Project Audit Submittal System (P.A.S.S.) Total Points: Financial Project ID: FDOT Project Manager:

Project Audit Submittal System (P.A.S.S.)
Layout Revised:10/14/2015 Questions Revised: 09/08/2015
Financial Project ID:
Letting Date:
Project Description:
FDOT Project Manager:
Consultant Company:
Legend: (Production Complete Satisfaction) A perfect submittal will have a total score of ZERO.
NA: Not Applicable, DS: Dis-Satisfied, S: Satisfied
Total Points:
0
1.0 Contract File & Other Production Documents
Maria (Points 0-8)
Points: 0
1.01 Correct Financial Project ID on all applicable contract file documents. (i.e. Contract File, R/W cert, MOA, Utility Work Schedules, etc.)
1.02 Preliminary Engineering Certification properly completed. (i.e. Phase 32 federal aid number correctly used)
Utility Certification - Utility work schedules, & non-conflict letters are consistent.
1.03
(i.e. Include federal aid number on documents appropriately.)
Status of Environmental Certification completed correctly
1.04
(i.e. 1. Ensure proposal/contract ID is present and correct. 2. Re-evaluation date is within the last year.)
1.05 Permit Transmittal Memo completed correctly. (i.e. Ensure federal aid number is correctly included.)
1.06 Most recent Construction Time Estimate memo included.
1.07 Proposal/Contract ID is included on all applicable documents (i.e. Contract file index, status of Env. Cert., Preliminary Eng. Cert.)
Federal funds number is included on all applicable documents.
1.08
(i.e. CAP, JPA, MOA, Permits, PTM, R/W Cert, Utility work schedules and certifications, Env. Cert., Prelim. Eng. Cert., etc.)
Comments:
NA DS S
Graham (Points 0-15)
Points: 0
The "Governing Standards & Specifications" note is correct
The "Governing Standards & Specifications" note should not be shown in any of the component plan key sheets
The "Revisions" text is properly included on Keysheet
The location of railroads are depicted on the Project Location Map
The "Fiscal Year" is correct in all the key sheets
The Electronic Signature note is present and correct in all plan sheets
The description of the Plan Sheets match the Title Blocks on each component sheet. All should be consistent.
Survey sheets include correct titles, electronic signature rule number, certification notes, surveyor firm name and address, surveyor
name and license number, and survey date
The Consultant Contract Number, Vendor Number, and Certificate of Authorization is present and correct in all the key sheets
The Certificate of Authorization & P.E. Number is present and correct in all the plan sheet title blocks.
All strung projects are properly referenced in key sheets to each other with correct note, "To Be Let With Project..."
The correct Bid Proposal (Contract) number is included on Key Sheet per Plans Preparation Manual.
Project data in the FM system/Project Suite Enterprise (i.e. milepost, length, County, etc.) is consistent with what is on the Keysheet
and submitted documents.
Information in the project length box on the Keysheet is accurate.
The designer company logo is not showing in any of the plan sheets
2.0 Plans Sheets
NA DS S
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.13
2.14
2.15
Comments:
Ervin (Points 0-21)
Points: 0
Specification package was created from the applicable Workbook
Specifications Package reflects the selected items in the Workbook at the Production submittal phase.
Workbook selections reflect the latest CTE letter & design plans
Formatting of the Specifications Package is correct. (Per the "Handbook for Preparation of Specifications Packages")
Plan notes do not repeat or attempt to change standard specifications or special provisions.
Technical Special Provisions follow the current "Handbook for Preparation of Specifications Packages"
No changes to TSP since legal approval (Approval process begins at Biddability submittal)
Modified Special Provisions approved prior to Production phase. (If submitted by Biddability and not approved; mark "satisfied.")
Developmental Specifications approved by Central Office prior to Production phase. (Note: Request from PM due to Final Plans at
Biddability.)
Lump Sum Projects have submitted and completed tables 9-1 thru 9-4 from the Special Provisions "0090103LSD4"
Specifications Package & Workbook were reviewed two or less times
Number of incorrectly selected WorkBook items.
*3.12: 1-2 incorrect = 1 point; 3 ≤ incorrect ≤ 7 = actual incorrect items; 7+ incorrect = 10 points
3.0 Project Specifications
NA DS S
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
3.06
3.07
3.08
3.09
3.10
3.11
3.12*
Comments:
Layout Revised: 10/14/2015 Questions Revised: 09/08/2015
PAGE 1 OF 2
NA DS S
4.0 Checking Delivery with PEDDS - Production CD
Graham (Points 0-1)
Points: 0
4.01 All Digital delivery Documents are included with the submittal: Compliance certificate Checklist, Production Digital delivery checklist
Comments:
NA DS S
5.0 Estimates Review
Ali
Points: 0
5.01 Number of instances pay items or pay item quantities do not match in PrP/wTP, Summary of Quantities tables, and/or the plans.
5.02 Number of Non-Bid items missing in PrP/wTP (i.e. 999-25 etc.)
Number of instances the secondary units are not entered into PrP/wTP Designer Interface and/or the Summary of Quantities tables
5.03
(i.e. 102-1, 110-1, etc.)
5.04 Number of instances the wrong Summary of Quantities tables have been included and/or completed incorrectly.
5.05 Pay Items used in notes are present in PrP/wTP.
5.06 The pavement design is described correctly in the typical section sheets.
5.07 Pay Item Notes - Multiple items of work are not lumped under a single pay item when other valid pay items are available.
5.08 Landscape plant quantities and species shown in the plans are consistent with the items shown in the Engineer's cost estimate
5.09 Number of Irrigation Quantities from the Engineer's Probable Cost Estimate not matching irrigation items shown in plans
5.10 Technical Special Provision (TSP) pay items included in PrP/wTP.
Back-up information showing quantities and costs were submitted for Lump Sum items. (i.e. cost spreadsheet, manufacturer's
5.11
information)
5.12 Contingencies are correctly calculated (0% MOT each day pay items, 5% Structural Course, 5% Friction Course)
Construction phases add up to the total contract time. (Each phase includes the construction time contingency factor. Overlapping
5.13
phases also considered)
5.14 The Proposal Summary of Pay Items has been included in the plans.
Comments:
NA DS S
6.0 Change memo and Responses
Maria & Graham
Points: 0
6.01 All original signature documents are included for changes on each change memo submittal. (Graham)
6.02 Responses address our Quality Assurance Concerns (Maria)
6.03 The number of change memos that do not include the response document to the Total concerns (Graham)
6.04 The number of changes to the summary of pay items after the initial Production submittal. (Graham)
6.05* Total number of change memos submitted. (Maria)
*6.05: 1 change memo = 0 points, 2 = 1 point; 3 = 3 points; 4 = 4 points; 5+ = 6 points
Comments:
NA DS S
7.0 Adherence to Scheduled Dates
Maria (Points 0-11)
Points: 0
7.01* Production Complete submitted on time
Responses to total concerns and change memos submitted by the scheduled dates. (Summation of total days late for all change
7.02*
memos.)
7.03 Final Project contract package submitted at least two weeks ahead of Ship Date
*7.01 & 7.02: 1-2 days late = 1 point; 3 days late = 3 points; 4+ days late = 5 points
Comments:
Overall Comments by Final Plans:
Layout Revised: 10/14/2015 Questions Revised: 09/08/2015
PAGE 2 OF 2