Free Trial

Safari Books Online is a digital library providing on-demand subscription access to thousands of learning resources.

Share this Page URL

Chapter 1: Best Practices for Environmen... > Poor Technical Document Quality - Pg. 21

10 Chapter 1 involving shallow soil contamination. But it backfired on sites containing more complex geology, groundwater contamination, and certain contaminants of concern (C of Cs). UST sites with shallow soil contamination provided Contractors and Government ER Service Providers with many early wins for accelerating site cleanup. The Contractor project team single technology focus extended to a narrow focus on the physical site cleanup, with a lack of consideration to developing the final report during field execution. Contractors were narrowly focused on cleaning up the physical contamination, not developing data and documents that would be essential for a high quality final report deliverable. Contractors were commonly not focused on exit strategies and site closeout, and this extended to Government ER Service Provider RPMs. Government ER Service Provider initiatives to accelerate site cleanup focused on two things: (1) maximizing the amount of funds spent on cleanup and (2) maximizing the number of Remedies-in-Place. Generating multiple site exit strategies and achieving site closeouts were not the goals. "Silver-Bullet" Technologies Contractors and technology subcontractors pitched their "silver-bullet" innovative technologies to Government ER Service Provider RPMs. Technology capabilities were frequently overstated in proposals, and project work plans assumed the selected technology would achieve remedial action objectives. Many Government ER Service Providers Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) started to become skeptical of embellished technology claims because the norm was technology underperformance or failure. Poor Technical Document Quality The sense of urgency to get to the field and accelerate site cleanup caused Contractors to rush the development of project work plans. Work plans were frequently sloppy and required extensive Government review. They commonly had mis-spelt words, gaps in logic, poor formatting, and led to numerous Government and regulatory agency comments seeking clarification. Many Government ER Service Providers Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) became irritated with Contractors and downgraded their award fee. Many Contractors Project Managers were critical of the document quality "nit-picking" because they claimed their project teams did not need professional quality technical publications with perfect grammar to clean up sites. Bear in mind that many Contractor project teams engaged in cleanup consisted of numerous construction and earthwork veterans who did not perceive the need for high quality project work plans. To them, it did not matter if the project work plan contained incorrect correct regulatory terminology and acronyms ­ those things had no bearing on their site cleanup needs.