My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2008-01-AU Limited Scope Performance Audit Report Department of Public Works CIP Contract Change Orders and Supplements for FY 2006-2007
PublicDocuments
>
Legislative Auditor
>
Audit Reports
>
County Auditor Reports
>
2008-01-AU Limited Scope Performance Audit Report Department of Public Works CIP Contract Change Orders and Supplements for FY 2006-2007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/19/2011 3:17:12 PM
Creation date
7/19/2011 3:10:56 PM
Metadata
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
• DPW administrators fully admit that current project management and communication are <br />problem- oriented and reactive and that the department lacks uniform practices and <br />policies and clarity of roles, leaving project engineers and coordinators to make policy <br />decisions on a case -by -case basis. DPW administrators and section chiefs also indicated <br />that regular monthly and quarterly meetings to discuss CIP project status and <br />performance issues have been discontinued due to staff shortages and time constraints <br />and that decision - making is conducted on an ad hoc basis with little long -term strategic <br />planning. <br />• DPW lacks formal policies and procedures in the areas of: <br />o Project scoping, permitting, planning and management. <br />■ DPW does not have a standard project scoping process whereby user needs, <br />expected outcomes and deliverables, critical elements of design, and <br />regulatory requirements and potential problems are addressed. <br />■ DPW does not sufficiently train personnel responsible for project scoping and <br />management regarding user needs, legal and permitting requirements, risk <br />management, and documentation and oversight necessary for successful <br />outcomes. <br />o Contract estimation, negotiation and issuance. <br />■ DPW does not document its consideration or analysis of whether necessary <br />work and /or materials are contained within original contract agreements and <br />whether issuance of contracts, contract supplements and change orders are <br />compliant with State procurement law and County policy. <br />■ The auditors could find no consistently applied policy or procedure requiring <br />independent verification of time and material estimates in contracts and <br />contract modifications to determine the reasonableness of contractor <br />proposals. Inconsistent documentation of internal time and cost estimations by <br />DPW engineers may indicate an over - reliance on contractor or vendor <br />assessments. <br />o Document and file management. <br />■ While DPW administrators and section chiefs indicated that project engineers <br />and /or inspectors keep records and log books to document project activity and <br />decisions, such documentation was not consistently provided for our review. <br />• DPW does not use standardized checklists, report forms or other <br />documentation to ensure a consistent and sufficient level of project monitoring <br />and reporting. <br />27 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.