HomeMy Public PortalAboutExhibit MSD 30P7 - Process Review - Construction Change Orders October, 2011PROCESS REVIEW – CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDERS FY 2012 AUDIT PLAN
Metropolitan Saint Louis Sewer District
Process Review - Construction Change Orders
October, 2011
This report is intended solely for the use of Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District and is not
intended to be and should not be used by any other parties without the prior written
consent of MSD.
PROCESS REVIEW – CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDERS i FY 2012 AUDIT PLAN
St. Louis Metropolitan Sewer District
Process Review – Construction Change Orders
October, 2011
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................ 1
Objectives and Scope ............................................................................ 2
Methodology ........................................................................................... 3
Executive Summary ............................................................................... 4
Overall Engagement Conclusion and Results ........................................ 7
Observations and Recommendations ..................................................... 8
Other Matters ....................................................................................... 14
Change Orders Reviewed .................................................................... 15
INTRODUCTION
PROCESS REVIEW – CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDERS 1 FY 2012 AUDIT PLAN
The Risk Assessment and Internal Audit Plan for Fiscal 2012 developed by MSD Internal Audit provides for the performance of an engagement to review the procedures for processing
construction change orders. This report details and summarizes the execution and results of
that engagement.
MSD had 172 projects in progress during the years 2009 thru 2011 with a total contract value of $643M. Among those projects, there were 92 projects with a combined contract value of $422M that involved scope or pricing changes. For those projects, there were a total of 249 change
orders resulting in a net increase of $39M in the cost of those projects. As part of this engagement, 54 of the 249 change orders were reviewed for process and control improvement opportunities, compliance with District policy, and propriety. Change orders are the mechanism
by which contract terms are modified while contract construction is in progress.
The Metropolitan Saint Louis Sewer District (MSD) has plans for major construction spending
over the next several years as part of the Capital Improvement and Replacement Program (CIRP). As such, the change order process is an appropriate area to review as the process is a
primary platform for issues that may cause projects to exceed budget, for issues that may cause
projects to fail in meeting time frame expectations, and/or for issues that may cause projects to fail in meeting desired performance parameters.
An effective control structure governing the change order process will be become increasingly important, as the CIRP is a multi-billion dollar plan. MSD has defined goals to:
• Deliver consistent, high quality customer service
• Comply with all legal and regulatory requirements and schedules
• Minimize customer rate increases; and
• Be accountable to the St. Louis Community
Achieving these goals is a high priority for MSD, and meeting them while implementing the CIRP will require a focus on effective project implementation procedures.
MSD Engineering and Construction has adopted the 2002 Engineers Joint Contract Documents Committee (EJCDC) standards as the basis for their construction contracting processes. These
standards are developed and endorsed by the following:
• American Council Of Engineering Companies
• Associated General Contractors Of America
• American Society Of Civil Engineers
• Private Practice Division Of The National Society Of Professional Engineers
These EJCDC standards are commonly employed by state and local governments as the basis for developing contractor control programs for their water and sewer systems.
The engagement was conducted at the MSD main office and at the Lemay plant site during the
period of 9/1/2011 thru 10/25/2011. The engagement included a review of change orders along
with the contractual and procedural requirements for those change orders. The engagement also involved the performance of interviews with personnel involved with the construction
change order process.
OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
PROCESS REVIEW – CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDERS 2 FY 2012 AUDIT PLAN
Objectives
The objectives of this engagement were to review change orders for propriety, pricing accuracy,
and to ensure compliance to procedures, policies and contract documents. Of particular interest
were change orders that included scope reductions or credits. The engagement was designed to identify process weaknesses and opportunities for improvement and to communicate the
resulting recommendations for improving the procedures utilized to process construction change orders as well as for improving the overall procedures used to manage construction projects.
Specifically we:
• Evaluated whether current internal controls for the review and approval of changes are adequate.
• Evaluated the change order process with a focus on: o Overlaps in work
o Deductive change orders (credits) o Timing and pricing (estimation) o Escalation clauses for commodity related materials
• Reviewed change orders for appropriateness and pricing accuracy
• Identified potential over-charges.
• Developed recommendations to improve the change order process and overall
management of construction projects, including industry best practices.
• Presented the results to Management for review.
Scope
Change orders included in the contracts from 1/1/2009 to present were the basis for the sample
selection. Based on information provided by Engineering, there were 92 projects in this time
period that had 249 change orders that affected the overall cost of the projects. Our review
focused on the change orders associated with the projects that resulted in cost reductions or
increases that were both greater than 20% and more than $100,000. Projects with more than 3
change orders were also be reviewed. From this group, a sample of 54 change orders was
selected, since it was not practical to do a detailed review of all 249 change orders in the time
available. Large dollar change orders, changes that involved scope reductions or credits, and
those involving a large number of RFPs were preferentially selected for review. The list of
change orders reviewed is provided at the end of this report.
METHODOLOGY
PROCESS REVIEW – CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDERS 3 FY 2012 AUDIT PLAN
Methodology
To accomplish the objectives of this engagement we interviewed personnel in the Engineering
Department and reviewed MSD’s change order processes, policies, and procedures. The following work items were assessed for each change order:
Pricing – Review pricing of labor, materials, and markup percentages.
Calculations - Perform a recalculation of change orders to detect any math or calculation errors.
Labor Rates - Verify the appropriateness of labor and labor burden pricing for change orders.
Quantity Review - Verify the appropriateness of change order material pricing, material quantity takeoffs, labor productivity factors, and related extensions.
Overhead Costs - Review Change Order for errors in the application of contract terms. Look for indirect costs such as field and home office supervision or other overhead
(general conditions costs) items being factored into the change order proposal as a direct cost.
True Change of Scope - Verify the detailed scope of work required by the Change Order to ensure that it represents a legitimate change in scope (i.e. work included in the change order is not already included in the base contract).
Credit Change Orders - Review Change Orders for possible deletions or partial deletions or changes in scope that should be credited to the Owner.
Owner Provided Materials - Review Change Orders and related scope of work to
determine whether or not any Owner provided items might have been used in the pricing
of the change order.
Sales Taxes - Review for proper application of sales taxes.
The engagement was performed with a fundamental objective of assessing the accuracy and
appropriateness of costs incurred by MSD as a result of processed construction change orders.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PROCESS REVIEW – CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDERS 4 FY 2012 AUDIT PLAN
Executive Summary
As part of the design of this engagement, an emphasis was placed on reviewing change orders
that included scope reductions or credits. Procedures revealed that credits were fairly priced.
Any overcharges to MSD that were identified during the engagement were either of a nature in
which recovery would not be practical or the overcharge amounts were immaterial.
The following are the results of the engagement procedures that Management will be provided
an opportunity to respond to:
• More than a quarter of the change orders reviewed included a situation in which current
design documents did not represent the current configuration of plant or underground
components, which caused interferences during installations.
• Procedures covering the change order management process are being updated but
have not been issued to the field for use.
• Four cases were found in which contractor's fees may have been overstated or were not
properly credited.
• Instances were noted in which additional project staff time was included in change
orders without the extension of project duration and without the contractor incurring any
additional expenses.
• In several of the change orders reviewed, the disposition and value of demolished,
scrapped, or temporary materials was not identified in the change order or project
documents.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PROCESS REVIEW – CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDERS 5 FY 2012 AUDIT PLAN
Potential opportunities for improvement, requiring no response, were found in a few areas as follow:
• Contract General Conditions and Supplementary Conditions are based on the EJCDC
body of documents. The purpose of these documents is to provide a uniform language
and set of requirements that is understood and recognized across the industry. The
language is developed with the idea that contractors will recognize the General
Conditions as “The Standard Contract” and will recognize the Supplementary Conditions
as “With the following exceptions.” A 2007 update was issued for the General
Conditions, but was not adopted by the District after a Management-wide internal review.
Management expressed concerns with some of the provisions in the 2007 update,
specifically with the provisions addressing safety and a potential increase in the level of
liability assigned to the District. Management was not willing to accept that level of risk.
That being said, in order to keep with current industry practices, MSD may consider
reviewing and adopting, in some form, the EJCDC documents expected to be issued in
2012. If updated EJCDC documents are not issued in 2012 or 2013, the District should
revisit the 2007 standard documents in an effort to benefit from the updated provisions,
while adjusting the language to meet the level risk the District is willing to accept.
• Contract General Conditions imply that it is possible to “daisy chain” fees (apply fees to
fees or compound fees) from contractor to subcontractor without limit. MSD may
consider modifying this to allow the maximum total of markups to not exceed 27% of the
cost of work. This would reduce the number of layers of contractors to three in most
cases, which helps to improve oversight and communication and avoids excessive fees
that could otherwise be used directly for material and labor costs. Such an approach is
recommended in the Guide to Development of Standard Supplementary Conditions of
the Engineers Joint Contract Documents Committee (EJCDC). Use of the 27% limit is
common among state and local government entities that routinely use the EJCDC body
of documents.
• MSD may consider requiring contractors that bid on lump sum contracts to provide
staffing headcounts, positions, locations and durations. The benefit of having this
information is that when pricing change orders it becomes clear whether the change
order is affecting management or labor costs. The pricing on some of the change orders
reviewed included additional management costs, but there was no way to confirm
whether such costs were actually incurred by the contractor.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PROCESS REVIEW – CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDERS 6 FY 2012 AUDIT PLAN
For the following audit topics, no areas of concern were found during the audit:
• Change Order pricing – MSD’s use of independent pricing verification by engineering
estimates is considered a best practice and is very effective in ensuring that pricing
overcharges do not occur.
• Calculations – Change order costs accurately reflected the sum of component costs with
only minor rounding or infrequent, trivial errors.
• Labor rates - The rates applied in pricing change orders appeared to be appropriate.
• Quantities – The materials invoiced appeared to be the appropriate quantity for the
scope of work described in the change orders.
• True Change of Scope – With one exception, the changes appeared to be outside the
scope of the original contract and represented a legitimate change order. For the one
exception, a contentious issue was debated with the contractor and settled to MSD’s
satisfaction.
• Delays of work – The change orders reviewed were completed on schedule and
supported the original contract schedule with exception to those that involved an unusual
number of unavoidable weather delays.
• Sales tax – Sales taxes were excluded from transactions where appropriate.
• No cases of changes that would warrant re-bid of the original work were observed.
• No cases of inappropriate subcontractor “buy-outs” were observed.
• No cases of charges for owner provided materials were observed.
• No cases of unwarranted delay claims were observed.
OVERALL ENGAGEMENT CONCLUSION AND RESULTS
PROCESS REVIEW – CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDERS 7 FY 2012 AUDIT PLAN
In the opinion of Internal Audit, the controls and procedures utilized for the construction change
order process are effectively designed and implemented, except as noted and discussed in
detail at the Observations and Recommendations section. The overall business process risk
and the overall assessment of the engagement results are as follows:
Initial Inherent Business Process Risk: Moderate to High*
Overall Assessment of Engagement Results: Satisfactory ** * The dollar amounts involved with the various projects and the resulting change orders are substantial. Inherent risk is mitigated by the extensive experience and knowledge possessed by
the Engineering and Construction personnel of the District.
** Engagement results are evaluated as satisfactory, generally satisfactory (qualified) or
unsatisfactory.
• Satisfactory – No significant engagement findings, significant deficiencies or
material weaknesses were noted.
• Generally Satisfactory (Qualified) – Results contain significant engagement
findings or significant deficiencies. No material weaknesses were noted.
• Unsatisfactory – Significant engagement findings, significant deficiencies and/or
material weaknesses were noted.
^ DEFINITIONS
Engagement Finding: A condition that could adversely affect the organization but is less severe
than a Significant Audit Finding, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.
Significant Engagement Finding: A condition that could adversely affect the organization. Definition includes all types of findings, such as irregularities, waste, ineffectiveness, conflicts of
interest, illegal acts, errors, and control weaknesses.
Significant Deficiency (Reportable Condition): A deficiency in the design or operation of the
internal control structure that could adversely affect the organization's “ability to initiate, authorize, record, process, or report financial data reliably in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) such that there is a more than remote likelihood that a
misstatement of the entity's financial statements that is more than inconsequential will not be prevented or detected.
Material Weakness: A material weakness is a significant deficiency, or a combination of
significant deficiencies, that result in a more than remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the financial statements will not be prevented or detected.
(The term “material weakness” should be thought of as a serious category of reportable conditions or significant engagement findings. Stated otherwise, a material weakness is a reportable condition and a significant engagement finding. However, not all reportable conditions and significant engagement findings are material.)
^ (Definitions are based on guidance from the IIA Standards, GAAS, and the PCAOB.)
OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
MSD – CHANGE ORDER PROCESS AUDIT 8 2011 INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT
Issue 10** – Configuration Control
**Issues Numbers relate to the table at end of report and to the Issue Log and Work Papers and do not appear in any particular order.
Fourteen of the fifty-four change orders reviewed during the engagement (26%) were the result
of a situation in which design documents in use at the time did not represent the current
configuration of plant or underground components. The change orders were necessary to
address unexpected conditions, increasing the cost of the project. See the table of change
orders reviewed at the end of this report to identify the specific projects and change orders
involved. This issue may not be avoidable for pipeline work because MSD is often reliant upon
very old documentation or information from other utilities, over which they currently have no
control. However the majority of these issues are within MSD’s own plants, where configuration
maintenance and documentation is within District control (12 of the 14 identified items above
were plant-related).
Risk:
Moderate – This is a frequent cause of change orders and a primary contributor to project cost
increases. The cases reviewed during the audit resulted in $143,945 of additional costs. For the
underground work all of the change order costs would have been incurred even if the problems
had been identified earlier. This is also partially true for the plant work. Regarding plants,
recognition of the problems earlier in the process may have resulted in a different design
approach. More importantly, the additional costs were not subject to consideration during the
review and budgeting phase for project prioritization and selection.
Recommendation:
No recommendations are considered necessary for the routine underground pipeline work.
Regarding the Plants, procedures should be developed and implemented to ensure that as alterations to plant design and/or construction occurs, the “as-built” documentation is updated in
an accurate and timely manner.
MSD Response:
CM Inspected Projects using the Joint Documents - With regard to change orders associated
with utility or other interferences on treatment plant projects, the District acknowledges that as-
built changes to the plants made by the District have not always been documented on the
record drawings. When setting the scope of work and negotiating the design fee for a given
project, the District makes a determination as to the appropriate level of effort the design
engineer should make to investigate, identify and document past facility changes that are not
readily visible by reviewing field conditions and by interviewing facility personnel. The design
documents are reflective of this determination.
The District will review its procedures for maintaining “as-built” drawings and will investigate
documentation tools that need to be made available or developed to facilitate the regular
tracking of changes to “as-built” drawings at District facilities.
Implementation Date: July 31, 2012
OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
PROCESS REVIEW – CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDERS 9 FY 2012 AUDIT PLAN
Related Issues 1, 2 and 3 - Procedures
A review of policies, procedures and contract general conditions along with interviews of
selected personnel revealed that the documentation governing the procedures for change order
processing may not be adequate to cover certain situations. Internal Audit noted that the policies
and procedures for the Pipeline Construction and the Office Associate are in the process of
being updated. Currently published policies and procedures are not accurate, as the most
recently developed policies and procedures are not reflected in the published policies.
The Pipeline Construction policies and procedures indicate construction should be halted only
when costs are to exceed the appropriation amount. However, there are many other situations that may warrant work stoppage. Additional factors, such as plan changes that cause construction to go outside of the easement or changes that are of such an extent that the
changes require an engineering design review should also be encompassed in policies and procedures.
The process for handling field adjustments is not clearly defined in the pipeline construction policies and procedures. It is not clear which situations may be dealt with in the field or which
may require RFPs or change orders.
Risk:
Moderate – Deficiencies in processes and controls may exist as the most recently developed procedures have not been published, distributed, and communicated formerly to personnel.
Change order transactions may not be processed properly, accurately and/or in accordance with District policy. Risk is mitigated by the fact that field personnel are very experienced and knowledgeable regarding the processing of change orders and the overall construction process.
Recommendation:
Finalize, publish, and distribute to personnel the policies and procedures governing the change order processes for Pipeline Construction (includes office administrative procedures). Updated procedures should address topics such as field orders, plan changes, etc. The District should
provide training on the newly finalized and published policies and procedures.
MSD Response: The District will finalize current procedures manuals regarding the change order process for
pipeline construction. Upon finalization, appropriate staff will receive training regarding the use
of this finalized document. Also as recommended, staff will include in the procedures manual a reference to construction contract language that addresses procedures for when projects may
be stopped for other than change order issues. Implementation Date: February 29, 2012
OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
MSD – CHANGE ORDER PROCESS AUDIT 10 2011 INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT
Related Issues 4, 5, 8 and 13 – Contract Fees
Regarding change order pricing and the application of contractor fees the following was noted:
• On Change Order 24-132 for the Lemay plant upgrade the fee appears to have been
over-applied. Per contract terms, the Contractor's (Material) Fee of 2.43% should be
applied only to materials but was actually applied to both Materials and Labor. For the
same project a Contractors Fee was charged to a credit on Change Order 26-217
involving returned materials. The fee should have been a credit to the project rather than
a charge against the project.
• Contract General Condition section 12.01.C.2 establishes requirements for the
application of contractor fees. On Change Order 2 for the Missouri River plant, a 5% fee
was credited to cost decreasing RFPs and a 15% fee was charged to cost increasing
RFPs. However, contract general conditions say the fee is to be applied to the total cost
of the change order. In this instance, applying the fee to the net change would have
reduced the fee considerably. Applying the fees to the individual RFPs appears to have
been the District’s intent and appears to be the practice of the District. Indeed,
calculating the fee at the change order level would make the grouping requirements of
Article 10 of the Supplementary Conditions unworkable. Internal Audit is of the opinion
that the current practice is acceptable and it would be appropriate to change the
supplemental conditions to clarify this.
• On change order 3 for the Lemay upgrade project, the subcontractor added a 10%
overhead fee and then added an additional 5% fee, resulting in a (compounded) fee of
15.5% instead of a 15% of cost of work. The amount involved was less than $100.
See the table of change orders reviewed at the end of this report to identify the specific projects
and change orders involved.
Recommendation: Adjust the Supplementary Conditions of the contracts to accurately reflect the procedures
utilized by the District to apply contractor fees to change orders. (The District applies fees at the
individual RFP level.)
District personnel should receive additional training to reinforce the procedures for the proper
and accurate application of contractor fees when calculating and processing change order
costs.
Risk: Low – Appears to be a low frequency occurrence with only a minor impact on overall project
costs.
OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
PROCESS REVIEW – CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDERS 11 FY 2012 AUDIT PLAN
MSD Response (Cont’d - Related Issues 4, 5, 8 and 13 – Contract Fees): The District will adjust the Supplemental Conditions language to better describe the intent and
current practice regarding change order mark-ups. Appropriate staff will be notified of minor
discrepancies found.
Implementation Date: February 29, 2012
OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
MSD – CHANGE ORDER PROCESS AUDIT 12 2011 INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT
Issue 12 – Site Personnel Costs and General Conditions
Instances were noted in which general condition costs were added to change orders in the form
of site personnel costs; however, the duration of the project was not extended and additional personnel was not utilized to complete the work for the lump sum contract.
Recommendation:
If the contractor does not incur additional general condition expenses in performing the work addressed by a change order, additional general condition costs should not be reflected in the costs of the change order. Procedures should be implemented to ensure that change orders are
calculated and processed as such.
Risk: Moderate – MSD may be overcharged and overpay for change orders as the result of the
inclusion of general condition costs that are already contained in the base contract.
MSD Response:
The interpretation by the auditor is the same as the usual interpretation by the District on all other projects. However, on this project, the contractor claimed that his method of pricing and
staffing the project allowed him to claim some full time on-site office personnel costs for time
spent on contract cost changes per paragraph 11.01.A.1 of the General Conditions which lists certain personnel as well as “other personnel employed full time at the Site”. Considering all
project conditions, staff did allow the charging of these costs in select instances. Of the approximately $1.4 million in change orders involved, there was approximately a $17,000 or 1.2% increase in the cost of the change orders due to this issue. Appropriate staff will be made
aware that this issue potentially exists.
Implementation Date: February 29, 2012
OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
MSD – CHANGE ORDER PROCESS AUDIT 13 2011 INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT
Issue 9 – Material Control
General Conditions, section 11.01.A.2, states, “All trade discounts, rebates and refunds and returns from sale of surplus materials and equipment shall accrue to Owner, and Contractor
shall make provisions so that they may be obtained.” This contract provision pertains specifically
to change order activity. Accrual to the owner applies to all unused change order materials.
In five of the fifty-four changes reviewed, the disposition and value of demolished, scrapped, or
temporary materials are not identified in change order or project documents. Depending on the nature of the project, scrap materials can have a substantive value. This value should be
captured for the benefit of MSD. Not tracking these materials provides a potential pathway for diversion of materials from the job site. See the table of change orders reviewed at the end of this report to identify the specific projects and change orders involved. Amounts for the five
identified exceptions amount to $12,600.
Recommendation: For change order activities, develop and implement procedures that address the disposition of
unused/surplus material. Procedures should provide for a documented review/assessment of
said material by MSD personnel. Materials with a value should be utilized for the benefit of the District.
Risk:
Low – This is a frequent issue; however, dollar amounts are a small percentage of the project
total.
MSD Response: The District currently requests and receives scrap value from the contractors in instances where the amount of potential credit is substantial. Staff will include the process for reviewing all
change orders for potential scrap value in the updating and training for the change order procedures manual (see page 9).
Implementation Date: February 29, 2012
OTHER MATTERS
MSD – CHANGE ORDER PROCESS AUDIT 14 2011 INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT
We would like to thank MSD personnel for their excellent cooperation and assistance during this
engagement.
Specifically, we would like express our gratitude to the following:
Brian Hoelscher – Director of Engineering
Marie Collins – Assistant Director of Engineering Dave Frierdich – Division Inspector Allen Muehlher – Program manager
Steve Welnick – Division Inspector Robin Potter – Office Associate
This report is intended solely for the use of Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District and is not intended to be and should not be used by any other parties without the prior written consent of MSD.
CHANGE ORDERS REVIEWED
PROCESS REVIEW – CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDERS 15 FY 2012 AUDIT PLAN
Contract Number CO - RFP Issue Key
12499 1 No Issues
12499 2 No Issues
12499 3 No Issues
12499 4 Issue 10 - Current design documentation did not represent actual configuration. $37836
12499 5 No Issues
2003067 1 Issue 12 – Contractor site personnel cost increase was included in change order that did not increase project duration.
2003067 2 Issue 12 – Contractor site personnel cost increase was included in change order that did not increase project duration.
2003067 3 Issue 12 – Contractor site personnel cost increase was included in change order that did not increase project duration.
“ “ Issue 13 – Subcontractor adding 10% overhead plus adding 5% fee on top of that, compounding fee rate to 15.5%.
2003067 4 Issue 12 – Contractor site personnel cost increase was included in change order that did not increase project duration.
2003067 5 Issue 12 – Contractor site personnel cost increase was included in change order that did not increase project duration.
2003067 24-132 Issue 4 - The Contractor's (Material) Fee of 2.43% was applied to Materials and Labor, instead of materials only.
2003067 24-191 No Issues
2003067 24-202 No Issues
2003067 24-206 Issue 10 - Current design documentation did not represent actual configuration. $5180
2003067 24-209 No Issues
2003067 26-217 Issue 5 - Contractors fee was charged to a credit Change Order involving materials. The fee should have been a credit rather than a charge.
2003067 26-218 No Issues
2003067 26-221 No Issues
2003067 26-222 Issue 10 - Current design documentation did not represent actual configuration. $1082
2003067 26-224 No Issues
2003095A 1-1 No Issues
2003095A 1-2 No Issues
2003095A 2-1 Issue 7 - The actual cost incurred to do the work described was $7,927.65 less, but no adjustments were found to account for the difference.
2003095A 4-2 No Issues
2003095A 4-4 No Issues
2003095A 8-1 No Issues
2003095A 8-2 No Issues
2006168B 2-1 Issue 8 - 5% fee applied to cost decreases and 15% fee is charged to increases, but GCs say the fee is to be applied to CO total
2006168B 2-2 Issue 8 - 5% fee applied to cost decreases and 15% fee is charged to increases, but GCs say the fee is to be applied to CO total
2006168B 2-3 Issue 8 - 5% fee applied to cost decreases and 15% fee is charged to increases, but GCs say the fee is to be applied to CO total
CHANGE ORDERS REVIEWED
PROCESS REVIEW – CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDERS 16 FY 2012 AUDIT PLAN
Contract Number CO - RFP Issue Key
2006168B 2-4 No Issues
2006168B 2-5 Issue 9 - Disposition and value of demolished, scraped, or temporary materials are not identified in project documents $8000
" " Issue 10 - Current design documentation did not represent actual configuration. $43199
2006168B 2-6 No Issues
2006168B 2-8 No Issues
2006168B 2-9 Issue 10 - Current design documentation did not represent actual configuration. $7604
2006168B 2-10 No Issues
2006168B 2-11 Issue 10 - Current design documentation did not represent actual configuration. $12849
2006168B 2-12 Issue 10 - Current design documentation did not represent actual configuration. $7025
2006168B 3-13 Issue 10 - Current design documentation did not represent actual configuration. $7025
" " Issue 9 - Disposition and value of demolished, scraped, or temporary materials are not identified in project documents $200
2006168B 3-14 No Issues
2006168B 3-15 No Issues
2006168B 5-24 No Issues
2006168B 5-28 No Issues
2006168B 5-29 Issue 10 - Current design documentation did not represent actual configuration. $2776
" " Issue 9 - Disposition and value of demolished, scraped, or temporary materials are not identified in project documents $1000
2006168B 5-31 No Issues
2006168B 5-33 Issue 9 - Disposition and value of demolished, scraped, or temporary materials are not identified in project documents $1700
2006168B 5-34 No Issues
2006168B 5-35 Issue 10 - Current design documentation did not represent actual configuration. $6306
2006168B 5-36 No Issues
2006168B 5-38 Issue 9 - Disposition and value of demolished, scraped, or temporary materials are not identified in project documents $1700
2006168B 5-39 Issue 10 - Current design documentation did not represent actual configuration. $1924
2006168B 5-41 Issue 10 - Current design documentation did not represent actual configuration. $2095
2006168B 5-43 Issue 10 - Current design documentation did not represent actual configuration. $2169
2009116 2-1 Issue 10 - Current design documentation did not represent actual configuration. $6875