Laserfiche WebLink
<br />continue with our business mainstay. Obviously therc is the potential of a conflict of interesl <br />in that ICON may be asked to complete a review on one of our own projects. Several options <br />are available to remove concerns of conflicts of interest. We are opeD to discuss the matter <br />with CWCB, and are confident that we will reach a mutually agreeable solution. It is our <br />recommendation that if there is an apparent conflict, we will first alert the CWCB to the <br />conflict and then request that the subsequent review be conducted by another entity. We feel <br />that the CWCB staff should be cross-trained in the review process and would be our first <br />choice for any conflicting reviews. If required, any necessary CWCB staff training could be <br />conducted by ICON. Depending on work-load, a logical second choice would be another <br />local consulting firm similarly trained in conducting reviews. <br /> <br />Schedule: It is our understanding that over the next year or so, that approximately 30 studies <br />will be reviewed, in a manner such that the CWCB Board can take action to a limited number <br />of studies at each of the regular Board meetings. This will not be a full time job. For this <br />reason, it is important that the reviewing consultant have a flexible, cross-trained staff. Over <br />the past several years, ICON has had an open-ended contract with the UDFCD to perform <br />maintenance related activities. At anyone time our work load under this contract has varied <br />from nothing to over 19 simultaneous assignments. We feel that our past ability to work with <br />the UDFCD on this contract best demonstrates our flexibility in dealing with varying <br />workloads. We also see our involvement with the UD&FCD as their consultant reviewing <br />map changes as complimenting the CWCB contract so that the reviews can allow us to more <br />fully utilize our review staff. The key to our ability to handle variable work loads is to have a <br />large, well trained staff. Our concept of having two principals of the firm involved along with <br />two Senior Project Mangers to head up separate review teams gives us flexibility to meet the <br />review requirements every time. A key to cutting the time required to review floodplain <br />studies will be clear, quick communication (typically by phone, fax or email) with the <br />submitting engineers, and being mindful of the need to produce accurate information that has <br />been scrutinized by senior level engineers, but not needlessly nit-picked. Experience has <br />taught us that unnecessary data request letters needlessly drag the process out. <br /> <br />To summarize, in support of our selection for this project, please consider the following: <br />I) ICON provides a solid technical basis in that we have a large, highly trained, well <br />respected, and motivated staff of hydrology and hydraulic expelis; 2) Severa] key members <br />of our staff are "pre-trained" to a large degree in completing this type of review work; 3) <br />Because of our past involvement with Michael Baker .Jr. and Greenhorne & O'Mara, (as staff <br />members and as a firm submitting map revision requests) we know what works and what <br />doesn't, and we will work hard to perfect the revie'N process using this knowledge; 4) Our <br />team will bring instant credibility to the review process in that we have established credentials <br />with UDFCD, FEMA, CWCB, and with the consultants that may have submitted the <br />floodplain studies. <br /> <br />17 <br />