HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 1282.003 2006-2008THIRTY DAY STATUS REPORT
BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ON AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAPTER 7 RECOMMENDATIONS
1. We recommend that the County develop and implement along-term CIP master plan
following current best practices implemented by other governmental jurisdictions to
include input from all key stakeholders (including the Council and general public)
that provides clearly defined goals and priorities to County departments charged with
CIP responsibilities.
• At a minimum, the CIP master plan should include a comprehensive listing of capital
improvement projects with prioritized rankings and timelines for completion.
• The CIP master plan development process should incorporate public input, coordination
with State and Federal agencies and funding sources, and investigation of public-
private partnerships.
• The CIP master plan development process needs to be supported by 'an information
technology (IT) system capable of capturing and reporting accurate, relevant and timely
financial and project management data.
• The CIP master plan development process should include standardized and regular
reporting and review of project timing and estimation, cost and resource allocations,
and budget-to-actual analyses. _
We believe that the fast recommendation addresses the County as a whole and although
included as a recommendation in our audit, involves actions that are beyond the purview
and role of the Department of Public Works. This recommendation might be more
appropriately addressed to the Mayor as it involves a larger more comprehensive planning
and review process that involves several departments.
However, the Hawaii County Charter states that one of the responsibilities of the Planning
Department is to "Review the lists of proposed capital improvements contemplated by
agencies of the County and recommend the order of their priority. " As a result, we have
included the Planning Department in our audit committee meetings and have asked that
they address their present role in the CIP process.
Planning Director Response:
The Planning Department currently compiles a report for the Mayor entitled "Proposed ~~
Capital Improvement Budget and Six-Year Capital Improvements Program "each Fiscal
Year that is submitted to the County Council.
C~morr- Na / 02 S~ . 3
Bef. Ta P/aPW/RG
Ref. Date. 11lI 2 2 20b8
As a result, the first bulleted item - to produce a comprehensive listing of Capital
r
Improvement Projects with prioritized rankings and timelines for completion - is a product
that is incorporated into the frscal year proposed capital budget.
With the Community Development Plans (CDP) now underway and with their adoption and
the formation of CDP Action Committees, we will now have a mechanism for incorporating
community input and prioritized projects. We will be forming our first Action Committees
in the upcoming months and developing a process for community-government
collaborations.
The remainder of this recommendation calls for the development of a more comprehensive
CIP process and would require further research and involvement with other County
departments.
2. We recommend that the Department of Public Works develop comprehensive policies,
procedures and controls for management of capital improvement projects, including,
but not limited ,to:
Project Scoping
Develop policies and procedures that specifically address project Scoping and
negotiation strategies to obtain best values and promote equity and fair competition
among professional services consultants and construction contractors. Included should
be a process to document the consideration, analysis and determination of the costs and
benefits related to bundling or separating the work required.
We are looking at a consultant contract to establish written policies and procedures
and estimate the funding at $200, 000, which is not a budgeted item and we may be
issuing a supplementary budget request.
We have looked at the cost of contracts we issued over the last three years and the
results, as listed below, show that the size of jobs is reasonably distributed between
large and small projects.
Breakdown of Projects as follows:
Constructed or Under Construction Projects Over the Lact Three Yearc
Contract Amount Building En ineerin Total
$I, 000, 000 + 22 16 38 36.54%
$500, 000 to $999, 999 6 S 11 10.58%
$200, 000 to $499, 999 16 6 22 21.1 S
$100, 000 to 199, 999 6 3 9 8.65%
$S0, 000 to $99, 999 6 3 9 8.65%
$1 to $49, 999 11 4 1 S 14.43
Total 67 37 104 100.00%
Page - 2 - 7/22/08
• Perform more pre-project planning with client agencies and end users to better define
scope of work and deliverables for incorporation into professional services contracts to
ensure that design proposals (and subsequent construction bids) can be more competitive,
contracts can more clearly delineate responsibilities and compensation for each segment
of work, and contract supplements and change orders can be minimized.
Develop checklists for various phases of project compliance to ensure that all
prerequisites are completed before submittal to contract procurement, including apre-
design procurement checklist and apre-construction bid checklist.
For our Engineering Division we have developed an extensive scoping worksheet, which
appears as Attachment 1. Our Building Division will be producing a temporary one by
September and the final one would be part of the consultant contract, as building projects
are so varied in their scope and complexity.
Project Tracking
• Develop a CIP master schedule to establish and track project timelines and prioritize and
monitor funding and resource allocations (including personnel).
Implement a process for regular and frequent review of project financial and physical
status by DPW administrators and project engineers, coordinators and inspectors.
These items will be a part of the consultant contract mentioned above.
Project Documentation and Control
Documentation Requirements. Implement minimum documentation, authorization, action
and reporting requirements for all phases of CIP management, including, but not limited
to: project scoping and estimation; consultant ranking and selection; construction contract
procurement and award; governmental permitting, insurance and bond requirements;
internal estimation of contract supplements and change orders; project inspection;
verification of progress billings; resolution of disputed charges; and project closeout.
Special attention should be given to initial project scoping, as it appears that a significant
portion of contract supplements and change orders reviewed during the audit period was
due to insufficient front-end scoping.
• Standardized Forms. Develop internal procedures, checklists and report forms relating to
project scoping, permitting, procurement, management, inspection, payment and closure
as well as external procedures, checklists and report forms for use by other County
agencies prior to submittal of projects to DPW for procurement. Where possible,
standardized processes and forms should be developed to ensure adequate and consistent
project documentation.
For change order justifrcation, we will be incorporating the information shown on
Attachment 2.
Page - 3 - 7/22/08
• Routing and Retention. Develop policies and procedures for report preparation, routing
and retention to include all DPW personnel involved in capital improvement projects and
specifically address what documentation is expected to be completed and/or maintained
by whom, to whom it should be communicated, how, when and in what format.
Conflict of Interest/Related Parties. Develop policies and procedures that address
"conflicts of interest" and "related party" issues between consultants/contractors and
DPW personnel, including defining "related party", requiring written related party
disclosures, and specifying additional documentation and control procedures required in
related party situations. At a minimum, policies and procedures should comply with
provisions of Hawaii County Code §2-84, Conflicts of interest, and §2-91.1, Financial
disclosures and disclosures of interest.
• Segregation of Duties. Develop policies and procedures that address segregation of duties
among DPW personnel, including, but not limited, to: project scoping, internal
estimation, ranking and selection of professional services consultants, bid and award of
construction contracts, inspection and acceptance of projects, and approval of progress
payment requests. At a minimum, policies and procedures should comply with provisions
of the County Department of Finance's Accounting Manual, Part I (June 7, 1999), at Page
103.11, which provides in part: "Any system of internal control should include, as a
minimum, the following elements: 1. Systems of authorizations, approvals, and recording
procedures adequate to provide reasonable accounting control over assets, liabilities,
revenues, and expenditures. 2. Separation of duties concerned with record keeping and
accounting reports from those concerned with operations or asset custody..."
• Contract Supplements and Change Orders. Develop quality control measures specifically
relating to contract supplements and change orders, including:
o Minimum documentation requirements.
o Standardized decision criteria to determine whether a proposed change is within the
original project scope or requires a separate procurement.
o Identification of specific causes necessitating the change.
o Identification of specific responsibility for the change.
o Independent internal estimation of time and costs relating to the change:
o Comparison of internal estimations to vendor/contractor estimations.
o Development of a negotiation strategy.
o Documentation of negotiations.
o Review, approval and documentation of agreed-upon time and costs.
o Documentation of comparison and verification of agreed-upon time and costs to
vendor/contractor invoices.
The remainder of the items under Project Documentation and Control will be a part of
the consultant contract mentioned above.
Page - 4 - 7/22/08
Quality Control
• At a minimum, the quality control process should include a mechanism to review project
status and communicate "lessons learned" to appropriate DPW staff as well as a
mechanism to review vendor and contractor performance with outcomes reported back
into the procurement ranking process at the departmental and County-wide levels.
• At a minimum, the quality control process should include a mechanism to regularly and
frequently report CIP status to the County Council, including specific dollars and dates
related to original budget, original contract, adjusted contract, actual expenditures
(current year and project to date), and estimates to complete on both time and cost for
every project.
We will start post construction evaluation for our construction contracts. Similarly,
upon completion of our consultant contracts, they will be evaluated.
3. We recommend that the Department of Public Works evaluate and incorporate
industry best practices relating to staffing levels and information systems
applications.
Best Practices -Staffing
• The Department of Public Works should evaluate and compare its staffing levels to
industry best practices to ensure that they are sufficient to meet program demands.
o Develop departmental and division "process maps" to clearly delineate roles and
responsibilities and evaluate the adequacy of staffing levels and resources to carry out
duties.
o Conduct a cost-benefit analysis of hiring additional County personnel versus
continuing to outsource capital improvement project design and construction work.
o Develop written policies and procedures as recommended above and implement
training programs to ensure that new policies and procedures are clearly and
consistently communicated to appropriate staff.
• If the department determines that it cannot make significant progress in the foregoing
areas within the next six months, it should consider procuring a private consultant to
assist in the development of process maps, improvement of policies and procedures, and
training of its personnel.
Best Practices -Information Technology (IT) Applications
• The Department of Public Works should evaluate and compare its information systems
applications to industry best practices to ensure that they are sufficient to meet program
demands.
Page - 5 - 7/22/08
o Assess informational needs against capacities of current County information systems
applications and conduct acost-benefit analysis relating to implementation of
necessary IT applications to address any critical deficiencies. Implement an integrated
computer application to provide report capability for project management on a regular
and frequent basis in a standardized and useful format. Increase capability for
proactive project monitoring and control to replace current record-keeping of
unstandardized data by different project personnel in various manual and electronic
formats in order to eliminate inefficiency, redundancy and potential of error.
® If the department determines that it cannot identify a compatible information systems
application within the next six months, it should consider procuring a private public
works consultant with IT expertise.
We have determined that we can't make significant progress within six months and so we
will be procuring a private consultant who possesses specific experience and expertise to
evaluate and incorporate best practices. This is the same contract sited above in
Recommendation 2.
4. We recommend that the Department of Public Works, in consultation with the
Finance Department, develop and implement formal policies and procedures for
authorization, documentation, and systematic recordation and reporting of changes
to contract fund accounts.
The Department of Public Works met with the Department of Finance regarding this
recommendation. A process already exists, however, the Finance Department will have
it formalized and implemented County-wide.
Page - 6 - ~ 7/22/08
THIRTY DAY STATUS REPORT
BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ON AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS
Attachment 1
SLOPING WORKSHEET
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Project Title.
Road Name.
Project Limits:
Length:
District•
Level of Improvement:
Funding: ^ State
^ County
Project No.
to
Council District
Date:
^ Federal Aid ^ Other:
ROAD CLASSIFICATION:
^ Mayor ^ Minor ^ Local
^ Arterial ^ Collector
^ Urban ^ Rural
Latest ADT: Year:
Latest % Trucks. Year:
TYPE OF WORK:
^ Roadway
^ New
^ Resurfacing
^ Reconstruction
^ Roadway Widening ^ Shoulder Widening
^ Safety Improvement ^ ADA Compliance
No. of Additional Travel Lanes:
No. of Intersections Requiring Improvements:
^ Bridge/Structures (Also Complete Structural Projects Scoping Worksheet)
^ New
^ Replacement
^ Rehabilitation/Retrofit
^ Other:
^ Drainage (Also Complete Drainage Projects Scoping Worksheet)
^ New '
^ Replacement
^ Rehabilitation/Retrofit
^ Drainage Improvement
^ Other:
DESIGN CRITERIA TO BE USED:
Horizontal Alignment:
Is there horizontal control in the area for survey? ^ Yes ^ No
Does the existing horizontal alignment meet current standards for new construction for the posted speed
limits (If No, specify location(s) in the table below) ^ Yes ^ No
SUBSTANDARD HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT LOCATIONS
Locations Posted Speed Maximum degree or Minimum radius of curve Existing degree or
Limit allowed (new construction standardl radius of curve
Vertical Alignment
Does the existing vertical alignment meet current destgn standards for new construction for the posted speed
lima? (If no, specify location(s) below) ^ Yes ^ No
SUBSTANDARD HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT LOCATIONS
Locations Posted Screed Limit Maximum % Grade Allowed Existine % Grade
Stopping Sight Distance:
Does the existing horizontal and vertical alignment meet current stopping sight distance requirements?
(If No, specify location(s) below) ^ Yes ^ No
SUBSTANDARD STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE
Posted Speed Min. Stopping Sight Existing Stopping
Locations Limit Distance Allowed Sight Distance
Pavement and Shoulder Widths:
Does the existing pavement and shoulder widths meet current width standards? (If No, Specify
location(s) in the table below) ^ Yes ^ No
EXISTING PAVEMENT AND SHOULDER WIDTHS
Existing Lane & Shoulder Width Lane & Shoulder Width Required 3-R Lane & Shoulder Width
Locations (Lane. Paved Shoulder. Total Shoulder) (Lane, Paved Shoulder. Total Shoulder) (Lane. Total Shoulder)
L: P: T: L: P• T: L: T•
L: P: T: L: P: T: L: T:
L: P• T: L: P: T: L: T.
L: P: T: L. P: T: L: T:
L: P: T. L: P: T: L: T:
DESIGN FEATURES:
Lane cross slope appears to meet current design criteria. ^ Yes ^ No
Problems with pavement drop offs may need to be addressed. ^ Yes ^ No
Unprotected obstacles may have to be eliminated, made yielding or shielded. ^ Yes ^ No
Existing guardrail post spacing, rail elements, height, block-outs & anchorage appear to be adequate.
^ Yes ^ No
Existing guardrail end treatments appear to be adequate. ^ Yes ^ No
Drainage grades, ditch slopes, and driveway sideslopes are traversible by vehicle/bicycles
^ Yes ^ No
Utility poles/large trees are delineated or marked. ^ Yes ^ No
Overhead structures appear to meet criteria for vertical clearance (i e., bridges: 16.5 ft., telephone lines: 18 ft.,
electric lines• 20 ft.) ^ Yes ^ No
Existing bridge rails and approach guardrails meet current destgn criteria. ^ Yes ^ No
Narrow bridges.
Existing sidewalks appear to meet ADA
New Sidewalk
Existing curb ramps appear to meet ADA.
~ Existing driveways appear to meet ADA.
Bike Facilities designated on Bike Plan.
^ Yes ^ No
^ Yes ^ No
^ Yes ^ No
^ Yes ^ No
^ Yes ^ No
^ Yes ^ No
REPORTS:
Traffic Assignment/Design Designation
Traffic Accident Analysis
Noise Study
Pavement Design/Justification Report
Subsurface Investigation/Soils Report
Design Exception
RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIREMENTS:
Land Acquisitions:
Explain:
^ Yes ^ No ^ N/A
^ Yes ^ No ~ ^ N/A
^ Yes ^ No ^ N/A
^ Yes ^ No ^ N/A
^ Yes ^ No ^ N/A
^ Yes ^ No ^ N/A
^ Yes ^ No ^ N/A
Easement: ^ Yes ^ No ^ N/A
l Explain:
Construction Right of Entry: ^ Yes ^ No ^ N/A
Explain:
UTILITIES:
Probing ^ Yes ^ No ^ N/A
Relocation ^ Yes ^ No ^ N/A
Adjustment (manholes, pullbox, etc.) ^ Yes ^ No ^ N/A
Utility AgreemenUCoordination ^ Yes ^ No ^ N/A
Electric ( ) ^ Underground ^ Overhead
Telephone ( ) ^ Underground ^ Overhead
Cable ( ) ^ Underground ^ Overhead
Water ( ) ^ Underground D Overhead
Sewer ( ) ^ Underground ^ Overhead
Gas ( ) ^ Underground ^ Overhead
( ) ^ Underground ^ Overhead
( ) ^ Underground ^ Overhead
PLAN DEVELOPMENT:
As -Built Plans Available ^ Yes ^ No
If Yes, in CADDY ^ Yes ^ No
Topographic Survey required? ^ Yes ^ No ^ N/A
If Yes, Right of Entry Required? ^ Yes ^ No
Construction Phasing ^ Yes ^ No ^ N/A
Special Traffic Control Plan (TCP) ^ Yes ^ No ^ N/A
CLEARANCES/PERMITS REQUIREMENTS:
Special Management Area (SMA) use Permit (SMP) ^ Yes ^ No ^ N/A
Water Quality Certification -Section 401 ^ Yes ^ No ^ N/A
Department of the Army Permit -Section 404 ^ Yes ^ No ^ N/A
Shoreline Certification ^ Yes ^ No ^ N/A
Stream Channel Alteration Permit (SCAP) ^ Yes ^ No ^ N/A
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) ^ Yes ^ No ^ N/A
Conservation District Use Application (CDUA) ^ Yes ^ No ^ N/A
Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Certification ^ Yes ^ No ^ N/A
Night Work Variance ^ Yes ^ No ^ N/A
Wetlands ^ Yes ^ No ^ N/A
Historic Sites Review (Historicity Clearance) ^ Yes ^ No ^ N/A
Preservation of Trees ^ Yes ^ No ^ N/A
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Document Review ^ Yes ^ No ~ ^ N/A
FEMA Flood Zone, CLOMR ^ Yes ^ No ^ N/A
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION:
EIS Exemption (HRS 343) ^ Yes ^ No ^ N/A
Categorical Exclusion Q Yes ^ No ^ N/A
Environmental Assessment ^ Yes ^ No ^ N/A
EIS ^ Yes ^ No ^ N/A
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT:
Project Scoping site walk-through with interested citizens, organizations, etc.
^ Yes ^ No ^ N/A
Informational Meeting ^ Yes ^ No ^ N/A
If Yes, with whom
Comments:
ESTIMATED COST AND COMPLETION TIME:
Phase
Design
Construction
R/W AcgmsiUon
Utilities
Estimated Cost Duration (Months)
Total
LIST TIES OF OTHER PROJECTS:
UNIQUE DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS OF FEATURES TO ADDRESS:
SPECIAL COMMITMENTS:
1
COMMENTS:
Contact Person:
Phone: E-mail: Fax.
_ SLOPING WORKSHEET
STRUCTURAL PROJECTS
Roadway Name.:
Project Limits: to
Project Scoping Engineer:
Level of Improvement: Date:
BRIDGE WORK:
Bridge Name: Structure No.:
Sufficiency Rating (SR):
Rehab Work (specify):
Replacement Work (specify):
Seismic Retrofit Work (specify):
Badge Widening (specify):
Posted Speed Limit:
%Heavy Vehicles:
Utility/Drainage Interface (specify):
Other work (specify): '
Substandard Guardrail End Post Connection? ^ Yes ^ No
Substandard Bridge Railing? ^ Yes ^ No
Pedestrian Railing Required? ^ Yes ^ No
Bike Railing Required ^ Yes ^ No
R/W Needed? ^ Yes ^ No
ADA requirements? ^ Yes ^ No
Light Standards Required ^ Yes ^ No
Soil Parameters Needed? ^ Yes ^ No
Historical Structure? ^ Yes ^ No
Public Involvement Required? ^ Yes ^ No
Topos Regmred? ^ Yes ^ No
Lapsing Fund Date? ^ Yes ^ No
If yes, specify date:
Estimated Construction Cost:
I ~
I
RETAINING/SOUND WALL AND OTHER STRUCTURES:
Beginning Station:
Ending Station
Soil Pazameters Needed?
Topos Required?
Wall Subject to Vehicle Hit?
Pedestrian Railing Required?
Bike Railing Required?
Public Involvement Required?
Light Standards Required?
Lapsing Fund Date?
If yes, specify date:
Estimated Construction Cost:
^ Yes ^ No
^ Yes ^ No
^ Yes ^ No
^ Yes ^ No
0 Yes ^ No
^ Yes ^ No
^ Yes ^ No
^ Yes ^ No
SLOPING WORKSHEET
HYDRAULIC PROJECTS
Roadway Name.:
Project Limits: to
Project Scoping Engineer:
Level of Improvement: Date:
DRAINAGE WORK:
Culvert/Pipe Extensions ^ Yes ^ No
Culvert Crossing ^ Yes ^ No
Closed Pipe Systems ^ Yes ^ No
Drainage Structures ^ Yes ^ No
Regrading ^ Yes ^ No
Upgrade Substandard Drainage Structures and Grates ^ Yes ^ No
Temporary Drainage System (i.e. Detour Road) ^ Yes ^ No
Comments:
MAINTENANCE:
Existing Drainage Problems? ^ Yes ^ No
Clogged Culvert? ^ Yes ^ No
Damaged Structures? ^ Yes ^ No
Corcoded Pipe? ^ Yes ^ No
Erosion Problems? ^ Yes ^ No
Comments:
REPORTS:
Extent of proposed Hydrology and Hydraulic Report:
Scour Reports Required? ^ Yes ^ No
WORK DONE BY OTHERS (coordinated with HWY-DD):
Topographic Survey Required
To what extent?
Additional R/W required
Explain•
^ Yes ^ No
^ Yes ^ No
Drainage Easement Required? ^ Yes ^ No
Explain:
Construction Parcel Required? ^ Yes ^ No
Explain:
THIRTY DAY STATUS REPORT
BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ON AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS
Attachment 2
CHANGE ORDER JUSTIFICATION AND FIELD-APPROVAL FORM
* * *Description of proposed Change Order(provide detailed description):
***Justification for Proposed Change Order(e.g., unanticipated geological formation,etc
***Estimated Cost of Proposed Work:
Project Engineer/Coordinator Division Chief Director
With/WithoutComments/Conditions
COJP-AF-draft-2