So I’ve definitely challenged some reviewers when asked to do things that aren’t in the DCSA IST guidelines.
So example, T5/T4 RESI-P, I used to do the canvas, leave business cards etc and write it off if I didn’t find anybody. I got a refie because I didn’t interview the listed verifier who was 4 states away….
Anyways the reviewer sent me a screenshot of her PDF guide to what DCSA accepts and it spelled out what’s considered acceptable if a direct neighbor isn’t obtained (Literally said the listed verifier would be acceptable if they visited the Subject’s residence x many times.
So okay we all get fed the “get this back to the customer ASAP” which sure fine, but what is this secret DCSA document they have that shows acceptable reporting standards. This is at the one and only Peraton.
I’m a reviewer at CACI and it sounds to me like you wrote off coverage getting a direct neighbor and the reviewer RZ’d you because you didn’t attempt an indirect source (listed verifier). We had a flowchart sent out to us several months ago to show the attempts that needed to be made for residence coverage. Basically, if you can’t get a direct neighbor, you have to attempt an indirect source of someone who has visited the residence, family members being last resort. Personally, if it were me, I would have given you a no fault reopen.
Review definitely depends more on the Peraton coverage and reporting guide than the IST. Lots of us in the field do as well. It’s a collection of (among many other things) all the clarification that Peraton has asked for and received from vagaries in the DCSA TIG/IST. There are lots of vague gray areas that always need clarification. Residential coverage is one of those vagaries. Direct is a totally ambiguous word.
Which thanks Peraton for getting clarification like I really do appreciate it. But when training is conducted by investigators, by their own testimony, state they have not worked a case in years and only teach off the TIG/IST we are set up for failure. I would love to see these clarification documents one day.
My stats / bonuses would have thanked you for that. Which again I do not mind like I was not trying to be lazy but I just remember in training the requirements for the RESI verifier and what we had available to view IST. So much of these review documents have what is acceptable but 90% of us are going off the IST. I know of a non-PII document I keep with review re-opens to at least corroborate what I now know is acceptable for different types of coverage
It sounds like you had a bad trainer. Sorry to hear that. A good trainer should have told you and showed you how this document is on the document library and immediately had you download iit onto your desktop for reference. It’s really a great resource for those questionable shady gray areas of coverage we all run into at times.