08/24/1998 Audit -
AUDIT REPORT OF MONROE COUNTY
MANAGEMENT AND PROCUREMENT PROCESS
FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL PROJECTS
AUGUST 24, 1998
r at ,'
ppUNTy 4'.,
� a R
Cj
;,•i111� ' � r
is •
410ECOUNIV.E
Prepared by:
Internal Audit Department
Clerk of the Circuit Court
Danny L. Kolhage, Clerk •
Monroe County, Florida
_
GOUNTfc4=@.
si mr
j O• '�
r #
P�of /J)� 'o '
1 of•. ='= :oQ M
�'':i F COUNTY.F
CL -
;Danny IL. 1aoitjage
BRANCH OFFICE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT BRANCH OFFICE
3117 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY MONROE COUNTY 88820 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY
MARATHON,FLORIDA 33050 500 WHITEHEAD STREET PLANTATION KEY,FLORIDA 33070
TEL.(305)289-6027 KEY WEST,FLORIDA 33040 TEL.(305)852-7145
FAX(305)289-1745 TEL.(305)292-3550 FAX(305)852-7146
FAX(305)295-3660
August 24, 1998
The Honorable Danny L. Kolhage
Clerk of the Circuit Court
Re: Audit of the Monroe County Management and Procurement Process for Certain Capital
Projects
Dear Mr. Kolhage:
The Clerk's Internal Audit Department has completed the audit of the Monroe County
Management and Procurement Process for Certain Capital Projects. The purpose of the audit
was to determine compliance with state and local law and ordinances, that policies and
procedures properly document the system, whether the policies and procedures were followed,
and whether operations are efficient and effective.
We would like to thank the Purchasing Department and Construction Management for their
cooperation and time while conducting the audit.
Our audit revealed that the County should address management oversight issues such as
segregation of duties, approval process on addenda, adherence to procurement policies, vendor
supplied bid specifications, and ramifications of emergency change orders. The effectiveness
of internal controls can be enhanced greatly by managerial monitoring.
To control costs and avoid wasteful spending, a well-designed procurement function must
include steps to solicit prices, conduct competitive bidding, and evaluate vendor qualifications.
Laws applicable to government procurement emphasize competitive bidding not only because it
is likely to yield the best price but because it gives all potential vendors an equal opportunity to
bid.
The accompanying audit report is provided for your information. Additional copies of the
report will be provided upon your request.
Sincerely,)AAMc41-4na-
Sandra L. Mathena, CPA
Director of Internal Audit
cc: Board of County Administrators (5)
James Roberts, County Administrator
James Hendrick, County Attorney
Dent Pierce, Division Director Public Works
John Carter, Senior Director of the Office of Management and Budget
Dave Koppel, County Engineer
Sandee Carlile, Clerk's Finance Director
Maurva Greene, External Auditor
AUDIT REPORT OF MONROE COUNTY
MANAGEMENT AND PROCUREMENT PROCESS
FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL PROJECTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES 1
H. METHODOLOGY 1
III. BACKGROUND 3
IV. CONCLUSIONS 6
V. AUDIT FINDINGS
A.Purchasing Section Procedures
1. Controls over Sealed Bids 9
2. Policy Restricting Potential Bidders from Writing Specifications 10
3. Checking the Convicted Vendor List 11
4. Documentation of Bid Bonds 12
5. Distribution of Bid Addenda 13
B.Upper Keys Roof Replacements
1. Bid Addenda Procedures 14
2. Low Bid Withdrawn after Opening 15
C.Truman School Renovation Project - Bid Addenda
1. Bid Addenda not Approved by County Management 16
2. Bid Addendum #4 Contains an Allowance for Unforeseen Conditions 17
D.Truman School Renovation Project - Audiovisual System
1. Design/Steering of the Bid Proposal 18
2. Method of Awarding the Contract 20
3. Equipment and Enhancements not Specified on Change Order #3 22
4. Change Order #3 Included $10,535 for Equipment Not Related to
the Project 23
I '
AUDIT REPORT OF MONROE COUNTY
MANAGEMENT AND PROCUREMENT PROCESS
FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL PROJECTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
5. Construction Changes Paid on Extraneous Purchase Order 24
6. Equipment Not Classified Correctly on Financial Statements 25
E. Truman School Renovation Project - Requests for Payments
1. Requests for Payments #16 and #17 Not Certified by Architect 26
2. Request for Payment Increased by the Construction Manager 27
F. Outside Employment of a Monroe County Construction Inspector
1. Outside Employment Contrary to County Policy 28
VI. EXHIBITS
A. Truman School Renovation Allowance A
B. MAVCO Bid Proposal Correspondence B
C. Monroe County Procurement Policies Level "D" C
D. Miami Audio-Visual Co. (MAVCO) Analysis of Project D
E. Truman School Renovation Project Change Order #3 E
F. MAVCO Pro forma Invoice F
G. Purchases not Related to the Project G
H. Gonzalez Architects Correspondence H
I. Application for Payment #17 I
J. Stormwater Improvements PSA Agreement J
VII. AUDITEE RESPONSES
AUDIT REPORT OF MONROE COUNTY
MANAGEMENT AND PROCUREMENT PROCESS
FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL PROJECTS
I. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES
A. At the request of the Monroe County Clerk of the Circuit Court, the Internal Audit
Department has completed an audit of the management and procurement process for
certain Monroe County Capital Projects.
B. The audit objectives were to determine compliance with state and local law and
ordinances, that policies and procedures properly document the system, whether the
policies and procedures were followed, and whether operations are efficient and
effective.
II. METHODOLOGY
A. The following personnel were interviewed during the audit to obtain information
about the procurement process for Monroe County Capital Projects:
1. The County Administrator
2. The Director of Public Works
3. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget/Purchasing Director
4. The County Engineer
5. The Construction Inspector
6. The Purchasing Section Staff
7. The Architect of the Truman School Renovation Project
8. The Director Of Community Services
9. Various Vendors
B. The Internal Audit Department examined the following documents:
1. Florida Statutes related to procurement
2. Florida Statutes related to employee conflicts of interest
3. Monroe County Procurement Policies
4. Upper Keys Roofing contract and related bidding documents
5. Truman School Renovation Project contract and related bidding documents
6. Miami-Audio Visual Company's (MAVCO) contract and related bidding
documents
7. Truman School Renovation Project Change Orders
8. Monroe County Financial Statements
i
{_j
9. Plantation Key Detention Facility Addition
C. The Internal Audit Department reviewed minutes of the Board of County
Commissioners for authorization of capital projects and their payments.
D. Internal Audit staff reviewed a sample of contracts awarded and amendments for
compliance with laws and regulations applicable to Monroe County construction
projects, including:
1. Contracts awarded in accordance with legal requirements;
2. Contractors having given appropriate bonds;
3. Contract amendments and change orders having been approved.
E. Internal Auditors vouched payments to contractors to approved progress billings,
and compared recorded costs to the authorized contract.
F. Internal Auditors traced the transfer of construction completed during the audit
period to the general fixed assets group of accounts.
2
M. BACKGROUND
A. Purchasing Section of the Office of Management and Budget
L ' Monroe County has a Procurement Policy Office, consisting of the Board of County
Commissioners, which decides all matters of policy. The County Administrator is the
Chief Procurement Officer. Purchasing, a Department within the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Procurement Policies revised January,
1995, was changed to a Section within OMB by the Monroe County Purchasing
Policy adopted by the Board in March, 1998. The Director of OMB is the head of the
Purchasing Section, and is also referred to as the Purchasing Director.
Currently, the Purchasing Section staff has four members. In fiscal year 1997,
Purchasing presided over 78 sealed bid openings, issued 9,135 purchase orders,
reviewed 235 contracts, and filled 1,221 stock orders worth $65,662.
B. Construction Management Section of the Engineering Department
Construction Management was organized approximately three years ago. Before
Construction Management was created Monroe County spent more than $1 million
per year on external construction managers. The Engineering Department proposed
that it could manage the numerous construction projects more economically in-house,
therefore, the Construction Management section of Engineering was implemented.
Today, Construction Management consists of six employees: one construction
manager, a construction superintendent, two construction inspectors, an accounting
specialist, and a staff assistant II. The staff oversees the planning, funding, bidding,
permitting, implementation, coordination, and construction of 38 active capital
projects.
C. The Bid Process
Monroe County Purchasing Policy mandates competitive sealed bids for purchases
estimated to exceed $25,000. The department requesting the purchase specifies what
it wants in particular. OMB advertises a call for bids, which describes the planned
purchase in general, states where bid instructions and specifications may be obtained,
and notes the time and place of the bid opening. The Purchasing Section also solicits
bids from prospects on bidders' lists. Sealed bids are delivered to the OMB Director.
According to the INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS, they may be submitted or
withdrawn at any time up to their opening. Prospective bidders are notified of any
changes by an addendum to bid specifications.
Bids are usually opened at the OMB Director's office, at the time indicated in the call
for bids. The OMB Director keeps a record of bid openings, which are open to the
public. The County Administrator, County Attorney, requesting Division Director,
and the OMB Director, or their designees, comprise the committee authorized to open
3
�J
sealed bids. After opening, the requesting department reviews the bids and attaches a
briefing sheet to the recommended bid. The recommended bid then must be approved
by the County Administrator, who submits it to the Board of County Commissioners
for award. The Board may accept the recommended bid, or may reject any and all
bids.
D. Capital Projects
Truman School Renovation:
On December 20, 1995, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners granted
approval and authorized execution of a contract with Hewett-Kier Construction, Inc.
in the amount of $3,648,000 for a major renovation of the old Truman School on
Truman Avenue in Key West. The facility now houses a new meeting room for the
Board •of County Commissioners and other public entities including television
capabilities, the County's Veterans Affairs Department, the Information Systems
Department, and the Monroe County Tax Collector's Office.
Progress payments to the general contractor are based on the contractor's schedule of
values, and his applications for payment. The schedule of values allocates the contract
price to the various portions of the work. Applications for payment are approved by
the architect, who submits certificates for payment to Monroe County, which then
pays the contractor for the work done to that point.
-A Change Order authorizes a change in work, in contract sum, in contract length, or
a combination of these. It is a signed, written order to the contractor, showing the
recommendation of the Construction Manager, the approval of the Architect, and the
authorization of the Owner.
On March 19, 1997, the BOCC granted approval and authorized execution of Change
Order #1 in the amount of $21,718. The purpose of this change order was for the
Georgia Street parking revisions.
On May 20, 1997 the BOCC granted approval and authorized execution of Change
Order #2 for $175,420. The purpose of this change order was for audiovisual
teleconferencing equipment. The audiovisual installation has cameras, ceiling
monitors, and a large wall mounted screen. Teleconferencing is available for Key
West, Marathon, ,Tallahassee and other stations. Miami Audio Visual (MAVCO)
designed the bid specifications for the turnkey audiovisual installation using specific
brand names of equipment and subsequently was awarded the work by Monroe
County as a subcontractor of Hewett-Kier.
On July 16, 1997 the BOCC granted approval and authorized execution of Change
Order #3 for $56,600. The purpose of this change order was for electrical work,
furniture, and signage needed to complete the renovation. Change Order #3 also
extended the completion date by 30 days.
4
Upper Keys Roof Replacements:
The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners called for bids to replace the
roofs of the Plantation Key Courthouse, Key Largo Library, and the Ellis Building, all
located in the Upper Keys. Monroe County sought to remove existing roofing and to
install a three-ply modified bitumen roof complete with tapered insulation, flashing,
hurricane supports, and guarantee. The NOTICE OF CALLING FOR BIDS asked for
base bids to include the total price for all three buildings. Bid opening was originally set
for March 18, 1997, then rescheduled by Addendum #1 (issued March 12) to April 8,
1997. The amounts bid on this project ranged from $135,600 to $248,646. The second
lowest bidder, Laumar South, Inc., was awarded the contract for $159,200. Pritts, Inc.
the original low bidder of$135,600 withdrew their bid after the bid opening due to an
error in the bid.
•
IV. CONCLUSIONS
A. Sealed bids are not secured prior to opening, and all necessary bid documents are not
routinely retained afterwards as evidence of compliance with the Procurement
Policies. Purchasing Policy should address internal control over the sealed bid
process. Bids should be time and date stamped when received, kept locked up until
opening, and all bid documents, including the time and date stamped envelopes,
should be retained in the bid file.
B. The Construction Manager allowed a roofing contractor to prepare some of the
specifications for the Upper Keys Roof Replacement bid. Monroe County has no
policy to restrict requesting departments from involving potential bidders in the
preparation of bid specifications. Purchasing Policy should be established to limit
requesting departments' involvement with potential bidders when preparing bid
specifications.
C. Names on Purchasing's vendor lists are compared to the convicted vendor list before
bid requests are sent out. However, other bidders responding to a call for bids are not
compared to the convicted vendor list. Before any vendor is considered for award of
business, the convicted vendor list should be checked in accordance with section
287.133, Florida Statutes.
D. Monroe County's Procurement Policies required bid deposits or bid bonds for bids
estimated to be over $25,000. The Key West Courthouse Annex bid file had no
evidence of compliance with the bid deposit requirement for three of six bidders, and
the Upper Keys Roof Replacement bid file lacked copies of powers of attorney for
four out of ten bid bonds. The Purchasing Policy should call for documentation of
compliance with bid deposit requirements.
E. The new Procurement Policy requires OMB to ensure that all prospective bidders
receive addenda to bid specifications. The OMB Director has indicated that some
departments still do not route all bid addenda through OMB.
F. The Construction Manager answered questions about addenda #1 & #2, Upper Keys
Roof Replacement project, with handwritten replies that were faxed to only one
bidder. Potential bidders' questions regarding the bid documents should be answered
- through the addendum process.
G. The contractor with the lowest bid on the Upper Keys Roof Replacement project was
allowed to withdraw his bid due to an error. There was no documentation that
procedures were followed whereby a bidder may claim error in his bid after opening.
H. Five addenda to the original bid specifications of the Truman School renovation
project were approved only by the Construction Manager. The Procurement Policy
6
requires the approval of the Department Director, Division Director, and the
Purchasing Director.
I. In addendum #4 for the Truman School renovation project, dated November 21, 1995,
the Construction Manager had all bidders include a $40,000 allowance for unforeseen
conditions. Approval to spend this allowance was under the control of the
Construction Manager. In addition, credits totaling $59,164 from other changes were
applied to the allowance. This enabled the Construction Manager to approve up to
$99,164 of expenditures, $97,774 of which he actually utilized without any other
review or authorization. Allowances for unforeseen conditions should not be made a
part of the bid amount.
J. Miami Audio Visual Company (MAVCO) developed the bid specifications for the
Truman School renovation project audiovisual system using specific brand names of
equipment. MAVCO was the only bidder on the proposal, and subsequently was
awarded the work as a subcontractor of Hewett-Kier. Established procedures for bid
proposal design should be followed.
K. The review of the bidding process for the audiovisual equipment revealed that the
Procurement Policies for purchases over $25,000 were not followed. MAVCO was
awarded the contract (initial cost $175,420) using Change Order #2 through the
general contractor Hewett-Kier, rather than having a separate bid for the equipment.
The approval and management of change orders should conform to Monroe County
Procurement Policies.
L. Change Order #3 ($56,600) to the Truman School renovation project did not itemize
amounts for specific equipment or enhancements. Authorized signers should have the
necessary detailed information to decide whether to approve change orders.
M.Change Order #3 included $10,535 for equipment purchases not related to the project,
such as a computer, a laser disc player, a camcorder, and a car radio. The County
Inspector responsible for receiving the goods was transferred from the Truman School
renovation to the Key West Airport project, leaving the Construction Manager, who
ordered the goods, responsible for receiving them. Further investigation by the State
Attorney's Office revealed that some of this equipment was delivered directly to the
Construction Manager's home, and was found in his possession. Segregation of duties
should be maintained at all times. A control environment which does not separate
duties invites deception and fraud.
N.Benson Electric, a subcontractor of Hewett-Kier, was paid $950 directly for electrical
work on the audiovisual installation. No change order was either issued or approved
through established procedures. Construction changes should be accommodated
through approved change orders, not extraneous purchase orders.
7
II
O. Construction Management did not send the Clerk's Finance Department accurate costs
of equipment purchased as part of the project. Since the equipment purchases were
classified according to the sales order, ancillary costs of sales tax, profit, overhead,
bond and the pro forma invoice were classified as part of the building, rather than as
equipment. A reconciliation of equipment purchased should be completed between the
sales invoice and the application for payment.
P. The Architect would not approve requests for payment #16 and #17 on the Truman
School renovation project because he was not a party to the agreement on change
order proposals made between Construction Management and Hewett-Kier. There is
contradictory language in the contract determining who has to approve requests for
payment. County Management, the County Attorney, and the Board of County
Commissioners should develop and adopt a policy concerning the approvals of
Applications for Payment on construction projects that provides the appropriate
safeguards of the public's assets.
Q. Request for payment #17 for the Truman School renovation project was increased
$10,654.37 by Construction Management after it had been requested and notarized by
the general contractor. Applications for payment should not be altered after they have
been properly executed.
R. A Monroe County Construction Inspector was transferred from the Truman School
renovation project and reassigned to the Key West Airport project by the Construction
Manager. The Inspector was then hired by a County engineering consultant to be a
resident inspector on that same Key West Airport project. The inspector received oral
permission for this employment from County Management. Florida law and Monroe
County Personnel Policies restrict a County employee from working for a business
that is doing business with the County. County Management should seek a legal
opinion as to whether the outside employment of County employees violates section
112.313 (7), Florida Statutes. County Management should consider establishing
procedures requiring written approval of outside employment to provide
documentation for both the employee and management.
8
V. AUDIT FINDINGS
A. Purchasing Section Procedures
1. Controls over Sealed Bids
Findings:
1. Inspection of the Purchasing Section's bid files revealed that for previously opened
bids, no envelopes are retained as evidence that they were received prior to the time set
for bid opening.
2. Discussion with Purchasing staff revealed that the time and date of receipt are
handwritten on bid envelopes, but this is not done consistently.
3. In addition, the file cabinet containing unopened bids and proposals has no lock, and
one proposal was found open.
Sealed bids must be received prior to the bid opening deadline, and they should be
secured until the time of bid opening, in order to protect the integrity of the sealed bid
process.
The current Monroe County Purchasing Policy addresses neither the security of sealed
bids prior to their opening, nor the retention of records after bid opening. This makes it
more difficult to demonstrate compliance with the Purchasing Policy.
Recommendations:
1. To improve internal control over the sealed bid process, bids should be time and date
"stamped when received, kept locked up until opening, and all bid documents,
including their time and date stamped envelopes, should be retained in the bid file.
The Monroe County Purchasing Policy should address these issues.
County Administrator's Response:
All bids are kept on file in a locked office. The Monroe County Purchasing Policy is
being updated to include date and time stamping of the envelopes and storing the bids,
together with the envelopes, in locked cabinets within the locked office. In cases where
bids are incorrectly addressed, the envelopes are likely to be opened by another
department and forwarded to Purchasing. This circumstance is due to vendor error,
-- outside our control. However, a notation that the bid was incorrectly addressed by the
vendor will be included with the bid record.
9
2. Policy Restricting Potential Bidders from Writing Specifications
Findings:
A review of the Monroe County Engineer's January 14, 1998, report to the Board of
County Commissioners regarding the Upper Keys Roof Replacement job revealed that
the Construction Manager allowed a roofing contractor to prepare some of the
specifications for the Upper Keys Roof Replacement bid.
The Purchasing Policy adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on March 11,
1998, states in Chapter 1 - INTRODUCTION that it is "intended to promote actual,
honest and effective competition and protect the taxpayers from collusive contracts,
favoritism, fraud, extravagance, and improvidence." When a potential bidder prepares
bid specifications, competition can be compromised. For example, see finding D.
Monroe County has no policy to restrict requesting departments from using information
from potential bidders in the preparation of a bid's specifications. Some bids may be so
technical in nature that outside expertise is needed to prepare them. However, providing
technical information must not be confused with deciding what specifications best serve
Monroe County. Purchasing Policy should restrict decisions on bid specifications only to
those without potential conflicts of interest.
Recommendations:
1. Monroe County Purchasing Policy should be established to limit requesting
departments' involvement with potential bidders when preparing bid specifications.
County Administrator's Response:
The Purchasing Policy is being updated to warn about requesting departments'
involvement with potential bidders when preparing bid specifications.
10
Li
3. Checking the Convicted Vendor List
Findings:
Discussions with the Purchasing Director and other Purchasing personnel disclosed that
names on Purchasing's vendor lists are compared to the convicted vendor list before bid
requests are mailed to those vendors. Purchasing personnel also check the suspended
vendor list prepared by the Florida Department of Management Services pursuant to
section 287.042 (1) (b), Florida Statutes, in addition to their statutory obligation.
However, other bidders responding to a call for bids are not compared to the convicted
vendor list.
According to section 287.133, (2) (b), F.S., public entities may not do business in excess
of the CATEGORY TWO threshold (presently $15,000) with a person or affiliate on the
convicted vendor list. This prohibition lasts for 36 months from the date said person was
placed on the convicted vendor list, unless that person has been removed from the list.
Recommendations:
1. The Purchasing Director should establish procedures that ensure that any vendor
considered for award of business in excess of the CATEGORY TWO threshold
amount is not on the convicted vendor list.
County Administrator's Response:
The Purchasing Department routinely checks the convicted/suspended vendor list prior to
the award of a bid. The Purchasing Policy is being updated to check the
convicted/suspended vendor list at bid opening and to certify same on the bid recap and
purchase orders exceeding the Category Two threshold.
it
11
4. Documentation of Bid Bonds
Findings:
An examination of two capital projects' bid files, Upper Keys Roof Replacement, and
Key West Courthouse Annex Roof Replacement, found no copies of powers of attorney
for four out of 10 bid bonds for the Upper Keys job, and no evidence of Bid Security or
Deposit compliance for three out of six bidders on the Key West Courthouse Annex bid.
The Purchasing section's INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS, require each bid to be
accompanied by a Bid Security of five percent of the bidder's maximum price. It may be
in the form of a certified check, cashier's check or a Bid Bond issued by a surety. If a
Bid Bond is submitted as Bid Security, the attorney-in-fact who executes the bond must
attach a certified, current copy of his power of attorney.
The current Monroe County Purchasing Policy does not specify exactly what
documentation should be retained in the bid files after bid opening. In this instance,
compliance with bid security policies and procedures cannot be proved.
Recommendations:
1. The OMB Director should establish procedures regarding the minimum documentation
to be maintained in the bid files in order to confirm compliance with the Bid Security
requirements of the Purchasing Policy.
County Administrator's Response:
The Purchasing Department now ensures that copies of the bid bond and/or powers of
attorney are kept on file.
12
� I
j I
5. Distribution of Bid Addenda
Findings:
The Procurement Policies in effect during the audit period made requesting departments
responsible for ensuring that all prospective bidders receive addenda. The Purchasing
Director changed that responsibility in the present Purchasing Policy. In order to better
control addenda distribution, all addenda now must go through OMB to prospective
bidders. The transfer of responsibility from the requesting department to OMB enhances
independence over the dissemination of addenda. However, the Purchasing Director has
indicated that some departments still do not route all bid addenda through OMB.
Recommendations:
1. The Purchasing Director should communicate with all departments to ensure that they
comply with Purchasing Policy regarding bid addenda distribution.
County Administrator's Response:
The Purchasing Policy Chapter 3, A. 6. requires departments to seek approval and route
addenda through the Purchasing Department. Management will review this requirement
with the departments to ensure compliance with this policy.
13
B. Upper Keys Roof Replacements
1. Bid Addenda Procedures
Findings:
A review of the Upper Keys Roof Replacements project files revealed that the
Construction Manager answered the eventually successful bidder's questions about
addenda #1 and #2 with handwritten replies that were faxed to only that bidder. Those
answers were not made in conformity with the addendum process. The Construction
Manager did not abide by the INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS' method of responding to
bidders' questions when he faxed a reply to a single bidder.
Clarification or interpretation of bid documents is stipulated to be handled in writing, and
delivered to all potential bidders, in order to provide every potential bidder with
complete and uniform information. Since the responses noted above were made outside
J of the addendum process, they were not available to provide every bidder with complete
and uniform information.
Providing every potential bidder with complete and uniform addenda information ensures
that the bid process is fair, and yields comparable bids.
, ,
Recommendations:
1. The Purchasing Director should ensure that questions regarding the bid documents are
answered through the addendum process, in order to treat all bidders equitably, and
to produce fair and comparable bids.
County Administrator's Response:
The Purchasing Policy Chapter 3, A. 6. requires departments to seek approval and route
- addenda through the Purchasing Department. Management will review this requirement
with the departments to ensure compliance with this policy.
I �
14
f
2. Low Bid Withdrawn after Opening
Findings:
A review of the Upper Keys Roof Replacements bid file revealed that the Construction
Manager allowed the low bidder, Pritts, Inc., to withdraw its bid 22 days after the bids
were opened. The next lowest bid, from Laumar Roofing South, Inc. was then accepted.
The second bid was $23,600 more than the lowest bidder, Pritts, Inc.
The INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS state that a bid may not be withdrawn by the bidder
for 90 days following the bid opening date. The INSTRUCTIONS detail procedures
whereby a bidder may claim error in his bid after opening, and Monroe County may
allow the bid to be withdrawn. In this situation the bid was withdrawn after 22 days, and
there was no documentation of error in the lowest bidder's proposal.
Management of Pritts, Inc. stated that their bid was based on using lightweight concrete
instead of the tapered insulation specified. After the bid opening, they asked the
Construction Manager about substituting lightweight concrete for the specified tapered
insulation, and were told that substitution could not be made. Since their bid did not take
the tapered insulation into account, Pritts management felt that their bid had to be
withdrawn. The next lowest bidder, Laumar Roofing South, Inc., was allowed to
substitute lightweight concrete for the specified tapered insulation in the roofs which
Monroe County actually received.
Recommendations:
1. The INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS' procedures for allowing opened bids to be
withdrawn should be followed without exception in order to benefit from competitive
bidding.
2. Any substitutions allowed to one bidder or vendor should be available all bidders or
vendors.
County Administrator's Response:
All bid packages include a "Notice Calling for Bids" which includes specific instructions
regarding withdrawal of bids. Management will review this requirement with the
departments to ensure compliance with this policy.
15
C. Truman School Renovation Project - Bid Addenda
1. Bid Addenda not Approved by County Management
Findings:
A review of the Truman School Renovation project bid file revealed that there were five
different addenda to the original bid specifications. All five addenda were approved only
by the Construction Manager. The procurement policy requires the approval of the
Department Director, Division Director and the Purchasing Director.
The Monroe County Procurement Policies (Revised 1/95) states:
"Bid Addenda: An addendum to a specification shall be defined as an
addition or change in the already prepared specifications for which an
invitation has been mailed for formal quotations or an announcement has
been posted for a formal sealed bid.
a. Any addendum to a request for formal sealed bids shall be approved by
the Requesting Department Director, Division Director or designee and the
Purchasing Director. The addendum shall clearly point out any addition or
change to the specifications.
b. The Requesting Department shall be responsible for insuring that all
prospective bidders who have received specification are notified of the
addendum in writing five (5) calendar days prior to opening date of bids. "
The bid process generates information that will be used to award contracts. The
Construction Manager did not process the addenda through the OMB Director. This
procedure is necessary to ensure that Monroe County assets are protected. The purpose of
multiple approvals of addenda is to require at least two people to look at the proposed
addendum, thus properly segregating duties. The revised Procurement Policies provide
for all bid addenda to be distributed through OMB, to ensure that all addenda are
properly authorized.
Recommendations:
1.County Management should ensure that all necessary bid addenda approval policies are
followed, and that the addenda are distributed by the OMB Department as required by
the Monroe County Procurement Policies.
County Administrator's Response:
The Purchasing Policy Chapter 3, A. 6. requires departments to seek approval and route
addenda through the Purchasing Department. Management will review this requirement
with the departments to ensure compliance with this policy.
16
2. Bid Addendum #4 Contains an Allowance for Unforeseen Conditions
Findings:
The Monroe County Construction Manager, in Addendum #4, dated November 21, 1995,
had all bidders include a $40,000 allowance in their bid price to provide for unforeseen
conditions. In addition to the allowance, credits totaling $59,164 from other changes
were applied to still other changes of plans at the sole discretion of the Construction
Manager. This enabled the Construction Manager to approve up to $99,164 of
expenditures, $97,774 of which he actually utilized without any other review or
authorization.
Addendum #4 states: "Contractor to provide an allowance to provide for unforeseen
conditions of$40,000. Approval to spend any or all of the allowance is under control of
the Monroe County Construction Manager. When a condition occurs, the contractor will
immediately request a meeting with the Construction Manager to determine the solution
to the problem. At the completion of the project and in' the final invoice, the unused
balance of the allowance will be a credit to the owner and deducted from the Contract. "
See Exhibit A - Truman School Renovation Allowance.
The Construction Manager only had authority to approve $5,000 of purchases directly.
This allowance enabled him to approve expenditures in excess of his purchasing
authority. County Management stated they were unaware of the allowance.
A required control over the procurement process is the separation of incompatible duties
and functions. In addition, Monroe County does not have a procedure for applying
credits to other areas where the amount is more than that stated in the contract, rather
than using a change order to increase those amounts.
Recommendations:
1. County Management should ensure that established procurement policies for multiple
approvals on bid addenda are followed.
2. Allowances.for unforeseen conditions should not be made a part of the bid amount.
3. Procedures should be established to explain how credits may be applied to other areas
of a contract, and when or if they may be used in place of change orders.
County Administrator's Response:
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will work with the County Attorney's
office and Public Works Construction Management office to formalize procedures about
how credits may be applied to other areas of a contract, and when or if they may be used
in place of change orders.
17
I I
D. Truman School Renovation Project - Audiovisual System
1. Design/Steering of the Bid Proposal
Findings:
A review of the design of the bid proposal for the turnkey audiovisual system revealed
that Miami Audio Visual Company (MAVCO) developed the bid specifications used by
Construction Management. MAVCO designed the bid specifications using specific brand
names of equipment, was the only bidder on the proposal, and subsequently was awarded
the work as a subcontractor of Hewett-Kier. In addition, the bid proposals were not
distributed through the Office of Management and Budget as required.
Construction Management sent out proposal letters to MAVCO, Central Audio Visual,
and Bell South on April 11, 1997. Proposals had to be returned to Construction
Management in eighteen days by April 29, 1997. Construction Management only
received one bid, which was from MAVCO. Interviews with Central Audio Visual and
Bell South revealed that they did not bid because the proposal specified equipment brands
and gave little time to respond.
In its letter to the Construction Manager, dated November 26, 1996, MAVCO stated "I
have been catching up on work and discussions pertaining to your project with our Chief
Engineer and General Manager. The concern they have is engineering the project,
providing a proposal with specified equipment and then having it go out to bid. I assured
them this is not what has been discussed, that subcontracting under the electrical
contractor was how to avoid this potential problem. Is this not our understanding?"
However, in his April 2, 1997, letter to MAVCO, the Construction Manager stated that
he was going to have to bid the project. He stated "I am sorry that I have been so
delinquent in talking to you but I have been trying to work out a method to enter into a
contract with you and not be involved in a bid process...We can not single source this
because it is too many dollars. Therefore, I am forced to bid. I will have to pay you for
the design time to date and will be putting this out for bids. I would like to steer this
towards you and would ask that you highlight any products that are yours and yours
alone so I can sole source some of the items. I am going to give a short time to bid also. "
See Exhibit B - MAVCO Bid Proposal Correspondence.
The design criteria professional should not be eligible to render services executed
pursuant to the design criteria package. A "design criteria package" means concise,
performance-oriented drawings or specifications of the public construction project.
Competition is severely compromised when a bidder prepares the bid specifications and
expects to receive the bid. One of the GENERAL PROVISIONS of the Procurement
Policies is: "to provide increased economy in procurement activities and, to the fullest
extent practicable, maximize the purchasing value of public funds. "
18
Recommendations:
1. Construction Management should follow established procedures for bid proposal
design. The company that designs bid specifications should not be eligible to perform
the specified work.
2. Policies and procedures should require that adequate time is given to respond to a bid
proposal.
3. Bid specifications should be written broadly enough to ensure response from a range
of bidders. Bid specifications should not be written to steer business toward or rig the
bid for any one particular vendor.
County Administrator's Response:
The Purchasing Policy is being updated to warn about requesting departments'
involvement with potential bidders when preparing bid specifications.
19
2. Method of Awarding the Contract
Findings:
The review of the bidding process for the audiovisual equipment revealed that the
procurement policies for purchases over $25,000 were not followed. MAVCO was
awarded the contract (initial cost $175,420) using Change Order #2 through the general
contractor Hewett-Kier, rather than having a separate bid for the equipment. The
architect did not execute Change Order #2. The audiovisual system was not part of the
bid specifications for the original Truman School renovation project.
The final cost of the audiovisual system was $232,020 which is considered a level "D"
purchase. According to the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
Procurement Policies "Purchases estimated to be $25,000.01 or greater will be
completed by: Competitive Bid, Proposal, Qualification or other forms of requests -
Purchase Authority: BOCC. "None of the four Level "D" procedures were followed. See
Exhibit C - Monroe County Procurement Policies Level "D".
According to section 10.2.1 of the contract between Hewett-Kier and Monroe County:
"Change order shall mean a written order to the contractor executed by the
owner and the architect, issued after execution of this contract, authorizing
and directing a change in the work, or an adjustment in the contract price or
the contract time, or any combination thereof The contract price and the
contract time may be changed only by change order. "
During interviews with the Division Director of Public Works and the Division Director
of OMB, it was stated that the Division Director of Public Works advised County
Management and the County Attorney of the irregularities with the bid for the
audiovisual system. Interviews revealed that due to time constraints the County Attorney
advised Construction Management not to rebid the project, but to award the contract to
MAVCO using a Change Order. The County Attorney was told by Construction
Management that the cost would be considerably higher by subcontracting through
Hewett-Kier. Since it was not bid, it is not known whether Monroe County received fair
value for the money it spent. The known cost of the project increased $34,556.07 by
subcontracting through the general contractor. Also, it appears there was a duplicate
charge of$11,373.83 for cabling the meeting room. See Exhibit D - Miami Audio-Visual
Company (MAVCO) Analysis of Project. The additional cost of the project was due to
the 7.5% sales tax, 5% overhead, 5% profit and .7% bond. The increased cost
attributable to lack of competitive bidding is unknown. The Clerk's Finance Department
is currently holding $81,480 retainage on the Truman School project until all disputed
items are resolved.
If there had been adequate planning for the audiovisual project, it could have been part of
the original bid specifications for the Truman School renovation and price competition
would have been ensured. Rush or emergency orders are occasionally needed to operate a
20
government effectively. However, all approval procedures should be followed to control
the use of emergency orders, because it has the effect of reducing competition, increasing
costs, and bypassing existing internal controls, thereby creating opportunities for fraud.
Recommendations:
1. Change orders of this magnitude should be strictly held to Monroe County
Procurement Policies and the contractual obligations between Hewett-Kier and
Monroe County. This contract should have been specified, advertised, bid, and
recommended to the Board of County Commissioners for award, pursuant to approved
policies.
2. The Clerk's Finance Department should continue to hold and monitor the $81,480
retainage on this project until all disputed items are resolved and the closing
documents are received pursuant to the contract.
County Administrator's Response:
Change orders are a common occurrence on construction projects. Some change orders
are very costly, but when compared to the total construction cost, they may represent
only a small percentage. Change orders should not be limited by cost, rather, they should
be regulated by the construction project's scope of work. In this particular case, the
audiovisual (a/v) system was to be part of the original project. The building was to
contain a meeting room with capabilities to broadcast meetings over Channel 16. An a/v
system was essential for this purpose. However, because of time constraints the project
was bid before the a/v equipment was specified. When the a/v equipment was finally
determined, the County Attorney was consulted for advice on how to procure the
equipment. Several factors were considered: 1) A BOCC meeting for July was already
scheduled, so the equipment needed to be installed by that time. 2) Bidding out the work
would result in project delays and would affect the scheduled BOCC meeting. 3) Bidding
out the work could cause conflicts with the original contract which could result in added
change orders and delays. 4) Having two different contractors working on the same
electrical system could jeopardize the building's warranty as well as the a/v system
warranty. Based on the above factors, it was recommended by the County Attorney to
proceed with the change order.
Clerk's Response:
The Clerk's Finance Department will continue to hold and monitor the $81,480 of
retainage on the Hewett-Kier Truman School contract project until all disputed items are
resolved and the closing documents are received pursuant to the contract.
21
3. Equipment and Enhancements Not Specified on Change Order #3
Findings:
A review of the change orders for the Truman School renovation project revealed that
Change Order #3, approved July 16, 1997, did not provide detail of specific equipment
or enhancements and amounts for each increase. This change order was signed and
authorized by all required Monroe County parties. The architect did not execute Change
Order #3.
The change order totaled $56,600, yet did not specify individual prices for the items to
be purchased. It stated, "The final items needed to complete the Harvey Government
Center include commission desks, podium, electrical work, signage, art restoration, and
sales tax that was inadvertently omitted from change order #2. " Interviews with
management indicated the change order was approved, but it appears there was only a
cursory review of the content. The project was completed on July 16, 1997, the date the
change order was approved. The acceptance of the project was signed by the
Construction Manager on July 20, 1997. See Exhibit E - Truman School Renovation
Project Change Order #3.
Authorized signers should have the necessary detailed information, supported by
sufficient substantiating data, to permit evaluation of the change order. Change orders
should document the original contract and provide specific information as to why there is
a change, and what the County is purchasing.
Recommendations:
1. Authorized personnel should conduct an adequate review of itemized change orders
and sufficient substantiating data to permit evaluation before signing the change order.
County Administrator's Response:
Management will review Administrative Instruction 6500.1 to expand review and
approval of change orders.
22
li
4. Change Order #3 Included $10,535 for Equipment not Related to the Project
Findings:
A review of change order #3 for the Truman School Renovation project revealed that the
Construction Manager included $10,535 in the change order for assets not related to the
project.
The change order totaled $56,600. A pro forma invoice was provided by MAVCO, Inc.
for $10,535 of the assets. The pro forma invoice was not the actual invoice, and it
' provided no detail of assets purchased. The pro forma invoice stated: "Additional
Charges for Upgrades and Enhancements for Conf. Room + Meeting Room A/V Turnkey
r- System Including Programming, Misc. Equipment (TBA), Probe, Mics, Labor Charges
for Upgrade Expansion. " See Exhibit F - MAVCO Pro forma Invoice. Since the assets
were purchased through Hewett-Kier no actual invoice was given to Monroe County for
payment.
The Construction Manager ordered items such as a computer, a laser disc player, a
camcorder, and a car radio. See Exhibit G - Purchases not Related to the Project. A
Construction Inspector was responsible for receiving goods. This Inspector was
transferred from the Truman School Renovation project before his job was completed to
the Key West Airport project, leaving the Construction Manager, who ordered the goods,
responsible for receiving them. See Finding F. Further investigation by the State
Attorney's Office revealed that some of these items were delivered to the Construction
Manager's home, and were later found in his possession.
Although procurement is one of the most common financial functions of government
agencies, there are a host of processes in which fraud, waste and abuse might occur. A
control environment that does not separate duties invites deception and fraud.
Recommendations:
1. Segregation of duties should be maintained at all times.
2. Management oversight is a required control mechanism to ensure that proper policies
and procedures are being followed.
County Administrator's Response:
Management will review segregation of duties and oversight procedures to ensure policy
compliance.
23
5. Construction Changes Paid on Extraneous Purchase Order
Findings:
A review of correspondence and invoices for the Truman School renovation project
revealed that $950 was paid directly to Benson Electric, rather than through Hewett-Kier,
for electrical work on the MAVCO equipment. Monroe County's contract for the
Truman School renovation project was with Hewett-Kier, not Benson Electric.
Benson Electric asked the Construction Manager whether to bill Monroe County or
Hewett-Kier for this extra work. The Construction Manager's response was to generate
purchase order #189590, which was paid to Benson Electric for the extra work for
MAVCO. Invoice #002776 from Benson Electric, and its accompanying Monroe County
Board of County Commissioners Audit Slip appear to bear the same two sets of initials
approving this payment. No change order was either issued or approved through
established procedures.
Since this work represented a change in the Truman School project, it should have been
approved as a change order to Hewett-Kier. County Management did not follow change
order procedures in contracting and paying for this work. As the primary contractor,
Hewett-Kier should have been paid for the change, and compensated its subcontractor,
Benson Electric, for the work.
Recommendations:
1. Construction changes should be accommodated through approved change orders, not
extraneous purchase orders. Payments for changes should be properly authorized.
County Administrator's Response:
Management will review change order procedures and eliminate extraneous purchase
orders.
24
6. Equipment Not Classified Correctly on Financial Statements
Findings:
During our audit it was noted that the audiovisual equipment purchases were classified
according to the sales order, not the invoice. Therefore, ancillary costs of sales tax,
profit, overhead, bond and the pro forma invoice were classified as part of the building,
rather than as equipment. In addition, no reconciliation was made between the sales order
and the application for payment.
Recommendations:
1. Proper supporting documentation should be requested by the Clerk's Finance
Department in order to classify capital assets appropriately.
2. A reconciliation of equipment purchased should be completed between the sales
invoice and the application for payment.
County Administrator's Response:
Management will work with the Finance department to properly classify capital assets
and to determine a procedure to reconcile sales invoices to payment applications.
Clerk's Response:
The Clerk's Finance Department will ensure that proper supporting documentation is
attached to payment requests in order to properly classify capital assets.
A reconciliation of all equipment purchases will be prepared between the sales invoice
and the application for payment.
25
E. Truman School Renovation Project - Requests for Payments
1. Requests for Payments #16 and #17 Not Certified by Architect
Findings:
The Architect would not approve applications for payment #16 and #17 because he was
not a party to agreements on change order proposals made between the Construction
Manager and Hewett-Kier. The requests for payments were signed by the Construction
Manager, the Engineer, the Division Director of Public Works, the OMB Director or his
designee and the County Administrator. The requests for payments were paid without the
Architect's approval.
Application #16 was returned to Monroe County unsigned by the Architect due to
insufficient information. See Exhibit H - Gonzalez Architects Correspondence.
Application #17 for the MAVCO audiovisual system was never sent to the Architect for
approval. According to Section 5.2.2 of the Agreement between Hewett-Kier
Construction, Inc. and Monroe County, the architect will review the contractor's
applications for payment and will certify to the owner for payment to the contractor,
those amounts then due the contractor as provided in this contract.
However, Section 9.6.1 of the American Institute of Architects General Conditions of the
Contract for Construction states "The Construction Manager/Architect may decline to
approve an Application for Payment if, in his opinion, the application is not adequately
supported. If the Contractor and Construction Manager cannot agree on a revised
amount, the Construction Manager shall process the application for the amount he deems
appropriate. "These two sections of the contract contradict each other.
Recommendations:
1. County Management should seek a legal opinion as to which of the two apparently
contradictory sections of the contract controls the processing of Applications for
Payment.
2. County Management, the County Attorney, and the Board of County Commissioners
should develop and adopt a policy concerning the approvals of Applications for
Payment on construction projects that provides the appropriate safeguards of the
public's assets.
County Administrator's Response:
Management will conduct legal review of contradictory sections of contracts concerning
applications for payment and will work with the County Attorney to develop policies
concerning the approval of applications for payment on construction projects.
26
I !
2. Request for Payment Increased by the Construction Manager
Findings:
During our review of requests for payment it was noted that the Construction Manager
had increased request for payment #17 after it had been executed by the general
contractor. The requests for payment was signed by the Construction Manager, the
Engineer, the Division Director of Public Works, the OMB Director or his designee and
the County Administrator.
After Application for Payment #17 was executed by the general contractor Construction
Management increased the payment by $10,654.37. This was the approximate amount of
purchases not related to the project. The Construction Manager stated in a letter to
Hewett-Kier, "Please sign the Change Order #3 and overnight it back to me. I will
change the numbers on your last payout to reflect this change order. " He increased the
application for payment by $10,654.37. This was the approximate amount of purchases
not related to the project. Also, the Architect did not certify request for payment #17.
See Exhibit I - Application for Payment #17.
Once an Application for Payment has been executed by the general contractor no changes
should be made without the concurrence of the contractor and review of appropriate
support and documentation.
Recommendations:
1. Applications for payment should not be altered after they have been properly
executed.
County Administrator's Response:
Pay requests need to be changed at times to reflect actual work performed or to correct a
scrivener's error. Flexibility is needed to reflect billing accuracy and avoid delays. It is
more cost effective to correct an error than to return all paperwork. Most construction
projects have lump sum contracts so total payments should not exceed total contract.
Clerk's Response:
The Clerk's Finance Department will return all applications for payments to the County
Administrator's office that are increased after execution without the proper executing
initials by the revision.
I
27
r--�
F. Outside Employment of a Monroe County Construction Inspector
1. Outside Employment Contrary to County Policy
Findings:
A Monroe County Construction Inspector was removed from the Truman School
renovation project and reassigned to the Key West Airport project by the Construction
Manager. Then the Inspector was hired by URS Greiner, Inc. to be a resident inspector
before and after his County work hours on the same Key West Airport project. URS
Greiner, Inc., Monroe County's engineering consultant for this project, paid the
Inspector $30/hour to work on the same project that he was assigned to as a County
employee. Section 112.313 (7), F.S., and section 1.03 Outside Employment, Personnel
Policies, restrict a Monroe County employee from working for a business that is doing
business with the County.
T
During interviews with the Director of Community Services, he stated that he
recommended hiring the Construction Inspector to URS Greiner, Inc. at a general airport
meeting. At that meeting, a representative of URS Greiner stated that they were going to
lose their resident professional inspector. According to the Director of Community
Services, Monroe County could not use one of its own employees to perform the work
because of Florida Department of Transportation funding rules on using County forces.
See Exhibit J - Stormwater Improvements PSA Agreement.
After being offered the work, the Construction Inspector orally asked the Monroe County
Engineer if this were permissible. The County Engineer stated that he did not know the
inspector would be paid by URS Greiner, or the nature and extent of the work proposed
when he consented to the inspector's request.
The total salary received from URS Greiner from May, 1997, through July, 1997, was
$4,080. The Construction Inspector worked 136 hours for URS Greiner, inspecting the
Key West Airport Stormwater Improvements before and after his full time County work
day.
The Key West Airport project was under the control of Construction Management.
Monroe County employees are not permitted to hold outside employment which would
interfere with the interest of the County, or which would be reviewed by any employee
in their respective departments.
Personnel Policies do not address any procedures for obtaining written approval of
outside employment. County Management should approve in writing any outside
employment to avoid confusion, conflicts of interest, and to provide documentation for
both the employee and management.
28
r_
Recommendations:
1. County Management should seek a legal opinion as to whether the Construction
Inspector's outside employment with URS Greiner, Inc. violates section 112.313 (7),
Florida Statutes.
2. Monroe County should consider establishing procedures requiring written management
' approval of outside employment.
County Administrator's Response_
Please note that the Construction Inspector's outside employment involved a different and
separate project from the one to which he was assigned while working for Monroe
County Construction Management. More specifically, the outside employment was for a
Stormwater Improvement Project at the Key West International Airport under the
direction of URS Greiner, Inc. and Monroe County's Division of Community Services.
Construction Management was not responsible for oversight of this project. On the other
hand, Construction Management was responsible for oversight of the Key West
International Airport Terminal Renovation Project, which was adjacent to the stormwater
project; however, it was a totally separate project and even had a different contractor and
different architect, the architect being David Volkert & Associates.
Management will consider procedures requiring written management approval of outside
employment.
Auditor's Comment:
While it is understood that the Construction Inspector's area of outside employment was
technically separate from the specific project he was overseeing for Monroe County, this
does not appear to exempt him from the conflicting employment statute. Therefore, it is
reiterated that County Management should seek a legal opinion about the Construction
Inspector's outside employment in light of section 112.313 (7), Florida Statutes.
29
VI. Exhibits
Exhibit A
Truman School Renovation Allowance
240 1440 A!46UWAN.E IIK 1390.00 1390.00 0,00 0 0,00 U 0.00 0
206 300 rol-00P4-CLN CRAWL AREA WI 1665.33 1665.33 1665.33 100 0.00 11 1665.33 100
.210. 826 F02-COP17-C1 FLOW METER FM -246.00 -246.00 -246.00 100 0.00 0 -246.00 100
--300 455 F04-00P27-1IASONRY 11K 1225.00 1225.00 1225.00 100 0.00 0 1225.00 100
310 445 F02-00019-EXTRA MASONRY HK 333.00 333.00 333.00 100 0.00 0 333.00 100
. .310 450 F02-COP11-STAIR WELL WALLS HK 3830.00 38)0.00 3070.00 100 0.00 0 1830.00 100
•
1•
•
T,RUMAN SCHOOL RENOVATIONS - PHASE 2 COST REPORT BY: LOCATION CODES DATA DATE 2JJUL97 PAGE 9
RESPON BID ORIGINAL CURRENT WORK IN PLACE WORK IN PLACE WORK IN PLACE
ACTIVITY /TRADE ITEM ESTIMATED ESTIMATED TIIRU LAST PER THIS PERIOD TOTAL TO DATE
NUMBER DESCRIPTI 0 N CODE CODE COST -- $ COST -- $ -�-
400 505 F02-COP)-ELEVATIO0 AT WALLS IIK 1 4061.00 4061.00 4061.00 100 0.00 0 4061.00 100
400 626 F03-00P26-CRED1T GALV SS 11K - -11500.00 -11500.00 -11500.00 100 0.00 0 -11500.00 100
410 500 F06-COP43-MASS CONCRETE STAY BD -2000.00 -2000.00 -2000.00 100 0.00 0 -2000.00 100
446 635 F03-COP32-CREDIT SS HK - -400.00 -400.00 -400.00 100 0.00 0 -400.00 100
447 505 F02-COPS-FOOTING CHANGE UK 7017.00 7017.00 7817.00 100
0.03 0 7017.00 100
440 505 F02-00013-DEDUCT SIGN HK -1715.00 -1715.00 -1715.00 100 0.00 0 -1715.00 100
449 585 F02-COP15-CISTERN CHANGE HK 3200.00 3200.00 3200.00 100
0.00 0 3200.00 100
455 590 F04-COP27-ADD KEYSTONE JOIST PS 1095.00 1095.00 1095.00 100 0.00 U 1095.00 100
512 650 F02-COP12-CREDIT SS NAILS HK -11500.00 -11500.00 -11500.00 100 0.00 0 -11500.00 100
515 710 F06-COP46-ELEVATOR SPEED ME -1194.00 -1194.00 -1194.00 100 0.00 0
-1194.00 100
520 650 F02-COP1-SUPPORT TRUSS HK 1 027.00 827.00 027.00 100 0.00 0 027.00 100
540 650 F02-COP2-EXTRA JOIST HK 1 2636.00 2636.00 2636.00 100 0.00 0 2636.00 100
596 705 F02-COP1O-LWR PARAPET ELEV HK -3000.00 -3000.00 -3000.00 100 0.00 0 -3000.00 100
- 597 705 F02-COP22-FILL ARCH OPENING HK 1350.67 1350.67 1350.67 100 0.00 0 1350.67 100
627 785 FOB-COP51-SECURITY GRILLS HK 200.00 200.00 200.00 100 0.00 0 208.00 100
630 705 FO)-COP35-CR FLITCH BEAMS IIK -1770.00 -1770.00 -1770.00 100 0.00 0 -1770.U0 100
630 900 F03-COP 20-ADD AUDIO MO - 266.00 266.00 266.00 100 0.00 0 266.00 100
- - 655 790 FO-COP57-ELEV. RH FLR HK 1040.00 1046.00 1040.00 100 0.00 0 1040.00 100
690 820 F03-COP 30-ADD ELECTRICAL BE - 8032.00 0032.00 0032.00 100 0.00 0 0032.00 100
700 940 F04-00P41-EMT CONDUIT BE 6661.00 6661.00 6661.00 100 0.00 0 6661.00 100
705 1000 FO-COP64-DEL MICROPHONE BE -100.00 -100.00 -100.00 100 0.00 0 -100.00 100
712 1000 FO-00P54-PATCH ROOF DECK HK 2843.00 2043.00 2843.00 100 0.00 0 2043.00 100
010 900 FO-00P6)-CABLE BRACKET BC 1030.00 1030.00 1030.00 100 0.00 0 1030.00 100
095 1000 F03-COP)6-1100F/HOLES HK 1747.00 1747.00 1747.00 100 0.00 0 1747.00 100
_ 1000 1400 COP80-7 PIN CORES HK 600.00 600.00 600.00 100 0.00 0 600.00 100
1016 1245 F03-COP38-CR GENERATOR OE - -10012.00 -10012.00 -10012.00 100 0.00 0 -10012.00 100
1100 1206 F04-COP39-CREDIT DRYWALL PP -320.00 -320.00 -320.00 100 0.00 0 -320.00 100
1100 1400 COP76-RESOLUTION AGREEMENT HK 25000.00 25000.00 25000.00 100 0.00 0 25000.00 100
1105 1210 FO-00P61-CONTROL ROOM PP 602.00 602.00 602.00 100 0.00 0 602.00 100
1110 1220 F03-COP31-CREDIT KEYS HK - -727.00 -727.00 -727.00 100 0.00 0 -727.00 100
1110 1246 FOS-COP21-(2)MISSING WINDOWS PL 994.00 994.00 994.00 100 0.00 0 994.00 100
1150 1400 FO-00P58-ELEVATOR CLG. HK 663.00 663.00 663.00 100 0.00 0 663.00 100
1,195 1311 F04-COP39-CREDIT CABINET CM -675.00 -675.00 -675.00 100 0.00 0 -675.00 100
1200 1303 F03-00P37-ADD LAMINATED GL PL - 800.00 008.00 080.00 100 0.00 0 880.00 100
1205 1396 F04-COP39-ADD LIGHT FIXTURE BE 250.00 250.00 250.00 100 0.00 0 250.00 100
1206 1400 1/31/97F0-2ND FLR PLYWOOD HK 11000.00 11000.00 11000.00 100 0.00 0 11600.00 100
1208 1300 F03-COP33-ADD LANDSCAPING FP - 546.00 546.00 546.00 100 0.00 0 546.00 100
1210 1400 1/31/97F0-PIIONEROOM PLYWOOD HK 299.00 299.00 299.00 100 0.00 0 299.00 100
1213 1290 COP 77-TURF HK 1000.00 1000.00 1000.00 100 0.00 0 1000.00 100
1223 1400 F.O. COP 72-CUT DOORS HK 720.00' 720.00 720.00 100 0.00 0 720.00 100
1251 1397 1/31/97FO-CREDIT FURNITURE HK -10099.00 -10099.00 -10099.00 100 0.00 0 -10099.00 100
1255 1300 COP 79-ELEVATOR LIGHT BE 713.00 713.00 713.00 100 0.00 0 713.00 100
1291 1400 1/31/97F0-CREDIT SIGNAGE IIK -3906.00 -3906.00 -3906.00 100 0.00 0 -3906.00 100
i335 1400 F02-COP7-EXTRA TOILET ACC. HK 219.00 219.00 219.00 100 0.00 0 219.00 100
.336 1400 F03-COP 34-ADD TOILET ACC HK - '1217.00 1217.0U 1217.00 100 0.00 0 1217.00 10U
1340 1400 COP81-VINYL BASE HK 1500.00 1500.00 1500.00 100 0.00 0 1500.00 100
390 1400 F02-COP16-EXTRA BIKE RACK HK 800.00 000.00 000.00 100 0.00 0 800.00 100
. .DTOTALS 42 40000.00 40000.00 30610.00 97 0.00 0 38610.00 v97
Additional Charges $97,774
Credits _(59 L!4)
'final `38,610
Exhibit B
MAVCO Bid Proposal Correspondence
•
r 1 \
1 .,. .i . ..it\ i., rC. f, al;.i , .l ti Ily 1 y/.cfl • /. !.,;.:_; Ir;7 . '"p:115r1 rr 't`'• y i r ti4+
} • • t• � , ;:l�`?:" .;•i:: . l..1..•'} r_; S fa.. Y-lLr-I+L �•iJ+Yfd}1a/Wb�;is Y..ka'l:J:ySd1!1.L4 at.1
• _ • 1.. . r 1 • '1 .. a /l. 1 Y ~:.. t w w 1wM.1 7 ,- •''i. •!
• •:...: , r
{g �4r{t{},1"• fit:
• 7�1 „ `�l !• it ,! P 1++,.y 1 1 .{ 5 Ii.K +�I • :: � ,�'4 y^ W}y t1l•'
1 rNJ YI,S P PMf]IYILN w1 ry"! l 1,1442,.4.4.1
4 i- t , • : 1+i{4411
, I 1 , } rY r Au !}i`I" _{ 1 YI ')T:.-11 t r'�t6'1V:(1 ,}�'14'11}'d 1 1.1 '��}y
• • 6 3, {ll I !� )+ 1.Yf ( ,i,li�A, .1(� j 1 I It S 7' .r "1 7. 1 ' 1i1 + :1 "11 `1 ••
�
+,. tll ' )adr : {Y f. .It . Irj R!,f1}Ff,•
.{y��! 'kit, ..'.�C. ;.�+•: �':i
'� Tn .
1 r..►,.1., ,, IaaLlr';+i1'��N"( � , 1 r J C1 11[Ybl.�rl r ,r•.,,;?�. •
r. • '/ r :, i t 1•
-5i,14i�1 1♦•`ff 4 1 .4�_ �1.r..
t 1 b! :, I.
1,1',+ ; I s 11• r 1},1 S .•.8fbo Urgent:
:�„r+l� , {' :ff �'' Mon oe County Public Works For Your Review: ❑
�a.;,.,,•1 Reply ASAP: ►�1
• Please Comment: ❑
'1 •V '' Phone: Per Your Request: ❑
Fax Phone: 305-295-4321
Subject: Assurance of Project
•
•
Good afternoon William:
I have been catching up on work and discussions pertaining to your project with our Chief Engineer
and General Manager. The concern they have is engineering the project, providing a proposal with 4—
• specified equipment and then having it go out to bid. I assured them this is not what has been
discussed, that sub-contracting under the electrical contractor was how to avoid this potential
problem. Is this not our understanding?"Also, if this is the case Monroe County will still supply
purchase orders to us and not the electrical contractor correct? We have not worked with Benson
'Electric prior to this project and would rather receive our payment and P.O.'s through your
department.
Can you alleviate our concerns with a response so that Urbane and I can continue our work ?
Cabling needs to be done as quickly as possible so we want to get this proposal and contract signed
as soon as possible.
I thank you for your time and meeting with all of you again yesterday.
•
Best regard A''
555 NORTHWEST 05TH STREET/MIAMI, FLORIDA 33150-1957
'it 305.767.5000 I X 000.273-5022 I FAX 305-759-1624
Internet: saleseng@mavco.com CompuServe:72103.2225. C)
.ci.,.r;1. ,rlo-.v• ::I 1°l!, ••li d ,,•1 a{, '%}r.f•�{';I I .••
, pis .r; .,.•k .:�G�4,:.1a`c;r•n;r /y uc4i icf:��r1iJ �+N�
, : l4liiflll r NNw'1► � yy�• 4,14
•
• lr'. ..f'• ,;1'' �i-�• •:r��.-,i•t� " rl; '�•�7 f• '.r .
' ��' . ..I", � .�-, .'..j;.n, �(i!.1 'h1.(!�r �I r if4 ` fr 4y�Mr1rIt „��; r.T tilr•',
•
.r q 7 1 1, , q ,A#
4.. ,•. J Ir , t�F- rf ��i,, 9 r.1r'� 1 Y' � r�� '4_ 4 � ' • .•� ''
1 e r it -1! ♦air T'� rl 1 $�i:• 1 •. r r.•{.n 1 ,Y._r) i. •i 't .
',t Iy t 7h fi/ Ir�•`i��r ,iyf`� AI rr Mt ia;�; n t C 1 , . { 4..A iV{ t.,".(+.'�,
o you but have
en
ing
I am sorry that I have been so delinquentcontract with you tnud not be nvol b d ntryb d to
work out a method to enter into
process. I told you that I thought we could just make a change order to the contract
but we do not have a contract with Benson and the general contractor Hewett-Kier
insists on a surcharge of approximately 10% or 16,000.00 which is a difficult if not
impossible situation.
We can not single source this because it is too many dollars. Therefore I um forced
to bid. I will have to pay you for the design timc to wote and will be uld ask that youtting this out •
l�ighlight any
for bids. I would like to steer this towards you and
products that are yours and yours alone 90 I can sole source some of the items. I am
going to give a short time to bid also.
•
I have not disclosed you price to anyone so your past prices are protected. This is
the best I can do in this situation. I would be happy to meet with you and go over
the specification at any time. I plan on going out for bids and asking the Board for
permission to enter into contract pending receipt of the bids,in order to save time.
You will still have the month of June to do the installation.
•
Please give me a call, Thanks
04/02/97 WED L4 : l9 ITX/UX NO 58981
l��
Exhibit C
Monroe County Procurement Policies Level "D"
MONROE COUNTY PROCUREMENT POLICIES
LEVEL "D" Purchases estimated to be $25,000.01 or greater will be completed by:
Competitive Bid, Proposal, Qualification or other forms of requests - Purchase
Authority: 130CC
THE PURCI LASING DEPARTMENT SHALL OBTAIN PROOF OF APPROVAL BY TI IE
BOCC PRIOR TO ANY PURCHASE AT THIS LEVEL.
1. The Requesting Department in conjunction with the Purchasing Department shall
prepare a Request w/ Specifications/Calling for Bid or other and submit same to
the BOCC for approval to advertise. (see Exceptions - XI and Exclusions XII)
2. Upon approval by the BOCC, specifications shall be forwarded by the Requesting
Department to the County Attorney's Office for advertising. A suggested mailing
list of potential bidders shall be utilized when deemed necessary by the Director of
Purchasing, to insure the best possible number of responses to a request.
3. Upon completion of the Competitive Bid process (see Section VI, VII, and VIII),
the requesting authority, in conjunction with the Purchasing Director shall prepare
and submit a summary of the bid responses and recommendations for consideration
by the BOCC at the next regular County Commission meeting or within 90 calendar
days.
4. Subsequent to the selection of the best qualified bid respondent by the BOCC, the
requesting department, division or agency will submit an appropriate request to
the Purchasing Department.
9
T
Exhibit D
Miami Audio-Visual Co. (MAVCO)
Analysis of Project
i
Monroe County Clerk of the Circuit Court
Miami Audio-Visual Co. (MAVCO)
Analysis of Project
If the contract was directly with MAVCO the following
charges could have been avoided:
Hewett-Kier 5% Overhead $9,969.47
Hewett-Kier 5% Profit $10,467.95
Sales Tax at 7.5% $13,878.44
.7% Bond $240.21
34,556.07
Cable and Hardware appears to be billed twice: $9,529.94
7.5% Sales Tax $714.75
$10,244.69
5% Overhead $512.23
$10,756.92
5% Profit $537.85
$11,294.77
.7% Bond $79.06
$11,373.83
MAVCO Invoice #105599 to Hewett-Kier $2,556.75
Mavco Credit to Hewett-Kier #105582 ($2,556.75)
Hewett-Kier Overpayment
MAVCO Items in Change Order#3 $2,556.75
Sales Tax 7.5% $191.76
Subtotal $2,748.51
5% Overhead $137.43
Subtotal $2,885.94
5% Profit $144.30
Subtotal $3,030.24
.7% Bond $21.21
Total Amount Paid to Hewett-Kier in error $3,051.45
The final invoice for items totaling $10,535.00 could not be
located at the County. There was a proforma invoice that states the
following:
Additional charges for upgrades and enhancements $10,535.00
r_
• Monroe County Clerk of the Circuit Court
Miami Audio-Visual Co. (MAVCO)
Analysis of Project
Quantity Manufacturer Description Price Ext. Price
Change Order#2 Total $175,420.00
Audio System
1 KSI Podium (custom) $2,808.75 $2,808.75
2 Shure 16 channels $1,781.25 $3,562.50
1 Shure probe mic for podium $186.25 $186.25
5 Shure lapel mics $206.00 $1,030.00
1 Atlas gooseneck $16.53 $16.53
1 Atlas flange $7.33 $7.33
1 Gentner audio conf. system $4,475.35 $4,475.35
1 Gentner remote for audio conf system $189.00 $189.00
1 Videotek video DA(press feed) $262.50 $262.50
1 Videotek audio DA(press feed) $275.00 $275.00
1 EV amp. $574.56 $574.56
1 EV Altec transformer $155.52 $155.52
1 BSS EQ $2,523.75 $2,523.75
1 Shure mic mixer(Round Table setting) $636.00 $636.00
1 Shure rack mt. $43.50 $43.50
6 Shure boundary mic(Round Table) $263.50 $1,581.00
1 Wohlers audio selector for modulation $1,453.75 $1,453.75
1 Sony Studio headphone $259.00 $259.00
20 Atlas Ceiling Speakers $35.00 $700.00
Subtotal Audio System $20,740.29
Video System
3 Canon Camera $1,836.25 $5,508.75
3 Omnimount camera mount $120.00 $360.00
3 Omnimount vibration isolator $25.00 $75.00
1 Barco 2100LC projector $11,891.08 $11,891.08
1 Barco 1.2:1 lens $1,306.25 $1,306.25
1 Elmo doc cam. $4,200.00 $4,200.00
1 Panasonic WJMX50 Video Mixer $4,115.65 $4,115.65
1 DPS Time Base Corrector $1,835.00 $1,835.00
1 Sony (4 x 4"monitors) $1,694.12 $1,694.12
2 Panasonic 9"monitors $725.35 $1,450.70
2 Panasonic rack mts. $120.00 $240.00
4 Sony 27"monitors $599.00 $2,396.00
1 Autopatch 12 X 12 matrix switcher $5,383.00 $5,383.00
1 Videotek Waveform,Vectorscope $3,588.75 $3,588.75
1 Blonder Tongue RF modulator chan 2-13 $281.70 $281.70
7 Lowell DP lights $189.00 $1,323.00
1 AMX custom automated system $8,868.75 $8,868.75
7 Lowell D2 20 barn doors $67.78 $474.46
7 Lowell V lights $121.50 $850.50
14 EHD lamps $29.00 $406.00
14 GDA lamps $21.20 $296.80
14 Lowell safety cable $20.00 $280.00
14 Lowell Scissor mts. $20.50 $287.00
2 Extron RGB 105 interfaces $437.50 $875.00
2 Extron Super Emotia scan converters $1,431.25 $2,862.50
2 Extron Distribution AMP $237.50 $475.00
1
1
• Monroe County Clerk of the Circuit Court
Miami Audio-Visual Co. (MAVCO)
Analysis of Project
Quantity Manufacturer Description Price Ext. Price
3 Extron rack shelf 1U $125.00 $375.00
Subtotal $61,700.01
Furniture& Mounts
1 Projector mount(Barco)& adapter plate $691.25 $691.25
1 Winstead Editing console $1,798.35 $1,798.35
2 Winsted 5 U drawer $161.20 $322.40
2 Winsted racks $810.40 $1,620.80
2 Winsted casters $30.00 $60.00
1 D'san Clock timer $818.00 $818.00
4 Peerless jumbo tv mts. $284.00 $1,136.00
1 Peerless VCR mt $49.00 $49.00
' 1 Stewart glass 6 X 8 videomatte screen &frame $1,221.33 $1,221.33
13 Mystery mic receptacles $78.95 $1,026.35
2 Mystery cable receptacles $233.34 $466.68
2 Mystery BB2000 backboxes $44.95 $89.90
2 Mystery Type V panels $213.89 $427.78
2 Mystery Type D panels $154.16 $308.32
1 Mystery Type D panel $154.16 $154.16
1 Engraving for receptacles $270.00 $270.00
Subtotal $10,460.32
Cables& Hardware
RG59 $5,500.00
2 Cond.Audio 18AWG $787.50
4 Cond.Audio 18AWG $450.00
Hardware $1,780.00
RGBHV cables x 2 $170.00
RG 59 3'cables x 7 $105.00
RG 59 6'cables x 5 $50.00
BNC connectors x 36 $149.00
XLR connectors x 22 $87.56
Mic cables 3'x 8 $135.60
Mic cables 15'x 6 $167.70
Tie wraps 60 $21.00
Atlas 12 outlets ASC 62.40
Atlas 5 outlets RAC 49.18
Elmo cable 15.00
$9,529.94 *
Install control room, meeting room, council chambers $20,702.50
Cable and Hardware $9,529.94 *
Engineering design time $3,600.00
Supervision of project $9,000.00
Shop drafts $3,600.00
As built drawing $1,800.00
Manuals 16 hours $1,200.00
Testing, Trouble Shooting, and Training $1,560.00
Travel $1,200.00
Lodging 3 men x 15 days $4,375.00
$56,567.44
lT
Monroe County Clerk of the Circuit Court
Miami Audio-Visual Co. (MAVCO)
Analysis of Project
Quantity Manufacturer Description Price Ext. Price
Total Mavco Change Order#2 $158,998.00
Additional for 5% Profit&5% Overhead Hewett Kier $16,422.00 **
$175,420.00
*These items appear to be included twice.
** 5% for Overhead and 5% for Profit totals $16,297.30 Difference of$124.70
Change order#3 Total $56,600
Deleted from C.O.#2 - 1 KSI Podium (custom) ($2,808.75)
Sales Tax @ 7.5% $11,714.19
Hewett-Kier 5%Overhead on additional 11,714.19 $585.71
Hewett-Kier 5% Profit on additional 11,714.19 $615.00
Benson Electric $11,000.00
Hewett-Kier 5%overhead & 5% profit $1,128.00
1 Podium L-100-25 $2,200.00 $2,200.00
5 Dias'w/bulletproofing $2,068.00 $10,400.00 *difference$60.00
3 Dias'no bullet proofing $1,300.00 $3,900.00
2 Shure SC24/58 handheld wireless mic system 667.50 $1,335.00
1 Shure M267 four channel mixer w/rack mount 503.75 $503.75
Wireless audio cabling $100.00
3 Shure AMS 28 lavalier Microphones 206 $618.00
Sales tax on $19,056.75 additional equipment $1,429.25
.7% Bond $1,538.79
Additional charges for upgrades and enhancements $10,535.00
Additional Overhead & Profit on $20,486 equipment $1,811.92
Unaccounted for difference ($5.86)
Total Change Order#3 56,600.00
Total Project $232,020
Exhibit E
Truman School Renovation Project
Change Order #3
•
MUNIIU[ CUUN IY •
_- 1NST9I,ICTION MANAGEMENT'
AUG 12 1997 cpk\Na el`
i p� L i;
TIME:_�v,�' 1 `gyp cl` g1
MONROE COUNTY •• RECEIVED BY: n1 ppt,c,Ao 61��9
ENGINEERING/CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT Pv A.cA
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER �R-cc���-
PROJECT TITLE: The Harvey Government Center at Historic School
CHANGE ORDER NO: 3
Total Previous Change Orders $ 197.130.00 ,,k'\
Current Change Order $ 60.000.00
Original Contract Amount $3.040.000.00 `
Revised Contract Amount $3.901.730.00
Detailed description of change order and justification:
The final items needed to completeihe Harvey Government Center include commission desks. podium,
r_ electrical work. signagP a restoration and Sales lax that was inadvertently omitted from Change Order
number 2. Change Order number 3 in the amount of $56.600.00 will increase the contract amount to
' $3.901.738.00. and extend completion by 30 days.
With Change Order#3. the total project will be $81.000.00 under budget. The addition of income from the
urant of $47.000.00 for hurricane shutters increase the total project savings to $128.000.00. The actual
construction contract with Hewett-Kier. exclusive of Change Orders 1. 2. and 3. which were owners
additions.will close $1.3 00 under the original contractprice.
CONTRACTOR: I Ia c N P vlSi . • l JUL
1 , ewett-Kier Construction, Inc. Date Al Schwager Dale
ARCHITECT/-NGINEER:
Gonzalez Architects Dat' `7": I / / D to
I
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER: di! 1 i i,4
• VVlliam A Bib fd . 7/late
COUNTY ENGINEER z / ? 2?
David S. Koppel,. ' E. ,7 Date
1 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS 1 ' -nr, %A—t 7 7217
Dent,9ierC Dale
' C-4., VA A)
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR: . -
pr�re y`Roberts ',1 Date
^ { ; , I ,
BOARD 0 CO TY COM STONER [ ` \ ' (ATTEST: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK
OF MON O OUN F DA •;•.. .._�^ �TT
By By
! 1
.__ M or/C al eputy C k
idt.j.44.1)
APPROVED AS TO FORM
1 AN LEGAL St F CY
B
r^nirr . .
Exhibit F
- MAVCO Pro Forma Invoice
l/ h .:'.1•,..i 4 .f••''`, , I I V
- •'' 1024 XAVCO /' MIARI4 , • f'i , UUl
•G7i30i7 WED 10:18 MI a ::� .. +'
y .i .' :..••,': ,.• ; '�. � { r�~•l'jf�S�` r{:•+d•I• ire 1;' ':+;r '
l �` MAVCO, INC. �� ;�4a,•>: ',,'•f �r;:,. ,
,A A. MIAMI AUDIO-VISUAL CO. • Facsimile
........._
Date: July 30, 1997 Minim-ofudaiu cover sheet: 1
Fran: Marl Jayne M. Frederick
CONSTNI�rr��COUNTY
tigNai �FMENT
To: William t3lbo .I UL 3 p '1on Urgent: Z
Monroe County Public TIME. For Your Review: El
RECEIVED, ,. Reply ASAP: ❑
Please Comment: ❑
Phone: 305-292-4528 • • Per Your Request: ❑
Fax Phone: 305-295-4321
Subject: ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT TRUMAN CTR
Hi William: •
Per our discussion, see next page for upgrades, additions and OT for Truman Annex council .
chambers. I am faxing this addendum to Hewett-Kler Construction to add to previous invoice dated .
July 18th. Since the major part of the project was already invoiced at that time, I had to make a
separate sales order and now Invoice for the additional items.
Again, one total payment will be required.
Previous invoice total =$ 185,604.40 .
Additions charges= $ 10.535,00 -
Grand Total = $ 196,139.4 3
As stated earlier, I need to obtain payment from Hewett-Kier Aug. 1st. The latest Aug. 4th. Rob
Lambiase, MAVCO, Inc. General Manager, Is out of the office today until 1:00pm. I will be out after
12:30pm.
Again, thank you for your business.
iii •
,, (../A.A..i I
•
•
555 NORTHWEST 95TH STREET/MIAMI,FLORIDA 331 5U-1957
W 306-757-5000/ W800-273-5022/ FAX 305-759-1 024
Internet:satesenUQlimavoo.com CompuServe:721a3,2226. C •
•
i , t t 14' rt ,." V....i.l._ •�, .V:.'. ..,......._
... .10 ••• '•r d �'k• 0 kIdol•SI Pt I I^ t •
:18 F' .,101E (`'''•1439 Y • • .- •
3 a �nvco I,a xaaxc co0::', rIoo�M/iVCO, C. , I , r,
�A 1ti r
tf.
•
,r1 ;'
�► I/�rMl AUDIO-VISUAL : ProfiQrma (11Y..': ; 10355
-VISUAL CO.C4 ;.;, ".1. ' i No:
Data: 7130107
HQY1fPTr4QER aoNarnUc noN,INC. H NI Address:
ShEWETT Kl R CONSTRUCTION,��1
0lie ET zslzR STREET Payment. rams:
POMPANO BEACH,FL 330W teee NW MHO BEACH,erT I'LT C.O.D.
POMPANO Pl.33000 •
•
' Seas Person: MF Culiumer ID: 4084 • • ' : Salim Tax?: Taxable
Order Date: 7/30/97 Phone: 305/945-6454
Order: 18355-2 • Fax: 954/979-8950
Cust PO: CONTR,HK22
FOB: Destination
QtY Item Number Description • .
1.00 fin, Unit Price Extended
ADDITIONAL CHARGES FOR UPGRADES AND ••
ENHANCEMENTS FOR CONF.ROOM %MEETING i9,80o.0o S9,000.00
ROOM A/V TURNKEY SYSTEM INCLUDING
PROGRAMMINO,MISC_EQUIPMENT(TDA),PROBE
MICS, LABOR CHARGES FOR UPGRADE EXPANSION.
CONSTa,ONROFCO
Ting,
•
•
CCI-tool,.
FREIGHT INCLUDED.1TEMIZEQ BREAKDOWN WILL BE
BENT TO WILLIAM IN A WEEK THIS REQUIRED FOR SubTotel: $9,000.00
BILLING NOW PER WILLIAM•THANK YOU.
$9,800.00 Taxable mit.a t zo% : $637.00
Total$: $10,437.00
•
•
• •
•
•
Barnett Bank.NA,MIsn Shama Branch Tog(3U6)II99.4100 Fax(3U6)764-8226 ---+•�
BillU Mayne ON.of P 1Jaf Account:16U64W6G7
UamlABA Ntmber:061UO3ppg
555 NORTHWEST 95TH STREET/MIAMI,FLORIDA 331504957 '_
fe (305)787-6000/ N(BOO)273-60221 FAX(305)759-1624
-- Pepe:I of 1 E-Mit saleeanmavoo.corn Comp
userve 72103,2225
Exhibit G
Purchases not Related to the Project
Monroe County Clerk of the Circuit Court
Miami Audio Visual Co. (MANGO)
Analysis of"Proforma Invoice"
Inv 105947 Pd Ck 48913
Quantity Manufacturer Description Price Ext. Price ITEM # Amount
BO 3 Shure Microphone Handheld AMS26 186.25 558.75 0.00
3 Atlas Microphone Accessories Stand DS5 16.25 48.75 243 48.75
1 Vivitar VCAM 2000 Camera 233.33 233.33 6477 233.33
1 1 Case of 10 Reams of Computer Paper 109.00 109.00 6477 109.00
1 NEC Computer System, Inkjet Printer, Supplies
& Software 4,664.70 4,664.70 10675 4,664.70
BO 2 Panasonic KX FM220 Fax/Answering Machine 370.00 740 10675 0.00
BO 3 Panasonic KX FA 135 Fax Film Ribbon 37.00 111 10676 0.00
1 Sony Telephone SPPM920MHz Phone W/
Caller ID 299.00 299.00 8788 299.00
BO 1 Pioneer Laser Disk Player CLDD-406 Laser
Disc Play 443.52 443.52 10111
1 Bose Speaker Lifestyle 12 2,351.76 2351.76 10678 2351.76
BO 1 Sony Car Radio XRC-550 279.99 279.99 6477
Subtotal 7,706.54
Sales Tax 577.99
Total Invoiced 8,284.53 8,284.53
Invoice
(Delivered to Bibo's Home Address) # 107052
Panasonic KX FM220 Fax/Answering Machine 370.00 740 10675 700.20
Panasonic KX FA 135 Fax Film Ribbon 37.00 111 10676 111.00
Pioneer Laser Disk Player CLDD-406 Laser
Disc Play 443.52 443.52 10111 443.52
Subtotal 1,254.72
Sales Tax 94.10
Total Invoiced 1,348.82 1,348.82
Inv 105947
Amount
3 Shure Microphone Handheld AMS26 186.25 558.75 6857 558.75
1 Sony Car Radio XRC-550 279.99 279.99 6477 279.99
Subtotal 838.74
Sales Tax 62.91
Total Invoiced 901.65 901.65
Total Paid On Hewett Kier Check 048913 8/18/97 10,535.00
L. 7'� MAVCO, IN
` A J;, MIAMI AUDIO-VISUAL CO. Invoice Invoice No; 105947
Invoice Date: 8/8/97
Bill Address: Shipping Address: Payment Terms:
HEWETT-KIER CONSTRUCTION,INC. HEWETT-KIER CONSTRUCTION,INC. PREPAY
1888 NW 23RD STREET 1888 NW 23RD STREET
POMPANO BEACH,FL 33069 POMPANO BEACH,FL 33069
Sales Person: MF Customer ID: 4684 Sales Tax7: Taxable
Order Date: 7/30/97 Phone: 305/945-6454
Order: 18355-3 Fax: 954/979-8950
Cust PO: CONTR. HK22MI FOB: Destination
Qty Item Number Description Unit Price Extended
0.00 6857 SHURE MICROPHONE HANDHELD AMS2G $186.25 $0.00
(3 Backordered)
3.00 243 ATLAS MICROPHONE ACCESSORIES STAND DS5 $16.25 $48.75
1.00 6477 VIVITAR VCAM 2000 CAMERA. $233.33 $233.33
1.00 6477 1 CASE OF 10 REAMS OF COMPUTER PAPER $109.00 $109.00
1.00 6477 NEC COMPUTER SYSTEM, INKJET PRINTER, $4,664.70 $4,664.70
SUPPLIES &SOFTWARE
0.00 10675 PANASONIC KX FM220 FAX/ANSWERING MACHINE $370.00 $0.00
(2 Backordered)
0.00 10676 PANASONIC KX FA135 FAX FILM RIBBON $37.00 $0.00
(3 Backordered)
1.00 8788 SONY TELEPHONE SPPM920 900MHz PHONE $299.00 $299.00
W/CALLER ID
0.00 10111 PIONEER LASER DISK PLAYER CLDD-406 LASER DISC $443.52 $0.00
PLAY
(1 Backordered)
1.00 10678 BOSE SPEAKER LIFESTYLE 12 $2,351.76 $2,351.76
0.00 6477 SONY CAR RADIO XRC-550 $279.99 $0.00
(1 Backordered)
FREIGHT INCLUDED. ITEMIZED BREAKDOWN WILL BE SubTotal : $7,706.54
- SENT TO WILLIAM IN A WEEK.THIS REQUIRED FOR
BILLING NOW PER WILLIAM.THANK YOU. $7,706.54 Taxable Amt. @ 7.50% : $577.99
Total $: $8,284.53
Paid$: $10,535.00
Adjust $: $2,250.47
Outstanding $: $0.00
I ,
3Scl
555 NORTHWEST 95TH STREET/MIAMI, FLORIDA 33150-1957
w (305)757-5000/ (000)273-5022/ FAX (305) 759-1624
I' ll I I "
V , MAVCO, INC Invoice No: 107052
A A. , MIAMI AUDIO-VISUAL CO. Invoice Invoice Date: 10/10/97
Bill Address:
Shipping Address: Payment Terms:
HEWETT-KIER CONSTRUCTION,INC. WILLIAM BIRO PREPAY
1888 NW 23RD STREET 21091 6TH AVENUE,EAST
POMPANO BEACH,FL 33069 CUDJOE,FL 33042
Sales Person: MF Customer ID: 4604 Sales Tax?: Taxable
Order Date: 7/30/97 Phone: 305/945-6454
Order: 18919-2 Fax: 954/979-8950
Cust PO: CONTR. HK22MI FOB: Destination
Qty Item Number Description Unit Price Extended
2.00 10675 PANASONIC KX FM220 FAX/ANSWERING MACHINE $350.10 $700.20
3.00 10676 PANASONIC KX FA135 FAX FILM RIBBON $37.00 $111.00
1.00 10111 PIONEER LASER DISK PLAYER CLDD-406 LASER DISC $443.52 $443.52
PLAY
FREIGHT INCLUDED. ITEMIZED BREAKDOWN WILL BE SubTotal : $1,254.72
SENT TO WILLIAM IN A WEEK.THIS REQUIRED FOR
BILLING NOW PER WILLIAM.THANK YOU. • $1,254.72 Taxable Amt. @ 7.50% : $94.10
Total $: $1,348.82
•
Adjust$: ($1,348.82)
Outstanding $: $0.00
555 NORTHWEST 95TH STREET I MIAMI, FLORIDA 33150-1957
(305) 757-5000 I Y (1100) 213-5022 I FAX (305) 759-IG24
I f 1 I I • I ,•
f-
r j` MAVCO INC
MIAMI AUDIO-VISUAL CO. Invoice
Invoice Date: 8725/97
Bill Address: Shipping Address: Payment Terms:
HEWETT-KIER CONSTRUCTION, INC. HEWETT-KIER CONSTRUCTION, INC. PREPAY
1888 NW 23RD STREET 1888 NW 23RD STREET
POMPANO BEACH,FL 33069 POMPANO BEACH,FL 33069
•
Sales Person: MF Customer ID: 4684 Sales Tax7: Taxable
Order Date: 7/30/97 Phone: 305/945-6454
Order: 18581-1 Fax: 954/979-8950
Cust PO: CONTR. HK22MI FOB: Destination
Qty Item Number Description Unit Price Extended
3.00 6857 SHURE MICROPHONE HANDHELD AMS2G $186.25 $558.75
0.00 10875 PANASONIC KX FM220 FAX/ANSWERING MACHINE $370.00 $0.00
(2 Backordered)
0.00 10676 PANASONIC KX FA135 FAX FILM RIBBON $37.00 $0.00
(3 Backordered)
0.00 10111 PIONEER LASER DISK PLAYER CLDD-406 LASER DISC $443.52 $0.00
PLAY
(1 Backordered)
1.00 6477 SONY CAR RADIO XRC-550 $279.99 $279.99
FREIGHT INCLUDED. ITEMIZED BREAKDOWN WILL BE SubTotal : $838.74
SENT TO WILLIAM IN A WEEK. THIS REQUIRED FOR
_ BILLING NOW PER WILLIAM.THANK YOU. $838.74 Taxable Amt. @ 7.50% : $62.91
Total $: $901.65
Adjust$: ($901.65)
Outstanding $: $0.00
555 NORTHWEST 95TH STREET!MIAMI, FLORIDA 33150-1957
s (305) 757-5000/ Y (800) 273-5022/ FAX (305) 750-1624
I r1 I I -
Exhibit H
Gonzalez Architects Correspondence
;
Gonzalez Archilecty LL,[Ed I'1[ 11�1 COIF' 'VIM/A\Il\l 5A lIl�.if '117ALL
r+) • 3130Nurtbide Dr..Key West,Ft.33040 (31151 294.3748
"t4n 1 FAX(3115J 294.11217
r1A0002305.'A H0008I34
DATE JOf11NO. '
ATTENTION
TO I\/ 14 DILL 1>1(71---? .
RE
I-1-kiF 4AJ
WE ARE SENDING YOU /Attached f 1 Under separate cover via _.the following items:
O Shop drawings LJ Prints r.J Plans 1 L I Samples Li Specifications
LI Copy of letter [Ti Change order ❑ --- ---
COPIES DATE ---- NO ------- DESCRIPTION-------------- --
a A1'1'L I Y'J I'A\a 1 L i_1 j -
.
.
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: •
❑ For approval 1.1 Approved as submitted LI Resubmit.....__-__copies for approval
i
? For your use ❑ Approved as noted LI Submit.—__—copies for distribution
As requested ❑ Returned for corrections n Return___—_corrected prints
Li For review and comment Li —
❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS
I9ii�U Nj I II I Liid .}1 a)-1 i ) l u C To I I.,\��Fri GPI i
7/ 1
COPY TO . .......... _. .. . SIGNED:
If rnrinsnrrs are nnf as nnloll AIndl1 nnlity ns nl mire
Ir ` ..•. .
. } Ganzalez Architects L[CifU'LI>;i WAIF"ifiii.iY,\MA U'r[17A\LL
1 1130?Mashie llr.,Ku?`i.i.11.11p40 11051 294 9740
ai61)- FAX 13051291.0217
AA0W2105!A1:IIN 11114 -- — - -
DATE JOB NO I
q1 I4---a/ I &I i.
TO , I �/ �! ATTENTION (` Imp
-
RE:
I rith--ilak)
WE ARE SENDING YOU I Attached l_1 Under separate cover via -._--lhe following items:
❑ Shop drawings CI Prints ❑ Plans 1 ❑ Samples Li Specifications
• Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑
I COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION
- , . 1 j�ti(_ , I" I�— ;�I1`I I-1 r�rJ 1 r I Co
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
❑ For approval lJ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit__—___copies for approval
I/For your use LI Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution
/❑ As requested lI Returned for corrections [-1 Return —corrected prints
❑ For review and comment ❑ - - - --- -- - —
❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS
- \./i( IA IN►(--L- -ID. Comb t\0n 1,1 u ~IDd 11J i 1 .
Ile. - i u To R�_ --►-p ►- 6 C a 1-1 E en lib'
Co► \CCV AN 11.1(..( i ii-6 rL)\-/ . l_.-u?a,--- T •
L
;,
•
c."------,,,,„,....,..„, D
, z-------
1 COPY TO ---------- SIGNED: -...__... _.: --------
If enclosures are nol as noted.kindly nobly us of once.
Exhibit I
Application for Payment #17
iI
-J gial f' J,IQARILO (`OUIN't cS)finIISSIONEtS
__�'__, ....�: MAYOR Keith Douglass.Dlstoet 4
O U N TYYM O N H O E t,, --� �+ Mayor Pro ten Jack i mutton, District 2
'itp� /KEY WES, FLUHIUAJ304U 'll, •I'•' 41' , Wilk:Intirui I larvcy, District 1
�✓ (JUst294-4641 •
,'��
l� ZO • el(i(\r71,1• n. :Milky Flcenlan, I1isiiicl 3
.! . I h ' , . Mary Kay Reich, District 5
) ... giu). i 1,.., 111: f_..., .
„,.,,-.11„ I poc
,)
August 7, 1997
I Ieweti-Kier Construction, Inc.
1888 N.W. 231d Street
Pompano Beach, FL 33069
Attention: James Hewett
RE: The Harvey Government Center at Historic Tiunlan School
Dear Jim: •
Attached is Change Order II) which reflects items needed for the NIAVCO contract. The $56,600.0U Includes their
final bill which I approved. .
Please sign the Change Order 113 and overnight it back to inc. I will change the numbers on your last payout to
reflect this • it' rder. We will retain the$45,000.00 only.
Vey Truly ' ur fl
Willial A. o,ALA
Cr Ilslnl i i ii Manager
WAIJ/antm
5100 College Head Tel: 305-292-4.1:9
Key Wcst FL 330•111 Fax: 305-295-•131I
Exhibit J
Stormwater Improvements PSA Agreement
East Apron Drainage Improvement Project
Estimated Engineering Costs
Si.F opulent Prof Foglnoot Biologist CAI/Tech Clorlul
TASK... . $90.00 $e5.00 $76.00 $50.00 s30.00 Totals
A. Bogie Unign Services
1. Data Collection 1 12 12 1 $2,040
2. Design 4 60 12 60 4 $10,400
3 Permits 2 40 24 16 4 '66,300
4• Aid Phase Services 4 24 2 $2,460
5. Construction Phase Services 2 • 16 61,540
6 As-built Certification Submittal t 2 1 $290
Totals 14 154 48 90 12 $23,110
B. Direct Costs
1..Project Inspection Services RPR for 200 hours at$25/hour $7,000
7 Survey :13,000
3. Permitting Fees $3,500
4.Expenses(Travel,Reproduction,etc.) $3,050
Subtotal $16,550
Subtotal Engineering $39,660
Estimated Probable Construction Costs
DESCRIPTION Unit Quantity Unit Cost Cost
1. Cleating&Grubbing AC 0.5 $2,000.00 $1,000
2. Wet Well EA 2 $7,500.00 $15,000
- 3 Pump station(5 liP duplex) EA 2 $15,000.00 $30,000
4, 3"PVC Force Main LF 250 $10.00 $2,500
5. Pump Station electrical connection EA 2 $4,500.00 $0,000
6. Flnrsh grading at retention site CY 2420 $2.00 $4,640.
7. Seeding SY 2420 $0.50 $1,210
0, Demolition of Concrete LS 1 $2,000.00 $2,000
0. Concrete replacement LS 1 $1,500.00 $1,500
10 Outna11 structure EA 1 $2,500.00 $7,500
11. 2"utility conduit LF 250 $5.00 $1,250
12. Erosion control LS 1 $3,000.00 $3,000
13. Construction Testing LS 1 $3,000.00 $3,000
•
Mobilization (5%) $3,790
Contingency (15%) $11,370
Subtotal Construction $91,960
TOTAL PROJECT COST $131,620
Greiner,Inc. 30)-May-06
CO:;I4 WI)2
VII. Auditee Responses
747"
— l t . BOARD OFCOUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OUNT1c.o_FVIONROE —�../ ,..�. r -‘-�``;�� MAYOR tihirlc Ira cn )n, District 3
14+ -ter Mayor Pro tem.tact: London. District 2
KEY WESTLORIDA33040 *a.,, .l�, � � `y WilhelMina IlarVey, District I
(305)294-4641 ,..
�l•`:• jIM!••,L 1.' fr.. Keith Douglass. District 4
• 1: a it 44 Mary Kay Reich. District 5
Monroe County • r•. ,ev..
Office of Management & Budget • -J J `' r``.
5100 College Road = •
Key West , FL 33040 r, ,I'�r;,
(SOS) 292-4470 , .,,,, ,,
MEMORANDUM
"I'o: Danny Kolhage
Clerk of Court
From: James L. Roberts
County Administrator
Subject: Management and Procurement Process for Certain Capital Projects audit
July 6, 1998
Date: August 4 , 1998
The Administration has reviewed the comments by the Internal Audit Department, in reference to
the Audit Report of Monroe County Management and Procurement Process for Certain Capital
Projects dated July 6, 1998. The following are our responses to that report:
A. Purchasing Section Procedures
1. Controls over Sealed Bids
Response: All bids are kept on.file in a locked office. The Monroe County Purchasing
Policy is being updated to include date and time stamping of the envelopes and storing the
bids, together with the envelopes, in locked cabinets within the locked office.' In cases
where bids are incorrectly addressed, the envelopes are likely to be opened by another
department and forwarded to Purchasing. This circumstance is due to vendor error, outside
our control. However, a notation that the bid was incorrectly addressed by the vendor will
be included with the bid record.
2. Policy Restricting Potential Bidders from Writing Specifications .
Response: The Purchasing Policy is being updated to warn about requesting departments'
involvement with potential bidders when preparing bid specifications.
-1
•
3. Checking the Convicted Vendor List
Response: The Purchasing Department routinely checks the convicted/suspended vendor
list prior to the award of a bid. The Purchasing Policy is being updated to check the
convicted/suspended vendor list at bid opening and to certify same on the bid recap and
purchase orders exceeding the Category Two threshold.
4. Documentation of Bid Bonds
Response: The Purchasing Department now ensures that copies of the bid bond and/or
powers of attorney are kept on file.
5. Distribution of Bid Addenda
Response: The Purchasing Policy Chapter 3, A. 6. requires departments to seek approval
and route addenda through the Purchasing Department. Management will review this
requirement with the departments to ensure compliance with this policy.
B. Upper Keys Roof Replacements
1. Bid Addenda Procedures
Response: The Purchasing Policy Chapter 3, A. 6. requires departments to seek approval
and route addenda through the Purchasing Department. Management will review this
requirement with the departments to ensure compliance with this policy.
2. Low Bid Withdrawn after Opening
Response: All bid packages include a "Notice Calling for Bids" which includes specific
instructions regarding withdrawal of bids. Management will review this requirement with
the departments to ensure compliance with this policy.
C. Truman School Renovation Project- Bid Addenda
1. Bid Addenda not Approved by County Management
Response: The Purchasing Policy Chapter 3, A. 6. requires departments to seek approval
and route addenda through the Purchasing Department. Management will review this
requirement with the departments to ensure compliance with this policy.
2. Bid Addenda #4 Contains an Allowance for Unforeseen Conditions
Response: The Office of Management & Budget (OMB) will work with the County
Attorney's office and Public Works Construction Management office to formalize
procedures about how credits may be applied to other areas of a contract, and when or if
• they may be used in place or change orders.
1). Truman School Renovation Project - Audiovisual System
I. Design/Steering of the Bid Proposal
Response: The Purchasing Policy is being updated to warn about requesting departments'
involvement with potential bidders when preparing bid.specitications.
2. Method of Awarding the Contract
Response: Change orders are a common occurrence on construction projects. Some
change orders are very costly, but when compared to the total construction cost, they may
represent only a small percentage. Change orders should not be limited by cost, rather,
•
they should be regulated by the construction project's Scope of work. In this particular
case, the audiovisual (a/v) system was to be part of the original project. The building was
to contain a meeting room with capabilities to broadcast meetings over Channel 16. An a/v
system was essential for this purpose. However, because of time constraints, the project
was bid before the a/v equipment was specified. When the a/v equipment was finally
determined, the County Attorney was consulted for advice on how to procure the
equipment. Several factors were considered: 10 A BOCC meeting for July was already
scheduled, so the equipment needed to be installed by that time. 2) Bidding out the work
would result in project delays and would affect the scheduled BOCC meeting. 3) Bidding
out the work could cause conflicts with the original contract which could result in added
change orders and delays. 4) Having two different contractors working on the same
electrical system could jeopardize the building's warranty as well as the a/v system
warranty. Based on the above factors, it was recommended by the County Attorney to
proceed with the change order.
3. Equipment and Enhancements Not Specified on Change Order#3
Response: Management will review Administrative Instruction 6500.1 to expand review
and approval of change orders.
4. Change Order#3 Included $10,535 for Equipment not Related to the Project
Response: Management will review segregation of duties and oversight procedures to
ensure policy compliance.
5. Construction Changes Paid on Extraneous Purchase Order
Response: Management will review change order procedures and eliminate extraneous
purchase orders.
b. Equipment Not Classified Correctly on Financial Statements
Response: Management will work with the Finance department to properly classify
capital assets and to determine a procedure to reconcile sales invoices to payment
applications.
E. Truman School Renovation Project - Requests for Payments
1. Requests for Payments #16 and #17 Not Certified by Architect
Response: Management will conduct legal review of contradictory sections of contracts
concerning applications for payment and will work with the County Attorney to develop
policies concerning the approval of applications for payment on construction projects.
2. Requests for Payment Increased by the Construction Manager
Response: Pay requests need to be changed at times to reflect actual work performed or to
correct a scriveners error. Flexibility is needed to reflect billing accuracy and avoid
delays. It is more cost effective to correct an error than to return all paperwork. Most
construction projects have lump sum contracts so total payments should not exceed total
contract.
F. Outside Employment of a Monroe County Construction Inspector
1. Outside Employment Contrary to County Policy
Response: Please note that the Construction Inspector's outside employment involved a
different and separate project form the one to which he was assigned while working for
Monroe County Construction Management. More specifically, the outside employment
was for a Stormwater Improvement Project at the Key West International Airport under the
direction of URS Greiner, Inc. and Monroe County's Division of Community Services.
Construction Management was not responsible for oversight of this project. On the other
hand, Construction Management was responsible for the oversight of the Key West
International Airport Terminal Renovation Project, which was adjacent to the stormwater
project; however, it was a totally separate project and even had a different contractor and
different architect, the architect being David Volkert & Associates.
Management will consider procedures requiring written management approval of outside
employment.
4
\ 1\l
777 coUtir).
J F\! s,
� Sf i, t•
417 . .
o ., 1
Alt
Dannp IL. 3otjage
BRANCH OFFICE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT BRANCH OFFICE
3117 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY MONROE COUNTY 88820 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY
MARATHON, FLORIDA 33050 500 WHITEHEAD STREET PLANTATION KEY, FLORIDA 33070
TEL. (305) 289-6027 KEY WEST, FLORIDA 33040 TEL. (305) 852-7145
TEL. (305) 292-3550
MEMORANDUM
TO: Danny Kolhage
Clerk of the Circuit Court
FROM: Sandra Carlile • a\I
Finance Director
RE: Clerk's Finance Department's Responses to Audit Report of Management
and Procurement Process for Certain Capital Projects
DATE: July 10, 1998
•
The Clerk's Finance Department's responses to the draft preliminary audit report of
Monroe county Management and Procurement Process for Certain Capital Projects is
as follows:
Section V . Audit Findings
1. Section D - Truman School Renovation Project - Audiovisual System
Section 2. Method of Awarding the .Contract
Page 21 - Recommendation #2
The Clerk's Finance Department will continue to hold and monitor the $81,480 of
retainage on the Hewett-Kier Truman School contract project until all disputed items are
1-- resolved and the closing documents are received pursuant to the contract.
1_
2. Section D - Truman School Renovation Project - Audiovisual System
Section 6. Equipment Not Classified Correctly on Financial Statements
Page 25 - Recommendation #1
•
i
The Clerk's Finance Department will ensure that proper supporting
documentation is attached to payment requests in order to properly classify capital
assets.
3. Section D - Truman School Renovation Project -Audiovisual System
Section 6. Equipment Not Classified Correctly on Financial Statements
Page 25 - Recommendation #2
A reconciliation of all equipment purchases will be prepared between the sales
invoice and the application for payment.
4. Section E - Truman School Renovation Project - Requests for Payments
Section 2. Request for Payment Increased by the Construction Manager
Page 27 - Recommendation #1
The Clerk's Finance Department will return all applications for payments to the
County Administrator's office that are increased after execution without the proper
executing initials by the revision.
If I can be of any further assistance, please contact me.
CC: Sandra Mathena
Jackie Clynes
•
•