09-20 and 09-21-10 Special Called Regular Meeting of Fiscal Affairs Committee

Browse Search

CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS Agreed Upon Procedures - Five Points Town Center Project (Continued) September 21, 2010 in excess of the $11,401.35 calculated by us in Exhibit 21. The difference is caused by: . $4,041.39 in expenses on an invoice dated 1/1/2010 which the EDC refused to pay because of a dispute over additional ftnishing work authorized by URS not included in the original plans. Since it was not paid, it was not included in our total. . $28.02 that appeared to result from double counting of the surcharge from the 10/14/2009 invoice on exhibit 22. No documents provided to us indicated these two items were ever paid. If they are subtracted from the total on Exhibit 22, the reimbursable costs would be below the "should not exceed" amount in the contract. 6A. Finding We noted exceptions with respect to some items billed by URS which included reimbursable expenses without documentation and hours incorrectly billed to the Project. These exceptions were inconsequential when compared to the total amount of the URS's contract and appear to be clerical or typographical in nature. 6A. Recommendations The City and EDC should ensure evidence is obtained supporting all charges and reimbursements under large contracts. In addition, this support should be reviewed to ensure all charges are reasonable and fall within the guidelines of the contract and dispute charges not covered by the contract. 7. Review Process for Selection ofProiect En2:ineer and Contractor: Citizens have expressed concerns relating to the methods used to select the two primary contractors on the Project. We inquired of City staff as to the process behind selecting URS as the project engineer and CF Jordan as the construction contractor. Staff interviewed included the City Secretary, City Manager, and Purchasing Manager. As noted above under "Review All Expenditures Coded to the Proj ect and Compare to Applicable Policies and Procedures," the EDC is not bound by the normal bidding requirements or the requirements of the Professional Services Procurement Act (Exhibit 23) as they are considered neither government entities nor government subdivisions subject to state statutes governing procurement. The EDC bylaws do not specify the procedures to be followed. Selection ofURS as Proiect Engineer Per interviews with City staff and a memo from the City Manager in reference to citizen concerns (Exhibit 24), engineering firms were solicited by telephone by City staff. Three ftrms responded to the request. Of these, according to staff, one had major problems with their submission, including not addressing everything requested and added services for other projects. Their quote was not retained by the EDC or the City. Of the remaining two firms (URS and Knudson), URS was recommended by City staff to the EDC and ultimately chosen. The City and EDC did not have any documentation of the criteria used in the selection ofURS. Without well defmed criteria and a process for judging submissions, the selection cannot be objectively evaluated. 15