Docstoc

Crown_Point_PSE_Review_Comments

Document Sample
Crown_Point_PSE_Review_Comments Powered By Docstoc
					                            WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
  Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration
Project Number: OR PFH 163(14)
Current Review: Prelim-(30%)         [ Go to Location and Preliminary Design (30%) ]

   Introduction:
1. This workbook is compiled to collect comments from all reviewers, at each phase of the QA / QC review
   process for the Project Delivery branch.
2. Multiple users will be able to access the workbook at the same time allowing each to review the
   comments of all reviews.
3. The reviewer will be able to enter this document, record their comments and exit. They will then be able
   to re-enter the document at some future time to continue adding comment. This may be after others have
   done the same. The review for a particular phase will be open until each reviewer has placed a
   completion date in the "Review Completed" box at the top of their comment column.


4. The workbook will provide a project review history for the life of the project. We will be able to review
   individual work sheets and determine if corrects were documented during a previous review and if those
   corrections are reflected in the current submittal.
5. The historical review record will allow the designer and reviewer to determine if comments were timely
   and appropriately made at the correct point in the design process or is current comments should have
   been made earlier in the design process.
6. Conflicting review comments between reviewers will be detectable and hopefully addressed before
   review comments are sent to the designer.
7. Repetition of the same review comment by different reviewers should be reduced or eliminated as we
   become accustomed to reading the other comments made for the same plan sheet or spec. section.


8. At this point we can not secure the comments of one reviewer from changes by another reviewer.
   Therefore, you must make sure your curser is in your comment column when entering comments.


9. Use one worksheet for each of the following design reviews (additional tabs may be added):
   Tab Name          Phase
   Prelim-(30%)     Location and Preliminary Design (30%)...............................................                Link
   Interm-(50%)     Intermediate Design (50%)...................................................................        Link
   P-I-H-(70%)      Plan-In-Hand (70%)..............................................................................    Link
   Final-(95%)      Final Design (95%)...............................................................................   Link
   Signoff-(100%)   PS&E Signoff (100%)...........................................................................      Link

   For the Reviewer:
1. Open the worksheet for the review phase you will be commenting on.

2. Enter you name at the top of one of the review comment columns.
3. Scroll down to the plan sheet row or specification section for which you wish to enter a review comment.
4. If the sheet number or specification section does not yet have a row designated for comment, enter the
   sheet number or spec section in column one. New rows may be added (copy the comment number
   formula cell from an adjacent row to remove red highlight).
 5. Type you review comments in the box in your column. One review comment per row and per box
    please. This will make response by the designer easier. You will have to enter the sheet number, etc.,
    for each new line you enter to ensure comments are recorded against the proper plans set section.
 6. Proceed through the plan set and specifications in the same way, and don't forget to record the date, only
    when you have completed your review, at the top of your comment column. This will tell others you
    have completed your review.


 7. If you agree with a comment made by another reviewer and wish to indicate that, type "agree with" and
    the abbreviation of the other reviewer. You do not need to duplicate a review comment made by others.


 8. After completing your review comments for a particular design phase, exit the project review workbook
    and send an e-mail to the designer indicating that you have completed your review. The designer is
    responsible for printing the completed project review workbook for each design phase.
 9. The Designer will coordinate with the Project Manager or Highway Design Manager to schedule
    meetings for discussion of review comments as necessary.



10. The Designer will coordinate with the Project Manager or Highway Design Manager to schedule
    meetings for discussion of review comments as necessary.



      For those setting up the spreadsheet:
 1. Input the Project Name, Project Number, and Current Design Phase for the project. This information is
 2. To create a header row (like Plan Set or SCR), put #keep# in the Sheet/Page No. column or copy that
    text from one of the other rows. The spreadsheet looks for that text string and makes any row with it a
    header.
 3. The spreadsheet will open in the same worksheet that was open when workbook sharing was turned on.



 4.
↸

  Add additional lines above this row.
Ensure that the Tab Name and Phase match
the information on the individual worksheets.
                                                                                                                                                                         WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
       Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration
            Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                             Location and Preliminary Design (30%)                                           Location and Preliminary Design (30%)
                  To:
               Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                      2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
           Reviewer:                                                                                                     Mike Odom                                                       Dave Lofgren                                      Chuck Dissen
               Title: Environmental Specialist                         Highway Design Manager                            Project Manager                                                 Geotechnical Engineer                             Construction                              A/E Consultant Designer
               Date:                                                                                                                                 11/20/2010                                                                                         11/17/2010
          Sheet/
Num      Page No.     Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:                                                       Comments:                                         Comments:                                 Responses / Resolution                                            Comments:
 0                                                                                                                       I believe the recommended changes to the structure go to far                                                                                                Yes. The structure restoration will be modified from proposal
                                                                                                                         in changing the character of the strucuture. I have a difficult                                                                                             in draft TSL in the following ways: (1) Continue with repair
                                                                                                                         time understanding why it is important to make some of the                                                                                                  and strengthening concrete in-kind but reduce the visual
                                                                                                                         changes. We need to discuss options or better explain our                                                                                                   impact by moving the new interior beam to the roadway side
                                                                                                                         reasons. Specfically, the new interior beam, the holes drilled                                                                                              of the existing beam, and (2) by using flowable self
                                                                                                                         through the sidewalk to pour concrete, and modification of                                                                                                  consolidating concrete for the slab strengthening so no holes
                                                                                                                         the entire length of existing rockery are a concern. Why can't                                                                                              are required through the existing sidewalk slab. (3) The
                                                                                                                         we use FRP to treat the slab and interior beam? Why can't the                                                                                               retaining wall restoration will be limited to only areas of the
                                                                                                                         stable rockery wall remain in tack? Can the soil nail repair/                                                                                               rockery wall that are unstable or not expected to have an
                                                                                                                         existing conterorts be modified to better blend in the the face                                                                                             addition 50 years of service life. The rest of the retaining
                                                                                                                         of the existing rockery wall that is in acceptable condition?                                                                                               wall sections that appear stable are not guaranteed to have an
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     additional 50 years of service life so we will estimate a
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     contingency cost to restore these sections. (4) Wall
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     restoration in the rockery wall areas will first remove the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     exterior layer of existing rock and then construct the soil nails
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     and structural shotcrete facing so that rocks can be re-stacked
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     at approximately the same location. Further FRP discussion
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     with supporting reasons for not selecting this restoration
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     method as the proposed alternative will be discussed in the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Final TSL. Also see comment #12 below. Done - KPB




  1       General                                                                                                                                                                    I have reviewed the geotechnical report and 30%       This early in the design I really don't   Yes. The final TSL report will be modified to further explain
         Comment                                                                                                                                                                     plans and have a few general comments regarding       have much to comment on. Mike and I       why the MSE Wall alternative is not the preferred alternative.
                                                                                                                                                                                     the submittal. The MSE wall alternative appeals to    discussed some of the issues aready       Differential structural costs of each of each wall alternative
                                                                                                                                                                                     me because MSE wall construction is relatively        that he was aware of and I have           will be included in the cost comparison. For example, the
                                                                                                                                                                                     straightforward and would allow examination and       included them below.                      MSE wall alternative would be coupled with the interior
                                                                                                                                                                                     strengthening of the interior coulumns. On the                                                  columns and footings receiving repair and strengthening via
                                                                                                                                                                                     other hand, it would require closing the road and                                               concrete in-kind while the soil nail wall and reticulated
                                                                                                                                                                                     tearing out the entire existing wall, possibly                                                  micropile wall alternatives would be coupled with the interior
                                                                                                                                                                                     including the need for temporary shoring of the                                                 columns and footings replaced with a vertical micropile.
                                                                                                                                                                                     inside excavation cut, and then reconstructing the                                              Additional information will be provided for the construction
                                                                                                                                                                                     rockery and attaching it mechanically to the wall                                               sequencing and staging of the major elements. The proposed
                                                                                                                                                                                     reinforcing elements. The proposed retaining wall                                               soil nail wall alternative will be modified to first remove the
                                                                                                                                                                                     repair using both soil nails and micropiles is only                                             exterior layer of existing rock and then construct the soil nails
                                                                                                                                                                                     slightly more expensive than tearing out the                                                    and structural shotcrete facing so the rocks can be re-stacked
                                                                                                                                                                                     existing wall and replacing it with a new MSE wall                                              at approximately the same location. Wall restoration will be
                                                                                                                                                                                     and is only half the cost of the reticulated                                                    limited to only areas of the rockery wall that are unstable or
                                                                                                                                                                                     micropile repair option. The 30% plans alternative                                              not expected to have an additional 50 years of service life.
                                                                                                                                                                                     seems reasonable and feasible to construct, but I                                               The rest of the retaining wall sections that appear stable are
                                                                                                                                                                                     think there will be a need to put more thought into                                             not guaranteed to have an additional 50 years of service life
                                                                                                                                                                                     the construction aspects of this proposal if it                                                 so we will estimate a contingency cost to restore these
                                                                                                                                                                                     becomes the selected alternative.                                                               sections.




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                                                             Page 4 of 147
                                                                                                                                                                           WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
       Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration
            Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                             Location and Preliminary Design (30%)                                             Location and Preliminary Design (30%)
                  To:
               Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                      2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
           Reviewer:                                                                                                     Mike Odom                                                    Dave Lofgren                                             Chuck Dissen
               Title: Environmental Specialist                         Highway Design Manager                            Project Manager                                              Geotechnical Engineer                                    Construction              A/E Consultant Designer
               Date:                                                                                                                            11/20/2010                                                                                                  11/17/2010
          Sheet/
Num      Page No.     Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:                                                    Comments:                                                Comments:                 Responses / Resolution                                               Comments:
  2          2                                                                                                           TSL Rpt, page 2 - Discuss whether we need to place limits on (continued from General Comment No. 1) I would                                     Yes. The final TSL will have additional discussion. If the
                                                                                                                         the type of vehicle using the road during construction       like to see a construction sequencing discussion of                                travel width is less than 16' we will have to restrict traffic. At
                                                                                                                         operations.                                                  at least the major elements of the alternatives                                    this time it appears that we will not need close the roadway to
                                                                                                                                                                                      shown as notes on the plans; for example, should                                   truck traffic.
                                                                                                                                                                                      the soil nails be installed before or after the
                                                                                                                                                                                      micropiles? Also, can the soil nail alternative be
                                                                                                                                                                                      constructed by removing the existing rockery
                                                                                                                                                                                      stones from the top down in short vertical lifts,
                                                                                                                                                                                      then drilling in and grouting the soil nails, applying
                                                                                                                                                                                      shotcrete to complete the wall and then replacing
                                                                                                                                                                                      the original stones along the existing groundline
                                                                                                                                                                                      and batter? Does the entire retaining wall need to
                                                                                                                                                                                      be replaced or is it possible to leave the concrete
                                                                                                                                                                                      part of the existing wall alone and replace only the
                                                                                                                                                                                      rockery part of the wall and still install the
                                                                                                                                                                                      micropiles along the entire length to reinforce the
                                                                                                                                                                                      interior support columns? I will probably think of a
                                                                                                                                                                                      few more questions by the time we meet next
                                                                                                                                                                                      week. I think we should probably spend some
                                                                                                                                                                                      more time discussing the pros and cons of the two
                                                                                                                                                                                      most likely to be constructed alternatives - soil
                                                                                                                                                                                      nail/micropile wall and MSE wall with possible
                                                                                                                                                                                      length modifications.




  3          3                                                                                                           TSL Rpt page 3 - I would like a better explaination as to why                                                                                   Yes. The final TSL report will include more evaluation of a
                                                                                                                         a road closure is not advanced. I still feel we should look                                                                                     full road closure. Consideration will be given to pros and
                                                                                                                         more closely to the advantages a closure would provide                                                                                          cons, cost implications, and mobility and traffic control. Done
                                                                                                                         regardless of the alternative selected.                                                                                                         - KPB

  4          6                                                                                                           TSL RPT page 6 - The Design Criteria section need to be                                                                                         Yes. The final TSL report will include more specific details
                                                                                                                         more specific and needs to include the wall design criteria.                                                                                    of the Design Criteria including wall design criteria, and
                                                                                                                         Look at Appendix D, pages 3 and 4. This is more like what I                                                                                     information from Appendix D, pages 3 and 4. The Park
                                                                                                                         would expect in the report. Also, the Park Guidelines and                                                                                       Guidelines and Commission direction will be moved to the
                                                                                                                         Commission direction would be better up front with the                                                                                          Project Description section. Done - KPB
                                                                                                                         project goals discussion.

  5          8                                                                                                           TSL RPT page 8 - Under beams you indicate overstressed for                                                                                      Yes. The final TSL report narrative will be expanded to
                                                                                                                         design loads, is this for both load conditions? Describe the                                                                                    describe the deficiency of the existing elements (including the
                                                                                                                         deficiency.                                                                                                                                     retaining walls) for the pedestrian live load case versus the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         bus live load case. The report will also address the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         consequence of failure, whether overload of a particular
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         element could cause a catastrophic collapse. (This response
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         is also applicable to comments #7, 8, 16, and 18.) The
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         existing interior beam is adequate to support pedestrian live
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         load in positive bending between columns but not in negative
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         bending over the columns. The existing interior beam is not
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         adequate to support the bus live load in positive or negative
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         bending. However, overload of the interior beam is not
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         expected to result in a catastrophic collapse of the structure.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         The exterior parapet beam is adequate for pedestrian live
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         load, but it is not adequate to support bus live load. Overload
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         of the exterior parapet beam could be a catastrophic failure.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Done - KPB




  6         14                                                                                                           TSL RPT page 14 - In the GRI report the diagonal concrete                                                                                       Yes. Counterforts are typically tension members on the fill
                                                                                                                         members are refered to as conterforts. Use of this term helps                                                                                   side of a wall, however to avoid confusion, the TSL report
                                                                                                                         separate it from the rock buttress. I recommend term be used                                                                                    will be revised to use the term counterforts when referring to
                                                                                                                         throught the report when referred to these members.                                                                                             the diagonal concrete members. Done - KPB




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                                                                Page 5 of 147
                                                                                                                                                                            WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
       Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration
            Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                             Location and Preliminary Design (30%)                                              Location and Preliminary Design (30%)
                  To:
               Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                      2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
           Reviewer:                                                                                                     Mike Odom                                                    Dave Lofgren                             Chuck Dissen
               Title: Environmental Specialist                         Highway Design Manager                            Project Manager                                              Geotechnical Engineer                    Construction              A/E Consultant Designer
               Date:                                                                                                                            11/20/2010                                                                                  11/17/2010
          Sheet/
Num      Page No.     Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:                                                    Comments:                                Comments:                 Responses / Resolution                                              Comments:
  7         15                                                                                                           TSL RPT page 15 - Are columns overstressed for both design                                                                      Yes. See response to comment #5 above. The final TSL
                                                                                                                         load conditions? Please clarify.                                                                                                report will discuss that the existing columns are adequate to
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         support axial forces from both live load cases, however, the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         existing columns are not adequate to support moment from
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         either of the live load cases. Done - KPB

  8         17                                                                                                           TSL RPT page 17 - Are footings overstressed for both design                                                                     Yes. See response to comment #5 above. The final TSL
                                                                                                                         load conditions? Please clarify.                                                                                                report will discuss that the bearing earth pressure under the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         existing footings is not overstressed for the live load case of
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         pedestrians, but is slightly overstressed for bus live load.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Done - KPB

  9         18                                                                                                           TSL RPT page 18, photo 13 - Failed area is actually between                                                                     Yes. The final TSL report will be revised to indicate the
                                                                                                                         columns 11 and 12.                                                                                                              failed section of wall is between columns 11 and 12. Done -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         KPB (with photo)
  10        18                                                                                                           TSL RPT page 18, include langage from GRI report (page 3)                                                                       Yes. The final TSL report will be modified to include
                                                                                                                         to better described the bulge in the wall.                                                                                      language from page 3 of GRI report to better describe the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         bulge in the wall. Done - KPB
  11        19                                                                                                           TSL RPT page 19, what is your conclusion regarding the                                                                          Yes. The final TSL report will clarify that the existing CIP
                                                                                                                         condition of the existing concrete wall. Plans are not clear                                                                    retaining wall appears to be stable but requires local repair of
                                                                                                                         regarding recommended repairs in this area.                                                                                     cracks and spalls. However, we do not guarantee that this
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         wall will have an additional 50 years of service life so we will
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         estimate a contingency cost to restore this wall with soil nails.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         The report will discuss how failure of this wall with only
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         minimal repair would likely not be a catastrophic failure and
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         that the damage could be repaired. Done - KPB


  12        21                                                                                                           TSL RPT page 21, I would like more clear discussion on the                                                                      Yes. The final TSL report will provide more FRP discussion
                                                                                                                         reason for eliminating the FRP. This is still the best option                                                                   on the pros and cons. An FRP repair would have minimal
                                                                                                                         for preserving the original design dimensions of the structure                                                                  impact on the element dimensions. We will expand on the
                                                                                                                         and we need very strong reasons to provide to the SHPO.                                                                         risks of not meeting the 50 year service life design criteria,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         especially at this site which is exposed to severe weather. At
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         this point, it is assumed that SHPO will accept the repair
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         concrete in-kind solution that we propose, however we will
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         fully explain the FRP solution so that SHPO recognizes that
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         we have fully addressed it. Done - KPB


  13        21                                                                                                           TSL RPT, page 21 -I am not crazy about drilling holes in the                                                                    Yes. The draft TSL report assumed 420 holes through the
                                                                                                                         sidewalk to pour the thickened sidewalk slab. Need more                                                                         existing slab. The final TSL report will be revised to
                                                                                                                         information of spacing etc. Also, perhaps with can use frp for                                                                  eliminate all holes and specify flowable self consolidating
                                                                                                                         the deck slab with a thicken section behind the exterior beam.                                                                  concrete. See response to comment #12 above regarding
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         FRP. Done - KPB
  14        21                                                                                                           TSL RPT, page 21 - Adding sketches to show the proposed                                                                         Yes. The final TSL report will include drawings for both the
                                                                                                                         slab fix and the alternative slab fix would be helpful.                                                                         proposed and alternative slab restoration. Done - KPB

  15        22                                                                                                           TSL RPT, page 22 - Adding a sketch for the beam fixes                                                                           Yes. The final TSL report will include a drawing for the
                                                                                                                         would be helpful.                                                                                                               interior curb beam and exterior parapet beam restoration.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Done - KPB
  16        23                                                                                                           TSL RPT, page 23 - How do we know the interior beam is                                                                          Per our Draft TSL meeting November 22, the interior curb
                                                                                                                         overstressed? I would prefer an FRP solution to proposed                                                                        beam restoration will be modified to occur on the roadway
                                                                                                                         new beam. Also, do we need to strengthen it where it is                                                                         side, concealed from view. The interior curb beam still
                                                                                                                         supported by the existing concrete wall?                                                                                        requires restoration in the area of the CIP concrete retaining
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         wall because the CIP retaining wall would not support the bus
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         loading. In the area of the CIP concrete retaining wall, the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         new interior curb beam and micropiles will be detailed. See
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         response to comment #5 above regarding overstress of the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         existing interior curb beam for the pedestrian live load versus
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         the bus live load. See response to Comment #12 above
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         regarding FRP. Done - KPB




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                                                                 Page 6 of 147
                                                                                                                                                                             WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
       Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration
            Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                             Location and Preliminary Design (30%)                                                Location and Preliminary Design (30%)
                  To:
               Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                      2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
           Reviewer:                                                                                                     Mike Odom                                                    Dave Lofgren                             Chuck Dissen
               Title: Environmental Specialist                         Highway Design Manager                            Project Manager                                              Geotechnical Engineer                    Construction              A/E Consultant Designer
               Date:                                                                                                                            11/20/2010                                                                                  11/17/2010
          Sheet/
Num      Page No.     Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:                                                    Comments:                                Comments:                 Responses / Resolution                                               Comments:
  17        23                                                                                                           TSL RPT, page 23 - When we remove the top of the rockery                                                                        Yes. The top of the counterforts will not need to be removed.
                                                                                                                         wall, top of the conterforts, and top of the concrete wall to                                                                   Access for construction of the new interior curb beam will be
                                                                                                                         install the interior curb beam, are there staging, shoring issues                                                               from the roadway. Shoring may be required to re-open the
                                                                                                                         that need to be considered to protect the viaduct or roadbed?                                                                   roadway to two lanes at night if the no closure option is
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         considered. Removal of the rockery wall face will be done in
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         small sections while the soil nails are constructed so shoring
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         is not expected to be required for the wall construction. Done
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         - KPB

  18        24                                                                                                           TSL RPT, page 24 - Is the footing work due to the bus load,                                                                     Yes. See response to comment #5 above. The final TSL
                                                                                                                         ped load or both?                                                                                                               report narrative will be updated to indicate that the existing
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         footing is not overstressed in soil bearing pressure for the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         pedestrian live load case, but it is overstressed for the bus live
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         load case. Done - KPB

  19        24                                                                                                           TSL RPT, page 24 - List the locations where the exterior                                                                        Yes. The final TSL report and plans will indicate which
                                                                                                                         column footings are potentially unstable.                                                                                       footings along the west portion of the viaduct are potentially
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         unstable. Done - KPB
  20        24                                                                                                           TSL RPT, page 24 - Are you recommending the micropile                                                                           Yes. The final TSL report will clarify that we are
                                                                                                                         treatment at all interior columns (including those within the                                                                   recommending micropiles at each of the existing interior
                                                                                                                         concrete wall area)?                                                                                                            columns including those in the area of the CIP concrete
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         retaining wall. The CIP wall and embedded existing interior
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         columns and footings are not adequate to support the bus live
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         load. Therefore, in the area of the CIP retaining wall, we are
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         recommending construction of the new interior curb beam and
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         micropiles similar to other areas of the viaduct. Done - KPB


  21        24                                                                                                           TSL RPT, page 24 - I disagree that we need to replace the                                                                       Yes. The Final TSL report will be revised to detail soil nail
                                                                                                                         entire existing rockery wall and the concrete wall. If you                                                                      wall work limited to only areas of the rockery walls that are
                                                                                                                         truly are recommending this, than we need a lot more reasons                                                                    not stable or are not estimated to last an additional 50 years.
                                                                                                                         for doing this!                                                                                                                 Stable portions of the rockery wall and the CIP wall are not
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         guaranteed to have an additional 50 years of service life, so
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         we will estimate a contingency cost to restore these sections.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Discussion of other two wall alternatives will also address the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         limits of the recommended work. The MSE wall alternative
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         discussion will explain that due to the extensive excavation
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         and road closure required to construct an MSE wall, we
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         recommend that the entire length of the rockery wall be
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         replaced with an MSE wall. Discussion of the reticulated
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         micropile wall alternative will explain that similar to the soil
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         nail wall alterative, the work will be limited to only areas of
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         the rockery walls that are not stable or are not estimated to
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         last an additional 50 years. Done - KPB




  22        25                                                                                                           TSL RPT, page 25 - If we use an MSE wall repair, would it                                                                       Yes. Use of an MSE wall repair should be coupled with
                                                                                                                         1) eliminate the need for the new interior beam and 2 ) what                                                                    restoring the interior columns and interior footing similar to
                                                                                                                         would be the saving associated with eliminating the                                                                             the exterior columns and footings with concrete in-kind. We
                                                                                                                         micropiles and implementing a interior columns and footing                                                                      will investigate and document in the final TSL report the cost
                                                                                                                         repair?                                                                                                                         implications of an MSE wall repair as it relates to the viaduct
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         work cost. An MSE wall repair would not eliminate the need
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         to construct a new interior beam as the MSE wall cannot
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         support the concentrated structural loads from the interior
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         beam. The new interior curb beam is required to distributed
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         the load to the columns. Done - KPB




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                                                                    Page 7 of 147
                                                                                                                                                                            WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
       Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration
            Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                             Location and Preliminary Design (30%)                                               Location and Preliminary Design (30%)
                  To:
               Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                      2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
           Reviewer:                                                                                                     Mike Odom                                                    Dave Lofgren                             Chuck Dissen
               Title: Environmental Specialist                         Highway Design Manager                            Project Manager                                              Geotechnical Engineer                    Construction                              A/E Consultant Designer
               Date:                                                                                                                            11/20/2010                                                                                  11/17/2010
          Sheet/
Num      Page No.     Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:                                                    Comments:                                Comments:                                 Responses / Resolution                                             Comments:
  23        26                                                                                                           TSL RPT, page 26 - If we implemented the micropile repair,                                                                                      Yes. A reticulated micropile retaining wall would provide
                                                                                                                         would it eliminate the need for the new interior beam?                                                                                          support points for the existing interior curb beam at
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         intermediate points between the existing columns. However,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         due to the close spacing of the micropiles, the concrete cap at
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         the top of the micropiles would be continuous and serve as a
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         new interior beam. We will document these cost implications
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         in the evaluation of the reticulated micropile retaining wall
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         alternative. Done - KPB

  24      General                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Design calculations are not a deliverable for this phase of the
         Comment                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         project since the work is at a conceptual level. We will
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         provide structural design calculations for the next 70% design
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         effort. KPB
  25
  25      #keep#      Plan Set                                          Plan Set                                         Plan Set                                                          Plan Set                            Plan Set                                  Plan Set                                                           Plan Set
  26       A.1
  27
  28        B.1                                                                                                          The coring results in the geotechnical reports appear to                                              station 370+60 to 375+40 detail, need     Correct, the proposed curb height will be revised from 9" to
                                                                                                                         support an e=7" design to avoid milling into the underlaying                                          to establish if we can mill the roadway   7" to account for the 2" overlay. Because of the interior
                                                                                                                         warrenite pavement. Please review and confirm or change                                               enough - 11 inches from the top of the    beam work several feet of roadway (about 6') will be
                                                                                                                         the recommendation.                                                                                   sidewalk so we can pave back 2 inches     removed adjacent to the curb. Done (sheet 4 of 8) - KPB
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               and maintain the required 9 inches.

  29        B.1                                                                                                          I recommend we field check the existing curb height and each                                          This paving should not have Type III      Agree, we made a survey request to "densify curb data for
                                                                                                                         core location to better establish the depth to warrenite. This                                        pavement roughness check with             curb height" on 7/21/10 and were informed it would be done
                                                                                                                         would help us better establish the e distance.                                                        materials but probably use just a type    at a later date. Regarding Type III versus Type V pavement,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               V.                                        we will discuss pavement design specifications further when
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         the pavement design is provided by WFLHD, but at this point
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         we will show Type V. Done - KPB

  30        B.1                                                                                                          I recommend the new gutter elevation be set to match the new                                          station 370+60 to 375+40 concrete         Agreed, the reconstructed gutter height will be 2" higher than
                                                                                                                         overlay rather than leave a 2 inch dropoff.                                                           gutter, be sure to present how much       the original gutter height so it will be flush with the new
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               existing gutter depth is truly their.     pavement overlay. Done (Typical Section Sheet) - KPB
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Odom explained that new gutter has
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               been placed ontop of old gutter.

  31        C.1                                                                                                                                                                                                                Asphalt milling should be by the sqyd. O.K., will change the unit of Asphalt Milling to be paid by the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               What happens to this material? Do we square yard. Regarding the second question for what
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               have a place to take it.               happends to the material, it will become the property of the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Contractor to do what they want to with it. We have seen
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      contractors keep it for their own use or sell it back to the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      supplier they get the asphalt from. Done (Plan Sheet and
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Class B Cost Estimate) - KPB

  32        D.3                                                                                                          Not sure I agree with the scequence for construction the new                                                                                    Our current direction will be to rehabilitate the structure in
                                                                                                                         gutter. We need to discuss this and develop a preliminary                                                                                       stage one while traffic is in the inside lane controlled by
                                                                                                                         construction scequence. As I understand the design, we will                                                                                     flaggers or a temporary signal. Stage 2 will be to construct the
                                                                                                                         be controlling the exterior elevation of the milled surface                                                                                     gutter to an established grade based on coring and additional
                                                                                                                         based on the designed e distance. Do you plan of controling                                                                                     survey data with traffic in the outside lane. Stage 3 will be a
                                                                                                                         the interior elevation by designing a gutter profile? If so, we                                                                                 short duration temporary closure to mill and place new
                                                                                                                         need to make sure we minimize the risk of milling into the                                                                                      pavement. We will minimize the risk of milling into the
                                                                                                                         warrenite.                                                                                                                                      warrenite by field verifying the depth of the warrenite as it
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         becomes visable during the first stage when they excavate for
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         the end beam work and during stage 2 when they remove the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         existing gutter. MJHI and KPB


  33   TSL Drawings                                                                                                      These drawings need to better shown where the proposed                                                                                          Yes. The final TSL drawings will include more drawings
                                                                                                                         work. I would like to meet with consultant and FHWA staff                                                                                       including General Notes, Construction Sequence, and
                                                                                                                         to discuss our expectations for the final submittal                                                                                             restoration details of each of the elements separated onto
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         different sheets. Done - KPB




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                                                                  Page 8 of 147
                                                                                                                                                                         WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
       Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration
            Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                             Location and Preliminary Design (30%)                                           Location and Preliminary Design (30%)
                  To:
               Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                      2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
           Reviewer:                                                                                                     Mike Odom                                                    Dave Lofgren                             Chuck Dissen
               Title: Environmental Specialist                         Highway Design Manager                            Project Manager                                              Geotechnical Engineer                    Construction              A/E Consultant Designer
               Date:                                                                                                                            11/20/2010                                                                                  11/17/2010
          Sheet/
Num      Page No.     Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:                                                    Comments:                                Comments:                 Responses / Resolution                                      Comments:
  34    Appendix F                                                                                                       This appears to dupilcate much of appendix e. Why is this                                                                       Yes. The American with Disabilities Act Memorandum does
                                                                                                                         needed?                                                                                                                         include much of the same information as the ODOT Design
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Exception Letter. The ODOT Design Exception letter
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         includes both the roadway and ADA design exceptions. The
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ADA memo would be helpful if you only looking for
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         discussion on the ADA design exceptions and not the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         roadway exceptions. Both documents were developed as part
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         of our scope of work. KPB

  35
  36
  37
  38
  39
  40
  41
  42
  43
  44
  45
  46
  47
  48
  49
  50
  51
  52
  53
  54
  55
  56
  57
  58
  59
  60
  61
  62
  63
  64
  65
  66
  67
  68
  69
  70
  71
  72
  73
  74
  75
  76
  77
  78
  79
  80
  81
  82
  83
  84
  85
  86
  87


528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                                                             Page 9 of 147
                                                                                                                                                                         WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
       Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration
            Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                             Location and Preliminary Design (30%)                                           Location and Preliminary Design (30%)
                  To:
               Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                      2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
           Reviewer:                                                                                                     Mike Odom                                                    Dave Lofgren                             Chuck Dissen
               Title: Environmental Specialist                         Highway Design Manager                            Project Manager                                              Geotechnical Engineer                    Construction                    A/E Consultant Designer
               Date:                                                                                                                            11/20/2010                                                                                  11/17/2010
          Sheet/
Num      Page No.     Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:                                                    Comments:                                Comments:                       Responses / Resolution          Comments:
  88
  89
  90
  91
  92
  93
  94
  95
  96
  97
  98
  99
 100
 101
 102
 103
 104
 105
 106
 107
 108
 109
 110
 111
 112
 113
 114
 115
 116
 117
 118
 119
 120
 121
 122
 123
 124
 125
 126
 127
 128
 129
 130
 131
 132
 133
 134
 135
 136
 137
 138
 139
 140
 141
 142
 143
 144
 145
 146
 147
 147      #keep#      Special Contract Requirements                     Special Contract Requirements                    Special Contract Requirements                               Special Contract Requirements             Special Contract Requirements   Special Contract Requirements   Special Contract Requirements
 148

528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                                                            Page 10 of 147
                                                                                                                                                                         WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
       Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration
            Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                             Location and Preliminary Design (30%)                                           Location and Preliminary Design (30%)
                  To:
               Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                      2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
           Reviewer:                                                                                                     Mike Odom                                                    Dave Lofgren                             Chuck Dissen
               Title: Environmental Specialist                         Highway Design Manager                            Project Manager                                              Geotechnical Engineer                    Construction              A/E Consultant Designer
               Date:                                                                                                                            11/20/2010                                                                                  11/17/2010
          Sheet/
Num      Page No.     Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:                                                    Comments:                                Comments:                 Responses / Resolution                 Comments:
 149
 150
 151
 152
 153
 154
 155
 156
 157
 158
 159
 160
 161
 162
 163
 164
 165
 166
 167
 168
 169
 170
 171
 172
 173
 174
 175
 176
 177
 178
 179
 180
 181
 182
 183
 184
 185
 186
 187
 188
 189
 190
 191
 192
 193
 193      #keep#      Cross Sections                                    Cross Sections                                   Cross Sections                                              Cross Sections                            Cross Sections            Cross Sections                         Cross Sections
 194
 195
 196
 197
 198
 199
 200
 201
 202
 203
 204
 205
 206
 207
    End Comments                         0 comments                                       0 comments                                             29 comments                                            2 comments                         5 comments                             32 comments                    0 comments



528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                                                            Page 11 of 147
                                                                                                           WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                          << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                                                    Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                   Highway Design Manager (HDM)                   Construction QA Specialist (CQAS)
                                                                                             Intermediate Design (50%)                                           Partner Agency Representative (PAR)
          To:                                                                                                                                                    Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:
        Title: Highway Design Manager                          Partner Agency Representative                    Geotechnical Section                             Structures / Bridge                               Hydraulics
        Date:
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
 1   General
    Comment
 2
 3
 4
 4   #keep# Plan Set                                           Plan Set                                         Plan Set                                         Plan Set                                          Plan Set
 5    A.1
 6
 7
 8
 9
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
 25
 26
 27
 28
 29
 30
 31
 32
 33
 34
 35
 36
 37

528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                Page 12 of 147
                                                                                                           WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                          << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                                                    Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                   Highway Design Manager (HDM)                   Construction QA Specialist (CQAS)
                                                                                             Intermediate Design (50%)                                           Partner Agency Representative (PAR)
          To:                                                                                                                                                    Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:
        Title: Highway Design Manager                          Partner Agency Representative                    Geotechnical Section                             Structures / Bridge                               Hydraulics
        Date:
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
 38
 39
 40
 41
 42
 43
 44
 45
 46
 47
 48
 49
 50
 51
 52
 53
 54
 55
 56
 57
 58
 59
 60
 61
 62
 63
 64
 65
 66
 67
 68
 69
 70
 71
 72
 73
 74
 75
 76

528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                Page 13 of 147
                                                                                                           WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                          << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                                                    Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                   Highway Design Manager (HDM)                   Construction QA Specialist (CQAS)
                                                                                             Intermediate Design (50%)                                           Partner Agency Representative (PAR)
          To:                                                                                                                                                    Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:
        Title: Highway Design Manager                          Partner Agency Representative                    Geotechnical Section                             Structures / Bridge                               Hydraulics
        Date:
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
 77
 78
 79
 80
 81
 82
 83
 84
 85
 86
 87
 88
 89
 90
 91
 92
 93
 94
 95
 96
 97
 98
 99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115

528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                Page 14 of 147
                                                                                                          WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                          << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                                                    Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                   Highway Design Manager (HDM)                   Construction QA Specialist (CQAS)
                                                                                            Intermediate Design (50%)                                            Partner Agency Representative (PAR)
          To:                                                                                                                                                    Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:
        Title: Highway Design Manager                          Partner Agency Representative                    Geotechnical Section                             Structures / Bridge                               Hydraulics
        Date:
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
125  #keep# Special Contract Requirements                      Special Contract Requirements                    Special Contract Requirements                    Special Contract Requirements                     Special Contract Requirements
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153

528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                Page 15 of 147
                                                                                                            WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                           << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                                                      Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                     Highway Design Manager (HDM)                    Construction QA Specialist (CQAS)
                                                                                              Intermediate Design (50%)                                            Partner Agency Representative (PAR)
            To:                                                                                                                                                    Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)
         Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                 2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
      Reviewer:
          Title: Highway Design Manager                          Partner Agency Representative                    Geotechnical Section                             Structures / Bridge                               Hydraulics
          Date:
       Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                           Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
171    #keep# Cross Sections                                     Cross Sections                                   Cross Sections                                   Cross Sections                                    Cross Sections
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
 End Comments                     0 comments                                       0 comments                                        0 comments                                        0 comments                                     0 comments




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                  Page 16 of 147
                                                                                                          WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                            Intermediate Design (50%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:
        Title: Materials                                       Construction Quality Assurance Specialist        Designer
        Date:
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
 1   General
    Comment
 2
 3
 4
 4   #keep# Plan Set                                           Plan Set                                         Plan Set                                         Plan Set                                          Plan Set
 5    A.1
 6
 7
 8
 9
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
 25
 26
 27
 28
 29
 30
 31
 32
 33
 34
 35
 36
 37

528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                Page 17 of 147
                                                                                                          WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                            Intermediate Design (50%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:
        Title: Materials                                       Construction Quality Assurance Specialist        Designer
        Date:
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
 1
 38  General
 39 Comment
 40
 41
 42
 43
 44
 45
 46
 47
 48
 49
 50
 51
 52
 53
 54
 55
 56
 57
 58
 59
 60
 61
 62
 63
 64
 65
 66
 67
 68
 69
 70
 71
 72
 73
 74
 75
 76

528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                Page 18 of 147
                                                                                                          WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                            Intermediate Design (50%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:
        Title: Materials                                       Construction Quality Assurance Specialist        Designer
        Date:
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
 1
 77  General
 78 Comment
 79
 80
 81
 82
 83
 84
 85
 86
 87
 88
 89
 90
 91
 92
 93
 94
 95
 96
 97
 98
 99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115

528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                Page 19 of 147
                                                                                                          WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                          << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                            Intermediate Design (50%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:
        Title: Materials                                       Construction Quality Assurance Specialist        Designer
        Date:
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
 1
116  General
117 Comment
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
125  #keep# Special Contract Requirements                      Special Contract Requirements                    Special Contract Requirements                    Special Contract Requirements                     Special Contract Requirements
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153

528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                Page 20 of 147
                                                                                                            WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                           << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                              Intermediate Design (50%)
            To:
         Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                 2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
      Reviewer:
          Title: Materials                                       Construction Quality Assurance Specialist        Designer
          Date:
       Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                           Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
  1
154    General
155 Comment
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
171    #keep# Cross Sections                                     Cross Sections                                   Cross Sections                                   Cross Sections                                    Cross Sections
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
 End Comments                     0 comments                                       0 comments                                        0 comments                                        0 comments                                     0 comments




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                  Page 21 of 147
                                                                                                          WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                            Intermediate Design (50%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:
        Title:
        Date:
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
 1   General
    Comment
 2
 3
 4
 4   #keep# Plan Set                                           Plan Set                                         Plan Set                                         Plan Set                                          Plan Set
 5    A.1
 6
 7
 8
 9
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
 25
 26
 27
 28
 29
 30
 31
 32
 33
 34
 35
 36
 37

528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                Page 22 of 147
                                                                                                          WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                            Intermediate Design (50%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:
        Title:
        Date:
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
 1
 38  General
 39 Comment
 40
 41
 42
 43
 44
 45
 46
 47
 48
 49
 50
 51
 52
 53
 54
 55
 56
 57
 58
 59
 60
 61
 62
 63
 64
 65
 66
 67
 68
 69
 70
 71
 72
 73
 74
 75
 76

528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                Page 23 of 147
                                                                                                          WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                            Intermediate Design (50%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:
        Title:
        Date:
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
 1
 77  General
 78 Comment
 79
 80
 81
 82
 83
 84
 85
 86
 87
 88
 89
 90
 91
 92
 93
 94
 95
 96
 97
 98
 99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115

528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                Page 24 of 147
                                                                                                          WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                          << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                            Intermediate Design (50%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:
        Title:
        Date:
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
 1
116  General
117 Comment
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
125  #keep# Special Contract Requirements                      Special Contract Requirements                    Special Contract Requirements                    Special Contract Requirements                     Special Contract Requirements
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153

528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                Page 25 of 147
                                                                                                            WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                           << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                              Intermediate Design (50%)
            To:
         Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                 2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
      Reviewer:
          Title:
          Date:
       Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                           Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
  1
154    General
155 Comment
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
171    #keep# Cross Sections                                     Cross Sections                                   Cross Sections                                   Cross Sections                                    Cross Sections
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
 End Comments                     0 comments                                       0 comments                                        0 comments                                        0 comments                                     0 comments




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                  Page 26 of 147
                                                                                                                WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
       Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                            << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                                                     Expected Reviewers:
            Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                      Highway Design Manager (HDM)                   Construction QA Specialist (CQAS)
                                                                                                Intermediate Design (50%)                                               Partner Agency Representative (PAR)
                To:                                                                                                                                                     Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)
              Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                     2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
          Reviewer:
              Title: Highway Design Manager                          Partner Agency Representative                     Geotechnical Section                             Structures / Bridge                               Hydraulics
              Date:
           Sheet/
  #       Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
  1        General
          Comment
  2
  2        <keep>    Plan Set                                         Plan Set                                        Plan Set                                         Plan Set                                         Plan Set
  3         A.1
  4
  5
  6
  7
  8
  9
  10
  11
  12
  13
  14
  15
  16
  17
  18
  19
  20
  21
  22
  23
  24
  25
  26
  27
  28
  29
  30
  31
  32
  33
  34
  34       <keep>    Special Contract Requirements                    Special Contract Requirements                   Special Contract Requirements                    Special Contract Requirements                    Special Contract Requirements
  35
  36

528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                    Page 27 of 147
                                                                                                                WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
       Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                            << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                                                     Expected Reviewers:
            Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                      Highway Design Manager (HDM)                   Construction QA Specialist (CQAS)
                                                                                                Intermediate Design (50%)                                               Partner Agency Representative (PAR)
                To:                                                                                                                                                     Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)
              Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                     2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
          Reviewer:
              Title: Highway Design Manager                          Partner Agency Representative                     Geotechnical Section                             Structures / Bridge                               Hydraulics
              Date:
           Sheet/
  #       Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
  37
  38
  39
  40
  41
  42
  43
  44
  45
  46
  47
  48
  49
  50
                                 BOTTOM OF FILE - Add additional rows above this row.                                                                                              BOTTOM OF FILE - Add additional rows above this row.                    B




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                    Page 28 of 147
                                                                                                                 WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
       Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                             << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
            Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Intermediate Design (50%)
                To:
              Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                     2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
          Reviewer:
              Title: Materials                                       Construction Quality Assurance Specialist         Designer
              Date:
           Sheet/
  #       Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                         Responses / Resolution
  1        General
          Comment
  2
  2        <keep>    Plan Set                                         Plan Set                                          Plan Set                                         Plan Set                                         Plan Set
  3         A.1
  4
  5
  6
  7
  8
  9
  10
  11
  12
  13
  14
  15
  16
  17
  18
  19
  20
  21
  22
  23
  24
  25
  26
  27
  28
  29
  30
  31
  32
  33
  34
  34       <keep>    Special Contract Requirements                    Special Contract Requirements                     Special Contract Requirements                    Special Contract Requirements                    Special Contract Requirements
  35
  36

528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                     Page 29 of 147
                                                                                                                 WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
       Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                             << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
            Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Intermediate Design (50%)
                To:
              Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                     2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
          Reviewer:
              Title: Materials                                       Construction Quality Assurance Specialist         Designer
              Date:
           Sheet/
  #       Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                         Responses / Resolution
  1
  37       General
  38      Comment
  39
  40
  41
  42
  43
  44
  45
  46
  47
  48
  49
  50
                                 BOTTOM OF FILE - Add additional rows above this row.                                                                                                BOTTOM OF FILE - Add additional rows above this row.




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                     Page 30 of 147
                                                                                                                                     WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                                                   << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                                                           Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                                                    Highway Design Manager (HDM)                  Construction QA Specialist (CQAS)
                                                                                                                  Plan-In-Hand (70%)                                                              Partner Agency Representative (PAR)           Design Quality & Safety Engineer (DQSE)
            To:                                                                                                                                                                                   Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)           Highway Safety Engineer (HSE)
          Note:   1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                  2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:     Brian Callagan (for the HDM)                     Chuck Dissen                                      Nathan Jenks                                                                 Jeff Berg
        Title:    Highway Design Manager                           Construction Operations Engineer                  Geotechnical Section                                                         Structures / Bridge                           Hydraulics
        Date:                         10/17/2011                                      10/18/2011                                                    10/18/2011                                                        10/15/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                                    Comments:                                           Comments:                                                                   Comments:                                     Comments:
 1   General                                                                                                                  Deep patch areas/locations need to be finalized and designed. GRI, KPB, and
    Comment                                                                                                                   MJHI
                                                                                                                              MJHI: To be revised by amendment, work is high risk under current
                                                                                                                              schedule.




  2       EE




  3       EE

  3     #keep#    Plan Set                                                Plan Set                                             Plan Set                                                                Plan Set                                         Plan Set
  4      C.1      Typical Section: the typical mainline cross             The pavement call out should match the item
                  section shows the gutter at the elevation of the        description, and the compacted depth should
                  warrenite pavement. I believe (but could be             follow that description, not be in the middle of it.
                  wrong) that in some cases this is not the case          MJHI: moved depth to end of description.
                  where later construction repairing or replacing the
                  gutter, the new gutter was installed at a different     Shoulder Treatment detail - why not use the 30
                  elevation. In those cases, I believe it would be        deg. Safety edge for edge of pavement. MJHI:
                  necessary to replace the gutter at the original         this was discussed originally but shoulder rock
                  elevation in relation to the warrenite after milling.   was used instead; however, it could still be
                  MJHI: Generally the gutter is at the elevation          revised throughout or just at locations
                  of the warrenite. At the vista house the gutter         adjacent to the gutter where pavement is
                  will be replaced at its current elevation (higher       higher than gutter.
                  than original) to its original width of trough.
                  This was a change from the original 30%                 Footnote at Shoulder treatment should be 5
                  plans.                                                  instead of 6? MJHI: note is specific to
                                                                          guardrail, please clarify.

                                                                          Footnote 3 - provide what the minimum pavement
                                                                          width should be - 12ft? MJHI: unknown;
                                                                          probably 10'.

                                                                          Pavement leveling course should be a separate
                                                                          pay item. MJHI: All AC paving to be
                                                                          completed with "Hot Asphalt Concrete
                                                                          Pavement" bid item (40301-0000).




  5      C.1/2                                                                                                                                                                                         add type of superpave to typicals MJHI: All AC
                                                                                                                                                                                                       paving to be completed with "Hot Asphalt
                                                                                                                                                                                                       Concrete Pavement" bid item (40301-0000).



528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                                   Page 31 of 147
                                                                                                                                       WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                                                   << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                                                           Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                                                    Highway Design Manager (HDM)                  Construction QA Specialist (CQAS)
                                                                                                                  Plan-In-Hand (70%)                                                              Partner Agency Representative (PAR)           Design Quality & Safety Engineer (DQSE)
            To:                                                                                                                                                                                   Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)           Highway Safety Engineer (HSE)
          Note:   1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                  2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:     Brian Callagan (for the HDM)                     Chuck Dissen                                      Nathan Jenks                                                                 Jeff Berg
        Title:    Highway Design Manager                           Construction Operations Engineer                  Geotechnical Section                                                         Structures / Bridge                           Hydraulics
        Date:                         10/17/2011                                      10/18/2011                                                    10/18/2011                                                        10/15/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                                   Comments:                                              Comments:                                                                       Comments:                     Comments:
 6    C.2                                                                The Micro pile cap in the top typical section
                                                                         should be a dashed line. MJHI: is this to
                                                                         indicate that it is intermittent? Will revise.

                                                                         Is it necessary to pave 4 inches of asphalt at the
                                                                         sidewalk side, constructing this is difficult and
                                                                         why would not the 3 inches be enough. MJHI: 4"
                                                                         is recommended in pavement report to meet
                                                                         EASL requirements.

                                                                         The pavement call out should match the item
                                                                         description, and the compacted depth should
                                                                         follow that description, not be in the middle of it.
                                                                         MJHI: agreed.

                                                                         The pavement edge matches the concrete gutter
                                                                         different for typical shown at the top and bottom
                                                                         and what is shown in the middle typical. Middle
                                                                         typical shows the gutter at the bottom of finished
                                                                         asphalt while the other typical show the gutter at
                                                                         the top of finished asphalt. MJHI: see comment
                                                                         response #4.




  7       C.3     Top Left detail is of Asphalt Pavement Milling                                                                Check the anticipated milling depth at 138+69, is 6-8" correct? The pavement
                  type 1 Profile shows a taper 1" in 50' (about                                                                 report indicates a 3.5" existing over Warrenite at one boring in that station
                  0.2%) which would be hard to overlay with                                                                     range. MJHI: will revise to 3"-4".
                  conventional overlay. Suggest that instead, the
                  milling was to a 1/2" depth an then abruptly
                  ended, leaving a near vertical face to butt against.
                  MJHI: this detail is intended for full overlay
                  past end of milling. Perhaps a new detail
                  should be developed for begin and end paving
                  showing a 2" depth butt joint?




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                                       Page 32 of 147
                                                                                                                              WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                                                << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                                                              Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                                                    Highway Design Manager (HDM)                  Construction QA Specialist (CQAS)
                                                                                                                  Plan-In-Hand (70%)                                                              Partner Agency Representative (PAR)           Design Quality & Safety Engineer (DQSE)
            To:                                                                                                                                                                                   Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)           Highway Safety Engineer (HSE)
          Note:   1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                  2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:     Brian Callagan (for the HDM)                     Chuck Dissen                                      Nathan Jenks                                                                 Jeff Berg
        Title:    Highway Design Manager                           Construction Operations Engineer                  Geotechnical Section                                                         Structures / Bridge                           Hydraulics
        Date:                         10/17/2011                                      10/18/2011                                                    10/18/2011                                                        10/15/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                                  Comments:                                        Comments:                                                            Comments:                                       Comments:
 8    C.4      Full Depth Pavement Reconstruction shows base            Why not use a Select Borrow for backfilling the
               course slope (suggest 1:3) but I could not find          subexcavation and stabilization areas. MJHI: wet
               another section showing slope. Believe this              weather.
               occurs at parking area only. MJHI: also where
               distressed pavement is to be replaced; added
               1:3 slope to aggregrate shoulder.




  9       C.5                                                           Why are we not installing a paved apron at the
                                                                        approach areas? Is ODOT ok with this? MJHI:
                                                                        this detail matched previous project approved
                                                                        by ODOT.

  10      C.6     I have since found out that this detail came from     Asphalt pavement should continue a 3 inch depth
                  previous projects, but am not sure how the steel      up to curb - this very narrow 4 inch depth of
                  curb edge could be fabricated. Is this cut from a     asphalt would be very hard to construct. MJHI:
                  section of pipe, or ?. The 2 1/4" long steel rod is   agreed; will revise.
                  attached to the plate, (welded? Need welding
                  symbol), Also not clear how the 1/4" dia rod is
                  mushroomed to 1/2" dia. These rods are
                  assumed attached to the plate at a certain interval
                  that should be specified. MJHI: Detail to be
                  shown on Sht I.10 and reference from Sht C.6.




  11      C.7                                                           Post Connection Detail - define what he finish
                                                                        grade is that should be measured from, i.e.:
                                                                        pavement, finished aggregate. MJHI: will
                                                                        indicate pavement.




  12      C.7




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                          Page 33 of 147
                                                                                                                                WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                                                  << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                                                             Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                                                     Highway Design Manager (HDM)                  Construction QA Specialist (CQAS)
                                                                                                                   Plan-In-Hand (70%)                                                              Partner Agency Representative (PAR)           Design Quality & Safety Engineer (DQSE)
            To:                                                                                                                                                                                    Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)           Highway Safety Engineer (HSE)
          Note:    1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                   2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:      Brian Callagan (for the HDM)                     Chuck Dissen                                      Nathan Jenks                                                                 Jeff Berg
        Title:     Highway Design Manager                           Construction Operations Engineer                  Geotechnical Section                                                         Structures / Bridge                           Hydraulics
        Date:                          10/17/2011                                      10/18/2011                                                    10/18/2011                                                        10/15/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                                 Comments:                                         Comments:                                                             Comments:                                       Comments:
 13   C.8                                                              Have the finished look of these materials been
                                                                       oked? - what color is acceptable for the post and
                                                                       rail? Is the galvanized hardware ok with a
                                                                       galvanized finish? MJHI: this detail from gorge
                                                                       guidelines.

  14   D.2 - D.6                                                       Do we have a control point listing - include in
                                                                       plans. MJHI: sheet placeholder sheet 0.8 to be
                                                                       provided by WFLHD.


  15     D.6       At 37+80 +/-, there is an existing inlet, and not
                   clear how it will be effected by the clean and
                   recondition gutter at the same point. Is a detail
                   needed? I believe that the inlet also had
                   electrical conduit in the pipe. Will this remain?
                   MJHI: detail probably not needed, conduit use
                   not understood so conduit to remain.



  16     D.6       At 39+60 +/- the existing drainage structure…did
                   we ever find out where it drains and if any
                   modifications are needed in the pipes/discharge?
                   MJHI: the end could not be found, added
                   riprap in case pipe can not be unplugged.



  17     D.7                                                           Sheet C.2 footnote 7 "see sheet D.7 for profile",
                                                                       on D.7 your profile is at 12' ? The typical has a
                                                                       shoulder of 0-3 feet outside of the 12 foot width.
                                                                       Be clear where this profile is given, is it at 12 feet
                                                                       or on top of the gutter? MJHI: will eliminate
                                                                       note at gutter and indicate 12' lt & rt on sheet
                                                                       C.2

                                                                       Different line styles would help differentiate the
                                                                       different profiles. MJHI: Checked different
                                                                       linestyles. Prefer to maintain solid lines.




  18     D.8
  19     F.1                                                           pay Item 60703 - pay by the each for culvert
                                                                       cleaning. MJHI: will revise.




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                            Page 34 of 147
                                                                                                                          WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                                           << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                                                                   Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                                                    Highway Design Manager (HDM)                  Construction QA Specialist (CQAS)
                                                                                                                  Plan-In-Hand (70%)                                                              Partner Agency Representative (PAR)           Design Quality & Safety Engineer (DQSE)
            To:                                                                                                                                                                                   Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)           Highway Safety Engineer (HSE)
          Note:   1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                  2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:     Brian Callagan (for the HDM)                     Chuck Dissen                                      Nathan Jenks                                                                 Jeff Berg
        Title:    Highway Design Manager                           Construction Operations Engineer                  Geotechnical Section                                                         Structures / Bridge                           Hydraulics
        Date:                         10/17/2011                                      10/18/2011                                                    10/18/2011                                                        10/15/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                               Comments:                                        Comments:                                                               Comments:                                       Comments:
 20    F.2     On D.6, a section of gutter is referred to as "new" I do not know what N.T.S. stands for under each
               and see F.2. Believe this is the lower left detail. of the typical. MJHI: will indicate; not to scale.
               Is it possible to ensure consistent labeling? Also,
               is it possible to run (2) #4 rebars longitudinally in
               the new gutter to preclude the breakage and
               separations in some of the old gutter.? If ok with
               SHPO. MJHI: will add word "new" to lower
               left detail. No reinforcement to be added
               match existing gutter design.




  21     G.1                                                      Add a pilot car to the traffic control item. We
                                                                  will probably need it if we do any paving under
                                                                  traffic. Also if we perform work under traffic
                                                                  with multiple work sites the flagging easily gets
                                                                  overrun. MPLA -Per direction from PM no
                                                                  pilot car to be added.




  22     G.1




  23     G.2


  24    G.3-G.4




  25    G.3-G.4




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                        Page 35 of 147
                                                                                                                         WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                                        << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                                                                      Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                                                    Highway Design Manager (HDM)                  Construction QA Specialist (CQAS)
                                                                                                                  Plan-In-Hand (70%)                                                              Partner Agency Representative (PAR)           Design Quality & Safety Engineer (DQSE)
            To:                                                                                                                                                                                   Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)           Highway Safety Engineer (HSE)
          Note:   1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                  2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:     Brian Callagan (for the HDM)                     Chuck Dissen                                      Nathan Jenks                                                                 Jeff Berg
        Title:    Highway Design Manager                           Construction Operations Engineer                  Geotechnical Section                                                         Structures / Bridge                           Hydraulics
        Date:                         10/17/2011                                      10/18/2011                                                    10/18/2011                                                        10/15/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                            Comments:                                       Comments:                                                                   Comments:                                       Comments:
 26  G.3-G.4




  27   G sheets




  28     G.3




  29    G.3-G.4




  30    G.3-G.4




  31    G.3-G.4




  32    G.3-G.4




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                        Page 36 of 147
                                                                                                                         WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                                        << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                                                                      Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                                                    Highway Design Manager (HDM)                  Construction QA Specialist (CQAS)
                                                                                                                  Plan-In-Hand (70%)                                                              Partner Agency Representative (PAR)           Design Quality & Safety Engineer (DQSE)
            To:                                                                                                                                                                                   Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)           Highway Safety Engineer (HSE)
          Note:   1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                  2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:     Brian Callagan (for the HDM)                     Chuck Dissen                                      Nathan Jenks                                                                 Jeff Berg
        Title:    Highway Design Manager                           Construction Operations Engineer                  Geotechnical Section                                                         Structures / Bridge                           Hydraulics
        Date:                         10/17/2011                                      10/18/2011                                                    10/18/2011                                                        10/15/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                            Comments:                                       Comments:                                                                   Comments:                                       Comments:
 33   G.4




  34   G sheets




  35     H.1




  36    H.1-H.2




  37     H.2




  38     H.2




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                        Page 37 of 147
                                                                                                                          WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                                                                      Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                                                     Highway Design Manager (HDM)                  Construction QA Specialist (CQAS)
                                                                                                                   Plan-In-Hand (70%)                                                              Partner Agency Representative (PAR)           Design Quality & Safety Engineer (DQSE)
             To:                                                                                                                                                                                   Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)           Highway Safety Engineer (HSE)
           Note:   1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                   2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:      Brian Callagan (for the HDM)                     Chuck Dissen                                      Nathan Jenks                                                                 Jeff Berg
        Title:     Highway Design Manager                           Construction Operations Engineer                  Geotechnical Section                                                         Structures / Bridge                           Hydraulics
        Date:                          10/17/2011                                      10/18/2011                                                    10/18/2011                                                        10/15/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                             Comments:                                       Comments:                                                                   Comments:                                            Comments:
 39   H.2




  40     H.2


  41    H.1-H.2




  42    I.1 thru                                                                                                                                                                               Drawing numbers on the viaduct restoration
          I.24                                                                                                                                                                                 sheets should be RG2927-A, RG2927-B, RG2927-
                                                                                                                                                                                               C, etc for the 24 sheets. AMST Drawings
                                                                                                                                                                                               revised accordingly.

  43      I.1                                                                                                                                                                                  Somewhat confusing to have columns numbers
                                                                                                                                                                                               labeled in the direction of decreasing stationing.
                                                                                                                                                                                               Also confusing to have plan view laid out with
                                                                                                                                                                                               stationing increasing from right to left. AMST
                                                                                                                                                                                               This is a special structure, not a bridge with
                                                                                                                                                                                               bent numbering. The columns are numbered
                                                                                                                                                                                               from left to right in an elevation that looks at
                                                                                                                                                                                               the exterior of the walls below the viaduct.
                                                                                                                                                                                               Walls are typically layed out with wall
                                                                                                                                                                                               stationing increasing from left to right in an
                                                                                                                                                                                               elevation view. We don't detail wall stationing,
                                                                                                                                                                                               but the column numbers are used to detail the
                                                                                                                                                                                               extents of different wall work. Therefore,
                                                                                                                                                                                               while it may be initally confusing that the
                                                                                                                                                                                               column numbers increase in decreasing
                                                                                                                                                                                               stationing, the roadway stationing is not
                                                                                                                                                                                               referenced within any of the viaduct or wall
                                                                                                                                                                                               work. To maintain consistency between the
                                                                                                                                                                                               wall elevation views and the plan view, the
                                                                                                                                                                                               Plan View is laid out with increasing column
                                                                                                                                                                                               numbering from left to right.




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                         Page 38 of 147
                                                                                                                           WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                                        << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                                                                      Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                                                    Highway Design Manager (HDM)                  Construction QA Specialist (CQAS)
                                                                                                                  Plan-In-Hand (70%)                                                              Partner Agency Representative (PAR)           Design Quality & Safety Engineer (DQSE)
            To:                                                                                                                                                                                   Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)           Highway Safety Engineer (HSE)
          Note:   1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                  2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:     Brian Callagan (for the HDM)                     Chuck Dissen                                      Nathan Jenks                                                                 Jeff Berg
         Title:   Highway Design Manager                           Construction Operations Engineer                  Geotechnical Section                                                         Structures / Bridge                           Hydraulics
         Date:                        10/17/2011                                      10/18/2011                                                    10/18/2011                                                        10/15/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                            Comments:                                         Comments:                                                                  Comments:                                                Comments:
 44    I.2                                                                                                          I assume ACWS stands for Asphalt Concrete Wearing Surface? ACWS should
                                                                                                                    be included in the acronym list on sheet A.2. AMST Drawing revised to call
                                                                                                                    out Finished Grade instead.
  45      I.3                                                     Cleaning of Stone Masonry & re-chick voids        Live Load - is 2007 correct or should it be 2009? AMST It should be 2009. Item No. 20803-0000 should be noted as
                                                                  needs to be identified. AMST Esimate updated      Year removed from Live Loading note.                                       Structural Backfill AMST Estimate corrected.
                                                                  to relfect repointing stone masonry between
                                                                  columns 1-10.

                                                                  Does the Remove and Reset Stone Masonry
                                                                  include the cleaning or is this paid separately
                                                                  under item 62035. AMST Bid item 62026-1000
                                                                  Remove and Reset Stone Masonry (Btwn.
                                                                  Columns 12-18) includes the cleaning. Bid
                                                                  item 62001-0000 Repoint Stone Masonry
                                                                  (Btwn. Columns 1-10) includes cleaning.




  46      I.3                                                                                                                                                                                        Item No. 25903-0000 should be noted as
                                                                                                                                                                                                     Verification Test Nail AMST Estimate
                                                                                                                                                                                                     corrected.
  47      I.3
  48      I.4                                                                                                       Typ Sec 1 - Weep Hole Callout, Recommend providing a min depth and               Rehab item 5 (Footing rehab) appears to be
                                                                                                                    possibly a max depth to install instead of "as far as possible". Rec, adding     occuring at columns 11 & 12 as well. AMST
                                                                                                                    'horizontal" to last sentence between max. and spacing. Is there/should there    Rehab Item 15 includes both the footing rehab
                                                                                                                    be any vertical control on the location of these drains? AMST Note revised       for columns 10 thru 12 and rebuilding the
                                                                                                                    to: "2" Dia. weep holes at existing ground surface btwn. columns 1-10.           masonry wall in the area. We recommend that
                                                                                                                    Drill and install plastic sleeved pipe 1'-6" into wall at 6'-0" max              both these operations occur somewhat together
                                                                                                                    horizontal spacing." Vertical control is as shown with the weep hole             to reduce the potential of undermining the new
                                                                                                                    terminating at existing ground surface.                                          wall when the footing is reconstructed and vise-
                                                                                                                                                                                                     versa.




  49      I.4                                                                                                       Typ Sec 1 - Exterior footing rehab callout, columns 11 and 12 are not included
                                                                                                                    and it appears that they should. AMST Note revised to include columns 11
                                                                                                                    and 12.



  50      I.4                                                                                                       Section A-A - included "Corrugated" before PVC sheathing. AMST Note
                                                                                                                    revised accordinly.



528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                            Page 39 of 147
                                                                                                                         WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                                        << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                                                                      Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                                                    Highway Design Manager (HDM)                  Construction QA Specialist (CQAS)
                                                                                                                  Plan-In-Hand (70%)                                                              Partner Agency Representative (PAR)           Design Quality & Safety Engineer (DQSE)
            To:                                                                                                                                                                                   Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)           Highway Safety Engineer (HSE)
          Note:   1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                  2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:     Brian Callagan (for the HDM)                     Chuck Dissen                                      Nathan Jenks                                                                 Jeff Berg
         Title:   Highway Design Manager                           Construction Operations Engineer                  Geotechnical Section                                                         Structures / Bridge                           Hydraulics
         Date:                        10/17/2011                                      10/18/2011                                                    10/18/2011                                                        10/15/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                            Comments:                                       Comments:                                                                       Comments:                                   Comments:
 51    I.4                                                                                                        Typ Sec 2 - What is the wall batter for the soil nail wall? Are we trying to
                                                                                                                  match the existing wall batter? What is the depth of existing rock facing to be
                                                                                                                  removed? The plans and/or specs need to provide info/details/limits etc. for
                                                                                                                  these issues. AMST Drawings revised to detail depth of stone removal to
                                                                                                                  be 2'-6". SCR's revised to specify depth of removal, and batter of
                                                                                                                  finsished wall.


  52      I.4                                                                                                     Typ Sec 2 - The scale of the section makes it a little difficult to clearly see the
                                                                                                                  nail head, shotcrete, reinforcement, waler bar, etc. Recommend adding a
                                                                                                                  clearer/close-up detail be shown on sheet I.17. WFLHD will provide an
                                                                                                                  example detail for review. AMST Detail revised.

  53      I.4                                                                                                     Typ Sec 2 - The configuration of the leveling pad does not appear stable.
                                                                                                                  Recommend changing the geometry of the leveling pad to match the detail on
                                                                                                                  sheet I.20. AMST Details revised to match leveling pad shown on I.20

  54      I.4                                                                                                     Typ Sec 2 - Galv. Metal Anchor. Callout, This callout is a bit unclear, consider
                                                                                                                  rewording first sentence to something like "Approved galvanized metal
                                                                                                                  stonework ties anchored in shotcrete." AMST Note revised.




  55      I.4                                                                                                     Typ Sec 2 - Weep hole callout, "3" from front face" is unclear. Consider
                                                                                                                  "Connect to strip drain per manufacturers recommendations and extend outlet
                                                                                                                  to 3" from front face". Also W/R/T the drain pipe, WFL has had durability
                                                                                                                  problems with plastic pipe in stacked rock. Has steel pipe or plastic sleeved
                                                                                                                  steel pipe (corrosion) been considered? AMST Note revised.

  56      I.6                                                                                                     Typ Sec Columns 12-18 - Leveling pad geometry needs to be consistent (see
                                                                                                                  leveling pad note for sheet I.4) AMST Details revised to match leveling pad
                                                                                                                  shown on I.20




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                            Page 40 of 147
                                                                                                                            WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                                           << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                                                                   Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                                                    Highway Design Manager (HDM)                  Construction QA Specialist (CQAS)
                                                                                                                  Plan-In-Hand (70%)                                                              Partner Agency Representative (PAR)           Design Quality & Safety Engineer (DQSE)
            To:                                                                                                                                                                                   Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)           Highway Safety Engineer (HSE)
          Note:   1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                  2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:     Brian Callagan (for the HDM)                     Chuck Dissen                                      Nathan Jenks                                                                 Jeff Berg
         Title:   Highway Design Manager                           Construction Operations Engineer                  Geotechnical Section                                                         Structures / Bridge                           Hydraulics
         Date:                        10/17/2011                                      10/18/2011                                                    10/18/2011                                                        10/15/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                               Comments:                                          Comments:                                                             Comments:                                        Comments:
 57    I.7                                                           Make the Temporary support Structure be                                                                                  Consider removing details for temporary
                                                                     subsidiary to the existing work and not have a pay                                                                       support/equipment access structure. Much of the
                                                                     item. Different contractors will approach this in                                                                        temporary structure shown would interfere with
                                                                     different ways. AMST Yes. The bid item for                                                                               proposed (footing) work. AMST No. This
                                                                     the Temporary Support Structure is removed                                                                               drawing includes the following note (modified
                                                                     and the cost of the micropiles, soil nails, and                                                                          from the 70% submittal): "Contractor is
                                                                     concrete bid items is increased.                                                                                         responsible for design and construction of any
                                                                                                                                                                                              temporary works necessary to access and
                                                                                                                                                                                              construct all bid items. Design of temporary
                                                                                                                                                                                              support structure as shown is conceptual and
                                                                                                                                                                                              alternative means of access may be submitted
                                                                                                                                                                                              to the CO for approval. ..." Although the
                                                                                                                                                                                              temporary structure may conflict with the
                                                                                                                                                                                              footing widening and new micropile caps, the
                                                                                                                                                                                              temporary structure can still serve as access to
                                                                                                                                                                                              these areas and the platform can be adjusted
                                                                                                                                                                                              to the Contractor's work.




  58     I.10     5/8" threaded rods installed through existing
                  concrete. Seems difficult to drill in cramped
                  spaces Looks like they are 1' c-c so there would
                  be a lot of holes to drill. Could doweling at an
                  angle be easier? Also rod has washers on either
                  side - dia of washers?AMST The 5/8"
                  diameter rods can be drilled in from either
                  face of the existing curb beam. We anticiapate
                  that the Contractor will drill them in through
                  the roadway side after excavating the roadway
                  to expose more of the face of this beam.
                  Drawing revised to call out standard size
                  washers.




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                        Page 41 of 147
                                                                                                                         WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                                        << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                                                                      Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                                                    Highway Design Manager (HDM)                  Construction QA Specialist (CQAS)
                                                                                                                  Plan-In-Hand (70%)                                                              Partner Agency Representative (PAR)           Design Quality & Safety Engineer (DQSE)
            To:                                                                                                                                                                                   Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)           Highway Safety Engineer (HSE)
          Note:   1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                  2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:     Brian Callagan (for the HDM)                     Chuck Dissen                                      Nathan Jenks                                                                 Jeff Berg
        Title:    Highway Design Manager                           Construction Operations Engineer                  Geotechnical Section                                                         Structures / Bridge                           Hydraulics
        Date:                         10/17/2011                                      10/18/2011                                                    10/18/2011                                                        10/15/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                            Comments:                                       Comments:                                                                           Comments:                               Comments:
 59   I.12                                                                                                        Based on my understanding the interior micro piles are to be designed for a
                                                                                                                  lateral load resulting from a bus mounting the sidewalk. Additionally, the
                                                                                                                  SCR indicates the piles are to be designed to the loads indicated on the plans.
                                                                                                                  This lateral load is not clear and needs to be clarified in the plans and/or in the
                                                                                                                  SCR. AMST The SCR's indicate that "the Contractor shall design and
                                                                                                                  install micro-pile that will develop the load capacities indication the plans
                                                                                                                  and provides the minimum plastic section modulus indicated in the
                                                                                                                  plans." The plans detail the axial compression load and the minimum
                                                                                                                  section modulus. The minimum section modulus assures that the
                                                                                                                  Contractor's section will have adequate capacity to resist the lateral and
                                                                                                                  moment load generated as a result of a bus mounting the sidewalk. (No
                                                                                                                  changes made to the SCR's or plans.)




  60     I.12                                                                                                     Note 1 - This note should state/clarify that the load given is following Service
                                                                                                                  Load Design (SLD) methodology (seeing that the rest of the structure uses
                                                                                                                  LRFD methodology) AMST Note revised.

  61     I.13                                                                                                     It appears that a shear/moment would be present based on the design/location
                                                                                                                  of the micro pile w/r/t to the location of the exterior column. Has this moment
                                                                                                                  been accounted for in the design? Is the load effectively transmitted to the
                                                                                                                  micro pile? I rec. that the WFL structural group look at this. Was a design
                                                                                                                  considered using two micro piles at each column, one on each side? AMST
                                                                                                                  There are constructability concerns with detailing two micropiles, one on
                                                                                                                  each side of the existing exterior column due to restricted overhead access
                                                                                                                  under the viaduct at some of the exterior micropile locations. Details
                                                                                                                  have been revised to strengthen the connection between the existing
                                                                                                                  footing and the new micropile.




  62     I.13                                                                                                     Note 1 - This note should state/clarify that the load given is following Service
                                                                                                                  Load Design (SLD) methodology (seeing that the rest of the structure uses
                                                                                                                  LRFD methodology) AMST Note revised.




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                           Page 42 of 147
                                                                                                                         WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                                        << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                                                                      Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                                                    Highway Design Manager (HDM)                  Construction QA Specialist (CQAS)
                                                                                                                  Plan-In-Hand (70%)                                                              Partner Agency Representative (PAR)           Design Quality & Safety Engineer (DQSE)
            To:                                                                                                                                                                                   Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)           Highway Safety Engineer (HSE)
          Note:   1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                  2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:     Brian Callagan (for the HDM)                     Chuck Dissen                                      Nathan Jenks                                                                 Jeff Berg
        Title:    Highway Design Manager                           Construction Operations Engineer                  Geotechnical Section                                                         Structures / Bridge                           Hydraulics
        Date:                         10/17/2011                                      10/18/2011                                                    10/18/2011                                                        10/15/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                            Comments:                                       Comments:                                                                       Comments:                                       Comments:
 63   I.13                                                                                                        The interior columns show a min diameter for the reinforcing steel threadbar in
                                                                                                                  the micro piles, should a min size of threadbar be shown for the exterior
                                                                                                                  columns? AMST The interior micropiles require a minimum moment
                                                                                                                  capacity below the steel casing that is provided by the steel bar. There is
                                                                                                                  no moment demand on the exterior micropiles, therefore, no minimum
                                                                                                                  bars is specified to assure moment capacity.



  64     I.15                                                                                                     All excavation diagrams show a vertical side cut. Is the material stable enough
                                                                                                                  and/or excavation shallow enough to for a vertical excavation? OSHA
                                                                                                                  requirements may dictate sloped side if the excavation is deeper than 3 or 4
                                                                                                                  feet. AMST These diagrams only detail the pay limits for the excavation
                                                                                                                  and backfill quantities. They are not intended to detail the actual cut
                                                                                                                  slope.




  65     I.16                                                                                                     Consider labeling soil nail rows. AMST Due to varying height of wall,
                                                                                                                  labeling rows may add more confusion than clarity. Thefore soil nail
                                                                                                                  rows not labeled.



  66     I.17                                                                                                     Soil Nail Joint Detail - Consider showing this information on the close-up        Add detail for nail head with shotcrete and
                                                                                                                  detail as discussed in comment above (sheet I.4) AMST Detail added.               reinforcement AMST Detail added.

  67     I.17                                                                                                     Initial Facing Detail - what does"(Beyond)" mean? Is it needed? Or perhaps
                                                                                                                  better stated? AMST Note revised to indicate "12" Min. width
                                                                                                                  geocomposite vertical strip drain, between soil nails. Place between
                                                                                                                  existing ground and shotcrete."



  68     I.18                                                                                                     A vertical contact between two different material types is typically not
                                                                                                                  practical to construct. Is this needed? Can we not use structural backfill for
                                                                                                                  the majority of the excavation and have a top layer of the needed thickness of
                                                                                                                  agg base? AMST Aggregate base is removed as a pay item in this area.
                                                                                                                  However, consistent with the Standard Specifications, the pay limits of
                                                                                                                  the structural backfill is still detailed as a neat vertical line.




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                          Page 43 of 147
                                                                                                                                WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                                            << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                                                                  Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                                                    Highway Design Manager (HDM)                  Construction QA Specialist (CQAS)
                                                                                                                  Plan-In-Hand (70%)                                                              Partner Agency Representative (PAR)           Design Quality & Safety Engineer (DQSE)
            To:                                                                                                                                                                                   Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)           Highway Safety Engineer (HSE)
          Note:   1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                  2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:     Brian Callagan (for the HDM)                     Chuck Dissen                                      Nathan Jenks                                                                 Jeff Berg
        Title:    Highway Design Manager                           Construction Operations Engineer                  Geotechnical Section                                                         Structures / Bridge                           Hydraulics
        Date:                         10/17/2011                                      10/18/2011                                                    10/18/2011                                                        10/15/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                            Comments:                                              Comments:                                                                      Comments:                             Comments:
 69   I.18                                                        Why use aggregate base below finished subgrade?        The excavation limits on the outside of the Excavation and Backfill diagram
                                                                  This could be structural backfill or select topping.   are not practical. Rec a 1:1 max excavation slope, similar to what is shown on
                                                                  AMST Aggregate base is removed as a pay                the other side. AMST The Excavation and Backfill diagram only details
                                                                  item.                                                  the pay limits for the excavation and backfill quantities. It is not
                                                                                                                         intended to detail the actual cut slope.
                                                                  How is the contractor getting paid for the area
                                                                  that the aggregate base is shown for? AMST
                                                                  Aggregate base is removed as a pay item.
                                                                                                             Why
                                                                  would this not be structural excavation? AMST
                                                                  Consistent with the Standard Specifications,
                                                                  the pay limits of the structural excavation is a
                                                                  neat vertical line.

                                                                  In bottom right title block should this be Details 3
                                                                  of 3 instead of 1 of 3. AMST Title block revised.




  70     I.19                                                                                                            Stage 1 through 3 - add the word "vertical" after the plus/minus 4' AMST
                                                                                                                         Notes revised.
  71     I.19                                                                                                            Stage 1 through 4 - add the work "width" after 12". AMST Notes revised.

  72     I.19                                                                                                            Stage 1 through 4 - other locations in the plans the first layer of shotcrete is
                                                                                                                         called the "initial" layer. Rec adding the term "initial" to all relevant notes.
                                                                                                                         AMST Notes revised.
  73     I.20                                                                                                            Stage 5 - add the word "final" after min. and before layer to be consistent with
                                                                                                                         the rest of the plans. AMST Note revised.
  74      J.1                                                     Note calls for gray in color to match concrete
                                                                  color. Does this mean the commercial gray
                                                                  electric conduit is acceptable or is some coloring
                                                                  of the pipe expected - does this need to be
                                                                  approved. The commercial gray will fade after
                                                                  time being exposed. DTJ: wording pvc coating
                                                                  has been revised. Standard gray color is
                                                                  sufficient.

  75      J.3                                                     Note below view A-A, concrete is misspelled.
                                                                  DTJ: Corrected
                                                                  Note under Conduit Riser Junction Detail is
                                                                  blurred - not readable. DTJ - corrected

  76                                                              Payitem list? DTJ Added to Sht. J.1
  77                                                              Pay Item 20103 - need to identify were we are
                                                                  doing this clearing. MJHI: Show locations to
                                                                  Plans (Sht D.6).




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                                 Page 44 of 147
                                                                                                                                     WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                                                 << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                                                               Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                                                      Highway Design Manager (HDM)                  Construction QA Specialist (CQAS)
                                                                                                                    Plan-In-Hand (70%)                                                              Partner Agency Representative (PAR)           Design Quality & Safety Engineer (DQSE)
             To:                                                                                                                                                                                    Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)           Highway Safety Engineer (HSE)
           Note:    1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                    2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:       Brian Callagan (for the HDM)                     Chuck Dissen                                      Nathan Jenks                                                                 Jeff Berg
        Title:      Highway Design Manager                           Construction Operations Engineer                  Geotechnical Section                                                         Structures / Bridge                           Hydraulics
        Date:                           10/17/2011                                      10/18/2011                                                    10/18/2011                                                        10/15/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                                  Comments:                                              Comments:                                                        Comments:                                       Comments:
 78                                                                     Pay Item 40101 - add a pay item for paving the
                                                                        wedge and leveling course. MJHI: All AC
                                                                        paving to be completed with "Hot Asphalt
                                                                        Concrete Pavement" bid item (40301-0000).

  79                                                                    Pay Item 56202 - delete temporary support
                                                                        structure as a pay item. AMST Pay item
                                                                        removed.
  80                                                                    Pay Item - 62035 Clean stone masonry surfaces -
                                                                        this needs to be clearly defined in the plans or
                                                                        specifications. MJHI: specials provided by
                                                                        Amanda. Plans show locations only.



  81   SCR E-51,    Not clear when contractor can close roadway, and    Comment on pay item 41303 on October 19 -
        Section     what constitutes "interferes" with public travel.   Please make the pay units by the square yard for
       156 Public   (para l). Believe this was also discussed at the    milling the existing asphalt. You already provide
         Traffic    review meeting and was probably clarified.          the table of anticipated depths on plan sheet C.3,
                    MJHI: The current project plan is to construct      this gives the opportunity for the bidder/contractor
                    gutter, guardrail, paving, and all work outside     to estimate what kind of quantity he will have. I
                    of the viaduct during roadway closure periods.      would not provide any additional information
                    Replaced word "interferes" with "blocks a           such as estimated cubic yards (for information
                    travel lane".                                       only), let the contractor assume how much
                                                                        material will come out of the estimated depths
                                                                        given and how much it will expand for hauling.
                                                                        MJHI: contractor may apply risk to cost.
                                                                        Thought was to stabilize bid item cost and
                                                                        provide for uncertainty.




  81    #keep#      Special Contract Requirements                       Special Contract Requirements                          Special Contract Requirements                                    Special Contract Requirements                   Special Contract Requirements
  82     NTB




  83      E-6                                                           105.02 include (a) Government-provided sources
                                                                        Add the Following:
                                                                        There are no Government-Provided sources for
                                                                        this project. CJTW Fixed cjtw


  84     E-9
  85     E-10


  86     E-16



528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                                  Page 45 of 147
                                                                                                                          WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                                            << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                                                                  Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                                                    Highway Design Manager (HDM)                  Construction QA Specialist (CQAS)
                                                                                                                  Plan-In-Hand (70%)                                                              Partner Agency Representative (PAR)           Design Quality & Safety Engineer (DQSE)
            To:                                                                                                                                                                                   Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)           Highway Safety Engineer (HSE)
          Note:   1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                  2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:     Brian Callagan (for the HDM)                     Chuck Dissen                                      Nathan Jenks                                                                 Jeff Berg
        Title:    Highway Design Manager                           Construction Operations Engineer                  Geotechnical Section                                                         Structures / Bridge                           Hydraulics
        Date:                         10/17/2011                                      10/18/2011                                                    10/18/2011                                                        10/15/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                            Comments:                                        Comments:                                                                  Comments:                                       Comments:
 87   E-18                                                        108.01 Are we planning a winter shutdown, Nov.
                                                                  15 thru April 15? KPB - No, we are not
                                                                  specifying that the contractor will shut down
                                                                  for winter. If they are done with the structure
                                                                  work they can, but if they are not finished with
                                                                  the work they can work thru winter.

  88     E-22                                                     Table 109-1 add Superpave pavement wedge and
                                                                  leveling course. For escalation. CJTW: Deleted
                                                                  Superpave bid item. Use "Hot Asphalt
                                                                  Concrete Pavement" (40301-0000) bid item.

  89     E-27                                                     152.02(c ) some of this does not apply - still need
                                                                  to fit this to the survey information that we will be
                                                                  providing. KPB: Revised list.

  90     E-46




  91    E-47/48

  92     E-48                                                     155.04(a)(10) add "The critical path is the longest
                                                                  continuous chain of activities through the network
                                                                  schedule that establishes the minimum overall
                                                                  project duration." CTJW added cjtw

  93     E-49                                                     155.05 missing the first paragraph of this section -
                                                                  see standard SCR's. CTJW added cjtw

                                                                  155.05 add "Show the actual start and finish
                                                                  dates" CTJW added (f)

                                                                  155.09 add "(c ) No prorated payment will be
                                                                  made for months an accepted updated
                                                                  construction Schedule is not received. CTJW
                                                                  added to (c)


  94     E-51




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                        Page 46 of 147
                                                                                                                           WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                                          << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                                                                    Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                                                    Highway Design Manager (HDM)                  Construction QA Specialist (CQAS)
                                                                                                                  Plan-In-Hand (70%)                                                              Partner Agency Representative (PAR)           Design Quality & Safety Engineer (DQSE)
            To:                                                                                                                                                                                   Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)           Highway Safety Engineer (HSE)
          Note:   1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                  2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:     Brian Callagan (for the HDM)                     Chuck Dissen                                      Nathan Jenks                                                                 Jeff Berg
        Title:    Highway Design Manager                           Construction Operations Engineer                  Geotechnical Section                                                         Structures / Bridge                           Hydraulics
        Date:                         10/17/2011                                      10/18/2011                                                    10/18/2011                                                        10/15/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                            Comments:                                           Comments:                                                               Comments:                                       Comments:
 95   E-51




  96     E-51




  97     E-51


  98     E-51




  99     E-53                                                     157.11 second sentence slope is misspelled, and
                                                                  third sentence we should not be putting "rats" on
                                                                  the slope. CTJW fixed mis spelled words cjtw


 100      F-1




 101      F-2                                                     204-07 use select borrow instead of aggregate
                                                                  base, usually the aggregate base meets the select
                                                                  borrow specification so give the contractor some
                                                                  latitude. MJHI: wet weather.




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                        Page 47 of 147
                                                                                                                                WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                                            << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                                                                  Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                                                    Highway Design Manager (HDM)                  Construction QA Specialist (CQAS)
                                                                                                                  Plan-In-Hand (70%)                                                              Partner Agency Representative (PAR)           Design Quality & Safety Engineer (DQSE)
            To:                                                                                                                                                                                   Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)           Highway Safety Engineer (HSE)
          Note:   1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                  2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:     Brian Callagan (for the HDM)                     Chuck Dissen                                      Nathan Jenks                                                                 Jeff Berg
        Title:    Highway Design Manager                           Construction Operations Engineer                  Geotechnical Section                                                         Structures / Bridge                           Hydraulics
        Date:                         10/17/2011                                      10/18/2011                                                    10/18/2011                                                        10/15/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                            Comments:                                              Comments:                                                                            Comments:                       Comments:
102   F-3


 103      F-6

 104      F-8                                                                                                            What are grouting conditions expected to be in the coarse rock, roadway fill,
                                                                                                                         native matl. etc. ? Recommend that we have language in the SCR for the
                                                                                                                         contractor to be prepared to control grout using socks, additives, or other
                                                                                                                         methods. The project Geotech can provide guidance. AMST A paragraph
                                                                                                                         has been added to Section 259.07(D) of the SCR's to indicate that the
                                                                                                                         Contractor shall be prepared to control excessive grout take.



 105      F-8                                                                                                            Sec 259 - subsection 259.05(d) consider replacing with "Soil nail testing
                                                                                                                         methods, equipment setup, and reaction frame details. Reaction frame details
                                                                                                                         to be stamped by a licensed Professional Engineer. AMST Change made.

 106      F.8                                                                                                            Sec 259.06 - The plans indicate that a 4" min. initial layer of shotcrete is to be
                                                                                                                         applied for temporary stabilization. The SCR states "provide a stable face
                                                                                                                         which could include short dowels/nails and mesh with or without shotcrete."
                                                                                                                         These do not correlate well. Please revise the language and/or the details as
                                                                                                                         necessary to be consistent. AMST Language clarified.

 107      F.8                                                                                                            259.06 - Recommend language be added to have the contractor prove their
                                                                                                                         temporary support method in a designated area, to be approved by the CO,
                                                                                                                         prior to proceeding with full scale work AMST Language strengthend to
                                                                                                                         require approval by the CO and requirement for additional measures to
                                                                                                                         the satisfaction of the CO if necessary.



 108     F-11                                                     301 aggregate - not sure we want to use the
                                                                  Humphreys test for the aggregate base used in this
                                                                  project, not sure we want to use a 301 aggregate
                                                                  spec due to the testing and placing requirements
                                                                  that go along with 301 rock. Need to discuss with
                                                                  materials. MJHI: All aggregate to be
                                                                  "Roadway Aggregate, Method 2" (30802-
                                                                  2000) bid item.

 109     F-16                                                     401 section needs to be updated with what we use
                                                                  in this contract, materials will probably clean this
                                                                  up. MJHI: All AC paving to be completed with
                                                                  "Hot Asphalt Concrete Pavement" bid item
                                                                  (40301-0000).




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                                  Page 48 of 147
                                                                                                                         WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                                        << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                                                                      Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                                                    Highway Design Manager (HDM)                  Construction QA Specialist (CQAS)
                                                                                                                  Plan-In-Hand (70%)                                                              Partner Agency Representative (PAR)           Design Quality & Safety Engineer (DQSE)
            To:                                                                                                                                                                                   Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)           Highway Safety Engineer (HSE)
          Note:   1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                  2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:     Brian Callagan (for the HDM)                     Chuck Dissen                                      Nathan Jenks                                                                 Jeff Berg
        Title:    Highway Design Manager                           Construction Operations Engineer                  Geotechnical Section                                                         Structures / Bridge                           Hydraulics
        Date:                         10/17/2011                                      10/18/2011                                                    10/18/2011                                                        10/15/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                            Comments:                                        Comments:                                                                  Comments:                                       Comments:
110   F-42




 111     F-44




 112     F-45




 113     F-48


 114     F-52                                                     562 - do not make the temporary works a pay
                                                                  item, leave as subsidiary. AMST BI removed

                                                                  Correct the formatting of the Design
                                                                  Requirements location and ID number. Spec
                                                                  under design Requirements should be 562.03 and
                                                                  moved up on the page. AMST Moved 562.03 up
                                                                  on this page cjtw




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                        Page 49 of 147
                                                                                                                               WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                                           << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                                                                   Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                                                    Highway Design Manager (HDM)                  Construction QA Specialist (CQAS)
                                                                                                                  Plan-In-Hand (70%)                                                              Partner Agency Representative (PAR)           Design Quality & Safety Engineer (DQSE)
            To:                                                                                                                                                                                   Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)           Highway Safety Engineer (HSE)
          Note:   1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                  2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:     Brian Callagan (for the HDM)                     Chuck Dissen                                      Nathan Jenks                                                                 Jeff Berg
        Title:    Highway Design Manager                           Construction Operations Engineer                  Geotechnical Section                                                         Structures / Bridge                           Hydraulics
        Date:                         10/17/2011                                      10/18/2011                                                    10/18/2011                                                        10/15/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                            Comments:                                             Comments:                                                                    Comments:                                Comments:
115   F-60




 116     F-61                                                                                                           3rd paragraphs' first sentence, correct typo CTJW fixed I think cjtw

 117     F-63                                                                                                           Paragraph starting with "Where required as shown on the plans, corrosion…"
                                                                                                                        Re-word paragraphs as it is a bit confusing/unclear as currently written.
                                                                                                                        AMST Language revised.


 118     F-66                                                                                                           Part (e) second paragraph - considering allowing 14 (even 21?) days for
                                                                                                                        review by the CO. AMST Revised to allow 30 days.
 119     F-77




 120     F-84




 121     F-88                                                     609.05 (b)(9) require a test section that allows
                                                                  the polymer sealer to dry to show it remains clear.
                                                                  On 2006 HCRH project the sealer was applied
                                                                  and turned white - we do not want a repeat of this.
                                                                  MJHI: will comply.
                                                                  Added language regarding clear polymer and
                                                                  test section cjtw




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                               Page 50 of 147
                                                                                                                               WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                                            << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                                                                  Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                                                    Highway Design Manager (HDM)                  Construction QA Specialist (CQAS)
                                                                                                                  Plan-In-Hand (70%)                                                              Partner Agency Representative (PAR)           Design Quality & Safety Engineer (DQSE)
            To:                                                                                                                                                                                   Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)           Highway Safety Engineer (HSE)
          Note:   1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                  2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:     Brian Callagan (for the HDM)                     Chuck Dissen                                      Nathan Jenks                                                                 Jeff Berg
        Title:    Highway Design Manager                           Construction Operations Engineer                  Geotechnical Section                                                         Structures / Bridge                           Hydraulics
        Date:                         10/17/2011                                      10/18/2011                                                    10/18/2011                                                        10/15/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                            Comments:                                               Comments:                                                           Comments:                                       Comments:
122   F-89




 123     F-90




 124     F-90




 125     F-90




 126     F-91                                                     Section 620 if this section is a total rewrite should
                                                                  have "Delete the text of this section and substitute
                                                                  the following:". CJTW: will review. This is not
                                                                  a total rewrite of this section. Moved first 2
                                                                  paragraphs into the Description Section -
                                                                  added language regarding examples of work
                                                                  cjtw 12.29.11

                                                                  Add some language that the contractor and
                                                                  subcontractor must show they are qualified to
                                                                  perform this work - have experience, examples of
                                                                  past work, done it recently, etc.MJHI: will
                                                                  review.




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                        Page 51 of 147
                                                                                                                               WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                                             << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                                                                   Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                                                      Highway Design Manager (HDM)                  Construction QA Specialist (CQAS)
                                                                                                                    Plan-In-Hand (70%)                                                              Partner Agency Representative (PAR)           Design Quality & Safety Engineer (DQSE)
             To:                                                                                                                                                                                    Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)           Highway Safety Engineer (HSE)
           Note:    1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                    2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:       Brian Callagan (for the HDM)                     Chuck Dissen                                      Nathan Jenks                                                                 Jeff Berg
        Title:      Highway Design Manager                           Construction Operations Engineer                  Geotechnical Section                                                         Structures / Bridge                           Hydraulics
        Date:                           10/17/2011                                      10/18/2011                                                    10/18/2011                                                        10/15/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                              Comments:                                            Comments:                                                                    Comments:                                 Comments:
127   F-96




 128   F-91 to F-
          97



 129     F-98

 130     F-100




 131     F-100




 132                                                                Warrenite, when exposed, does not hold up under
                                                                    traffic very well. Include language to minimize
                                                                    the amount of time between grinding and paving.
                                                                    MJHI: additional language added to milling
                                                                    section 403 to protect warrenite

 133
 134
 120   #keep# Slope Failure Repair Comments                         Slope Failure Repair Comments                        Slope Failure Repair Comments                                                Slope Failure Repair Comments             Slope Failure Repair Comments
 135 Plans - C.9                                                    4" Perf Pipe detail: Granular backfill needs to be   Mainline 125+90 to 128+50: What is the backfill material around this drain
                                                                    specified. The SCR 255 refers to 704.03 but this     pipe? I assume Roadway Agg based on symbol, but it would be good to call-
                                                                    is a generic backfill material that should be        out. Detail below as well. MJHI: Granular backfill. Note added to
                                                                    confirmed it will meet the permeability needs.       reference drain detail on sht. K.4.
                                                                    MJHI & CJTW: For the drainage detail
                                                                    backfill, the material should conform to
                                                                    703.03(a) Granular Backfill: Underdrain Pipe
                                                                    with Geotextile.




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                               Page 52 of 147
                                                                                                                              WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                                          << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                                                                     Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                                                     Highway Design Manager (HDM)                  Construction QA Specialist (CQAS)
                                                                                                                   Plan-In-Hand (70%)                                                              Partner Agency Representative (PAR)           Design Quality & Safety Engineer (DQSE)
            To:                                                                                                                                                                                    Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)           Highway Safety Engineer (HSE)
          Note:    1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                   2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:      Brian Callagan (for the HDM)                     Chuck Dissen                                      Nathan Jenks                                                                 Jeff Berg
         Title:    Highway Design Manager                           Construction Operations Engineer                  Geotechnical Section                                                         Structures / Bridge                           Hydraulics
         Date:                         10/17/2011                                      10/18/2011                                                    10/18/2011                                                        10/15/2011
      Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                             Comments:                                           Comments:                                                                        Comments:                              Comments:
136 Plans - C.9                                                    Mainline 141+00 to 142+00: Why are we using         4" Perf Pipe detail: Earthwork geotextile type I-B is recommended. MJHI:
                                                                   roadway aggregate at the bottom of these walls?     Note revised to "Earthwork geotextile, type I-B
                                                                   Select Granular backfill won't work? JND &
                                                                   MJHI: Roadway aggregate changed to
                                                                   granular backfill.
 137 Plans - C.9                                                                                                       Mainline 141+00 to 142+00: How is this outlet pipe going to be placed
                                                                                                                       without disturbing the existing soil/wall? Can the outlets be spaced wider
                                                                                                                       using a larger size? Stationing for outlets provided? MJHI and AMST:
                                                                                                                       Added 1' deep granular backfill drainage blanket wrapped in geotextile
                                                                                                                       to eliminate need for multiple outlet drains. Providing one outlet drain at
                                                                                                                       the downhill end of the deep patch area (141+99). Will need to remove
                                                                                                                       and reset the existing stone masonry wall at this location.



 138 Plans - F.7                                                                                                       Plan: WFL Hydro group should review. Will have opportunity at 95%
                                                                                                                       submittal on 2/7
 139 Plans - F.7                                                                                                       Section: What is the geotextile and where is it? I assume it is beneath the
                                                                                                                       riprap but should be shown. I would recommend a type IV-E, but it is Hydro's
                                                                                                                       call. MJHI: Geotextile removed upon geotech reommendation.

 140 Plans - K.2                                                                                                       Wall Reconstruction: Is there a batter for the wall and guardrock? Perhaps say
                                                                                                                       "match existing"? MJHI" Note added to "match existing batter"

 141 Plans - K.3                                                   Plan: This remove and replace GR should be          Typical Section: Include the slope ratio for the finished ground and gabion
                                                                   made clear in the SCR's. Is this replace with all   mattress. AMST The FG and location of revet mattress is defined at the
                                                                   new or replace with existing rail? Make the         face of wall with the Finished Grade Line. To define the slope, the
                                                                   contractor responsible for material that needs to   drawing has been revised to indicate that the finished grade at the end of
                                                                   be replaced whether it is old or they damage it.    the revet mattress match into existing ground.
                                                                   AMST Drawing revised to call out "Remove
                                                                   and reset existing guardrail". The SCR has
                                                                   been revised to also indicate: "The Contractor
                                                                   is responsible for providng new guardrail
                                                                   materils to replace nay materials that are
                                                                   damaged during remova, damaged in place, or
                                                                   deteriorated."




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                              Page 53 of 147
                                                                                                                                WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                                            << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                                                                   Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                                                     Highway Design Manager (HDM)                  Construction QA Specialist (CQAS)
                                                                                                                   Plan-In-Hand (70%)                                                              Partner Agency Representative (PAR)           Design Quality & Safety Engineer (DQSE)
            To:                                                                                                                                                                                    Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)           Highway Safety Engineer (HSE)
          Note:    1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                   2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:      Brian Callagan (for the HDM)                     Chuck Dissen                                      Nathan Jenks                                                                 Jeff Berg
         Title:    Highway Design Manager                           Construction Operations Engineer                  Geotechnical Section                                                         Structures / Bridge                           Hydraulics
         Date:                         10/17/2011                                      10/18/2011                                                    10/18/2011                                                        10/15/2011
      Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                             Comments:                                             Comments:                                                                          Comments:                          Comments:
142 Plans - K.3                                                    Typical Section: Again, spec "granular backfill" if   Typical Section: Include the type of fill for the gabion mattress. AMST The
                                                                   that is what is needed. Why would not the select      drawing is clarified to indicate that Gabion Rock filles the revet
                                                                   granular backfill work here? This 1-ft of material    mattresses.
                                                                   would be very hard to build. Would drain be
                                                                   better? AMST The drainage material at the
                                                                   back of the MSE wall excavation and
                                                                   surrounding the drainage pipe is Grandular
                                                                   Backfill per Specification 703.03. This
                                                                   material has limited fine materails and will
                                                                   allow passage of water better than Select
                                                                   Granular Backfill. The Typical Section view
                                                                   has been revised to show a stepped excavation
                                                                   which will make it easier to build.




 143 Plans - K.3                                                                                                         Typical Section: Rec. a detail and/or additional notes on how the pins work
                                                                                                                         with the mattress? Do they connect? Are they flush with the top? Are they
                                                                                                                         placed prior to filling? Is there any required diameter for the pin? Etc. AMST
                                                                                                                         Pins are clarified by indicating: Prior to filling mattresses, drive 3/4"
                                                                                                                         diameter pins at 3'-0" each way. After filling mattress, secured to the
                                                                                                                         pins to top of mattress with a pipe clamp.




 144 Plans - K.3                                                                                                         Typical Section: Provide info/guidance on placing the outlet pipe through the
                                                                                                                         gabion mattress. AMST Drawing clarified to indicate "Cut a maximum of
                                                                                                                         one wire in the top and bottom of the revet mattress to thread tpipe
                                                                                                                         through mattress.




 145 Plans - K.4                                                                                                         Drain Detail: What is the horizontal dimension on this detail? This drain is not
                                                                                                                         well shown on the previous page. Recommend showing at least the outline of
                                                                                                                         this drain on the previous page and referencing this detail. AMST Detail
                                                                                                                         revised to indicate 1'-2" horizontal dimension. Typical section revised to
                                                                                                                         show this section and reference detail.




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                                 Page 54 of 147
                                                                                                                          WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                                                                      Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                                                     Highway Design Manager (HDM)                  Construction QA Specialist (CQAS)
                                                                                                                   Plan-In-Hand (70%)                                                              Partner Agency Representative (PAR)           Design Quality & Safety Engineer (DQSE)
            To:                                                                                                                                                                                    Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)           Highway Safety Engineer (HSE)
          Note:    1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                   2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:      Brian Callagan (for the HDM)                     Chuck Dissen                                      Nathan Jenks                                                                 Jeff Berg
         Title:    Highway Design Manager                           Construction Operations Engineer                  Geotechnical Section                                                         Structures / Bridge                           Hydraulics
         Date:                         10/17/2011                                      10/18/2011                                                    10/18/2011                                                        10/15/2011
      Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                             Comments:                                       Comments:                                                                       Comments:                                   Comments:
146 Plans - K.4                                                                                                    Topsoil Faced Gabion Basket Detail: Is there a synthetic alternative to the
                                                                                                                   hardware cloth? I would assume a synthetic would hold up longer than galv
                                                                                                                   metal in this climate? AMST Detail revised to call out black polyvinyl
                                                                                                                   chlorisde coated hardware cloth.
 147 Plans - K.4                                                                                                   Topsoil Faced Gabion Basket Detail: Fix spelling of straw. AMST Spelling
                                                                                                                   corrected.                 Who is providing this? Is it in the specs somewhere?
                                                                                                                   It will need to be an approved seed mix, etc… BXM & CJTW




 148 Plans - K.4                                                                                                   Quantities: Should gabion rock be included in these quantities? Looks like it is
                                                                                                                   being placed in both the wall (bottom and end baskets) and in the mattress.
                                                                                                                   AMST & BXM Table revised to include "Gabion Rock in Revet
                                                                                                                   Mattress". The Table is revised to replace the item "Select Granular
                                                                                                                   Backfill (In Baskets)" with "Gabion Rock in Gabion Baskets".




 149 Plans - K.4                                                                                                   Construction Notes: PF-03 should be FP-03. JND: Revised note

 150 Plans - K.4                                                                                                   Design Criteria: This statement is not correct as written. Recommend
                                                                                                                   rewriting as follows: "The engineer has performed global stability, bearing
                                                                                                                   capacity, and settlement calculations. The wall supplier is responsible for
                                                                                                                   internal, sliding, and overturing stability under static and design seismic
                                                                                                                   loads." AMST Note revised as incidated.




 151 Plans - K.4                                                                                                   Design Criteria- Extensible soil reinforcements: Why is this a requirement?
                                                                                                                   The interaction with the gabion baskets? AMST Specifying that extensible
                                                                                                                   soil reinforcement are not permitted will avoid long term service issues.
                                                                                                                   This wall will experience live load surchage and extensible reinfcement is
                                                                                                                   not the right material to resist these loads long term.




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                           Page 55 of 147
                                                                                                                          WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                                                                      Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                                                     Highway Design Manager (HDM)                  Construction QA Specialist (CQAS)
                                                                                                                   Plan-In-Hand (70%)                                                              Partner Agency Representative (PAR)           Design Quality & Safety Engineer (DQSE)
            To:                                                                                                                                                                                    Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)           Highway Safety Engineer (HSE)
          Note:    1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                   2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:      Brian Callagan (for the HDM)                     Chuck Dissen                                      Nathan Jenks                                                                 Jeff Berg
         Title:    Highway Design Manager                           Construction Operations Engineer                  Geotechnical Section                                                         Structures / Bridge                           Hydraulics
         Date:                         10/17/2011                                      10/18/2011                                                    10/18/2011                                                        10/15/2011
      Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                             Comments:                                       Comments:                                                                        Comments:                                  Comments:
152 Plans - K.4                                                                                                    Geotechnical Information:                  1) The numbers provided here do not
                                                                                                                   match the Geotech Report. In the report the Backfill has a unit weight of 130
                                                                                                                   pcf and a friction angle of 42. AMST Drawing revised to be consistent
                                                                                                                   with Geotech Report.
                                                                                                                   2) 42 degrees is too high as the current section 704.10 "Select Granular
                                                                                                                   Backfill" spec is written. If 42 degrees is needed for the wall design, the
                                                                                                                   section 704.10 spec needs to be rewritten to provide a coarse, angular, hard,
                                                                                                                   crushed rock material for the backfill. AMST The effective frection angle
                                                                                                                   for Select Granular Backfill has been revised to 35 degrees.
                                                                                                                   3) 38 degrees also seems high for the foundation material but I will support
                                                                                                                   this if GRI (project geotech) feels it is appropriate for the location and
                                                                                                                   expected materials. AMST The foundation material effective friction
                                                                                                                   angle has been revised to 33 degrees.
                                                                                                                   4) The Gabions are not "Rock Filled", I would just state as "Filled Gabions"
                                                                                                                   The unit weight listed for the gabions is too high. If it is based on the unit
                                                                                                                   weight in the Geotech report for the wall backfill it should be 130 pcf,
                                                                                                                   however this seems high as 1/3 of gabion is filled with topsoil, and I doubt
                                                                                                                   they will be able to get as good of compaction in the basket as they will the
                                                                                                                   backfill. Please check with GRI (project geotech) for recommendations. See
                                                                                                                   #2 above regarding the friction angle. AMST The drawings and SCR's
                                                                                                                   have been clarified to indicate that the back 2 feet of the Gabion Baskets
                                                                                                                   are filled with Gabion Rock according to 705.01 which has a minimum
                                                                                                                   unit weight of the rock in the basket of 100 pcf. The top soil is estimated
                                                                                                                   to have a unit weight of about 80 pcf. Therefore the 253.06A Spec has
                                                                                                                   been revised to indicate a minimum unit mass of the gabion to be 90 pcf.




 153 Plans - K.4                                                                                                   Allowable Net Bearing Pressure: Would recommend using the term Allowable
                                                                                                                   bearing "resistance" rather than "pressure" to be consistent. It seems as if
                                                                                                                   these notes would better fit after the following note that states the Nominal
                                                                                                                   Bearing Resistance. The second part of this note says "as directed". What
                                                                                                                   does this mean? as directed by who? the CO? the Spec? The Geotech Report?
                                                                                                                   etc. please reword as necessary. AMST Notes revised to indcate
                                                                                                                   "resistance". Condition notes moved to below statement of resistance.
                                                                                                                   Note revised to indicated "... as directed by the CO."




 154 Plans - K.4                                                                                                   Nominal Bearing Pressure: 1) This is incorrect as written and should say"
                                                                                                                   "Nominal Bearing Resistance (based...."
                                                                                                                   2) I wold recommend placing this note before the previous note. AMST Note
                                                                                                                   revised as indicated and notes have been re-ordered.




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                           Page 56 of 147
                                                                                                                          WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                                                                      Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                                                     Highway Design Manager (HDM)                  Construction QA Specialist (CQAS)
                                                                                                                   Plan-In-Hand (70%)                                                              Partner Agency Representative (PAR)           Design Quality & Safety Engineer (DQSE)
            To:                                                                                                                                                                                    Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)           Highway Safety Engineer (HSE)
          Note:    1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                   2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:      Brian Callagan (for the HDM)                     Chuck Dissen                                      Nathan Jenks                                                                 Jeff Berg
         Title:    Highway Design Manager                           Construction Operations Engineer                  Geotechnical Section                                                         Structures / Bridge                           Hydraulics
         Date:                         10/17/2011                                      10/18/2011                                                    10/18/2011                                                        10/15/2011
      Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                             Comments:                                       Comments:                                                                        Comments:                                  Comments:
155 Plans - K.4                                                                                                    Nominal Friction Factor: This note is confusing as written and should be
                                                                                                                   clarified. I assume 0.40 is the recommended coefficient of friction to be used
                                                                                                                   in sliding calculations. The recommended resistance factor used in sliding
                                                                                                                   (FHWA, AASHTO) is 1.0. Check with GRI for re-wording, something like
                                                                                                                   the following "For sliding calculations, the coefficient of friction is 0.40 and
                                                                                                                   the geotechnical resistance factor is 1.0." AMST Note revised as indicated.




 156 Plans - K.4                                                                                                   Notes: Recommend adding another note here stating " For additional
                                                                                                                   geotechnical information see Geotechnical Report...." AMST Note added.



 157   SCR 253                                                                                                     253.06: This section needs to include information with respect to filling the
                                                                                                                   baskets with Select Granular Backfill and Soil as shown on the plans. AMST
                                                                                                                   & CJTW This section is revised to reflect topsoil and gabion rock being
                                                                                                                   placed in the divided basekts according to the revised drawings.

 158   SCR 253                                                                                                     256.06.a (as shown on plans): This is not shown on the plans. I believe WFL
                                                                                                                   has a standard Gabion Detail that can be provided to DEA if necessary. AMST
                                                                                                                   & CJTW A third wall drawing has been added showing the WLFHD
                                                                                                                   Gabion Faced Wall Details W253-2.

 159   SCR 253                                                                                                     256.03 - add the following (rock): applicable? AMST Yes, rock is
                                                                                                                   applicable. No change made. (Assume comment for 253.06)
 160   SCR 253                                                                                                     256.06A (Min. unit mass of the gabions is 100 pcf): This is not accurate for
                                                                                                                   gabions filled with Select Granular Backfill and needs to be revised for the
                                                                                                                   specifics of this project. AMST & CJTW This spec has been revised to
                                                                                                                   indicate a minimum of 90 pcsf uniit mass for basket filled with gabion
                                                                                                                   rock and topsoil. (Assume comment for 253.06A)

 161   SCR 253                                                                                                     256.06A (construction): Any additional information needed to be added to this
                                                                                                                   spec for placement and filling of the mattress? AMST & CJTW The
                                                                                                                   detailed revet mattress is not different from that detailed in the
                                                                                                                   specificaitons and SCR, therfore no additional information has been
                                                                                                                   added. (Assume comment for 253.06A)




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                           Page 57 of 147
                                                                                                                         WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                                          << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                                                                    Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                                                    Highway Design Manager (HDM)                  Construction QA Specialist (CQAS)
                                                                                                                  Plan-In-Hand (70%)                                                              Partner Agency Representative (PAR)           Design Quality & Safety Engineer (DQSE)
            To:                                                                                                                                                                                   Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)           Highway Safety Engineer (HSE)
          Note:   1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                  2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:     Brian Callagan (for the HDM)                     Chuck Dissen                                      Nathan Jenks                                                                 Jeff Berg
        Title:    Highway Design Manager                           Construction Operations Engineer                  Geotechnical Section                                                         Structures / Bridge                           Hydraulics
        Date:                         10/17/2011                                      10/18/2011                                                    10/18/2011                                                        10/15/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                            Comments:                                        Comments:                                                                      Comments:                                   Comments:
162 SCR 255                                                       255.02 - Granular Backfill: 704.03 is backfill   255 - Mechanically-Stabilized Earth Walls: This spec needs to be revised a bit
                                                                  material - do we have a granular backfill or     to incorporate some additional requirements. I have included an example spec
                                                                  should this be 70.01 Select Granular Backfill?   from a different WFL project where we were also requiring a contractor
                                                                  AMST This is revised to reference 703.03         supplied MSE wall system. It is not perfectly applicable to this project as it
                                                                  (Grandula Backfill).                             was a bridge abutment wall directly supporting the superstructure. I think
                                                                                                                   pieces of it could be used to supplement/modify this spec. A few things I like
                                                                                                                   about the example spec is that is requires a submittal of potential wall
                                                                                                                   suppliers for review prior to selection of the final wall system/supplier, it
                                                                                                                   requires the wall be designed in accordance with FHWA and AASHTO
                                                                                                                   standards, It requires a pre-design conference call, some legal jargon
                                                                                                                   protecting the government, it’s specific on construction tolerances, and a few
                                                                                                                   other minor elements throughout. The other element I think this SCR is
                                                                                                                   lacking is with respect to the vegetated face. It needs to be clear in the SCR
                                                                                                                   that a planted face wall is required. AMST Provided example spec reviewed
                                                                                                                   and applicable sections incorporated.




 163   SCR 255                                                    255.07 - Measurement: I noticed in the new work 255.05 - place granular backfill: Select Granular Backfill AMST Revised to
                                                                  cost estimate you have a 25510 item for select         indicate placing "select granular backfill".
                                                                  granular backfill. Be sure to make it clear where
                                                                  this item is to be used and the pay limits. If this is
                                                                  for the mSE wall, I would prefer this backfill be
                                                                  subsidary to the wall item. CJTW & AMST The
                                                                  select granular backfill in the MSE wall is
                                                                  incidental to the wall bid item. The cost
                                                                  estimate includes select granular backfill at
                                                                  the deep patch locations detailed on Sheet
                                                                  Number C.9.

 164   SCR 255                                                                                                     255.05 - geotextile fabric: Should be Welded Wire Fabric AMST & CJTW
                                                                                                                   No change made. This SCR is correct, there is a vertical layer of
                                                                                                                   geotextile fabric placed outside of the basket between the basket and the
                                                                                                                   select granular backfill. See revised drawings.




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                         Page 58 of 147
                                                                                                                         WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                                        << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                                                                      Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                                                    Highway Design Manager (HDM)                  Construction QA Specialist (CQAS)
                                                                                                                  Plan-In-Hand (70%)                                                              Partner Agency Representative (PAR)           Design Quality & Safety Engineer (DQSE)
            To:                                                                                                                                                                                   Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)           Highway Safety Engineer (HSE)
          Note:   1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                  2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:     Brian Callagan (for the HDM)                     Chuck Dissen                                      Nathan Jenks                                                                 Jeff Berg
        Title:    Highway Design Manager                           Construction Operations Engineer                  Geotechnical Section                                                         Structures / Bridge                           Hydraulics
        Date:                         10/17/2011                                      10/18/2011                                                    10/18/2011                                                        10/15/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                            Comments:                                       Comments:                                                                       Comments:                                   Comments:
165 SCR 625                                                                                                       625 - Turf Establishment: I don't have any knowledge of turf establishment
                                                                                                                  and someone from our design and/or environmental group should review and
                                                                                                                  provide comments. Perhaps somehwere in this spec we should provide the
                                                                                                                  requirements for the straw mat with seeds to be placed at the face of the MSE
                                                                                                                  wall? WFLHD to review at 95% Review




 166   SCR 720                                                                                                    720.01: I don’t think any of subsection 720.01 applies to this project and
                                                                                                                  should be deleted. This was a spec that I provided to GRI from a project that
                                                                                                                  included these items. CJTW & AMST SCR Section 720.01 deleted.

 167
 168
 169
 170




 171
 172
 173
 End Comments                       9 comments                                     43 comments                                                    67 comments                                                   8 comments                                      0 comments




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                          Page 59 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Review Comment
                                                                                                          WFLHDWFLHD PS&EComment Sheet Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: Brad Neitzke                                                                                                                                       Tori Brinkly
        Title: Materials                                       Construction Quality Assurance Specialist        Highway Standards Engineer                       Highway Safety Engineer                          Designer
        Date:                                                                                                                                                                        10/4/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
 1   General                                                                                                                                                     Some of my traffic control comments are related
    Comment                                                                                                                                                      to what the MUTCD "requires" and what ODOT
                                                                                                                                                                 has in their TM standards. If following ODOT
                                                                                                                                                                 "standards," then need to document that and
                                                                                                                                                                 ensure consistency with their policies. MPLA
                                                                                                                                                                 Yes, generally following ODOT standards

  2       EE




  3       EE

  3     #keep#   Plan Set                                        Plan Set                                       Plan Set                                        Plan Set                                       Plan Set
  4      C.1     Mainline Pavement Milling and Overlay - Need to
                 show pavement being placed in 2 lifts with tack
                 coat in between the lifts. MJHI: one 3" lift
                 planned.

                 Mainline 0+00 to 12+75 - Need to show how the
                 8" leveling course is going to be placed. For a
                 pavement of this depth, it would be placed in lifts
                 of 3", 3", 2" to obtain the thickness. Tack coat
                 should be shown between the lifts. MJHI: added
                 3" max lift and tack notes.

                 Item 40101-0500 should be changed to a Section
                 403 item. An SCR will be needed for Section 403
                 to make sure it is an ODOT approved mix. MJHI:
                 Agreed.

                 Estimating value for base aggregates should be
                 1.97 tons per cu yd. Estimating value for pavement
                 should be 1.94 tons per cu yd. MJHI: Agreed.

                 Combine the 30101 item and the 30802 item as
                 one quantity and make it all supplied under
                 Section 308. An SCR will be needed to have the
                 aggregate supplied meet ODOT requirements.
                 MJHI: Agreed.




  5      C.1/2




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                     Page 60 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Review Comment
                                                                                                          WFLHDWFLHD PS&EComment Sheet Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: Brad Neitzke                                                                                                                                       Tori Brinkly
        Title: Materials                                         Construction Quality Assurance Specialist      Highway Standards Engineer                       Highway Safety Engineer                          Designer
        Date:                                                                                                                                                                        10/4/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                           Comments:                                      Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
 1
 6   General Mainline 39+42 to 44+40 - Aggregate base should
      C.2
    Comment be specified to the whole inch as standard
               convention. MJHI: revise to 11"
               Also the 4" pavement along the sidewalk should
               be changed to 5 inches. This would allow 2" to be
               placed and match the milled elevation. Then a
               final 3" would be placed over the entire width.
               Show the 3" mat in 2 lifts with tack coat in
               between the layers. MJHI: 3" lift to be placed
               over 2" of pavement.

                 How are there 2 centerlines? Why doesn't profile
                 grade follow roadway centerline? MJHI:
                 roadway centerline does not fit center of
                 roadway so a construction centerline was
                 developed to fit roadway and simplify typicals.

                 What is the transition lengths for the different
                 pavement depths? MJHI: 50' for each 1" of
                 depth.




  7       C.3




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                     Page 61 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Review Comment
                                                                                                          WFLHDWFLHD PS&EComment Sheet Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: Brad Neitzke                                                                                                                                       Tori Brinkly
        Title: Materials                                       Construction Quality Assurance Specialist        Highway Standards Engineer                       Highway Safety Engineer                          Designer
        Date:                                                                                                                                                                        10/4/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
 1
 8   General Specify base depth to the whole inch. MJHI: will
      C.4
    Comment revise.

                 The pavement thickness for the full depth
                 reconstruction should be chnaged to 5". This will
                 allow 2" to be placed to match the milled surface
                 elevation and then a final 3" over the entire width.
                 Show tack coat between layers. MJHI: will revise
                 typical to show 5" total; 2" lifts for base
                 courses plus 3" wearing course lift.



  9       C.5




  10      C.6    Specify base depth to the whole inch. MJHI: will
                 revise to 11"

                 The pavement thickness for the full depth
                 reconstruction should be chnaged to 5". This will
                 allow 2" to be placed to match the milled surface
                 elevation and then a final 3" over the entire width.
                 Show tack coat between layers. MJHI: will revise
                 to 3" for ease of construction; sawcut 1' max
                 from face to curb.




  11      C.7                                                                                                                                                   Why shown in C section? And seems like other
                                                                                                                                                                details (like post spacing) will be needed for the
                                                                                                                                                                remove/reset of the guardrail. Recommend adding
                                                                                                                                                                ALL of the details from ODOT DET1415.
                                                                                                                                                                MJHI: review existing post spacing and
                                                                                                                                                                location to be maintained. Drawing moved to
                                                                                                                                                                D section.


  12      C.7                                                                                                                                                   Unsure if ODOT DET1425 would also be
                                                                                                                                                                necessary due to the adjacent stone masonry wall
                                                                                                                                                                at 143+14 LT. MJHI: guardrail to remain in
                                                                                                                                                                existing position horizontally.




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                     Page 62 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Review Comment
                                                                                                          WFLHDWFLHD PS&EComment Sheet Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: Brad Neitzke                                                                                                                                       Tori Brinkly
        Title: Materials                                       Construction Quality Assurance Specialist        Highway Standards Engineer                       Highway Safety Engineer                          Designer
        Date:                                                                                                                                                                        10/4/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
  1
 13  General
      C.8
    Comment




  14   D.2 - D.6




  15     D.6




  16     D.6                                                                                                                                                    The Remove/Reset Guardrail from 34+55 to
                                                                                                                                                                37+70 isn't noted on this sheet. MJHI: Note
                                                                                                                                                                added to sheet.




  17     D.7




  18     D.8
  19     F.1




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                     Page 63 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Review Comment
                                                                                                          WFLHDWFLHD PS&EComment Sheet Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                          << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
           To:
        Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: Brad Neitzke                                                                                                                                        Tori Brinkly
        Title: Materials                                       Construction Quality Assurance Specialist         Highway Standards Engineer                       Highway Safety Engineer                          Designer
        Date:                                                                                                                                                                         10/4/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
  1
 20  General Use 308 aggregate for gutter construction. MJHI:
       F.2
    Comment Agreed.




  21     G.1                                                                                                                                                    Assume there will be a detailed sign list for the
                                                                                                                                                                temporary traffic control in future review
                                                                                                                                                                package. MPLA Quantity sheet revised to
                                                                                                                                                                include this list




  22     G.1                                                                                                                                                    Will quantity of tubular markers and drums be
                                                                                                                                                                adequate for ALL the work on this project:
                                                                                                                                                                viaduct, gutters, barriers, etc. MPLA -quantity
                                                                                                                                                                based on closure schedules and should be
                                                                                                                                                                adequate
  23     G.2                                                                                                                                                    W20-7a Flagger symbol signs should be W20-7.
                                                                                                                                                                MPLA Sign designation is correct per dwg 635-
                                                                                                                                                                6
  24    G.3-G.4                                                                                                                                                 R11-3 signs should be R11-3a. And would local
                                                                                                                                                                traffic really be allowed through? Maybe it should
                                                                                                                                                                be R11-4 instead (other than I noticed there is a
                                                                                                                                                                house just west of the Latourell Road westerly
                                                                                                                                                                access). MPLA Changed R11-3 to R11-3a.
                                                                                                                                                                Don't believe R11-4 would be appropriate sign
                                                                                                                                                                to use, as sign location is at a point well in
                                                                                                                                                                advance of the closure



  25    G.3-G.4                                                                                                                                                 Why are the R11-2 signs on a TSS instead of a
                                                                                                                                                                Type 3 Barricade? One of the two barricades at
                                                                                                                                                                the closure could have the sign on it. MPLA
                                                                                                                                                                Following ODOT closure practice which uses
                                                                                                                                                                TSS


528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                      Page 64 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Review Comment
                                                                                                          WFLHDWFLHD PS&EComment Sheet Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                          << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
          To:
        Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: Brad Neitzke                                                                                                                                        Tori Brinkly
        Title: Materials                                       Construction Quality Assurance Specialist         Highway Standards Engineer                       Highway Safety Engineer                          Designer
        Date:                                                                                                                                                                         10/4/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
  1
 26  General
     G.3-G.4                                                                                                                                                      Why are the W20-3 signs (1000 ft and 500 ft)
    Comment                                                                                                                                                       48x48? I would think the 36x36 size of these
                                                                                                                                                                  signs would be adequate for this road. MPLA
                                                                                                                                                                  Reduced sign size per comment

  27   G sheets                                                                                                                                                 If the TSS (temporary sign support from ODOT's
                                                                                                                                                                TM821) will be used, then that detail should be
                                                                                                                                                                included. MPLA -Detail added

  28     G.3                                                                                                                                                    Are the closures on this sheet located where
                                                                                                                                                                vehicles can turn around safely and/or take a
                                                                                                                                                                different route? The west end appears to be at
                                                                                                                                                                Larch Mtn Road, and the east end closure is
                                                                                                                                                                located in a curve just east of Vista House.
                                                                                                                                                                Recommend moving east end to location where
                                                                                                                                                                vehicles can turn around (check on maximum
                                                                                                                                                                vehicle length road restriction). Also see comment
                                                                                                                                                                on G.4 for closure locations. MPLA Closure
                                                                                                                                                                location revised Eastward for better turn
                                                                                                                                                                location



  29    G.3-G.4                                                                                                                                                 PCMS message is good suggestion, though don't
                                                                                                                                                                think the road is known as "Crown Point
                                                                                                                                                                Highway." Try Historic Columbia River
                                                                                                                                                                Highway. Hist Hwy Closed at (Latourell
                                                                                                                                                                Falls/Larch Mtn Rd) MPLA Suggested messages
                                                                                                                                                                revised


  30    G.3-G.4                                                                                                                                                 Also, will the ODOT practice of Type 3 barricade
                                                                                                                                                                and six drums be followed with the placement of
                                                                                                                                                                the PCMS? Even if there may not be adequate
                                                                                                                                                                room for the other devices? MPLA Yes, intent is
                                                                                                                                                                to use standard ODOT setup, locations should
                                                                                                                                                                be available to accomodate the items

  31    G.3-G.4                                                                                                                                                 For the closures, will there also be something
                                                                                                                                                                down on I-84 to notify people of not being able to
                                                                                                                                                                access Crown Point? MPLA Added blank rider
                                                                                                                                                                to cover existing 'Vista House' freeway
                                                                                                                                                                signage, also added additional PCMS for
                                                                                                                                                                Eastbound I-84
  32    G.3-G.4                                                                                                                                                 I don't think Route 100 is what the HCRH is
                                                                                                                                                                signed as, that's just the ODOT highway number.
                                                                                                                                                                MPLA Highway number removed per
                                                                                                                                                                comment




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                      Page 65 of 147
                                                                                                                PS&E Review Review Comment
                                                                                                           WFLHDWFLHD PS&EComment Sheet Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                           << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                   Plan-In-Hand (70%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: Brad Neitzke                                                                                                                                       Tori Brinkly
        Title: Materials                                       Construction Quality Assurance Specialist        Highway Standards Engineer                       Highway Safety Engineer                              Designer
        Date:                                                                                                                                                                           10/4/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                            Comments:
  1
 33  General
      G.4                                                                                                                                                        Are the closures on this sheet located where
    Comment                                                                                                                                                      vehicles can turn around safely and/or take a
                                                                                                                                                                 different route? The west end appears to be at
                                                                                                                                                                 Larch Mtn Road, and there are two signs at the
                                                                                                                                                                 east end closure by Latourell Road. Would think
                                                                                                                                                                 the best east end closure would be at the parking
                                                                                                                                                                 lot at the falls (easterly Latourell access), with a
                                                                                                                                                                 second one at the westerly Latourell access.
                                                                                                                                                                 MPLA Yes, the closures are located where
                                                                                                                                                                 traffic can turn around

  34   G sheets                                                                                                                                                    The 163(6) gutter restoration project had more
                                                                                                                                                                   signs farther out from the road work and closure
                                                                                                                                                                   locations. Was that project reviewed for anything
                                                                                                                                                                   to carry forward from design and/or construction?
                                                                                                                                                                   MPLA No, this project was developed
                                                                                                                                                                   independently

  35     H.1                                                                                                                                                       Will the centerline striping have a 4" spacing or
                                                                                                                                                                   the ODOT 12" spacing? MPLA Detail revised to
                                                                                                                                                                   match existing 12" spacing

  36    H.1-H.2                                                                                                                                                    If the message on the R7-8 signs are meant to be
                                                                                                                                                                   informational and guiding people to appropriate
                                                                                                                                                                   accessible parking, then they're the wrong signs.
                                                                                                                                                                   There is an MUTCD D4-1 Parking sign that could
                                                                                                                                                                   have a supplemental accessible symbol sign with
                                                                                                                                                                   it, but maybe ODOT has some other guide/info
                                                                                                                                                                   sign for the parking. MPLA Signage revised in
                                                                                                                                                                   consultation with ODOT and now shows their
                                                                                                                                                                   desired configuration




  37     H.2                                                                                                                                                       The existing bus parking has a double yellow line
                                                                                                                                                                   and "BUS PARKING" legend: shouldn't that be
                                                                                                                                                                   reflected here too? MPLA--Striping revised to
                                                                                                                                                                   include


  38     H.2                                                                                                                                                       I don't think that R7-8 sign (or any parking info
                                                                                                                                                                   sign) at 38+30 RT will be visible if there are any
                                                                                                                                                                   busses parked there…besides being way off to the
                                                                                                                                                                   right. MPLA -see comment above about this
                                                                                                                                                                   signs status




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                        Page 66 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Review Comment
                                                                                                          WFLHDWFLHD PS&EComment Sheet Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                          << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                  Plan-In-Hand (70%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: Brad Neitzke                                                                                                                                       Tori Brinkly
        Title: Materials                                       Construction Quality Assurance Specialist        Highway Standards Engineer                       Highway Safety Engineer                            Designer
        Date:                                                                                                                                                                         10/4/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                          Comments:
  1
 39  General
      H.2                                                                                                                                                        For the special sign warning of steep drop-off and
    Comment                                                                                                                                                      no trespassing: shouldn't this be black on white?
                                                                                                                                                                 See sign variations shared with Odom. MPLA
                                                                                                                                                                 Sign design revised, legend per request, but
                                                                                                                                                                 retaining brown background per existing sign



  40     H.2                                                                                                                                                     The RS-068 now just has one hiker, not two (that
                                                                                                                                                                 was the old RL-100). MPLA Detail revised per
                                                                                                                                                                 comment
  41    H.1-H.2                                                                                                                                                  Verify the pavement marking type to be used:
                                                                                                                                                                 solvent (Type A) or waterborne (Type B). [Type
                                                                                                                                                                 A was noted in 163-1(6) plans.] MPLA Changed
                                                                                                                                                                 to type B as ODOT uses waterborne paint

  42    I.1 thru
          I.24




  43      I.1




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                       Page 67 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Review Comment
                                                                                                          WFLHDWFLHD PS&EComment Sheet Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                          << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
           To:
        Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: Brad Neitzke                                                                                                                                        Tori Brinkly
         Title: Materials                                       Construction Quality Assurance Specialist        Highway Standards Engineer                       Highway Safety Engineer                          Designer
         Date:                                                                                                                                                                        10/4/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                          Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
  1
 44  General
       I.2
    Comment

  45      I.3




  46      I.3


  47      I.3
  48      I.4




  49      I.4




  50      I.4




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                      Page 68 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Review Comment
                                                                                                          WFLHDWFLHD PS&EComment Sheet Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                          << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
           To:
        Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: Brad Neitzke                                                                                                                                        Tori Brinkly
         Title: Materials                                       Construction Quality Assurance Specialist        Highway Standards Engineer                       Highway Safety Engineer                          Designer
         Date:                                                                                                                                                                        10/4/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                          Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
  1
 51  General
       I.4
    Comment




  52      I.4




  53      I.4




  54      I.4




  55      I.4




  56      I.6




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                      Page 69 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Review Comment
                                                                                                          WFLHDWFLHD PS&EComment Sheet Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                          << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
           To:
        Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: Brad Neitzke                                                                                                                                        Tori Brinkly
         Title: Materials                                       Construction Quality Assurance Specialist        Highway Standards Engineer                       Highway Safety Engineer                          Designer
         Date:                                                                                                                                                                        10/4/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                          Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
  1
 57  General
       I.7
    Comment




  58     I.10




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                      Page 70 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Review Comment
                                                                                                          WFLHDWFLHD PS&EComment Sheet Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                          << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
          To:
        Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: Brad Neitzke                                                                                                                                        Tori Brinkly
        Title: Materials                                       Construction Quality Assurance Specialist         Highway Standards Engineer                       Highway Safety Engineer                          Designer
        Date:                                                                                                                                                                         10/4/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
  1
 59  General
      I.12
    Comment




  60     I.12




  61     I.13




  62     I.13




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                      Page 71 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Review Comment
                                                                                                          WFLHDWFLHD PS&EComment Sheet Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                          << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
          To:
        Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: Brad Neitzke                                                                                                                                        Tori Brinkly
        Title: Materials                                       Construction Quality Assurance Specialist         Highway Standards Engineer                       Highway Safety Engineer                          Designer
        Date:                                                                                                                                                                         10/4/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
  1
 63  General
      I.13
    Comment




  64     I.15    Notes for backer rod and poured sealant shoule be
                 removed and the information included in the
                 specifications for the materials to be used.
                 AMST/TMS - Hot Poured Joint Sealer and
                 Backer Rod per section 712.01 has been added
                 to the Materials list in the Specifications.




  65     I.16




  66     I.17


  67     I.17




  68     I.18




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                      Page 72 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Review Comment
                                                                                                          WFLHDWFLHD PS&EComment Sheet Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                          << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
          To:
        Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: Brad Neitzke                                                                                                                                        Tori Brinkly
        Title: Materials                                       Construction Quality Assurance Specialist         Highway Standards Engineer                       Highway Safety Engineer                          Designer
        Date:                                                                                                                                                                         10/4/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
  1
 69  General
      I.18
    Comment




  70     I.19

  71     I.19

  72     I.19


  73     I.20

  74      J.1




  75      J.3




  76
  77




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                      Page 73 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Review Comment
                                                                                                          WFLHDWFLHD PS&EComment Sheet Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: Brad Neitzke                                                                                                                                       Tori Brinkly
        Title: Materials                                       Construction Quality Assurance Specialist        Highway Standards Engineer                       Highway Safety Engineer                          Designer
        Date:                                                                                                                                                                        10/4/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
  1
 78  General
    Comment




  79



  80




  81   SCR E-51,
        Section
       156 Public
         Traffic




  81    #keep#      Special Contract Requirements                Special Contract Requirements                  Special Contract Requirements                   Special Contract Requirements                  Special Contract Requirements
  82     NTB




  83      E-6




  84     E-9
  85     E-10       Remove "WFLHD Test Method for Determining
                    Asphalt Content…" from the list. CJTW
                    Removed cjtw
  86     E-16



528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                     Page 74 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Review Comment
                                                                                                          WFLHDWFLHD PS&EComment Sheet Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: Brad Neitzke                                                                                                                                       Tori Brinkly
        Title: Materials                                       Construction Quality Assurance Specialist        Highway Standards Engineer                       Highway Safety Engineer                          Designer
        Date:                                                                                                                                                                        10/4/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
  1
 87  General
      E-18
    Comment




  88     E-22




  89     E-27




  90     E-46     Subsection 154.02. Subsections 301.02 and
                  401.03 will be changed to subsections in Section
                  308 and 403 respectively for testing. CJTW
                  Changed to 308.06 403.17 cjtw



  91    E-47/48

  92     E-48




  93     E-49




  94     E-51                                                                                                                                                   156.03, 1st paragraph, last sentence: "pubic"
                                                                                                                                                                should be "public" CTJW changed cjtw




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                     Page 75 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Review Comment
                                                                                                          WFLHDWFLHD PS&EComment Sheet Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: Brad Neitzke                                                                                                                                       Tori Brinkly
        Title: Materials                                       Construction Quality Assurance Specialist        Highway Standards Engineer                       Highway Safety Engineer                          Designer
        Date:                                                                                                                                                                        10/4/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
  1
 95  General
      E-51                                                                                                                                                       156.03, 2nd paragraph: will there be more
    Comment                                                                                                                                                      stipulations? The beginning of the paragraph
                                                                                                                                                                 seems to imply there are many requirements but
                                                                                                                                                                 only one follows. CTJW (kpb - yes, please
                                                                                                                                                                 format where there is a (2) and (3) and
                                                                                                                                                                 highlight in yellow since we are expecting
                                                                                                                                                                 more after Odom does public outreach.



  96     E-51                                                                                                                                                   156.06(k): how is language any different from
                                                                                                                                                                what is required in (c )? Or can they be
                                                                                                                                                                combined? CTJW & KPB: Different
                                                                                                                                                                requirements in (k). Preference is to maintain
                                                                                                                                                                separate subsection items.
  97     E-51                                                                                                                                                   156.06(l) first sentence: "no" should be "do".
                                                                                                                                                                Plus see next (l) comment. CTJW & KPB
                                                                                                                                                                changed to do cjtw
  98     E-51                                                                                                                                                   156.06(l) second sentence: wouldn't two-way, one-
                                                                                                                                                                lane traffic be interfering with traffic? And would
                                                                                                                                                                there be any conflict with the 30 minute delay in
                                                                                                                                                                156.06(i)? CTJW & KPB: Modify language for
                                                                                                                                                                clarity. Delete subsection 156.06(i). Changed
                                                                                                                                                                to two-way one-lane traffic



  99     E-53




 100      F-1    Subsection 203.05 - 2000 cu yds of millings can
                 be placed at the ODOT site. What about the
                 remaining quantity? This material should be
                 conserved in some manner. It could be used for
                 308 aggregate / used as material for base. CJTW:
                 Millings to be disposed by contractor per
                 standard specification 203.05(a) with the
                 optional disposal of 2000 CY at the ODOT site.
                 Preference is to not use milling material as
                 aggregate due to uncertain quality.



 101      F-2




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                     Page 76 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Review Comment
                                                                                                          WFLHDWFLHD PS&EComment Sheet Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: Brad Neitzke                                                                                                                                       Tori Brinkly
        Title: Materials                                       Construction Quality Assurance Specialist        Highway Standards Engineer                       Highway Safety Engineer                          Designer
        Date:                                                                                                                                                                        10/4/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
 1
102  General Table 204-1 - Remove items not used in contract.
      F-3
    Comment CJTW will make changes with help

 103      F-6

 104      F-8




 105      F-8




 106      F.8




 107      F.8




 108     F-11    Remove Section 301 SCR. Provide SCR for
                 Section 308 stating aggregate must meet ODOT
                 specs. CJTW & AMST
                 changed to section 308 - added statement
                 "provide material that meets ODOT
                 specifications. cjtw




 109     F-16    Remove Section 401 SCR. Provide SCR for
                 Section 403 stating mixture must meet ODOT
                 specifications. CJTW & AMST deleted section
                 401, replaced with 403 added "provide
                 materials that meets ODOT specifications.
                 cjtw




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                     Page 77 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Review Comment
                                                                                                          WFLHDWFLHD PS&EComment Sheet Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: Brad Neitzke                                                                                                                                       Tori Brinkly
        Title: Materials                                       Construction Quality Assurance Specialist        Highway Standards Engineer                       Highway Safety Engineer                          Designer
        Date:                                                                                                                                                                        10/4/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
 1
110  General Subsection 552.03 3rd paragraph. Reference is
      F-42
    Comment made to Section 552.92. Definitely a typo but I am
               not sure what the correct reference is. CJTW &
               AMST Yes. The correct reference has been
               changed to "552.03 of the FP-03".



 111     F-44    552.09(b)(4) - Need to add language that 4
                 cyliders are cast if they are 6 x 12. 5 cylinders
                 need to be cast if they are 4 x 8 (4th sentence). In
                 the 6th sentence, 2 cyliders would be used for 28
                 day strength for 6 x 12 OR 3 would be used for 28
                 day strength for 4 x 8. CJTW & AMSTmade
                 requested change cjtw



 112     F-45    Subsectino 552.19 2nd through 5th paragraphs
                 describe mix design approval and composition.
                 This information should be in Subsection 552.03
                 where information regarding the mix design is
                 provided. CJTW & AMST made suggested
                 change


 113     F-48    Need to include additional information for mix
                 desgin and testing of SCC. CJTW & AMST
                 revisions made cjtw amst
 114     F-52




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                     Page 78 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Review Comment
                                                                                                          WFLHDWFLHD PS&EComment Sheet Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: Brad Neitzke                                                                                                                                       Tori Brinkly
        Title: Materials                                           Construction Quality Assurance Specialist    Highway Standards Engineer                       Highway Safety Engineer                          Designer
        Date:                                                                                                                                                                        10/4/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                             Comments:                                    Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
 1
115  General Table 566-2. For Shotcrete composition, the
      F-60
    Comment methods or specification column should reference
               566.03 and 566.05. Also for Shotcrete
               composition, the compressive strength at the
               bottom of the table should be moved to this part of
               the table. CJTW & AMST added 566.05 - need
               to move to suggested location

                 The frequency for the compressive strength should
                 be deleted. The point of sampling should state
                 "Test panels". CJTW & AMST change made




 116     F-61

 117     F-63




 118     F-66

 119     F-77    Subsection 575.02 - Nuts and
                 Washers…references subsection 717.01(e). There
                 is no specification associated with the reference.
                 CJTW & AMST: See Standard Specifications
                 717.01(e).
 120     F-84    Subsection 609.02 - Structural steel references
                 717.01(e). There is no specification associated
                 with this reference. Also this is the same reference
                 used on page F-77. See comment above.
                 Something needs to be corrected and potentially
                 additional specifications included. CJTW &
                 AMST need clarification. See Standard
                 Specifications 717.01(e).

 121     F-88




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                     Page 79 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Review Comment
                                                                                                          WFLHDWFLHD PS&EComment Sheet Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: Brad Neitzke                                                                                                                                       Tori Brinkly
        Title: Materials                                           Construction Quality Assurance Specialist    Highway Standards Engineer                       Highway Safety Engineer                          Designer
        Date:                                                                                                                                                                        10/4/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                             Comments:                                    Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
 1
122  General Table 609-1. remove Mortar from the table.
      F-89
    Comment CJTW & AMST
               Crack Sealing is included in the table but there is
               no method / criteria / evaluation process provided
               in the specifications. CJTW & MJHI Work will
               be accepted and evaluated unders section
               106.02, 106.03 and 106.04


 123     F-90                                                                                                                                                   617.02: If referencing Section 563, then this
                                                                                                                                                                should be called out as Painting. Otherwise, it
                                                                                                                                                                should reference Section 708, Paint. MJHI:
                                                                                                                                                                Changed to "Painting".



 124     F-90                                                                                                                                                   617: If the railing in question is the historic two-
                                                                                                                                                                rail system, then that needs to be added to the
                                                                                                                                                                617.01(a) list as it is NOT an SBTS/B design.
                                                                                                                                                                MJHI: New guardrail system designation not
                                                                                                                                                                necessary for project.

 125     F-90                                                                                                                                                   617.08: is language similar to what ODOT uses
                                                                                                                                                                for similar operations in restoring the two-rail
                                                                                                                                                                system? MJHI: ODOT bid item "adjusting
                                                                                                                                                                guardrail" allows for drilling and treating new
                                                                                                                                                                bolt holes for rail height adjustments. Raised
                                                                                                                                                                posts require grouting or other method to fill
                                                                                                                                                                void under post. The bid item does not address
                                                                                                                                                                shortening posts in a "lowering" situation.




 126     F-91




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                     Page 80 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Review Comment
                                                                                                          WFLHDWFLHD PS&EComment Sheet Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: Brad Neitzke                                                                                                                                       Tori Brinkly
        Title: Materials                                       Construction Quality Assurance Specialist        Highway Standards Engineer                       Highway Safety Engineer                          Designer
        Date:                                                                                                                                                                        10/4/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
 1
127  General Subsection 620.10 Remove reference to Table 620-
      F-96
    Comment 2. CJTW & AMST removed

                    In 2nd paragraph 2nd sentence should read
                    "Mortar will be evaluated under Subsection
                    106.02." CJTW & AMST removed 106.04 from
                    motar, rock and structures paragraphs

 128   F-91 to F-                                                                                                                                               There appears to be some text that is the same as
          97                                                                                                                                                    the FP-03 and others (620.03(a)+, 620.08
                                                                                                                                                                substitue?, etc.) that is new. Need to show only
                                                                                                                                                                what is SCR language. CTJW

 129     F-98       Remove Table 620-2. CJTW & AMST removed
                    cjtw
 130     F-100                                                                                                                                                  633.04: guessing sign posts will be wood, but
                                                                                                                                                                that'll be ODOT's call. MPLA Yes, typical
                                                                                                                                                                ODOT standard would use wood posts.


 131     F-100                                                                                                                                                  633.05: Please DO NOT delete the first
                                                                                                                                                                paragraph of the FP-03. Just insert a sentence
                                                                                                                                                                regarding the type of sign substrate (plywood,
                                                                                                                                                                aluminum, etc.) that will be used. (similar to what
                                                                                                                                                                was done for 633.04) changed .05 to matched
                                                                                                                                                                .04 CTJW


 132




 133
 134
 120   #keep# Slope Failure Repair Comments                      Slope Failure Repair Comments                  Slope Failure Repair Comments                   Slope Failure Repair Comments                         Slope Failure Repair Comments
 135 Plans - C.9




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                     Page 81 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Review Comment
                                                                                                          WFLHDWFLHD PS&EComment Sheet Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
           To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: Brad Neitzke                                                                                                                                       Tori Brinkly
        Title: Materials                                       Construction Quality Assurance Specialist        Highway Standards Engineer                       Highway Safety Engineer                          Designer
        Date:                                                                                                                                                                        10/4/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
     General
 1 Plans - C.9
136
    Comment




 137 Plans - C.9




 138 Plans - F.7

 139 Plans - F.7




 140 Plans - K.2


 141 Plans - K.3




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                     Page 82 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Review Comment
                                                                                                          WFLHDWFLHD PS&EComment Sheet Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
           To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: Brad Neitzke                                                                                                                                       Tori Brinkly
        Title: Materials                                       Construction Quality Assurance Specialist        Highway Standards Engineer                       Highway Safety Engineer                          Designer
        Date:                                                                                                                                                                        10/4/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
     General
 1 Plans - K.3
142
    Comment




 143 Plans - K.3




 144 Plans - K.3




 145 Plans - K.4




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                     Page 83 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Review Comment
                                                                                                          WFLHDWFLHD PS&EComment Sheet Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
           To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: Brad Neitzke                                                                                                                                       Tori Brinkly
        Title: Materials                                       Construction Quality Assurance Specialist        Highway Standards Engineer                       Highway Safety Engineer                          Designer
        Date:                                                                                                                                                                        10/4/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
     General
 1 Plans - K.4
146
    Comment



 147 Plans - K.4




 148 Plans - K.4




 149 Plans - K.4

 150 Plans - K.4




 151 Plans - K.4




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                     Page 84 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Review Comment
                                                                                                          WFLHDWFLHD PS&EComment Sheet Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
           To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: Brad Neitzke                                                                                                                                       Tori Brinkly
        Title: Materials                                       Construction Quality Assurance Specialist        Highway Standards Engineer                       Highway Safety Engineer                          Designer
        Date:                                                                                                                                                                        10/4/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
     General
 1 Plans - K.4
152
    Comment




 153 Plans - K.4




 154 Plans - K.4




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                     Page 85 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Review Comment
                                                                                                          WFLHDWFLHD PS&EComment Sheet Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
           To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: Brad Neitzke                                                                                                                                       Tori Brinkly
        Title: Materials                                       Construction Quality Assurance Specialist        Highway Standards Engineer                       Highway Safety Engineer                          Designer
        Date:                                                                                                                                                                        10/4/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
     General
 1 Plans - K.4
155
    Comment




 156 Plans - K.4




 157   SCR 253




 158   SCR 253




 159   SCR 253

 160   SCR 253




 161   SCR 253




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                     Page 86 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Review Comment
                                                                                                          WFLHDWFLHD PS&EComment Sheet Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: Brad Neitzke                                                                                                                                       Tori Brinkly
        Title: Materials                                       Construction Quality Assurance Specialist        Highway Standards Engineer                       Highway Safety Engineer                          Designer
        Date:                                                                                                                                                                        10/4/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
 1   General
162 SCR 255
    Comment




 163   SCR 255




 164   SCR 255




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                     Page 87 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Review Comment
                                                                                                          WFLHDWFLHD PS&EComment Sheet Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: Brad Neitzke                                                                                                                                       Tori Brinkly
        Title: Materials                                       Construction Quality Assurance Specialist        Highway Standards Engineer                       Highway Safety Engineer                          Designer
        Date:                                                                                                                                                                        10/4/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
 1   General
165 SCR 625
    Comment




 166   SCR 720




 167
 168
 169
 170




 171
 172
 173
 End Comments                     22 comments                                      0 comments                                     0 comments                                     36 comments                                  0 comments




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                      Page 88 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Comment Sheet
                                                                                                         WFLHD WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: LeAnn Bush
        Title: Contracts
        Date:                    10/13/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
 1   General
    Comment




  2       EE     specify type for superpave MJHI and CTJW:
                 Superpave bit items deleted. Use "Hot Asphalt
                 Concrete Pavement" (40301-0000).

  3       EE     wrong bid item for flagger CTJW: Use "FIX HR
                 RATE" unit of measure.
  3     #keep#   Plan Set                                     Plan Set                                          Plan Set                                        Plan Set                                       Plan Set
  4      C.1




  5      C.1/2   add type of superpave to typicals MJHI: All AC
                 paving to be completed with "Hot Asphalt
                 Concrete Pavement" bid item (40301-0000).



528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                      Page 89 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Comment Sheet
                                                                                                         WFLHD WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: LeAnn Bush
        Title: Contracts
        Date:                    10/13/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
 1
 6   General
      C.2
    Comment




  7       C.3




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                      Page 90 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Comment Sheet
                                                                                                         WFLHD WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: LeAnn Bush
        Title: Contracts
        Date:                    10/13/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
 1
 8   General
      C.4
    Comment




  9       C.5




  10      C.6




  11      C.7




  12      C.7




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                      Page 91 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Comment Sheet
                                                                                                         WFLHD WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: LeAnn Bush
        Title: Contracts
        Date:                    10/13/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
  1
 13  General
      C.8
    Comment




  14   D.2 - D.6




  15     D.6




  16     D.6




  17     D.7




  18     D.8       missing MJHI: WFLHD to provide.
  19     F.1




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                      Page 92 of 147
                                                                                                                PS&E Review Comment Sheet
                                                                                                          WFLHD WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
           To:
        Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: LeAnn Bush
        Title: Contracts
        Date:                     10/13/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
  1
 20  General
       F.2
    Comment




  21     G.1




  22     G.1




  23     G.2


  24    G.3-G.4




  25    G.3-G.4




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                      Page 93 of 147
                                                                                                                PS&E Review Comment Sheet
                                                                                                          WFLHD WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
          To:
        Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: LeAnn Bush
        Title: Contracts
        Date:                     10/13/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
  1
 26  General
     G.3-G.4
    Comment




  27   G sheets




  28     G.3




  29    G.3-G.4




  30    G.3-G.4




  31    G.3-G.4




  32    G.3-G.4




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                      Page 94 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Comment Sheet
                                                                                                         WFLHD WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: LeAnn Bush
        Title: Contracts
        Date:                    10/13/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
  1
 33  General
      G.4
    Comment




  34   G sheets




  35     H.1




  36    H.1-H.2




  37     H.2




  38     H.2




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                      Page 95 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Comment Sheet
                                                                                                         WFLHD WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: LeAnn Bush
        Title: Contracts
        Date:                    10/13/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
  1
 39  General
      H.2
    Comment




  40     H.2


  41    H.1-H.2




  42    I.1 thru
          I.24




  43      I.1




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                      Page 96 of 147
                                                                                                                PS&E Review Comment Sheet
                                                                                                          WFLHD WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
           To:
        Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: LeAnn Bush
         Title: Contracts
         Date:                    10/13/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                          Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
  1
 44  General
       I.2
    Comment

  45      I.3




  46      I.3


  47      I.3
  48      I.4




  49      I.4




  50      I.4




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                      Page 97 of 147
                                                                                                                PS&E Review Comment Sheet
                                                                                                          WFLHD WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
           To:
        Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: LeAnn Bush
         Title: Contracts
         Date:                    10/13/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                          Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
  1
 51  General
       I.4
    Comment




  52      I.4




  53      I.4




  54      I.4




  55      I.4




  56      I.6




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                      Page 98 of 147
                                                                                                                PS&E Review Comment Sheet
                                                                                                          WFLHD WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
           To:
        Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: LeAnn Bush
         Title: Contracts
         Date:                    10/13/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                          Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
  1
 57  General
       I.7
    Comment




  58     I.10




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                      Page 99 of 147
                                                                                                                PS&E Review Comment Sheet
                                                                                                          WFLHD WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
          To:
        Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: LeAnn Bush
        Title: Contracts
        Date:                     10/13/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
  1
 59  General
      I.12
    Comment




  60     I.12




  61     I.13




  62     I.13




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                      Page 100 of 147
                                                                                                                PS&E Review Comment Sheet
                                                                                                          WFLHD WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
          To:
        Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: LeAnn Bush
        Title: Contracts
        Date:                     10/13/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
  1
 63  General
      I.13
    Comment




  64     I.15




  65     I.16




  66     I.17


  67     I.17




  68     I.18




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                      Page 101 of 147
                                                                                                                PS&E Review Comment Sheet
                                                                                                          WFLHD WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
          To:
        Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: LeAnn Bush
        Title: Contracts
        Date:                     10/13/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
  1
 69  General
      I.18
    Comment




  70     I.19

  71     I.19

  72     I.19


  73     I.20

  74      J.1




  75      J.3




  76
  77




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                      Page 102 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Comment Sheet
                                                                                                         WFLHD WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                   Plan-In-Hand (70%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: LeAnn Bush
        Title: Contracts
        Date:                    10/13/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
  1
 78  General
    Comment




  79



  80




  81   SCR E-51,
        Section
       156 Public
         Traffic




  81    #keep#      Special Contract Requirements                  Special Contract Requirements                Special Contract Requirements                   Special Contract Requirements                  Special Contract Requirements
  82     NTB        mileage appears to be incorrect CTJW updated




  83      E-6       105.02(a) missing now inclued CJTW




  84     E-9        update with latest   Done CJTW
  85     E-10


  86     E-16       (f) already in (b) CTJW removed (f) cjtw



528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                     Page 103 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Comment Sheet
                                                                                                         WFLHD WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: LeAnn Bush
        Title: Contracts
        Date:                    10/13/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
  1
 87  General
      E-18
    Comment




  88     E-22




  89     E-27




  90     E-46




  91    E-47/48   remove references to "task order"CTJW
                  removed cjtw
  92     E-48




  93     E-49




  94     E-51




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                     Page 104 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Comment Sheet
                                                                                                         WFLHD WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: LeAnn Bush
        Title: Contracts
        Date:                    10/13/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
  1
 95  General
      E-51
    Comment




  96     E-51




  97     E-51


  98     E-51




  99     E-53    typo in 1st paragraph CTJW fixed cjtw




 100      F-1




 101      F-2




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                     Page 105 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Comment Sheet
                                                                                                         WFLHD WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: LeAnn Bush
        Title: Contracts
        Date:                    10/13/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
 1
102  General
      F-3
    Comment

 103      F-6    delete subsection 208.14 CTJW and AMST
                 deleted cjtw amst
 104      F-8




 105      F-8




 106      F.8




 107      F.8




 108     F-11




 109     F-16




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                     Page 106 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Comment Sheet
                                                                                                         WFLHD WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: LeAnn Bush
        Title: Contracts
        Date:                    10/13/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
 1
110  General
      F-42
    Comment




 111     F-44




 112     F-45




 113     F-48


 114     F-52




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                     Page 107 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Comment Sheet
                                                                                                         WFLHD WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: LeAnn Bush
        Title: Contracts
        Date:                    10/13/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
 1
115  General
      F-60
    Comment




 116     F-61

 117     F-63




 118     F-66

 119     F-77




 120     F-84




 121     F-88




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                     Page 108 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Comment Sheet
                                                                                                         WFLHD WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: LeAnn Bush
        Title: Contracts
        Date:                    10/13/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
 1
122  General
      F-89
    Comment




 123     F-90




 124     F-90




 125     F-90




 126     F-91




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                     Page 109 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Comment Sheet
                                                                                                         WFLHD WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: LeAnn Bush
        Title: Contracts
        Date:                    10/13/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
 1
127  General
      F-96
    Comment




 128   F-91 to F-
          97



 129     F-98

 130     F-100




 131     F-100




 132




 133
 134
 120   #keep# Slope Failure Repair Comments                      Slope Failure Repair Comments                  Slope Failure Repair Comments                   Slope Failure Repair Comments                  Slope Failure Repair Comments
 135 Plans - C.9




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                     Page 110 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Comment Sheet
                                                                                                         WFLHD WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
           To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: LeAnn Bush
        Title: Contracts
        Date:                    10/13/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
     General
 1 Plans - C.9
136
    Comment




 137 Plans - C.9




 138 Plans - F.7

 139 Plans - F.7




 140 Plans - K.2


 141 Plans - K.3




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                     Page 111 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Comment Sheet
                                                                                                         WFLHD WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
           To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: LeAnn Bush
        Title: Contracts
        Date:                    10/13/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
     General
 1 Plans - K.3
142
    Comment




 143 Plans - K.3




 144 Plans - K.3




 145 Plans - K.4




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                     Page 112 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Comment Sheet
                                                                                                         WFLHD WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
           To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: LeAnn Bush
        Title: Contracts
        Date:                    10/13/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
     General
 1 Plans - K.4
146
    Comment



 147 Plans - K.4




 148 Plans - K.4




 149 Plans - K.4

 150 Plans - K.4




 151 Plans - K.4




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                     Page 113 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Comment Sheet
                                                                                                         WFLHD WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
           To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: LeAnn Bush
        Title: Contracts
        Date:                    10/13/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
     General
 1 Plans - K.4
152
    Comment




 153 Plans - K.4




 154 Plans - K.4




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                     Page 114 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Comment Sheet
                                                                                                         WFLHD WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
           To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: LeAnn Bush
        Title: Contracts
        Date:                    10/13/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
     General
 1 Plans - K.4
155
    Comment




 156 Plans - K.4




 157   SCR 253




 158   SCR 253




 159   SCR 253

 160   SCR 253




 161   SCR 253




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                     Page 115 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Comment Sheet
                                                                                                         WFLHD WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: LeAnn Bush
        Title: Contracts
        Date:                    10/13/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
 1   General
162 SCR 255
    Comment




 163   SCR 255




 164   SCR 255




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                     Page 116 of 147
                                                                                                               PS&E Review Comment Sheet
                                                                                                         WFLHD WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 Plan-In-Hand (70%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer: LeAnn Bush
        Title: Contracts
        Date:                    10/13/2011
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:
 1   General
165 SCR 625
    Comment




 166   SCR 720




 167
 168
 169
 170




 171
 172
 173
 End Comments                     11 comments                                     0 comments                                      0 comments                                     0 comments                                   0 comments




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                                      Page 117 of 147
                                                                                                           WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                          << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                                                       Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                   Environmental Specialist (ES)                      Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)
                                                                                                   Final Design (95%)                                            Highway Design Manager (HDM)                       Construction QA Specialist (CQAS)
          To:                                                                                                                                                    Partner Agency Representative (PAR)                Design Quality & Safety Engineer (DQSE)
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.Highway Saftey Engineer (HSE)
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:
        Title: Environmental Specialist                        Highway Design Manager                           Partner Agency Representative                    Geotechnical Section                               Structures / Bridge
        Date:
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                          Comments:
 1   General
    Comment
 2
 3
 4
 4   #keep# Plan Set                                           Plan Set                                         Plan Set                                         Plan Set                                           Plan Set
 5    A.1
 6
 7
 8
 9
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
 25
 26
 27
 28
 29
 30
 31
 32
 33
 34
 35
 36
 37

528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                Page 118 of 147
                                                                                                           WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                          << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                                                       Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                   Environmental Specialist (ES)                      Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)
                                                                                                   Final Design (95%)                                            Highway Design Manager (HDM)                       Construction QA Specialist (CQAS)
          To:                                                                                                                                                    Partner Agency Representative (PAR)                Design Quality & Safety Engineer (DQSE)
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.Highway Saftey Engineer (HSE)
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:
        Title: Environmental Specialist                        Highway Design Manager                           Partner Agency Representative                    Geotechnical Section                               Structures / Bridge
        Date:
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                          Comments:
 38
 39
 40
 41
 42
 43
 44
 45
 46
 47
 48
 49
 50
 51
 52
 53
 54
 55
 56
 57
 58
 59
 60
 61
 62
 63
 64
 65
 66
 67
 68
 69
 70
 71
 72
 73
 74
 75
 76

528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                Page 119 of 147
                                                                                                           WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                          << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                                                       Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                   Environmental Specialist (ES)                      Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)
                                                                                                   Final Design (95%)                                            Highway Design Manager (HDM)                       Construction QA Specialist (CQAS)
          To:                                                                                                                                                    Partner Agency Representative (PAR)                Design Quality & Safety Engineer (DQSE)
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.Highway Saftey Engineer (HSE)
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:
        Title: Environmental Specialist                        Highway Design Manager                           Partner Agency Representative                    Geotechnical Section                               Structures / Bridge
        Date:
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                          Comments:
 77
 78
 79
 80
 81
 82
 83
 84
 85
 86
 87
 88
 89
 90
 91
 92
 93
 94
 95
 96
 97
 98
 99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115

528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                Page 120 of 147
                                                                                                           WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                          << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                                                       Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                   Environmental Specialist (ES)                      Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)
                                                                                                   Final Design (95%)                                            Highway Design Manager (HDM)                       Construction QA Specialist (CQAS)
          To:                                                                                                                                                    Partner Agency Representative (PAR)                Design Quality & Safety Engineer (DQSE)
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.Highway Saftey Engineer (HSE)
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:
        Title: Environmental Specialist                        Highway Design Manager                           Partner Agency Representative                    Geotechnical Section                               Structures / Bridge
        Date:
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                          Comments:
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
125  #keep# Special Contract Requirements                      Special Contract Requirements                    Special Contract Requirements                    Special Contract Requirements                      Special Contract Requirements
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153

528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                Page 121 of 147
                                                                                                            WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                           << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                                                        Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                     Environmental Specialist (ES)                      Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)
                                                                                                   Final Design (95%)                                              Highway Design Manager (HDM)                       Construction QA Specialist (CQAS)
            To:                                                                                                                                                    Partner Agency Representative (PAR)                Design Quality & Safety Engineer (DQSE)
         Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.Highway Saftey Engineer (HSE)
                 2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
      Reviewer:
          Title: Environmental Specialist                        Highway Design Manager                           Partner Agency Representative                    Geotechnical Section                               Structures / Bridge
          Date:
       Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                           Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                          Comments:
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
171    #keep# Cross Sections                                     Cross Sections                                   Cross Sections                                   Cross Sections                                     Cross Sections
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
 End Comments                     0 comments                                       0 comments                                        0 comments                                        0 comments                                         0 comments




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                 Page 122 of 147
                                                                                                           WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                          << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                  Final Design (95%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:
        Title: Hydraulics                                      Materials                                        Construction Quality Assurance Specialist        Design Quality & Safety Engineer                  Highway Saftey Engineer
        Date:
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
 1   General
    Comment
 2
 3
 4
 4   #keep# Plan Set                                           Plan Set                                         Plan Set                                         Plan Set                                          Plan Set
 5    A.1
 6
 7
 8
 9
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
 25
 26
 27
 28
 29
 30
 31
 32
 33
 34
 35
 36
 37

528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                Page 123 of 147
                                                                                                           WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                          << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                  Final Design (95%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:
        Title: Hydraulics                                      Materials                                        Construction Quality Assurance Specialist        Design Quality & Safety Engineer                  Highway Saftey Engineer
        Date:
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
 1
 38  General
 39 Comment
 40
 41
 42
 43
 44
 45
 46
 47
 48
 49
 50
 51
 52
 53
 54
 55
 56
 57
 58
 59
 60
 61
 62
 63
 64
 65
 66
 67
 68
 69
 70
 71
 72
 73
 74
 75
 76

528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                Page 124 of 147
                                                                                                           WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                          << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                  Final Design (95%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:
        Title: Hydraulics                                      Materials                                        Construction Quality Assurance Specialist        Design Quality & Safety Engineer                  Highway Saftey Engineer
        Date:
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
 1
 77  General
 78 Comment
 79
 80
 81
 82
 83
 84
 85
 86
 87
 88
 89
 90
 91
 92
 93
 94
 95
 96
 97
 98
 99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115

528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                Page 125 of 147
                                                                                                          WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                          << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                  Final Design (95%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:
        Title: Hydraulics                                      Materials                                        Construction Quality Assurance Specialist        Design Quality & Safety Engineer                  Highway Saftey Engineer
        Date:
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
 1
116  General
117 Comment
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
125  #keep# Special Contract Requirements                      Special Contract Requirements                    Special Contract Requirements                    Special Contract Requirements                     Special Contract Requirements
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153

528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                               Page 126 of 147
                                                                                                           WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                          << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                   Final Design (95%)
            To:
         Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                 2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
      Reviewer:
          Title: Hydraulics                                      Materials                                        Construction Quality Assurance Specialist        Design Quality & Safety Engineer                  Highway Saftey Engineer
          Date:
       Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                           Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
  1
154    General
155 Comment
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
171    #keep# Cross Sections                                     Cross Sections                                   Cross Sections                                   Cross Sections                                    Cross Sections
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
 End Comments                     0 comments                                       0 comments                                        0 comments                                        0 comments                                     0 comments




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                Page 127 of 147
                                                                                                          WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                  Final Design (95%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:
        Title: Designer
        Date:
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
 1   General
    Comment
 2
 3
 4
 4   #keep# Plan Set                                           Plan Set                                         Plan Set                                         Plan Set                                          Plan Set
 5    A.1
 6
 7
 8
 9
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
 25
 26
 27
 28
 29
 30
 31
 32
 33
 34
 35
 36
 37

528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                               Page 128 of 147
                                                                                                          WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                  Final Design (95%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:
        Title: Designer
        Date:
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
 1
 38  General
 39 Comment
 40
 41
 42
 43
 44
 45
 46
 47
 48
 49
 50
 51
 52
 53
 54
 55
 56
 57
 58
 59
 60
 61
 62
 63
 64
 65
 66
 67
 68
 69
 70
 71
 72
 73
 74
 75
 76

528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                               Page 129 of 147
                                                                                                          WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                  Final Design (95%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:
        Title: Designer
        Date:
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
 1
 77  General
 78 Comment
 79
 80
 81
 82
 83
 84
 85
 86
 87
 88
 89
 90
 91
 92
 93
 94
 95
 96
 97
 98
 99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115

528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                               Page 130 of 147
                                                                                                          WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                          << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                  Final Design (95%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:
        Title: Designer
        Date:
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
 1
116  General
117 Comment
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
125  #keep# Special Contract Requirements                      Special Contract Requirements                    Special Contract Requirements                    Special Contract Requirements                     Special Contract Requirements
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153

528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                               Page 131 of 147
                                                                                                            WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                           << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                   Final Design (95%)
            To:
         Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                 2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
      Reviewer:
          Title: Designer
          Date:
       Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                           Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
  1
154    General
155 Comment
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
171    #keep# Cross Sections                                     Cross Sections                                   Cross Sections                                   Cross Sections                                    Cross Sections
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
 End Comments                     0 comments                                       0 comments                                        0 comments                                        0 comments                                     0 comments




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                 Page 132 of 147
                                                                                                          WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                               Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                   Highway Design Manager (HDM)
                                                                                                PS&E Signoff (100%)                                              Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)
          To:                                                                                                                                                    PS&E Contract Liaison Engineer (CLE)
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:
        Title: Highway Design Manager                          Cross Functional Team Members                    PS&E Contract Liaison Engineer                   Legal Review                                      Designer
        Date:
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
 1   General
    Comment
 2
 3
 4
 4   #keep# Plan Set                                           Plan Set                                         Plan Set                                         Plan Set                                          Plan Set
 5    A.1
 6
 7
 8
 9
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
 25
 26
 27
 28
 29
 30
 31
 32
 33
 34
 35
 36
 37

528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                               Page 133 of 147
                                                                                                          WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                               Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                   Highway Design Manager (HDM)
                                                                                                PS&E Signoff (100%)                                              Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)
          To:                                                                                                                                                    PS&E Contract Liaison Engineer (CLE)
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:
        Title: Highway Design Manager                          Cross Functional Team Members                    PS&E Contract Liaison Engineer                   Legal Review                                      Designer
        Date:
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
 38
 39
 40
 41
 42
 43
 44
 45
 46
 47
 48
 49
 50
 51
 52
 53
 54
 55
 56
 57
 58
 59
 60
 61
 62
 63
 64
 65
 66
 67
 68
 69
 70
 71
 72
 73
 74
 75
 76

528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                               Page 134 of 147
                                                                                                          WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                               Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                   Highway Design Manager (HDM)
                                                                                                PS&E Signoff (100%)                                              Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)
          To:                                                                                                                                                    PS&E Contract Liaison Engineer (CLE)
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:
        Title: Highway Design Manager                          Cross Functional Team Members                    PS&E Contract Liaison Engineer                   Legal Review                                      Designer
        Date:
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
 77
 78
 79
 80
 81
 82
 83
 84
 85
 86
 87
 88
 89
 90
 91
 92
 93
 94
 95
 96
 97
 98
 99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115

528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                               Page 135 of 147
                                                                                                          WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                          << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                              Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                   Highway Design Manager (HDM)
                                                                                                PS&E Signoff (100%)                                              Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)
          To:                                                                                                                                                    PS&E Contract Liaison Engineer (CLE)
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:
        Title: Highway Design Manager                          Cross Functional Team Members                    PS&E Contract Liaison Engineer                   Legal Review                                      Designer
        Date:
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
125  #keep# Special Contract Requirements                      Special Contract Requirements                    Special Contract Requirements                    Special Contract Requirements                     Special Contract Requirements
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153

528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                               Page 136 of 147
                                                                                                            WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                           << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>                                               Expected Reviewers:
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)                                                                                                                                     Highway Design Manager (HDM)
                                                                                                 PS&E Signoff (100%)                                               Cross Functional Team Members (CFT)
            To:                                                                                                                                                    PS&E Contract Liaison Engineer (CLE)
         Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                 2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
      Reviewer:
          Title: Highway Design Manager                          Cross Functional Team Members                    PS&E Contract Liaison Engineer                   Legal Review                                      Designer
          Date:
       Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                           Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
169    #keep# Cross Sections                                     Cross Sections                                   Cross Sections                                   Cross Sections                                    Cross Sections
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
 End Comments                     0 comments                                       0 comments                                        0 comments                                        0 comments                                     0 comments




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                 Page 137 of 147
                                                                                                          WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                PS&E Signoff (100%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:
        Title:
        Date:
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
 1   General
    Comment
 2
 3
 4
 4   #keep# Plan Set                                           Plan Set                                         Plan Set                                         Plan Set                                          Plan Set
 5    A.1
 6
 7
 8
 9
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
 25
 26
 27
 28
 29
 30
 31
 32
 33
 34
 35
 36
 37

528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                               Page 138 of 147
                                                                                                          WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                PS&E Signoff (100%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:
        Title:
        Date:
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
 1
 38  General
 39 Comment
 40
 41
 42
 43
 44
 45
 46
 47
 48
 49
 50
 51
 52
 53
 54
 55
 56
 57
 58
 59
 60
 61
 62
 63
 64
 65
 66
 67
 68
 69
 70
 71
 72
 73
 74
 75
 76

528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                               Page 139 of 147
                                                                                                          WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                PS&E Signoff (100%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:
        Title:
        Date:
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
 1
 77  General
 78 Comment
 79
 80
 81
 82
 83
 84
 85
 86
 87
 88
 89
 90
 91
 92
 93
 94
 95
 96
 97
 98
 99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115

528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                               Page 140 of 147
                                                                                                          WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                          << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                PS&E Signoff (100%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:
        Title:
        Date:
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
 1
116  General
117 Comment
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
125  #keep# Special Contract Requirements                      Special Contract Requirements                    Special Contract Requirements                    Special Contract Requirements                     Special Contract Requirements
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153

528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                               Page 141 of 147
                                                                                                            WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                           << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 PS&E Signoff (100%)
            To:
         Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                 2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
      Reviewer:
          Title:
          Date:
       Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                           Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
  1
154    General
155 Comment
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
169    #keep# Cross Sections                                     Cross Sections                                   Cross Sections                                   Cross Sections                                    Cross Sections
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
 End Comments                     0 comments                                       0 comments                                        0 comments                                        0 comments                                     0 comments




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                 Page 142 of 147
                                                                                                          WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                PS&E Signoff (100%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:
        Title:
        Date:
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
 1   General
    Comment
 2
 3
 4
 4   #keep# Plan Set                                           Plan Set                                         Plan Set                                         Plan Set                                          Plan Set
 5    A.1
 6
 7
 8
 9
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
 25
 26
 27
 28
 29
 30
 31
 32
 33
 34
 35
 36
 37

528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                               Page 143 of 147
                                                                                                          WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                PS&E Signoff (100%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:
        Title:
        Date:
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
 1
 38  General
 39 Comment
 40
 41
 42
 43
 44
 45
 46
 47
 48
 49
 50
 51
 52
 53
 54
 55
 56
 57
 58
 59
 60
 61
 62
 63
 64
 65
 66
 67
 68
 69
 70
 71
 72
 73
 74
 75
 76

528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                               Page 144 of 147
                                                                                                          WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                         << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                PS&E Signoff (100%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:
        Title:
        Date:
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
 1
 77  General
 78 Comment
 79
 80
 81
 82
 83
 84
 85
 86
 87
 88
 89
 90
 91
 92
 93
 94
 95
 96
 97
 98
 99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115

528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                               Page 145 of 147
                                                                                                          WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                          << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                PS&E Signoff (100%)
          To:
       Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
               2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
    Reviewer:
        Title:
        Date:
     Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                         Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
 1
116  General
117 Comment
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
125  #keep# Special Contract Requirements                      Special Contract Requirements                    Special Contract Requirements                    Special Contract Requirements                     Special Contract Requirements
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153

528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                               Page 146 of 147
                                                                                                            WFLHD PS&E Review Comment Sheet
   Project Name: Crown Point Viaduct Restoration                                           << Go to current review: Prelim-(30%) >>
        Number: OR PFH 163(14)
                                                                                                 PS&E Signoff (100%)
            To:
         Note: 1. Respond to the following comments with a simple notation of yes = the change was made or, no = the change was not made. Follow-up in writing or with an explanation as to why a change was not made.
                 2. Major comments (show-stoppers) may be highlighted with Red Bold text. Minor comments (tending towards cosmetic) may be shown in italics .
      Reviewer:
          Title:
          Date:
       Sheet/
Num Page No. Comments:                                           Comments:                                        Comments:                                        Comments:                                         Comments:
  1
154    General
155 Comment
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
169    #keep# Cross Sections                                     Cross Sections                                   Cross Sections                                   Cross Sections                                    Cross Sections
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
 End Comments                     0 comments                                       0 comments                                        0 comments                                        0 comments                                     0 comments




528c497b-ce7c-4237-9d9c-bc9dc294cb58.xlsx                                                                                 Page 147 of 147

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:6
posted:8/11/2012
language:
pages:147