Laserfiche WebLink
further indicated that they do not conduct regular project status meetingsb, nor do they have <br />standardized documentation or reporting requirements for many phases or areas of project <br />management. They indicated that "most of Management has come up through the ranks and has <br />not been trained as managers... we don't have the time to follow the good documentation <br />procedures of DOT as an example." <br />During interviews, the auditors inquired whether the department has a CIP prioritization and <br />ranking process and were informed that CIP prioritization and ranking are handed down from the <br />mayoral administration and is thus "a continually moving target" particularly when mayoral <br />administrations change. DPW administrators also expressed some frustration with the current <br />CIP process that allows budgeting of projects regardless of whether funding is available, which <br />often results in public dissatisfaction with the department when projects cannot be implemented <br />due to lack of monetary and/ornon-monetary resources. <br />Specifically regarding professional services contract supplements and construction contract <br />change orders, DPW administrators indicated that while they are aware that certain contract <br />supplements and change orders could be avoided with more thorough scoping procedures, <br />current staffing levels require that project managers oversee multiple projects at the same time <br />and do not permit sufficient time to train engineers and inspectors or implement procedures that <br />would result in an optimal level of project scoping. <br />b Per Nancy Crawford, Deputy Director, Department of Finance: "Finance does hold a monthly CIP status meeting; <br />however, the meeting doesn't go into any detail on project status ... the purpose is solely to look at project financing <br />perspective and more specifically timing and amount of `bond' issuance." <br />13 <br />