sheet C-08.1 (page 22) and sheet C-08.3 (page 24) consistently show Manhole 21 with RIM ELEV.: 31.08 and INV IN: 16.33 (NE) (8"). The rim elevation differs by 0.86 ft (30.22 vs 31.08) and the NE invert in differs by 0.03 ft (16.36 vs 16.33). The NW INV OUT value...

Why it matters: The 0.86 ft rim elevation discrepancy could significantly affect manhole frame and cover installation height, finished grade around the structure, and depth calculations for connecting pipes. The 0.03 ft invert discrepancy, while small, could impact the gravity flow slope calculation for the pipe...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct rim elevation and NE invert in elevation for Manhole 21. The plan views on sheets C-08.1 and C-08.3 indicate RIM ELEV.: 31.08 and INV IN: 16.33 (NE) (8"), while the profile on sheet C-08.1 indicates RIM: 30.22 and (NE) INV IN: 16.36. Please confirm w...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct rim elevation and NE invert in elevation for Manhole 21. The plan views on sheets C-08.1 and C-08.3 indicate RIM ELEV.: 31.08 and INV IN: 16.33 (NE) (8"), while the profile on sheet C-08.1 indicates RIM: 30.22 and (NE) I...

Summary: The Site Plan (C-06) shows standard parking stalls directly west of Building L without any handicap markings. In contrast, the Signage & Striping Plan (C-06.1) shows this exact same area as a designated "CURBSIDE PICKUP" zone, explicitly marking the stalls with handicap ("HC") symbols and "PARKING BY DISABLED PERMIT ONLY" signage.

Why it matters: This discrepancy creates confusion over the required stall striping and signage. Furthermore, adding designated handicap spaces here conflicts with the "31 HANDICAP SPACES" explicitly quantified in the Site Plan's Parking Table, potentially causing non-compliance with ADA and local parking ratio ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify if the parking stalls west of Building L should be standard spaces (as per C-06) or designated Handicap Curbside Pickup spaces (as per C-06.1). Update the plans and the overall Parking Table to ensure accurate handicap parking counts.

RFI draft: Please clarify if the parking stalls west of Building L should be standard spaces (as per C-06) or designated Handicap Curbside Pickup spaces (as per C-06.1). Update the plans and the overall Parking Table to ensure accurate handicap parking counts.

Summary: Sections A-A and M-M identify the bottom elevation of stormwater feature D200-GROCERY-D5a as 27.50. However, Section Q-Q labels the same feature with invert elevations of 29.50 and 28.50 at the low points of its profile.

Why it matters: This inconsistency creates ambiguity regarding the intended grading and bottom elevation of D200-GROCERY-D5a. If the basin is graded to 28.50 or 29.50 instead of 27.50, it will significantly reduce the stormwater detention volume, potentially failing to meet drainage engineering requirements.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct bottom elevation(s) for basin D200-GROCERY-D5a. If Section Q-Q is showing a different feature or a higher tier of the basin, please update the labels to resolve the discrepancy with the 27.50 elevation shown in Sections A-A and M-M.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct bottom elevation(s) for basin D200-GROCERY-D5a. If Section Q-Q is showing a different feature or a higher tier of the basin, please update the labels to resolve the discrepancy with the 27.50 elevation shown in Sections ...

Summary: The Site Plan (C-06) specifies the footprint for "PROP BUILDING K RETAIL PUBLIX LIQUORS" as well as several equipment pads ("PROP COMPACTOR", "PROP TRANSFORMER PAD", "PROP EMERGENCY GENERATOR", "PROP STANDBY GENERATOR") located between Buildings J and L. However, these building and equipment footprints are entirely missing from the Utility Easement Plan (C-07), which only shows the footprints f...

Why it matters: Omitting the building and equipment footprints from the Utility Easement Plan can lead to severe spatial conflicts where underground utility lines or easements might be inadvertently routed through areas designated for structures. Additionally, the missing transformer and generator pads indicate ...

Suggested next step: Please update the Utility Easement Plan (C-07) to include the footprints for Building K, the compactor, the transformer pad, and the generators as shown on the Site Plan (C-06). Verify that no proposed utility lines or easements clash with these structures.

RFI draft: Please update the Utility Easement Plan (C-07) to include the footprints for Building K, the compactor, the transformer pad, and the generators as shown on the Site Plan (C-06). Verify that no proposed utility lines or easements clash with these s...