Skip to content
Home
Members’ Area
P6 Submission Package Requirements
Report Review Services
Research & Technical Studies
Professional Development Library
How to Videos
PD Webinars
PD Workshops
Members’ Update
Links of Interest
Guidelines
Discipline
Membership
Performance Assessment
Practice
Submission Screening
Other CSAP Documents
Secure Online Fee Payment
Stakeholders
Frequently Asked Questions
About Us
News
PD Workshops
Board of Directors
Scholarships
Complaints & Discipline
About Contaminated Sites
Frequently Asked Questions
Events
Upcoming Events
Lunch and Learn
AGM & PD Workshop
Fall PD Workshop
Associated Events
Join
Membership Guidelines
Examination Fee Payment
Examination Statistics
Experience Review
Contact Us
Home
Members’ Area
P6 Submission Package Requirements
Report Review Services
Research & Technical Studies
Professional Development Library
How to Videos
PD Webinars
PD Workshops
Members’ Update
Links of Interest
Guidelines
Discipline
Membership
Performance Assessment
Practice
Submission Screening
Other CSAP Documents
Secure Online Fee Payment
Stakeholders
Frequently Asked Questions
About Us
News
PD Workshops
Board of Directors
Scholarships
Complaints & Discipline
About Contaminated Sites
Frequently Asked Questions
Events
Upcoming Events
Lunch and Learn
AGM & PD Workshop
Fall PD Workshop
Associated Events
Join
Membership Guidelines
Examination Fee Payment
Examination Statistics
Experience Review
Contact Us
Advancing land remediation and economic growth
Performance Assessment Feedback: Approved Professionals
Lindsay Todd
2016-04-07T11:42:55-07:00
Performance Assessment Number:
*
1. Did you receive your stage 1 report within 16 business days of submitting report copies?
*
yes
no
Comments:
2. Would you rate the review as:
*
overly detailed
lacking in detail
informative
Comments:
3. Would you rather receive no comment on items not requiring a written response?
*
yes
no
Comments:
4. Was the CSAP Coordinator available to answer questions (if necessary)?
*
yes
no
Comments:
5. Was the DM available to answer questions (if necessary)?
*
yes
no
Comments:
6. Were you satisfied with the PA review meeting (if held)
*
yes
no
Comments:
a) Were you treated in a respectful manner?
*
yes
no
Comments:
b) Did your responses receive fair hearing?
*
yes
no
Comments:
c) Was there adequate communication during the meeting?
*
yes
no
Comments:
d) Did you obtain a clear understanding of next steps of the PA?
*
yes
no
Comments:
7. If you did not have a meeting:
a) Were you satisfied with the review of your responses and additional information?
*
yes
no
Comments:
b) Were you satisfied with the explanation of next steps?
*
yes
no
Comments:
8. Upon reflection would you agree that the PA process was (check all that apply):
*
not satisfactory
satisfactory
provided useful technical feedback
provided useful feedback as to the level of documentation
required to make a successful submission
technically correct
current reflection of regulatory policy
Comments:
9. If you had been the subject of a PA or audit before, did you find the process this time to be:
*
better
worse
about the same
Comments:
9. Do you have any suggestions for improvement? (please provide details below)
10. Are there any lessons learned that you would like to share with other APs?
NOTE: Respondent's name will be kept confidential by the PA Coordinator. Responses will be reviewed by the PAC in order to benchmark the process and aid in further refinements.