USACE – Levee Periodic Inspection (Multiple Districts)

Federal Services - Project

Project Description

USACE – Levee Periodic Inspection (Multiple Districts)

Intuition & Logic Engineering along with our joint venture partners have provided Levee Periodic Inspection (PI) services to the US Army Corps of Engineers Omaha and Kansas City Districts. Each and every task order was completed on schedule and on budget. Schedules for the various task orders ranged from 320 days to 120 days. Periodic levee inspections are more in depth than the typical annual maintenance inspection. A PI is a more comprehensive review based on existing information and field inspection. The purpose of the PI is to identify system deficiencies that pose hazards to human life or property. PIs include inspection of the levee embankments, floodwalls, closure structures, drainage structures, flood damage reduction channels, monitoring systems, as well as interviews with the local sponsor. Each PI followed a similar methodology as outlined below
The Project Plan included schedule, delivery milestones, protocol for communications, progress measuring and reporting, risk management strategy, quality control plan, change management strategy, detailed inspection team composition, Independent Technical Review (ITR) team composition, public safety and health plan and more.
System Documentation Collection included review of all levee system documentation from USACE and obtaining missing data from the project sponsor and documenting data gaps.
Design Criteria Review was performed to evaluate the system documented design criteria against current design criteria for Hydraulic, Geotechnical, Structural, Mechanical, Electrical and Survey Datums.
Field Inspections were performed to physically walk the alignment and inspect crest, riverside and landside toes of the levee system, internal drainage systems, closure structures, encroachments, vegetation and more. All of the field data was collected in GIS using the Levee Inspection System created for the Corps national levee database. This database is the backbone of the Corps levee data systems.
Draft and Final PI Reports presenting the results of each system inspection were prepared and adhered to the outline, content and general section/paragraph numbering requirements provided by the USACE.
Independent Technical Review was performed by a qualified team member not involved in the day-to-day production of the PI report for the purpose of confirming the proper application of clearly established criteria, regulations, laws, codes, principles and professional practices.
PI Out-briefs were conducted for the USACE Levee Safety Officer to inform the Levee Safety Officer of the PI findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
Electronic System Documentation submittal was prepared after the PI Outbrief and resolving the Final PI Report comments. This included final hard copy submittal as well as the submittal of all electronic documents in their original file format.

Project Details

Project Features:

  • Levee Inspection
  • Project Plan Development
  • Document Collection
  • Design Criteria Review
  • Pre-Inspection Packet
  • Field Inspection
  • Periodic Inspection Report
  • Independent Technical Review
  • Levee Safety Out-Briefing
  • Electronic System Documentation
  • GIS Data Collection and Analysis
  • Planning and Project Management


Key Personnel:

  • Mark Meyer, PE, CFM
  • Robert Prager, PE
  • Tim Dean, PE, LEED AP, CFM
  • Matt Auld, PE, ENV SP
  • Jenna Stombaugh, EI
  • Kevin Sallwasser, EI

 Year Performed:

  • 2009
  • 2014
  • 2019
  • 2022
  • 2023

By The Numbers

Item Quantity
Task Orders – Omaha District W912P9-10-0505 DK01

W912P9-10-0505 DK03

Task Orders – KC District W912DQ19F1049


Number of Systems 47
Levee (miles) 261.8
Floodwall (miles) 0.7
Flood Damage Reduction Channels (miles) 183.2
Drainage Structures 509
Closure Structures 27
Pump Stations 3
States Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota


Performance Reviews

I&L has consistently received praise from the USACE for our performance on the levee periodic inspections. Below are our CPARS Ratings and comments for the three categories receiving ratings (Quality, Schedule, and Management) for one of our recent contracts.

QUALITY – VERY GOOD: The contractor met all contractual requirements by providing quality control plan and ITR plan with in the defined timeframe. The inspection and ITR team were all highly qualified with experience in levee inspections, design and evaluation. No serious quality issues were noted in any contractor submittals. The contractor exceeded requirements to the governments benefit by providing high quality products that reduced the government review effort and comment effort. Comments given to the contractor on the first report submittal were incorporated into following reports, thus further reducing the government review effort.
This was also the first USACE contract with a contractor using the new Levee Inspection System application. The contractor provided feedback to the district and the USACE ap development team on the pros and cons of the new system and provided a list of suggested ways it could be improved. This was above and beyond the contract requirements.
SCHEDULE – SATISFACTORY: The period of performance was extended by the government because of scheduling conflicts with a levee sponsor. This was at no fault to the contractor. The contractor provided a revised schedule, met all submittal and review deadlines and submitted all final products on or before March 5.
MANAGEMENT – VERY GOOD:The contractor set up weekly coordination calls with the government representative and was very flexible in rearranging the weekly call to meet the government’s schedule. The contractor was extremely responsive and minor issues with scheduling and billing were responded to quickly. The contractor was quick to alert the government of scheduling issues with levee sponsors and conflicting government review comments. All submittals were submitted on or ahead of time without the need for reminder or prompting.
ADDITIONAL/OTHER:The Contractor demonstrated a high level of professionalism and management. They provided a quality product within the contract time frame and budget and with little needed oversight from the government. Minor issues were responded to by the contractor quickly and effectively. There were no major issues.