Web Based Comments Response (WCR)

All 2009 & 2010 STPL, CPAP and SBPL application reviews are being documented with the ESI WCR. The process is entirely paid for by the private sector. The goal of this process is to be environmentally sensitive by reducing travel and paper submissions where possible.

Due to variations and internal inconsistencies in Internet Explorer, the spell checking routine provided in Dr Checks cannot perform correctly.

Most users have found that it is better to obtain an “add on” spell checker that is designed to function with Internet Explorer rather than rely upon the “built in” version.

To Download Spell check for Internet Explorer Copy nad Paste the following link into your internet browser: http://www.iespell.com/download.php

If a design manager or supervisory colleague (referred to hereafter as “supervisor”) discovers an error in a response to a comment while the evaluation phase is still open, the corrective procedure is as follows:

• A second evaluation (evaluation 2) is entered by the supervisor, checked off as “check and
  resolve.” Once the second evaluation is saved, the status of the responses in the review table will
  change showing the number of corrections needed in the “other” column.
• The supervisor should notify the evaluator that corrections are necessary. Once the corrections
  have been made to the original evaluation 1 (only the person owning that evaluation can do so
  for obvious reasons of maintaining responsibility), the evaluator should notify the supervisor.
• The supervisor should then recheck to see that the correction has been made. If the correction is
  properly made the supervisor deletes the evaluation 2. If additional correction is needed,
  another round of action is required.
• In the end result, only the corrected evaluations will remain, providing a “clean” response back
  to the original comment submitters.

Place the word “Recommendation” in all capitals in both the SPEC (g. Spec Section) and Comment (i. Comment) locations. Since there are fewer recommendations (no citation) than code driven comments (citation in the SPEC section), the identification of recommendations in this fashion should not take considerable extra effort.

The “critical” flag indicator should NOT BE USED except in very rare circumstances that will be defined as more experience is gained with the system.

While workload may inhibit the entry of comments on a plan prior to ESI Team Peer Review (TPR), the LUG urges all reviewers to have the “goal” of entering the comments prior to attendance at the TPR. Comments entered as drafts can be updated and deleted if necessary from discussions at the TPR. For DPE plans, the LUG supported the notion that entry of comments should be strongly encouraged.

The responsibility for this action should lie with the Project Manager (PM). ESI will assist the PM in this requirement if so requested. Each PM will be assigned “review manager” permissions in the system so review team assignments can be made as necessary.

PMs will be given Review Manager permissions that supports setting up review teams as best fits a particular project. ESI will provide support to ANY agency that wishes to use Dr Checks for review, even if outside the County. For those referrals that do not wish to use Dr Checks, the PM can include the written comments provided by attaching them as a pdf file within Dr Checks. This approach will provide a complete view of the project and be a comprehensive report for LMIS.

Once all PMs have been trained as Review Managers, access to ANY of the reviews can be granted by the PM to enhance “transparency” and collaborative review. The LUG supports the notion that the “visibility” issue should be controlled by the PM.