A review of the Metropolitan District Commission's swimming pool maintenance and repair contracts

32 Pages·2000·1.3 MB·English

by  Massachusetts. Office of the Inspector General

Office of the Inspector General
^mmonwealth of Massachusetts
* UMArSS AMHERST
\
312Dbb 2 7 M 20^ 4 i
A
Review of the Metropolitan District
Commission's Swimming Pool
Maintenance and Repair Contracts

Wt\t (Eommottfealtlj of ^Massachusetts
(§Hlce of l{\t inspector (Beneral
ROBERT A. CERASOLI JOHN W MCCORMACK
INSPECTOR GENERAL December 2000 STATEOFFICE BUILDING
ROOM 1311
TEL: [phone]
FAX [phone]
His Excellency the Governor
MAILING ADDRESS
STATE HOUSE STATION
PO BOX 270
The Honorable President of the Senate BOSTON. MA02133
The Honorable Speaker of the House of Representatives
The Honorable Chairman of the Senate Ways and Means Committee
The Honorable Chairman of the Senate Post Audit and Oversight Committee
The Honorable Chairman of the House Post Audit and Oversight Committee
The Directors of the Legislative Post Audit and Oversight Bureaus
The Secretary of Administration and Finance
Members of the General Court
Omnibus ad quos praesentes literae pervenerint, salutem.
am today releasing a report concerning the administration of two swimming pool
I
maintenance and repair contracts by the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC). In
MDC
1997, the conducted an internal review to identify sources of problems with the
performance and oversight of these contracts. The MDC reported the results of its
internal review to my Office in 1998 for further investigation. This report summarizes the
findings that stemmed from my Office's investigation.
I commend the MDC for its proactive stance in undertaking an internal review
and in reporting issues warranting further investigation to my Office. The MDC has
informed me that it has implemented changes to its contract management practices to
address the problems identified by its internal review. These changes, which have not
been evaluated by my Office, are described in the MDC's response to a confidential
review draft appended to this report.
Inspector General
Digitized by the Internet Archive
2014
in
https://archive.org/details/reviewofmetropolOOmass
7
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Background 3
Findings 7
Finding 1. By bidding swimming pool repair and maintenance contracts
in the spring, the MDC may have discouraged competition 7
Finding 2. The MDC did not devote adequate resources to oversight of
its contracts with Allied 8
Finding 3. The resident engineer failed to maintain complete and
accurate contract records 8
Finding 4. The MDC issued payments to Allied despite Allied's failure to
comply with contract requirements 9
Finding 5. Allied's certified payroll reports do not substantiate the MDC's
payments to Allied for hourly labor 10
Finding 6. Allied failed to provide the Office of the Inspector General with
payroll or other records to substantiate the MDC's payments
for hourly labor 13
Finding 7. The MDC failed to control the cost of overtime work performed
by Allied 14
Finding 8. The MDC's poor record-keeping practices impeded the
MDC
Office's review of the contracts with Allied 16
Conclusions and Recommendations 19
Appendix A: The Metropolitan District Commission's Response 21
Massachusetts Office of the Inspector General
Boston, MA 02108
Phone:
Intei
[phone] www
[phone] (MCPPO Program) (61
[phone] (confidential 24-hour
HhHHHhIHII^HHHHHHH
hotline)
Publ>ilcicaattiioonn NNoo.. 1188227799--3300--77..55CC--1122//0000--IIGGOO,, aapppprroovveedd bbyy PPhhiillmmoorree Anderson III, State Purchasing Agent.
Printed on recycled paper.
This page intentionally left blank.
Introduction
The Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) is a state agency responsible for the
oversight and maintenance of the Metropolitan Park System. The MDC operates and
maintains 23 swimming, wading, and spray pools in 18 communities in the Greater
Boston Metropolitan area. The 22 outdoor pools are open to the public from the end of
the public school term in June until Labor Day. The one indoor pool operated by the
MDC
is a year-round facility.
The MDC Commissioner initiated an internal review in 1997 to identify the source of
performance problems with its contracts for swimming pool maintenance and repairs.
An MDC internal report dated July 22, 1997 identified a host of concerns with these
contracts, including:
• cost overruns,
• excessive overtime payments,
• unacceptable contractor ratings for equal employment opportunity compliance,
• contractor failure to submit required documentation, and
• delays in opening outdoor swimming pools for the summer season.
The MDC's internal report noted that nearly all of the swimming pool maintenance and
repair contracts had been awarded to a single contractor - Allied Weatherproofing
Company Inc. (Allied) - for a period of ten years, raising concerns about the
effectiveness of the MDC's competitive bidding practices.
MDC
Following its internal review, the reported possible contractor payment
irregularities to the Office of the Inspector General for further investigation. The Office
reviewed records obtained from the MDC and from Allied, conducted interviews of MDC
engineers and managers, and took a sworn deposition from Allied's President and
owner. This report summarizes the results of the Office's review. also outlines
It
findings relating to the MDC's contract administration practices prior to 1999 that
1
rendered the swimming pool maintenance and repair contracts vulnerable to fraud,
waste, and abuse.
In its response to a review draft of this report, the MDC Commissioner reported that the
MDC has modified its swimming pool contract management practices to address the
concerns identified in its internal review. The actions undertaken by the MDC to
address these contract management issues are described in the MDC Commissioner's
letter to the Office, appended to this report.
2
Background
The MDC's 1995-1997 and the 1997-1999 Swimming Pools Maintenance and
Repair Contracts with Allied
MDC
The Office reviewed records relating to two contracts awarded by the to Allied for
maintenance and repairs to swimming pools and service buildings. The earlier of the
two contracts, P95-1790-MIA, extended from April 1995 until April 1997 and contained a
maximum price of $679,625. The final cost of the contract was $821,701. The
subsequent contract, P97-1887-MIA, covered the two-year period from April 1997 to
April 1999 and included a maximum price of $949,384. The final cost of the contract
was $852,780. These two-year contracts will hereafter be referred to as the 1995-1997
contract and the 1997-1999 contract.
The work performed under both the 1995-1997 contract and the 1997-1999 contract
consisted of repairs and improvements to service buildings, filtration, sterilization and
piping systems, scheduled and emergency repairs to swimming pools, and tasks
required to winterize the pools and to prepare them for the seasonal opening.
Both contracts called for Allied to be compensated for a major portion of the work
performed on a cost reimbursement basis. Each contract contained an hourly rate for
technical labor and another hourly rate for non-technical labor. These hourly rates,
along with Allied's actual costs for parts and materials, were used to determine Allied's
compensation for much of the repair and maintenance work performed.1 This method of
compensation placed a burden on the MDC to verify the actual number of hours of labor
performed by Allied personnel and Allied's actual costs for parts and materials.
Both contracts required Allied to submit specific documents to the MDC as a condition
of receiving payment for technical and non-technical labor. Allied was required to
submit daily work logs to the MDC each week describing the work performed by the
contractor's work force, including the location, type of work, hours of labor, and
1 Compensation for certain specified items, such as excavation work and installation of
new concrete walks and walls, was based on unit rate prices specified in the contract.
3
materials used. The contracts specified that Allied was not entitled to payment for work
that was not documented in the daily work logs.
The MDC's Written Contract Administration and Payment Procedures
MDC
In 1990 the issued to its employees a manual entitled "Standard Operating
Procedures for Field Construction Projects" establishing uniform procedures for
administering contracts and processing contractor payments. These written procedures
should have been followed by MDC personnel responsible for administering the 1995-
1997 and the 1997-1999 swimming pool repair and maintenance contracts.2
The MDC's operating procedures manual sets out separate contract administration
duties for three designated positions: resident engineer, construction inspector, and
project engineer. The segregation of duties called for in the MDC manual reduces the
potential for error and employee misconduct in contract oversight and payment
processing.
According to the MDC's operating procedures manual, the individual designated as the
resident engineer is responsible for overall contract management and for maintaining
specified records. The resident engineer's responsibilities include:
• maintaining a project diary to provide a daily record of significant events and to track
the contractor's progress,
• maintaining a log of contractor submittals,
• preparing weekly reports of contractor activities,
• preparing monthly pay estimates, and
• submitting pay estimates and invoices to the project engineer for review, signature,
and processing.
2 The MDC has told this Office in December 1999, that it was preparing revised contract
administration procedures. As of this date the procedures have not been implemented.
4