Army Corps of Engineers peer review process for civil works project studies can be improved : report to the Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives.
(Web-Based Document)

Book Cover
Average Rating

Description

Loading Description...

Also in this Series

Checking series information...

Copies

LocationCall NumberStatus
Web-based Documents or Files - World Wide WebXX(920697.1)Available Online

More Like This

Loading more titles like this title...

More Details

Published
[Washington, D.C.] : U.S. Govt. Accountability Office, [2012].
Format
Web-Based Document
Physical Desc
1 online resource (ii, 52 pages) : ill.
Language
English

Notes

General Note
Title from PDF title screen (viewed Apr. 18, 2012).
General Note
"March 2012."
General Note
"GAO-12-352."
General Note
Available online.
Bibliography
Includes bibliographical references.
Description
Section 2034 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 requires that certain U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) civil works project studies undergo independent external peer review to assess the adequacy and acceptability of the methods, models, and analyses used. In the act, Congress established a 7-year trial period for this requirement and also required the Corps to submit two reports on its experiences with the peer review process. GAO was asked to examine (1) the number of Corps project studies that have undergone independent peer review in response to section 2034, (2) the cost of these peer reviews, (3) the extent to which the Corps' process for determining if a project study is subject to peer review is consistent with section 2034, (4) the process the Corps uses to ensure that the contractors it hires and the experts the contractors select to review project studies are independent and free from conflicts of interest, and (5) the extent to which peer review recommendations have been incorporated into project studies. GAO reviewed relevant laws, agency guidance, and documents and interviewed Corps officials and contractors. GAO recommends that the Department of Defense direct the Corps to, among other actions, better track peer review studies, revise the criteria for determining which studies undergo peer review and the timing of these reviews, and improve its process for ensuring contractor independence. The department generally concurred with these recommendations.

Citations

APA Citation, 7th Edition (style guide)

United States. Government Accountability Office., & Mittal, A. K. (2012). Army Corps of Engineers: peer review process for civil works project studies can be improved : report to the Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives . U.S. Govt. Accountability Office.

Chicago / Turabian - Author Date Citation, 17th Edition (style guide)

United States. Government Accountability Office and Anu K. Mittal. 2012. Army Corps of Engineers: Peer Review Process for Civil Works Project Studies Can Be Improved : Report to the Ranking Member, Subcommittee On Water Resources and Environment, Committee On Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives. U.S. Govt. Accountability Office.

Chicago / Turabian - Humanities (Notes and Bibliography) Citation, 17th Edition (style guide)

United States. Government Accountability Office and Anu K. Mittal. Army Corps of Engineers: Peer Review Process for Civil Works Project Studies Can Be Improved : Report to the Ranking Member, Subcommittee On Water Resources and Environment, Committee On Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives U.S. Govt. Accountability Office, 2012.

MLA Citation, 9th Edition (style guide)

United States. Government Accountability Office., and Anu K Mittal. Army Corps of Engineers: Peer Review Process for Civil Works Project Studies Can Be Improved : Report to the Ranking Member, Subcommittee On Water Resources and Environment, Committee On Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives U.S. Govt. Accountability Office, 2012.

Note! Citations contain only title, author, edition, publisher, and year published. Citations should be used as a guideline and should be double checked for accuracy. Citation formats are based on standards as of August 2021.