Orange County Grand Jury • 2013-2014

~ Dana Point Harbor Revitalization ~ 15 Years of Planning: What Has Been Learned?

Published: June 23, 2014 35 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 10 findings

F1
The original and current contract for the project management company has been extended five times since March 2003 without an audit clause.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The CEO should assign OCPWD to oversee the construction phases of the Dana Point Harbor revitalization project. (F.1. through F.5. and F.10.)
F2
The references for the final chosen three applicants responding to the original request for proposal, (RFP) were not verified.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The CEO should reduce the current time and material agreement for the project management company in cost and scope via specificity of tasks and deliverables, particularly in the area of design and construction management. (F.1..F7.,F10)
F3
When the evaluations were done of the three competitors, the selected company came in last on the weighted written portion, but first on the orals. The proposals included references on past performances however; the evaluators did not evaluate the past performance submitted with the proposal. The original references by the selected project management company could not be produced.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The CEO should establish and direct that all construction competition guidelines for major construction agreements follow the current County Policy Contract Manual. (F.2., F.3.,)
F4
The original responses to the initial ‗Request For Proposals‘ (RFP), have been unable to be found by Dana Point Harbor or the County Executive Office staff.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The Board of Supervisors and the CEO should carefully monitor all major agreements and the implementation of the terms on a continuing basis during the term of the contract. (F.1.) (F.4., F.5., F.10.)
F5
Amendment #5, April, 2013 to the original contract for the project management company was incorrectly labeled and submitted to the Board of Supervisor for ratification as a ‘Sole Source’ contract although this was subsequently corrected.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
The CEO should amend the County Policy Contract Manual to include a clear and concise guideline for ‘sole source’ justification. (F.6.)
F6
The Contract Policy Manual does not contain well written examples of ‗sole source’ justification.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
The CEO should require Dana Point Harbor to follow the OCPWD standard procedure for monitoring invoice submittal. (F.7.)
F7
Historical invoices submitted by the project management company lack specificity. Although monitoring of the invoices have improved with the oversight of the County Internal Auditor, the Grand Jury found that there remains a lack of information on the submitted invoices to determine the specified task, the portion of the task completed, or the anticipated date of completion. The ability to follow the assigned task from beginning to completion with the financial allotment/award is not easily determined.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
The CEO and the Dana Point Harbor Director should record and keep on file complete standardized minutes of all meetings with the various contractors and agencies with whom they regularly meet. (F.8.)
F8
Standardized minutes of the weekly meetings held with Harbor Management, the project management company, various vendors, and lease holders associated within the Harbor, are not documented.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
The CEO and the Dana Point Harbor Director should do a cost analysis for the efficiency of operating two marina management companies under two separate operating agreements with the County that duplicate services for boaters. (F.9.)
F9
There are two managerial marine companies in the Harbor which duplicate services for boaters and operate under two separate County agreements; the East Marian and the West Marina.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9
The CEO should conduct a financial audit of the Dana Point Harbor. (F.7., F.8., F9., F.10.) REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code §933 requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section §933.05 are required from: Responses to Findings F.1. through F.10. are requested from the CEO. Responses to Findings F.8. and F.9. are requested from the Dana Point Harbor Director Responses to Recommendations R.1. through R.9. are requested from the CEO Response to Recommendation R.4. is required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors APPENDICES
F10
Oversight for the Revitalization Project is lacking especially in the areas of: a) no audit clause in the original contract b) invoice non specificity (document does not track deliverables) c) sole source error to the original contract RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2013-2014 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation of Dana Point Harbor Revitalization Project in Orange County, the 2013-2014 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following 9 recommendations:
No recommendations for this finding

Agency Responses 2

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.

No Responses Found 2

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

Dana Point City
Orange County Board of Supervisors Elected County Office