TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA · 2019-10-03 · TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA October 8, 2019 – Meeting 10:00 am – 2pm EST Embassy Suites Lake Buena Vista

TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA October 8, 2019 – Registration 9 to 10am Meeting 10:00 am – 2pm EST Embassy Suites Lake Buena Vista South – Meeting Room: Palms E, F, G 4955 Kyngs Heath Rd. Kissimmee, FL 34746 1) Call to Order

a. Safety Briefing b. Pledge of Allegiance c. Attendance Roster ~ Please check in at ACEC Registration Desk

2) Approval of Minutes from July 2019 meeting (Exhibit 1) 3) Chair Welcome – Doug Geiger

a. Expanded introductions by members b. Meeting with US Congressman Ross Spano

4) Executive Director Report - Allen Douglas

5) Subcommittee Reports

a. Liaison Committee – Doug • District Liaisons (Exhibit 2) • Populate Liaison Rosters – each meeting • Next Liaison Committee mtg. - 12/5/19

b. Production Subcommittee – Paul Foley

• Structures Subcommittee • Task Teams

(a) Consultant Grading (b) Design positions (c) 3D plans

c. DBE/SBE Subcommittee - Aniruddha (Rudy) Gotmare

d. CEI Subcommittee – Jennifer Olson (Exhibit 3)

e. Alternative Contracting Task Force / ACEC-FL FTBA Subc. - Robert Carballo (Exhibit 4)

f. Specification Review Subcommittee – David O’Hagan • Discussion on future direction

g. PD&E / Planning Subcommittee – Silvia Beltre (Exhibit 5)

h. Expressway Subcommittee – Joe Gomez (Exhibit 6)

TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA October 8, 2019 – Meeting 10:00 am – 2pm EST Embassy Suites Lake Buena Vista South Page 2 of 2

6) Relations Committee Items – Doug Geiger

a. CITS access b. Turnpike Cancelling Projects c. Procurement Ad’s change d. ACEC-FDOT Transportation Conf: May 2020 e. Materials testing rates

7) Procurement Related Items – Doug Geiger

a. Procurement Development Application (PDA) new (Exhibit 7) b. Lump Sum CEI Pilot (Exhibit 8) c. M-Core d. Discussion of Interviews e. Exceptions

8) Check-in Items – Doug Geiger

a. Cap on Salaries b. Escalation in Contracts c. Identify negative inconsistencies for execution of work or selection

9) FDOT Regional Meetings – Doug Geiger

a. District 2, 3 and CO – Dec 5, 2019 10) Next Transportation Committee Meetings –

January 14 – Hyatt International Airport – Room Block $297+tax

April 7 – Le Meridien Dania Beach at Ft. Lauderdale Airport – Room Block $199+tax

July 7 – Holiday Inn Tampa Westshore – Room Block $139+tax

11) Adjournment

https://www.hyatt.com/en-US/group-booking/ORLAN/G-AF02https://www.marriott.com/event-reservations/reservation-link.mi?id=1568316546763&key=GRP&app=resvlink

Exhibit 1

TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES July 9, 2019

Meeting Packet

The July 9, 2019 meeting of the ACEC-FL Transportation Committee was called to order by Doug Geiger, PE at 10:04 am. Participating: Michael Adams RK&K Forest Adkins NV5, Inc Xavier Arroyo CORE Engineering Group, LLC Nicole Beasley RS&H Angelo Belluccia ICON Consultant Group Inc. Nick Benedico Tetra Tech Angela Bernace Pevida Highway Designers, LLC Steven Blount H.W. Lochner Inc. Ricky Branton Mott MacDonald Florida LLC Rich Butala Pennoni Tony Caggiano CHW Jay Calhoun VIBE Michael Campo Kisinger Campo & Associates Corp. Thomas Capell KCI Technologies, Inc. Tabatha Carlton Pond & Company David Coleman Inwood Consulting Engineers Inc. Derek Dean Ghyabi Consulting and Management Don DeBerry Pennoni Paul DiGiacobbe Maser Consulting P.A. Joseph DiStefano Tierra, Inc. Michael Dixon RS&H, Inc. Bill Downey RS&H, Inc. Harold Dubon Carnahan, Proctor and Cross Inc. Mark Dunn Patel, Greene & Associates, PLLC Greg Dutton Carnahan, Proctor and Cross Michael Ehrhart Maser Consulting P.A. Benjamin Faust DRMP Steve Ferrell HDR Engineering Inc. Paul Foley Kisinger Campo & Associates Corp. Ryan Forrestel American Consulting Engineers of FL Matthew Frantz TY Lin International Douglas Geiger RS&H, Inc Derek Gil ELEMENT Engineering Group LLC Jose (Joe) Gomez Terracon Consultants, Inc. Gayle Grady American Consulting Professionals David Griswold Griswold SAM Surveying and Mapping, LLC John Grow TranSystems Corporation Amy Guisinger Arehna Engineering, Inc.

https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.fleng.org/resource/resmgr/hobbs/070919_TC_Meetingpacket.pdf

Exhibit 1 Kyle Harper EXP U.S. Services Inc. Nick Harrison American Structurepoint Inc. Richard Harrison Kisinger Campo & Associates Corp. Kenneth Hartmann HNTB Corporation Trevor Hawkins Patel, Greene & Associates, PLLC Frank Hickson Infrastructure Engineers Inc. David Hoover Mott MacDonald Jim Horton Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. Sherri Jent SAM Surveying and Mapping, LLC Andrea Jernigan-Gwinn Civil/Site Engineering Inc. Colin Jewsbury Ardaman & Associates Inc. John Kimberly Terracon Consultants, Inc. Tori Kuba ESA Susan Lake RS&H, Inc Joseph Lauk Patel, Greene and Associates, PLLC Andre Lauzier HDR Engineering Inc. Erik Leschak American Consulting Engineers of FL Satya Lory Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. Chris Lory HNTB Corporation Jason Lyle RK&K Philip Mank Meskel & Associates Engineering PLLC George Martin Kisinger Campo & Associates Corp. Stephen McGucken Kisinger Campo & Associates Corp. Brian McKee Hanson Professional Services Inc. Jessica McRory AREHNA Engineering Inc. Steven McWilliams Atkins Lindsey Melendez AIM Engineering & Surveying, Inc. Mark Micikas Atkins Sean Moore Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. Mehrdad Moshiri Tetra Tech Yassi Myers TLP Engineering Consultants Inc. Jay Nagle HDR Engineering, Inc Jayson Nault Tetra Tech Jeffrey Novotny American Consulting Engineers of FL Jennifer Olson CONSOR Engineers Paul Passe Madrid Engineering Group, Inc. Walfrido Pevida Pevida Highway Designers, LLC Chaitali Prajapati PI Consulting Services LLC Gustavo Quesada New Millennium Engineering Dawn Ratican AIM Engineering & Surveying Inc. Jack Richert Cardno Jessica Riva AIM Engineering & Surveying Inc. Drew Roark Roark Engineering Jeremy Runkle Cardno Nayan Saha Intertek-PSI John Saunders Omni Communications, LLC Hank Schneider Michael Baker International, Inc. Nina Sickler Pond & Company Jeffrey Siewert Ayres Associates Marc Silva HDR Engineering Inc. Michael Simmons TRC Engineers, Inc Doug Skurski ESA Sharpie Smith Smith Seckman Reid, Inc.

Exhibit 1 Gary Spicer Spicer Bridge Consultants Whitney Stevens Ardaman & Associates Inc. R. Tyler Strickland Gresham, Smith and Partners (GS&P) Manuel Then WGI Alex Urchuk Greenman-Pedersen Inc. Steven Wallace DRMP Keith Warren Page One Consultants, Inc. an NV5 Company Wayne Waters BCC Engineering Inc. Jay Winter Scalar Consulting Group Inc. Ken Wooten Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. Vay Zagardo AIM Engineering & Surveying Inc. Others – Samantha Hobbs, ACEC-FL Director of Government Affairs and Executive Policy There was a motion, it was seconded and carried unanimously to approve the April 9 minutes.

1) Chair Welcome – Doug Geiger

i) Expanded introductions by members was pushed to after lunch.

2) Subcommittee Reports

i) Liaison Committee – Nina Sickler • District Liaisons (Exhibit 5.1)

• District 1- See Exhibit • District 2

• Meetings on hold as there are changes in staff • Still continuing as the pilot program for PM training. The training will be 6

modules every fall. The steering committee will meet on the 2nd week of August • Regional meeting with District 3 is in Discussion

• District 3- no report • District 4

• 3D Design Training is desired from ACEC • Next meeting is in September • After a letter is submitted, they will not allow Subs to change without approval • Continuing to monitor staff availability when submitting letters, they are talking

to other districts to ensure staff is available for project • Continuing to look at a firms backlog when making decisions

• District 5- see exhibit • District 6

• Met on May 8th to catch up on Regional meeting • Continuing to monitor the availability issue on proposals • SBEs must retain their SBE status through execution of negotiations, if you think

you might lose it you have to tell your prime • Geotechnical is being negotiated at the 50% mark, working to get to the 75th • Looking to rotate 2 members out on the committee • Will start publishing the meeting minutes going forward

• District 7- see exhibit • FTE- see exhibit

• Next Liaison Committee mtg.

ii) Production Subcommittee – Paul Foley (Exhibit 5.2)

Exhibit 1 • Structures Subcommittee- see exhibit • Task Teams

(a) Consultant Grading- see exhibit (b) Design positions

• Rolled out in January, want to give a year before providing feedback • When someone is in the middle of two positions DOT allows firm to make decision • Department is requesting that Geotechnical/Materials positions be eliminated, GMEC was

given these and had no comments • New task team in Fall will start to go over ITS and non-PE PM positions

(c) 3D plans- see exhibit

iii) DBE/SBE Subcommittee - Aniruddha (Rudy) Gotmare • Right now, for SBE set asides you must be an SBE at time of execution of negotiations and contract

signing. • Straw poll showed ACEC was in favor of making it you must be an SBE at time of letter submittal

iv) CEI Subcommittee – Jennifer Olson (Exhibit 5.4) – See exhibit

v) Alternative Contracting Task Force / ACEC-FL FTBA Subcommittee - Robert Carballo – no report

vi) Specification Review Subcommittee – David O’Hagan (Exhibit 5.6) -see exhibit

vii) PD&E / Planning Subcommittee – Silvia Beltre (Exhibit 5.7)- see exhibit

viii) Expressway Subcommittee – Joe Gomez (Exhibit 5.8) -see exhibit

3) Relations Committee Items – Doug Geiger

i) 7/16/19 Meeting - upcoming • M-Core

• After the ad was announced they changed it to 1 ad vs. 3. This was done because they felt they would not get 3 letters for each ad if they did it separately. The 32 firms prequalified in 12.0 were polled to see if they had issues with the new ad. 6 firms responded- 2 were fine, 4 had issues. Carla set up conference call with ACEC and FDOT leadership. The next round of ads (PD&E) was not discussed.

• Materials testing rates • Drafted a position joint GMEC/ACEC letter about the rates to get FDOT to use the 75% rates

rather than 50% ii) Signing and Sealing- SFWMD told member firm that when they followed FDOT S&S policy for electronic

submittals they were not in conformance with the Florida Board of Professional Engineers. FDOT provided documentation that their procedure is in accordance with the rule and will not be changing it unless given direction by the Board. They have reached out to the Board, but have not heard anything back

4) Procurement Related Items – Doug Geiger

i) Discussion of Interviews • Some discussion on Aerials being too small, no action taken • PowerPoint slide cap was discussed, this is up to the district

ii) If you can’t find the list of firms by work type- google it. FDOT to be notified. iii) No Exceptions iv) Environmental firms would like to pursue requisitions for environmental data or permits but currently cannot

Exhibit 1 because they are listed as a 3.0 on the ad and they do not have an engineer on staff for the prequal. The work does not require an engineer.

5) Check-in Items – Doug Geiger

i) Cap on Salaries ii) Escalation in Contracts iii) Identify negative inconsistencies for execution of work or selection

6) FDOT Regional Meetings – Nina Sickler

7) Next Transportation Committee Meetings

October 8 – Embassy Suites – Lake Buena Vista SOUTH – Room Block $152+tax

January 14 – Hyatt International Airport – Room Block $296.55+tax

Adjournment at 1:13pm.

https://book.passkey.com/event/49863091/owner/10810031/homehttps://www.hyatt.com/en-US/group-booking/ORLAN/G-AF02

FDOT D-1 / ACEC-FL LIAISON MEETING MEETING NOTES

August 9, 2019 Attendees:

Name Affiliation Phone No. Attended L.K. Nandam, PE FDOT District One - Secretary 863-519-2201 Yes John Kubler, PE FDOT District One – Director of

Transportation Development 863-519-2311 Yes

Jon Sands, PE FDOT District One – Construction Engineer

863-519-2223 Yes

Elizabeth Leopold FDOT District One – Professional Services Contracts Supervisor

863-519-2901 Yes

Keith Slater, P.E. FDOT District One –Director of Transportation Operations

863-519-2202 Yes

Kevin Ingle, PE D-1 Project Management Engineer 863-519-2302 Yes Herb Potter, CCM Adaptive Consulting Engineers 863-258-6540 No Paul Foley, PE Kisinger Campo & Associates Corp. 813-554-1905 Yes Mark Owens, PE G-A-I Consultants 321-319-3121 Yes Sean Donahoo, PE AIM Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 813-627-4144 Yes Ken Muzyk, Jr, PE Faller Davis and Assoc., Inc. 813-261-5136 Yes David Coleman, PE Inwood Consulting Engineers, Inc. 407-971-8850 Yes

This was the sixteenth meeting with District One. The meeting started with thanking Paul Foley for leading the group for five years and this was his last meeting. We welcomed David Coleman from Inwood Consulting Engineers as the newest member. Discussion topics:

1. Last Meeting April 11 2. Discussion of District One having favorite consultant’s follow-up 3. District One Roundtable follow-up 4. ACEC / FDOT Outstanding projects award follow-up 5. New DB projects on the horizon follow-up 6. Streamline project delivery 7. Use of interns 8. Any additional projects for FY 20 work program

o Intention for I-75 corridor design? 9. Update CAP when Planned Projects are added? 10. Project Management training update 11. GEC contract advertisement delay? 12. Geotechnical equipment expense rates 13. BDI eligibility time frame 14. Audit package preparation and review 15. 3D training/ORC 16. MCores feedback 17. Use of Google Earth in interviews

2. Discussion of District One having favorite consultant’s follow-up

o Kevin and Jon both indicated they are receiving a good variety of LOR’s o They are receiving a better response for BDI’s for CEI work. Less letters in SW

Florida for CEI. Jon noted BDI firms know how to do CEI.

Exhibit 2

FDOT D-1 / ACEC-FL LIAISON SUMMARY NOTES August 9, 2019

Page 2 of 4

o They are receiving less response on BDI planning and traffic due to the number of BDI consultants in those work areas

3. District One Roundtable follow-up o Has become more prevalent, had three in the past week. o Kevin noted it is for newer firms or firms who have not done work in D1 for a while. o Kevin indicated to make it memorable, less scripted, more informal, and genuine o They want to get to know the consultants

4. ACEC / FDOT Outstanding projects award follow-up o This was a question raised by D1 in an earlier meeting. Could FDOT submit for

an Outstanding project award? o Paul noted that there were several awards this past May for internal FDOT

projects including the Outstanding Roadway project for SR-7 / NW 7th Ave from NW 8th St to NW 36th St by District Six in house design and the CEI for the Outstanding Environmental project for SR 30 (CC2C – Coastal Trail) Shared Use Path from SR 61 to Davisville Way by District Three.

5. New DB projects on the horizon follow-up Nothing new.

6. Streamline project delivery

o Continually exploring ideas to reduce the time to complete a project including procurement, design, and construction

o District One recently discussed reducing procurement from six to four months (pre-ad date to contract execution)

o Considering reducing the time from shortlist to interview/presentation. o Provided the streamline project delivery list from the state-wide liaison conference

call. o Discussed using a continuing services contract similar to D5 to bundle projects

together in one design contract.

7. Use of interns o Looking to promote engineering as a career o Exploring ways to employ summer interns o Having challenges due to the geographic location between Orlando and Tampa o Considering ways to contractually require it on contracts such as CEI and design

using a limiting amount for interns.

8. Any additional projects for FY 20 work program o No additional projects of note o I-75 PD&E re-evaluation projects will likely be some form of design-build and may

be traditional or managed lanes o I-4 is further out due to the lack of a traffic model


Page 3 of 4

9. Update CAP when Planned Projects are added?

Elizabeth indicated that the CAP is typically accurate and matches the planned projects list.

10. Project Management training update Paul is leading the ACEC effort for design-oriented project management training. The task team (nine members) has been compiled and the first meeting with Kevin and his staff to discuss the framework is scheduled for next week.

11. GEC contract advertisement delay LK indicated was delayed until February 2020 to complete the MCores selections and avoid firms from being selected for both MCores and GEC contracts.

12. Geotechnical equipment expense rates Paul indicated there was some concern about the new geotechnical equipment and expense rates. It appeared there were challenges with the way some of the rates were being averaged which has been resolved.

13. BDI eligibility time frame

o There was discussion about when a firm must be BDI eligible which currently is when the contract is executed

o There was some discussion about changing it to the ad date or some other date to avoid selection and then having to go to the second ranked firm, which has occurred

o ACEC also noted it raised the question to Central Office about tracking the percent of BDI contracts based on discipline – i.e. design

14. Audit package preparation and review o Brainstorming occurred on ways to reduce the effort to prepare and review audit

packages o Ideas included certifying staff classifications by firm rather than providing resumes o Could include a database for individual experience o Elizabeth and Kevin will submit ideas to Central Office for consideration

15. 3D training/ORC

o Taking a common sense on which projects to provide a 3D deliverable o Likely avoid the smaller, simpler projects to match the plans with contractor

experience o FDOT training upcoming. FDOT will certify instructors for ACEC to offer training.

16. MCores feedback

o Concerned about Work Program delivery during MCores o Impress upon consultants the effort and labor demand required


Page 4 of 4

o Possibly up to 20 PD&E’s in the District One segments o May consider reaching beyond Florida for consultants

17. Use of Google Earth in interviews

o There has been discussion of using Google Earth on a Department monitor during interviews instead of an aerial display board

o District did not see any technical issues as to why the use of Google Earth could be used

o District did not want consultants to stretch the boundaries such as using a KMZ file. o More to come

Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise / ACEC-FL Liaison Subcommittee July 2019 Report

Subcommittee Members:FICE Nick Benedico (chair), Tetra Tech Liz Bartell, Patel, Greene & Associates Marc Silva, HDR Jim Sumislaski, Kimley-Horn Bo Sanchez, Volkert

Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise Nicola Liquori, Executive Director Christina Colon, Director of Transportation Development Maria Connolly, Director of Transportation Operations Sheree Merting, Professional Services

I. Activities since July 2019

A. Subcommittee meeting was held on July 23rd at Turnpike Headquarters. Items discussed were:

1. CEI Items

• Adjustment of lane closures by contractor when traffic is light

• Decision-making authority of CEIs

• Use of drones for inspection

2. Quality Assurance Reviews (QARs)

FTE feels that QARs should be shared with consultants to provide “lessons learned” that could be

applied to future projects. FTE plans to post QARs on the FTE Design website.

3. Timeliness of Consultant Acquisition Plan

FTE prefers to use the CAP link on the FDOT website instead of the planned project list. They feel

the CAP site should be updated regularly.

4. Field data collection for preparation of LOR and shortlist presentations

Other districts have emphasized that the consultant LOR should not contain field measured

information (cross slopes, geo boring, drone photography) that were taken in the field and may

have unsafely placed the consultant team in the travel way. They discourage that and have said

it will be not seen as innovative approach. FTE emphasizes that data should not be collected for

project pursuits, unless it is for a design-build project. Any collection of field data requires a

“Notice of Work” request.

5. Precluding of Consultants

FTE’s determination of whether a firm is precluded from submitting an LOR on a project due to

conflicts of interest or involvement in other contracts is dependent on when the “Request for

Determination” is received. FTE suggests that the request be submitted during the teaming

process, before the project is posted on the planned advertisement list. The procedure takes a

minimum of two weeks and is directed by Central Office.

6. Implementation of 3D Design and Modeling

FTE will implement 3D design on new projects and not require migration of existing contracts. 3D

compliance checks will be reviewed using file checker at Phase II.

7. Staff-hour Estimation Forms

FTE is piloting a new staff-hour estimation form with District 5. The new application, called

NEXUS, is in beta testing and is intended to streamline the process and allow reporting of

averages by District?

II. Future Subcommittee Meetings:

1. October 18, 2019

2. January 21, 2020

Exhibit 3

ACEC-FL CEI Sub-Committee Report

October 8, 2019

1. Improving the relationship with FTBA Contractors

a. Developing ACEC-CEI liaison meetings with FTBA contractors b. Would like a mixture of CEI managers and field personnel (SPE and PAs)

i. Want field personnel volunteers ii. Will supply names to FTBA for agreement (6-7 names for them to choose 4)

c. Purpose is to discuss industry issues and concerns with contractors and improve the partnering relationships between the ACEC-CEI and Contractors.

d. FTBA-CEI Liaison members communicate with the CEI members on the FDOT District Liaison members

e. District 1 has had contractor engagement meetings outside of the project (Rick Ward) f. District 6- think that there is a benefit (they did something informal with some contractors

and CEI)

2. Lump Sum CEI contracts LS CEIs how is that going to account for weather and holidays? It is in the scope (sort of)

3. CTQP Website, advertisements

FDOT CTQP website is down, use the MAC portal to get CTQP reports.

4. South Florida Construction Career Days- October 22 & 23 a. Sponsors and volunteers needed! b. https://ccdfl.org/south-florida/

5. Old Business

a. 75th % Quartile- i. Was there a FHWA pilot for the Brooks Act? How long was the pilot? 5 years?

1. Gus Quesada requested information from ACEC when this was originally enacted and to find out if this was approved by FHWA as a pilot project or if it was permanently approved

ii. 75th% Quartile shows lower than the median average (noted it on the AFP submittal)

6. Open Discussion a. Firms want to be able to promote staff on a project (not increasing budget or positions

though). District 1 in negotiations said that this cannot be done. b. Scope revisions – Jennifer to contact Dan Hurtado

https://ccdfl.org/south-florida/

Exhibit 3

7. Upcoming 2019/2020 ACEC CEI Sub-Committee Meeting Dates

Transportation Committee Meeting Date

CEI Sub-Committee Meeting immediately following

Location Proposed CEI Sub-Committee Teleconference Date

At 4 pm

October 8, 2019 Kissimmee September 18, 2019

January 14, 2020 Orlando January 6, 2020

April 7, 2020 Ft. Lauderdale, FL

March 25, 2020

July 7, 2020 Tampa, FL June 24, 2020

Alternative Contracting Task Team Committee Report – October 8, 2019 Page 1

Alternative Contracting Task Team Committee Report Date: October 8, 2019 Prepared by: Robert Carballo (Stantec), ACEC Chair ([email protected]) Telephone Number (305) 445-2900 Ext. 2227 Alternative Contracting Opportunities in Transportation: We continue to see opportunities for our ACEC member firms to participate in Alternative Contracting projects throughout Florida. FDOT Published an updated summary of Future project opportunities located at the website below: http://www.fdot.gov/procurement/pdf/DesignBuildAcquisitionPlan.pdf FDOT Design Build Request for Proposal (RFP) Boiler Plate: On September 16, 2019 FDOT posted revisions to the Request for Proposal (RFP) Boiler plate (Version 2020-01c. These revisions along with additional potential revisions were discussed at the March 14, 2019 ACTT Meeting (See April 2019 ACTT Report). The September 16, 2019 revisions can be seen on-line at the following Website Link below: http://www.fdot.gov/construction/designbuild/DBDocuments/DBDocsMain.shtm

1. Attachments: Incorporation of the following under Project Advertisement – Division I Design Build Specifications:

a. Award and Execution of Contract – Public Records (SP0030900DX) (Note to developer of the RFP: Refer to the Note above for instructions related to this document) Legal Requirements and Responsibilities to the Public – E-Verify (SP0072900) (Note to developer of the RFP: Refer to the Note above for instructions related to this document)

b. Legal Requirements and Responsibilities to the Public – Scrutinized Companies (SP0073000) (Note to developer of the RFP: Refer to the Note above for instructions related to this document)

c. Contaminated Material - Mercury-Containing Devices and Lamps (SP0080409) (Note to developer of the RFP: Refer to the Note above for instructions related to this document)

2. Description of Work – Clarified that when the project scope requires a Landscape Opportunity Plan that “Tree and palm protection shall comply with FDOT Standard Plans for Road and Bridge Construction (Standard Plans), Index 110-100”.

3. Section II – Schedule of Events – Clarification of certain schedule items as follows: a. Clarified Notes to Developer of the RFP providing additional guidance and clarifications

on schedule items as it related to Factored Design Build Projects. 4. Section V Project Requirements and Provisions for Work; Sub-Section B

a. Subsection B - 3. Submittal of ATC Proposals i. Description: A description and conceptual drawings of the configuration of the ATC

or other appropriate descriptive information, including, if appropriate, product details and a traffic operational analysis as applicable;

b. Subsection B - 4. Review and Approval of ATC Submittals i. Approved Design Exceptions required as part of an approved ATC submittal will result

in the issuance of an addendum to the RFP notifying all Shortlisted Design-Build Firms of the approved Design Exception(s). Such a change will be approved by FHWA, as applicable.

Exhibit 4

mailto:[email protected]://www.fdot.gov/procurement/pdf/DesignBuildAcquisitionPlan.pdfhttp://www.fdot.gov/construction/designbuild/DBDocuments/DBDocsMain.shtm


c. Subsection I – 1. Component Submittals i. In accordance with the FDOT Design Manual, components of the contract plans set

are roadway, signing and pavement marking, signalization, ITS, lighting, landscape, architectural, structural, and toll facilities. The Department will designate in the review comments if the next submittal will be a resubmittal of the 90% phase submittal or if the plans and supporting calculations are significantly developed to proceed to the Final Submittal. Note to Developer of RFP: Include this language if there are toll gantries. “Refer to the GTR (Attachment XXX) for Tolls subcomponent submittal requirements.” This may not be the only requirement. The toll site location can be changed through the ATC process.

ii. Clarification of requirements as it relates to Category 1 and 2 bridge submittals. The following is required: • Plan sheets for the component under review developed to the specified level of

detail (i.e. 90% plans, Final plans, etc.) as outlined in the FDM. • A complete set of the most developed plan sheets for all other major elements of

the bridge. These sheets shall be marked “For Information Only” on the index sheet. In no case shall a plan sheet be less than 30% complete.

• Design documentation including a complete set of calculations, geotechnical reports, pertinent correspondence, etc. in support of the 90% and final component submittals.

d. Subsection I – 2. Phase Submittals i. Submit for Department’s review and approval the Independent Peer Review Firm’s

comments, design verifications calculations, and the EOR’s response to the Independent Peer reviewer’s comments in conjunction with the submittal of the 90% component bridge plans for Category 2 Bridge Structures. The Department will designate in the review comments if the next submittal will be a resubmittal of the 90% phase submittal or if the plans and supporting calculations are significantly developed to proceed to the Final Submittal.

ii. Under the 90% Phase Submittal requirements the Department has clarified the requirements as it related to structures as follows: • 1 copy of Bridge Load Rating Calculations • 1 copy of Completed Bridge Load Rating Summary Detail Sheet • 1 copy of Load Rating Summary Form • 1 copy of the Independent Peer Review Certification Letter. • 1 copy of Independent Peer Review Firm’s comments, design verification

calculations, and the EOR’s response to the Independent Peer reviewer’s comments

• All the information above shall be submitted electronically in .pdf format. • All QC plans and documentation for each component submittal shall be electronic

in .pdf format iii. Under Final Submittal requirements the Department has clarified the requirements

as it related to structures as follows: • 1 copy of Independent Peer Review Firm’s comments, design verification

calculations, and the EOR’s response to the Independent Peer reviewer’s comments with a statement that all comments have been addressed and are resolved.

• All the information above shall be submitted electronically in .pdf format. • All QC plans and documentation for each component submittal shall be electronic

in .pdf format


• The Design-Build Firm shall provide a list of all changes made to the plans or specifications that were not directly related to the 90% plans review comments. Significant changes (as determined by the Department) made as a part of the Final submittal, that were not reviewed or provided in response to the 90% submittal comments, may require an additional review phase prior to stamping the plans or specifications “Released for Construction.” The Design-Build Firm shall provide a signed certification that all Electronic Review Comments (ERC) have been resolved to the Department’s satisfaction as a requirement before obtaining “Released for Construction” plans.

e. Subsection I – 2. Requirements to Begin Construction i. Added Notes to developer of RFP: If tolling is included, added the language below.

• To begin toll equipment building construction, permit review and approvals must be complete, and the Design-Build Firm shall obtain an executed building permit application from the building department along with State Fire Marshal approval.

ii. As-Built Set: • The Design-Build Firm's Professional Engineer in responsible charge of the

Project’s design shall professionally endorse (sign, seal, and certify) the As-Built Plans, the special provisions and all reference and support documents. The professional endorsement shall be performed in accordance with the FDOT Design Manual.

• Design-Build Firm shall complete the As-Built Plans as the Project is being constructed. All changes made subsequent to the “Released for Construction” Plans shall be signed/sealed by the EOR. The As-Built Plans shall reflect all changes initiated by the Design-Build Firm or the Department in the form of revisions. The As-Built Plans shall be submitted prior to Project completion for Department review and acceptance as a condition precedent to the Departments issuance of Final Acceptance.

• Clarified that upon project completion 1 Final Project submittal containing requested project information shall be electronic .pdf format.

f. Subsection N - Meeting and Progress Reporting i. During design, the Design-Build Firm shall meet with the Department’s Project

Manager on a monthly basis at a minimum and provide a one month look ahead of the activities to be completed during the upcoming month.

g. Subsection O – Public Involvement i. Item 3 Public Meetings

• The Design-Build Firm shall include attendance at two meetings per month for the term of the contract to support the public involvement program.

h. Subsection R – Engineers Field Office i. The Design-Build Firm will provide an Engineers Field Office in accordance with

Modified Special Provision 109. ii. Expanded Note to developer of RFP added “On those Projects where the DCE makes

this determination and obtains approval from the Director, Office of Construction, coordinate with the District Specifications Office to develop a Modified Special Provision 109 (MSP1090000) and provide the number of calendar days and the field office size in accordance with the Modified Special Provision.”

i. Subsection S – Schedule of Values i. Note to Developer of the RFP: Added language when Toll Sites are included requiring

Design Builder to Submit the schedule of values for each toll site using the Toll Site Schedule of Values Template included as Attachment XXX.


5. Section VI Design and Construction Criteria a. Subsection C – Geotechnical Services

i. Under Drilled Shaft Foundations for Bridges and Miscellaneous Structures added a Notes to Reviewer to include “Complying with the toll gantry foundation requirements provided in the GTR” when toll sites are proposed.

ii. Under Specialty Geotechnical Services Requirements added language that “After construction of the specialty geotechnical work, the Design-Build Firm shall submit a certification package for Department’s review within 15 business days.”

b. Subsection D – Utility Coordination i. Added additional language clarifying responsibilities of the Utility Coordination

Manager to include: • Scheduling and conducting utility meetings, preparing and distributing minutes of

all utility meetings, and ensuring expedient follow-up on all unresolved issues. • Identifying, preparing, reviewing and facilitating any agreement required for any

utility work needed through final approval and execution. The UCM shall also be responsible for monitoring and reporting the performance of all involved parties under said agreement.

• Added Notes to developer of the RFP indicating that “Conceptual Utility Relocation Plans shall be included unless approval is obtained from SCO Alternative Contracting Specialist.”

c. Subsection E – Roadway Plans i. Added additional language under Design Analysis clarifying that “The Design-Build

Firm shall either utilize the signed and sealed Approved Typical Section Package (see Attachments) and comply with the same, or via the ATC process, develop and submit a different signed and sealed Typical Section Package for review and concurrence by the Department. The Design-Build Firm shall develop and submit a signed and sealed Pavement Design Package and Drainage Analysis Report for review and concurrence by the Department and FHWA on Projects of Division Interest (PoDIs).”

d. Subsection F – Roadway Design i. Item 2 Pavement Design Package

• Added Note to developer of the RFP indicating that Tolling Projects should include site pavement details found in the GTR.

• Added clarifying language that the pavement data in the RFP documents are considered Attachments provided by the Department and shall be used by the Design-Build Firm in the development of the pavement design.

ii. Item 3 Drainage Analysis • Added clarifying language as follows: The Design-Build Firm shall be responsible

for designing the drainage and stormwater management systems. All design work shall be in compliance with the Department’s Drainage Manual; Florida Administrative Code, chapter 14-86; Federal Aid Policy Guide 23 CFR 650A; and the requirements of the regulatory agencies. This work will include the engineering analysis necessary to design any or all of the following: cross drains, French drains, underdrains, edge drains, roadway ditches, outfall ditches, storm sewers, retention/detention facilities, interchange drainage and water management, other drainage systems and elements of systems as required for a complete analysis. Full coordination with all permitting agencies, the district Environmental Management section and Drainage Design section will be required from the outset. Full documentation of all meetings and decisions are to be submitted to the District Drainage Design section. These activities and submittals shall be coordinated through the Department’s Project Manager.


• Prior to proceeding with the Drainage Design, the Design-Build Firm shall meet with the District Drainage Engineer.

• The Design-Build Firm shall provide the Department’s District Drainage Engineer a signed and sealed Drainage Design Report. It shall be an As-Built Plan of all drainage computations, both hydrologic and hydraulic. The engineer shall include all necessary support data.

e. Subsection G – Geometric Design i. Added clarifying language indicting that “The Design-Build Firm shall prepare the

geometric design for the Project using the Standard Plans and criteria that are most appropriate with proper consideration given to the design traffic volumes, adjacent land use, design consistency, aesthetics, ADA requirements, and this document.”

f. Subsection H – Design Documentation, Calculations, and Computations i. Clarification to ensure that Standard Plans and criteria used for the Project are

incorporated into the documentation. g. Subsection K – Shop Drawings

i. Clarified language to read “The Design-Build Firm shall be responsible for the preparation and approval of Shop Drawings. Shop Drawings shall be in conformance with the FDM. Shop Drawing submittals must be accompanied by sufficient information for adjoining components or areas of work to allow for proper evaluation of the Shop Drawing(s) submitted for review. When required to be submitted to the Department, Shop Drawings shall bear the stamp and signature of the Design-Build Firm’s Engineer of Record (EOR), and Specialty Engineer, as appropriate. All “Approved” and “Approved as Noted” Shop Drawings submitted to the Department for review shall also include Engineer of Record QA/QC Shop Drawing check prints along with the EOR stamped set(s). The Department shall review the Shop Drawing(s) to evaluate compliance with Project requirements and provide any findings to the Design-Build Firm. The Departments procedural review of Shop Drawings is to assure that the Design-Build Firm’s EOR has approved and signed the drawing, the drawing has been independently reviewed and is in general conformance with the plans. The Department’s review is not meant to be a complete and detailed review. Upon review of the Shop Drawing, the Department will initial, date, and stamp the drawing “Released for Construction” or “Released for Construction as Noted”.

h. Subsection P – Signing and Pavement Marking Plans i. A Conceptual Signing Plan has been provided by the Department (Reference

Document xx) identifying sign locations and messages within the Project limits.

6. Section VII Technical Proposal Requirements a. Subsection B – Submittal Requirements

i. Under Section 1 – Project Approach to the project clarified the Notes to reviewer that the maximum page limit shall be 15 for this section.

ii. Under Section 2 – Plans in the Right of Way Maps and Legal description for additional Right of Way due to ATC’s expanded the notes to reviewer as follows: Provide Technical Proposal Plans in accordance with the requirements of the FDOT Design Manual, except as modified herein. Note to developer of the RFP: Use this section to identify and define Technical Proposal Plan requirements for any design element required of the project but not addressed in the FDOT Design Manual Part 3, Chapter 301, Section 301.3, Figure 301.3.1. (Including but not limited to items i.e. Key Sheet, Signalization, Lighting, Landscape Plans, Toll Facility Plans, etc.) The RFP developer must list the applicable design element and define the Technical Proposal Plan requirements for this specific design element.


b. Subsection C – Evaluation Criteria i. Added clarification that the “Design-Build Firm shall not discuss or reveal elements of

the price proposal in the written proposals.” c. Subsection F – Stipend Awards

i. Clarified the Notes to reviewer that for “Factored Design-Build, the Department has elected to pay a stipend to the top two responsive non-selected Short-Listed Design-Build Firms to offset some of the costs of preparing the Proposals.”

FDOT Design Build Request for Proposal (RFP) Boiler Plate for Local Agency Request for Proposal (Low Bid) Design Builds: On September 16, 2019 FDOT posted revisions to the Request for Proposal (RFP) Boiler plate (Version 2020-01c. These revisions are like the ones discussed above and cane be found in the link below. http://www.fdot.gov/construction/designbuild/DBDocuments/DBDocsMain.shtm FDOT held an Alternative Task Team Committee – Full Committing meeting on August 1, 2019 at FTE Headquarters in Orlando. The following was mentioned:

1. New Procurement Requirements a. Shortlist the Design-Build Firms with the 4 highest scores. In the event of ties, more than 4

Design-Build Firms may be shortlisted so Districts may need to secure additional funds for stipends.

b. All non-winning Design-Build Firms will receive a stipend. c. Contractors not prequalified as of January 1, 2019 must have satisfactorily completed 2

projects w/FDOT or other State DOT, each in excess of $15 million to bid on projects in excess of $50 million. This information is HB905 passed and signed by the Governor.

2. LOI Phase

a. The Department requires 4 key staff and allows up to 5 additional resumes of personnel who best highlight the experience and expertise of the Design-Build Firm for the particular project.

3. Action Items for RFP from Steering Committee

a. GTR review process – It was requested the GTR go out for industry review. b. A developer note was added to require the GTR as Attachment to the RFP instead of a link. c. Deliverables of DVDs, CDs – Modified the RFP to require electronic submittal instead of

DVDs and CDs. This includes electronic submittal of the technical proposal. Districts can choose the delivery method to submit electronically. After the meeting, Carla Perry recommended that the district’s request the firms provide a flash drive due to the size of the files.

d. As-Built sets – The group discussed as-builts and issues with final acceptance. Industry would like to submit documents electronically.

e. Design-Build Training – SCO discussing training options with Management. Academy style has been discussed, but still trying to vet the best way to educate staff.

4. Design-Build Fuel and Bit Adjustments

a. FDOT informed the group a Design-Build fuel and bit adjustment revision has been made for the January 2020 specifications.

http://www.fdot.gov/construction/designbuild/DBDocuments/DBDocsMain.shtm


5. Limiting Fuel adjustments to Earthwork, Asphalt and Base a. FDOT informed the group a Design-Build limiting fuel adjustment to earthwork, asphalt,

and base is coming for the January 2020 specifications.

6. CSI’s a. The group discussed CSIs and there is room for improvement. Industry requested putting

minimum thresholds on CSIs. Design refinements were recommended for on-going jobs. Look at the variability in cost and to evaluate the alternate process to determine if it’s a CSI or not.

7. Design-Build Program 3-year Look Ahead

a. FDOT went over the future Design-Build projects list with the group.

8. Design-Build Push-Button Under Review by the Department a. The group discussed Design-Build Pushbutton and the debate on how to handle bid factor

for conventional Pushbutton jobs. A task team is needed to provide input for changes and further discussion on Design-Build Pushbutton projects. Need improvements in the RFP and bidding process; risk in bidding 3-Years in advance.

b. FDOT will form a Design-Build Pushbutton Task Team.

9. Topics for Steering Committee to consider a. The following topics were requested for the Steering Committee:

i. Progressive Design-Build ii. Temporary Structures and Public Safety

iii. Removal of Maximum Price RFPs. iv. RFP Attachments - Attachments are already signed and sealed. If there is no change,

why do they have to be resubmitted? v. Factored Design-Build vi. R/W Encroachments should already be vetted.

vii. Project Selection – streamline and save money upfront on design work FDOT-FTBA-ACEC held an ACTT Steering Committee Meeting on September 19, 2019 in Tallahassee. The following items were mentioned:

1. Introduction of Steering Committee Members a. FDOT Steering Committee Participants – Amy Tootle, Larry Ritchie, Dan Hurtado, Tim

Lattner, John Tyler (Call In), Brian McKishnie, Maria Connelly, Karrie Harrell b. FTBA Steering Committee Participants – Ananth Prasad (FTBA), Pete Kelly (Call In)

(Superior), Felipe Jaramillo (AJAX), Gene Strickland (Anderson Columbia), AJ De Moya (De Moya Group – Not Present this meeting)

c. ACEC Steering Committee Participants – Robert Carballo (Stantec), Ryan Forrestel (American), Gus Quesada (New Millennium – Call-In), Walter Kloss (WGI)


2. Steering Committee Refresh (Led by Amy Toole) a. Roles of the Steering Committee and Task Team

i. The Task Team is headed up by the ACTT Vice Chair and comprised of any Internal or External Stakeholders that actively participate in the FDOT Alternative Contracting process. Their role is to provide the Chair and Vice-Chair of the ACTT feedback concerning FDOT's Alternative Contracting program. This feedback is then relayed back to the Steering Committee. This team meets once a year in July.

ii. The Steering Committee is led by the ACTT Chair and is comprised of a select group of Internal FDOT Staff, Contractors and Consultants who are chosen by the Chief Engineer. The Steering committee meets twice a year (March and September) to discuss topics brought forward by the Task Team and determine actions, if any, that are needed.

b. Standardizing Future Meetings i. Steering Committee (Video Conference Available)

• 2nd Thursday in March (Turkey Lake), 12:30pm - 2:30pm • 2nd Thursday in September (Tallahassee), 12:30pm - 2:30pm

ii. Alternative Contracting Task Team (In Person Only) • 2nd Thursday in July (Turkey Lake or District 7) ,12:30pm - 2:30pm

c. Standardizing RFP Publications i. RFP Boiler Plates will be published and effective January 1st and July 1st to correspond

with Specification Book. ii. Steering Committee Comments Due November 1st & May 1st iii. Send to FHWA Mid-November & Mid-May

• FHWA Has Two Weeks to Respond iv. FHWA Comments Addressed and Final Language Solidified Mid-December & Mid-June

• FDOT Has Two Weeks to Respond to FHWA d. Future Use of Other Alternative Contracting Methods

i. In the future, Steering Committee may need to discuss other alternative contracting methods

3. General Tolling Requirements a. Developer Notes

i. FDOT indicated that the language has been changed in the RFP Boiler Plates to ensure that GTR is treated as an attachment.

b. Turnpike Document Review Process i. FTBA indicated that industry continues to have issues with the GTR especially with toll

building requirements. ii. FTE indicated that they are taking a step back and are looking at processes including

standardizing certain elements (adding to Design Plans and Specifications) since many features are no longer unique. They are looking at toll buildings and looking at new ways to standardize more features, but some criteria must be maintained, such as temperatures, for the tolling equipment.

iii. FTBA felt that GTR does not fully communicate the requirements to both engineers and contractors clearly.

iv. FTBA requested information on the timeline to incorporate particularly since there were jobs in procurement that could be affected.

v. ACEC suggested that during RFP development more time be spent in identifying which elements of the GTR are applicable to the specific project instead of the current approach to simply just refer to the GTR without specifics. There is a significant amount of information in the GTR which can cause confusion without the desired direction for a particular project.


c. Shop Drawings Review i. FTBA is concerned about the process indicating that what was once a guideline on how

to approach was being treated as a rigid contractual document. ii. ACEC indicated that there is a difference in how FTE handles Shop Drawings versus how

other district handle them. FTE follows a very specific format which restricts the contractor’s ability to move forward if there is an issue with any specific item. Both FTBA and ACEC felt that there was room for improvement. FTE indicated that they would investigate potential improvements.

iii. FTE requires Project Solve Format that can be restrictive on the approval process. The system requires a checklist for all shop drawings and if not on list you cannot submit other shop drawings.

iv. FDOT is concerned with piecemeal shop drawing submittals. v. FDOT indicated that the Standard Specification is the same for all Districts and the FTE

appeared to be enforcing it more rigidly than in other district given their access to more resources.

d. ACTION ITEM i. FTE (Cristina Colon) will forward the latest GTR being developed by FTE to Central

Office (Amy Tootle) which will distribute it to FTBA (Ananth Prasad) and ACEC (Robert Carballo) for industry review to provide comments for consideration in streamlining and enhancing the requirements.

4. As-Builts (Led by Larry Ritchie)

a. The current submission requirements for As-Builts was discussed. ii. It was mentioned the current RFP Boiler Plate requires compliance with Section 7-2.3:

Permits and really only speaks to ACOE and WMD permits. The Department doesn’t really discuss in CPAM or RFP what is required for As-Builts.

iii. FDOT D-3 indicated that their Districts have not seen extensive quality issues with As-builts. Some other Districts have indicated that they have issues especially getting the As-builts turned in.

iv. FTBA also indicated that there were concerns over construction funds being withheld due to final acceptance of the As-Builts. It was discussed that language in the CPAM may be needed to address concerns.

v. It was mentioned that on conventional projects As-Builts are controlled by the CEI, bit on Design Build Projects it is the DB Teams Responsibility to address them.

vi. ACEC indicated that some CEI maintain their own record of As-Builts, EOR has to make revisions, but in the end the CEI should be responsible for the As-Builts.

vii. FDOT indicated that years ago the responsibility on Design Builds shifted from the CEI to the Design Build Team (Oftentimes EOR) since the CEI did not have control of all changes between the Contractor and EOR.

viii. ACEC indicated that there are issues on the EOR’s side in sometimes being asked to certify work that they have not witnessed. This is often why the EOR has to qualify their certification of the As-Builts.

b. Future requirements for 3D Models were discussed. i. It was mentioned that FTE currently has language in their RFP’s about 3D models being

developed as part of the deliverable. ii. ACEC indicated that currently some designers are providing 3D Models to the

contractors and would be more prevalent in the future. iii. FTBA indicated that they had done 3D modeling on certain projects and in the future

models could be provided to FDOT.


iv. ACEC indicated that some agencies such as MDX have GIS deliverables of the constructed structures such as drainage. FDOT needs to decide on what the deliverable criteria would be and what elements of the plans are needed to address their maintenance and record needs.

v. FTBA indicated that industry is looking for FDOT to commit on 3D Modeling for all aspects of construction. Many suppliers are not doing 3D deliverables because FDOT has not set a clear direction. Contractors are working closely with their EOR’s on model development and implementation in their work.

vi. FTBA mentioned that once full 3D implementation takes place then theoretically in a Design Build, if contractor has inlet moved 3ft, the EOR would need to revise plans and RFM enacted and plans provided back to contractor.

c. Withholding Final Acceptance i. FTBA presented concerns over FDOT withholding final acceptance and payments until

As-Builts are submitted. An example was given of a stripping operation finishing on the last day of construction to meet the contract, but insufficient time was available to submit As-Builts. At this point the Department has full use of the roadway and the As-Builts are an administrative issue. It was felt that this could be handled a better way, since contractors were experiencing Liquidated Damages over delays simply due to As-Built submittals.

ii. FDOT had some concerns that if an issue was discovered with the As-Builts then the project would have been accepted. FTBA felt that this could be addressed through warranty work if needed.

iii. Some Districts indicate that this was not such an issue on Design Build Projects as it was on Conventional Projects. It was mentioned that CFX had a good model that could be looked at.

d. ACTION ITEMS: i. Current As-Built Submission Requirements - Construction to review current CPAM and

Division I Specification language related to As-Built submission and responsibility and determine if FDOT needs to revise and/or move responsibility back to the CEI.

ii. Withholding Final Acceptance - Tabling this topic for now and see how things progress by working on these issues on case by case basis.

5. Design Build Push Button (Led by Larry Ritchie)

a. FDOT needs to review Design Build Push Button Contracts to streamline the process and ensure fairness in costs and effort required. They intend to review RFP and Scope Development and what a push button is. Pay Items end up with larger master lists. Go through RFP and remove some of the unnecessary information.

b. FTBA indicated that the push button contracts are for a 3-year term with one-year option. Unit prices are established at time of bid, but assignments and final price not known. The Design Build Team has to design and build in 365 days projects less than $1 million. They are primarily used for safety projects. FTBA felt that FDOT could do better job in releasing bids so that costs and work effort could be better identified. Need to evaluate and fix what is perceived to be broken and not do away with the program altogether.


c. Establishing a Task Team to address this issue i. Industry Participants

• FTBA: AJAX and Cohn and Graham • ACEC: Walter Kloss (WGI), Others TBD

ii. FDOT Participants • FDOT will assign someone from D-1 and D-7

d. ACEC indicated that some Type B Contracts have similar design build style work which should be evaluated as well.

e. ACTION ITEMS: i. FDOT to reach out to Industry Contacts provided during meeting and District DCEs to

finalize the task team names.

6. Update of TRC Training a. Scoring / Reviewer Comments

i. The Department is developing an outline for proposed DB Training covering the many aspects of the process. FDOT had previously discussed with ACTT Steering Committee of having an overall Design Build Academy but management is still considering this approach. In the past, Industry's biggest ask was for training for the reviewers on how to properly score a proposal.

ii. FTBA and ACEC indicated that Industry wants better feedback so they a perspective Design Build Team can understand where they fell short and would appreciate constructive feedback. Consistency in scoring is also important as to how a TRC member treats each Design Build Team.

iii. ACEC indicated that they would like to see the TRC members that are very familiar with the project who have visited the jobsites and understand the background of the project to be in a position to better score a proposal. Ensuring that there are available technical advisors to enhance their understanding of the project issues would be beneficial.

iv. Some Districts indicated that TRC members are hesitant to write down negatives because then ends up at Secretary level. They ask the teams to come in and have a one on one discussion. It was mentioned that training potential trainers within the Districts by Central Office would be good.

v. FTBA would like the TRC to sit down with the firms beforehand and discuss what they are thinking in terms of scoring.

b. ACTION ITEMS: i. FDOT will regroup internally and discuss taking TRC members to the job site for field

visits and how to reinforce to the TRC members that they need to provide constructive feedback and consistency of grading amongst the firms.

7. CSI Threshold

a. Value versus Effort i. FTBA indicated that this was a National Issue as to what is a design refinement

versus what would be considered a CSI. An example being that a proposal listed a closed drainage system at 30-inches and through final design it can be 24-inches then, FDOT wants a credit, but if it needed to be bigger then, FDOT would not compensate the Design Builder.

ii. ACEC and FTBA indicated that industry is still requesting a 2 to 2.5% threshold. iii. FDOT felt that most contractors put in contingencies into the bid so this may just

increase the cost of projects.


iv. FTBA disagreed with the way FDOT was viewing this. It was mentioned that even with FDOT’s work program, contingencies are included and are reduced as design is refined.

v. FDOT indicated that they may be more comfortable with a dollar amount per contract instead of an overriding percentage.

vi. It was mentioned that we may need take a look at the CSI specification. b. ACTION ITEMS:

i. This topic is being tabled. FDOT wants time to discuss with the Districts and try and change the culture on how CSI’s are being evaluated.

8. Update on Procurement Process

a. Available Information at Planned Ad i. ACEC requested that more project information be made available at planned Ad.

This would include the DRAFT RFP as well as the supporting materials ii. FDOT indicated that some districts would not haver the information fully developed

and approved resulting in the need for Addendums. b. ROW Encroachment

i. ACEC indicated that this was a carryover from the August 1st Meeting. ii. The Steering Committee did not feel that it warranted further discussion.

c. Availability of Utility Information (Designates and Locates) i. ACEC suggested that FDOT look into providing more utility locate and designate

information on Design Build Projects. A sample of the practice used by GDOT was referenced with certified utility data being provided by GDOT to the Design Build Teams thus reducing utility risk.

d. Status Update in Shared Risk for Utility Delays i. FDOT indicated that this still remains an issue and that the District Utility

Coordinators need to be engaged throughout the process. FDOT will continue to monitor the situation of delays and their potential impacts on Design Build projects.

e. Independent Peer Reviews i. There were some comments over potential changes and the need to change the

process. This will be monitored in the future, but many felt that there was a good process in place.

f. ACTION ITEMS: i. FDOT to follow-up with ACEC and FTBA on these issues.

ACTT Steering Sub-Committee We are in the process of formalizing a Sub-Committee for ACEC to provide support to the ACTT Steering Committee ACEC Representatives in addressing issues that are raised with FTBA and FDOT and/or other ACEC Member feedback. The following individuals have been or will be working to support the ACEC -ACCTT Steering Committee members. These include: Jack Haynes, PE (RS&H) – Jacksonville Amy Scales, PE (Jacobs) – Orlando TJ Lallathin, PE (DRMP) – Orlando Walfrido Pevida, PE (PHD) – Miami Gayle Grady, PE (American) – Tampa

We are interested in adding three additional members to this sub-committee.

ACEC TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE PD&E/Planning Sub-committee Report by Silvia Beltre

October 2019 Quarterly Meeting

PD&E Sub-committee met on August 29, 2019. The following summarizes discussions held:

• Agreed to following process for minor updates to the PD&E Standard Scope of Services and Basis of Estimates. These include correcting errors or clarifications as needed. Changes will be circulated via email to sub-committee and discussed as needed at next committee meeting. Items will be shared on a quarterly basis.

• Guidance is needed for traffic analyses tasks included in current Standard Scope and Basis of Estimates. This is a major update and will go through the standard committee process. Effort anticipated to begin in the beginning of 2020. Guidance on effort related to Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) will be included.

• Scope of Services Development Tool under development for design. Once completed, the PD&E tool will be updated to have similar approach. This is a major update and will go through the standard committee process.

• New combined PD&E/Design Scope of Services Tool will be developed following completion of individual ones for PD&E and Design. Effort anticipated to start early next year and will go through standard committee process.

• Need for a statewide SWEPT Users Group identified – Central Office evaluating how to move forward. • Pavement Type Selection Report will be added to standard PD&E scope as an optional item to allow

Districts flexibility on when they would like to include its use. • Victor Muchuruza has left the Office of Environmental Management. Maria Overton is now the State

Environmental Development Engineer within the Office of Environmental Management. The PD&E committee is anticipated to convene in the last quarter of 2019.

Contact Information

Silvia Beltre, P.E. Direct: 305 445-2900 x 2237 Mobile: 786 502-0713 [email protected]

Exhibit 5

mailto:[email protected]

ACEC-FL XWY Committee Meeting ReportOctober 8, 2019

1. Call held on September 24, 2019.

2. Third Quarter 2019 Reportsa. CFX:

i. Second Industry Forum in 2019 held on July 16, 2019 via WebEx. Informationcan be found at : https://www.cfxway.com/agency-information/plans-studies/five-year-work-plans/. Next Industry Forum will be held in January 2020at CFX Headquarters.

ii. Plans Prep Manual (PPM) under development by Dewberry.b. JTA:

i. Meeting held on July 18, 2019 at 10:00 AM at JTA headquarters with CarterRohan and Andy Rodgers.

ii. One of the topics discussed was safety in design training that FES/ACEC-FL hasdeveloped. JTA expressed an interest in receiving such training. JW Hunter hastaken the lead in coordinating this effort. Training will take place early 2020after the new JRTC is officially opened.

iii. Next meeting is tentatively scheduled for October 24, 2019.c. MDX:

i. Based on Leon County Judge’s ruling, MDX prevailed and the Agency isconducting business as usual. However, MDX’s Bond Credit rating has taken ahit. MDX is addressing this with the Bond Markets.

ii. State has requested to rehear the case based on new evidence but no indicationof what this new evidence is or if it will be reheard.

iii. If case is not reheard, State is expected to file an Appeal, no date yet.d. THEA:

i. Meeting held on August 8, 2019 with David May.ii. Next meeting tentatively scheduled for November 14th at 11:00 AM

3. Upcoming Meetings Schedule:a. January 14, 2020 (Orlando)- Call will be held on January 7, 2020 at 9:00 AM

Exhibit 6

1

Geiger, Douglas D.

From: Perry, Carla M. Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 5:25 PMTo: Geiger, Douglas D.; Sickler, Nina; Gotmare, Aniruddha; [email protected];

Foley Paul G.; [email protected]; [email protected]; Gonzalez, Edward J.; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 'Andy Lauzier'; Benedico, Nick

Cc: Miller, Stacy; Iliff, Stephanie; Drummond, Courtney; Watts, WillSubject: Procurement Development Application (PDA)- New professional services and design-

build advertisement pages

FDOT has deployed the new Procurement Development Application (PDA), which will be used by the Department to advertise and track professional services and design-build contracts. A short video is available under “News” on the Procurement Internet site describing the new advertisement pages, how to drill down to District and Central Office ads, and where to find the Consultant Acquisition Plan (CAP): https://www.fdot.gov/procurement/default.shtm PDA advertisements are available from the following landing page: https://www.fdot.gov/procurement/advertisements.shtm Please update your bookmarks accordingly. Thanks, Carla M. Perry, P.E. Procurement Manager Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS 20 Tallahassee, FL 32399 850-414-4484 [email protected]

Exhibit 7

1

Geiger, Douglas D.

From: Perry, Carla M. Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 2:59 PMTo: Sickler, Nina; Geiger, Douglas D.; Gotmare, Aniruddha; [email protected];

Foley Paul G.; [email protected]; [email protected]; Gonzalez, Edward J.; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 'Andy Lauzier'; Benedico, Nick

Cc: Miller, Stacy; Iliff, Stephanie; Drummond, Courtney; Watts, Will; Hurtado, DanSubject: Lump Sum CEI Pilot- list updatedAttachments: May be shared with consultants- List of proposed CEI pilot projects to be advertised

8-23-19.pdf

Please be advised, the Department has updated the attached list of projects for the CEI Lump Sum pilot. The SR 10 resurfacing project in Jefferson County (439729-1-62-01) has been replaced with SR 20 resurfacing project in Leon County (439727-1-3C-01). Thanks, Carla M. Perry, P.E. Procurement Manager Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS 20 Tallahassee, FL 32399 850-414-4484 [email protected]

From: Perry, Carla M. Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 6:58 PM To: Sickler, Nina ; [email protected]; Gotmare, Aniruddha ; '[email protected]' ; 'Foley Paul G.' ; '[email protected]' ; '[email protected]' ; '[email protected]' ; '[email protected]' ; '[email protected]' ; '[email protected]' ; 'Andy Lauzier' ; '[email protected]' Cc: Miller, Stacy ; Iliff, Stephanie ; Drummond, Courtney ; Watts, Will ; Hurtado, Dan Subject: Lump Sum CEI Pilot Good afternoon, As a follow-up from the FDOT-ACEC-FL Liaison Committee meeting held on August 5, 2019, please see attached documents concerning the Department’s Lump Sum CEI Pilot initiative. District 1 has advertised the first project under this initiative, under Current Advertisements. The advertisement number is 20157. Thanks,

Exhibit 8

2

Carla M. Perry, P.E. Procurement Manager Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS 20 Tallahassee, FL 32399 850-414-4484 [email protected]

TC_agenda_10081912) Subcommittee Reports7) Next Transportation Committee MeetingsAdjournment at 1:13pm.

2D-1 ACEC Liason 8-9-19 notesTurnpikeLiaisonReport10-19

345678Exhibit CEI LS Pilot 10-8-19Exhibit CEI LS Pilot list 10-8-19