Text · page 9 of 17
the scope of the work, details of the proposed changes and instructions for contractors to submit itemized cost proposals. The construction manager then sent the proposal to specific existing project contractors, the Superintendent and former Building Superintendent. The construction manager selected specific existing project contractors based on the type of work that the contractor had already been awarded for the project. The Director told us that if she had sought quotes or bids, it may have delayed the project and resulted in additional costs. The Superintendent told us that officials did not seek bids or quotes for change orders because it would have delayed the work, and the project would not have been completed on time. The Superintendent also told us that the District did not obtain bids specifically related to one change order totaling $123,000 for sidewalks, because the Board had already publicly bid the item in December 2022. However, the Board rejected this bid nine months before the Superintendent authorized the change order in September 2023, and the Board did not approve the change order. The Superintendent told us that because the contractor agreed to the originally submitted bid price, he did not believe it was necessary to bid the work again. The Director also told us that if a change order required bids or quotes, the construction manager would take care of it. However, the Director is responsible for ensuring that officials comply with bidding requirements and the District’s purchasing policy, not the construction manager. By requesting quotes for change order work solely from specific existing project contractors, District officials did not comply with statutory requirements or the District’s purchasing policy, and the proposed prices may have been more costly than if they had been awarded through a competitive process. There are circumstances when contracts previously awarded pursuant to competitive bidding may be amended without additional competition, such as when the amendment is merely incidental. However, as a general rule, we advise officials that they should not agree to modify a contract, awarded through a competitive bidding process, in a manner that materially varies from the original specifications. To do so would place unsuccessful bidders and potential bidders at a material disadvantage because they would not have been given an opportunity to compete on the amended agreement. Instead, officials should subject the additional work to a competitive process, such as bids or written quotes, according to the competitive pricing thresholds in the District’s purchasing policy. In addition, because the Board was unaware of and did not review or approve change orders, we question how the Board could properly monitor the project’s progress and implement necessary changes to ensure the project was completed in a cost-effective manner. Furthermore, change orders, and the costs associated with them, were not documented in the Board’s meeting minutes or presented to District voters and residents. Officials Did Not Ensure Change Order Applications Were Submitted in a Timely Manner or Ensure Change Order Work Was Approved Of 108 change orders, 98 totaling nearly $1.3 million increased contract costs, and 10 change orders totaling nearly $107,559 reduced contract costs. The project work related to all 98 change orders that increased contract costs were completed before SED approved the changes. Of f ic e of t he New York State Comptroller 7