D.O. No.

___, series of 2016 ANNEX B

DA-BOD Form No. 4
Date: September 21, 2016, Issue No. 1
Page 29 of 45

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC OF WORKS AND HIGHWAYS
BUREAU OF DESIGN
Manila

PROJECT DESIGN AUDIT REPORT

1. Project Information:

Name of Project:

Location:  
Contractor (if any):  
Project Cost:  
Implementing Office (if any):  
Design Engineer:  
Reviewed/Checked:  
Approved:  

2. Findings/Observations:

3. Recommendations:

4. Annexes

Prepared by:

   
Team Leader Member
 D.O. No. ___, series of 2016 ANNEX B
DA-BOD Form No. 4
Date: September 21, 2016, Issue No. 1
Page 30 of 45

Republic of the Philippines

 D.O. No. ___, series of 2016 ANNEX B
DA-BOD Form No. 4
Date: September 21, 2016, Issue No. 1
Page 31 of 45

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC OF WORKS AND HIGHWAYS

BUREAU OF DESIGN
Manila

Checklists for Detailed Engineering Design (DED) Plan

for Bridges Project

Regional Office No   Dist. Engineering Office No.  

Name of Project :
 

V.1 Field Investigation Data (30%) Yes No N/A

1 Survey Data (Topographic/Hydrographic/Drainage) (15%)  

a.       Field data (Field book/Computer generated data)   
b.      Topographic Plan (To be incorporated in the design plan)

·        Major Contour Interval with Label

Flat Terrain - 1.0 m
 
    Rolling Terrain - 5.0 m
 Hilly/Mountainous Terrain - 10.0 m

·        GPS /BMs with Technical Descriptions *  

Project Control Monuments (with PRS92 Technical Descriptions) **

GPS / BM with Technical Descriptions

·        Existing Structures  
·        North Arrow  
·        Azimuth & Distance  
 
·   Right-of-Way Limits  
·        Elements of curvature  
·        PI Reference  
c. Profile along the centerline of the proposed bridge
·     100m (minimum) extended beyond both ends of bridge  
·        Ordinary water level (OWL)   
·        Maximum experienced flood level (MEFL)   

d.    Cross sections of upstream/downstream (200m min.) of the

 
proposed bridge showing the following:
·               Stationing   
·               Elevations   
·               Coordinates   
2 Geological/Geotechnical Data (15%) Yes No N/A
  a.  Soil Exploration Requirements
·     Boring
New Construction
·        One (1) boring at each abutment
 
·        One (1) boring at each pier
·         For ordinary soil, Boring depth of 20m   
·        In the presence of bedrock, Boring depth of 3m   

* Applicable for CY 2016 Design Audit Only

** Applicable for CY 2017 and onwards Design Audit
 D.O. No. ___, series of 2016 ANNEX B
DA-BOD Form No. 4
Date: September 21, 2016, Issue No. 1
Page 32 of 45

Repair/Rehabilitation
·        1 borehole at a representative location
·         For ordinary soil, Boring depth of 20m
  ·         In the presence of bedrock, Boring depth of 3m
Note:
Complied as to prescribed location and number of boring : 4%
Not complied as to prescribed location and number of boring :2%
  b. Data Requirements
·  Boreholes
Boring log
Soil Profile 
Soil Classification   

N-Values and/or Rock Quality Designation

- Maximum interval of 1.5m   
- every change in soil stratum
Ground Water Table   
·  Field/Laboratory Tests
 
Mechanical Sieve Analysis (Grain-size Analysis)  
Atterberg Limits Test   
Soil Stratigraphy   
NGL Elevation   
Natural Moisture Content   
Soil Strength Test  
Triaxial/Direct Shear   
Unconfined Compressive Strength   

V.2 Completeness of Drawings/Details (40%) Yes No N/A

IV.2.1 Detailed Engineering Design Drawings/Details (30%)      

1 Cover sheet/title sheet  
·      Name of project   
·      Bridge ID   
 
·      Location   
·      Station Limits   
  ·      Net Length   
2 Index of drawings   
3 Location plan/Vicinity map   
4 General Notes  
·      Specifications   
  ·      Design criteria   
·      Construction requirements   
5 Summary of Quantities   
6 General plan and elevation
 
  Bridge layout showing the following:
·      Finish elevation   
·      Maximum/Design flood level   
·      Stationings of abutment and piers   
·      Freeboard/clearance
  
      (elev. Fr. MEFL/DFL to bottom of girder)
·      Ground/river bed profile   
·      Hydraulic design data   
 D.O. No. ___, series of 2016 ANNEX B
DA-BOD Form No. 4
Date: September 21, 2016, Issue No. 1
Page 33 of 45

7 Foundation plan and Layout  

  ·      Type , number, spacing   
  ·      Size & length of piles   
  ·      Soil profile & boring logs   
8 Details of Superstructure showing dimension and steel reinforcement  
·      Slabs   
·      Girders   
  ·      Railings   
·      Sidewalks   
·      Details of trusses and bearings   
9 Details of Piers showing dimension and steel reinforcement  
·      Copings   
  ·      Columns   
·      Footings   
10 Details of Piles showing dimension and steel reinforcement  
  ·      Driven piles   
  ·      Bored piles   
11 Details of Abutment showing dimensions and steel reinforcement  
·      Wingwalls   
·      Backwall   
 
·      Copings   
·      Footing   
12 Abutment & Pier Protection Works (showing type of material & dime)   
13 Bridge Approaches   
14 Detour/crane way   
15 Cofferdam   
V.2.2 Road Safety Facilities (10%)  
Is the maximum grade for the vertical alignment (bridges and approaches) less than or
1   
equal 7%?
2 For bridges on horizontal curve, is it provided with superelevation?   
3 Is the roadway provided with a crossfall of 1.5 % - 2.0 %?   
4 Is the deck drain pipe spacing less than or equal 5.0 meters?   
5 Is the bridge railing properly connected/overlapped to the approach railing or guardrails?   
For conventional railings,  
6 Is the railpost spacing ≤ 2.0 meters?   
Is the railpost height ≥ 0.9 meter?   
Is the sidewalk width ≥ 1.20m (Urban Bridges)?
7   
Is the sidewalk width ≥ 0.76m (Rural Bridges)?
For bridge approaches,  
Are guardrails provided along the approach?   
8 Are white edge lines provided?   
Are yellow pavement markings provided along horizontal and vertical curves?   
Are center lines provided to separate different direction of traffic?   

V.3 Completeness of Design Analysis & Calculations (15%) Yes No N/A

1 Hydrologic (Discharge, Q)   
2 Hydraulic Analysis   
3 Scour Analysis (Depth of scour)   
4 Seismic Analysis   
5 Superstructure  
 D.O. No. ___, series of 2016 ANNEX B
DA-BOD Form No. 4
Date: September 21, 2016, Issue No. 1
Page 34 of 45

  ·      slabs   
  ·      girders   
  ·      trusses   
6 Piers  
  ·      copings   
  ·      columns/shaft   
  ·      footings   
7 Abutments  
·      copings   
  ·      columns/shaft   
·      footings   
8 Foundation (Design of piles)   
9 Retaining Walls (sections, stationing)   
10 Detailed Quantity Calculations   

_______Name_______ _______Name_______ _______Name_______

MM/DD/YYYY
Designation Designation Designation

Team Leader Team Member Regional Team Leader Date

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC OF WORKS AND HIGHWAYS
BUREAU OF DESIGN
 D.O. No. ___, series of 2016 ANNEX B
DA-BOD Form No. 4
Date: September 21, 2016, Issue No. 1
Page 35 of 45

Manila

Checklists for Compliance to D.O. No. 56, s. 1995

Regional Office No   Dist. Engineering Office No.  

Name of Project :

I. COMPLIANCE TO D.O. No. 56, SERIES of 1995 (5%) Yes No N/A

1 All sheets of plan are in uniform and of standard size  

a. For building and other related structures, (508mm x 762mm)   

  b. For bridge, highways, flood control and drainage water supper
and   
other related projects, 600mm x 910mm
2 Drafting and lettering works are done in AutoCAD or with the use of
technical pens and leroy or similar templates   

3 All plans are properly signed by DPWH Officials concerned

a. Designer   
b. Checker / Reviewer   
c. Division Chief / Section Chief (Submitted)   
 
d. Assistant Regional Director / Assistant District Engineer
  
(Recommending Approval)
e. Regional Director / District Engineer (Approved)   
4 All plans are prepared using Mylar or other high quality tracing paper   
5 The title block were made an integral part of the sheet of plan and not
merely patched-up thereon   

________Name________ ________Name________ ________Name________

MM/DD/YYYY
Designation Designation Designation

Team Leader Team Member Regional Team Leader Date