Section 5 Quality Control

Quality Control-1
SECTION 4.1.2
J
JJo
oob
bb S
SSp
ppe
eec
cci
iif
ffi
iic
cc Q
QQC
CC P
PPl
lla
aan
nn

Table of Contents
1.0 Project Quality Control Plan..........................................................................3
1.1 Definitions of Quality........................................................................3
1.2 Quality Requirements........................................................................3
1.3 Quality Goals........................................................................................4
1.4 Quality Expectations..........................................................................4
1.5 Quality Policy.......................................................................................4
1.6 General Project Quality Control Process.....................................4
1.7 Quality Production.............................................................................5
1.8 Project Staffing List.............................................................................8
1.9 Participant Responsibilities.............................................................9
1.10 Submittal Reviews (Submittal Checking) ...................................9
1.11 Standard Checking Procedure........................................................9
1.12 Project Coordination Reviews and Meetings ..........................10
1.13 Subconsultant Quality Control .....................................................10
1.14 Studies and Reports .........................................................................10
2.0 Design Quality Control Levels Definitions and Procedures..........11
2.1 Routine Quality Control .................................................................21
2.2 Responsibility for Design Quality Control ...............................22
2.3 Summary of Design Quality Requirements for I-75..............22
3.0 Electronic Delivery QA/ QC Program......................................................27
3.1 QA/ QC Procedures .........................................................................27
3.2 QA/ QC Personnel ............................................................................29

Job Specific Quality Control Plan

Quality Control-2
Tables, Exhibits and Attachments
Table 1..............................................................................................................................................8

Exhibit 1.........................................................................................................................................12
Exhibit 2.........................................................................................................................................13
Exhibit 3.........................................................................................................................................15
Exhibit 4.........................................................................................................................................18
Exhibit 5.........................................................................................................................................18
Exhibit 6.........................................................................................................................................19
Exhibit 7.........................................................................................................................................21
Exhibit 8.........................................................................................................................................23

Attachment A - QC/ QA Log................................................................................................A-1
Attachment B - Quality Control Review Log..................................................................B-1
Attachment C - Approved Peer Reviews/ Project Executives...................................C-1
Attachment D - Level 1 Check print Sign-off Sheet ......................................................D-1
Attachment E - Level 2 Review Memorandum..............................................................E-1
Attachment F - Preliminary Audit Worksheet.................................................................F-1
Attachment G - Secondary Audit Worksheet.................................................................G-1
Attachment H - Quality Tips 2003-10...............................................................................H-1
Attachment I - Quality Tips 2003-11.....................................................................................I-1
Attachment J - Quality Tips 2004-01.....................................................................................J-1
Attachment K- Quality Tips 2004-02..................................................................................K-1
Attachment L - Quality Tips 2004-03.................................................................................L-1

Quality Control-3
1 1. .0 0 P Pr ro oj je ec ct t Q Qu ua al li it ty y C Co on nt tr ro ol l P Pl la an n
This document describes the Project Quality Control Plan that Jacobs Civil Inc. (Jacobs)
and their subconsultants will follow to ensure that all design, public involvement and
environmental elements developed for the I -75 at SR 80 Interchange Reconstruction Project
conform to FDOTs standards and criteria and minimize errors. The project documentation
prepared by Jacobs will comply with all applicable FDOTs manual and guidelines, as well
as related state and federal laws, executive orders and regulations.
The Jacobs Project Quality Control Plan is based on the philosophy that:
n Quality is achieved by adequate planning, coordination, supervision and technical
direction; proper definition of job requirements and procedures; understanding the
scope of services; the use of appropriately skilled personnel; and by individuals
performing work functions carefully, including paying strict attention to avoidance of
errors and omissions.
n Quality is assured through checking, reviewing and surveying of work activities by
individuals who are not directly responsible for performing the initial efforts.
n Quality is controlled by assigning a manager to perform Quality Control (QC)
functions consisting of surveying and evaluating the work and the procedures
followed while performing the services.
n Quality is verified through independent reviews by a qualified staff of the processes,
procedures, documentation, supervision, technical direction, and staffing associated
with project development.
1.1 Definitions of Quality
n DICTIONARY the degree of excellence a thing possesses, excellence, superiority.
n FEDERAL GOVERNMENT meeting the requirements, need and expectations the
first time and every time.
n FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) conformance to
requirements, Plans Preparation Manual, Volume 1, Chapter 18.
1.2 Quality Requirements
Florida Statute 20.23(3) specifically states that the FDOT, as well as consultants and
subconsultants shall ensure quality and monitor implementation of policies and
procedures. It should be noted that:
n Quality is the result of doing many individual activities in conformance with
requirements, regardless of the size of their contribution to the overall objective.
n The FDOT will provide compliance reviews of Jacobs work. Jacobs will be
responsible for supplying the FDOT with quality, correct, accurate, and complete
deliverables.
We will satisfy the general legal requirements that require all professionals to exercise
due diligence in the preparation of deliverables. Due diligence commonly refers to
the standard of care established by the practices, processes and procedures sued by the
majority of the practicing professionals in a specific area of service.

Quality Control-4
1.3 Quality Goals
Jacobs is committed to providing quality professional services that will help the FDOT
obtain the goal of ZERO DEFECTS. Our efforts will be focused on the creation of
accurate, complete work without errors and omissions and meeting our contractual
obligations and commitments.
1.4 Quality Expectations
A quality work deliverable is one that meets our contractual requirements with the FDOT
and is prepared in accordance with accepted standards of professional practice. It is the
responsibility of the project team to plan and execute assignments so that quality
deliverables are produced to meet these requirements. Quality is achieved when the work
is planned, assigned, executed, and checked. It is expected that quality work will be
produced and that Responsible Professionals (RPs) and Quality Reviewers (QRs) will
check all work for conformance to requirements.
1.5 Quality Policy
Jacobs professional services will be based on sound principles, will meet the standards of
professional practice and will satisfy the quality requirements of the Scope of Services.
The Project Manager (Ron Glass) will distribute copies of the Project Quality Control Plan
to all project team members, including subconsultants. All project team members are
required to use the Project Quality Control Plan production and review process and
procedures described herein. Each team member must understand the project objectives,
apply sound principles, and produce correct and complete work.
1.6 General Project Quality Control Process
Production quality is achieved through the careful development of the work and the
continuous checking, concurrence (backchecking), and verification of changes on all work
and documents during their preparation and review. The Quality Control Team includes
qualified RPs and the associated project staff to produce the work and QRs with
equivalent professional qualifications to review and confirm that the work is accurate and
complete. As a minimum, checking will be required for each document before it is used
for further development or before a required phase submittal. The standard checking
procedure will be used for all checking and reviews to document the process.
The due care production and review of projects are based on the premise that two
qualified individuals agree on the methodology, correctness, accuracy, and compl eteness
of each deliverable before it, or any other related document that it is based on, is released
for use. To accomplish this, a submittal review is performed prior to every submittal. The
following is a general description of the project setup, production, and review procedures
that will be followed:
n The Quality Manager (Bill Little) is the Quality Control Officer for the project and is
responsible for preparing the Project Quality Control Plan. The Project Manager is
responsible for development of the Project Work Plan.
n The Project Work Plan and the Project Quality Control Plan designate the RPs and the
QRs for the project and review of each project work element, task and deliverable.

Quality Control-5
n The Project Manager conducts a kick-off meeting with appropriate members of the
project team before any project begins. The Project Work Plan, the Project Quality
Control Plan and the project instructions are presented by the Project Manager and
discussed.
n As the project proceeds, RPs and their supporting staffs produce the work. PRs
continuously check the work during production. QRs, working under the direction of
the Quality Manager, as integral members of the project team, check the work at
critical points during the production process.
n The QRs perform the submittal reviews in accordance with the procedures described
herein. However, the ultimate responsibility for quality rests with the RPs.
n Before a deliverable is released to the FDOT or others, the Quality Manager (QA
Leader) performs the quality assurance revi ew and quality control verification. The
verification determines whether required production and review quality control
procedures have been used and that the work produced conforms to the appropriate
standards.
n The review documentation, which is developed during the production of review of the
work, is to be retained in the project files for Quality Assurance (QA) review and audit
purposed and to demonstrate that the Project Quality Control Plan requirements have
been met.
1.7 Quality Production
Project quality is built-in, not added on. Quality work is the direct result of careful,
properly sequenced production and continuous RP checking of each work element for
completion and correctness. This process also includes the concurrence of the designated
QR on concepts and presentation of each work element. The RPs and the supporting
engineers, environmental scientists, designers and technicians working under the RPs
direct supervision will originate the designs, plans and/ or reports using thorough,
quality-oriented production and review methods for the development, completion and
checking of the work. The RPs perform detailed checks for accuracy, errors and omissions
prior to substantial completion and before each phase submittal review. The RPs will
perform the checking and the verification functions for this procedure and check for work
for inclusion of FDOT review comments and requirements.
The deliverable documents that will be prepared for the I -75 at SR 80 Interchange
Reconstruction Project, include the following:
Public Involvement
n Noise Wall Public Involvement Plan
n Public Information Meeting & Materials Coordination
n Website Material
Environmental
n Permit Application Packages
n Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Report
n Noise Barrier Design Report
n Wetland Evaluation Technical Report
n Contamination Screening Evaluation Report

Quality Control-6
n Biological Assessment Technical Report
Bridge Design
n Bridge Development Report
n 30% Bridge Plans
n Structural Calculations
n 60% Bridge Plans
n 60% Noise Wall Plans (if required)
n 90% Bridge Plans
n Computation Book
n 100% Bridge Plans
Roadway Design
n Typical Section Package
n SR 80 Operational Analysis Study Report
n Phase I Plans Package
n Phase II Plans Package
n Phase III Plans Package
n Phase IV Plans Package
n Specification Package
n Final Plans Package
Lighting Design
n Lighting Analysis Report
n Lighting Design Calculations Report
n Phase II Lighting Plans
n Phase III Lighting Plans
n Computation Book
n Phase IV Lighting Plans
Signing & Pavement Marking Plans
n Guide Sign Detail Calculations
n Phase II Signing & Pavement Marking Plans
n Phase III Signing & Pavement Marking Plans
n Computation Book
n Phase IV Signing & Pavement Marking Plans
Signal Design
n Phase II Signal Plans

Quality Control-7
n Phase III Signal Plans
n Phase IV Signal Plans
Landscape Design
n Tree Permits (If Required)
n Landscape Site Analysis Report
n Phase II Landscape Plans
n Phase III Landscape Plans
n Landscape Maintenance Agreement
n Computation Book
n Pjase IV Landscape Plans

1.8 Project Staffing List
The project team dedicated to the production and review of all project elements, tasks and
deliverables is shown in the project-staffing list (see Table 1). The PM will obtain the
approval of the FDOT Project Manager if any changes in key project team personnel are
unavoidable.


Quality Control-8
ELEMENT/TAS
K
Deliverable Responsible Professional (RP) Quality Reviewer (QR)
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT TASKS
Public Involvement
Public Involvement Activities
Coordination
Ron Glass Gene Keeler
Public Involvement Noise Wall Public Involvement
Win Lindeman
Environmental Science
Associates
Gene Keeler
Public Involvement
Public Information Meeting
Materials Coordination
Ron Glass Gene Keeler
Public Involvement Website Material Gene Keeler Ron Glass
ENVIRONMENTAL TASKS
Permit Permit Application Packages
David Landers
Scheda Ecological
Bill Veon
Cultural Resources Cultural Resource Assessment
Marion Almy
Archeological Consultants
Gene Keeler
Noise Noise Barrier Design Report
Win Lindeman
Environmental Science
Associates
Gene Keeler
Wetlands Wetland Evaluation Report
David Landers
Scheda Ecological
Gene Keeler
Contamination
Contamination Screening
Evaluation Report
John Barker
Universal Engineering Sciences
Gene Keeler
Wildlife & Habitat Biological Assessment Report
David Landers
Scheda Ecological
Gene Keeler
ENGINEERING TASKS
Roadway
Plans, Specifications,
Estimates
Rick Rocktoff Bill Little
Structures
Plans, Specifications,
Estimates Steve Zendegui Bill Little

TABLE 1
Project Staffing List
Quality Control Team Leader: Bill Little


Quality Control-9

1.9 Participant Responsibilities
The responsibilities of the participants in the production of quality work and the quality
control process are defined as follows:
Public Involvement and Environment Quality Control Team Leader
Bill Little, PE Mr. Little will function as Quality Control Team Leader (QC Leader) and
will be responsible for monitoring the overall quality control process during production
and review. He will ensure that the project professional and technical support staff follow
established FDOT standards and regulations and have the required experience and
education to meet the high expectations of the FDOT.
Project Manager
Ron Glass, PE, AICP - Mr. Glass will be the overall Project Manager. Mr. Glass will
supervise the activities of the entire Jacobs Team and subconsultants. Mr. Glass will be the
single point of contact for District One and will be involved with the Team to coordinate
activities, confirm milestones, monitor potential bottlenecks, ensure manpower loading,
and partner with our Public Involvement and Environment Task Manager, Gene Keeler, to
assure a successful Process.
Public Involvement and Environment, Task Manager
Gene Keeler - Mr. Keeler will lead the day-to-day Public Involvement and Environment
effort, including planning, training, and coordination. He will be responsible to the Project
Manager, Ron Glass to ensure that proper work planning and technical resources are
applied to the project, schedules are met, and quality control procedures are followed.
Quality Reviewer
The quality reviewers (QRs) for various project deliverables are shown on Table 1.
1.10 Submittal Reviews (Submittal Checking)
Prior to each submittal to the FDOT, the designated QRs will perform a review of each
project element to check the work for completeness, error and omissions, and to confirm
that any revisions or adjustments to the project documents are complete and correct. This
review by the QRs will confirm that all aspects of the documents are acceptable. The QRs
will use the standard checking procedure, which is a check and balance process that
includes QR review (checking), concurrence (backchecking), incorporation and verification
(rechecking) of the work and documents during preparation. The standard checking
procedure is summarized below.
1.11 Standard Checking Procedure
The standard checking procedure will be used to document the production and review of
all submitted documents. This procedure will provide a check and balance arrangement
between the RPs and the QRs that requires:
n RPs to indicate that they have completed production checking and that the document
is free of errors.
n QRs then check the document before each submittal and inform RP of comments.

Quality Control-10
n RPs to concur with all comments and revise document if necessary.
n RPs to check in incorporation of all agreed revisions.
n QRs to verify the proper incorporation of all agreed changes.
n QA Leader to verify the process was followed.
n Project Manager and QCO will retain check sets for QA and audit reviews.
1.12 Project Coordination Reviews and Meetings
The PM and RPs are responsible for reviewing all documents for correctness and cross-
references among disciplines. The QRs will check various documents.
Regular coordination meetings will be held. The project coordination items will be
discussed at weekly meetings as necessary, to achieve complete project coordination.
1.13 Subconsultant Quality Control
The PM will furnish all subconsultants with a copy of the project quality control plan. The
sub-consultants will be directed to follow the approved procedures, document their
quality control activities, and make their documentation available for a compliance audit.
Subconsultants will use the project quality control plan processes and procedures,
including the quality control logs for each element of their work to certify that both
production and review was performed in accordance with the approved project quality
control plan. The quality control acti vities shall be documented, filed and retained as
provided herein.
In addition, the Jacobs Project Manager, Ron Glass, PE, and the QC Leader, Bill Little, PE
will conduct periodic quality assurance reviews of subconsultants work to check for
adherence to the project quality control plan.
1.14 Studies and Reports
Studies and reports have special quality control requirements. The RPs and QRs for the I -
75 at SR 80 Interchange Reconstruction Project have been selected because of their
specialized experience. They are highly qualified to prepare and check the technical
aspects of work from a peers perspective. The QRs will conduct the QC reviews on the
basis of their specialized professional experience and knowledge of the subject. They will
ensure that the methods, procedures, assumptions, theories, conclusions and
recommendations presented in the reports are based on sound engineering and
environmental judgment. As a minimum, all reviews will address the appropriate study
elements and will be in compliance with all FDOT manuals and guidelines.
For the review of the required environmental documents, our QRs will make maximum
use of the PD&E approved study to assess completeness and adherence to scope
requirements. Accuracy determinations and errors and omissions will be made primarily
from the review of supporting date (e.g., air photos, applicable technical reports and maps,
field notes, etc.) and the QRs experience in performing and producing similar studies and
reports on previous studies for the FDOT. In addition, a technical writer will review the
reports for sentence structure, grammar, and overall presentation clarity.
After completion of the production process, the RP will submit the study and report to the
QR for the submittal review. Our Project Manager will be responsible for submitting the

Quality Control-11
report to the FDOT or other review agencies and for the retention of all files, supporting
documents, calculations, drawings, graphics and reference material.
The QR will complete the checklists for each technical report element and establish that:
n The scope and objectives have been established and achieved.
n The appropriate technical criteria have been used.
n The approach is satisfactory and follows established methodology.
n Appropriate date has been acquired, referenced and retained.
n Methods and procedures used for calculations and analyses were appropriate.
n Assumptions are reasonable and clearly defined in accordance with established
principles.
n Theories are applicable and are properly supported by back-up data.
n Conclusions are reasonable and based on sound professional judgment.
n The report format and presentation are appropriate and consistent with the required
documents and manuals.
n The text is grammatically correct and has been checked according to the project quality
control plan by the technical writer.
n Graphics have been checked according to the project quality control plan.
n The QRs comments are properly recorded, addressed and verified on the checking
document.
n The RPs and the QRs have resolved any problems revealed by the review and have
signed the quality control log.
2 2. .0 0 D De es si ig gn n Q Qu ua al li it ty y C Co on nt tr ro ol l L Le ev ve el ls s D De ef fi in ni it ti io on ns s a an nd d
P Pr ro oc ce ed du ur re es s
Introduction
This document provides the procedures and processes we use to furnish accuracy and
quality in our design production. The quality control procedures contained herein are a
crucial part of Jacobs Civils quality process.
Our goals, by use of these procedures are to:
n Produce quality documents;
n Establish an environment in which there is a continual striving for improvement;
n Encourage communication;
n Improve understanding of the requirements;
n Build teamwork and cooperation in solving problems; and
n Do it right the first time.
Planning for Quality is the Jacobs practice in development and delivery of interim and
Final products that meet or exceed our Client expectations. Planning starts by identifying
and scheduling those items that require various Levels of Quality Control at distinct stages
of the development process. The Design Quality Control Matrix (Exhibit 9) identifies those

Quality Control-12
EXHIBIT 1
Level One Check

items and provides guidance for checking, review, coordination, verification, or Client
surveys. While it attempts to cover all components of the design, it is still the engineer and
reviewers responsibility to efficiently insure that all work has received the level of quality
control they deem necessary.
The components of the Design Quality Control Matrix include:
1. Project submittals to FDOT including maps, reports, design drawings, design
calculations, specifications, and other documentation;
2. Reviews of subconsultant deliverables submitted to Jacobs Civil;
3. Peer Reviews;
4. Coordination Reviews;
5. Constructability Review;
6. CADD File Reviews;
7. Plan-in-Hand Field Reviews;
8. Level of Management Reviews;
9. Interactive Coordination Meetings;
10. Checking Final plots to verify all CADD levels turned on;
11. Back checking outside reproduction;
12. Client Expectation Survey;
13. Client Surveys;
14. Certification by responsible professional that the Quality Control Review was
conducted.
The Design Quality Control Matrix includes the anticipated review dates, anticipated
originators and reviewers, and Level of review required. Work products within these
components, may be originated by delegates, however the responsibility for accuracy and
quality of these work products remain unchanged from the matrix. As schedules and
resources are changed/ updated, the matrix should also be changed/ updated by the
project manager. All necessary
parties will be notified of
changes by a formal PPM/ PCD
revision.
Level 1A
A Level 1A Check is a thorough
inspection of a complete
document to verify that the
document is correct, it meets the
requirements, and it is
acceptable for its intended
purpose. By definition, the
Level 1A Check requires that a
minimum of two sets of
qualified Jacobs eyes be
involved in the checking
process. The Level 1A Check
utilizes color-codingyellow,
red and green (see Exhibits 1
and 2)to indicate the status of the checked document and to document the checking
process. The Design Project Manager or his designee is responsible for verifying that the
checking process is carried out on the project documents as required by this plan.

Quality Control-13
EXHIBIT 2
QC Color Code

Documentation for Level 1A Checks is provided by
the color-coded checkprints developed by the
checking process and by the checkprint signature
stamp or yellow signoff sheet with signatures of
appropriate personnel involved in the checking
process. If it is necessary to transmit unchecked
documents to the contractor or the Department, the
documents must be stamped "Unchecked. Do Not Use
For Construction."
Level 1A100 Percent Document Check
The Level 1A Check provides a complete concept
suitability, theory applicability, and numbers check
and is performed by a technically qualified individual
other than the Originator. The process is described in
Exhibit 2 and the ensuing discussion.
The Originator is the qualified individual who is
responsible for the development of the document in its
original form. The Originator develops the document
in accordance with the PCD. For design work,
document development shall be based on checked
input material (i.e., design analysis is based on
checked design criteria, and drawings are based on
checked design analysis). The Originator must
identify and make accessible all references and backup
materials for the Checkers use. The Originator is
responsible for completing the work accurately in all
respects before releasing the document for checking and/ or review.
Following completion of the original document, the Originator must sign (not initial),
date, and make a copy of the document, add and complete the checkprint signature stamp
or sign-off sheet (see Exhibit 3), and deliver the document to the designated individual for
continuation of the QC process.
The Checker is the qualified individual responsible for checking the original document as
provided by the Originator and in accordance with Level 1 requirements.
The Checker should be of equal or greater experience level than the documents Originator
and shall be a Jacobs employee.
The Checker must check the document against the following:
Established design criteria and requirements including RFP and Proposal
Documents
Applicable codes and standards
Good practice and judgment


Quality Control-14
The Checker must not be unduly influenced by personal opinion about the presentation or
approach of the document; however, the document must be able to be interpreted without
further explanation. If further explanation is required, the document must be returned to
the Originator for further work.
All correct lines, dimensions, and written text shall be marked in yellow on the checkprint.
All necessary corrections, additions, or deletions shall be marked in red. Comments or
notes not intended to be incorporated into the original document must be made in a color
other than red, yellow, or green.
Significant corrections, additions, or deletions that potentially void a portion of the work
must be resolved prior to continuing with the checking process. Irreconcilable differences
between the Originator and Checker shall be referred to the Discipline Leader or the
Design Services Manager for further action.
At the completion of the check, the Checker shall sign (not initial) the checkprints as
appropriate, sign and date the sign-off sheet or checkprint stamp in the space marked
Checker, and return the document to the Discipline Leader for continued processing.
Following completion of the checking process and final updating of the original
documents, the checker shall sign the original document (if applicable) in the appropriate
location.


Quality Control-15
EXHIBIT 3
Discipline Signoff Sheet

Notes:
1. The Originator of a document
is the individual responsible
for the technical content and
accuracy of the document. For
example, a typist who types a
report or specification or a
CADD technician who
performs the drafting on a
drawing is not the originator.
2. By definition of the Level 1
Checking process, a minimum
of two set of qualified Jacobs
eyes are to be involved in the
checking process. The design
manager will determine the
qualification requirements of
all participants in this checking
process.
3. In the case of drawings, the
Originator of the calculations
upon which the drawing is
based should be involved in
the checking process as either
the drawing Originator,
Checker, or Backchecker. If
this is not possible, the
Originator of the calculations
must provide a design review
of the contract drawing (see
Level 2 Review).

Quality Control-16
The Backchecker is the qualified individual responsible for verifying corrections made to
the checkprint by the Checker. If possible, the Backchecker should be the Originator. This
is to verify that the Originator is aware of proposed modifications to his/ her document. If
the Originator is not available, an individual with qualifications comparable to the
Originator identified by the Discipline Leader may be substituted.
The Backchecker shall verify the corrections made to the checkprint by the Checker. To
note agreement with the Checker, a green check is entered adjacent to the Checkers
corrections. Disagreement with the Checker is noted by entering a green line through the
red mark and writing STET adjacent to the red mark. An explanation of the
disagreement should also be provided when necessary, in a color other than red, yellow,
or green. The Backchecker must coordinate with the Checker to reach general agreement
as to the content of the final document. Irreconcilable differences shall be escalated to the
Discipline Leader for resolution. At the completion of the Backcheck, the Backchecker
shall sign and date the sign-off sheet or checkprint stamp in the space marked Backcheck
and return the document to the Discipline Leader for continued processing.
The Updater is the qualified individual responsible for updating the original document to
accommodate agreed-to revisions by the Checker and Backchecker. Preferably, the
Updater should be the Originator or should be supervised by the Originator (to verify that
the Originator is aware of modifications to his/ her document). If the Originator is not
Notes
1. For documents that are predominantly text such as reports and specifications, it
is not necessary to yellow-in each individual line of text. A yellow mark through
each correct paragraph is acceptable.
2. For contract drawings, the Checker must verify that the drawings are in
accordance with the appropriate checked calculations used to develop the
drawings. All drawing lines, dimension, text, and other information shall be
yellowed or red-marked to indicate status. It is not sufficient to simply strike a
yellow mark through an area of the drawing such as a section or detail.
Checkprints shall be created for distinct phase submittal of a drawing, and
checkprints for each of these phase submittals shall be maintained in the project
files. The final checkprint for each phase must have all lines, dimensions, and
text yellow marked. Drawing information that was developed in prior phase
shall be compared to the checked drawings from the prior phase to verify
continuity and that the information is still complete and correct. For example, if
call-outs or notes from a prior phase had to be moved to accommodate new
drawing elements, verify that the call-outs or notes still appear on the drawing,
that the leaders still point to the appropriate elements, and that there were no
typographic errors made in any retyping.
3. Where multiple disciplines contribute to development of a particular document,
multiple sign-off sheets or stamps are required to be used to document the
check. The Checker must note by the stamp or sign-off sheet the discipline or
portion of the document being checked. The Design Services Manager shall
designate an individual for the overall review of the QC process for a multiple-
discipline document.
4. Spreadsheets (except those that are pre-validated) shall be given a thorough
Level 1A Check, on a printed copy.

Quality Control-17
available, an individual with qualifications comparable to the Originator may be
substituted. The Originator should be notified of any changes to the original document
before it is updated.
The Updater shall update the original document in accordance with the checkprints. To
indicate that the original has been updated, the red-marked areas of the checkprint with
green check marks are circled in green as the Updater goes along.
At the completion of the update, the Updater shall
sign and date the sign-off sheet or checkprint stamp
in the space marked Update and forward the
document to the designated individual for continued
processing. The Updater is also responsible for
verifying that the Checkers signature is added to the
original documents as necessary.
The Rechecker is the qualified individual responsible
for verifying that corrections have been made to the
original document by the Updater and in accordance
with the backchecked checkprints. If possible, the Rechecker should be the Checker and
must be a Jacobs employee. This allows a time-efficient checking process and confirms that
the changes were made correctly. However, if the Checker is not available to perform as
the Rechecker, an individual with comparable qualifications may be substituted.
The Rechecker shall verify that all updates on the original document have been made in
accordance with the backchecked documents. The Rechecker compares the agreed-to
changes/ modifications/ corrections with the updated original and highlights them in
yellow on the checkprint if the original has been accurately corrected. If the original has
not been properly updated, the Rechecker must coordinate the process of agreement and
update with the Backchecker and Updater.
At the completion of the recheck, the Rechecker shall sign and date the sign-off sheet or
checkprint stamp in the space marked Recheck and return the document to the
designated individual for continued processing.
Level 1B100 Percent Input Check
The Level 1B Check provides a complete concept suitability, theory applicability, and
numbers check on input to pre-validated computer programs, and is performed by a
technically qualified individual other than the Originator. The process is described in the
following flowchart (Exhibit 4).
The Level 1B Check shall be performed on printed versions of program input data. The
staffing, color code, and sign-off procedures described under Level 1A Check, above, shall
be used to perform and document the Level 1B Check.
Note: It is anticipated that only pre-validated software will be used on this project. If it is
determined that the team must use software that has not been pre-validated, then it must
first be validated. Refer to the on-line Jacobs Quality Manual for the validation process.
Notes
For drawings, green checks should
be provided for each red mark on
the drawing to indicate agreement.
It is not sufficient to provide a
green check applicable to an entire
section, detail, or other portion of a
drawing.

Quality Control-18
EXHIBIT 4
Level 1B100 Percent Input Check

EXHIBIT 5
Level 1CSpot Check

Level 1CSpot Check
The Level 1C Check provides a spot or partial check of numbers or facts within a
document prepared by a qualified individual other than the Originator. The Level 1C
Check is applicable to technical studies and reports, to permit application packages, and to
presentation materials, such as documents or displays used for public information.
The Level 1C Check consists of a detailed check of selected items or critical items within
the document. For example, a detailed check of a table presenting facts or data within a
report or permit application should be thoroughly checked, while the remainder of the
document may be given a review.
The process for a Level 1C Check is described in Exhibit 5.
The staffing, color code, and sign-off procedures described under Level 1A Check, above,
shall be used to perform and document the Level 1C Spot Check.
Level 2
A Level 2 Review is a more general review of work in progress or of a completed
deliverable package. It is a review by a qualified individual (or team of qualified
individuals) assembled to assess the progress of a document or project segment during
various stages of its development. The Level 2 Review verifies that the work is complete,

Quality Control-19
logical, has followed the required procedures, and has used the correct specifications. The
reviewers(s) apply their accumulated experience and professional judgment to verify that
the work is being performed to the established standards of the Department, the
contractor, and Jacobs.
The Reviewer may be a project team member, an employee who has not worked on the
project, an employee who is an expert in a specialized area of expertise, or a team of peer
reviewers for specific work processes.
The Level 2 Review is documented by a memorandum to the project file identifying action
steps that need to be taken (if any), rather than using the red-yellow-green color code used
for Level 1 checks.
Level 2AConcept Review
The Level 2A Concept Review verifies that the concept and approach are correct and meet
the requirements. It is a review for approach suitability, consistency with codes and client
requirements, and good engineering practice.
For highway design, the Level 2A Review must be performed by one of Jacobs approved
peer reviewers. The Design Services Manager will identify the appropriate person or team
and coordinate their participation.
For other disciplines, the Level 2A Reviews shall be performed by any senior Jacobs
engineer experienced in the discipline being reviewed. An efficient approach is for the
person who will ultimately perform the Level 1 Check to perform the Level 2A Review.
The process for a Level 2A Review is described in Exhibit 6. The Level 2A Review is
performed early in the project once the concept and approach are defined, but prior to the
significant development of the drawings. It is documented by the appropriate signature(s)
and review findings in the form of either a memorandum to the project files or a more
formal report identifying action steps that need to be taken. After the review is completed,
the appropriate Discipline Leader or the Design Services Manager shall prepare an action
plan to address the review findings and recommendations and to indicate compliance or
non-compliance, along with appropriate explanations.
Level 2BReasonableness Review
The Level 2B Reasonableness Review verifies that the approach defined in the PPM is
being met. It is used to verify input data from subconsultants, to verify that the design is
coordinated with the PCD, to verify coordination with other disciplines, and to verify that
the final package (plans and specifications) is coordinated. The reviewer(s) may be an
individual or a team who may or may not be associated with the project and will be
assigned by the Design Services Manager or the applicable Discipline Leader.
A Level 2B Review shall be performed on all material utilized as input to the design
process that was not developed by Jacobs personnel. Examples include survey data,
geotechnical data, bridge inspection reports, FDOT Standard Plans, and other information
developed by subconsultants, other consultants, the contractor, or the Department. This
review shall be performed prior to using the data for design purposes.
EXHIBIT 6
Level 2AConcept Review

Quality Control-20
A Level 2B Review shall also be performed by each discipline to verify coordination
between calculations, drawings, and specifications within that discipline, and to verify that
the design meets the requirements as outlined in the PROJECT PROCEDURES MANUAL
and the PCD. This review process shall include a review of the drawings by the Originator
of the calculations if the originator was not part of the Level 1 checking process for the
drawings. The discipline Level 2B Review shall also verify the reasonableness of technical
reports, studies, and the output of spreadsheets and computer programs used in that
disciplines design process.
A final Level 2B Review shall be performed to verify coordination between all project
disciplines and to provide a review of the final package submittal or of any package being
released for construction.
The Discipline Leader or his/ her designee from each discipline shall participate in this
review, even those disciplines which may not have any design elements in the package
being reviewed.
Level 2B Reviews shall be documented with appropriate signatures and review findings in
the form of a memorandum to the project files or a more formal report. After the review is
completed, the appropriate Discipline Leader or the Design Services Manager shall
prepare an action plan to address the review findings and recommendations and to
indicate compliance or non-compliance, along with appropriate explanations.
Level 3
Level 3 Reviews are required on the PROJECT PROCEDURES MANUAL, the PCD, and
the Initial Project CADD Setup for this project. These reviews are performed by Project
Principal or his designee to verify that the documents are complete, logical, and have
followed the required procedures. They provide the review required to obtain a signature
for these documents before they can proceed to be used in the work process.
Level 3ALevel of Management Review
A Level 3A Authorization requires the signature of someone from management before the
document can proceed in the process. This Review is performed to verify all required
Level 1 Checks and Level 2 Reviews have been completed. The documentation for the
Level 3A Review is the actual signed document or a signed form attached to the document.
The process to be followed for the Level 3A Review is as follows (see Exhibit 7):
Originate The document is originated in accordance with all project, discipline, or
functional criteria as may be applicable. The Originator is solely responsible for
completing the work accurately and in the proper content, format, and spelling before
releasing the document for review.
Review Upon completion by the originator, and after any required Level 1 Checks
and/ or Level 2 Reviews, the document is submitted for appropriate signature before
proceeding in the process. The Reviewer is responsible for verifying that the document
is in accordance with all p
Project, discipline, or functional criteria as may be applicable.
Authorize Once the document is correct, the Designated Project Executive or his
designee signs the document, indicating authorization for the document to be
submitted to the Client.

Quality Control-21
EXHIBIT 7
Level 3ALevel of Management
Review
Level 3BCompany Officer Authorization
A Level 3B Authorization requires the signature of a Jacobs Civil officer before the
document can proceed in the process. Level 3B Authorization examples include proposals,
contracts, subcontracts, and purchase orders that must be signed by a company officer
prior to being mailed. The document for this level of authorization is the document itself.
2.1 Routine Quality Control
Technical Coordination Review
A Technical Coordination Review (TCR) is a Level Two review conducted to gain concept
approval of a particular design segment before a great deal of effort is spent on final
design. It is a review for approach, suitability, consistency with codes and client
requirements, and good engineering practice. This coordination will take place in the
weekly design progress meetings and will include discipline leaders, construction
personnel, and the Design Project Manager. If the complexity or importance of the
segment warrants, or issues arise that require lengthy discussion, a review team chosen by
the Design Project Manager may do the review offline.
The Discipline Leader must present the segment design criteria and any development
done to date in writing prior to the meeting. Potential conflicts with other disciplines or
construction are discussed in the progress meeting. A resolution by consensus is reached
as determined by the Design Project Manager. This resolution will be written in the weekly
meeting minutes and distributed to all team members.
TCR documents will be preserved through project completion for audit and informational
purposes, but may not be retained in permanent files.
Document Coordination Review
A Document Coordination Review (DCR) is a Level Two review conducted to identify
design responsibility and coordinate design requirements between or within disciplines.
The design process will include a series of these reviews, begun early in the project, during
the weekly progress meeting, to avoid costly, iterative redesign caused by failure to
coordinate design development.
The term DCR is also considered to include procedures to satisfy review requirements for
approval of documents outside the contract document development process. These
documents generally have their own unique review and sign-off requirements.
It is important that all Discipline Leaders participate, even if in early stages of design
development some disciplines have no documents for review. In these early stages there
are more questions to be answered than work to be checked. Resolution of these types of

Quality Control-22
questions will be the goal of these first reviews. The intent of this procedure is not so much
to check, but rather to promote coordination and prevent errors from happening.
DCR will be recorded in the progress meeting minutes. The latest DCR documents will be
preserved through project completion for audit and informational purposes, but may not
be retained in permanent files.
2.2 Responsibility for Design Quality Control
As the Design Project Manager, Ron Glass, has the oversight responsibility for
coordinating the various engineering design disciplines.
A qualified technical leader has been assigned for each discipline to be responsible for
design criteria, design quality, accuracy, consistency of approach, and responsiveness for
meeting project criteria and owner requirements for the represented discipline. The
discipline leaders, listed below, will be responsible for developing design criteria and for
coordinating with other discipline designs. To facilitate coordination, multi-discipline
(weekly) reviews will be scheduled and conducted.
Bill Little, PE, will perform the Level 3A QA/ QC audit to ensure that the team is following
the process as required in this Job-Specific Quality Plan.
2.3 Summary of Design Quality Requirements for the I-75
at SR80 Interchange Reconstruction Project
Weekly Coordination
To produce a quality document efficiently, emphasis must be placed on continuous
coordination and communication. The Jacobs QA philosophy is to prevent errors from
happening rather than to place total dependency on checking.
Cognizant of this, weekly progress meetings, involving design discipline leaders, have
been instituted to reduce errors, improve coordination, and to allow change or
improvement before the die is cast. Formal meeting minutes will be incorporated as
Technical Coordination Reviews (TCRs) and Document Coordination Reviews (DCRs)
which will be distributed back to these team members and be available in the project files.
Monitor Quality Procedures
Exhibit 8 provides a general guideline to be used in conjunction with the Design Quality
Control Matrix and Level definitions above. Continuous monitoring of the QC activities
Structures Steve Zendegui, PE
Roadway Rick Rocktoff, PE
Drainage & Permitting Bill Veon, PE
Maintenance of Traffic Bill Little, PE
Signing and Pavement Marking Rudy Gotmare, PE
Lighting Mike Cahill, PE
Traffic Signals Erbie Garrett, PE, PTOE


Quality Control-23
against schedule and resource availability should help insure no items fall thru the cracks
and should expose problems before they occur.
EXHIBIT 8
General Guideline for Level of Review required
For design work products not included on this list, the design project manager will establish the QC levels to be followed.
QC Level Design Work Product Comments
2B and 3A Project Procedures Manual
(PPM)

2B and 3A Project Criteria Document
(PCD)
Project Procedures Manual (PPM)
3A Initial Project CADD Setup Requires review of seed file, resources, workspace, global origin,
precision, readout, and project specific CADD issues by CADD
Production Manager prior to starting work.
2B Data received from others For example, survey, reports, etc., from subconsultants, the contractor,
or the Department.
1C, 2A, and
2B
Technical Reports and Studies
1A Calculations
1A and 2B Spreadsheetsone-time use Check/ review options:
1) Provide Level 1A check of all input and output (manual check)
2) Provide Level 1A check of all input and formulas, VBA code, and
macros, and provide Level 2B review of all output
3) Provide Level 1A check of all input, verify output by independent
method
1B and 2B Computer Program
Input/ Output
Applies to input for pre-validated programs only. Level 1B check
applies to program input and should be performed on printed versions
of program input data. Level 2B review should be performed on print
out for reasonableness. (Note: It is assumed that only pre-validated software
will beused on this project. If non-validated softwareneeds to beused, it must
first bevalidated. Refer to Jacobs Quality Manual for validation process.)
1B and 2B Spreadsheets input check of
pre-validated program
Use only documented pre-validated spreadsheet programs for PS&E
submittal. Check input using Level 1B. Review output by Level 2B for
reasonableness.
1A, 2A,
and 2B
Drawings/ Plans Coordination review required between disciplines, and between specs,
drawings, and calculations. Level 2A review shall be performed for
preliminary phase submittals, and Level 2B is performed for all
subsequent phase submittals.
2B Client Standard Plans
1A, 2A,
and 2B
Specifications internally
developed

2B Specifications externally
developed

1C Permit applications
1C Project presentation materials For example, public involvement materials; includes reading of all text.
2D Shop Drawings Requirements to beadded at a later date.
Quality Control-24

The procedures and requirements for each of the QC levels are included in the
definitions section of this volume.
Peer Review/ Final Package Review
Prior to a submittal to the Department, a peer review will be performed by
individuals not involved in the development or checking. This review is also known
as a Final Package Review. The Final Package Review (FPR) is a Level Two overall
coordination review of a package of construction documents in final form
performed just prior to their submission to Department and prior to release for
construction. It is a final check that the package is complete and ready for
construction. It is to verify that all documents have been checked according to the
Quality Control Procedures and that discipline sign-off sheets/ stamps have been
properly signed. A Final Package Review will be mandatory for all construction
packages and other deliverables (such as reports and studies requiring a Level One
check).
Documentation
Documentation for the Design QA/ QC process will consist of meeting minutes,
Level One Check prints, sign-off sheets, Peer review comments, and quarterly audit
reports. These documents will be stored in the Tampa Office in the central filing
area dedicated to the I-75 at SR 80 Interchange Reconstruction Project.
Design Criteria
Reviewers are required to have all of the latest editions of the following criteria
available for checking:
Technical Proposal Governing Regulations
All Disciplines
n Scope of Services
n Preliminary Engineering Report
n Environmental Determination (Form 508-01), Part 8, Commitments and
Recommendations
n Memorandum dated December 18, 2002 from Mark Schulz, District
Environmental Administrator for approved Design Authorization reevaluation
n FDOT Plans Preparation Manual, 2004
n FDOT Roadway and Traffic Design Standards, 2004 (CD), including interim
Indexes
n CADD Manual (No. 625-050-001)
n CADD Production Criteria Handbook
n FDOT 2002 Engineering / CADD Systems Software (C)
n Florida Department of Transportation Basis of Estimates Manual
n FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, 2004
n Basis of Estimates Handbook

Quality Control-25
Roadway Discipline
n Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, AASHTO
n FDOT Project Development and Environment Manual
n Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards for Design, Construction, and
Maintenance For Streets and Highways
n FDOT Access Management Standards Rule 14-97
n FDOT Bicycle Facilities Planning and Design Manual, Rev. Edition 1982
n Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)
n Elder Road User Policy
n FDOT Flexible Pavement Design Manual, 2002
n Pavement Type Selection Manual, 2002
n Floridas Level of Service Standards and Guidelines Manual for Planning
n (No. 525-000-005)
n Equivalent Single Axle Load Guidelines (No. 525-030-121)
n Design Traffic Procedure (525-030-121)
n K-Factor Estimation Process
n Project Traffic Forecasting Guidelines
n District One Utility Coordination Manual
n FDOT Handbook for the Preparation of Specifications Packages, 2004
n Guidelines for the Use of Florida Highway Patrol
n Memorandums for District One Practice
n Added Requirements in plans when using Gravity Wall
n District One Sod Policy
n Design/ Construction Plan Notes for Indigo Snake
n Memo regarding elimination of plan notes that restate information included in
the Standard Specifications and Standard Design Indices.
n Design Guidelines for Maintenance of Traffic, 09/ 16/ 03
Survey Discipline
n FDOT Right-of-Way Mapping Handbook
n FDOT Right-of-Way Mapping CADD Handbook
n FDOT Location Survey Manual
n FDOT EFB User Guide (Electronic Field Book), 1996
n FHWA Subsurface Utility Engineering Manual (Nos. 550-030-001 and 550-030-
004)
n Florida Department of Environmental Protection rules governing Mean high
Water and Jurisdictional Line Surveys
n Outline Specifications Aerial Surveys/ Photogrammetry

Quality Control-26
Drainage Discipline
n FDOT Drainage Manual, 2003
n FDOT Drainage Handbook Temporary Drainage Design, October 2001
n Drainage Connection Permit Handbook, 1987
n Drainage Handbook: Cross Drain, 1996
n Drainage Handbook: Erosion and Sediment Control
n Drainage Handbook: Hydrology, 2000
n Drainage Handbook: Optional Pipe Materials, 1999
n Drainage Handbook: Storm Drains, 2000
n Drainage Handbook: Stormwater Management Facilities, 1999
n Drainage Handbook: Temporary Drainage Design
n Chapter 373, Part IV, Management and Storage of Surface Waters, Florida
Statues, Rules of the South Florida Water Management District (Chapters 40E-4,
40E-40, and 40E-400, FAC
n Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899,
n Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
n US Coast Guard Bridge Permit Application Guide (Commandant Publication
P16591.3)
Structures Discipline
n FDOT LRFD Structures Design Guidelines
n AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design (1998) Specifications with Supplements
n FDOT Structures Detailing Manual
n AASHTO Standard Specification for Structural Supports for Highway Signs,
Luminaries and Traffic Signals
n Florida Department of Transportation Structures CADD Manual
n Bridge Load Rating, Permitting and Posting Manual
n Soils and Foundation Manual
Lighting Discipline
n FDOT Design Standards
Signing and Pavement Marking Discipline
n FDOT Design Standards
Landscape Discipline
n State Highway Landscape, Beautification and Plans Review Procedure
n (No. 650-050-001-c), Approved July 20, 1995
n Florida Highway Landscape Guide, 1995

Quality Control-27
Design Quality Control During Construction
Naturally, all QC measures followed during the design phase will be followed in the
shop drawing review and plans revisions. Requests for information (RFIs) will be
answered by responsible discipline leaders and have concurrence by the post design
project manager.
Staff Training
Jacobs Civil is committed to insuring that only qualified staff perform all work
activities on our Clients projects, especially those elements of a project that require
mandated training such as preparation of Traffic Control Plans and preparation of
FDOT Specifications Packages. FDOT is a progressive Client with continuous
improvements in the way technology is utilized. The staff at Jacobs Civil will
continue to be trained in all areas necessary to meet or exceed the FDOTs
expectations for project delivery. Verification and status of staff training will be
required for this project. Certifications for special FDOT training are included in
Appendix A.
3 3. .0 0 E El le ec ct tr ro on ni ic c D De el li iv ve er ry y Q QA A/ / Q QC C P Pr ro og gr ra am m
Key Features
Regional CADD Standards Committee of proactive leaders sets criteria.
Project CADD Leader reviews CADD Journals weekly and prior to submittals.
Jacobs Common Plotting Solution ensures only verified symbology and project
resources are available for use.
Project CADD Leader back checks finished plots for symbology compliance.
Project CADD Leader checks Project Directory weekly. Project Technology
Coordinator verifies accuracy prior to each submittal.
Project Technology Coordinator assists Project Engineers in creating Electronic
Signatory and assures compliance with FDOT criteria.
Authentication of Project Deliverables performed by the Project Manager and
verified by the Project Technology Coordinator.
Compliance Certificate created by the Engineer(s) of Record and checked by the
Project Manager.
Authentication of the Project Deliverable CD is performed by the Project Manager
and verified by the Project Technology Coordinator.
3.1 QA/ QC Procedures
Project Procedures
Jacobs plans production quality begins with publishing a Project Procedures
Manual outlining the exact standards that will be met by the design team. This
manual is produced by the Project Technology Coordinator with input from the
Regional CADD Standards Committee and is reviewed and approved by the Project

Quality Control-28
Manager. The Regional CADD Standards Committee is comprised of practice
leaders in each discipline throughout the state and ensures that our production
methods adhere in every way to the guidelines contained in the FDOT CADD
Manual, the FDOT CADD Production Criteria Handbook and the Plans Preparation
Manual as well as other FDOT criteria.
Standard Project Directory Structure
In order to ensure complete compliance with FDOT guidelines, the project must be
created using the standard project directory structure. Typically, the District will
create a SEED Project Directory, authenticate it and deliver it to Jacobs Civil, Inc. In
the event the District does not provide a SEED Project Directory, Jacobs will create
one in accordance with the FDOT CADD Production Criteria Handbook and this
will be submitted to the District for review and approval.
Electronic Journal and Index
Journaling and Indexing shall be accomplished using the tools provided by the
FDOT. Each CADD Technician will be responsible for journal entries as key design
decisions are made. The Project CADD Leader will review the CADD Journals
weekly and prior to submittals.
Content and Format
The Regional CADD Standards Committee verifies all symbology and project
resources for each project. These files are then implemented on the project storage
area for each office as necessary. The Jacobs common plotting solution ensures that
only these verified resources are available to each project. The Project CADD
Leader is responsible for back checking the finished plots for symbology
compliance.
Organization of Data
In order to comply with all the requirements of the District, each electronic file must
be contained within the correct directory. It is the responsibility of the Project
CADD Leader to check this throughout the life of the project. Prior to each
submittal, the Project Technology Coordinator will also verify that the data is
organized properly.
Signing and Sealing
Each electronic file being submitted will be signed and sealed by the appropriate
engineer(s). In the case of multiple engineers signing a single sheet, the qualifiers
will be documented as necessary. The Project Technology Coordinator will assist
each engineer with creating a signatory to ensure that the information provided is
consistent and complies with FDOT criteria.
Packaging and Delivery
Authentication of project deliverables will be performed by the Project Manager and
verified by the Project Technology Coordinator. A signed Compliance Certificate
will then be created by the Engineer of Record for each discipline and checked by
the Project Manager. Authentication of the project deliverable CD is performed by
the Project Manager and verified by the Project Technology Coordinator.

Quality Control-29
3.2 QA/ QC Personnel
Project Manager, Ron Glass, PE
Mr. Glass is currently the PM and/ or EOR for two Electronic Delivery Projects. Mr.
Glass has had the FDOT Electronic Delivery Training.
Project Technology Coordinator, Timothy Lyvers
Tim has completed the FDOT Electronic Delivery Training and is the PTC on all
Jacobs Civil FDOT projects.
Project CADD Leader, Scott Dixon
In addition to being the Project CADD Leader on numerous FDOT Electronic
Delivery Projects, he is also chairperson of the FDOT District Seven Graphic Users
Group. Scott has had Electronic Delivery Training.

No. Component Originator
Level 1
Review
Level 2 or
FPR Review
Level 3 or
FPR Review Comment
1 Design Survey Phase A
AIM Engineering &
Surveying 2B
Compare to raster image and spot check in field to
verify all survey complete. Verify electronic survey
files meet FDOT standards.
2 Design Survey Phase B
AIM Engineering &
Surveying 2B
Compare to raster image and spot check in field to
verify all survey complete. Verify electronic survey
files meet FDOT standards.
3 Jurisdictional Survey
AIM Engineering &
Surveying 2B
Spot check against wetland flag map developed in
field to evaluate all flagged points are shown in
survey. Verify electronic files meet FDOT CADD
standards.
4 Level B Utility Survey
AIM Engineering &
Surveying 2B Verify electronic files meet FDOT CADD standards.
5 Geotechnical Boring Survey
AIM Engineering &
6 Pond Site Survey
AIM Engineering &
Surveying 2B
Perform field review to compare elevations in field to
check for reasonableness. Verify electronic files meet
FDOT CADD standards.
7 R/W Survey
AIM Engineering &
8 SUE Survey
AIM Engineering &
9 30% R/W Map
AIM Engineering &
10 90% R/W Map
AIM Engineering &
11 100% R/W Map
AIM Engineering &
Surveying 2B
Verify electronic files meet FDOT CADD standards.
Compare to plans to verify lastest R/W shown
properly in plans.
Sur vey
Ri ght -of -Way Mappi ng
I-75 at SR 80 Interchange Reconstruction Project
FPID 411042 1 32 01
Lee County
ATTACHMENT A
DESIGN QUALITY CONTROL MATRIX
A-1
Level 1
Review
Level 2 or
FPR Review
Level 3 or
FPR Review Comment
FPID 411042 1 32 01
Lee County
ATTACHMENT A
12 Structures Design Criteria Jacobs 1A
13
Phase I Structures Geotech Report
Package A Universal 2B
Check report to verify that all geotechnical information
required for BDR/30% structures design is included in
report before acceptance. Verify that subs QC
documentation was provided along with report.
14
Phase I Structures Geotech Report
Package B Universal 2B
required for BDR/ 30% structures design is included in
15
Phase II Structures Geotech Report
Packages A & B Universal 2B
required for 60% structures design is included in
16
Preliminary OH Sign and Signal Pole
Geotech Report Universal 2B
required for structures design is included in report
before acceptance. Verify that subs QC
17
Final Structures Geotech Report
Packages A & B Universal 2B
required for structures design is included in report
documentation was provided along with report. Verify
Final Report is signed and sealed by EOR.
18 BDR/ 30% Bridge Plans Package A Jacobs 1A
19 BDR/ 30% Bridge Plans Package B Jacobs 1A
20 60% Structures Plans Package A Jacobs 1A
21 60% Structures Plans Package B Jacobs 1A
22 90% Structures Plans Package A & B Jacobs 1A
St r uc t ur es
A-2
Level 1
Review
Level 2 or
FPR Review
Level 3 or
FPR Review Comment
FPID 411042 1 32 01
Lee County
ATTACHMENT A
23 100% Structures Plans Package A&B Jacobs 1A
24
Phase III Structural Design OH
Cantilever Sign Jacobs 1A
25
Phase IV Structural Design OH
Cantilever Sign Jacobs 1A
26
Phase III Structural Design Mast Arm
Signal Pole Design Jacobs 1A
27
Phase IV Structural Design Mast Arm
Signal Pole Design Jacobs 1A
28 Prel Sound Barrier Control Drawings Jacobs 1A
29
Complete Sound Barrier Control
Drawings Jacobs 1A
30 Roadway Design Criteria Jacobs 1A
31 Drainage Design Criteria Jacobs 1A
32 Preliminary Typical Section Package Jacobs 1A
33 Final Typical Section Package Jacobs 1A
34 Base Clearance Water Elevation Jacobs 1C
35
Design Variations/Exceptions
Document Jacobs 1C
36 Updated Public Involvement Plan Jacobs 1C
37 Noise Wall Analysis
Environmental
Sciences 2B
Resonableness check to verify the approach that was
defined in the scope of services is being met.
38 Prel Pavement Design Package Jacobs 1B
39
Phase I Roadway Design/ Plans/
Documentation Jacobs 1A
40 Phase I TCP Plans Jacobs 1A
41 Seasonal High Water Data Universal 2B
Check data to verify that all SHW information required
for 15% line and grade design is included in letter
before acceptance.
Phase 1
A-3
Level 1
Review
Level 2 or
FPR Review
Level 3 or
FPR Review Comment
FPID 411042 1 32 01
Lee County
ATTACHMENT A
42 Stage I Pavement Evaluation Report Universal 2B
required for preliminary pavement design is included
in report before acceptance.
43 Stage II Pavement Evaluation Report Universal 2B
required for final pavement design is included in report
44 Prel Roadway Geotech Report Universal 2B
required for Phase I roadway design is included in
45 Prel Pond Geotechnical Report Universal 2B
required for pond designs is included in report before
acceptance. Verify that subs QC documentation was
provided along with report.
46 Contamination Report Universal 2B
Check report to verify that all contamination testing
information required for pond design site evaluations
is included in report before acceptance. Verify that
subs QC documentation was provided along with
report.
47 Draft Cultural Resources Report
Archaeological
Consultants 2B
Check report to verify that scope requirements have
been met. Verify that subs QC documentation was
48 Final Cultural Resources Report
Archaeological
Consultants 2B
Check report to verify that scope requirements have
been met. Verify that subs QC documentation was
49 Updated Pond Siting Analysis Report Jacobs 1A
50 Finalized Pond Siting Analysis Report Jacobs 1A
51
Prel Phase I Drainage Analysis/
Drainage Map Jacobs 1A
52 Prel Phase I SWPPP Jacobs 1A
53 Phase I Roadway Peer Review Jacobs 2A
54 Phase I Drainage Peer Review Jacobs 2A
A-4
Level 1
Review
Level 2 or
FPR Review
Level 3 or
FPR Review Comment
FPID 411042 1 32 01
Lee County
ATTACHMENT A
55
Phase I Plans Package Ready for
Submittal Jacobs 1C 3A
Check plans assembly for missing sheets, numbering
of each sheet, and plan sets from printer for
orientation of sheets and complete copies.
56
Resolution to FDOT Phase I Review
Comments Team 1C
57 Document Coordination Review Team 2B
Document Coordination Review with Jacobs and Subs
Representatives prior to start of Phase II
58 Final Pavement Design Package Jacobs 1B
59 Phase II Roadway Peer Review Jacobs 2B To be scheduled toward end of Phase II.
60
Phase II Roadway Design/ Plans/
61
Phase II Traffic Control Design/ Plans/
62 Preliminary Utility Adjustment Plans Jacobs 1A
63
Phase II Drainage Analysis/ Plans/
64
Phase II S&PM Design/ Plans/
65 Phase II Traffic Signal Plans Review Faller Davis 2B
Spot check of details and plans to ensure consistency
with roadway parts and there are not any conflicts with
Jacobs and subs design.
66 Phase II Summary of Pay Items Jacobs 1C
67 Phase II SWPPP Jacobs 1C
68 Alternative Mitigation Plans Scheda 2B
69 Complete Mitigation Plans Scheda 2B
70 ERP Permit Application Jacobs 1C
71 Preliminary NPDES Permit Application Jacobs 1C
72
Final Roadway and Pond Geotechnical
Report Universal 2B
required for Phase II roadway and pond design is
included in report before acceptance. Verify that subs
QC documentation was provided along with report.
Verify report is signed and sealed by EOR.
73
Phase II Plans Package Ready for
of each sheet, and plan sets from from printer for
Phase I I
A-5
Level 1
Review
Level 2 or
FPR Review
Level 3 or
FPR Review Comment
FPID 411042 1 32 01
Lee County
ATTACHMENT A
74
Resolution to FDOT Phase II Review
Comments Team 1C
Representatives prior to start of Phase III
76 Phase III Coordination Review Team 2B To be scheduled toward end of Phase III
77 Phase III Constructability Review Jacobs 2B To be scheduled toward end of Phase III
78
Phase III Roadway Design/ Plans/
79
Phase III Traffic Control Design/ Plans/
80 Phase III Utility Adjustment Plans Jacobs 1A
81
Phase III Drainage Design/ Plans/
82
Phase III S&PM Design/ Plans/
83 Phase III Traffic Signal Plans Review Faller Davis 2B
84 Completed NPDES Permit Application Jacobs 1C
85 Phase III Complete SWPPP Jacobs 1C
86 Computation Book (Complete) Jacobs 1C
87 Phase III Summary of Pay Items Jacobs 1A
88 Proposed Technical Special Provisions Jacobs 1A
89
Phase III Plans Package Ready for
90
Resolution to FDOT Phase III Review
Comments Team 1C
Representatives prior to start of Phase II
92
Phase IV Roadway Design/ Plans/
93
Phase IV Traffic Control Design/
Plans/ Documentation Jacobs 1A
Phase I I I
Phase I V
A-6
Level 1
Review
Level 2 or
FPR Review
Level 3 or
FPR Review Comment
FPID 411042 1 32 01
Lee County
ATTACHMENT A
94 Phase IV Utility Adjustment Plans Jacobs 1A
95 Utility Conflict Matrix Jacobs 1C
96
Phase IV Drainage Design/Plans/
97 SWPPP (Complete) Jacobs 1C
98
Phase IV S&PM Design/ Plans/
Documentation Jacobs 2B
99 Phase IV Traffic Signal Plans Review Faller Davis 2B
100 Phase IV Summary of Pay Items Jacobs 1A
101 Computation Book (Complete) Jacobs 1C
102
Phase IV Plans Package Ready for
103
Resolution to FDOT Phase IV Review
Comments Team 1C
104 Initial Specifications Package Jacobs 1C
105 Final Plans for Mailing Jacobs 1C
106 Complete Specifications Package Jacobs 1C
Pr oj ec t Compl et i on
A-7
APPROVED QC REVI EWERS
Structures Roadway Drainage
David Panlilio, PE, Jacobs Civil Inc. Bill Little, PE, Jacobs Civil Inc. Richard Bobletz, PE Jacobs Civil Inc.
John Hartland, PE, Jacobs Civil Inc. Brian Flynn, PE, Jacobs Civil Inc. Meiying Gu, PE, Jacobs Civil Inc.
Rudy Pein, PE, Jacobs Civil Inc. Paul Hiers, PE, Jacobs Civil Inc.
Gautam Ghosh, PE, Jacobs Civil Inc. Anniruddha Gotmare, PE, Jacobs Civil Inc.
Don Hammond, PE, Jacobs Civil Inc.
LEVEL 2 REVI EWS
No. Component
Level of
Review
Date of
Review
Review
Leader
1 Design Survey Phase A 2B
2 Design Survey Phase B 2B
3 Jurisdictional Survey 2B
4 Level B Utility Survey 2B
5 Geotechnical Boring Survey 2B
6 Pond Site Survey 2B
7 R/W Survey 2B
8 SUE Survey 2B
9 30% R/W Map 2B
10 90% R/W Map 2B
11 100% R/W Map 2B
12 Phase I Structures Geotech Report Package A 2B
13 Phase I Structures Geotech Report Package B 2B
14 Phase II Structures Geotech Report Packages A & B 2B
15 Preliminary OH Sign and Signal Pole Geotech Report 2B
16 Final Structures Geotech Report Packages A & B 2B
17 Noise Wall Analysis 2B
18 Letter for Scour Considerations 2B
19 Seasonal High Water Data 2B
20 Stage I Pavement Evaluation Report 2B
21 Stage II Pavement Evaluation Report 2B
22 Prel Roadway Geotech Report 2B
23 Prel Pond Geotechnical Report 2B
24 Contamination Report 2B
25 Draft Cultural Resources Report 2B
26 Final Cultural Resources Report 2B
27 Phase I Roadway Peer Review 2A
28 Phase I Drainage Peer Review 2A
29 Phase II Document Coordination Review 2C
30 Phase II Traffic Signal Plans Review 2B
31 Alternative Mitigation Plans 2B
32 Complete Mitigation Plans 2B
33 Final Roadway and Pond Geotechnical Report 2B
34 Phase II Roadway Peer Review 2A
35 Phase III Document Coordination Review
36 Phase III Traffic Signal Plans Review
37 Phase IV Traffic Signal Plans Review
Review Team Members
ATTACHMENT B
QUALITY CONTROL REVIEW LOG
FPID 411042 1 32 01
Lee County
APPROVED QC REVI EWERS
Structures Roadway Drainage
David Panlilio, PE, Jacobs Civil Inc. Bill Little, PE, Jacobs Civil Inc. Richard Bobletz, PE Jacobs Civil Inc.
John Hartland, PE, Jacobs Civil Inc. Brian Flynn, PE, Jacobs Civil Inc. Meiying Gu, PE, Jacobs Civil Inc.
Rudy Pein, PE, Jacobs Civil Inc. Paul Hiers, PE, Jacobs Civil Inc.
Gautam Ghosh, PE, Jacobs Civil Inc. Anniruddha Gotmare, PE, Jacobs Civil Inc.
Don Hammond, PE, Jacobs Civil Inc.
LEVEL 2 REVI EWS
No. Component
Level of
Review
Date of
Review
Review
Leader
1 Design Survey Phase A 2B
2 Design Survey Phase B 2B
3 Jurisdictional Survey 2B
4 Level B Utility Survey 2B
5 Geotechnical Boring Survey 2B
6 Pond Site Survey 2B
7 R/W Survey 2B
8 SUE Survey 2B
9 30% R/W Map 2B
10 90% R/W Map 2B
11 100% R/W Map 2B
12 Phase I Structures Geotech Report Package A 2B
13 Phase I Structures Geotech Report Package B 2B
14 Phase II Structures Geotech Report Packages A & B 2B
15 Preliminary OH Sign and Signal Pole Geotech Report 2B
16 Final Structures Geotech Report Packages A & B 2B
17 Noise Wall Analysis 2B
18 Letter for Scour Considerations 2B
19 Seasonal High Water Data 2B
20 Stage I Pavement Evaluation Report 2B
21 Stage II Pavement Evaluation Report 2B
22 Prel Roadway Geotech Report 2B
23 Prel Pond Geotechnical Report 2B
24 Contamination Report 2B
25 Draft Cultural Resources Report 2B
26 Final Cultural Resources Report 2B
27 Phase I Roadway Peer Review 2A
28 Phase I Drainage Peer Review 2A
29 Phase II Document Coordination Review 2C
30 Phase II Traffic Signal Plans Review 2B
31 Alternative Mitigation Plans 2B
32 Complete Mitigation Plans 2B
33 Final Roadway and Pond Geotechnical Report 2B
34 Phase II Roadway Peer Review 2A
35 Phase III Document Coordination Review
36 Phase III Traffic Signal Plans Review
37 Phase IV Traffic Signal Plans Review
Review Team Members
ATTACHMENT B
QUALITY CONTROL REVIEW LOG
FPID 411042 1 32 01
Lee County

Section 5 Quality Control

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Section 5 Quality Control

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Quality Control-1

Potrebbero piacerti anche