Text · page 10 of 17
The Superintendent told us that officials did not obtain prior SED approval because the work was within the project’s scope, and it would delay the project if the District had to wait for approval. However, the work was not within the project’s scope. Also, the Superintendent should have consulted with SED, verbally or through written communication, before completing large change orders to ensure that the work would be eligible for building aid. Furthermore, work associated with 10 change orders totaling $226,695 was completed on average 11 days before District officials approved the change orders. The Superintendent told us that the work was done before being approved because vendors did not submit their quotes in a timely manner. However, appropriate approvals should have been obtained before the work was completed, as required, to ensure the scope of the work was appropriate and met District needs. Moreover, if the Director solicited quotes from other vendors, rather than only the vendors already working on the project, the competition may have resulted in more timely quote submissions and possibly even lower prices. In addition, officials submitted change orders to SED on average 10 days after the Superintendent approved them. The Director told us that the District relied on the architect to submit the change orders in a timely manner once they were approved by the Superintendent. However, the Superintendent was responsible for ensuring that the architect submitted change order applications in a timely manner. Because the Superintendent did not ensure that proper change order approvals were obtained before the work was completed, he allowed the change order approval process to be circumvented and risked having building aid withheld. Officials Did Not Seek Competition for Professional Services While the District’s purchasing policy and procurement procedures require District officials to use a request for proposals (RFP) process when contracting for professional services, the policy and procedures do not state the dollar threshold for using the RFP process, who is responsible for requesting proposals, how many proposals should be obtained, what selection process should be used or how RFP actions should be documented. District officials did not seek competition by requesting proposals for five professional services totaling more than $2 million. Of that amount, nearly $1 million was for architectural services and $940,000 for construction management services. The three remaining professional services totaling approximately $128,000 were for legal fees, bond service and consulting services. The Director told us that the architect, construction management and bond service contracts were awarded before she was employed with the District. She also said that the District had been contracting with the architectural and construction management firms for many years. In addition, she told us that, at the Board’s reorganizational meeting, it approved the attorney who provided the legal services. However, this approval was for general legal matters and not specifically related to the project, which had a separate contract. Furthermore, the Director told us that the Board approved the consulting services at a special Board meeting. However, this approval was for a general financial consulting service unrelated to the project. 8 Of f ic e of t he New York State Comptroller