My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
COM 1282.000 2006-2008
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Communications
>
2006-2008
>
COM 1282.000 2006-2008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/19/2008 10:49:53 AM
Creation date
6/9/2008 3:52:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Communications
Communications - Type
COM
Communications - Council Term
2006-2008
Communication
1282
Point
000
Author
Colleen Schrandt, Legislative Auditor
Communications - Referred To
PWIRC
Comments
PWIRC: Close File - 6/17/08
Document Relationships
AGE PWIRC 06/17/2008 2006-2008
(Related To)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2006-2008\Public Works & Intergovernmental Relations Committee (PWIRC)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
62
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Table 3.1 Responsibility Matrix for Non-DPW CIP Projects during Audit Period <br /> <br />Department of Water <br />Supply Department of <br />Environmental <br />Management <br />Parks & Recreation <br />CDBG Funds <br />Parks & Recreation <br />Non-CDBG Funds <br /> <br />Sco in DWS DEM P&R P&R <br />Desi n and S ecifications DWS DEM P&R P&R <br />Procurement DWS DPW DPW DPW <br />Contract Administration DWS DPW DPW DPW <br /> <br />Project Mana ement <br />DWS <br />DEM Overall: OHCD <br />Day-to-Day: DPW <br />DPW <br />Project Inspection DWS DEM DPW DPW <br />During audit interviews, DPW section chiefs expressed some frustration with construction <br />projects budgeted by other County departments that were submitted to DPW for procurement <br />and contract administration before they had been sufficiently scoped and all necessary <br />governmental permits and environmental studies had been obtained. This lack of planning has at <br />times caused significant project delays and potential escalation of consultant and contractor fees <br />and necessitated extensive design and bid revisions. When the auditors inquired whether DPW <br />provides other County departments with a checklist of required permits, studies and other items <br />needed prior to submittal of projects to DPW for procurement, DPW staff responded "No, but <br />that's probably a good idea." Subsequently, DPW administrators informed the auditors that the <br />Department of Parks and Recreation is considering assuming procurement, contract <br />administration, and project management and inspection responsibilities for its own budgeted <br />construction projects. Upon review of the draft of this audit report, DPW personnel expressed a <br />desire to have the appended report tables show which supplements and change orders were <br />actually initiated by "user" agencies. It was our intent to include such an analysis under <br />Objective No. 1 of the audit scope; however, the lack of documentation provided to the auditors <br />relating to "cause" and "responsibility" for supplements and change orders precluded <br />presentation of said analysis at this time. This information is crucial to a continual scoping <br />improvement process that will enable minimization of the issuance of supplements and change <br />orders for foreseeable conditions by all County departments. <br />CIP Projects -Monitoring and Reporting <br />During interviews with DPW administrators, the auditors requested information or copies of any <br />and all written or verbal policies and procedures relating to CIP construction and contract <br />management and were informed that the department does not have policies beyond those <br />delineated in Hawaii Revised Statutes, Hawaii Administrative Rules, and its own General <br />Requirements and Covenants (which have not been updated since 1972). DPW administrators <br />12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.