My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Miller Legg Bid Document (37)
SIBFL
>
City Clerk
>
Bids-RFQ-RFP
>
RFQ
>
(26-07-01) Continuing Professional Architectural & Engineering Consulting Services (CCNA)
>
PROPOSALS
>
Miller Legg
>
Miller Legg Bid Document (37)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/31/2026 1:32:25 PM
Creation date
8/31/2026 1:30:39 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
111
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
RFQ #26-07-01 Continuing Professional Architectural and Engineering Consulting Services | 26MLA00190 <br />| Page 77 Approach - Survey / MappingSection 4 <br /> <br />services, project schedule and tasks to be performed and completed by each Team member. At this time, <br />milestones shall be established by the Project Manager/Team Leader. <br /> <br />Upon completion of the Kick-Off Meeting, office activities will begin including the investigation and gathering <br />of documentation related to survey services to be performed. Plats, maps, section corner information, <br />horizontal and vertical control, prior surveys / notes, etc., will be provided to the field personnel and the office <br />staff assigned to this project. <br /> <br />The field activities will be closely monitored by the designated office staff Team member to ensure tasks are <br />completed entirely and accurately. A minimum of one survey crew shall be assigned to each project. Field <br />notes will be kept daily describing the survey services completed each day. The field notes and collected data <br />files will be reviewed daily by Arnold Haynes, PSM, Professional Surveyor, as an additional Quality <br />Control/Quality Assurance (QA/QC) check as to the accuracy of the information being gathered daily. As field <br />tasks are completed, office activities will begin so both field and office activities run concurrently. We have <br />found this method allows Team members to be continually informed of daily services provided and the <br />information obtained. It allows us to review and update information gathered and ensures Team efficiency <br />and cohesiveness in preparation of the final deliverable. <br /> <br />SAFETY <br />Safety is of the utmost concern at Miller Legg, and our methods, <br />procedures and equipment all lend themselves to a safety-first <br />mentality – which includes both Miller Legg personnel and the public <br />at large. Our automated / digital survey equipment are key to this <br />capability. Our survey and SUE crews are trained in CPR, first aid and <br />confined spaces. We have a strong commitment to safety and we <br />structure our project scheduling with that in mind. <br /> <br />DRAFT DELIVERABLE SCHEDULING AND REVIEW <br />The draft deliverables may range from a partial topographic survey to a complex <br />boundary survey, but all should contain the pertinent information and data to <br />make the deliverable complete. Miller Legg schedules necessary time to allow <br />all stakeholders to have an opportunity to comment on the draft deliverable and <br />internal QC/review. <br /> <br />FINAL DELIVERABLE SCHEDULING AND REVIEW <br />In some cases, the deliverable may need to be submitted to the City as “draft” <br />for review comments before the final deliverable is issued. After incorporating <br />the City’s comments, the final deliverable is issued for release. <br /> <br />POST PROJECT DEBRIEFING / PROJECT CLOSEOUT <br />After submitting the final deliverable, Arnold Haynes, PSM, as Professional <br />Surveyor, and Sandro Envir, CST, Survey Project Manager, will schedule a post- <br />project debriefing session with the project Team. The debriefing session considers all stages and all aspects of <br />the project, such as: <br /> Individual performance <br /> Technical difficulties and their resolution <br /> Regulatory and outside interfaces – DTPW, DERM, WASD, SFWMD, municipalities, etc. <br /> Lessons learned <br /> Modifications needed <br /> Budgetary considerations <br /> Invoicing concerns
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.