Ventura County Grand Jury
• 2002-2003
Oak Park Public Library Construction Background: The Grand Jury received a complaint from a citizen with respect to the
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 10 findings
F1
There is no formal pre-qualification process for construction contracts. However, the PWA does check to see that the apparent low bid contractor has the required license for the work specified, that it is not on a State listing of debarred contractors and that the bid bond meets the criteria and standards specified in the contract documents.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The PWA institute a pre-qualification system to assure contractor performance capability in addition to its present practice of verifying the bonding and licensing qualifications of the contractor and its absence from a State debarred bidders list (C-1).
F2
Due to Contractor deficiencies, a split of inspection responsibilities between the Division of the State Architect (DSA) and the PWA Building Inspector and the voluntary default of the Contractor, construction has been delayed for more than a year and is not yet completed.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Coordination between the DSA, represented by an employee of the OPUSD, and the County Building Inspector, an employee of the PWA, was continuous.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The PWA act on its expressed intention to consolidate the inspection process by qualifying to act as the DSA inspection authority as well as its present County Building Inspection authority (C-3).
F4
The Field Act, among other things, provides for mandatory pre- construction approval by the DSA of plans for construction of any school building to assure that the plans conform to State seismic standards.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
The DSA approved the architect’s plans for the library project as meeting all State requirements for that type of construction including the Field Act.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
The PWA generally kept adequate records and did not permit deviations from plans without written approval. However, when the PWA approved the use of a thru bolt to support a ledger in one location, this single approval was used for all locations resulting in thru bolts exposed on the exterior of the building.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The PWA exert more discipline with respect to contractor deviation from plans and enforce the limitations of those exceptions granted (C- 6).
F7
The Contractor failed to designate in its bid its masonry subcontractor and could not do the work itself as required by law and, therefore, faced a severe penalty for late designation of a subcontractor; which penalty could not legally be waived under these circumstances.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
The PWA, for business reasons relating to bond fulfillment and in order to expedite reprocurement, permitted the Contractor to voluntarily default the project because of the financial hardship resulting from the penalty to be imposed for late designation of a substantial subcontractor.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
The PWA and the bonding company are in the process of substituting a replacement contractor for the Contractor.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The PWA act with reasonable and responsible expedition in moving forward with the substituted construction contractor (C-5).
F10
The OPUSD perceived that it was not kept informed on a timely basis of the detailed progress of construction. Conclusions: C-1. Because of the failure to fully verify the contractor’s capabilities (pre-qualification), a contractor that could not perform the work was selected for the job (F-1). C-2. There are continuing long delays in the construction of the Oak Park Public Library (F-2). C-3. Construction of school buildings in the County would be facilitated by the PWA’s qualification to act as the DSA inspection authority (F- 2). C-4. The requirement of the Field Act for pre-construction approval of plans for the Oak Park Public Library was accomplished in accordance with State law (F-5). C-5. The PWA acted responsibly and competently in its administration of the Oak Park Public Library construction contract (F-8). C-6. The PWA should tighten its supervision of contractor performance relative to granted plan deviations. Failure to do this contributed to the perception that “the Contractor cut corners and failed to follow approved plans.” C-7. The PWA did not refuse to fire the Contractor and reprocure despite failures in performance (F-8). C-8. The PWA should have been more diligent in the timely sharing of construction status reports with the OPUSD and OPUSD should have been more assertive in gathering status information on the project (F- 10). Recommendations:
Related Recommendations (2)
R5
The PWA review its information sharing practices vis a vis its clients with a view to keeping them fully informed of the status of projects undertaken for them by the PWA (C-8).
R6
The OPUSD be more assertive in gathering status information on projects being performed for it by the PWA (C-8). Required Response: Public Works Agency (R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5). OPUSD (R-6).
Conclusions 1
-
CL1 Page 2C-1. Because of the failure to fully verify the contractor’s capabilities (pre-qualification), a contractor that could not perform the work was selected for the job (F-1). C-2. There are continuing long delays in the construction of the Oak Park Public Library (F-2). C-3. Construction of school buildings in the County would be facilitated by the PWA’s qualification to act as the DSA inspection authority (F- 2). C-4. The requirement of the Field Act for pre-construction approval of plans for the Oak Park Public Library was accomplished in accordance with State law (F-5). C-5. The PWA acted responsibly and competently in its administration of the Oak Park Public Library construction contract (F-8). C-6. The PWA should tighten its supervision of contractor performance relative to granted plan deviations. Failure to do this contributed to the perception that “the Contractor cut corners and failed to follow approved plans.” C-7. The PWA did not refuse to fire the Contractor and reprocure despite failures in performance (F-8). C-8. The PWA should have been more diligent in the timely sharing of construction status reports with the OPUSD and OPUSD should have been more assertive in gathering status information on the project (F- 10). Recommendations: R-1. The PWA institute a pre-qualification system to assure contractor performance capability in addition to its present practice of verifying the bonding and licensing qualifications of the contractor and its absence from a State debarred bidders list (C-1). R-2. The PWA act on its expressed intention to consolidate the inspection process by qualifying to act as the DSA inspection authority as well as its present County Building Inspection authority (C-3). R-3. The PWA exert more discipline with respect to contractor deviation from plans and enforce the limitations of those exceptions granted (C- 6). R-4. The PWA act with reasonable and responsible expedition in moving forward with the substituted construction contractor (C-5). R-5. The PWA review its information sharing practices vis a vis its clients with a view to keeping them fully informed of the status of projects undertaken for them by the PWA (C-8). R-6. The OPUSD be more assertive in gathering status information on projects being performed for it by the PWA (C-8). Required Response: Public Works Agency (R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5). OPUSD (R-6).
Agency Responses 1
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.