Those commonground members who are also active on LinkedIn may be aware of an initiative to establish a new organization for Environmental Professionals and the firms that employ them.  The umbrella motivation seems to be that, although professional engineers have a trade organization (NSPE), their employers have one (ACEC), and professional geologists have one (AIPG), there is no integrated organization that serves the same function for environmental professionals.  Motivations mentioned for forming such an organization include the following:

• competent practitioners would like marketplace distinction from "fly-by-night" firms, and from unqualified persons who claim to be EPs
• EPs would like to have a common voice by which they can obtain a "place at the table" when regulations such as AAI are proposed or revised
• continuing education opportunities can be simplified and centralized
• common interests of environmental firms can be promoted
• the perceived efforts by professional engineer organizations to shut non-engineers out from environmental practice areas can be counterbalanced by an organization of similar stature
• the multiplicity of confusing "alphabet-soup" "certifications" of uncertain value and validity can be resolved into one or more, more defensible certifications that would result from objective criteria

We took commonground to Seattle's Safeco field this AM w/ our Due Diligence at Dawn forum. There was a really good discussion that originally started here in the community about how cutthroat the industry has gotten. A panelist offered up how important it is to keep your standards up and "not give your services away." Another suggested firms "make a choice w/ your business model to either go by level of service or lowest price, and stick to it." 

One discouraged all EPs from playing the price game, noting that "when you downgrade your price, you devalue the Phase I services of everyone in the room."

Check out this "mug shot" from our morning forum. Maybe they'll become like the travelocity gnome and show up all over the world!

My typical contract for a Phase I ESA includes standard Terms and Conditions, and this contract is signed by the "User". 

If I am asked to provide a reliance letter after the report is completed, I require the new User to sign a similar contract with the same standard Terms and Conditions.

However, the initial report may have included other entities that may rely on it including the purchaser and the lender.

Does anyone know of requiring each entity that may rely on the initial Phase I ESA to sign a contract and accept all terms and conditions?

Has anyone had experience with Inspection & Valuation International, Inc. (IVI)?  Their headquarters is out of White Plains, NY, with offices in Miami, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington DC, Seattle, and Dallas.  What is your general opinion of them?  Please send me a message if you do not want to post.  Thanks.