Now the next two pieces below are about how Hammond awards contracts.
Quote:
http://www.in.gov/sboa/WebReports/B39219.pdf page 79
FINDING 2010-5 – PROCUREMENT
Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Energy
Federal Program: ARRA Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program (EECBG)
CFDA Number: 81.128
Award Number: SC0001386
The City submitted their overall goals and objectives for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation
Block Grant Program (EECBG) to the U.S. Department of Energy which included the breakdown of
activities and the budgeted amounts for these activities. The planned activities included: EECBG
strategy development, administration/program delivery, marketing/outreach, light bulb giveaway, and the remaining portion was housing, commercial, and large business audits and retrofits.
The City submitted a Request For Proposal (RFP) for consulting services for the administration of the EECBG program which were due to the City by January 22, 2010. The services included in the RFP were: marketing, evaluation of selected buildings, oversight of contractor selection and the construction work, maintenance of records, assistance with reporting requirements, and facilitation of public presentations.
The City received
four proposals for consulting services for $364,000, $133,500, $72,600 and $88,000. The proposal for $88,000 also included an amount for construction services for another $640,000 for a total proposal of $728,000.
The City, [b]without supporting documentation to document the reasoning, chose the vendor that proposed both the consulting and construction portion of the project even though the RFP did not provide general plans or specifications for the construction portion of the project. The awarded contract totaled $530,000 even though the total proposal amount submitted was $728,000 for both the consulting and construction portion. The City did not prepare general plans and specifications for the public work publish notice in
accordance with Indiana Code 5-3-1 calling for sealed proposals for the public work needed, or allow for
the submission of bids separately for the construction portion of the project; therefore bypassing the City's
procurement policy. The City's procurement policy is to follow Indiana Code.
Since the construction services were not let in accordance with Indiana Code, $323,865 of 2010 grant disbursements made to the construction company are considered questioned costs.Failure to properly procure public works projects in accordance with state and federal guidelines
could result in the contract for public work being voided and the City losing future federal awards.
We recommended the City establish control procedures to ensure that all contracts awarded,
whether consulting services or construction, are awarded in accordance with state and federal guidelines.[/color]
This grant was for $1,800,000. Almost a 1/3 of the $1.8 million dollars of this grant went for a consulting contract. Initially $728,000 was to go to this consultant. The final proceeds to the consultant a cool $530,000. Most all of this was done without a sealed bid process. Amazing!Now Doug Ross had a recent editorial bringing to light State Board of Account problems with various communities. Not one word about almost 1/3 of this grant being given away to a consultant with out performance criteria.
I wonder if it is the Golden Boy?
2010 Hammond State Board of Accounts Audit for fiscal year 2010
http://www.in.gov/sboa/WebReports/B39219.pdfSo many Public Relations articles presented by the Hammond Times, but looking at the most recent State Board of Accounts Audits, Why did the Hammond Tax Payers have to shill out $3,142,294 in Penalities
Then Hammond has the question of Non compliance with the the Davis Bacon Act? Quote:
Found on Page 76 of the Audit:
Section III – Federal Award Findings and Questioned Costs
FINDING 2010-3 - DAVIS-BACON ACT
Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Federal Program: Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants
ARRA Community Development Block Grant ARRA Entitlement Grants (CDBG-R)
CFDA Number: 14.218, 14.253 Award Number: B-09-MC-18-0006, B-10-MC-18-0006, B-09-MY-18-0006
Compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act requires payment of federal prevailing wage rates for
construction, repair or alteration work. The grantee must establish controls for monitoring wages paid by
contractors. They must obtain recent and applicable wage rates from the U.S. Department of Labor and
incorporate them into the construction contract.
According to a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development on-site review conducted on
March 24, 2011, three projects in which Davis Bacon laws were applicable, adequate payroll records
were not maintained nor were the proper labor standards provisions and correct wage decision included
in the bid specifications or the construction contract. The City also failed to conduct the appropriate wage
interviews for all three projects reviewed. The lack of monitoring of compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act could result in cancellation of contracts and/or the repayment of federal funds.
I wonder who got the contracts and if they charged union rate, but just did not pay their labor the going union scale?
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
photo 5/2012
, nor will we discuss in the last State Board Audit those "preferred" contractors were not paying union scale and [b]NO ONE FROM THE CITY WAS AUDITING THE QUOTES TO ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE DAVIS-BACON ACT requiring paying union scale
