Laserfiche WebLink
Received After Agenda Printed <br />November 24, 2015 <br />Item No. 27 <br />From: City Clerk's Office <br />Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 8:05 PM <br />To: McDonald, Cristal; Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim <br />Subject: FW: Professional Services Agreement to perform Capital Program Audit- FOR THE <br />PUBLIC RECORD - <br />From: Denys Oberman <br />Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 8:05:00 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) <br />To: Dixon, Diane; Dept - City Council <br />Cc: City Clerk's Office <br />Subject: Professional Services Agreement to perform Capital Program Audit- FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD - <br />Mayor Pro tem Dixon and Members of the City Council: <br />My comments, below, are in connection with the Professional Services Agreement that the City Council is to <br />review at November 24th Council Session in connection with an Audit of the Civic Center project. <br />• Consultant Scope and Selection Process- The City formed a Committee of Council members to <br />spearhead the process compromised of three Council members, properly so. However, the process was <br />turned over to the City Attorney,where a Conflict of Interest resides. The direction, selection and <br />oversight process should remain directly in the hands of the Council Committee. <br />• Audit Objectives and Framework for Consultant Scope - <br />This Audit is of considerable importance to our City ----both relative to the proper disposition and <br />closeout of the material Civic Center project, but as importantly, to assure that policy, controls and <br />processes, and oversight are established that would prevent the repeat of practice in the future. <br />There has been extensive public comment during the course and upon completion of the project which <br />has already surface a number of the areas which should be included in the Audit <br />There is no sound rationale for having a Phase I and Phase II in the Project Scope. The issues are fairly <br />straightforward: <br />■ Inadequate initial articulation and subsequent monitoring, no management of Project <br />Scope,runaway scope and change orders <br />■ Budget and schedule not detailed pursuant to the above, or adhered to throughout the course of <br />the project <br />■ Evidence of any management of the Design process in connection with facility functionality and <br />scale, life cycle cost not apparent <br />■ Value engineering not apparent, nor incorporation of readily available industry benchmark as <br />relate to various elements of the project <br />■ Inadequate,perhaps nonexistent contractual direction and oversight, from the Owner to Rep/CM <br />and CM through the Design/construction supply chain <br />■ No oversight of Contractors, or processes and practices to maintain accountability <br />■ Project milestones and discipline of progress and budget, percent complete relative to same not in <br />place or managed to in practice <br />