05/09/2008 Auditan
w
AUDIT REPORT OF MONROE COUNTY
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY
AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGER, THE
MORGANTI GROUP, INC., FOR THE KEY
WEST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - NEW
TERMINAL BUILDING AND
'r RENOVATION PROJECT
as
us
No
May 9, 2008
-`�GpUNTY
`Vs.JvM CU/0`.•.,�
0
o�g0�•COUNtY •0-OPT
Prepared by:
Internal Audit Department
Clerk of the Circuit Court
Danny L. Kolhage, Clerk
Monroe County, Florida
rr
Im
AUDIT REPORT OF MONROE COUNTY
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER, THE MORGANTI
GROUP, INC., FOR THE KEY WEST
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT — NEW TERMINAL
BUILDING AND RENOVATION PROJECT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
1
II. METHODOLOGY
1-2
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
3-7
"'
IV. AUDIT CONCLUSIONS
8-11
V. AUDIT FINDINGS
A. MARKET ANALYSIS
1. MGI did not provide the Construction Market Analysis and Prospective
Bidders Report in a timely manner.
12
B. ESTIMATES
2. MGI's Design Document (DD) estimate was not submitted to the County in
a timely manner.
13
3. MGI's Completed Documents (CD) estimate was not submitted to
the County in a timely manner.
14
+�
4. MGI's did not provide the County with Construction Documents Estimates
(CDE).
15
C. GUARANTED MAXIMUM PRICE (GMP)
5. MGI did not complete the GMP in a timely manner.
16
6. GMP Clarification and Assumption #34 effectively nullifies the basic premise
of a GMP.
17
ow
Y.
GUARANTED MAXIMUM PRICE (GMP) - Continued
7. Allowances of $714,651 are included within the GMP. 18-19
.. 8. MGI did not correctly establish a contingency amount and did not provide
supporting documentation requested by the auditors for setting the
contingency amount at zero (0). 20-21
r.
9. MGI did not obtain the required written approval for bids that are 2% above
the applicable line item in the GMP. 22
10. MGI is not increasing the construction contingency for items that are less
than the GMP amount. 23
11. MGI and the County did not provide any detailed reporting that tracks cost
reducing alternates and value engineering items. 24
am
12. The GMP's summary "Cost reducing alternates (as of 11/09/06)" line does
not reconcile to the GMP's detailed estimate of direct cost items line called
r. "Alternates & VE items". 25
13. The GMP's summary "General conditions (reimbursable expenses)" line
does not reconcile to its supporting documentation. 26
D. SOLICITATION OF BIDS
No 14. Bid package #1's last advertisement does not appear at least twenty-one (21)
calendar days prior to the established bid opening date and at least five (5)
days prior to any scheduled pre -bid conference. 27-28
No
15. Bid package #1A did not meet the contractual requirement of advertising. 29
r. 16. Bid package #2's last advertisement did not appear at least twenty-one (21)
calendar days prior to the established bid opening date. 30-31
as 17. Bid package #3's last advertisement appearing at least twenty-one (21)
calendar days prior to the established bid opening date. 32
„�. 18. MGI has not provided any information that pre -bid conferences took place
for bid packages #1, #1A, and #2. 33
19. MGI has not provided any log in sheets for bids received for bid packages #1,
#1A, and #2. 34
.. 20. MGI did not solicit bids for work done on auger cast piles #1 through #202. 35
..
rr
No
E. SUB -CONTRACTOR BIDS
21. There is no executed agreement with sub -contractor American Foundation
No Corp. for work scope 3A — Auger Cast Piles. 36
22. MGI has not provided any pre -qualification information for applicable sub-
contractors. 37
23. MGI did not provide experience questionnaires and financial statements for
we sub -contractors where bids exceeded $200,000. 38-39
24. None of MGI's bid tabulation packets sampled by the auditor contained
No bid/award summaries. 40
25. Bids were received and accepted after bid due dates. 41-42
26. MGI's bid tabulation sheet for work scope 9D — Acoustical Ceilings/Wall
Panels did not contain the supporting documentation for the sub -contractor
+r• Acousti Engineering Co of Fl.'s bid of $644,145. 43
27. There was no bid information provided for two (2) out of the three (3) sub-
.o contractors listed on MGI's bid tabulation sheet for work scope 15A-
Plumbing. 44
28. Work scope 15C-HVAC's bid tabulation sheet appears to have a lower bidder
than the bidder who was awarded the agreement. 45
go 29. One bidder that was awarded a contract was able to change their bid after
submittal and there was no documentation showing that the other
responding bidders were given the same opportunity. 46
w.
30. For several sub -contractors who were awarded contracts, the bid and
agreement amounts are different. 47-48
31. There was only one proposal received for additional work on scope 5A-Steel. 49
me 32. There was only one proposal received for work scope 5B-Expansion Joint
Covers. 50
33. There were no proposals obtained for earthwork testing, concrete testing,
auger logs, and weld inspections. 51
aw 34. Eight (8) of the thirteen (13) sampled sub -contractors had commenced work
prior to having an executed agreement in place. 52-53
aw 35. Some of MGI's sub -contractors are sub -contracting out work at the Key West
International Airport. 54-55
..
r.
%a
SUB -CONTRACTOR BIDS - Continued
36. MGI did not have all of the required sub -contractors provide the mandatory
performance, labor and material payment bonds. 56-57
37. MGI did not follow the required bonding process when excluding sub-
contractor bond coverage. 58-59
F. DISADVANTAGE BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE)
38. MGI did not provide the Proposed Disadvantage Business Enterprise (DBE)
Utilization Form and DBE Identification Form in a timely manner. 60
39. MGI did not properly complete the Proposed DBE Utilization Form for four
+o (4) DBE Firms and the DBE Identification Form for Florida Keys Electric,
Inc. 61
+o 40. MGI did not complete the DBE Identification Form for three (3) of the sub-
contractors on the Proposed DBE Utilization Form. 62
+• 41. MGI did not provide the DBE Payment Certification Form for Florida Keys
Electric, Inc. and GO Fence, Inc. in a timely manner. 63
42. The DBE Expenditure Report for Florida Keys Electric, Inc. contains
errors/misstatements. 64
G. PROJECT MANUAL
■. 43. MGI did not include copies of any subcontract in the project manual. 65
H.PROJECT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM (PMIS)
on 44. MGI did not include the required construction contingency in the monthly
PMIS reports. 66
No 45. MGI did not provide the monthly PMIS reports in a timely manner. 67
46. MGI did not provide the Cost Status Report with PMIS Reports numbered
one (#1) through thirteen (#13). 68
47. MGI did not provide PMIS reports with the first six (6) pay requests. 69
I. INSURANCE
48. MGI's Certificate of Liability Insurance is incomplete. 70
an
No
rm
VI. EXHIBITS
..
A.
Agreement
B.
Notice to Proceed
C.
Construction Market Analysis & Perspective Bidders Report
�.
D.
Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP)
E.
GMP Price Summary & Estimate Summary
wrr
F.
GMP General Conditions
•••
G.
BID Package #1
H.
Ads for Bid Package #1
wr
I.
Bid Package #1A
�..
J.
Bid Package #2
K.
Ads for Bid Package #2
L.
Ad for Bid Package #3
�..
M.
Bid Tab 3A Auger Cast Piles
N.
JLU Subcontract Agreement
O.
MGI Subcontract Agreement
P.
Harkness 11/28/07 Email American Foundation
Q.
MGI Project Manual, 3.5 Bid Recommendation
R.
Duarte Contracting & Management Bid Date
S. Toppino & Sons Bid Date
T.
Ebsary Foundation Bid Date
ir.
U.
Affordable Asphalt Bid Date
flow
V.
Advantage Steel Bid Date
ww
wr
EXHIBITS — Continued
..
W. 9A, Interior Details Bid Date
X. 9D, Interior Details Bid Date
Y. Terry L. Tidwell Plumbing Bid Date
..
Z. Stokes Mechanical & Hyvac Bid Dates
AA.
Bid Tab 9D
A.B.
Bid Tabulation Sheet 15A — Plumbing
...
AC.
Bid Tabulation Sheet,15C-HVAC
AD.
Superior Mechanical Bid
AE.
Trinity Fabricators Bid
..
A.F.
Trinity Fabricators Agreement
AG.
Concepts Plus Bid
AH.
Concepts Plus Agreement
,w.
AL
Capital Waterproofing Bid
AJ.
Capital Waterproofing Agreement
A.K.
McAlhany Construction Bid
�.,
AL.
McAlhany Construction Agreement
AM.
Interior Details Bid
AN.
GMP 9D Acoustic Ceilings/Walls
AO.
Superior Mechanical Agreement
AP.
MGI-Toppino Sub -Contractor Agreement
AQ.
GMP 2G
AR.
Require Bond Coverage
AS.
Bond Exclusions
VM
40
EXHIBITS — Continued
+� AT. 05/03/06 Letter to MGI by Peter Horton
AU. 04/20/2007 DBE Transmittal from MGI to Montgomery Consulting
AV. DBE Utilization Form
AW. DBE Identification Form
AX. PMIS #8, Construction Progress Report
AY. GO Fence DBE Payment Certification
�• AZ. FL Keys DBE Payment Certification
AAA. FL Keys DBE Expenditure Form
r.
AAB. PMIS Received Dates
�. AAC. Certificate of Liability Insurance
VII. AUDITEE RESPONSES
w.
oft
No
no
r.
rr
Im
AUDIT REPORT OF MONROE COUNTY
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND
9` CONSTRUCTION MANAGER, THE MORGANTI
GROUP, INC., FOR THE KEY WEST
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT — NEW TERMINAL
` BUILDING AND RENOVATION PROJECT
low
I. OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
At the request of the Monroe County Clerk of the Circuit Court, the Internal Audit Department has
.. completed an audit of the Agreement between the County and Construction Manager, The
Morganti Group, Inc. (NIGI), for the Key West International Airport — New Terminal Building and
Renovation Project. Exhibit A — Agreement. The audit objectives were to assess compliance with
"+ the Agreement's provisions.
II. METHODOLOGY
A. We interviewed the following personnel to obtain information about the Agreement between
the County and The Morganti Group, Inc.
1. The County Engineer
r 2. Assistant County Attorney
3. The Clerk's Finance Department personnel
4. Bruce Harkness, The Morganti Group, Inc.
r 5. James Peace, The Morganti Group, Inc.
6. Jim Ault, The Morganti Group, Inc.
7. Peter Horton, Director of Airports
r 8. Larry Chalmers, Director of Airport Planning & Development
9. Alan French, Manager of Airport Planning & Development
10. Albert Edwards, Sr. Project Manager
r. 11. Purchase Director, Monroe County
12. Monroe County Risk Administrator
13. Montgomery Consulting Group, Inc.
14. Airport Security & Operations Manager
15. Director of Administrative Services
16. URS Corporation
B. Internal Audit Department examined the following documents:
am 1. Agreement dated October 19, 2005 with The Morganti Group, Inc., Construction Manager.
2. Amendment to Agreement dated March 15, 2006.
3. Second amendment to Agreement dated January 17, 2007.
tft 4. Third amendment to Agreement dated December 30, 2006.
5. Fourth Amendment to Agreement dated October 17, 2007.
N.
WM
6. Statement of Qualifications.
7. Request for Qualifications.
S. Request for Proposals.
9. Guaranteed Maximum Price Proposal (GMP).
10. Key West International airport — New Terminal Building and Renovation Project, Project
.r Manual.
11. Construction Market analysis and Prospective Bidders Report.
12. Bid Packages #1, #1a and #2.
13. Bid tabulation sheets.
14. Original bids from all bidders.
15. Project Management Information System Reports (PMIS).
" 16. Disadvantage Business Enterprise (DBE) requirements packet.
N.
so
#W
wo
C. Internal audit Department reviewed the agreement to ensure that all terms and conditions were
being complied with as required by the agreement.
D. Internal audit Department compared original bids from a sample of bidders.
2
M
VM
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
r
General:
Monroe County selected a Construction Manager at Risk (CMR) for the Key West International
Airport (KWIA) New Terminal Building and Renovation Project (KWIA Project). The CMR
■. process differs from the traditional design/bid/build process in that it requires the cooperation of
the Architect/Engineer (AE), the owner, and the Construction Manger (CM) from design through
completion of the project.
In the CMR process, the AE, owner and CM design the project and determine a budget. At
wo
predetermined intervals, the CNI reviews the design to provide construction expertise, pricing,
feasibility, and potential cost savings. This process increases the probability that once the design is
completed, it will be within the original budget. The process also allows the CM to learn the local
market, understand the project and make suggestions before the drawings are completed.
Om
Monroe County used a three (3) step process to select a (CMR) firm for the KWIA Project: issuance
of a Request for Qualifications, Request for Proposal for CMR Services, and selection of a
WA respondent. On July 5, 2005, Monroe County advertised a Request for Qualifications (RFQ)
interested firms were to respond by August 17, 2005 with a Statement of Qualifications (SOQ).
On August 22, 2005, the County issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for CMR services with a
guaranteed maximum price (GMP) for an estimated $25,000,000 construction budget. Firm
proposals were due September 7, 2005. Respondents were required to detail preconstruction service
" fees, construction phase fees, construction manager (CM) contingency, and CM overhead and profit.
On September 9, 2005, four (4) firms were interviewed and graded by a four (4) member panel and
The Morganti Group, Inc. (MGI) was selected. On October 19, 2005, MGI and the County signed
the Agreement between the County and Construction Manager. MGI's fee for the KWIA Project is
$3,700,000 consisting of $200,000 for preconstruction phase fee, $2,500,000 for construction phase
fee, and $1,000,000 for CM overhead and profit for the construction phase.
On December 20, 2006, the County accepted MGI's $31,613,533 GMP by executing the third
amendment to the Agreement. The $31,613,533 GMP includes the $3,700,000 in pre -construction
services.
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE):
A DBE is a for -profit small business that is at least 51% owned by one or more individuals who are
both socially and economically disadvantaged; and whose management and daily business operations
are controlled by one or more of the socially and economically disadvantaged individuals who own
it. The DBE program is an equal opportunity program designed to ensure that small businesses
owned by women, minorities and other disadvantaged individuals have a fair opportunity to
compete for federal dollars spent for transportation projects.
KWIA participates in a program designed to distribute 15% of its project contracts to registered
ow DBEs. A third party firm, Montgomery Consulting Group, Inc. is has been retained to monitor and
assist the airport's DBE program.
UW
3
r
r7
Market Analysis:
.. The Market analysis is the foundation for the Schematic Design (SD) estimates, Design Drawings
estimates (DD), Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) and the Completed Drawings (CD) estimate.
LV. MGI was to monitor conditions in the construction market to identify factors that will or may affect
the project cost and completion time. MGI was required to make the necessary analysis to
determine and report on available labor, material, equipment, potential bidders, and possible
to shortages or surpluses of labor and materials. Based on the analysis, MGI was to make the
appropriate recommendations with respect to long lead procurement, separation of construction
into bid packages, sequencing of work, use of alternative materials, equipment or methods, other
"f` economics in design or construction, and other matters that will promote cost savings and
completion within the scheduled time.
" Project Management Information System (PMIS):
The Project Management Information System (PMIS) is a contractually required monthly report. It
is a control that is used to help ensure that the KWIA project is completed within budget, and in a
timely manner. The monthly PMIS reports are comprised of the following sections:
The Narrative Reporting section which should contain an Executive Summary, Cost
Narrative, Scheduling Narrative, Accounting Narrative, and a Construction Progress Report.
The Scheduled Control System section which should contain a Master Project Schedule,
r. Construction schedule, Pre -bid Schedules, Subcontractor Construction Schedules, and an
Occupancy Schedule.
" Cost Control and Estimating section which should contain estimates at completion of the
"advanced schematic preconstruction phase", completion of the Design Development phase
after the GMP has been established, and completion of the Construction Documents.
r.
The Project Accounting Section which should contain a Cost Status Report, Payment Status
Report, Detailed Status Report, Cash Flow Diagram, and a Job Ledger.
r.
Estimates:
According to the Agreement, the estimates contained in the cost control and estimating section of
the monthly reports are intended to provide sufficient and timely data to permit the Owner and AE
to control and adjust the project requirements so that construction will be completed at a cost which
will not exceed the maximum total project budget.
MGI's estimates are based upon drawings that get more detailed as they evolve; beginning with the
Schematic drawings (SD), then the Design Document drawings (DD), and finishing with the
Completed drawings (CD).
The County and URS, the Architectural Engineer (AE), worked together to develop these drawings.
am Once a set of drawings was completed, they were given to the Construction Manager (CM), MGI
for review and to develop an estimate of the cost of the project.
w.
4
ON
OW MGI's estimate was used to verify- that the project as designed to that point was within the project's
budgetary parameters. If MGI's estimate indicated that the project as designed is over the budgeted
dollar amount, the budget would have to be increased or changes made to the design that would
decrease the estimated construction costs. The cost savings, suggestions and estimate revisions are
rm then incorporated into the next set of drawings.
The Construction Documents Estimates (CDE) is a tool used to ensure that the overall project stays
as within the predetermined budget for the bidding process. The CDE compiles the latest estimates
into bid packages to be used to compare sub -contractor bids for reasonableness.
60 Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP
The GNIP is used to ensure that the project stays within the budget. The GMP was due when the
Design Documents were completed. The DD's were 100% complete on February 24, 2006, by
an which time MGI was to have completed sufficient work to produce a GMP. Delivery of the GMP
after the CDs were finished follows the traditional design/bid/build method, not the CMR method.
as The GTNIP controls the KWIA project cost by line item. according to the agreement, if a GMP line
item's actual cost is lower than the GMP line amount, then the difference should be added to the
construction contingency. If a GMP line item's actual cost is greater than the GMP amount, then
" the difference should be subtracted from the construction contingency's available balance with
County approval. This procedure allows the County and MGI to track the project's cost per line
item to ensure the project stays within the $31,613,533 budget.
w
Construction Contingency:
The Construction Contingency was created for unforeseen circumstances relating to construction of
this multi -year project. The contingency balance is increased or decreased by events outlined within
the Agreement as described below:
an If the actual costs are below the GMP's estimated line item, the excess goes to the
contingency fund.
If the actual costs are greater than or equal to 2% above the GMP's applicable line item,
then MGI must get the County's written approval. If the balance in the contingency fund is
sufficient and the County approves, then that line item will increase and the contingency will
' decrease by the same amount.
If the balance in the contingency fund is sufficient and the County, does not approve the
" difference, then, the County pays the first 2% and MGI pays the balance of the overage. As
an alternative, MGI can perform the work themselves at the estimated line item amount or
bid that line item out again for the same amount or less.
r
If the actual costs are less than 2% above the GMP's applicable line item, and the
contingency balance is sufficient to cover this overage, County approval is not required and
the contingency balance will be decreased by the overage amount.
r
E
rr7
oft
Solicitation of Bids:
It is MGFs responsibility to properly advertise the project to ensure an adequate pool of sub-
contractors able to provide quality work at a reasonable price. According to MGI, there were three
(3) different bid packets put out for sub -contractors to bid.
Bid packet #1 included the following work scopes:
• 2a - Site improvement. • 4a - Cast in place concrete.
• 3a - Auger cast piles. • 5a - Structural pre -cast concrete.
Bid packet #1A included the following work scopes:
• 2a - Site improvement.
• 3a - Auger cast piles.
,..
Bid packet #2 included the following work scopes:
•
2a - Demolition site.
•
9b -
Ceramic tile, quarry tile, stone
•
2b - Demolition of existing building.
thresholds, window sills & terrazzo.
•
2c - Site earthwork/development.
•
9a -
Portland cement plaster.
•
2d - Asphalt paving.
•
9c
- Resilient flooring.
•
2e - Surveying.
•
9d
- Acoustical panel ceilings.
•
2f - Irrigation.
•
9e
-Painting.
•
2g - Landscaping.
•
10a
- Toilet compartments & toilet & bath
rr
accessories.
•
3a - Auger cast piles.
•
10b
- Flagpoles.
•
3b - Cast in place concrete.
•
10c
- Identifying devices/signage.
lift
•
3c - Structural pre -cast joists.
•
10d
- Miscellaneous specialties.
•
4a - Masonry.
•
11 a
- Parking equipment.
•
5a - Steel.
•
12a
- Furnishings.
•
5b - Expansion joint covers.
•
13a
- Prefabricated control booths.
•
6a - Rough carpentry.
•
14a
- Elevators & escalators.
•
6b - Interior architectural woodwork.
•
14b
- Baggage handling systems.
•
7a - Caulking & sealants.
•
15a
- Plumbing.
•
7b - Spray- on fireproofing.
•
15b
- Fire protection sprinkler system.
r
•
7c - Roofing.
•
15c
- HVAC.
•
8a - Hollow metal doors, frames
•
16a
- Electrical
& finish hardware supplier.
•
17a
- Final cleaning
•
8b - Hollow metal door, frame & finish
hardware installation.
•
8c - Overhead coiling doors & grilles.
•
8d - Aluminum storefront, windows and
sliding doors.
r.
•
8e - Horizontal sliding hurricane shutters.
•
8f - Security gates.
an
6
0
Sub -contractor Bids:
.. The KWIA project was divided into various work scopes of similar work. As mentioned above in
solicitation of bids, MGI had three different bid packets. Various sub -contractors responded to
�. advertisements for the above -mentioned work scopes and bidders were selected to contract with
MGI.
am
M
MW
s.
"a
7
an
IV. AUDIT CONCLUSIONS
1. MGI did not provide the Construction Market Analysis and Prospective Bidders Report in a
timely manner. The report was received on August 22, 2006, which was three hundred and five
(305) days after the deadline.
2. MGI did not submit the Design Documents in a timely manner. The County received this
packet on April 20, 2006, which was fifty-five (55) days after MGI received the design drawings
" from URS. According to the Agreement, MGI had forty-five (45) days to submit the documents
and therefore they were ten (10) days late.
V. 3. MGI did not submit the Completed Documents in a timely manner. The County received this
packet on October 13, 2006, which was one hundred and ten (110) days after MGI received the
CD estimate from URS. According to the Agreement, MGI had forty-five (45) days to submit
to the documents and therefore they were sixty-five (65) days late.
71
4. MGI did not provide the County with a Construction Documents Estimate.
5. MGI did not complete the GMP in a timely manner. The County received the GMP two
hundred and sixty-five (265) days past the due date.
6. GMP Clarification and Assumption #34 effectively nullifies the basic premise of a GMP.
7. In the Agreement there is no mention of how allowances are to be accounted for or that there
should be any allowances included within the GMP. Allowances included in the GMP total
$714,651.
r
8. MGI did not correctly establish a contingency amount and did not provide supporting
documentation for setting the construction contingency at zero (0).
9. MGI did not obtain the required written approval for bids that are 2% above the applicable line
item in the GMP.
10. MGI is not increasing the construction contingency for items that are less than the GMP
amount.
11. MGI and the County failed to provide any detailed reporting that tracks the cost reducing
alternates and value engineering items within the GMP.
12. The GMP's summary cost reducing alternatives line doesn't reconcile to the detailed estimate of
direct cost items line called "Alternates & VE items". There is a $350,000 difference between
the two.
13. The GMP's summary general conditions line does not reconcile to its supporting
documentation. There is a $149,030 unreconciled difference between the two.
im
14. MGI did not follow the requirements in the Solicitation of Bids section of the agreement for bid
package #1. Bid package #1's last advertisement did not appear at least twenty-one (21)
calendar days prior to the established bid opening date and at least five (5) days prior to any
` scheduled pre -bid conference.
15. MGI did not follow the requirements in the Solicitation of Bids section of the Agreement for bid
package #1A. MGI did not advertise either through publications or electronically for bid
package #1A.
16. MGI did not follow the requirements in the Solicitation of Bids section of the Agreement for bid
package #2. Bid package #2's last advertisement did not appear at least twenty-one (21)
calendar days prior to the established bid opening date.
17. MGI did not follow the requirements in the Solicitation of Bids section of the Agreement for bid
package #3. Bid package #3's last advertisement did not appear at least twenty-one (21)
" calendar days prior to the established bid opening date.
18. MGI did not provide any information that pre -bid conferences took place for bid package's #1,
#1A, and #2.
19. MGI did not provide any log in sheets for bids received for bid package's #1, #1A, and #2.
20. MGI did not provide any information that JLU Enterprises Corporation submitted a bid for
work performed on auger cast piles. JLU signed a contract for $252,633 for work on the auger
cast piles.
21. There was no executed agreement with sub -contractor American Foundation Corp. for the first
fifty-eight (58) auger piles installed. This work, though performed by American Foundation was
paid to American through JLU Enterprises Corporation.
22. MGI has not provided any pre -qualification information for applicable sub -contractors.
23. MGI failed to provide experience questionnaires and financial statements for fourteen (14) sub-
contractors whose bids exceeded $200,000.
24. None of TNIGI's bid tabulation packets sampled by the auditor contained bid/award summaries.
25. There were two (2) bids accepted after the bid due date for bid package #1, one (1) bid accepted
after the bid due date for bid package #1A, and six (6) bids accepted after the bid due date for
"o bid package #2.
26. According to the bid tabulation for work scope 9D-Acoustical Ceilings/Wall Panels Acousd
w. Engineering Co. bid $644,145 for the work. However, there was no supporting documentation
indicating that the sub -contractor submitted a bid.
No
0
IM 27. There was no bidding information provided for two (2) out of the three (3) sub -contractors
listed on MGI's bid tabulation sheet for work scope 15A-Plumbing.
28. Work scope 15C-HVAC's bid tabulation sheet appears to have a lower bidder than the bidder
.. who was awarded an agreement.
29. A sub -contractor for work scope 15C-HVAC was able to change their original bid and there was
no documentation showing that the other responding bidders were given the opportunity to
change their bids after submitting their original bids.
.. 30. For six (6) sub -contractors who were awarded agreements, the bid and agreement amounts are
different.
.r 31. MGI only received one proposal for work on scope 5A-Steel. According to the Agreement,
MGI should have requested at least three (3) firms to submit sealed written proposals.
we 32. MGI only received one proposal for work on scope 5B-Expansion Joint Covers. According to
the Agreement, INIGI should have requested at least three (3) firms to submit sealed written
proposals.
an
33.There was no documentation provided that MGI attempted to obtain proposals for earthwork
testing, concrete testing, auger logs, and weld inspections.
as
34. Eight (8) of the thirteen (13) sub -contractors sampled had commenced work prior to having an
executed contract in place.
r✓
35. Some of MGI's sub -contractors are sub -contracting out work at the Key West International
Airport — New Terminal Building and Renovation.
36. Four (4) sub -contractors that were contractually required to provide 100% performance, labor
and material payment bonds failed to provide the bonding coverage.
37. Five (5) sub -contractors were excluded from providing the required bonding. MGI failed to get
special authorization from the County to exclude the sub -contractors.
39. MGI did not provide the Proposed Disadvantage Business Enterprise (DBE) Utilization Form
and DBE Identification Form in a timely manner.
39. MGI did not properly complete the DBE Utilization and Identification forms.
No 40. MGI did not complete DBE Identification forms for three (3) sub -contractors that were on the
DBE Utilization form.
IM
41. MGI did not provide the DBE Payment Certification Form for two (2) sub -contractors in a
timely manner.
10
42. MGI did not properly complete the DBE Expenditure Report for one (1) sub -contractor.
43. The project manual prepared by MGI did not include copies of any subcontracts.
44. PMIS reports #1 through #19 prepared by MGI does not contain a construction contingency as
required by the Agreement.
r. 45. MGI did not provide the PMIS reports in a timely manner. The County received these reports
on average one hundred and forty-four (144) days after the last day of the month for the PMIS
period covered.
46. For the first thirteen (13) PMIS reports MGI did not include the Cost Status Reports as required
by the Agreement.
47. MGI did not provide PMIS reports with the first six (6) pay requests as required by the
Agreement.
48. TNIGI's Certificate of Liability Insurance does not state the specific job by name and job number.
an
WS
0
No
OW
0
11
rr
V. AUDIT FINDINGS
Market Analysis
1. MGI did not provide the Construction Market Analysis and Prospective Bidders Report in a
timely manner.
Finding:
According to the Agreement section 2.3 Design Review and Recommendations, sub section (8)
Market analysis and Stimulation of Bidder Interest (b) "Within thirty (30) days after receiving
Notice to Proceed, the Construction Manager shall submit a written "Construction Market Analysis
and Prospective Bidders Report" setting out recommendations and providing information as to
prospective bidders." Exhibit A — agreement.
On October 21, 2005, a Notice to Proceed for Preconstruction Phase service was issued to The
Morganti Group, Inc. Exhibit B — Notice to Proceed. The Construction Market Analysis and
" Perspective Bidders Report would be due on November 21, 2005 according to the agreement. The
Construction Market Analysis and Perspective Bidders Report were received on August 22, 2006,
three hundred and five (305) days after the deadline. Exhibit C - Construction Market Analysis and
" Perspective Bidders Report.
The Construction Market Analysis and Prospective Bidders Report that was received on August 22,
2006 failed to provide any recommendations as to prospective bidders as required by the
Agreement.
Recommendation(s):
1. The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) should ensure that there are
policies and procedures in place to monitor the CMR's compliance with the agreement.
2. The BOCC should determine the potential impact to the project from MGI completing the
"Construction Market Analysis and Prospective Bidders Report" 305 days late and missing
recommendations.
MGI Resnonse(s):
The Morganti Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VIL Auditee
Responses.
County Administrator Response(s):
The County concurs. The lack of the report was a contract deficiency for which Morganti was
placed on notice by way of meeting on July 27, 2006 and letter dated August 7, 2006. The deficiency
' has since been corrected.
am
12
No
Estimates
2. MG1's Design Document (DD) estimate was not submitted to the County in a timely manner.
Finding:
According to the Agreement section 2.3 Design Review & Recommendations, sub -section (2)
r` Review Reports and Warranty "Within 45-days after receiving the Construction Documents for each
phase of the project, the Construction Manager shall perform a specific review thereof, focused
upon factors of a nature encompassed in Paragraph (1) above and on factors set out in Paragraph
(5). Promptly after completion of the review, he shall submit to the Project Director and Permitting
Authority, with copies to the Architect -Engineer, a written report covering suggestions or
recommendations previously submitted, additional suggestions or recommendations as he may deem
appropriate, and all actions taken by the architect -Engineer with respect to same, any comments he
may deem to be appropriate with respect to separating the work into separate contracts, alternative
materials, and all comments called for under article 2.3(5)." Exhibit A — Agreement
M
Im
MGI failed to meet the required time frame of forty-five (45) days for submitting their DD packet to
the County. URS submitted the DD drawings February 24, 2006 and the County received the DD
packet from MGI no earlier than April 20, 2006, which is ten (10) days late.
Recommendation(s):
1. The BOCC should ensure that there are policies and procedures in place to monitor the CMR's
compliance with the agreement.
2. The BOCC should determine the potential impact to the project resulting from MGI not
providing the DD estimates within the required deadline.
MGI Response(s):
The Morgand Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VII. Auditee
Responses.
County Administrator Response(s):
The County Concurs. Morganti and URS were required to work collaboratively to provide the
estimate and the County is unable to opine as to why the estimate was not timely submitted however
the deficiency has since been corrected.
13
to
r
Estimates
am
3. MGI's Completed Documents (CD) estimate was not submitted to the County in a timely
ammanner.
Finding:
r.
According to the Agreement section 2.3 Design Review & Recommendations, sub -section (2)
Review Reports and Warranty "Within 45-days after receiving the Construction Documents for each
phase of the project, the Construction Manager shall perform a specific review thereof, focused
upon factors of a nature encompassed in Paragraph (1) above and on factors set out in Paragraph
(5). Promptly after completion of the review, he shall submit to the Project Director and Permitting
Authority, with copies to the Architect -Engineer, a written report covering suggestions or
rr recommendations previously submitted, additional suggestions or recommendations as he may deem
appropriate, and all actions taken by the architect -Engineer with respect to same, any comments he
may deem to be appropriate with respect to separating the work into separate contracts, alternative
�. materials, and all comments called for under Article 2.3(5)." Exhibit A - Agreement
MGI failed to meet the required time frame of forty-five (45) days for submitting their CD packet to
the County. URS submitted the CD estimate June 26, 2006 and the County received the CD packet
from MGI no earlier than October 13, 2006, which is sixty-five (65) days late.
F-I
Recommendation(s):
1. The BOCC should ensure that there are policies and procedures in place to monitor the CMR's
a" compliance with the Agreement.
2. The BOCC should determine the potential impact to the project resulting from MGI not
providing the CD estimates within the required deadline.
MGI Response(s):
The Morganti Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VII. Auditee
Responses.
Count Administrator Response(s):
"" The County Concurs. Morganti and URS were required to work collaboratively to provide the
estimate and the County is unable to opine as to why the estimate was not timely submitted however
the deficiency has since been corrected.
14
im
77
Estimates
M 4. MGI did not provide the County with Construction Documents Estimates (CDE).
Finding:
According to the Agreement, section 2.1.4 Cost Control Subsystem sub -section (e) Construction
Documents Estimates (CDE) - "Prior to the bid of each bid package, when the working drawings
and specifications are complete, the CMR shall prepare and submit a cost estimate on the basis of a
quantitative material take -off with current local cost for each bid group by subcontract package."
Exhibit _A _Agreement
r.
MGI failed to provide any information to the auditor that explains why this report was not provided
to the County.
Recommendation(s):
" 1. The BOCC should ensure that there are policies and procedures in place to monitor the CMR's
compliance with the Agreement.
2. The BOCC should determine the potential impact to the project resulting from MGI not
providing the County with the required CDE.
rr
MGI Responses)
The Morganti Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VII. Auditee
Responses.
County Administrator Response(sl:
The County Concurs. The lack of the CD estimate was a contract deficiency for which Morgand
was placed on notice by way of meeting on July 27, 2006 and letter dated August 7, 2006. Morganti
" and URS were required to work collaboratively to provide the estimate and the County is unable to
opine as to why the estimate was not timely submitted however the deficiency has since been
corrected.
Auditor's Comment:
No At the time of the issuance of this report the County has not received the Construction Design
Estimates.
WO
15
on
GMP
M 5. MGI did not complete the GMP in a timely manner.
Finding:
According to the Agreement, Article 7; Guaranteed Maximum Price for Construction, sub -section
7.1 "When the Design Development Documents are sufficiently complete to establish the scope of
r` work for the project or any portion thereof, as generally defined by a design document listing to be
provided by the Architect -Engineer and Construction Manager upon execution of this agreement,
which is to be used only as a guide in developing the specifications and plan data necessary to
establish a Guaranteed Maximum Price, or at such time thereafter designated by the County, the
Construction Manager will establish and submit in writing to the County for approval a Guaranteed
Maximum Price, guaranteeing the maximum price to the County, for the construction cost of the
project or designated part thereof." Exhibit ik — agreement
Based upon MGI documentation, URS completed 100% of the DD drawings on February 24, 2006
i" and the County received the GMP from MGI November 15, 2006, two hundred sixty-five (265)
days past the due date.
Recommendation(s):
1. The BOCC should ensure that there are policies and procedures in place to monitor the CMR's
compliance with the Agreement.
" 2. The BOCC should determine the cost and timeliness to the project of MGI providing the GMP
over two hundred sixty-five (265) days past due.
M
MGI Response(s):
The Morganti Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VIL Auditee
Responses.
County Administrator Response(s):
The County Concurs. Morganti and URS were required to work collaboratively to ensure the
County received the GMP in a timely manner. The County is unable to opine as to why the GMP
was not timely submitted however the deficiency has since been corrected.
Auditor's Comment on Responses for findings #1 through #5:
Findings 1 through 5 refer to the timeliness of the submission of these critical project documents.
The fact that they were not submitted timely in accordance with the provisions of the contract may
r have negatively affected the progress of the Project.
16
77
GMP
6. GMP Clarification and Assumption #34 effectively nullifies the basic premise of a GMP, as it
provides that the "Guaranteed Maximum Price" shall be increased to cover additional costs under
certain circumstances.
Finding:
According to GMP Clarifications and Assumptions #34 — "Where allowances have been established
for scope included in the GMP or where agreed upon estimated amounts have been used for cost
reduction items it is agreed that should the allowance amounts be exceeded or should the estimated
savings for cost reduction items not be reached the GMP amount shall be adjusted if necessary to
account for these additional costs. The GMP shall only be adjusted after all other cost saving
" alternatives, including further scope reductions, has been exhausted." Exhibit 1) —GMP.
Further, we find no definition or description of the term "allowances for scope" in the contract
No documents. See Finding #7.
The above mentioned GMP Clarifications and Assumptions #34 effectively nullifies the basic
00 premise of a GMP, which is the CM at risk agrees to pay for costs that exceed the approved GMP
and are not a result of changes in the contract documents.
Recommendation(s):
1. The BOCC should determine the potential impact of the approval of the GMP with Clarification
and Assumption #34 included to the cost of the project at completion.
r. 2. Since the project is not completed, the BOCC should determine the potential impact on the
project at completion resulting from MGI's failure to comply with section 7.4 of the Agreement.
MGI Response(s):
The Morgand Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VII. Auditee
Responses.
.. County Administrator Response(s):
The County concurs however; the BOCC would have to approve any increase in the GMP.
0
17
GMP
7. Allowances of $714,651 are included within the GMP.
Finding:
The following allowances are contained within the GMP:
Bid
Package
2C
2H
3A
5A
5A
6A
6B
8E
9B
9C
10D
10E
10K
12C
Description
Restaking
Tennis Netting and Beach Dining
Secondary Light Weight Topping Slab — Buildings
Stainless Steel Railing and Glass Panel System
Precast Connection Welds
Rough Carpentry
Solid Surface Sills & Aprons
Shutters, Smoke Curtains Existing buildings
Quarry Patching
Floor Preparation
Identifying Deviccs/Signage
Relocate Existing Signage
Wall/Corner Protection
Airport Seating
Allowance Total
GMP
Estimate
$ 15,000
10,000
140,000
24,000
20,000
39,851
30,000
30,000
10,000
7,500
150,000
6,650
6,650
225,000
$ 714,651
In the Agreement there is no mention of how allowances are to be accounted for or that there
should be any allowances included within the GMP. Also there is no detailed information on how
on these are going to be applied to construction costs. I :xhibit D — GMP.
Recommendation(s):
1. The BOCC should ensure that there are policies and procedures in place to monitor the CMR's
compliance with the Agreement.
2. The BOCC should consider the how these allowances will affect the cost of the project.
•r• 3. County Management should have procedures in place to monitor and approve or disapprove the
use of these allowances.
• MGI Response(s):
The Morgand Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VIL Auditee
Responses.
18
No
P.
County Administrator Response(s):
r` The County concurs however the use of line item allowances serves the same purpose as the other
items in the GMP, i.e., the establishment of a maximum cost for that line item. The County would
to point out that if the methodology described in fording #8 of the audit report had been followed, all
of the line items that would have comprised the GMP would have been, in essence, allowances.
an Auditor's Comment:
GMP Clarifications and Assumptions #34 provides that the allowances don't constitute maximum
amounts. According to Assumption #34, "Where allowances have been established for scope
an included in the GMP or where agreed upon estimated amounts have been used for cost reduction
items it is agreed that should the allowance amounts be exceeded or should the estimated savings for
cost reduction items not be reached the GMP amount shall be adjusted if necessary to account for
No these additional costs. The GMP shall only be adjusted after all other cost saving alternatives,
including further scope reductions, has been exhausted."
0
r.
r7
00
19
&a
ON
GMP
8. MGI did not correctly establish a contingency amount and did not provide supporting
documentation requested by the auditors for setting the contingency amount at zero (0).
Finding:
According to the Agreement section 7.4 "At the time of submission of a Guaranteed Maximum
am Price, the Construction Manager will verify the time schedule for activities and work which were
adopted by the Construction Team and used to determine the Construction Manager's cost of work.
In addition to the cost of work, a GMP will include an agreed upon sum as the construction
contingency which is included for the purpose of defraying the expenses due to unforeseen
circumstances relating to construction. The Construction Manager will be required to furnish
documentation evidencing expenditures charged to this contingency prior to the release of funds by
the County. Documentation for use of the Contingency shall be determined by the Construction
Team, included in the Project Manual and displayed monthly in the PMIS. The Architect -Engineer
shall verify the actual costs. If bids are received below the applicable line items in the GMP, the
surplus will be added to the contingency." Exhibit ;k — :kgrcement.
The auditors requested documentation from MGI for setting the construction contingency amount
at zero (0). To date the information has not been provided.
MGI did not follow the correct process of establishing a GMP and therefore it impacted the use of a
contingency.
The correct process for establishing a contingency amount results from the following steps. The
WO GMP should have been established from specifications and plan data from the Design Development
Documents. Then bids would be solicited and the most responsive bidder selected from each work
scope. The contingency should have been created with bids that are below the applicable line items
r. in the GMP, the surplus being added to the contingency. If bids were above the applicable line
items in the GMP, the deficiency would be subtracted from the contingency according to the
procedure described in section
r..
Instead MGI established the existing GMP after the solicitation of the bids. Therefore, each work
scope within the GMP agrees to the successful bidder's bid.
MGI failed to adhere to section 7.4 in the Agreement.
up Recommendation(s):
1. The BOCC should ensure that there are policies and procedures in place to monitor the CMR's
compliance with the agreement.
..
2. Since the project is not completed, the BOCC should determine the potential impact on the
project at completion resulting from MGI's failure to comply with section 7.4 of the agreement.
..
20
rr
a. MGI Response(s):
The Morganti Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VII. Auditee
Responses.
WA
Coun1y Administrator Response(s):
No The County concurs with an explanation. The County directed MGI to set a contingency amount of
$0 since the project exceeded the desired GMP and contained cost cutting items. According to the
contract, the purpose of a construction contingency is to defray the expenses due to unforeseen
circumstances relating to construction. The County chose not to build in a contingency within the
No GMP. Any contingency would have caused the GMP to increase by that amount. Because of the
way the GMP was established and in order not to exceed the GMP, the contingency should have
started at $0 and then increased as cost savings were realized and those savings were transferred in
No to the contingency for purposes of tracking. Those savings should either come back to the County
at the end of the project or be available to defray GMP clarification and assumption #34 in order
not to exceed the GMP.
it
Auditor's Comment:
as According to the County Engineer, he directed The Morganti Group, Inc. to set the contingency at
zero (0). At the time of the issuance of this report the County Engineer has not provided any
documentation that supports this statement.
M
r
an
WO
Mr
21
WO
GMP
am 9. MGI did not obtain the required written approval for bids that are 2% above the applicable line
item in the GMP.
Finding:
According to the Agreement section 7.4 "If bids received are two (2) percent or greater above the
�. applicable line item in the GMP the Construction Manager shall seek approval in writing from the
County before they are accepted; if the bids received are below two (2) percent the deficiency will be
taken from the contingency, however such events shall not be cause to increase the GMP." Exhibit
a. A — Agreement.
The auditors met with MGI representatives on September 18, 2007. At that meeting MGI
on
representatives stated that they did not obtain written approval for bids that are two (2) percent or
greater above the applicable line item in the GMP.
Due to MGI's failure to follow the sequence of events for the establishment of the GMP as
described in section 7 of the Agreement, ninety (90) percent of the applicable line items in the GMP
agreed to the most responsive bidders. For the lines where the bids differ from the GMP, these
amounts were not taken to the contingency because the contingency was set to at zero (0).
Recommendation(sl:
1. The BOCC should ensure that there are policies and procedures in place to monitor the CMR's
compliance with the Agreement.
2. The BOCC should determine the cost to the project of MGI not providing a contingency in the
GMP and their failure to comply with section 7.4 of the Agreement.
MGI Response(s):
"" The Morganti Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VII. Auditee
Responses.
so
No
0
County Administrator Response(s):
The County concurs. Because of the method employed in establishing the GMP the line items
agreed with the bids.
22
GMP
10. MGI is not increasing the construction contingency for items that are less than the GMP
amount.
Finding:
According to the Agreement section 7.4 "If bids are received below the applicable line items in the
r GIP, the surplus will be added to the contingency." Exhibit A — Agreement.
With the incorrect way MGI established the GMP, solicited bids first then created the GMP, ninety
�r (90) percent of the applicable line items in the GMP agreed to the most responsive bidders bid. For
the lines where the bids differ from the GMP, these amounts were not taken to the contingency
because the contingency was set to at $0.
rirr
Recommendation(s):
1. The BOCC should ensure that there are policies and procedures in place to monitor the CMR's
compliance with the Agreement.
wr 2. The BOCC should determine the cost to the project of MGI not providing a contingency in the
GMP and their failure to comply with section 7.4 of the Agreement.
an
MGI Response(s):
The Morgand Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VII. Auditee
r.
Responses.
am
fto
No
r.
aw
Count_y Administrator ResFonse(s):
The County concurs. The GMP contains numerous cost cutting items that have to be established to
achieve the GMP. Therefore, before any money is available for the contingency, cuts need to be
accomplished in accordance with the cost reducing alternatives in the GMP.
23
w.
GMP
11. MGI and the County did not provide any detailed reporting that tracks cost reducing alternates
and value engineering items.
Finding:
.. According to the agreement section 2.1.5 Project accounting Subsystem (c) Detailed Status Report
— "showing the complete activity history of each item in the project accounting structure. It shall
include the budget, estimate, and base commitment figures for each contract." Exhibit a
Agreement.
The GMP includes $3,612,708 of cost reducing alternates and value engineering items. MGI and
.. the County have failed to provide any detailed reporting that tracks these cost reducing alternates
and value engineering items.
Recommendation(s):
"' 1. The BOCC should ensure that there are policies and procedures in place to monitor the CMR's
compliance with the Agreement.
No 2. MGI and County Management should have procedures in place to monitor and approve or
disapprove the cost reducing alternates and value engineering items.
MGI Resnonse(s):
The Morganti Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VIL Auditee
ON Responses.
an County Administrator Response(s)Li
The County disagrees. Cost tracking is contained in the monthly PMIS reports and the monthly pay
applications.
Auditor's Comment:
so Neither the monthly PMIS reports nor the monthly pay applications track the progress of attaining
the cost reducing alternates and value engineering targets.
M
w
"w
24
so
w.
GMP
12. The GMP's summary "Cost reducing alternates (as of 11/09/06)" line does not reconcile to the
GMP's detailed estimate of direct cost items line called "Alternates & VE items".
Finding:
t` There is a $350,000 difference between the "Cost reducing alternatives (as of 11 /09/06)" line on the
GMP summary and the detailed estimate "Alternates & VE items" line.
The "Cost reducing alternatives (as of 11 /09/06)" line is $3,612,708, and the "Alternates & VE
items" line total is $3,262,708. Exhibit F — G�II' Price Summary & Estimate Summarv.
as The GMP was approved with this unreconciled difference.
MGI has failed to provide any information to the auditor that explains what the difference is
am between the summary and detail.
Recommendation(s):
1. MGI and County Management should have procedures in place to ensure that supporting
documents are reconciled to the GMP.
MGI Resnonse(s):
The Morganti Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VII. Auditee
Responses.
County Administrator Response(sl
iNoThe County concurs. Numerous revisions to the VE items and alternatives may be the cause in
discrepancy however, the GMP amount has been established.
M
No
No
u
25
a*
we
GMP
13. The GMP's summary "General conditions (reimbursable expenses)" line does not reconcile to
its supporting documentation.
Finding:
` There is a $149,030 difference between the "General conditions (reimbursable expenses) line on the
GMP summary sheet and the detail/supporting documentation. The detail documentation totals to
$522,970 and the "General conditions (reimbursable expenses)" shows $672,000, a difference of
$149,030. I-xhibit F — GNIP General Conditions.
as
The GMP was approved with this unreconciled difference.
MGI has failed to provide any information to the auditor that explains what the difference is
between the summary and detail.
Recommendation(s):
1. MGI and County Management should have procedures in place to ensure that supporting
documents are reconciled to the GMP.
W.
MGI Response(s):
The Morganti Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VII. ruditee
"' Responses.
r"7
FM
fto
..
County Administrator Response(s):
The County concurs. However, the GMP amount has been clearly established and general
conditions are reimbursable expenses that require an invoice prior to payment.
26
0
Solicitation of Bids
r
14. Bid package #1's last advertisement did not appear at least twenty-one (21) calendar days prior
to the established bid opening date and at least five (5) days prior to any scheduled pre -bid
conference.
Finding:
an
According to the agreement section 2.4 Construction Phase, sub section (4) Solicitation of Bids #3,
"Contracts exceeding Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) may be entered into by the
Construction Manager with the firm who is qualified and submits the most responsive proposal.
The Construction Manager shall advertise these projects at least once with the last advertising
appearing at least 21 calendar days prior to the established bid opening date and at least five 5 days
prior to any scheduled pre -bid conference. These proposals shall be based on approved plans and
specifications. Bids shall be received at the location, date and time established in the bid
advertisement." F� xhibit A — .Agreement.
w.
MGI distributed bid package #1 to sub -contractors on or about April 4, 2006 with a sealed bid due
date of May 4, 2006. Exhibit G — Bid package #1. MGI placed advertisements with two (2)
publications with the last advertisement run date of April 20, 2006. According to the advertisements
the sealed bids were due April 27, 2006. Exhibit H — Ads for bid package #1.
No If the advertised sealed bid due date of April 27, 2006 is used, sub -contractors had a maximum of
eight (8) days between MGI's last newspaper advertisement and the bid opening date. If the bid due
date according to bid package #1 is used, sub -contractors had a maximum of fifteen (15) days
between MGI's last newspaper advertisement and the bid opening date. Using either of the two (2)
different due dates, both failed to meet the twenty-one (21) day contractual requirement.
According to the advertisements and bid package #1 the pre -bid conference was scheduled to take
place on !April 18, 2006. The last advertisement ran after the scheduled date of the pre -bid
conference, not at least five (5) days prior to any scheduled pre -bid conference.
MGI failed to meet contractual requirement stated above.
Recommendation(s):
1. The BOCC should ensure that there are policies and procedures in place to monitor the CMR's
compliance with the agreement.
r.
2. The BOCC should determine the potential impact to the project resulting from bid package #1
not meeting the contractual requirement of the last advertisement appearing at least twenty-one (21)
+�• calendar days prior to the established bid opening date and at least five (5) days prior to any
scheduled pre -bid conference.
27
r
No
M
0
No
MGI Resnonse(s):
The Morganti Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VII. Auditee
Responses.
County Administrator Response(s):
The County concurs however the contract between the County and MGI only requires the bids to
be advertised once. MGI chose to run the advertisement 3 times with the first advertisement having
the required 21 calendar days prior to the bid opening. There were no complaints or bid protests
lodged as a result of the second and third advertisement falling short of the 21 calendar day
requirement.
Auditor's Comment:
according to the Agreement section 2.4 Construction Phase, sub section (4) Solicitation of Bids #3,
"The Construction Manager shall advertise these projects at least once with the last advertisement
appearing at least 21 days prior to the established bid opening date."
28
7-
Solicitation of Bids
15. Bid package #1A did not meet the contractual requirement of advertising.
Finding:
According to the Agreement section 2.4 Construction Phase, sub section (4) Solicitation of Bids #3,
"Contracts exceeding Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) may be entered into by the
Construction Manager with the firm who is qualified and submits the most responsive proposal.
The Construction Manager shall advertise these projects at least once with the last advertising
appearing at least 21 calendar days prior to the established bid opening date and at least five 5 days
prior to any scheduled pre -bid conference. These proposals shall be based on approved plans and
specifications. Bids shall be received at the location, date and time established in the bid
advertisement." Exhibit A - Agreement.
MGI did not advertise either through publications or electronically for bid package #1A. Exhibit I -
Bid package #1A.
MGI failed to meet contractual requirement stated above.
Recommendation(s):
1. The BOCC should ensure that there are policies and procedures in place to monitor the CMR's
compliance with the Agreement.
.. 2. The BOCC should determine the potential impact to the project resulting from bid package #1A
not being advertised.
MGI Response(s):
The Morganti Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VII. Auditee
we Responses.
�. Count Administrator Response(s):
The County concurs. MGI informs the County that there were no bids received for the auger pile
work advertised in Bid Package #1(Work Scope 3A). MGI subsequently sought out bidders by
•• direct contact.
■"
29
71
im
Solicitation of Bids
16. Bid package #2's last advertisement did not appear at least twenty-one (21) calendar days prior
to the established bid opening date.
Finding:
according to the agreement section 2.4 Construction Phase, sub section (4) Solicitation of Bids #3,
"Contracts exceeding Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) may be entered into by the
Construction Manager with the firm who is qualified and submits the most responsive proposal.
The Construction Manager shall advertise these projects at least once with the last advertising
appearing at least 21 calendar days prior to the established bid opening date and at least five 5 days
prior to any scheduled pre -bid conference. These proposals shall be based on approved plans and
01i specifications. Bids shall be received at the location, date and time established in the bid
advertisement." Exhibit a — agreement.
MGI distributed bid package #2 to sub -contractors on or about July 1, 2006 with a sealed bid due
date of August 1, 2006. Exhibit J — Bid Package #2. MGI placed advertisements with two (2)
publications with the last advertisement run date of July 14, 2006. according to the advertisements
the sealed bids were due July 21, 2006. Exhibit K — Ads for Bid Package #2.
If the advertised sealed bid due date of July 21, 2006 is used, sub -contractors had a maximum of
eight (8) days between MGI's last newspaper advertisement and the bid opening date. If the sealed
bid due date according to bid package #2 is used, sub -contractors had a maximum of nineteen (19)
days between MGI's last newspaper advertisement and the bid opening date. Using either of the
two (2) different due dates, both failed to meet the twenty-one (21) day contractual requirement
stated above.
MGI failed to meet contractual requirement stated above.
++ Recommendation(s):
1. The BOCC should ensure that there are policies and procedures in place to monitor the CMR's
compliance with the agreement.
2. The BOCC should determine the potential impact to the project resulting from bid package #2
not meeting the contractual requirement of the last advertisement appearing at least twenty-one (21)
calendar days prior to the established bid opening date.
++� MGI Response(s):
The Morganti Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VII. Auditee
Responses.
..
W
County Administrator Response(s):
The Count` concurs however the contract between the County and MGI only requires the bids to
be advertised once. IIGI chose to run the advertisement 3 times and although the ads did not run
21 calendar days prior to the bid opening there were no complaints or bid protests lodged as a
result of the advertisements falling short of the 21 calendar day requirement.
Auditor's Comment:
` According to the Agreement section 2.4 Construction Phase, sub section (4) Solicitation of Bids #3,
"The Construction Manager shall advertise these projects at least once with the last advertisement
appearing at least 21 days prior to the established bid opening date."
w.
on
77
No
31
rr
Solicitation of Bids
17. Bid package #3's last advertisement did not appear at least twenty-one (21) calendar days prior
to the established bid opening date.
"' Finding:
According to the agreement section 2.4 Construction Phase, sub section (4) Solicitation of Bids #3,
"Contracts exceeding Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) may be entered into by the
Construction Manager with the firm who is qualified and submits the most responsive proposal.
The Construction Manager shall advertise these projects at least once with the last advertising
appearing at least 21 calendar days prior to the established bid opening date and at least five 5 days
prior to any scheduled pre -bid conference. These proposals shall be based on approved plans and
specifications. Bids shall be received at the location, date and time established in the bid
advertisement." Exhibit ,1 — agreement.
MGI placed advertisements with a publication with the last advertisement run date of July 4, 2007.
According to the advertisements the sealed bids were due July 19, 2007. Sub -contractors had a
maximum of sixteen (16) days between MGI's last newspaper advertisement and the bid opening
date. MGI failed to meet the twenty-one (21) day contractual requirement stated above. Exhibit 1,
Ad for Bid Package #3.
According to MGI, due to a lack of responses they did not put together bid package #3.
r
Recommendation(s):
1. The BOCC should ensure that there are policies and procedures in place to monitor the CMR's
w. compliance with the agreement.
2. The BOCC should determine the potential impact to the project resulting from bid package #3
w. not meeting the contractual requirement of the last advertisement appearing at least twenty-one (21)
calendar days prior to the established bid opening date.
.. MGI Resnonse(s):
The Morganti Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VII. auditee
Responses.
r.
County Administrator Response(s):
The County concurs however the contract between the County and MGI only requires the bids to
rY. be advertised once. MGI chose to run the advertisement 2 times with the first advertisement
meeting the 21 day requirement. There were no complaints or bid protests lodged as a result of the
second advertisements falling short of the 21 calendar day requirement.
w.
Auditor's Comment:
ction Phase, sub section (4) Solicitation of Bids #3,
According to the agreement section 2.4 Constru
"The Construction Manager shall advertise these projects at least once with the last advertisement
appearing at least 21 days prior to the established bid opening date."
"W
32
Solicitation of Bids
18. MGI has not provided any information that pre -bid conferences took place for bid packages
#1, #1A, and #2.
Finding:
According to both advertisements placed in publications and the bid packages, MGI was to hold
pre -bid conferences on specified dates and times at The Key West International Airport. According
to MGI's project manual, section 3.3 Bidding Process #5, "Conduct a joint pre -bid conference to
include a site tour, obtaining a list of attendants, answering sub -contractor questions and preparing
meeting minutes." Exhibit A — Agreement.
MGI has failed to provide any information that these meetings were held.
Recommendation(s):
1. The BOCC should ensure that there are policies and procedures in place to monitor the CMR's
compliance with the Agreement.
2. The BOCC should determine the potential impact to the project resulting from not having pre -
bid conferences.
as MGI Response(s):
The Morgand Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VII. Auditee
Responses.
am
County Administrator Response(sl:
an The County concurs. The meetings were to be held by MGI and the County was not involved in the
process of establishing the meetings.
am
W.
33
r
Solicitation of Bids
19. MGI has not provided any login sheets forbids received forbid packages #1, #1A, and #2.
Finding:
According to both advertisements placed in publications and the bid packages, MGI was to log in all
bids received as having been received prior to closing time and date for the receipt of bids. Exhibit
G, H, I, J, K, L — Various.
MGI has failed to provide any log in sheets for any bid packages.
am Recommendation(s):
1. The BOCC should determine the potential impact to the pro)ect resulting from not having log in
sheets for bid package #1, #1A, #2.
MGI Response(s):
"' The Morgand Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VIL Auditee
Responses.
No
am
w
0
"0
County Administrator Response(s):
The County concurs. MGI was responsible for receiving, logging in and tabulating all bids.
34
+r.
Solicitation of Bids
r
20. MGI did not solicit bids for work done on auger cast piles #1 through #202.
Finding:
According to the Agreement section 2.4 Construction Phase, sub section (4) Solicitation of Bids #3,
"Contracts exceeding Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) may be entered into by the
Construction Manager with the firm who is qualified and submits the most responsive proposal.
The Construction Manager shall advertise these projects at least once with the last advertising
appearing at least 21 calendar days prior to the established bid opening date and at least five 5 days
.. prior to any scheduled pre -bid conference. These proposals shall be based on approved plans and
specifications. Bids shall be received at the location, date and time established in the bid
advertisement." Exhibit A — Agreement.
MGI has failed to provide any information that JLU Enterprises Corporation (JLU) submitted a bid
for work performed on auger cast piles #1-#202. Exhibit M — Bid Tabulation Sheet 3A Auger Cast
r Piles. JLU executed a contract for $252,633 on or about October 19, 2006 for work on those auger
cast piles. Based on the dollar amount of this contract MGI failed to meet the contractual
r.
requirement stated above. Exhibit N — JLU Subcontract Agreement.
On June 20, 2007, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners waived bid irregularities
associated with hiring of JLU Enterprises Corporation for the work at the Key West International
Airport.
Recommendation(s):
1. The BOCC should ensure that there are policies and procedures in place to monitor the CMR's
compliance with the Agreement.
2. The BOCC should consider and determine the potential impact to the project resulting from
MGI not soliciting bids for the cast piles #1 through #202.
MGI Response(s):
11D The Morganti Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VIL Auditee
Responses.
County Administrator Response(s):
The County concurs however on June 20, 2007 the BOCC waived bid irregularities associated with
r this work.
No
4"
35
w.
Sub -contractor Bids
r7
21. There is no executed agreement with sub -contractor American Foundation Corp. for work
scope 3A — Auger Cast Piles.
No
Finding:
"" According to the MGI subcontract agreement section 16. Assignment: "Subcontractor shall not
sub -subcontract the work of this Subcontract and shall not assign or transfer this subcontract or
funds due hereunder, without the prior written consent of contractor & subcontractor's surety."
"" Exhibit O — MGI Subcontract Agreement.
Based upon the information reviewed, American Foundation Corp. installed the first fifty-eight (58)
piles without a contract with MGI. This was confirmed by Bruce Harkness — MGI 11 /28/07 email
"No Contract for the first 58 piles. This work, though performed by American Foundation was
paid to American through JLU." Exhibit P — Harkness 11 /28/07 Email American Foundation.
rr
MGI has failed to provide any information to the auditor that gives consent for the assignment.
OW
Recommendation(s):
1. MGI and sub -contractors should follow the provisions of the MGI Subcontract Agreement or
ro modify them accordingly.
.. MGI Response(s):
The Morganti Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VII. Auditee
Responses.
go
Count Administrator Response(s):
am The County concurs however the information given to the County is that bids were advertised for
the auger pile work in Bid Package #1 but no bids were received. MGI subsequently sought out
bidders by direct contact and on June 20, 2007 the BOCC waived bid irregularities associated with
an this work.
e7
am
too
36
we
to
Sub -Contractor Bids
22. MGI has not provided any pre -qualification information for applicable sub -contractors.
r Finding:
According to the Agreement section 2.4 Construction Phase, sub section (4) Solicitation of Bids (d)
�. "For all contracts exceeding Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000), the Construction Manager
shall establish a pre -qualification procedure for applicable subcontract trades." Exhibit A —
Agreement.
Newspaper advertisements for bid packages #1, #2 and #3 mention that interested parties are
invited to be pre -qualified on all trades for this project, MGI failed to provide any pre -qualification
+� information to the auditor. Exhibit H, K, L — Ads for Bid Package #1, #2 and #3.
r•• Recommendation(s):
1. The BOCC should ensure that there are policies and procedures in place to monitor the CMR's
compliance with the Agreement.
w
2. The BOCC should determine the potential impact to the project resulting from MGI not
providing any pre -qualification information for the applicable sub -contractors.
MGI Response(s):
am The Morganti Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VIL Auditee
Responses.
r
County Administrator Response(sl:
The County concurs.
r
M
No
0
No
37
M
c
Sub -Contractor Bids
23. MGI did not provide experience questionnaires and financial statements for sub -contractors
where bids exceeded $200,000.
Finding:
According to the Agreement section 5.3.2 Subcontract Requirements, sub section (2) "On all sub-
contracts where the bid exceeds $200,000, each sub -contractor must submit a completed experience
questionnaire & financial statement on the form entitled "Experience Questionnaire & CM's
Financial Statement" form #DBC — 5085, or equivalent form supplied by CM." Exhibit A —
Agreement.
r.
Based on the information reviewed, fourteen (14) of the twenty (20) bid packets sampled were in
excess of $200,000. MGI did not provide any experience questionnaires, financial statements, or a
form entitled "Experience Questionnaire & CM's Financial Statement" form #DBC — 5085 for any
of the sampled sub -contractors listed below.
Sub -contractor Description of work Agreement
amount
Superior Mechanical 15C. — HVAC $2,377,000
Trinity Fabricators, Inc 5A — Steel 1,904,000
9A - Interior Drywall Package -wall
Interior Details systems. 1,528,317
2A
- Demo site
Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc.
+ 2C
— site earthwork/ Development
1,065,024
+ 2G — site Utilities — Water
Apex Concrete Construction Corp.
3B —
Cast in Place Concrete
4,650,000
JLU Enterprises Corp.
Auger Cast Pile Installation
252,633
•• Capital Waterproofing
7A- Caulking and sealants
324,600
Concepts Plus Casework
6B —
Interior architectural Wood work.
357,261
.. Terry L. Tidwell Plumbing, Inc.
15A
- Plumbing
569,040
G&S Airport Conveyor
14B
— Baggage Handling Systems
928,000
r. Mcalhany Construction Company
9A -
Stucco/Plaster/Drywall
353,700
GO landscaping
2K -
Landscaping allowance
217,000
r Interior Details
9D -
Acoustic Ceilings/Walls
516,100
Affordable Asphalt
2D -
Asphalt Paving & Acc.
460,622
.� Total Sampled packets (14) > $200,000
$15,503,297
aw
38
rr
so Recommendation(s):
1. The BOCC should ensure that there are policies and procedures in place to monitor the CMR's
compliance with the Agreement.
2. The BOCC should determine the potential impact to the project when MGI did not provide
experience questionnaires and financial statements for sub -contractors for bids exceeded $200,000.
MGI Response(s):
an The Morganti Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VII. Auditee
Responses.
County Administrator Response(s)-
The County concurs.
M
r7
■.
L
No
No
r
39
v
M
Sub -contractor Bids
24. None of MGI's bid tabulation packets sampled by the auditor contained bid/award summaries.
Finding:
According to MGI's Project Manual, section 3.5 Bid Recommendation .1 "Prepare a Bid/Award
Summary with pertinent bid information attached recommending award of contracts." Fshibit Q —
MGI Pro)ect Manual, 3.5 Bid Recommendation.
Based upon the information reviewed, none of the twenty (20) sampled bid tabulation packets
contained a bid/award summary.
Recommendation(s):
1. MGI should follow the provisions of the Project Manual.
MGI Response(s):
The Morganti Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VII. Auditee
Responses.
Count Administrator Response(s):
The County concurs however this information has been incorporated into the GMP.
Auditor's Comment:
... The GMP doesn't provide the same information that is contained on the bid/award summaries.
im
M
No
as
00
M
71
M
on
Sub -contractor Bids
25. Bids were received and accepted after bid due dates.
r.
Finding:
According to the Agreement section 2.4 Construction Phase, sub section (4) Solicitation of Bids #3,
`r "Contracts exceeding Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) may be entered into by the
Construction Manager with the firm who is qualified and submits the most responsive proposal.
The Construction Manager shall advertise these projects at least once with the last advertising
appearing at least 21 calendar days prior to the established bid opening date and at least five 5 days
prior to any scheduled pre -bid conference. These proposals shall be based on approved plans and
specifications. Bids shall be received at the location, date and time established in the bid
advertisement." Exhibit A — Agreement.
For bid package # 1:
For work scope 2A-Demo site within the GMP, MGI received Duarte & Fonte Construction, Inc
d/b/a Duarte Contracting & Management Corp's bid of $1,459,998 on May 12, 2006. Exhibit R —
WA Duarte Contracting & Management Bid Date.
r.
M
For work scope 2G-Site drainage/utilities within the GMP, MGI received Charley Toppino & Sons,
Inc.'s bid of $394,933 on May 11, 2006. Exhibit S — Toppino & Sons Bid Date.
According to bid package #1 all bids should have been received by May 4, 2006. Therefore, MGI
failed to follow the above mentioned section of the Agreement.
For bid package #1 A:
For work scope 3A-Auger cast piles within the GMP, MGI received Ebsary Foundation Company's
bid of $639,000 on July 18, 2006. Exhibit T — Ebsary Foundation Bid Date.
According to bid package #1A all bids should have been received by July 11, 2006. Therefore, MGI
failed to follow the above mentioned section of the Agreement.
For bid package #2:
r For work scope 2D-Asphalt paving within the GMP, MGI received Affordable Asphalt &
Contracting, Inc.'s bid of $460,622 on August 7, 2006. Exhibit U — Affordable Asphalt Bid Date.
For work scope 5A-Steel within the GMP, MGI received Advantage Steel, Inc.'s bid of $1,953,157
on August 11, 2006. Exhibit V — Advantage Steel Bid Date.
am For work scope 9A- Plaster/drywall/framing within the GMP, MGI received Interior Details, Inc.'s
bid of $1,708,317 on November 9, 2006. Exhibit W — 9A, Interior Details Bid Date.
am
41
..
WA For work scope 9D-Acoustical ceilings/wall panels within the GMP, MGI received Interior Details,
Inc.'s bid of $470,000 on September 8, 2006. Exhibit X — 9D, Interior Details Bid Date.
For work scope 15A-Plumbing within the GMP, MGI received Terry L. Tidwell Plumbing, Inc.'s
bid of $688,475 on October 17, 2006. Exhibit Y — Terry L. Tidwell Plumbing Bid Date.
For work scope 15C-HVAC within the GMP, MGI received Stokes Mechanical Contractor, Inc.'s
as bid of $4,198,350 on August 24, 2006 and they received Hyvac, Inc.'s bid of $2,588,630 on October
6, 2006. Exhibit Z — Stokes Mechanical and Hyvac Bid Dates.
According to bid package #2 all bids should have been received by August 1, 2006. Therefore,
MGI failed to follow the above mentioned section of the Agreement.
r.
Recommendation(s):
1. The BOCC should ensure that there are policies and procedures in place to monitor the CMR's
compliance with the Agreement.
7n
r.
am
2. The BOCC should determine the potential impact to the project resulting from MGI accepting
late bids.
MGI Response(s):
The Morganti Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VII. Auditee
Responses.
County Administrator Response(s):
The County concurs. MGI was responsible for ensuring compliance with bidding requirements.
42
WA
M
Sub -contractor Bids
26. MGI's bid tabulation sheet for work scope 9D — Acoustical Ceilings/Wall Panels did not contain
the supporting documentation for the sub -contractor Acousti Engineering Co of Fl.'s bid of
"' $644,145.
Finding:
According to MGI's bid tabulation for work scope 9D — Acoustical Ceilings/Wall Panels, the sub-
contractor Acousti Engineering Co. submitted a bid of $644,145. Exhibit AA - Bid Tab 9D. Based
upon the information reviewed, there was no supporting documentation indicating that the sub-
contractor Acousti Engineering Co. submitted a bid of $644,145.
MGI has failed to provide any information supporting the $644,145 listed on the bid tabulation for
sub -contractor Acousti Engineering Co.
VM
Recommendation(s):
an 1. The BOCC should determine the potential impact to the project resulting from Acousti
Engineering Co of Fla's bid of $644,145 not having supporting documentation.
MGI ResFonse(s):
The Morganti Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VIL Auditee
•• Responses.
us
am
r
County Administrator Response(s).
The County concurs however Acousti Engineering Co of Fl was not selected for the project.
43
as
an
Sub -contractor Bids
27. There was no bid information provided for two (2) out of the three (3) sub -contractors listed on
MGI's bid tabulation sheet for work scope 15A-Plumbing.
Finding:
" Based upon the information reviewed, there was no bid information provided by Wilbur Plumbing,
Inc. and McLain Plumbing & Mechanical. According to the bid tabulation sheet for work scope
15A-Plumbing, Wilbur Plumbing, Inc. bid $877,000 and McLain Plumbing & Mechanical bid
$712,075. Exhibit AB — Bid Tabulation Sheet 15A — Plumbing.
MGI failed to provide any additional bid information to the auditor.
Recommendation(s):
1. The BOCC should determine the potential impact to the project resulting from two (2) of the
three (3) bids on MGI's bid tabulation for work scope 15A-Plumbing not having any supporting
documentation.
on MGI Response(s):
The Morgand Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VII. Auditee
Responses.
N.
County Administrator Response(s):
No The County concurs however neither of the two, Wilbur Plumbing nor McLain Plumbing, were the
low bidders and were not awarded the bid.
on
M
r
44
N.
an
r.
Sub -contractor Bids
28. Work scope 15C-HVAC's bid tabulation sheet appears to have a lower bidder than the bidder
who was awarded the agreement.
o.
Finding:
"` For work scope 15C-HVAC within the GMP, the bid tabulation sheet has four (4) responding
contractors. According to the bid tabulation form the lowest bidder was Hyvac, Inc.'s bid of
$2,588,630. The contractor that was awarded the bid was Superior Mechanical Systems with a bid
we of $2,662,000. Exhibit AC — Bid Tabulation Sheet, 15C-HVAC.
MGI has failed to provide any information to the auditor that explains why the lowest bidder was
No not selected.
Recommendation(s):
1. The BOCC should determine the potential impact to the project resulting from MGI awarding an
agreement to a contractor with a higher bid than the lowest bidder.
MGI Response(s):
"" The Morgand Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VII. Auditee
Responses.
r.
County Administrator Response(s):
The County concurs however the lowest bid is not necessarily the most responsive bid. MGI is
responsible for providing justification showing why the low bidder was not responsive.
45
No
Sub -contractor Bids
29. One bidder that was awarded a contract was able to change their bid after submittal and there
was no documentation showing that the other responding bidders were given the same opportunity.
"o Finding:
For work scope 15C-HVAC, the sub -contractor Superior Mechanical Systems was able to change
their original bid of $2,990,000 which was submitted by the due date of August 1, 2006 to a lower
amount of $2,662,000 on August 25, 2006. See Exhibit AD — Superior Mechanical Bid (08/01 /06
and 08/25/06 bids). Superior Mechanical Systems was awarded an agreement for this part of the
GMP.
There was no documentation showing that the other responding bidders were given the opportunity
to change their bids after submitting their original bids.
MGI has failed to provide any information to the auditor that explains why Superior Mechanical
Systems was able to change their original bid.
Recommendation(s):
1. The BOCC should determine the potential impact to the project resulting from MGI awarding an
agreement to a company that was able to change their bid after the submittal deadline.
MGI Response(s):
.r The Morgand Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VIL Auditee
Responses.
County Administrator Response(s):
The information provided to the County was that there were no other bidders to offer the
opportunity to. Superior Mechanical was the only contractor to submit a bid by the due date. On
August 25, 2006, the contractor provided some value engineering that lower his cost and thereby the
bid.
r
M
M
Sub -contractor Bids
30. For several sub -contractors who were awarded agreements, the bid and agreement amounts are
different.
FindinLy•
to For work scope 5A-Steel within the GMP, Trinity Fabricators, Inc. was awarded an agreement with
a bid of $1,995,000. Exhibit AE — Trinity Fabricators Bid. The agreement was signed in May 2007
for an amount of $1,904,000. Exhibit AF — Trinity Fabricators Agreement.
i.
For work scope 6B-Interior Architectural Woodwork within the GMP, Concepts Plus Casework &
Millwork, was awarded an agreement with a bid of $401,547. Exhibit AG — Concepts Plus Bid. The
rft agreement was signed in November 2007 for an amount of $357,261. Exhibit AH — Concepts Plus
Agreement.
us For work scope 7A-Caulking and Sealants and 513-Expansion Joint Covers within the GMP, Capital
Waterproofing, Inc., was awarded an agreement with a bid of $346,600. Exhibit Al — Capital
Waterproofing Bid. The agreement was signed in August 2007 for an amount of $324,600. Exhibit
an AJ — Capital Waterproofing Agreement.
For work scope 9A-Plaster/Drywall/Framing within the GMP, McAlhany Construction Company,
Inc. was awarded an agreement with a bid of $353,700. Exhibit AK — McAlhany Construction Bid.
The agreement was signed in October 2007 for an amount of $423,000. Exhibit AL — McAlhany
Construction Agreement.
For work scope 9D-Acoustical Ceilings/wall panels - Interior Details, Inc. was awarded an
agreement with a bid of $470,000. Exhibit AM — Interior Details Bid. According to the GMP,
+� Interior Details, Inc. is doing the work for an amount of $516,100. Exhibit AN — GMP 9D
Acoustic ceilings/walls. To date no agreement has been signed.
+� For work scope 15C-HVAC within the GMP, Superior Mechanical Systems was awarded an
agreement with a bid of $2,662,000. Exhibit AD — Superior Mechanical Bid. The agreement was
signed in July 2007 for an amount of $2,337,000. Exhibit AO — Superior Mechanical Agreement.
MGI has failed to provide any information to the auditor that explains what the differences are
between the bid and agreement amounts.
so Recommendation(s):
1. The BOCC should determine the potential impact to the project resulting from sub -contractors
who were awarded agreements that differ from the bids they submitted.
No
47
we
r.
MGI ResI2 nse(s):
r
The Morganti Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VII. Auditee
Responses.
" County Administrator Responses)
The County concurs. While the County and MGI were trying to agree upon a GMP, bids were being
received and value engineering was being performed. As a result, MGI was negotiating changes with
contractors to try and lower bids. These negotiations lead to differences between the bid amount
and the final contract amount.
am
M
i
M
ON
to
UW
rr
an
am
Sub -contractor Bids
am 31. There was only one proposal received for additional work on scope 5A-Steel.
Finding:
According to the Agreement section 2.4 Construction Phase, sub section (4) Solicitation of Bids
(#2) "Contracts exceeding Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) but not exceeding Two
Hundred Thousand Dollars may be entered into by the Construction Manager with the firm who is
qualified and submits the most responsive proposal. The Construction :Manager shall request at
least three (3) firms to submit sealed written proposals based on drawings and/or specifications.
The written proposals shall all be received at the location, date and time named by the Construction
Manager in his request for proposal. A tabulation of the results shall be furnished to the County and
Architect -Engineer upon request." Exhibit A — Agreement.
For work scope 5A-Steel within the GMP, Trinity Fabricators, Inc. was awarded the contract for
work on Bulletins # 1 and 2, domestically produced steel and perimeter wall metal deck for an
amount of $85,000. Trinity Fabricators, Inc. was the only subcontractor that MGI received a
proposal from. Trinity Fabricators, Inc. included this amount within the original bid amount
awarded for a total agreement amount of $1,904,000. Exhibit AF — Trinity Fabricators Agreement.
MGI failed to follow the above mentioned section of the Agreement.
w
Recommendation(s):
1. The BOCC should ensure that there are policies and procedures in place to monitor the CMR's
compliance with the Agreement.
2. The BOCC should determine the potential impact to the project resulting from only one proposal
.. being received for additional work on scope 5A-steel.
+� MGI Response(s):
The Morganti Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VII. Auditee
Responses.
r.
Coun1y Administrator Response(s):
No The County concurs. However, Bid Package 2 for Work Scope 5A-Steel was advertised in the
newspaper and bids were due August 1, 2006. On August 1, 2006 one bid was received, from Trinity
Fabricators. Additional contractors later submitted bids, Advantage Steel on August 11, 2006, and
aw Steel Fabricators on an unknown date. Subsequently, additional work was requested in Bulletin 1
and 2. Trinity responded on August 26, 2006.
..
r.
49
wu
60
Sub -contractor Bids
32. There was only one proposal received for work scope 5B-Expansion Joint Covers.
Finding:
According to the Agreement section 2.4 Construction Phase, sub section (4) Solicitation of Bids
` (#2) "Contracts exceeding Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) but not exceeding Two
Hundred Thousand Dollars may be entered into by the Construction Manager with the firm who is
qualified and submits the most responsive proposal. The Construction Manager shall request at
least three (3) firms to submit sealed written proposals based on drawings and/or specifications.
The written proposals shall all be received at the location, date and time named by the Construction
Manager in his request for proposal. A tabulation of the results shall be furnished to the County and
Architect -Engineer upon request." Exhibit A — Agreement.
For work scope 5B-Expansion Joint Covers within the GMP, Capital Waterproofing, Inc. was
awarded an agreement for an amount of $71,000. Capital Waterproofing, Inc. was the only
subcontractor that MGI received a proposal from for work scope 5B. Fxhibit AI — Capital
Waterproofing Bid.
MGI failed to follow the above mentioned section of the Agreement.
77
Recommendation(s):
"' 1. The BOCC should ensure that there are policies and procedures in place to monitor the CMR's
compliance with the Agreement.
am
2. The BOCC should determine the potential impact to the project resulting from only one proposal
received for work scope 5B-Expansion Joint Covers.
MGI Response(s):
The Morganti Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VII. Auditee
Responses.
County Administrator Response(s):
The County concurs. However, Bid Package 2 for Work Scope 5B-Expansion Joint Covers was
advertised in the newspaper and bids were due on August 1, 2006. On August 1, 2006 only one bid
was received, Capital Waterproofing.
50
to
..
Sub -contractor Bids
33. There were no proposals obtained for earthwork testing, concrete testing, auger logs, and weld
inspections.
Finding:
`" According to the Agreement section 2.4 Construction Phase, sub section (4) Solicitation of Bids
(#2) "Contracts exceeding Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) but not exceeding Two
Hundred Thousand Dollars may be entered into by the Construction Manager with the firm who is
` qualified and submits the most responsive proposal. The Construction Manager shall request at
least three (3) firms to submit sealed written proposals based on drawings and/or specifications.
The written proposals shall all be received at the location, date and time named by the Construction
Manager in his request for proposal. A tabulation of the results shall be furnished to the County and
Architect -Engineer upon request." Exhibit A — Agreement.
` Based upon the information reviewed, there was no documentation provided that MGI attempted to
obtain proposals for earthwork testing, concrete testing, auger logs, and weld inspections work.
Concrete Analysis and Testing Labs is the company doing the work for an amount of $84,501.
r
MGI failed to follow the above mentioned section of the Agreement.
Recommendation(s):
1. The BOCC should ensure that there are policies and procedures in place to monitor the CMR's
compliance with the Agreement.
2. The BOCC should determine the potential impact to the project resulting from MGI awarding
the earthwork testing, concrete testing, auger logs, and weld inspections work without obtaining
proposals.
r.
MGI Response(s):
The Morganti Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VIL Auditee
Ift Responses.
+r County Administrator Response(sl:
The County concurs.
51
No
Sub -Contractor Bids
34. Eight (8) of the thirteen (13) sampled sub -contractors had commenced work prior to having an
executed agreement in place.
Finding:
Thirteen (13) of the twenty (20) sub -contractor bid packets that were sampled had executed
contracts in place. Seven (7) sub -contractor bid packets did not have executed agreements in place
prior to the completion of the audit.
r.
Based upon the information reviewed, eight (8) of the thirteen (13) sub -contractors had commenced
work prior to having an executed agreement in place. This is to sixty-two percent (62%) of the sub-
contractors not having a written subcontract agreement with MGI in place prior to working on the
Key West International Airport — New Terminal Building and Renovation Project.
r. Sub -contractor Description of work Agreement
amount
Superior Mechanical Systems, Inc 15C — HVAC $2,377,000
Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc. 2A - Demo site
2C — site earthwork/ Development
2G — site Utilities — Water 1,065,024
r. Apex Concrete Construction Corp. 3B — Cast in Place Concrete
(and Pre -Stressed Joint Installation) 4,650,000
JLU Enterprises Corp.
Concepts Plus Casework
American Pile Cutting, Inc
Concrete Analysis & Testing Labs
No
American Foundation Corp
U&
Huger Cast Pile Installation
6B — Interior Architectural Wood work
2L: Cut piles & Excavate
D.II.Earthwork tests & soil proctors.
- Cast in Place Concrete testing.
- Auger Cast Logs.
- Weld Inspections.
Auger Cast Pile Test Program.
(Install 11 piles 30 feet in depth) 40,000
Total $8,846,901
252,633
357,261
20,482
84,501
52
r
Recommendation(s):
r
1. The BOCC should ensure that there are policies and procedures in place to monitor the CMR's
compliance with the Agreement.
2. The BOCC should determine the potential impact to the project of sub -contractors commencing
work prior to having an executed agreement.
MGI Response(s):
The Morgand Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VII. Auditee
Responses.
County Administrator Response(s):
r. The County concurs. The County's contractual relationship is with MGI. MGI authorized work to
proceed without an agreement at MGI's risk. The County will not make payment for any
subcontract work without an executed agreement in place.
r
as
IM
53
r
Sub -Contractor Bids
35. Some of MGI's sub -contractors are sub -contracting out work at the Key West International
Airport.
am Finding:
According to the MGI Subcontract Agreement, Section 16, Assignment: "Subcontractor shall not
sub -subcontract the work of this Subcontract and shall not assign or transfer this subcontract or
funds due hereunder, without the prior written consent of contractor & subcontractor's surety."
Exhibit AP — MGI - Sub -Contractor Agreement.
According to the GMP, MGI lists "Toppino/Gary Plumbing" as the sub -contractors that will be
performing the 2G — Site utilities water for $394,933. Exhibit AQ - GMP 2G. MGI has failed to
" provide any information or written consent authorizing Toppino to use the sub -subcontractor
Gary's Plumbing.
as Based on information reviewed by the auditors, the following sub -contractors are using sub -
subcontractors to perform work under their agreements.
MGI failed to provide any information or written consent authorizing Florida Keys Electric to use
the sub -subcontractor IFFS in work for TSA security items.
MGI failed to provide any information or written consent authorizing Apex Concrete Construction
Corp. to use the sub -subcontractor Bella Construction in lightweight concrete work.
MGI also failed to provide any information or written consent authorizing Apex Concrete
Construction Corp. to use the sub -subcontractor Bill Sweeney in lightweight concrete work. On
April 16, 2008, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners waived purchasing procedures
to reassign auger piling work to Apex Concrete Construction Corp. using Bill Sweeney as a
subcontractor for the Key West International Airport Project.
In all of the above instances MGI failed to provide information or written consent from their surety,
The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, as required by the Agreement.
Recommendation(s):
1. MGI and sub -contractors should follow the provisions of the MGI Subcontract Agreement or
.. modify them accordingly.
2. The BOCC should determine the potential impact to the project resulting from MGI and sub -
so contractors contracting out work to other sub -contractors.
Im
54
rr
Ift
MGI Response(s):
.. The Morganti Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VII. Auditee
Responses.
County Administrator Response(s):
No The County concurs however under the County's contract with MGI, MGI's sub -contractors are
permitted to sub sub -contract their work. Under the terms of the contract the County has with
MGI, MGI is required to enter in to a written agreement with its subs that binds the subs to MGI by
the terms of the contract documents and requires the sub to assume all of the obligations and
` responsibilities towards MGI as MGI has towards the County. Similarly, a sub -sub is required to
enter in to an agreement binding the sub -sub in the same fashion. MGI has a conformed
subcontract in place, approved by the FAA, to meet the requirements of the MGI's contract with
the County. It is a provision in the conformed sub -contract that is at issue here however that
provision is not a requirement of the County's contract with MGI and the County is not a party to
any of the sub -contracts. In fact, the County's contract with MGI specifically states that nothing
contained in the contract documents creates any contractual relation between the County and any
subcontractor.
im
0
No
L
No
WM
55
so
on
ow
No
Sub -Contractor Bids
36. MGI did not have all of the required sub -contractors provide the mandatory performance, labor
and material payment bonds.
Finding:
According to the Agreement, Section 5.3.2 Subcontract Requirements, sub section (1), "On all
subcontracts where the bid exceeds One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) the Construction
Manager may require subcontractors to provide a one hundred (100) percent performance bond and
a one hundred (100) percent labor and material payment bond from a surety company authorized to
do business in the State of Florida by the Department of Insurance. If the Construction Manager
wishes to award subcontracts to Subcontractors unable to supply this bonding, he may request
special authorization to do so. Upon providing justifiable background information, such
authorization shall not be withheld unreasonably and shall be in writing." Exhibit A — Agreement.
The auditor sampled twenty (20) bid packets. Ten (10) of the twenty (20) sampled had agreements
for work in excess of $100,000. Five (5) of these ten (10) sub -contractors were required by the MGI
sub -contractor agreement to furnish at their expense the above -mentioned bonds. The other five
(5) sub -contractors were excluded from having to provide this bonding coverage by MGI. Exhibit
AR — Require Bond Coverage.
Based upon the information reviewed from MGI, one (1) sub -contractor provided the bonding
coverage and the other four (4) sub -contractors listed below did not.
Sub -contractor
Superior Mechanical
Trinity Fabricators, Inc
JLU Enterprises Corp
G&S Airport Conveyor
Description of work
15C — HVAC
5A — Steel
Auger Cast Pile Installation
14B — Baggage Handling Systems
Sub -contractors required to provide bond coverage's:
Agreement
Amount
$2,377,000
1,904,000
252,633
928,000
$5,461,633
56
M
Recommendation(s):
No 1. The BOCC should ensure that there are policies and procedures in place to monitor the CMR's
compliance with the Agreement.
` 2. There should be a system in place to verify that sub -contractors have the contractually required
bond coverage.
MGI Response(s):
The Morganti Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VII. Auditee
rr
Responses.
County Administrator Response(s):
The County concurs. However the requirement is not a mandatory requirement. Under the language
MGI "may require a subcontractor to provide a performance, labor and material bond". In addition,
MGI can request that the bonding requirement be waived and the County's approval of such a
request can not be unreasonably withheld. Lastly, since MGI has to fully bond the project, this is a
redundant requirement that raises the cost to the County because the costs of the bonds are a
reimbursable expense.
ON
57
..
r.
on
Sub -Contractor Bids
a. 37. MGI did not follow the contractually required bonding process when excluding sub -contractor
bond coverage.
Finding:
According to the Agreement, Section 5.3.2 Subcontract Requirements, sub section (1), "On all
" subcontracts where the bid exceeds One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) the Construction
Manager may require subcontractors to provide a one hundred (100) percent performance bond and
a one hundred (100) percent labor and material payment bond from a surety company authorized to
do business in the State of Florida by the Department of Insurance. If the Construction Manager
wishes to award subcontracts to subcontractors unable to supply this bonding, he may request
special authorization to do so. Upon providing justifiable background information, such
` authorization shall not be withheld unreasonably and shall be in writing." Exhibit A — Agreement.
The auditor sampled a total of twenty (20) bid packets. Ten (10) of the twenty (20) bid packets
" sampled had agreements for work in exceeding $100,000. Five (5) of the ten (10) sub -contractors
listed below were excluded from providing the required bond coverage. Exhibit AS — Bond
Exclusions.
There was no evidence of MGI requesting special authorization from the County for MGI to
exclude the below listed sub -contractors from the bonding requirements as required by the
on Agreement.
No Sub -Contractor
Interior Details
Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc.
r.
Apex Concrete Construction
Corp.
Capital Waterproofing
Terry L. Tidwell Plumbing, Inc.
Description of Work
9A - Interior Drywall Package -wall
systems.
2A - Demo site
+ 2C - site earthwork/ Development
+ 2G - site Utilities — Water
3B - Cast in Place Concrete
7A - Caulking and sealants
15A - Plumbing
Sub -contractors excluded from bond coverage:
Agreement
Amount
$1,528,317
1,065,024
4,650,000
324,600
569,040
$8,136,981
58
r.
Recommendation(s):
1. The BOCC should ensure that there are policies and procedures in place to monitor the CMR's
compliance with the agreement.
�. 2. There should be a system in place to verify that sub -contractors have the contractually required
bond coverage.
■. 3. The BOCC should determine the potential impact to the project when excluding sub -contractor
bond coverage.
MGI Response(s):
no The Morganti Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VII. Auditee
Responses.
0
r.
r�
ift
..
w.
County Administrator Response(s):
The County concurs. The County would again repeat its response to item 36 here.
59
0
Disadvantage Business Enterprise
38. MGI did not provide the Proposed Disadvantage Business Enterprise (DBE) Utilization Form
and DBE Identification Form in a timely manner.
No
Finding:
According to the Agreement section 2.1.2 Narrative Reporting System, sub section (2) (i) "NO later
°1 than 7 days prior to the Preconstruction Conference, The Construction Manager shall complete and
submit the following forms; Proposed DBE Utilization, attached as Exhibit M, Final Report —
Utilization of DBE's attached as Exhibit N, and DBE Identification Form attached as Exhibit P."
an Exhibit A — Agreement.
On May 3, 2006, Peter Horton notified MGI by correspondence that the Proposed DBE Utilization
""" Form was due no later than May 15, 2006. Exhibit A•I• - 05/03/06 Letter to NIGI by Peter Horton.
The Proposed DBE Utilization Form and DBE Identification Form were received by Montgomery
Consulting Group on April 20, 2007. Exhibit AU - 04/20/2007 DBE Transmittal from MGI to
as Montgomery Consulting.
we Recommendation(s):
1. The BOCC should ensure that there are policies and procedures in place to monitor that
Montgomery Consulting Group is properly monitoring the CMR's compliance with the Agreement.
V.
2. The BOCC should determine the potential impact to the project resulting from MGI not
providing a DBE Utilization Form and DBE Identification Form in a timely manner.
in
MGI Response(s):
The Morganti Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VII. Auditee
Responses.
..
County Administrator Response(a)
The County concurs however the deficiency has since been corrected.
No
Auditor's Comment:
r. This finding refers to the timeliness of the submission of this project document.
an
ow
60
r—
am
Disadvantage Business Enterprise
to 39. MGI did not properly complete the Proposed DBE Utilization Form for four (4) DBE Firms
and the DBE Identification Form for Florida Keys Electric, Inc.
Finding:
According to the Agreement section 2.1.2 Narrative Reporting System, sub section (2) (i) "NO later
than 7 days prior to the Preconstruction Conference, The Construction Manager shall complete and
submit the following forms; Proposed DBE Utilization, attached as Exhibit M, Final Report —
Utilization of DBE's attached as Exhibit N, and DBE Identification Form attached as Exhibit P."
r.
Exhibit A — Agreement.
The Proposed DBE Utilization Form received by Montgomery Consulting Group on the line
am "ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PROJECT:" contains incorrect calculations for the
four DBE Firms listed on the form. Exhibit AN' - DBI Utilization Form.
The DBE Identification Form for Florida Keys Electric, Inc. received by Montgomery Consulting
Group has several items that were left incomplete. The "ESTIMATED PARTICIPATION BY
THIS DBE CONTRACTOR AT PRECONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE: $8,700." does not
correspond with the "ESTIMATED PARTICIPATION $5,538,650." amount listed for this
contractor on the Proposed DBE Identification Form for Florida Keys Electric, Inc. The
"ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PROJECT FOR THIS DBE CONTRACTOR:
.0003%" is an incorrect calculation. Exhibit AW - DBF: Identification Form.
Recommendation(s):
1. The BOCC should ensure that there are policies and procedures in place to monitor that
Montgomery Consulting Group is properly monitoring the CMR's compliance with the Agreement.
2. The BOCC should determine the potential impact to the pro)ect resulting from MGI not
properly completing DBE Utilization Forms and a DBE Identification Form.
No
MGI Response(s):
No The Morganti Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VII. Auditee
Responses.
..
County Administrator Response(s):
The County concurs.
.r
0
No
..
61
77
a.
Disadvantage Business Enterprise
40. MGI did not complete the DBE Identification Form for three (3) of the sub -contractors on the
Proposed DBE Utilization Form.
Finding:
According to the Agreement section 2.1.2 Narrative Reporting System, sub section (2) (i) "NO later
than 7 days prior to the Preconstruction Conference, The Construction Manager shall complete and
submit the following forms; Proposed DBE Utilization, attached as Exhibit M, Final Report —
"" Utilization of DBE's attached as Exhibit N, and DBE Identification Form attached as Exhibit P."
Exhibit A — Agreement.
an The Proposed DBE Utilization Form and DBE Identification Form were received by Montgomery
Consulting Group on April 20, 2007. The Proposed DBE Utilization Form listed four (4) DBE
firms, but there was only one DBE Identification Form included for Florida Keys Electric, Inc.
Wo Exhibit AV - DBE Utilization Form.
The three (3) sub -contractors that did not have a completed DBE Identification Form were GO
Fence, Inc., GO Fence Landscaping, and Superior Mechanical.
No Recommendation(s):
1. The BOCC should ensure that there are policies and procedures in place to monitor that
Montgomery Consulting Group is properly monitoring the CMR's compliance with the Agreement.
2. The BOCC should determine the potential impact to the project resulting from MGI not
completing DBE Identification Forms.
MGI Response(s):
+� The Morganti Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VII. Auditee
Responses.
Wo
County Administrator Response(s):
The County concurs.
Im
No
VW
62
a.
Disadvantage Business Enterprise
41. MGI did not provide the DBE Payment Certification Form for Florida Keys Electric, Inc. and
GO Fence, Inc. in a timely manner.
Finding:
According to the Agreement section 2.1.2 Narrative Reporting System, sub section (2) (h) "The
am DBE Expenditure Report form, attached to this Agreement as Exhibit L and the DBE Payment
Certification form, attached to this agreement as Exhibit L, are to be completed and submitted each
month with each pay request." Exhibit A — Agreement.
According the MGI's PMIS #8 for June 2006, Florida Keys Electric, Inc., a DBE, began working
on -site at the airport at this time. Exhibit AZ — PMIS #8, Construction Progress Report.
The DBE Payment Certification Form itself states "1) PAGE 1 OF FORM DUE BY THE 10111
OF EACH MONTH AFTER DBE STARTS WORK WHETHER PAYMENT IS MADE BY
" PRIME CONTRACTOR OR NOT" Exhibit AY — GO Fence DBE Payment Certification.
The DBE Payment Certification Form for Florida Keys Electric, Inc. should have been submitted in
Im July 2006. The form for Florida Keys Electric, Inc. was completed in January 2007, and received by
Montgomery Consulting Group on April 2007. Exhibit AZ — FL Keys DBE Payment Certification.
Vft According the MGI's PMIS #8 for June 2006, Go Fence, Inc., a DBE, began working on -site at the
airport at this time. Exhibit AX — PMIS #8, Construction Progress Report.
fft The DBE Payment Certification Form for Go Fence, Inc. should have been submitted in July 2006.
The form for GO Fence, Inc. was completed and received by Montgomery Consulting Group on
November 2007. Exhibit AY — GO Fence DBE Payment Certification.
Recommendation(s):
No 1. The BOCC should ensure that there are policies and procedures in place to monitor that
Montgomery Consulting Group is properly monitoring the CMR's compliance with the agreement.
an 2. The BOCC should determine the potential impact to the project resulting from MGI not
providing DBE Payment Certification Forms in a timely manner.
MGI Resnonse(s):
The Morgand Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VII. Auditee
■. Responses.
County Administrator Response(s):
.w The County concurs.
63
Disadvantage Business Enterprise
No 42. The DBE Expenditure Report for Florida Keys Electric, Inc. contains errors/misstatements.
Finding:
an
According to the Agreement section 2.1.2 Narrative Reporting System, sub section (2) (h) "The
DBE Expenditure Report form, attached to this Agreement as Exhibit L and the DBE Payment
r. Certification form, attached to this agreement as Exhibit L, are to be completed and submitted each
month with each pay request." Exhibit A — Agreement.
The DBE Expenditure Form for Florida Keys Electric, Inc. was received by Montgomery
Consulting Group on April 20, 2007. The "TOTAL ESTIMATED DBE CONTRACT
PARTICIPATION FOR `PHIS DBE CONTRACTOR: $10,633." does not correspond with the
"ESTIMATED PARTICIPATION $5,538,650." amount listed for this contractor on the Proposed
DBE Identification Form for Florida Keys Electric, Inc. The "ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF
TOTAL PROJECT FOR THIS DBE CONTRACTOR: .0005%" is an incorrect calculation.
` Exhibit AAA — FL Keys Expenditure Form.
Recommendation(s):
1. The BOCC should ensure that there are policies and procedures in place to monitor that
Montgomery Consulting Group is properly monitoring the CMR's compliance with the Agreement.
2. The BOCC should determine the potential impact to the project resulting from MGI not
properly completing a DBE Expenditure Report.
No
MGI Response(s):
""' The Morganti Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VII. Auditee
Responses.
Count Administrator Response(s):
The County concurs.
ON With regards to audit items 38 — 42 the County would point out that the contract between MGI and
the County has a DBE goal of 15%. MGI will either have to provide documentary proof that MGI
awarded 15% of the work to DBE certified contractors or MGI will have to provide documentary
proof of a good faith effort to obtain the 15% goal prior to grant closeout. The County would also
point out that MGI has been working to qualify subcontractors that it identified as being eligible for
certification and 2 of the subcontractors named in the audit, Go Fence, Inc. and Go Fence
Landscaping have now been certified as a DBE.
am
64
r
Project Manual
43. MGI did not include copies of any subcontracts in the project manual.
" Finding:
According to the agreement Section 5.5 Subcontracts to be provided, "The Construction Manager
shall include a copy of each subcontract, including the general supplementary conditions, in the
project manual." Exhibit A — Agreement.
The project manual that the auditor received did not include copies of any subcontracts.
MGI has failed to provide any information to the auditor that explains why they were not included.
Recommendation(s):
1. The BOCC should ensure that there are policies and procedures in place to monitor CMR's
compliance with the Agreement.
MGI Response(s):
The Morganti Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VII. Auditee
Responses.
County Administrator ResPonse(s):
The County concurs however subcontracts have been provided to the County as a separate
document.
r
M
..
c
65
I"
PMIS Reporting
"a 44. MGI did not include the required construction contingency in the monthly- PMIS reports.
Finding:
According to the Agreement section 7.4 "At the time of submission of a Guaranteed Maximum
Price, the Construction Manager will verify the time schedule for activities and work which were
am adopted by the Construction Team and used to determine the Construction Manager's cost of work.
In addition to the cost of work, a GMP will include an agreed upon sum as the construction
contingency which is included for the purpose of defraying the expenses due to unforeseen
go circumstances relating to construction. The Construction Manager will be required to furnish
documentation evidencing expenditures charged to this contingency prior to the release of funds by
the County. Documentation for use of the Contingency shall be determined by the Construction
an Team, included in the Project Manual and displayed monthly in the PMIS. The Architect -Engineer
shall verify the actual costs. If bids are received below the applicable line items in the GMP, the
surplus will be added to the contingency." Exhibit A — Agreement.
to
MGI prepared PMIS reports #1 (November 2005) through #19 (May 2007) do not contain a
construction contingency.
Recommendation(s):
no 1. The BOCC should ensure that there are policies and procedures in place to monitor the CMR's
compliance with the agreement.
to 2. County Management should have procedures in place to monitor PMIS reporting.
MGI Response(s):
The Morganti Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VII. Auditee
Responses.
County Administrator Response(s):
to The County concurs however the County directed MGI to set a contingency amount of $0 since the
project exceeded the desired GMP and contained cost cutting items. As such, there was no
contingency to include in the PMIS reports.
go
too
0
66
71
PMIS Reporting
No 45. MGI did not provide the monthly PMIS reports in a timely manner.
Finding:
According to the agreement section 2.1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM
MIS 2.1.1 General: (2) "The reports, documents, and data to be provided shall represent an
accurate assessment of the current status of the Project and of the work remaining to be
` accomplished and it shall provide a sound basis for identif ,ing variances and problems and for
making management decisions. It shall be prepared and furnished to the County and the Architect -
Engineer monthly and shall accompany each pay request." Flhibit — Agreement.
Eighteen (18) of the Nineteen (19) PMIS Reports received by the County were not timely. On
average, the County received the monthly PMIS reports 144 days after the last day of the month for
the PMIS period covered. Exhibit aAB — PMIS received dates.
am
r.
..
PMIS
#
PMIS
Report:
Last day of
month
County
Received
report
days
after
last
day of
month
#1
11/30/2005
9/15/2006
289
#2
12/30/2005
9/29/2006
273
#3
1/31/2006
10/13/2006
255
#4
2/28/2006
10/13/2006
227
#5
3/31/2006
10/13/2006
196
#6
4/30/2006
10/19/2006
172
#7
5/31/2006
10/27/2006
149
#8
6/30/2006
10/27/2006
119
#9
7/31/2006
10/27/2006
88
#10
8/31/2006
11/09/2006
70
PMIS
County
days
PMIS
Report:
Received
after
#
Last day of
last
month
report
day of
month
#11
9/30/2006
11/09/2006
40
#12
10/31/2006
11/09/2006
9
#13
11/30/2006
6/29/2007
211
#14
1 12/31/2006
6/27/2007
178
#15
1/31/2007
6/30/2007
150
#16
2/28/2007
6/30/2007
122
#17
3/31/2007
6/30/2007
91
#18
4/30/2007
6/30/2007
61
#19
5/31/2007
7/02/2007
32
Average # of days for county to
144
receive monthly PMIS reports
Recommendation(s):
1. The BOCC should ensure that there are policies and procedures in place to monitor the CMR's
compliance with the Agreement.
2. County Management should have procedures in place to monitor PMIS reporting.
MGI Response(s):
No The Morganti Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VII. Auditee
Responses.
County Administrator Response(sl:
The County concurs.
..
67
ir.
a
PMIS Reporting
46. MGI did not provide the Cost Status Report with PMIS Reports numbered one (# 1) through
thirteen (413).
..
Finding:
No According to the Agreement section 2.1.5 Project Accounting Subsystem (a) Cost Status Report —
"showing the budget, estimate, and base commitment (awarded contracts and purchase orders) for
any given contract or budget line item. It shall show approved change orders for each contract
which when added to the base commitment will become the total commitment. Pending change
orders will also be shown to produce the total estimated probable cost to complete the work."
r.
Exhibit k —Agreement.
MGI's first thirteen (13) PMIS Reports did not contain the Cost Status Report which gives a
breakdown of the project.
Recommendation(s):
o` 1. The BOCC should ensure that there are policies and procedures in place to monitor the CMR's
compliance with the Agreement.
2. County Management should have procedures in place to monitor PMIS reporting.
MGI Response(s):
The Morganti Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VIL Auditee
Responses.
Coun1y Administrator Response(a)-
The County concurs.
rr
so
M
OW
68
PMIS Reporting
47. MGI did not provide PHIS reports with the first six (6) pay requests.
Finding:
According to the Agreement section 2.1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM
MIS 2.1.1 General: (2) "The reports, documents, and data to be provided shall represent an
accurate assessment of the current status of the Project and of the work remaining to be
accomplished and it shall provide a sound basis for identifying variances and problems and for
making management decisions. It shall be prepared and furnished to the County and the Architect -
Engineer monthly and shall accompany each pay request." Exhibit .1— Agreement.
MGI's first six (6) pay requests did not contain PMIS Reports as required by the agreement.
r.
Recommendation(s):
1. The BOCC should ensure that there are policies and procedures in place to monitor the CMR's
compliance with the agreement.
2. County Management should have procedures in place to monitor PMIS reporting.
MGI Response(s):
The Morganti Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VIL Auditee
Responses.
County Administrator Response(s):
The County concurs.
r-7
77
No
am
..
69
on
Insurance
r` 48. MGI's Certificate of Liability Insurance is incomplete.
Finding:
According to the Agreement section 13.2 Construction Manager's Insurance, (9) Certificate of
Insurance - "The County shall be furnished proof of coverage of insurance as follows: Certificate of
Insurance form will be furnished to the County along with the Contract Documents. This
Certificate shall be dated and show: (a) The name of the insured Construction Manager, the specific
job by name and job number, the name of the insurer, the number of the policy, its effective date,
and its termination date." Exhibit A — Agreement.
The Certificate of Liability Insurance does not state the specific job by name and job number.
Exhibit AAC — Certificate of Liability Insurance.
Recommendation(s):
1. The BOCC should ensure that the Certificate of Insurance is corrected to reflect the proper job
name and number.
MGI Response(s):
The Morganti Group, Inc. responses and comments to the audit are located in Section VII. Auditee
Responses.
County Administrator Response(sl:
MGI is an international company and their insurance covers all the projects that they are working
" on. As such they do not have individual insurance policies for each project. The County is unaware
of any concerns regarding the adequacy or completeness of MGI's insurance on this project.
0
M
up
..
n
70
o