Web Based Comments Response (WCR)
We have been notified that testing of the new interface (ongoing for over a year) is now complete and the system will convert to the new interface on October 1, 2012. A Quick Tutorial is available. It is arranged in such a way that you do not need to read it all. You can use the Table of Contents that refer you to specific pages that might be helpful. Please view the tutorial here: Dr Checks Quick Tutorial
The ESI WCR provides web-based support for entering review comments in a very organized and well-documented manner. The reviewer enters the comment into the system (either original comment text or copied text from a pick list of previous comments or references) identifying specific points in the plan documents (page and detail) for reference. The comment is uniquely identified so a “threaded” sequence of discussion and resolution can take place. Once the comments are ready for publication, the reviewer (submitter is used in Dr Checks) can analyze each comment individually and provide responses to resolve the comment. These responses can be supported with graphical materials in the form of pdf attachments that become part of the record or resolutions. The original reviewer then has the opportunity to “back check” the response to determine if the issue has been resolved. Once all comments have been resolved, a detailed documentation of those resolutions is available, essentially forming the “contract” of agreement between the reviewer and submitter on corrections to the final approvable plan. The system provides a robust management level set of controls to task reviewers in discipline areas, establish timelines for review, oversee review progress, communicate with the project team, etc. A very responsive “help desk” capability is available through a contractual arrangement. The system runs on secure servers authenticated by the State Department and Corps of Engineers.
WCR Class Information:
Frequently Asked Questions
Who has to use 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.
Spell Checking Comments and Evaluation in Dr Checks
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
Supervisory Correction of Evaluations (ESI WCR)
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.
How do we clearly delineate between requirements and recommendations?
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.
When to use the "critical flag"?
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.
Do comments have to be entered into Projnet previous to the peer review?
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.
Will the Project Manager be the one responsible for producing a report at each “milestone” and entering it into LMIS “Documents”?
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.
How should we flag comments that need to go to agencies not participating in DR Checks (i.e. Fire, or mapping)?
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.
Can we see the ESI Minimum Submission Review?
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.