2025-03-03_100_Bridge2_Peer_Rev_Cert_Letter.pdf

Date: March 3, 2025

Kisinger Campo and Associates Corp.

13461 Parker Commons Blvd., Ste. 104

Fort Myers, Florida 33912

Attention: Lucio Martinez, PE

Independent Peer Review Certification Letter

Reference: Independent Peer Review Category 2 Structures

Financial Project ID: 440341-1-54-01

Federal Aid Number: N/A

Contract Number: RFQ # 0025-19

Suntrail Trail ID: 12931001

Submittal: John Yarbrough Linear Park Multi-Use Trail Extension

100% Bridge 2 Plans Submittal

Bridge Number(s): 129001 (Bridge 2) – John Yarbrough Linear Park Over SR 884

Dear Mr. Martinez, Pursuant to the requirements of the Contract Documents, BCC Engineering LLC hereby certifies that an independent peer review of the above-referenced submittal has been conducted in accordance with FDM 121 and all other governing regulations. Component plans that were included in the peer review are as follows:

1. Bridge 2 Plans

Certification Statement:

I certify that the component plans listed in this letter have been verified by independent review, that all review comments have been adequately resolved, and that the plans are in compliance with all department and FHWA requirements presented in the Contract Documents.

I have been provided with all 90% and Final Department or Department Representative Electronic Review

Comments (ERC). I certify that I have reviewed the comments and have considered these concerns in the

Independent Peer Review. See attached 90% ERC comments and Final ERC comments.

I have also attached a current copy of the Firm's Independent Peer Review Prequalification Letter issued by the

Department with the “Approved Rates” Section redacted.

Please do not hesitate to contact me at 813-637-0000 or by email at gllanos@bcceng.com if you have any questions.

Name of Independent Peer Review Firm: BCC Engineering LLC.

Name of Independent Peer Reviewer Gustavo A. Llanos, PE

Title: Structures Division Manager

Signature

Florida Professional Engineer Lic. No.: 73518

JOHN YARBROUGH LINEAR PARK MULTI-USE TRAIL EXTENSION

BRIDGE NO. 129001 – JOHN YARBROUGH LINEAR PARK OVER SR 884

90% Submittal Electronic Review Comments

Threads:

Submittal Report

Description:

440341-1-34-01 PLANS

CONSULTANT

FIRST

Financial Project: Submittal Type:

Submittal Phase: Submittal Staff Type:

Received Date: 8/23/2021 Response Due Date: 10/4/2021

Grace Period: 0 District:

Status: CLOSED

Create User Id: RD158DH

Create Date: 8/23/2021

Last Update User Id: RD158DH

Last Update: 8/23/2021

PHASE III

440341-1 // City of Fort Myers / Off System / SUN TRAIL / Pedestrian Bridge & Shared Use Path

Reviewers, Please provide review of the attached Phase II (90%) Plans for the John Yarborough Linear Park and pedestrian bridge over State Road 884 (Colonial Blvd.) in the City of Fort Myers.

Design and construction is being implemented and managed by the City of Fort Myers. This project is being funded by the Department through a Shared-Use Nonmotorized (SUN) Trail grant. There are no federal funds being used for this project.

Provide comments by September 13, 2021. The city's EOR will respond to any comments by October 04, 2021.

Should you have any questions, please contact D'Juan Harris at 239-225-1976. Thanks.

D'Juan L. Harris

No Status Current Holder Reference Categories

12 RESPONSE ACCEPTED Sheet B2-6 STRUCTURES

Created By Created On Version Delegate For

Kayla Sapp 9/1/2021 1

Will a steel grate deck be considered rather than the concrete deck shown for the prefabricated bridge span?

ADRIENNE WISDOM 10/4/2021 1

A steel grate deck is not considered for this bridge project.

Kayla Sapp 10/4/2021 1

Response Accepted & Comment Closed

No Status Current Holder Reference Categories

14 COMMENT AGREED WITH Roadway Plans Sheet 3

STRUCTURES

Created By Created On Version Delegate For

Johnny Fung 9/10/2021 1

Please refer to the comment on sheets BQ-1 and BQ-2 of the Structure plans regarding the prefabricated steel truss pay item. Coordinate with the Structure plans.

ADRIENNE WISDOM 10/4/2021 1

Agree. Pay item for the prefabricated truss will be coordinated accordingly.

No Status Current Holder Reference Categories

15 COMMENT AGREED WITH Roadway Plans Sheets 9 Thru 12

STRUCTURES

Created By Created On Version Delegate For

Johnny Fung 9/10/2021 1

Coordinate the begin/end stations for the MSE walls and the pedestrian/bicycle railing with the Structure plans. Some stations are different.

ADRIENNE WISDOM 10/4/2021 1

Begin/end stations will be coordinated between roadway and structures plans.

No Status Current Holder Reference Categories

16 RESPONSE ACCEPTED Roadway Plans Sheet SQ-7

STRUCTURES

Created By Created On Version Delegate For

Johnny Fung 9/10/2021 1

It appears the quantities of the pedestrian/bicycle railings shown here on the MSE walls were also tabulated on sheet BQ-3. Please verify there are no duplication of quantities.

ADRIENNE WISDOM 10/4/2021 1

Quantities will be verified to ensure no duplication of quantities.

Johnny Fung 10/4/2021 1

Response Accepted & Comment Closed

No Status Current Holder Reference Categories

17 RESPONSE ACCEPTED Structure Plans (General)

STRUCTURES

Created By Created On Version Delegate For

Johnny Fung 9/10/2021 1

(a) The documentation provided with this submittal contains information from only one prefabricated steel truss bridge supplier (Contech). Were invitations to participate sent to all producers on the Department’s list of Qualified Fabrication Facilities, as described in FDM 266.3.3? Was Contech the only supplier which responded? Please note FDM 266.3.3 indicates that producers not furnishing Pedestrian Bridge Data Sheets will not be allowed to participate in the project.

(b) FDM 266.3.3 indicates that the Pedestrian Bridge Data Sheets provided by participating prefabricated steel truss bridge producers must be included in the plans. The Pedestrian Bridge Data Sheets from Contech are included in the Structural Design Calculations but have not been added to the plans. Aesthetics requirements should also be included in the plans, as illustrated in FDM 266.3.3 and Example 266.3.1.

(c) FDM 266.3.3 requires the following note to be added to the plans:

Included in this plan set are Pedestrian Bridge Data Sheets submitted by bridge producers eligible to participate in this project. Producers who failed to submit a data sheet are excluded from participation. No Cost Savings Initiative Proposal will be accepted for the truss superstructure portion of the project. Contact information for the eligible producers is included in the data sheet.

(d) The peer review comments indicate there are several items undergoing coordination between the EOR and peer reviewer. Please ensure all items are resolved prior to the 100% submittal and documented appropriately.

ADRIENNE WISDOM 10/4/2021 1

(a) Invitations to Participate were sent to all suppliers on the qualified list, and only Contech responded.

(b) The Pedestrian Bridge Data Sheets will be added to the plans as required.

(c) Agree. The note will be added to the plans.

(d) Agree. Peer review comments will be resolved prior to 100% comments.

Johnny Fung 10/4/2021 1

Response Accepted & Comment Closed

No Status Current Holder Reference Categories

18 COMMENT AGREED WITH Sheets BQ-1 and

BQ-2

STRUCTURES

Created By Created On Version Delegate For

Johnny Fung 9/10/2021 1

Please refer to the FDOT Basis of Estimates for the pay item for the prefabricated steel truss bridges. Pay Item No. 460-7 should be used and the description revised to Prefabricated Steel Pedestrian Bridge. The units are SF. A pay item note should be added on sheet B-4 describing the elements to be included under that pay item.

ADRIENNE WISDOM 10/4/2021 1

agomez Validated agomez Validated

Agree. The pay item will be added and notes will be included.

19 RESPONSE ACCEPTED Sheets BQ-1 and

BQ-3

STRUCTURES

Created By Created On Version Delegate For

Johnny Fung 9/10/2021 1

(a) Pay Item 515-2-111: In the description, “PEDESTAL” should be “PEDESTRIAN”.

(b) Pay Item 515-2-111: The plans call for Index 515-061 or 515-062 (aluminum railing) but the pay items are for non-specified material (either steel or aluminum). The plans and the pay items should be coordinated. If both types are acceptable, include references to both steel and aluminum standards. Also, include in the plans the required information as indicated in the SPI’s for the various Indexes.

ADRIENNE WISDOM 10/4/2021 1

(a) Agree. Pay item description will be revised.

(b) Agree. Pay items for the railing will be coordinated within the submittal documents, and SPI requirements will be met.

Johnny Fung 10/4/2021 1

Response Accepted & Comment Closed

No Status Current Holder Reference Categories

20 COMMENT AGREED WITH Sheet BQ-2 STRUCTURES

Created By Created On Version Delegate For

Johnny Fung 9/10/2021 1

Sheet B2-12 Note 9 calls for wrapping piles at end bents, but pay item 459-71, Polyethylene Sheeting on Concrete Piles, has not been shown in the Summary of Structures Quantities.

ADRIENNE WISDOM 10/4/2021 1

Agree. Pay item will be included in the next submittal.

No Status Current Holder Reference Categories

21 RESPONSE ACCEPTED Sheet B-5 STRUCTURES

Created By Created On Version Delegate For

Johnny Fung 9/10/2021 1

(a) Steel Truss Coating Note B: SDG 10.6.D states that for steel superstructure types other than I-girders and box girders, contact the District Structures Design Engineer regarding whether to utilize unpainted weathering steel, galvanizing or a paint system. Was this done? It appears the Engineer’s Estimate was based on painted steel for the truss bridge over SR 884.

(b) Steel Truss Coating Note B: If uncoated weathering steel is utilized, requirements meeting the intent of SDM 16.12 (Special Details for Uncoated Weathering Steel Bridges) should be incorporated in the plans.

ADRIENNE WISDOM 10/4/2021 1

(a) We will coordinate with the District Structures Design Engineer.

(b) These details are not included, as the entire superstructure will be exposed, rather than only the sides of I-Girders and Box Girder in which case water flow may be controlled.

Johnny Fung 10/5/2021 1

(a) Response accepted.

(b) Although the type of steel superstructure is different, the intent of SDM 16.12 still applies, especially to prevent staining of substructure elements due to runoff from the uncoated weathering steel superstructure.

ADRIENNE WISDOM 10/11/2021 1

(b) Details will be incorporated meeting the intent of SDM 16.12.

Johnny Fung 10/11/2021 1

Response Accepted & Comment Closed

No Status Current Holder Reference Categories

22 RESPONSE ACCEPTED Sheet B1-15 STRUCTURES

Created By Created On Version Delegate For

Johnny Fung 9/10/2021 1

Approach Slab 2: The detail calls for field bending #8 bars. It may be difficult to accomplish this. Consider adding separate straight bars to reinforce the triangular areas.

Separate straight bars will be considered.

Johnny Fung 10/4/2021 1

Response Accepted & Comment Closed

No Status Current Holder Reference Categories

23 RESPONSE ACCEPTED Sheet B2-2 STRUCTURES

Created By Created On Version Delegate For

Johnny Fung 9/10/2021 1

Please show the location of the point of minimum vertical clearance on the Plan view.

ADRIENNE WISDOM 10/4/2021 1

Location of MVC will be added to the plan view.

Johnny Fung 10/4/2021 1

Response Accepted & Comment Closed

No Status Current Holder Reference Categories

24 RESPONSE ACCEPTED Sheet B2-6 STRUCTURES

Created By Created On Version Delegate For

Johnny Fung 9/10/2021 1

(a) The typical section should show a minimum deck thickness of 6” above the stay-in-place deck forms.

(b) How will runoff be collected or directed at the ends of Span 4? As currently shown, the bearings and ends of the truss would be exposed to this runoff.

ADRIENNE WISDOM 10/4/2021 1

(a) Minimum deck thickness will be added to the typical section.

(b) The open joint seals will allow some water to flow across the joint from the truss span to the concrete span. A trench drain detail will be considered for the next submittal to collect runoff at the ends of Span 4.

Johnny Fung 10/5/2021 1

(a) Response accepted.

(b) Ensure as little runoff as possible from the deck of the main span reaches the piers and the truss bearings areas. See also comment 21b.

ADRIENNE WISDOM 10/11/2021 1

(b) Details will be incorporated to reduce the amount of runoff reaching the substructure and bearings.

Johnny Fung 10/11/2021 1

Response Accepted & Comment Closed

No Status Current Holder Reference Categories

25 RESPONSE ACCEPTED Sheet B2-12 STRUCTURES

Created By Created On Version Delegate For

Johnny Fung 9/10/2021 1

(a) The Factored Design Load and Factored Design Uplift Load shown in the Pile Data Table for Pier 4 are considerably lower than the corresponding values in the LEAP Bridge Concrete output. Verify whether the higher values should be used in lieu of those from FB-MultiPier.

(b) Verify whether Note 7 applies when considering pile configuration and location of test piles.

ADRIENNE WISDOM 10/4/2021 1

(a) We will review the pile load differences. Values shown in the plans will be verified.

(b) Note 7 will be reviewed and verified.

Johnny Fung 10/4/2021 1

Response Accepted & Comment Closed

No Status Current Holder Reference Categories

26 COMMENT AGREED WITH Sheet B2-23 STRUCTURES

Created By Created On Version Delegate For

Johnny Fung 9/10/2021 1 agomez Validated agomez Validated agomez Validated agomez

Plan: It appears the CL bearing dimensions are not shown in the correct spans.

Agree. CL bearing dimensions will be corrected.

No Status Current Holder Reference Categories

27 RESPONSE ACCEPTED Sheet B2-25 STRUCTURES

Created By Created On Version Delegate For

Johnny Fung 9/10/2021 1

Section A-A: Consider using fewer larger bars at the top of the cap to reduce congestion.

ADRIENNE WISDOM 10/4/2021 1

The smaller bars are required to meet development length requirements.

Johnny Fung 10/4/2021 1

Response Accepted & Comment Closed

No Status Current Holder Reference Categories

28 COMMENT AGREED WITH Sheet B2-26 STRUCTURES

Created By Created On Version Delegate For

Johnny Fung 9/10/2021 1

Pedestal Elevations: It appears there should be a note requiring the truss manufacturer to confirm the elevations (similar to the note on sheet B2- 23).

ADRIENNE WISDOM 10/4/2021 1

Agree. Note will be added to B2-26.

No Status Current Holder Reference Categories

29 RESPONSE ACCEPTED Sheet B2-30 STRUCTURES

Created By Created On Version Delegate For

Johnny Fung 9/10/2021 1

The number of finish grade elevations shown does not meet the requirements of the Structures Detailing Manual 14.2.A for transverse lines.

Also, one elevation at the center of the span does not reflect the vertical curvature shown on sheet B2-4. It is not clear if the intent is for the top of the deck to follow the curvature on sheet B2-4 or to be constructed on two tangent grades defined by the elevations on sheet B2-30.

ADRIENNE WISDOM 10/4/2021 1

Note 2 from B2-29 is applicable to sheet B2-30. This note will be moved to B2-30. As the design of the truss lies with the fabricator, the verification of cambers, deflections and final elevations will be left for review of the final design and shop drawings.

Johnny Fung 10/5/2021 1

Response Accepted & Comment Closed

No Status Current Holder Reference Categories

30 RESPONSE ACCEPTED Sheet B2-38 STRUCTURES

Created By Created On Version Delegate For

Johnny Fung 9/10/2021 1

The location and size of the V-grooves have not been shown.

ADRIENNE WISDOM 10/4/2021 1

V-groove locations will be added.

Johnny Fung 10/4/2021 1

Response Accepted & Comment Closed

No Status Current Holder Reference Categories

31 RESPONSE ACCEPTED Sheet B2-39 STRUCTURES

Created By Created On Version Delegate For

Johnny Fung 9/10/2021 1 agomez Validated agomez Validated agomez Validated agomez Validated agomez Validated agomez

The Section at Piers 4 and 5 refers to Index 458-110 (poured joint with backer rod) for the joint details but the same sheet shows the Index 458- 100 (strip seal) expansion joint data table for Piers 4 and 5. The Summary of Structures Quantities show only a pay item for poured joints with backer rod.

ADRIENNE WISDOM 10/4/2021 1

Both data tables are shown as options. The intent is for the truss designer to design the joint details, which depend on the fixity of the bearings.

This will be clarified through additional notes on this sheet and under the Pay Item Notes.

Johnny Fung 10/5/2021 1

Response Accepted & Comment Closed

No Status Current Holder Reference Categories

32 RESPONSE ACCEPTED Sheet B2-44 STRUCTURES

Created By Created On Version Delegate For

Johnny Fung 9/10/2021 1

(a) In the Table, the heading for the concrete strengths shows “(psi)” but the values are given in ksi.

(b) The SPI for Index 450-010 states “Show strands in the outermost positions of the two lowest rows to support Bars D.” However, the Type 2 Strand Pattern does not show strands at these locations.

ADRIENNE WISDOM 10/4/2021 1

(a) Concrete strength values will be revised to PSI.

(b) The Type 2 strand pattern will relocate strands to the outermost position.

Johnny Fung 10/4/2021 1

Response Accepted & Comment Closed

No Status Current Holder Reference Categories

33 RESPONSE ACCEPTED Sheet BW-4 STRUCTURES

Created By Created On Version Delegate For

Johnny Fung 9/10/2021 1

The geotechnical report submitted did not have any information regarding the walls, such as soil borings, soil design parameters, estimated settlements and soil reinforcement lengths for external stability. Please provide the geotechnical report for the walls with the next submittal.

ADRIENNE WISDOM 10/4/2021 1

A geotechnical report for the walls will be prepared. Additional soil borings will be performed in accordance with the FDOT Soils and Foundation Handbook.

Johnny Fung 10/4/2021 1

Response Accepted & Comment Closed

No Status Current Holder Reference Categories

34 RESPONSE ACCEPTED Structure Calculations

STRUCTURES

Created By Created On Version Delegate For

Johnny Fung 9/10/2021 1

(a) PDF p. 101 of 662: Please verify the structure depth used to calculate the minimum vertical clearance. The calculations used a structure depth of 1.67’ but sheet B2-6 shows a maximum structure depth of 2’-8” from the top of the deck to the bottom of the bottom chord.

(b) PDF p. 101 of 662: Please verify the roadway elevation shown to calculate the minimum vertical clearance. The table shows a roadway elevation of 17.68, but the screen shot appears to show an elevation of 17.82.

ADRIENNE WISDOM 10/4/2021 1

(a) Though superstructure depths from a manufacturer are used in the MVC calculations, the intent of maximum structure depth dimension is to show the maximum superstructure depth available in the case the design of the truss changes. A note will be added to clarify the intent and the dimensions shown will be verified.

(b) The screenshot and calculation will be verified.

Johnny Fung 10/5/2021 1

(a) It is acknowledged that the maximum available structure depth should be shown. However, the calculations for the vertical clearance shown in the plans used the smaller value (1.67’). If the superstructure depth is allowed to increase to 2’-8”, the vertical clearance would be reduced.

The maximum structure depth and minimum vertical clearance shown in the plans should correspond to each other.

(b) Response accepted.

ADRIENNE WISDOM 10/11/2021 1

(a) Agree. The structure depth and vertical clearance dimensions shall correspond.

agomez Validated agomez Validated agomez Validated agomez Validated agomez Validated agomez

Johnny Fung 10/11/2021 1

Response Accepted & Comment Closed

Final Submittal Electronic Review Comments

Threads:

Submittal Report

Description:

440341-1-34-01 PLANS

CONSULTANT

FIRST

Financial Project: Submittal Type:

Submittal Phase: Submittal Staff Type:

Received Date: 11/12/2024 Response Due Date: 12/10/2024

Grace Period: 0 District:

Status: OPEN

Create User Id: PG132ZG

Create Date: 11/12/2024

Last Update User Id: PG132ZG

Last Update: 11/12/2024

REVISED

440341-1 // City of Fort Myers / SUN TRAIL / Pedestrian Bridge & Shared Use Path

Reviewers, Please provide review of the attached revised Final Plans for the John Yarborough Linear Park and pedestrian bridge over State Road 884 (Colonial Blvd.) in the City of Fort Myers. The plan revision is to include aesthetic features to the pedestrian bridge at the request of the City of Fort Myers. Please note construction will be produced under a different FPID 447515-1- 54-01 Design and construction are being implemented and managed by the City of Fort Myers. This project is being funded by the Department through a Shared-Use Nonmotorized (SUN) Trail grant. There are no federal funds being used for this project.

Should you have any questions, please contact Zoe at Zoe.Giannopoulos@dot.state.fl.us or 863-519-2916. Thanks.

No Status Current Holder Reference Categories

2 RESPONSE ACCEPTED ESTIMATES

Created By Created On Version Delegate For

Gena Batman 11/13/2024 1

For the quantities listed the following pay items are below FDOT Statewide averages.

110-1-1

Also, consider increasing the % for MOT LS since there are no each day pay items listed for MOT.

ADRIENNE WISDOM 12/10/2024 1

Pay item estimates will be reviewed as recommended.

Gena Batman 12/12/2024 1

Response Accepted & Comment Closed

No Status Current Holder Reference Categories

3 RESPONSE ACCEPTED GEOTECH/MATERIALS

Created By Created On Version Delegate For

Mark Conley 11/18/2024 1

The pedestrian bridge going over the roadway will have DMRO involvement. This means the structure will need to utilize the Department's MAC System. Any other pedestrian bridge going over a waterway, will not have DMRO involvement. This should be treated as a Class C LAP job.

ADRIENNE WISDOM 12/10/2024 1

The project will be treated as a Class B due to the estimated cost over $10M.

Mark Conley 12/12/2024 1

4 RESPONSE ACCEPTED ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT OFF.

Created By Created On Version Delegate For

Michael D Adams 11/19/2024 1

Sta. 303+20.00 to Sta. 308+20.00, please confirm the silt barrier and all work will be conducted within the ROW.

ADRIENNE WISDOM 12/10/2024 1

The silt barrier and work is proposed along/within the ROW.

Michael D Adams 12/17/2024 1

Response Accepted & Comment Closed

No Status Current Holder Reference Categories

5 RESPONSE ACCEPTED ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT OFF.

Created By Created On Version Delegate For

Michael D Adams 11/19/2024 1

Sta. 310+20.00 to Sta. 316+90.00, please confirm the silt barrier and all work will be conducted within the ROW.

ADRIENNE WISDOM 12/10/2024 1

The silt barrier and work is proposed along/within the ROW.

Michael D Adams 12/17/2024 1

Response Accepted & Comment Closed

No Status Current Holder Reference Categories

6 RESPONSE ACCEPTED ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT OFF.

Created By Created On Version Delegate For

Michael D Adams 11/19/2024 1

Sheet 7, please confirm silt barrier is located within the ROW along the north side of Winkler Ave.

ADRIENNE WISDOM 12/10/2024 1

The silt barrier and work is proposed along/within the ROW.

Michael D Adams 12/17/2024 1

Response Accepted & Comment Closed

No Status Current Holder Reference Categories

7 RESPONSE ACCEPTED ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT OFF.

Created By Created On Version Delegate For

Michael D Adams 11/19/2024 1

Sta. 351+80.00 to Sta. 361+80.00, please confirm the silt barrier and all work will be conducted within the ROW.

ADRIENNE WISDOM 12/10/2024 1

The silt barrier and work is proposed along/within the ROW.

Michael D Adams 12/17/2024 1

Response Accepted & Comment Closed

No Status Current Holder Reference Categories

8 RESPONSE ACCEPTED GEOTECH/MATERIALS

Created By Created On Version Delegate For

Kisan Patel 11/22/2024 1

Structures plans: The SPT borings spacing and proximity to proposed pier locations do not meet the requirements of the Soils and Foundation Handbook.

ADRIENNE WISDOM 12/10/2024 1

Based on the available data, the geotech EOR believes the soil borings are sufficiently consistent and should be adequate to support the conclusions and recommendations in the geotechncial bridge report.

Kisan Patel 12/18/2024 1

Please also include in the structure plans the existing borings that are in the Geotech report.

No Status Current Holder Reference Categories

9 RESPONSE ACCEPTED GEOTECH/MATERIALS

Created By Created On Version Delegate For

Kisan Patel 11/22/2024 1

The SPT bridge borings do not have elevation at ground surface. Please update.

ADRIENNE WISDOM 12/10/2024 1

The plan sheets with the borings will be updated to show elevations.

Kisan Patel 12/18/2024 1

Response Accepted & Comment Closed

No Status Current Holder Reference Categories

10 RESPONSE ACCEPTED GEOTECH/MATERIALS

Created By Created On Version Delegate For

Kisan Patel 11/22/2024 1

Sheet B2-13: Please include a Plan note that requires confirmation of uplift resistance through signal match analysis

ADRIENNE WISDOM 12/10/2024 1

A note indicating that confirmation of the uplift resistance through signal match analysis is required will be added to the Pile Data Table plan sheet.

Kisan Patel 12/18/2024 1

Response Accepted & Comment Closed

No Status Current Holder Reference Categories

11 RESPONSE ACCEPTED GEOTECH/MATERIALS

Created By Created On Version Delegate For

Kisan Patel 11/22/2024 1

BW-4: The total settlement is greater than 6 inches which is greater than the allowable in SDG chapter 3.

ADRIENNE WISDOM 12/10/2024 1

The maximum wall height is on the order 15 feet. This maximum value is resulting into higher than allowable settlement values (SDG Ch. 3).A settlement plate will be installed to monitor the settlement as the fill is placed. After a 10 feet tall mound of fill is placed, the weight and geometry of the fill will be used to predict the settlement under the maximum loading. Getting settlement data as a result of the placement of 10 feet of fill is anticipated to be able to provide data to perform a more accurate prediction of the maximum settlement value. A plan note will be added detailing the above.

Kisan Patel 12/18/2024 1

There is a lot of details to be included when using settlement plates. A TSP is used to provide direction to the contractor. When settlement is greater than 6 inches, we typically go to a two-phase wall due to panel tolerance issues. This method may not address that issue since the panels would be installed as the wall is being built.

I recommend revisiting the settlement calculations and/or preform additional investigation such as CPTs to verify settlement plates or other remediation are necessary. The calculations can also be refined based on the wall profile and cross sections. The settlement calculations were not included in the Geotech report. Please include the settlement calculations in the appendix.

ADRIENNE WISDOM 1/8/2025 1

The settlement calculations were refined as recommended, and the analysis resulted in less than 3 inches of settlement. The revised settlement calculations will be included in the revised Geotechnical Report.

Kisan Patel 1/10/2025 1

Response Accepted & Comment Closed

No Status Current Holder Reference Categories

12 RESPONSE ACCEPTED GEOTECH/MATERIALS

Created By Created On Version Delegate For

Kisan Patel 11/22/2024 1

B2-11: Recommend one test pile at pier 4 since it is greater than 200 ft from Pier 5 which has the same loading.

ADRIENNE WISDOM 12/10/2024 1

A test pile will be added at Pier 4, Pile 3.

Kisan Patel 12/18/2024 1

Response Accepted & Comment Closed

No Status Current Holder Reference Categories

13 RESPONSE ACCEPTED General SIGNING AND MARKING

Created By Created On Version Delegate For

SUBHASIS GHOSH 11/25/2024 1

No changes have been made to Signing and Marking design since the last submittal. The reviewer has no comments.

ADRIENNE WISDOM 12/10/2024 1

Thank you for your review.

SUBHASIS GHOSH 12/11/2024 1

Response Accepted & Comment Closed

No Status Current Holder Reference Categories

14 RESPONSE ACCEPTED ROADWAY

Created By Created On Version Delegate For

Nicolas Leon 11/25/2024 1

Sheet 13) For “JYLP At SR 884 Connector Grading Detail” consider indicating (Max) instead of (Typ.) for proposed cross slopes. (Previous Revised Planse ERC Comment #5 and Final Plans ERC Comment #10)

ADRIENNE WISDOM 12/10/2024 1

The label along the JYLP Connector had been updated to reflect "MAX." instead of "TYP.". The label along the JYLP mainline will be updated to reflect "MAX." as well.

Nicolas Leon 12/17/2024 1

Response Accepted & Comment Closed

No Status Current Holder Reference Categories

15 RESPONSE ACCEPTED ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT OFF.

Created By Created On Version Delegate For

Julia Holtzhausen 11/25/2024 1

This project will require an environmental certification (a Re-evaluation) from the Environmental Management Office (EMO). Please contact Kristin Caruso (kristin.caruso@dot.state.fl.us) in EMO to provide an updated Environmental Determination Worksheet (EDW) by the scheduled response date. On the EDW, please fill out the top portion and then responses to questions #1 through #6 and include a project location map.

The EMO Dept. will fill-out remaining information. Environmental certifications are typically issued within 2 weeks prior to the production date.

Please advise EMO if the production schedule for this project changes. EMO will continue to review this project during subsequent phase reviews for environmental involvement.

ADRIENNE WISDOM 12/10/2024 1

Noted, a revised EDW will be sent to Kristin Caruso.

Julia Holtzhausen 12/18/2024 1

Response Accepted & Comment Closed

No Status Current Holder Reference Categories

16 RESPONSE ACCEPTED ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT OFF.

Created By Created On Version Delegate For

Julia Holtzhausen 11/25/2024 1

Section 7-1.4: Compliance with Federal Endangered Species Act and other Wildlife Regulations of the FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction manual should be adhered to for wildlife involvement during construction. This section addresses what the contractor must do in the event of unanticipated interactions with protected species and the requirement to notify the FDOT a minimum of 30 days in advance of using an off-site area for ancillary construction needs (e.g. staging, borrow-pits).

ADRIENNE WISDOM 12/10/2024 1

Noted, thank you.

Julia Holtzhausen 12/18/2024 1

17 RESPONSE ACCEPTED ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT OFF.

Created By Created On Version Delegate For

Julia Holtzhausen 11/25/2024 1

The project is located within the consultation area and/or focal area for the Florida bonneted bat. Project elements include (clearing and grubbing, paving, etc.) within pervious surface areas which could support the species. Based on the environmental field review and the resulting technical memorandum (January 2021), suitable habitat for the Florida bonneted bat is available within forested areas adjacent to the project area. However, at that time, no potential roosting trees were to be removed or impacted as a result of the project. Please confirm that no potential roosting trees will be removed which could trigger a bonneted bat survey.

ADRIENNE WISDOM 12/10/2024 1

The conclusions and involvement with the Florida bonneted bat remain the same since the previous environmental assessment and memorandum were completed. The changes to the proposed work will not result in impacts to potential Florida bonneted bat roosting habitat.

Julia Holtzhausen 12/18/2024 1

Response Accepted & Comment Closed

No Status Current Holder Reference Categories

18 RESPONSE ACCEPTED Sheet 9 ROADWAY

Created By Created On Version Delegate For

Desiree Davis 11/26/2024 1

General Note 4 - Update the utility owners prior to letting since they change often. FPL Transmission is incorrect.

ADRIENNE WISDOM 12/10/2024 1

The FPL Transmission utility contact will be updated.

Desiree Davis 12/11/2024 1

Response Accepted & Comment Closed

No Status Current Holder Reference Categories

19 RESPONSE ACCEPTED STRUCTURES

Created By Created On Version Delegate For

Amir Ayoub 11/26/2024 1

Sheet B-4, pay item note 9: the note states “PAY ITEM CFM-001 INCLUDES THE COST OF AESTHETIC FEATURES INCLUDING ALL DECORATIVE FEATURES. FURNISHING AND INSTALLING PROPOSED SCREENING, SIGNS, LETTERING.” However note 2 on sheet B-5 states that the cost of furnishing and installing the aesthetic features shall be included in the cost of the prefabricated truss. Please clarify if the cost is the responsibility of the prime contractor or the truss fabricator. Also note 4 on sheet B-5 states that the city of Fort Myers shall provide the design of the aesthetic features. Please clarify who will be the Engineer of Record for the attachment details of the aesthetic features to the truss: City of Fort Myers or the contractor’s Specialty Engineer? Also, are the aesthetic features designs included in the bid package for the contractor to include in his bid?

ADRIENNE WISDOM 12/10/2024 1

Note 2 on sheet B-5 will be clarified for the aesthetics to be included in the cost of Pay Item CFM-001 and the cost will be the responsibility of the contractor. The Consultant's architectural designer will be EOR and will coordinate with the truss fabricator to provide attachment details. The aesthetic features are a part of the bid package and we are in the process of coordinating with the City of Fort Myers for assembly of the bid package.

Amir Ayoub 12/13/2024 1

Acceptance is contingent on providing the required notes and clarifications.

No Status Current Holder Reference Categories

20 RESPONSE ACCEPTED STRUCTURES

Created By Created On Version Delegate For

Amir Ayoub 11/26/2024 1

Sheet B2-7: Please clarify what is the design, material, and color of the full enclosure inside the truss. Please clarify if a note should be added to clarify these issues.

ADRIENNE WISDOM 12/10/2024 1

Design, material, and color of interior enclosure will be coordinated with the bridge aesthetics and a note will be added to clarify.

Amir Ayoub 12/13/2024 1

Acceptance is contingent on providing the required notes and clarifications.

BCC Engineering LLC Prequalification Letter