Text · page 7 of 17
SED allows districts to prepare a shopping list of desired items in their original plans and specifications as added alternatives, in the event that appropriations remain at the end of a project. However, alternative items should be included in propositions submitted for voter approval. We question why District officials did not include a list of alternate “wish list” items that could have potentially been completed within the project’s scope and budget. The Superintendent could not explain why a “wish list” was not included in the proposition. Presenting a “wish list” of alternates would have promoted transparency and afforded voters an opportunity to voice an opinion on desired project additions. By not providing this information to District voters and residents, District officials did not present the District’s project plan, including alternate work that could be completed, to the public in a transparent manner. The Board Did Not Approve Change Orders and Officials Did Not Seek Competition for Change Order Work The Superintendent and former Building Superintendent authorized 108 change orders totaling approximately $1.2 million3 that were presented as modifications to the original construction contracts previously awarded pursuant to competitive bidding. None of the change orders were presented to the Board for review and approval or documented in the Board’s meeting minutes. In addition, 57 of the 108 change orders were subject to competitive pricing but were approved and awarded to existing project contractors without seeking competition. The remaining 51 change orders were under the competitive pricing thresholds or were credits to the District. Although the Superintendent and the former Building Superintendent reviewed and approved change orders, the Board President did not sign any change orders, even though SED requires the Board President to sign them. The Board President told us that he was not required to sign the change orders because the Board granted the Superintendent the authorization to approve change orders of less than $35,000. Also, three Board members told us that they did not recall change orders being presented to them. The Superintendent told us that change orders were discussed at a meeting with the construction manager and architect, and that he was authorized to approve change orders of less than $35,000. However, SED does not allow this responsibility to be delegated. In addition, three of the change orders each exceeded $35,000. Furthermore, District officials did not obtain competitive pricing for the work associated with the change orders. The District’s purchasing policy requires the Director to obtain three written quotes for public works contracts that cost between $5,001 and $10,000 and to competitively bid for public works contracts costing more than $10,000. However, the Superintendent and former Building Superintendent approved 57 change orders totaling nearly $1.2 million without obtaining quotes or publicly advertising the work, even though the change 3 This is the net amount of 98 change orders totaling approximately $1.3 million that increased contract costs and 10 change orders that reduced contract costs by $107,559. Of f ic e of t he New York State Comptroller 5