Ventura Port District

For clarification purposes, staff indicated to the Ad Hoc Subcommittee that a proposal was obtained in May 2007 from a local architectural firm to provide professional services in conjunction with Harbor Village renovations. At that time staff could not narrow the scope of services to a particular project. As a result, the architectural firm supplied a rate sheet outlining its hourly rates for various professional services. Staff never submitted the architectural firm’s May 2007 “time and material” proposal to the Board, and that is why the Grand Jury could not find a professional service agreement approved by the Board for this improvement project.

The scope of the Village Repainting contract did not include replacement of signs, awnings and lighting. Unfortunately, there were one or two billings associated with signs or awnings in the file reviewed by the Grand Jury; however, those were not part of the repainting project with Astro Painting Company. For this reason, the Board does not concur with this finding.

The Board concurs in part with this finding. The payment of $178,760 is correct. The General Manager has the authority to approve and execute on behalf of the District any change order to a contract approved by the Board with a value of $10,000 or less. In this situation, the General Manager approved an expenditure of $2,200. The General Manager believed he was operating within the parameters of the Board’s policy. In the future, the administrative policy will be expanded to describe the procedure required in these situations.

Although the contract with Astro Painting did include the cost of material and labor, during the course of the repainting contract, District staff, in collaboration with Perennial Designs, considered other paint color combinations for the complex and tested various colors for consideration by the Board ‘s Harbor Village Ad Hoc Subcommittee. Consequently, District staff purchased additional paint in the total amount of $2,500 for testing various colors for consideration by Perennial Designs. The paint was applied by District staff: Astro. Painting was not involved in the testing. Ventura County Grand Jury August 2, 2010 Other Findings in this category, the Grand Jury made seven (7) findings. The Board concurs with F-36, and F-38 through F-42. The Board concurs in part with F-37. Explanation

Notwithstanding the requirements of the PCC and the Board’s policy, the Grand Jury may not have found evidence or analysis provided by the District to show that the District was saving substantial sums of money by performing various tasks with its own work force; however, the Board is confident with the experience of its management team and field supervisors. In many cases these seasoned employees have been performing maintenance functions for 15 to 20 years. The Board concurs that it is prudent to provide analysis to support staff's assumption that the District is saving money by utilizing its own work force and will implement this process immediately. Board Conclusions The Board was disappointed to learn of the findings that were contrary to the District's policy and the PCC. In the meeting with the Board’s Ad Hoc Subcommittee and District staff, staff also expressed disappointment in the planning and management of the Restroom Refurbishment and Dock Improvements projects. The General Manager believes that it was clearly the intention of the Facilities Manager to stay below the financial thresholds required by the Board’s policy and the PCC. Regretfully, this was not accomplished with those projects. As previously stated, there have been some organizational changes that the Board feels confident will improve the Port District's contracting procedures. The Ad Hoc Subcommittee suggested that the Property Manager work closely with the General Manager and that project expenditures be reviewed more carefully during the planning and implementation of each project. Another suggestion was to consider a policy that would allow the prequalification of contractors. This could offer staff more options to satisfy the competitive bidding requirements. The Ad Hoc Subcommittee advised staff to follow the Board’s policy to obtain two proposals for contracts under $10,000 and three proposals whenever possible for purchases between $10,000 and $25,000, provided the purchases are included in the District's budget. Additionally, the Ad Hoc Subcommittee asked the General Manager to work with the Property Manager to evaluate the need for monetary limits and identify which supervisors should have authority to sign contracts. Ventura County Grand Jury August 2, 2010 Grand Jury Recommendations