⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 3 findings
F1
The initial bid and project for land fill sealing was adopted in spite of objections by personnel with the county who felt the end result of the project would not be successful.
F2
Acceptance of the initial sealing plan could have been supported by more aggressive consultation of the RWQCB members and other knowledgeable contractors.
F3
Other land fill and sealing activity in other counties where aggressive terrain was involved was not researched aggressively. This could have been used to confirm or refute the feasibility of the initial plan adopted and funded by the County.
Recommendations 2
-
R1For Finding 1, additional effort should be made to resolve conflicts and lack of project confidence expressed by engineering staff members.
-
R2For Findings 2 and 3, the experiences of both the RWQCB and other counties should be researched (known as best practice) as a due diligence action prior to releasing very costly projects, should they be necessary in the future.